Europa Universalis IV Nations - Native Americans: Aztecs (with Quil18!)

[Illanair]

They won't though - Instead of being united already and being able to focus your energy (monarch points, money, manpower et cetera) on a few bigger states, you're forced into repetitive wars for tiny provinces with all of your neighbors hating you.

Having more states doesn't mean more monarch points - It means more states each having to use their own monarch points for the exact same goals. Quill's England became plenty more powerful with the added land - lots of tax, manpower and trade value in those provinces.

That'll improve their chances of surviving the European invasion for sure! (Again - Sarcasm)

 

[Grubnessul]

That'll improve their chances of surviving the European invasion for sure! (Again - Sarcasm)

You overestimate the AI. I've seen plenty of EU3 games where the Aztecs weren't conquered by 1700.

 

[Illanair]

You overestimate the AI. I've seen plenty of EU3 games where the Aztecs weren't conquered by 1700.

And you are basing your argument on a different game - This isn't EU3.

 

[jye42]

I would say that the tech are meant to be unaffordable, thus technology remains static until the they westernize, which sounds correct historically. Therefore, the -2 Monarch points are simply a way of balancing they fact that they have no need to purchase tech, if they had full monarch points then they would have so many points everything else would be too easy.

 

[WeissRaben]

I would say that the tech are meant to be unaffordable, thus technology remains static until the they westernize, which sounds correct historically. Therefore, the -2 Monarch points are simply a way of balancing they fact that they have no need to purchase tech, if they had full monarch points then they would have so many points everything else would be too easy.

It simply isn't good gameplay - there are better ways to represent the Europeans' military superiority, as lower (not none - lower) tech coupled with bad unwesternized units. As of now, instead, you are there, sitting, doing...what? There are no neighbours to offer real gameplay. Can't build stuff. Can't reform stuff. They took the EU3 "experience" and put it piecemeal into EU4. You are supposed to IMPROVE it, Paradox. It is supposed to be a BETTER game. Why do you keep making half the world unplayable enjoyment-wise?

 

[turnad]

It simply isn't good gameplay - there are better ways to represent the Europeans' military superiority, as lower (not none - lower) tech coupled with bad unwesternized units. As of now, instead, you are there, sitting, doing...what? There are no neighbours to offer real gameplay. Can't build stuff. Can't reform stuff. They took the EU3 "experience" and put it piecemeal into EU4. You are supposed to IMPROVE it, Paradox. It is supposed to be a BETTER game. Why do you keep making half the world unplayable enjoyment-wise?

Because they choose to focus the betterment and improving on the old world?

 

[Haresus]

It simply isn't good gameplay - there are better ways to represent the Europeans' military superiority, as lower (not none - lower) tech coupled with bad unwesternized units. As of now, instead, you are there, sitting, doing...what? There are no neighbours to offer real gameplay. Can't build stuff. Can't reform stuff. They took the EU3 "experience" and put it piecemeal into EU4. You are supposed to IMPROVE it, Paradox. It is supposed to be a BETTER game. Why do you keep making half the world unplayable enjoyment-wise?

Probably with the justification that there is only time for so much content, and focusing your time and budget on countries that are likely to be dead within 100 years seems a bit counterproductive. I do want Mesoamerica fleshed out with more factions and cultures, with less monarch point restrictions, however I can't really blame Paradox for leaving the Native Americans a bit boring when there are other areas to focus on. DLCs/patching, huzzah..

 

[Heatth]

They won't though - Instead of being united already and being able to focus your energy (monarch points, money, manpower et cetera) on a few bigger states, you're forced into repetitive wars for tiny provinces with all of your neighbors hating you.

Having more states doesn't mean more monarch points - It means more states each having to use their own monarch points for the exact same goals. Quill's England became plenty more powerful with the added land - lots of tax, manpower and trade value in those provinces.

That'll improve their chances of surviving the European invasion for sure! (Again - Sarcasm)

Uh, I never claimed the best course of action would be to annex all the tiny provinces. Quite the opposite, in fact. More provinces does mean more manpower and money (although uncored provinces is not that useful for either). But both are only really useful for raising a better army (specially since they don't seem to have a pool of good advisors), which imply facing the Europeans head on, which is a losing strategy on itself.

And, yes, more states does mean more monarch points. This is obvious and doesn't need to be argued. What you claim each state will use their own points for the exact same goal, but this is not necessarily the truth. Sure, if they only use their points to improve technology, they will all be expending on the same thing. However, if they expend on improving provinces, for example, then they will improve the collective provinces faster.

Furthermore, maybe you did not understand well what I said, but I wasn't saying that fragmented would be necessarily stronger than a single state. Only that a single state wouldn't be so much stronger to be able to face Europe, as the power progression is not linear. An Aztec that annexed Zapotec is not twice as stronger as it was before. My point is that multiple states would give each of the more options to deal with each other and the Europeans, making the gameplay more interesting and variated.

