Inca Empire or am I missing a patch?

[Amob_m_s]

pfffffuuuuuu that is a huge post.

In fact all those argument between so called "inca fanboy" and so called "white barbarians" are due to programming choices.

If you don't want to hardcode every outcome through "event" you will have to give a huge handicap to south american civilization. The other way they will resist much more, at least to the first conquest.
The major issue to prove my point is gold producing province. For natives economy was not driven by gold, and gold was just for worshiping stuff.
It you want to simulate a proper native economy, you should be able to switch production.

But as I have seen in other reply, that will have no impact on final result, diseases and complete collapse of the way they imagine the world will have sooner or later put an end to those empire (no matter the great achievement they have done).

Europeans have made true the sentence: when there is a will, there is a way.

Yes, the EU engine really is at core a European political system, not at all suited to the completely different American and African worlds of 1453-1790. I'm not sure that it would even be possible to mod something so that these nations are treated with historical strength while still allowing a historical European conquest. Also, such a mod would be even more vulnerable to "21st century knowledge advantage" than vanilla or MM, given that the player, knowing that white dudes are coming, can use the natives' historical strength and not have the main disadvantages of surprise, confusion, and trust in white guys that actually led to the collapse of American political and cultural identity.

An earthquake and a cannon ball hitting a wall are two completely different forces

In most cases cannons, even catapults, could have knocked over some Inca walls. However, two things keep this from being totally true:

1) The bases of these walls are almost perfectly stable. Cannons could cut 2/3 off the top, but the base would still be a barrier tall enough to keep troops from climbing them (especially since they are very smooth-faced)

2) In some cases, especially for military-only installations, the walls were built up against the side of mountains, in effect bracing them with several million tons of solid granite. The purpose of these was not like European walls, which put a cliff where there was none naturally or to extend an existing cliff higher, but to make existing cliffs steeper and smoother, essentially unclimable. I can't see anything short of high explosives knocking these walls down, and even iff they were destroyed, the invaders would have to fight their way up a natural cliff.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

to Yazilliclick: About the Incan wall I advise you to read again my earlier post on that subject and to read previous post by Amob_m_s.

I agree that "21st century knowledge" problem exists, but so are problems with rulers living for 500 years of game time, which essentialy human player is, and of course "satelite command" of the armies and instant relaying of messages back and forth between the armies in the field and the player. But I know not of an RTS that does not suffer to some extent from the same flaws.

 

[kolmy]

lso, such a mod would be even more vulnerable to "21st century knowledge advantage" than vanilla or MM, given that the player, knowing that white dudes are coming, can use the natives' historical strength and not have the main disadvantages of surprise, confusion, and trust in white guys that actually led to the collapse of American political and cultural identity.

I think it applies to all the countries you play. You know already the the New World exists from the beginning of the game, but anyway, you go discover and colonize it. The question is, how the game model how this was hard at that time? The attrition was a big factor, the superstition was other, the currents and map knowledge, the naval technology... I think the problem would not be from the player but from the game, which doesn't model very well all these things. But if you want the psychological disadvantage that the natives had, you can give them a moral penalty and some RR in the provinces.

 

[unmerged(8775)]

... I think the problem would not be from the player but from the game, which doesn't model very well all these things. But if you want the psychological disadvantage that the natives had, you can give them a moral penalty and some RR in the provinces.

I agree, tech penalty, morale penalty etc... can simulate the difference that is historicaly accurate.

Nevertheless, the production switch is not available and that is a real problem to mod an human playing an american or african country since the begining.

You can still create an event that divide population by 3 on all core province and create free kingdom for all the other but if you do that, what is the point to play natives ?

 

[unmerged(66531)]

I think it applies to all the countries you play. You know already the the New World exists from the beginning of the game, but anyway, you go discover and colonize it. The question is, how the game model how this was hard at that time? The attrition was a big factor, the superstition was other, the currents and map knowledge, the naval technology... I think the problem would not be from the player but from the game, which doesn't model very well all these things. But if you want the psychological disadvantage that the natives had, you can give them a moral penalty and some RR in the provinces.

i like the idea of adding a moral reduction to the pagans so i will probably do this in my mod. i will probably add this negative moral to the tribal governments. should i add a posotive bonus as well?

