Making Native Americans more interesting to play.

[tman144]

I like to play as the Native American tribes, but, like many of you, I have found that they can be very boring to play as during the time between when you've conquered your neighbors and when the Europeans show up. So, this is my idea to spice up Native gameplay. It was inspired from playing as the Dothraki in the Game of Thrones mod for CK2.

The main thing I would like to implement is to replace the generic natives that inhabit un-colonized provinces with actual native tags. I think that when the European explorers arrive, north america should be full of tags, some big, but many small ones. However, once a native tag has contact with a European explorer, there is a very big chance that the native tag will get an event to simulate the diseases that decimated native populations. Most importantly, this event will cause native tags to lose territory and turn those provinces into the empty provinces that Europeans can colonize. Furthermore, once a native tag has caught European diseases, any other native tag that borders them can also get the event. I think the native tag's capital should be immune from becoming empty, simply because it would not be fun to get a game over from an event you cannot really control.

In order to fill up north america before European contact, I think natives should get a way to "colonize" adjacent provinces without having to pay the colonist cost that Europeans do. To balance the fact that natives will be able to get lots of land for cheap, I think natives should only be able to develop their capital. The rest of their territory should be viewed as more like land that they can hunt/fish on exclusively, rather than as setting up new cities.

Also, I think natives should behave differently than the ROTW when it comes to declaring war on their neighbors. I think the following rules should apply to pre-contact natives:
1) Natives cannot take territory from other natives during peace deals. Instead, natives can demand that other natives abandon those territories instead, returning them to the empty provinces we have now. Then, the victorious tribe would have to use the cheaper native "colonizing" mechanic to actually take control of the territory.
2) Natives should take a huge AE hit if they force another native tag to abandon their capital, and an even bigger AE hit if the capital is the last province the tag owns (meaning, they are eradicating the loser tag). I think other natives should look very harshly at a tribe that eradicates another tribe. It is one thing to fight over hunting and fishing privileges, but quite another thing to wipe a tribe of people from the face of the earth.
3) Natives should not be able to vassalize other natives. Instead, natives should still use the federation mechanic. What I would like to see a few large tribes that are federation leaders, but within that tribe's territory are smaller, independent nations that are a part of the federation, but could still become a major tribe again if the federation leader is weakened.

I think these changes would make natives more dynamic and more fun to play as before European contact. Instead of just sitting around and hoping the Europeans colonize the province next to you, you can be busy trying to gain as much territory as you can before the diseases arrive. It also presents interesting choices. Do you try and take as much territory as you can to increase the chance that you border a European but risk getting the nasty disease events? Or do you become an isolationist and aggressively attack any tribe that borders you so that the diseases wont spread to your nation?

 

[Rabbit Burgher]

Perhaps Europeans should be able to colonize in owned native (not nahuatl, mayan or inti) provinces. When the colony reaches 1000, the owning natives will have the choice between migrating or fighting for their land. If the natives go to war, the europeans will have be able to take all their land, whereas natives will be able to take all of the colonies in that colonial region from the Europeans. If a native nation controls more than one province (so they normally can't migrate), they should be able to select another neighbouring province.

If your hunting grounds mechanic were added, I'd have two suggestions:

• The hunting grounds would have different buildings available. These would be focused on generating income/manpower.
• Larger native nations should be able to migrate as well. When they leave, they would lose their old hunting grounds, but they'd be able to choose new provinces when they move.

Also, for totemists, the native window button should be replaced with a totemist logo.


Afterthought:
Perhaps native nations should have a population mechanic that dictates how much land they can control. Their cheap cost for land would be population instead of money. The only ways to lose population would be disease and war. If your population falls too low, you'd lose part of your hunting grounds (furthest from the capital first).

 

[tman144]

Perhaps Europeans should be able to colonize in owned native (not nahuatl, mayan or inti) provinces. When the colony reaches 1000, the owning natives will have the choice between migrating or fighting for their land. If the natives go to war, the europeans will have be able to take all their land, whereas natives will be able to take all of the colonies in that colonial region from the Europeans. If a native nation controls more than one province (so they normally can't migrate), they should be able to select another neighbouring province.

If your hunting grounds mechanic were added, I'd have two suggestions:

• The hunting grounds would have different buildings available. These would be focused on generating income/manpower.
• Larger native nations should be able to migrate as well. When they leave, they would lose their old hunting grounds, but they'd be able to choose new provinces when they move.

Also, for totemists, the native window button should be replaced with a totemist logo.


Afterthought:
Perhaps native nations should have a population mechanic that dictates how much land they can control. Their cheap cost for land would be population instead of money. The only ways to lose population would be disease and war. If your population falls too low, you'd lose part of your hunting grounds (furthest from the capital first).