Finally, I did not mentioned early, but the fact the Europeans can just go and roll over the natives is a trouble on itself. Historically, Spain needed alliances with multiple minor tribes to take on the Aztecs. If this would be fixed, a fragmented America would only make things more interesting and historical.

 

[WeissRaben]

Probably with the justification that there is only time for so much content, and focusing your time and budget on countries that are likely to be dead within 100 years seems a bit counterproductive. I do want Mesoamerica fleshed out with more factions and cultures, with less monarch point restrictions, however I can't really blame Paradox for leaving the Native Americans a bit boring when there are other areas to focus on. DLCs/patching, huzzah..

Putting 3-5 new nations in each theatre isn't a massive employment of time. Also, the "give America more representation" crowd is at least as vigorous as the "BYZANTIUM!" crowd. Byzantium, that will be dead in 9 years. And it is
a) a tiered nation;
b) receiving a day-1 DLC.

Byzantium. They had given everything they could to the world. Their contribution to EU4 is measures lesser than the one given (by their own conquest) by the Mesoamerican nations, because CK2 is their last chance at glory. Not EU4. But in the end, they copy piecemeal (or almost so) the scenario from EU3 and probably would tell "eh no time and will probably die soon anyway", while chugging out a DLC for Byzantium.

 

[Illanair]

Uh, I never claimed the best course of action would be to annex all the tiny provinces. Quite the opposite, in fact. More provinces does mean more manpower and money (although uncored provinces is not that useful for either). But both are only really useful for raising a better army (specially since they don't seem to have a pool of good advisors), which imply facing the Europeans head on, which is a losing strategy on itself.

I applaud your positive thinking - I'm sure the Europeans will simply choose to leave the peaceful natives alone with their rich provinces instead of torching the lands and rebuilding what's left. No matter how you look at it, you're going to need military if you're to stand a chance against Europe.

And, yes, more states does mean more monarch points. This is obvious and doesn't need to be argued. What you claim each state will use their own points for the exact same goal, but this is not necessarily the truth. Sure, if they only use their points to improve technology, they will all be expending on the same thing. However, if they expend on improving provinces, for example, then they will improve the collective provinces faster.

Yes it is - They're AI. You're expecting them to improve their provinces through the only means possible - buildings. Even those won't make much of a difference. You're still looking at a worse situation point for point than united.

Furthermore, maybe you did not understand well what I said, but I wasn't saying that fragmented would be necessarily stronger than a single state. Only that a single state wouldn't be so much stronger to be able to face Europe, as the power progression is not linear. An Aztec that annexed Zapotec is not twice as stronger as it was before. My point is that multiple states would give each of the more options to deal with each other and the Europeans, making the gameplay more interesting and variated.

Yes it would - The AI respects strength. It is one of the things that the AI can actually calculate and base their behaviour upon. A single united state is much more threatening and difficult to attack than a myriad of tiny fragmented ones.

 

[TheLionHeart]

Putting 3-5 new nations in each theatre isn't a massive employment of time. Also, the "give America more representation" crowd is at least as vigorous as the "BYZANTIUM!" crowd. Byzantium, that will be dead in 9 years. And it is
a) a tiered nation;
b) receiving a day-1 DLC.

Byzantium. They had given everything they could to the world. Their contribution to EU4 is measures lesser than the one given (by their own conquest) by the Mesoamerican nations, because CK2 is their last chance at glory. Not EU4. But in the end, they copy piecemeal (or almost so) the scenario from EU3 and probably would tell "eh no time and will probably die soon anyway", while chugging out a DLC for Byzantium.

At least they received their DLC at launch, finding out some part of the game in need of improvement is delayed because of a Byzantine expansion seems more frustrating.

 

[Heatth]

I applaud your positive thinking - I'm sure the Europeans will simply choose to leave the peaceful natives alone with their rich provinces instead of torching the lands and rebuilding what's left. No matter how you look at it, you're going to need military if you're to stand a chance against Europe.

I never claimed they would? Only they might need to, while the focus on the other natives, thus, buying time for the lucky ones to think in ways to deal with the invaders. Such as, for example, meeting and allying with a second colonial European power (situation that happened multiple times in history). Fighting head on shouldn't be the only option. Not on this make a limited gameplay but it also is a not efficient way to deal with the problem, as the Europeans are considerably stronger.

Yes it would - The AI respects strength. It is one of the things that the AI can actually calculate and base their behaviour upon. A single united state is much more threatening and difficult to attack than a myriad of tiny fragmented ones.

A single unified native state is still not strong enough to threaten the Europeans, anyway. So their behavior probably wouldn't change much.

 

[turnad]

At least they received their DLC at launch, finding out some part of the game in need of improvement is delayed because of a Byzantine expansion seems more frustrating.