 

[unmerged(76687)]

to kolmy: Nice idea about the morale penalty. Also very good point about "21st century knowledge" problem applying to all nations.

to Darken:Well maybe it would be a neat thing to create a Plague event that would decrease morale?
Since the manpower and population of provinces at the game year 1453AD, for NA, are already severely depleted, I think we can count as if numerous epidemic diseases already swept across the continents, so I don't think we need any more Plague events, but it would be great thing, I think to simulate desperation and low morale that were common after loosing 9 out 10 people to various diseases. This would be historicaly accurate for time period after 1519.AD fo Aztecs, 1530. AD Incas and so on, but you should than also consider adding a morale bonus for South American NA before that year, since in most cases NA considere Europeans as inferior.
Also you should than consider adding positive morale bonuses for North American NA (and significant too) such as Iroquis, Cherokee, Sioux, etc.
Maybe it wouldn't be so good to add morale bonuses or penalties for goverment types for I see no explations for such a move.
Maybe it would be easier to do that through creating more technology groups and religions?
What do you think about this so far?
If you need some historical data please don't hesitate to ask, and I'll do my best to supply you with it as soon as I can.

to Simbad: I play NA as a challenge and to see if the history could be changed and the decline of NA nations slowed, stopped and reversed in some way.
For technology modifiers take a glance at some of my earlier posts and please post your comment.

 

[Spacehamster]

Perhaps it would simply be best to give the native leaders -3 shock, -6 fire, -3 manouver and -2 siege?

 

[Amob_m_s]

Perhaps it would simply be best to give the native leaders -3 shock, -6 fire, -3 manouver and -2 siege?

This may work, but there would have to be some limits:

A) Only when fighting certain culture groups. Thus, NA vs Kongo (historically possible had the Incas or Aztecs held on for a couple centuries, as well as the Kongo, of course) would not get a penalty, because if anything they are seeing outdated methods and strategies.

B) Only the first few times a certain general fights a certain culture group. Historically, most NA nations fell in their first war with europeans. Had they survived, eventually they would have figured out strategies that matched the new technology.

C) Null after westernization event. Historically, those NA nations that westernized (Iroquois, etc.) and allied with European nations in many ways actually employed modern technology better than its inventors- using ambush, camoflage, and sneak attacks to take minimum casualties. Thus their generals get no penalty.

I would instead like to see a change in the way technology is handled in EU3. As is, all nations start at 0. To simulate real life, the Europeans should be ahead in Land technology from the start. The Chinese should have higher naval tech, the Arabs, better trading. This way, we could figure something like, Land tech 0 is basic stone weaponry, 2 is bronze weaponry, 3 is iron, 4 is basic gunpowder, 5 is more advanced gunpowder, and so on. Then, apply penalties when fighting an army with troops of a higher tech level.

In addition, it would help to have a more detailed scale for troops attributes. Right now it's something like 1-6. If this was increased to 24 (we'd have to use actual numbers rather than little dots to get it to fit, but that would be an improvement in my eyes) then we could use more detail for unit match ups; thus the performance gap between gunpowder and nongunpowder units would be exagerated, and European troops would, as time went by, soon completely outmatch NA units unless the NA westernized.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

Perhaps it would simply be best to give the native leaders -3 shock, -6 fire, -3 manouver and -2 siege?

Than what would you with NA armies that have no leader, that would be in fact stronger than those with it?

