They haven't explored it yet and can't get ot the TP to burn it down. Terra Incognito.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
why do the Iroquois have fortresses anyway? I mean a fortress doesn't entail a wood fence or something, you're talking about a serious fortification. If most of Persia isn't fortified I don't see why every native tribe has totally fortified territory. *Maybe* the Aztecs could have a couple on their important provinces, and the Maya maybe, but the rest?
Personally I think it was a mistake to make the north american tribes playable. They didn't have any cities, they were organized yes, but still tribal. EU though is a city based game, each province has the City, that you fortify, hire tax collectors, build armies and garrison with defenders. While central american civilizations had cities like this, the Iroquois for instance didn't collect taxes, didn't live in cities, didn't have armies (during wartime the Warriors would be summoned to war, but they fended for themselves, and were not paid per se) and certainly didn't fortify their settlements to the degree that would allow for a fortress.
What should have been done is create a new form of government, Tribal, where you don't have a capitol, or a city, just a province with a population, trade and production cash, and no taxes. You have most of the diplomatic options available (war, peace, alliance, etc) except diplomatic options with more centralized aspects don't count, like trade embargo, royal marraiges, vassalization, etc. A more advanced civilization can place trade posts inside a tribal nation, though during wartime you're likely to lose them. Tribal societies cannot build fortresses.
Tribal warriors are created naturally over time in provinces depending on your population, and the number of warriors you have as a standing army. In wartime the ceiling is raised, and at peace, the warriors desert to the level of the previous maximum. In war, if a civilized society holds a tribal province for a full year, that province becomes empty, and the previous population becomes natives in the province, with a level 1 colony. If a tribal army captures a province from a neighboring tribal nation, and holds it for a year, it becomes theirs, while they must negotiate for peace with civilized societies. Tribal societies can become 'civilized' when they achieve infrastructure level 0 (takes a lot) then they can build cities in their provinces (100 ducats). The first city you build becomes your capital, and you are now a Civilized society, this is good because you can now fortify your cities, it is also bad because you no longer get free warriors. The city you build is 1/10th of the provincial population. A centre of trade without a city generates no special benifits to the nation who owns it.
Personally I think it was a mistake to make the north american tribes playable. They didn't have any cities, they were organized yes, but still tribal. EU though is a city based game, each province has the City, that you fortify, hire tax collectors, build armies and garrison with defenders. While central american civilizations had cities like this, the Iroquois for instance didn't collect taxes, didn't live in cities, didn't have armies (during wartime the Warriors would be summoned to war, but they fended for themselves, and were not paid per se) and certainly didn't fortify their settlements to the degree that would allow for a fortress.
What should have been done is create a new form of government, Tribal, where you don't have a capitol, or a city, just a province with a population, trade and production cash, and no taxes. You have most of the diplomatic options available (war, peace, alliance, etc) except diplomatic options with more centralized aspects don't count, like trade embargo, royal marraiges, vassalization, etc. A more advanced civilization can place trade posts inside a tribal nation, though during wartime you're likely to lose them. Tribal societies cannot build fortresses.
Tribal warriors are created naturally over time in provinces depending on your population, and the number of warriors you have as a standing army. In wartime the ceiling is raised, and at peace, the warriors desert to the level of the previous maximum. In war, if a civilized society holds a tribal province for a full year, that province becomes empty, and the previous population becomes natives in the province, with a level 1 colony. If a tribal army captures a province from a neighboring tribal nation, and holds it for a year, it becomes theirs, while they must negotiate for peace with civilized societies. Tribal societies can become 'civilized' when they achieve infrastructure level 0 (takes a lot) then they can build cities in their provinces (100 ducats). The first city you build becomes your capital, and you are now a Civilized society, this is good because you can now fortify your cities, it is also bad because you no longer get free warriors. The city you build is 1/10th of the provincial population. A centre of trade without a city generates no special benifits to the nation who owns it.
If any native american nation should have fortresses it should definitely be the Incas followed by the Aztecs, Maya and Navajo... The Navajo walls were made out of adobe and weren't really much of a defense at all, but the Aztecs and Incas constructed walls made out of stone, so they were quite an effective defense.
As far as I know, the other native American nations constructed their structures out of wood and animals hides. These structures were effective protection from the cold, but not against European conquerors.
I am sure the technology of piling stones is not a difficult technology to discover for any people. I think the reason stones were not used is because the indians in the north were nomadic and therefore it would have been a waste of time for them to build a stone structure that they would only occupy part of the year. I think the game would do best by trying to simulate the nomadic and semi-nomadic nature of the Indians.
But, the game is already complete, so our best hope will have to be EU3.
You had some good ideas on how to limit the abilities of the native americans. However, this would make them completely unplayable, and these nations are hard enough to play as it is.
Piling stones is not the same as building the walls of Constantinople - there are issues with weight distribution, rounding the walls to avoid weak spots in the corners, baileys and so on. Whatever walls the Aztecs had didn't do much to stop Cortes, it was the causeways and the street fighting that he had trouble with. And don't tell me that the walls of Constantinople are a level 3 fort - they aren't. By 1500 all modern fortifications were 'trace italien' - which is to say they were star shaped and constisted of low slopes concealing a trench with a 10' wall behind it. Constantinople's walls were obsolescent with the development of gunpowder.
I like MKJ's ideas, but it's clearly too late.
I like MKJ's ideas, but it's clearly too late.