Natives and Colonization

[YellowPress]

The Inca had a writing system and in the time it took you to write this post you could have easily scanned a wikipedia article or two and figured that out. I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic here. Please, if this subject is at all important to you, take some time to learn the history.

If you mean the knotted ropes, I love the revisionism behind it.
These are the eu4 forums, most people here have at least 1k ingame, and so are dedicated enough to read history in their own time, doing it at secondary school at the least, it will never go well to insult someone's level of education

Fun exercise:

First use these standards, then apply them to countries in EU 4 in 1444, ignoring what the game does now.

Should have interesting results.

If you want to drag everyone down sure we can do that, but theyre just speaking about buffing incan states, which then leads to questions of why andeans should be ahead of mexican and yucatan natives

Not sure what you mean by "state centralization". Inca had more than many other places, and less than others. Saying places like Polynesia, Luba, Dahomey, Mzab, and tribal nations in India had more "state centralization" than Inca comes off as ridiculous. Some of these begin the game at tech 3.

Polynesia only recently got added so I wouldn't use it as an argument, because thanks to adding Australian natives any province should now start as a tag in eu4 as 300 people is another to be a tag
Some of those start at tech 3, but inca no longer starts as a tag in 1444, by the time the ai forms inca it will be above tech 1 no?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you want to drag everyone down sure we can do that, but theyre just speaking about buffing incan states, which then leads to questions of why andeans should be ahead of mexican and yucatan natives

IMO there's good basis for andeans behind ahead of mexico, even in direct comparisons between the two. Incans were more unified/sustained, larger, required shadier tactics to bring down, etc.

The problem with "dragging everyone down" is that it wouldn't be uniform, in any region. You'd get into weeds like Irish minors being technologically weaker than other Europeans, and weird starting disparities in same tech groups that would quickly equalize and never manifest again.

Polynesia only recently got added so I wouldn't use it as an argument

You can scratch it from the list and it doesn't change anything about my argument.

Some of those start at tech 3, but inca no longer starts as a tag in 1444, by the time the ai forms inca it will be above tech 1 no?

Above tech 1, with a tech disandvantage to the tags I mentioned only being magnified since 1444.

 

[BuchiTaton]

First off I love the idea that dense places held out against plagues, when they were the worst hit and so subsequently saw the most change early on.

Densely populated areas like Mesoamerica and the Andes certainly suffered the most lost of lives but the point is not how many people died, but that even after that massive lost the populations was still big enough to represent the local mayority and preserve their identity. Meanwhile regions like the Mississippi and the Amazon suffered the disappearance of many Great Chiefdoms attested by early expeditions just by the disruption of european diseases.

So while most towns in central and southern Mexico could track their name, history and population to their Altepetls huge tracks of eastern USA lack any records to relate the pre-contact population to a more specific post contact native group.

Sure New Spain wasn't densly populated from California to Panama with 100% pure 6'4 blond hair blue eyed asutrians, but the idea that it was some secret Aztec Empire where all the nobles still secretly waged flower wars and pulled out still beating hearts of Catholic priests is equally laughable. Nahautl and Mayan may still be languages today, but compare how many speakers they have compared to the total populations of Mexico and central America. It would take awhile for the privileges of the conquistadors to be undone and the leftover aztec nobility to be beneath penisular spaniards in the social hierarchy, but theres plenty of intermixing going on in the decades after conquest.
You can join me in asking for pops in eu5, but don't oversubscribe agency to a subjugated people

The big problem is that the colonization mechanics could not be the same for all colonial regions. For example both pre and after "Expel Minority" New Spain are a bad representation of the real colonial process. Yes, is complety true that spaniards had the priority to convert to Catholicism the native population so current AI New Spain is terrible, but it was also the complety cultural converted Castilian (or even Mexican) New Spain, since even by 1821 over 60% of Mexico's population did not even speak spanish.

Not just that, spanish government used the "Repúblicas de Indios" their local rulers, ways of administration, special laws, syncretic traditions and communal lands not just to keep native population loyal but even as a counterweight againts the more ambitious and affectionate to "permissive new ideas" criollo/mestizo population. Cultural Castilian/Mexican New Spain was a thing only in administrative and comercial cores like México City, Veracruz, Puebla, Guadalajara, Acapulco, etc. The mines and ranch of the Bajio that was in fact already less populated and suffered the Chichimec Wars, and of course the north that is already mostly "empty" to colonize (even there many Spanish population were founded with a twin mesoamerican auxiliar population next each other).

By the way the proper cultural convertion politic was done by the independent Mexican government to modernize the country in the 19th century, and by pure disavantage of the traditional way in the increasing urban and industrial 20th-21th century Mexico.

 

[Volbound]

I think in the context of natives it's hilarious how angry people get about "muh history" when the history is just looking at maps. Colonization in EU4 is vastly easier and faster than in real life, despite the lack of plagues. There are enormous swathes of the Americas and Oceania that were not meaningfully colonized by 1821- but they were painted a map colour by europeans so they need to be x culture christian totally conquered for muh history. The game also still follows the civ-style tech tree where european development is the one true method. Inca had better roads, agriculture, and taxation than contemporary Europe, but see, their weapons were bronze, so they must needs sit at admin 1 for a million years. For realism. It's ludicrous that in earlier parches the entire north american coast is dense with euros in 1530, that it gets fully overtaken at all, that Australia is regularly taken in the 1600s, etc etc.

The problem is the AI sucking- ie colonial nations should be way more enthusiastic to culture and religion convert, and attack natives. "Historically" though, a place like Florida was painted variously red, blue, and yellow but still somehow decades after EU4 ends the US was fighting wars there, and white people never settled the peninsula till freaking air conditioning. It's historical to have south and east Florida held by natives till the end of the game. This goes even more so in dense areas that held out against the plagues. Nahuatl, mayan, and quechua are all living languages today, y'all realize? They absolutely were not some broad perfect spanish catholic colony. Natives held real control in huge parts of the single blob euros called "Spanish Empire"

Colonialists should be way more aggressive in wars and conversion, there should be some plague mechanic, but for realism there should absolutely not be hordes of european christians in much of what is now colonial nation territory.

This is actually wrong

Try getting the reach of Portugal in 1520 by 1520 or the reach of Spain by 1548 (all of Aztecs, Incas, and Caribbean).

It is literally impossible. So, no, it isn't accurate for opposite reason that you actually state.