I forgot to mention, but my idea was that anyone declaring war on natives would follow the same rules as natives fighting natives. So if Europeans declared war on a native tribe, they would only be able to make them release provinces back to nature, rather than taking the provinces outright. So, in the unlikely scenario that the disease events did not leave you with any provinces that you can colonize, you would declare war on a native tribe to free up some space for your colonists. Also, I think an OPM tribe that is defeated should try to move into an open province if they can. A tribe would only disappear completely if it was defeated and was also completely surrounded. Maybe my ideas are biased because I'm an American, so I think of "colonization" as "English colonization," but I can't recall any instances where the British actually conquered a native tribe and ruled them. Instead, if the British wanted land, they made the natives leave and filled it with English settlers.

EDIT: Actually, I have another idea to rework colonization so that you could "colonize" a province occupied by natives, but that is for a different thread.

 

[Rabbit Burgher]

I forgot to mention, but my idea was that anyone declaring war on natives would follow the same rules as natives fighting natives. So if Europeans declared war on a native tribe, they would only be able to make them release provinces back to nature, rather than taking the provinces outright. So, in the unlikely scenario that the disease events did not leave you with any provinces that you can colonize, you would declare war on a native tribe to free up some space for your colonists. Also, I think an OPM tribe that is defeated should try to move into an open province if they can. A tribe would only disappear completely if it was defeated and was also completely surrounded. Maybe my ideas are biased because I'm an American, so I think of "colonization" as "English colonization," but I can't recall any instances where the British actually conquered a native tribe and ruled them. Instead, if the British wanted land, they made the natives leave and filled it with English settlers.

EDIT: Actually, I have another idea to rework colonization so that you could "colonize" a province occupied by natives, but that is for a different thread.

I wasn't able to find a lot of examples, but I've managed to find this. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_massacre#As_Genocide). The English soldiers wiped out the natives, then took over their lands. The remaining Pequot were forced to absorb into other tribes, so perhaps if a native tribe is destroyed by Europeans, the nearby tribes could get an event similar to Byzantine Refugees, except for manpower instead of technology.

Also, if a native OPM moves after they're defeated, they should be severely weakened for a period of time, because of the massacres inflicted upon them by Europeans.


Afterthought regarding conquest against natives:
When a European nation conquers a tribe, perhaps they should be able to make two choices in the peace menu. One of them would allow you to wipe them out and take their lands. This would give you a massive AE penalty against Native Americans. It would also encourage natives to join federations to deal with the Europeans. The other option would allow the Europeans to take the land, but the natives would be able to migrate. It would still give some AE, but no way near as much as the first option.

The only way for a native tribe to survive the first option would be if they have an ally that would give them some of their land to move to. In the example that I posted a link to, the Europeans hunted the natives down. When the ally gives them land, the Europeans would have the choice to continue their war (attacking the native ally as well) or to back off (giving a small prestige penalty).

 

[tman144]

I wasn't able to find a lot of examples, but I've managed to find this. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_massacre#As_Genocide). The English soldiers wiped out the natives, then took over their lands. The remaining Pequot were forced to absorb into other tribes, so perhaps if a native tribe is destroyed by Europeans, the nearby tribes could get an event similar to Byzantine Refugees, except for manpower instead of technology.

Also, if a native OPM moves after they're defeated, they should be severely weakened for a period of time, because of the massacres inflicted upon them by Europeans.


Afterthought regarding conquest against natives:
When a European nation conquers a tribe, perhaps they should be able to make two choices in the peace menu. One of them would allow you to wipe them out and take their lands. This would give you a massive AE penalty against Native Americans. It would also encourage natives to join federations to deal with the Europeans. The other option would allow the Europeans to take the land, but the natives would be able to migrate. It would still give some AE, but no way near as much as the first option.

The only way for a native tribe to survive the first option would be if they have an ally that would give them some of their land to move to. In the example that I posted a link to, the Europeans hunted the natives down. When the ally gives them land, the Europeans would have the choice to continue their war (attacking the native ally as well) or to back off (giving a small prestige penalty).

One thing I'm trying to avoid is having north american colonial nations ending up with provinces of native culture. EU4 solves this problem now by making colonial nations aggressively culture convert provinces, however, I would prefer that colonial nations just not end up with those provinces in the first place. One, because I don't think that's what actually happened historically. And two, because colonial nations did have wrong culture provinces in history that they didn't culture convert, such as Quebec and Louisiana staying more French, and with the way colonial nations work now, those provinces would be converted the same as native culture provinces.

