Indigenous Australians

[Ixal]

A great deal of people have been asking about state organization and tribal organization while ignoring that North American, South American, and Koryak tribes are all represented in-game. Many with populations in the thousands and governmental structures so weak that historians can't agree on successions, much less trying to design a governmental hierarchy among the in most cases dozens of tribal villages that the tag represents.

And if one more persons disrespects Hawai'i we're going to have a problem. It's the single most glaring omission in the game. Hawai'i had temples, government buildings, non-tribal villages. We know ancestry and succession laws intimately, because when Europe found them they had Kings ruling, and had records of rulers down to their multiple wives from many generations previous. We have at the very least evidence they were as advanced in this matter as the Aztecs or Inca, the Pacific islands were not known for their large complex empires, but many of them were infinitely more advanced in government (see having any governmental structure) than some of the tribal unions already presented in the game.
I'm not prepared to die on the hill of Aboriginal Australia, but I sure as hell am prepared to die on the hill of a nation that was Guaranteed Independence by the USA during this game's timeline.

Thats why I think the addition of the american tribes except for the big ones (Inca, Aztec, Maya) was a mistake and they should be removed.

And what exactly should a playable Hawai accomplish? Giving them ships is nonsense and without them they sit on their single province until they get conquered. So they would not add anything to the game at all.

 

[XYN]

A great deal of people have been asking about state organization and tribal organization while ignoring that North American, South American, and Koryak tribes are all represented in-game. Many with populations in the thousands and governmental structures so weak that historians can't agree on successions, much less trying to design a governmental hierarchy among the in most cases dozens of tribal villages that the tag represents.

And if one more persons disrespects Hawai'i we're going to have a problem. It's the single most glaring omission in the game. Hawai'i had temples, government buildings, non-tribal villages. We know ancestry and succession laws intimately, because when Europe found them they had Kings ruling, and had records of rulers down to their multiple wives from many generations previous. We have at the very least evidence they were as advanced in this matter as the Aztecs or Inca, the Pacific islands were not known for their large complex empires, but many of them were infinitely more advanced in government (see having any governmental structure) than some of the tribal unions already presented in the game.
I'm not prepared to die on the hill of Aboriginal Australia, but I sure as hell am prepared to die on the hill of a nation that was Guaranteed Independence by the USA during this game's timeline.

I wish people stopped waving their nationalism or excessive love for certain regions. It is a game with a specific Empire-building gameplay, not "represent all groups of people on Earth". Hawaii is just too distant for any meaningful gameplay, there is no disrespect.

What will Hawaii do in the game? If controlled by the player, make a cheesy WC? If controlled by the AI, sit there for 400 years unless touched by the player?

 

[Less2]

What, you want MORE tribal pseudo-nations fielding 6k troops and able to create The Most Developed Province in the World™ through magic monarch power?

This is a big issue. Adding nations is nice, but with the way development works you're also adding massive amounts of development to a region. Everyone agrees that Hawaii existed as a Kingdom, but it wasn't as developed as Paris. In EU4 it would be.

 

[Hawkslime]

What will Hawaii do in the game? If controlled by the player, make a cheesy WC? If controlled by the AI, sit there for 400 years unless touched by the player?

I am actually fine with that. Player can go to speed 5 and read a book and the AI doesn´t really mind waiting. And having more tags is always nice.

This is a big issue. Adding nations is nice, but with the way development works you're also adding massive amounts of development to a region. Everyone agrees that Hawaii existed as a Kingdom, but it wasn't as developed as Paris. In EU4 it would be.

That is the biggest problem

EU5 will really need some sort of population mechanic. Otherwise it will end up too abstracted

 

[BuchiTaton]

Hawaiian, Maori and other polynesian/melanesian nations certainly can be more "deserving" of be on game that some on-game tribes from Siberia and North America. Note that there are still many on-game North America nations that realy deserve their place and all Mesoamerican and South American nations actually in game are in equivalent or higher level that any Oceania nation. If your look to the chronicles and archeological evidence the real size, level of organization and threat to european colonists were relevant. Current on game more detailed tribes of North America vs South America is the result of live in an "anglophone mass media world", where is easier to research and more notorious any thing related to development countries like USA, Canada, Australia or New Zealand (including the natives that used to live there).