I think that different level of technologies for different nations would be also applicable and adding to both historical accuracy and dynamic of the game.
Of course that would require some browsing through the internet and historical books in order to distribute the levels of advancement for certain technologies, properly.
For instance Naval technology. Compass, navigational charts and other navigational instruments that were invented by Chinese (hence naval technology at the game start higher than 0), were further perfected by the Arabs (hence naval technology higher or equal than Chinese at the game start; Chinese had better ships, Arabs had better instruments, some thinking should be done to see if the Arabs should get higher starting level; I think level or two higher, not more, than the Chinese).
Chinese and Arabs at the game start knew the Earth was round (globe that is), Europeans did not. I think that in fact only Europeans did not knew that the Earth was round (I'll have to check some African myths, later on, to see if this is true).

Now, portuguese king Henry the Navigator (or the Seafarer; on the history note his mother was Philipa Lancaster, daughter of John of Gont, sister to Henry IV of England, see "War of Roses" for further detail) was first introduced these naval instruments to his admirals and encouraged them to use them often (which they mostly refused on the ground they were heathen instruments and/or tools of devil himself). That is way he is called Navigator (he made only three voyages outside Portugal, to Northern Africa in succesful/unseccesful/succesful military campaings).
So the first European nation to receive any higher than 0 level in naval technology should be Portugal, followed by Spain at the end of XIV and the beggining of XV century. Do not forget the Columbus tohugh employed by queen Isabel of Castille was Italian, and that Spanish at that time had no navy that could match Portuguese.
English should get their raise in naval technology after the defeat of "Great Armada" in 1588. (or after Circumnavigation in 1577. by sir Francis Drake, a pirate employed by the queen Elizabeth I to fight Spain in hers overseas colonies and to plunder Spains' merchant ships returning to Europe wih cargos of gold and silver from South America; e.g. "Cacafuego" - check the spelling, please)

Naval attrition should be increased a lot for long voyages due to scorbut, caused by the lack of vitamin C in the diet of the sailors, which was main scourge of the European sailors during the EUIII time frame. But the english navy should get an event at 21. August 1740 to reduce the attrition due to introducing grog (mixture of rum, water, cinnamon, sugar and lemon or lime juice) by vice admiral Edward Vernon. It may sound silly but t was the reason why "Britania rule the seas" and why comparing to other European navies British had almost no diseased sailors.

We should also discuss "Spread of discoveries" event (like portuguese captain Bartholomeo Dias reaching Cape of Good Hope in 1490. and Vasco de Gama reaching India in 1498.), since I've noticed hat China for instance has no knowledge of number of provinces that she had trade connections, diplomatic connections and even colonial connections to.

Now, land technology. I cannot agree that NA were using "outdated methods and strategies", for in strict military science and art of war manner of speaking they did not. However Europeans had far better military technology, and that should give them serious advantage if they manage to come to the New World in sufficient numbers.
Since the first Europeans mainly played the diplomatic games making alliences with several NA nations and using "divide and conquer" routine with immense help of diseases I fail to see justification for penalties fighting different culture groups. If the Cortes was fighting alone and if there were now diseases he would end his life under the obsidian blade of Aztec high priest, have no doubt about that.
Also, on the idea of "NA nations being quickly conquered", I've pointed out several times during this thread that such a presumption simple doesn't corespond historical facts. After time period covered by EUIII there were still NA nations that were independent (Maya in South America), Sioux and other Plains Indians, and Seminole in Florida.
If you realy want "NA speed-bumps" for European nations than change nothing, but of you want to play both Europeans and NA as they historicaly were than Terra Nova 3.19, by far is your best choice.
As a European in New World you ought to employ some serious diplomatic skill to manage what Europeans managed to do, not just brute force of an highly advanced military technology.

I've just noticed how long this post hac become... sorry about that o

 

[unmerged(8775)]

As a European in New World you ought to employ some serious diplomatic skill to manage what Europeans managed to do, not just brute force of an highly advanced military technology.

French were using much more diplomatic skills in North america than the English, but it was in fact to spend less money to garison the colony.

English brute force has yield better result at the end.

 

[Spacehamster]

Than what would you with NA armies that have no leader, that would be in fact stronger than those with it?