I'm don't think a native OPM needs to be artificially weakened if it loses a war. It would already be pretty much in the weakest position possible. It would have no army, no money, no buildings and would most likely be on an undeveloped 1/1/1 province with a stronger neighbor with bad relations. Maybe give it a stab hit or something, but I really can't fathom a weaker position than that. I do like the idea of a Byzantine Refugees event for every tribe that gets wiped out, boosting the manpower of surrounding tribes. And maybe even the possibility of a relations boost between the surviving native tribes. Kind of a "lets bury the hatchet and focus on the Europeans" thing.

I've also had another idea to go with this. Give western tech nations a new diplomacy option where they can offer an ultimatum to buy the natives off a province, and if the natives refuse, then war is declared where the war goal is that province.

 

[Rostan]

I wasn't able to find a lot of examples, but I've managed to find this. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystic_massacre#As_Genocide). The English soldiers wiped out the natives, then took over their lands. The remaining Pequot were forced to absorb into other tribes, so perhaps if a native tribe is destroyed by Europeans, the nearby tribes could get an event similar to Byzantine Refugees, except for manpower instead of technology.

Also, if a native OPM moves after they're defeated, they should be severely weakened for a period of time, because of the massacres inflicted upon them by Europeans.


Afterthought regarding conquest against natives:
When a European nation conquers a tribe, perhaps they should be able to make two choices in the peace menu. One of them would allow you to wipe them out and take their lands. This would give you a massive AE penalty against Native Americans. It would also encourage natives to join federations to deal with the Europeans. The other option would allow the Europeans to take the land, but the natives would be able to migrate. It would still give some AE, but no way near as much as the first option.

The only way for a native tribe to survive the first option would be if they have an ally that would give them some of their land to move to. In the example that I posted a link to, the Europeans hunted the natives down. When the ally gives them land, the Europeans would have the choice to continue their war (attacking the native ally as well) or to back off (giving a small prestige penalty).

But that is the English system of colonization only. The Spanish, for instance, operated a full fledged feudal type of conquest in which no natives were chased away, rather were forced to become Spanish subjects and work for the Empire´s projects much like serfs back in Europe. That is why the English settlement advanced a few miles inland per decade, while the Spanish were running cities hundreds of miles inside mountain chains within 4 decades of discovering the New World.

 

[luxfelix]

Curious: I'm familiar with an event that triggers when a nation first colonizes that sets the precedent for how that country will treat the natives (something like "live and let live", "trade relationship", or "conquer outright"); is there also a similar event for the native countries making contact and how they will treat the colonizers?

I wonder what way would best simulate the existence of numerous tribes within "colonial claims" (akin to Treaty of Tordesillas mechanic?) if a colonizing nation decides to focus on fort-and-trade post colonization (instead of the encomienda system used by Spain for example). I'm thinking of how the French claimed huge swaths of lands that were still occupied by independent natives (aside from Louisiana, Quebec, and various forts in between).

Bonus: A system that allows for free-roaming natives/tags within another nation's territory could also simulate the continued existence of nomads (Cossack self-rule, steppe-peoples, etc.) within Russian lands, as well as representing the diaspora of Jewish rabbinical communities within various kingdoms/nations! (This may be more appropriate for CKII or Vicky mechanics though?)

 

[Reverend Belial]

I only read the original post and the first reply, so maybe it's been said already, but natives should still be able to vassalize other natives. There were apparently reports from settlers and colonists from the era that made mention to there being native "kingdoms" that had vassal tribes under them.

 

[tman144]

I only read the original post and the first reply, so maybe it's been said already, but natives should still be able to vassalize other natives. There were apparently reports from settlers and colonists from the era that made mention to there being native "kingdoms" that had vassal tribes under them.

The reason for the "no vassal" rule was to preserve as many native tags as possible until the Europeans arrive. If natives can vassalize, then they can annex, which would lead to one giant native tribe occupying all of North America. Also, I think the federation mechanic can replace vassalization for natives. You could argue that Europeans looking at a tribal federation with a chief, would view it through a European lens and see kings and vassals instead.

 

[Reverend Belial]

The reason for the "no vassal" rule was to preserve as many native tags as possible until the Europeans arrive. If natives can vassalize, then they can annex, which would lead to one giant native tribe occupying all of North America. Also, I think the federation mechanic can replace vassalization for natives. You could argue that Europeans looking at a tribal federation with a chief, would view it through a European lens and see kings and vassals instead.

This is true, but I'd argue that if that were the case then they would likely see it in the same way as the other federations they had encountered and would just dismiss them as such.