The moment and reasons of the conquest and colonization of Oceania and America are also different.
- Do you wonder why the european powers circunavigated the world way before reach inner America or Africa?
- The Spanish floats crossed the pacific from Phillipines to Mexico regularly.
- Portugal and Netherland knew about Australia but did not have real reasons to colonize it.
- The recogniton of native ruling class like western powers did with Hawaii (like many other kingdoms of Polynesia or Africa) was at their time done by european nations in America, but at the end is nothing but a more constructive and slow way to take over a native nation.

Any way I think that some Polynesian and Melanesian nations realy deserve to be on game, but the bigger impediment is their ubication. Current native nations cant build ships and Oceania small islands have way less space to move that America. Also we dont want every game AI's Maori colonizing Australia or Hawaii colonizing California (as player can be fun, but please not AI´s).

I think that instead of justify Australia natives, is better to built a suggestion with mechanics to make polynesian/melanesian nations gameplay viable and fun nations.

What, you want MORE tribal pseudo-nations fielding 6k troops and able to create The Most Developed Province in the World™ through magic monarch power?

I'd vote for throwing out a good amount of the currently existing ones. Start with those Siberian ones.

You centainly have a point about the absurdity of some things the tribal nations can do on game, but then you must remember that this is a game where you can conquer the whole world by early 19th century, something that is equally absurd even with any european or asiatic power at that time.

If you think about it what damage can do to your immersion AI's tribal nations, even if they have one or few high development provinces they usually become target of colonial power because that development, thus end conquered like their real history equivalent. In the other hand colonial powers on game almost always end the game with huge parts if not all the regions not colonized until almost one century later (inner Africa, Australia, Artic regions, etc.) colonized. The option to conquer those regions should be a fun option for players that could presume of "did it better that real history", but AI's doing this almost all the games is absurd.

Anyway tribal nations high developing provinces is more a Dharma DLC problem with their use of colonists. This problem could be solved if devs add more "enable/dissable" features option at game start.

 

[leefnmajors]

This entire thread is a lesson; that lesson is EU4 is a computer game FIRST. History and simulation and all that crap are secondary.

There were LOTS of natives, all over the world, in colonial zones before Europeans got there. Pretty sure we all realize this by now in 2018. They weren't backwoods savages, either.

But what's better for gameplay as a whole? Making sure every possible civilization is represented in this game with a playable nation, screwing up the colonizing mechanic even more, or just leaving most of these areas alone and adding in their cultures/religion as a bonus for some immersion factor/custom nation fodder?

Just leave most of the map empty so we can act like imperialist thugs (or, occasionally, make a custom Australia and go conquer the world). Please?

 

[fetusthebard]

And what exactly should a playable Hawai accomplish? Giving them ships is nonsense and without them they sit on their single province until they get conquered. So they would not add anything to the game at all.

Well NA natives don't get ships. But I'm more concerned why you think that the country with complex navigation rivaling colonial European powers shouldn't get ships. And also confused what sitting on a province matters when that's all any AI in NA or SA do. But I suppose we are all entitled to an opinion.

 

[Ixal]

Well NA natives don't get ships. But I'm more concerned why you think that the country with complex navigation rivaling colonial European powers shouldn't get ships. And also confused what sitting on a province matters when that's all any AI in NA or SA do. But I suppose we are all entitled to an opinion.

So how large was the hawaiian navy?

And when the whole gameplay experience for them is sitting on an island for 300 years, why add them in the first place? So that you do not need to colonize Hawai but instead conquer it? Because that is the extend of how they would change the game.

 

[deckhand]

But I'm more concerned why you think that the country with complex navigation rivaling colonial European powers shouldn't get ships.

So how large was the hawaiian navy?.

Yes, Pacific Islanders where quite expert at sailing to/from their islands.
However, all ships in EU4 have cannons. None of the Hawaiian "ships" could mount a cannon.


The game ought to provide some sort of sea going vessels to American tribes and other primitives. So they could meet neighbors that aren't too far away and colonize short distances (for example, from Cuba to Florida). They shouldn't be able to cross the Atlantic in these boats.
The Pacific Islanders (if they were in the game) perhaps could cross the Pacific to make contact, but they shouldn't be able to carry armies. And they don't belong in the game.