Armies lead by leaders will hardly be weaker as the leader bonus never will have a negative modifier: A native 6 shock leader would become a 3 shock leader, while a 2 shock leader would become a 0 shock leader (not a -1 shock leader). So if your military tradition is very high, ie after long fighting of the Europeans you would at least make slight difference.

Chinese and Arabs at the game start knew the Earth was round (globe that is), Europeans did not. I think that in fact only Europeans did not knew that the Earth was round (I'll have to check some African myths, later on, to see if this is true).

Europeans knew that the world was round, Aristotle had calculated this long ago. So be it that the average peasant thought the earth was flat, but so did the Chinese and Arabian peasants too.

When Columbus asked for permission to launch his expedition, the church argued that the distance to China was to long when sailing west and that Columbus men would starve to death before reaching China. The church was right after all: the distance was much longer than Columbus had anticipated, but Columbus was lucky enough to bump into America on the way. Note that no argument against the expedition involved Columbus sailing over the edge of the world.

So it is pretty clear that Columbus and his contemporarys knew that they were living in a round world.

 

[Amob_m_s]

When Columbus asked for permission to launch his expedition, the church argued that the distance to China was to long when sailing west and that Columbus men would starve to death before reaching China. The church was right after all: the distance was much longer than Columbus had anticipated, but Columbus was lucky enough to bump into America on the way. Note that no argument against the expedition involved Columbus sailing over the edge of the world.

Of course, the church knew this from faulty logic:

1) There are people in China

2) God wants all people to see the second coming

3) Therefore, no people can live on the opposite side of the globe, because they would not be able to see the second coming

4) Therefore, China is exactly as far as Europe is from some "center" near the Ural mountains.

5) Therefore, the space between the two on a westbound voyage from Europe covers approximatey 1/2 of the planet, much too far to sail in one trip.

I cannot agree that NA were using "outdated methods and strategies"

I was talking about the Africans; if the Inca got enough technology to get to Africa, they would be well ahead of the Africans in technology and strategy.

I fail to see justification for penalties fighting different culture groups.

However, the first few times NA face European cannons, muskets, and cavalry, they would certainly have been scared to death. What I meant was, the first, say, 3 times a regiment faces European soldiers, they should get a big morale penalty. This would lead the game to model quite well the initial rapid conquest by the Spanish. Historically this is where it ended- the Spaniards conquered everyone. However, if the NA in EU survive long enough, their troops will no longer fear Europeans, and be able to fight them as well as any other melee/bow troops, and could use the advantage of numbers (despite losing 9 out of ten to disease, the Inca still fielded an army of over 20,000 to face the 260 conquistadors, and unlike the Aztecs, their empire did not fall apart into squabbling tribes that aided the Spanish) to fight back.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

to Amob_m_s:

However, the first few times NA face European cannons, muskets, and cavalry, they would certainly have been scared to death. What I meant was, the first, say, 3 times a regiment faces European soldiers, they should get a big morale penalty. This would lead the game to model quite well the initial rapid conquest by the Spanish. Historically this is where it ended- the Spaniards conquered everyone.

I'm not sure what did you exactly mean by this. Can you, please, elaborate a little?
I'm sure that I've alreday mentioned several times that Spanish didn't conquer everyone, and certainly not at once, since Incan resistance, and Mayan resistance in South America continued through next several centuries.
I agree on morale penalty for facing a gunpowder units for first several times. I think it's a good idea, but implementing it would prove catchy I think. But nevertheless I'm eager to see it in the game.
Oh, btw, some of the NA nations from South America did reach Africa, i.e. ancient Egypt, since some findings clearly show that in BC era was a brief period (aprox 100 years) during which existed contacts between Egypt and South American NA. That proves that NA had ocean worthy vessels, so I'm still unsure about what technology were you talking. Again, an explanation would be most appreciated.

to Spacehamster:

Europeans knew that the world was round, Aristotle had calculated this long ago. So be it that the average peasant thought the earth was flat, but so did the Chinese and Arabian peasants too.