Hahaa, oh man... Wow.

 

[scarfless]

And, yes, more states does mean more monarch points. This is obvious and doesn't need to be argued. What you claim each state will use their own points for the exact same goal, but this is not necessarily the truth. Sure, if they only use their points to improve technology, they will all be expending on the same thing. However, if they expend on improving provinces, for example, then they will improve the collective provinces faster.

For improving provinces you need buildings which are unlocked by improving tech, so in my opinion you want to max income first and hire the best advisers which will make you handle the -2 penalty. By conquering your neighbours you also get rid of exhausting wars, so you can fully focus on improving your country. I think the best investment would be to get rid of tribal government and then focus on tech + buildings that increase income.

Furthermore, maybe you did not understand well what I said, but I wasn't saying that fragmented would be necessarily stronger than a single state. Only that a single state wouldn't be so much stronger to be able to face Europe, as the power progression is not linear. An Aztec that annexed Zapotec is not twice as stronger as it was before. My point is that multiple states would give each of the more options to deal with each other and the Europeans, making the gameplay more interesting and variated.

Honestly the only way native state can stand against Europeans is to westernize. If I recall correctly you need a cored neighbour province that belongs to nation with western tech. If there are more fragmented states you can't really control which provinces will be taken, but by having a centralized one you can cede some provinces and possibly gain some time while the truce is in effect to let them core it. Then you can only pray that you will westernize before they eat you alive.

 

[WeissRaben]

For improving provinces you need buildings which are unlocked by improving tech, so in my opinion you want to max income first and hire the best advisers which will make you handle the -2 penalty. By conquering your neighbours you also get rid of exhausting wars, so you can fully focus on improving your country. I think the best investment would be to get rid of tribal government and then focus on tech + buildings that increase income.

But you just...can't. IF (and it's a big if) you can hoard more MPs than 999, reaching 2080 with the best monarch possible with the best advisors possible (3 base + 6 monarch +3 advisor -2 government) still takes 17 years. For ONE tech. You just...can't improve your country. You have no tech to do so.

 

[AapoAlas]

There is some hope that a fractured Mesoamerica could work nowadays, as in EU4 the New World nations can westernise the moment the Europeans arrive. What that means specifically, I do not know, but it was stated in some DD at some point, though it was also said that it'll be very painful to them. So in some ways you could keep a fractured Mesoamerica and when the Europeans arrive, the whole bunch starts westernising in a flash; some of them fall, some of them get through it, and hopefully the Europeans won't have the time to conquer every successfully westernised native before they get to the point where they can fend for themselves.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

I think you'll find theres probably a modifier that makes tech cheaper as you get more and more out dated. Like an 'Ahead penalty' on tech. So as it gets closer to the Europeans turning up it's probably going to be 2k - 80% behind bonus or something. Also regarding the monarch point negative modifier for tech group wouldn't it be preferable if that was tied to government type rather than tech group? It would also be a bit nicer and look neater.

 

[Eh up me duck]

But you just...can't. IF (and it's a big if) you can hoard more MPs than 999, reaching 2080 with the best monarch possible with the best advisors possible (3 base + 6 monarch +3 advisor -2 government) still takes 17 years. For ONE tech. You just...can't improve your country. You have no tech to do so.

Yeah and I heard Saxony can't build a navy. What are paradox playing at?

seriously, what is your problem with this? It's historical and it allows for a historical outcome -their conquest by Europeans. History and historical plausibility are what eu is about. If you want to play a fantasy mod where native Americans can keep up the tech level with Europeans then be my guest.

 

[scarfless]

But you just...can't. IF (and it's a big if) you can hoard more MPs than 999, reaching 2080 with the best monarch possible with the best advisors possible (3 base + 6 monarch +3 advisor -2 government) still takes 17 years. For ONE tech. You just...can't improve your country. You have no tech to do so.

I take that back then. Even if you get the -20%(or possibly more) tech cost from reforming government and hiring cost reducing advisor it will still take at least 10+ years to improve tech (without spending points elsewhere). Quill in his England let's play got enough points to upgrade tech in ~10 years, while waging war most of that time and coring Ireland. Not to mention he has the worst possible ruler.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

I take that back then. Even if you get the -20%(or possibly more) tech cost from reforming government and hiring cost reducing advisor it will still take at least 10+ years to improve tech (without spending points elsewhere). Quill in his England let's play got enough points to upgrade tech in ~10 years, while waging war most of that time and coring Ireland. Not to mention he has the worst possible ruler.

The rate he's going currently he's going to be so gimped in Admin tech, his diplomatic and military tech is not so bad but his first NI tree is going to be so - so very late. As the Aztecs like I said previously if there is a bonus when you are so far behind it might not be as bad as you think. Also the Native American idea group (granted you need to get to like admin 4 to use it) will probably have some bonuses in there.