As others have said, Custom Nations perfectly provides the option for a player to take one of these absent "nations".

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Why can't Polynesians just have access to Galleys and Transports exclusively?

 

[Tizazef]

A great deal of people have been asking about state organization and tribal organization while ignoring that North American, South American, and Koryak tribes are all represented in-game. Many with populations in the thousands and governmental structures so weak that historians can't agree on successions, much less trying to design a governmental hierarchy among the in most cases dozens of tribal villages that the tag represents.

Good point, let's get rid of those too, because the Europa Universalis system can't handle tribes well anyway. And I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sick and tired of places barely inhabited in the twenty-first century having solid states roaming about in the 1400s.

 

[Ruian]

Good point, let's get rid of those too, because the Europa Universalis system can't handle tribes well anyway. And I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sick and tired of places barely inhabited in the twenty-first century having solid states roaming about in the 1400s.

Hmm I think in this case if they didn't already exist and we were asked if the dev team should devote time and resources to making them exist, my vote would be no. Cutting content that's already there though, I think not. The reason these tribes have some sort of importance, in my opinion, is that they are a big part of American history. And by extension, Mexico with the Spanish had the same thing. If you include NA and Central America then you sort of have to include SA, and the Incans are definitely worth representing. Also Brazil.

But yeah, playing natives is fun for one game, maybe two. Adding more of them unless introducing new mechanics for them is unnecessary.

 

[Kazanov]

Also, we have to think that the spaniards for example, werent capable of deploying big armies into the Americas until late into the end of the colonial era, and even then they could arrive late into the revolt. Thats why indigenous insurrections suceeded at first until the spanish reinforcements could get into the rebel colony. Even when we were fighting for our independence, the spaniards didnt send big armies and when they did, they arrive late and relied a lot on the local royalist forces. Take the Mapuche for example, the spaniards were never successful on conquering them, and wasnt into the second half of the 19 century that the chilean and argentinian governments conquered their lands and well, genocided them into submission.

In eu4 as spain i can build big transport fleets and have a significant number of troops in the new world, so rebels are always doomed to fail from the start, also, the natives are weak, and do not represent a challenge at all i think that instead of representing the natives of every part of the world, we need to make the colonial endeavor harder, inflation is too easy to manage, for example.

 

[Ruian]

Also, we have to think that the spaniards for example, werent capable of deploying big armies into the Americas until late into the end of the colonial era, and even then they could arrive late into the revolt. Thats why indigenous insurrections suceeded at first until the spanish reinforcements could get into the rebel colony. Even when we were fighting for our independence, the spaniards didnt send big armies and when they did, they arrive late and relied a lot on the local royalist forces. Take the Mapuche for example, the spaniards were never successful on conquering them, and wasnt into the second half of the 19 century that the chilean and argentinian governments conquered their lands and well, genocided them into submission.

In eu4 as spain i can build big transport fleets and have a significant number of troops in the new world, so rebels are always doomed to fail from the start, also, the natives are weak, and do not represent a challenge at all i think that instead of representing the natives of every part of the world, we need to make the colonial endeavor harder, inflation is too easy to manage, for example.

That's all well and good but you are suggesting nerfing colonies even more than they are with the tariffs hit. There's a post on the forums about abandoning colonies until you get gold to be economically the most viable. I used to colonize stuff a good amount in my games but now it's so expensive I usually don't bother. Having a bunch of native tags allows the player to get colonial nations without having to colonize as an alternative. Try keeping inflation in check starting near the Zanzibar node with 5 or 6 gold mines.

 

[fetusthebard]

So how large was the hawaiian navy?

And when the whole gameplay experience for them is sitting on an island for 300 years, why add them in the first place? So that you do not need to colonize Hawai but instead conquer it? Because that is the extend of how they would change the game.