I can not agree with this since Columbus first had to prove his view that the Earth was round, through several trials on the spanish court.
Also, what Aristotle, "On the Heavens," Book II, Chapter 14, said was indeed a deductive proof that the Earth was round (but you must surely know that in ancient Egypt people already knew that the Earth was round centuries before Aristotel). But, what ancient Greeks and Romans knew was not passed on directly to Europeans, but to Arabs which kept and expanded that knowledge. And that refined knowledge was later passed on to the Europeans during XIV, XV and XVI century. If you closely look through history of various inventions you will quickly realize that Europeans starting making genuine inventions in the XVIII century, and not before, and that so called "inventions" of earlier centuries were in fact improvements or re-inventions of already existing inventions. In fact Europeans were much more like ancient Romans than ancient Greeks.

 

[Amob_m_s]

Incan resistance, and Mayan resistance in South America continued through next several centuries.

This resistance was never anything beyond what the game can handle already though. The spanish did for a brief period put a puppet emporer on the incan throne, and he did eventually try to reassert Incan independence. However, before that all of his power was symbolic, as the spanish truly ruled. After that, organized, nationwide resistance ended, and the only threats were regional rebellions. This could be handled by the game wth 1) Spain conquers Inca 2) Rebellions (or an event could be added) allowing the Inca to reemerge and fight a war but lose. 3) Further small rebellions, as the "Rebel" faction, continue for a while, and slowly die out over cenuries of Hispanicization.

What I was talking about was handling the intial conquest historically. Giving each unit a tag, say "culture_penalty_NA", with 0 meaning not NA, 1-3 meaning gets a penalty, 4+ means gets no penalty, and having a script that
is something like (and no, this is not code, but is written to sound like it) "IF culture_penalty_NA<enemy> = 0 AND culture_penalty_NA<regiment1> >= 1 AND cultur_penalty_NA<regiment1> <=3, then morale<regiment1> = morale<reg1> - 5 AND culture_penalty_NA<reg1> ++1"

This would mean, the first three times a NA regiment faces a non-NA regiment, it loses morale, but eventually its culture_penalty_NA would get to 4 and it would stop getting the penalty. Sorry if the above is unclear, and, like I said, it's horrible script, but this should mean that if the Spanish move fast enough they can crush the Aztecs with no problem. The Incas probably have more troops, but 5 regiments of spaniards could still win easily. But if they dont move fast, the NA will be able to fight and fight well.

Oh, btw, some of the american nations from South America did reach Africa, i.e. ancient Egypt, since some findings clearly show that in BC era was a brief period (aprox 100 years) during which existed contacts between Egypt and South American NA.

Wow, I completely missed that discovery. Do you have a link?

Also, like I said, balsas were as good as any European craft up to about 1500 AD, but americans never developed the whole idea of fighting vessels. Their ships were mostly made for economic purposes, and the only military use was to transport troops. When naval combat did occur, it was more of a crew-crew fight than a vessel-vessel fight, with the goal being to shoot as many enemies as possible and take over their ship, but rarely damaging the ships themselves. I know that Norwegian guy managed to sail to Easter Island using an ancient american vessel, but I hadn't heard of anything involving egypt. Are you sure it was directly with egypt, or did the americans trade with the poenicians on the Azores or Canaries, who got the goods to egypt? This seems even more plausible, as the poenicians were the best sailors until the Chinese.

Europeans starting making genuine inventions in the XVIII century, and not before, and that so called "inventions" of earlier centuries were in fact improvements or re-inventions of already existing inventions

Even after that- Modern civilization did not build computers to match the Greeks until the 1930s. I think the Greek naval navigational computer (mechanical, of course) was called the Antikythera Mechanism, or something like that, and even today no one knows how exactly it worked- there are just too many intricate cogs and springs. Just a fun fact, thought I'd pass it on.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

This resistance was never anything beyond what the game can handle already though. This could be handled by the game wth 1) Spain conquers Inca 2) Rebellions (or an event could be added) allowing the Inca to reemerge and fight a war but lose. 3) Further small rebellions, as the "Rebel" faction, continue for a while, and slowly die out over cenuries of Hispanicization.

I cannot agree with this since there was a significant Incan rebellion in 1780. AD led by Tupac Amaru II, and that last independent Mayan city kingdom fell in 1697. AD, and that last indepenedent Mayan state fell in 1901. AD with survivors contuing guerilla style resistance for several years on.
Also, on the note of Hispanization, that is an white man idea, like the "NA civilizations mysterously disappeared", and "NA thought that white men were gods", and "Europeans quickly conquered NA nations", and "when the NA saw how mighty are the Europeans they basicaly lay down and die". All these ideas are just a part of a white man propaganda, nothing more, nothing less.
In the appaling conditions that NA lived in after the Europeans came, and conditions they still live in, it is very understable how could someone wish to be a Ladino and not an Indijo, but nevertheless majority of people of Guatemala, for instance is still Mayan, and they declare themselves as Mayan on every census. Furthermore in many other countries of South America, selfawereness of NA is rather high, with their honoring the custms of their religion (and I don't mean christianity) and their people.
So, I don't think that several rebel regiments poping out here and there, from time to time, can simulate NA resistance.

Have you managed your script to work?
Looks like great stuff to me and I would like to try it out very much. It would make the simulation much better.

Wow, I completely missed that discovery. Do you have a link?

Well first, there was a thing that puzzled scientists a lot, that some of religious depictions in South America show men with facial hair, and since NA have no facial hair...
For instance Saturn in Incan mythology is shown as old man with beard, as he is shown in European mythologies.
Oh, and I almost forgot, scientific proof:
Chewing of coca leaves was an integral part of many Andean pre-Columbian populations. Since the cocaine metabolite benzoylecognine is entrapped in hair of the user, this could serve as a convenient specimen for analysis.
Now guess what traces of nicotine and cocaine wefe found in Egyptian mummies.
Of course contacts with Phoenicans are also very plausable, but I haven't heard of findings of cocaine in their remnants.
I think this link would prove useful:
http://www.colostate.edu/Dept/Entomology/courses/en570/papers_2000/wells.html

Also, like I said, balsas were as good as any European craft up to about 1500 AD, but americans never developed the whole idea of fighting vessels. Their ships were mostly made for economic purposes, and the only military use was to transport troops. When naval combat did occur, it was more of a crew-crew fight than a vessel-vessel fight, with the goal being to shoot as many enemies as possible and take over their ship, but rarely damaging the ships themselves.

I completely agree, and that is why I gave Inca trade technology modifier bonus and naval technology modifier penalty. (which should be in some fashion removed after the westernization event, but adding an another trait like "Latin vessells" with appropriate bonus on naval technology seemed clumsy to me.)

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I can not agree with this since Columbus first had to prove his view that the Earth was round, through several trials on the spanish court.

I thought the major issues were a) that there was approximately zero interest in funding it in Spain while the reconquista was going on, that b) the circumference of the Earth was greatly miscalculated/underestimated by Columbus and that those giving him a hearing knew it, which did not in any way inspire confidence in his projections, and that c) given this larger circumference the commisions believed in (and which proved to be fairly close to the true circumference of the Earth in the end), it was argued that it was unlikely that any sailing ship could sail that far and (which turned out to be wrong) it seemed unlikely that one could find new countries of importance in the modern age.

The idea that Columbus had to prove to the Spanish court and the ecclesiastics performing hearings that the world was rounds seems (pardon me) insane to me given that the learned people could rely on Aristotle, Bacon, Aquinas, and more for the proof that the world was round.

Then again, I don't have any sources for this and sometimes history is weirder than fiction, I'm just going by what I remember from school. Do you have any source showing that the reason Columbus was rejected was that he had to convince the Spanish that the world was round?

 

[Spacehamster]

I can not agree with this since Columbus first had to prove his view that the Earth was round, through several trials on the spanish court.