Numbers are difficult to ascertain, as any time that Captain Cook or any other foreign power tried the Polynesians obfuscated the data. The same goes for navigational charts, distances to neighboring islands, even the navigator on Captain Cook's crew (who was Polynesian btw) didn't tell Cook about navy sizes. But from still surviving specimens, and firsthand accounts, many. They simply didn't have canons, there was really no need for siege ships and they didn't have the technology due to isolation anyway. Maybe that messes with the game balance, but neither did many of the nations that currently have ships in the game, especially at the start date. And more importantly I don't see a reason that if they wanted to remain in contact with the nations Asia they couldn't, as they certainly knew what other Pacific Islanders were around them and many of these had connections with the Filipino nations. After all, this is how the trade of Incense from Hawai'i got to China in the first place.

Sure, for the AI they'd just sit for 300 years. But for the player, you could overcome whatever native penalty the devs decided for them and start expanding along the pacific long before any Western nation touched you. It certainly makes sense for the region, that kind of expansion is what created the Polynesian culture group in the first place. I don't know how the mechanic would work though... perhaps however many nations are spreading increase Native Polynesian population, and whenever these grow large enough they make a tag based on the province that grew? No idea, but Hawai'i at the very least should be a tag. Then we could get around to discussions of Maori tribes and Australians, because both of them make way more sense once Natives actually work in the region.

Good point, let's get rid of those too, because the Europa Universalis system can't handle tribes well anyway. And I'm not being sarcastic, I'm sick and tired of places barely inhabited in the twenty-first century having solid states roaming about in the 1400s.

Okay, which tags do you propose we lose? Because for certain, we would need to wipe the Koryaks, many NA tribes, all SA Animist tribes, several of the recently added provinces in central America (which is upsetting, I'm really enjoying how the addition of these nations refurbished the area and made it much more fun to play in while also increasing historical accuracy), some of the Africa nations that were added recently, and ultimately this would result in the Europeans more quickly colonizing the world (which shouldn't be possible by the dates that they currently are).

Personally I'd just recommend increasing attrition to pre-patch values (with armies being able to be completely destroyed in months due to the uptick) like they used to be. It made sense, was entirely historically accurate, and only truly affected Russian supremacy, which the devs need a better answer to anyway that isn't just make attrition not as rough. I would also make attrition not affected by proximity to owned provinces that are not cores, and subject provinces should only give (very) marginal bonuses. This would get 3 birds stoned, attrition works so colonizing is harder, subjects would have a harder time being defended by their overlords, and you can't "snake" around the world without coring anything expecting to get attrition reduction meaning that getting a WC is not doable without sensible expansion into many map areas.

 

[3ishop]

Well NA natives don't get ships. But I'm more concerned why you think that the country with complex navigation rivaling colonial European powers shouldn't get ships. And also confused what sitting on a province matters when that's all any AI in NA or SA do. But I suppose we are all entitled to an opinion.

NA nations don't need ships to see other nations.

NA and SA nations don't just sit around, they do move and they do actively fight each other.

 

[Ruian]

If you want attrition to be enhanced then manpower really could use an overhaul. The standard strategy for a long time has been to build mercenaries because manpower is so broken.

 

[deckhand]

... But for the player, you could overcome whatever native penalty the devs decided for them and start expanding along the pacific long before any Western nation touched you. It certainly makes sense for the region, that kind of expansion is what created the Polynesian culture group in the first place.

No, this doesn't make sense. The Polynesians spread around the Pacific Islands because they were empty before they arrived. Sailing to the American Pacific coast might be possible for a few Polynesians; but for them to be able to displace any existing natives stretches credibility. Similar to how Vikings did not establish permanent colonies on American Atlantic coast. (And repeating myself, you can do the quoted with a custom nation).

 

[Hawkslime]

Well maybe we could get some sort of a new ship called coastal ship that is very weak in combat and takes extreme attrition in the open seas (something like 30% base attrition atleast) but are cheap and everyone can get them

 

[Zalmoxis]

I think that perhaps emergent tags might be a compromise. Say if a province is getting colonized and the natives revolt and take it over, instead of destroying the colony it spawns a new tag on that province that has 1444 tech upon spawning and has a government like the Siberian natives (they can migrate).

So failing to colonize a province kickstarts theire development because 'holy cow, we got to make sure we don't get invaded again'.

So in short let there be Aboriginal and Oceanic tags, but not at the games start.