Nah, any European sailor knew that the earth was round, simply becuase when a ship appears in the horrison: the very first thing you see is the mast.

You shouldn't hang on to those silly myths. That the medieval Europeans considered the earth to be flat is just something that people claimed during the renessance to make the people of earlier generations looks stupid, but it doesn't got much truth in it.

Oh, btw, some of the american nations from South America did reach Africa, i.e. ancient Egypt, since some findings clearly show that in BC era was a brief period (aprox 100 years) during which existed contacts between Egypt and South American NA.

Oh and did you know that the pyramids was built by space-aliens?

Yes I have also heard this story, but it's not based on any actuall facts. I find it very hard to believe that the Incas crossed the atlantic in wicker-ships...

 

[gigau]

Oh and did you know that the pyramids was built by space-aliens?

Yes I have also heard this story, but it's not based on any actuall facts. I find it very hard to believe that the Incas crossed the atlantic in wicker-ships...

No need to mock... several scientific evidences could prove a POSSIBLE link between America and Africa. From what i've seen, it wouldn't be native americans going to Africa, but rather the opposite.
Proving it's not impossible (but certainly not a proof that it happened, i agree), some scientists have built papyrus boats like those built by the egyptians, and succeeded in crossin the Atlantic.

The sole point of my post is to state that you can't compare precolombian crossing of the Atlantic with alien-built pyramids.

 

[unmerged(76687)]

Oh and did you know that the pyramids was built by space-aliens?

Yes I have also heard this story, but it's not based on any actuall facts. I find it very hard to believe that the Incas crossed the atlantic in wicker-ships...

Did you even bother to check out the link before you wrote "not based on any actual facts"?
Now, what space-aliens are you talking about?!?! :wacko:
If that supposed to be some sort of quazi-ironic comment, well... it's not even funny.

So Incas could sail on the Pacific but not on the Atlantic?! Why? Does different salinity of the ocean water has anything to do with it?!
Both Incas and Maya had oceanworthy vesells that could carry equal or greater amount of cargo as caravels did. Now would you, please, care to explain me why Incas couldn't reach Africa?
And, btw, I didn't said that Incas reached Africa. I said that "some of NA nations from South America reached Africa".
And, btw, prior to Columbus there were other people crossing the Atlantic, so basicaly its not as great achivement as Europeans think it is.

to Peter Ebbesen: I thought that funding was the issue for the later Columbus voyages, not the first. For the first voyage, as I recall there was almost no funding (he got three rotten, today we would say decommisioned ships and crew that needed to be completed with convicts). I think that if the Earth was round was an issue in order to get the support from the church which had a great ingluence on Castillan court, hence the trials, but I might be mistaken. Read about a long time ago. I'll browse the net a bit to confirm/oppose that.

Nah, any European sailor knew that the earth was round, simply becuase when a ship appears in the horrison: the very first thing you see is the mast.

Right... I'm sure that's the thing the first came to their mind: "Look! I can see ship's mast first, so the Earth must be round! Eureka! Now I'm off to Italy to learn how to add and subtract so I can become a professor!"
Right...
So if any European sailor knew that Earth was round does that mean that sailors from other continents didn't knew that, or that they were encountering only mastless ships?!
So why did the Catholic church maintained the idea of flat Earth (burning people along the way) if everyone could see that mast appears first?
Do you realy think that anyone bothered with that?

Oh, btw, remember the "anitpodes" idea? :rofl:

 

[unmerged(8775)]

If that supposed to be some sort of quazi-ironic comment, well... it's not even funny.

It was for me but i like ironic and sarcastic comment.

And, btw, I didn't said that Incas reached Africa. I said that "some of NA nations from South America reached Africa".
And, btw, prior to Columbus there were other people crossing the Atlantic, so basicaly its not as great achivement as Europeans think it is.

It's one thing to cross the atlantic and just drop your "full of cocaïne" bloody hair everywhere and it is another to be able to reach the same point each time and to go back afterward.
You can not create colony and launch invasion if you are just relying on luck and one way ticket.