New Direction for Plains Indians

[MattyG]

I have been heavily editing the misc_colony files. Working hard on them to get them into shape. Simplifying, debugging, removing the dumbstuff, the poor triggering etc. So that they might actually work. Anyway, more on this in a later thread when I release the next New World beta.

Consider the following:

1. The Iriquois are usually defeated and annexed by 1540, about 200 years too early. 200 years. It's like the Europeans getting firearms in 1250 and Napoleanic armies sweeping across Europe in 1600.

2. Players continue to trade maps with countries that have no paper.

3. The plains Indians start (even in vanilla) with about 2000 in their capitals, which grow to about 10 K by colonisation time. So few people that they need to be given artifical MP.

4. Plains indians as nation states is just plain silly, even for the Iroquois.

5. Miltarily, the plains are a walkover.

6. Even the earliest trading forts were not set up until the 1700s. No government wanted to explore and attempt to conquer these vast areas full of natives.

Accordingly, I have a new plan to run past you all.

1. We get rid of all of the plains americans: Shawnee, Cherokee, Iroquois, the lot. All their provinces become simply 'terra nulius'. Each and every one will need to be explored by each country until they are settled and the owning country's maps traded.

2. All of the coastal and plains provinces, and many of those in eastern Canada have their native populations raised dramatically and their fierceness also increased (with some exceptions for the coast of USA) such they when they are explored or attack or settled they field troops numbers in the thousands, not the hundreds.


I feel this will bring a great deal more realism to the colonisation process. It will acheive the following:

1. Get rid of those impossible plains indian nation states.

2. Exploration will require greater resources and commitment to be successful.

3. Slow down the number of colonies created, especially by players, as each would need to be properly financed and protected.

4. European armies in the landtech 5 - 13 range will face many more defeats, or need to be larger. Or else players simply won't colonise areas that are not rich and easy because they are not worth it. (The way it actually was.)

Thoughts?

 

[Incompetent]

Let's see. It will stop players from getting big dollops of inland provinces, which can only be good. It'll also stop the flow of free maps (though isn't Johan supposed to have done something about this anyway?)

But I don't think it'll make settling inland provinces particularly hard work for the player. If a player wants to settle inland, he/she will just do the following:

1. Build some coastal cities

2. Train troops there until an army of 10-20k can be assembled

3. Extermination time!

4. Send the colonists inland.

This requires no signifcant naval power. If the player does have a navy OTOH he/she can just send an expeditionary force from Europe. As for army tech, land 9 will make the extermination pretty easy, and it won't be hard even at land 1 for open terrain, as the player can just use lots of cavalry. So overall it's rather easier than conquering pagans, who can be quite a challenge before LT9.

Of course, naval power doesn't even come into it if the Dichali move north - due to their isolation, they'll be able to commit most of their army to native-killing. Again, not a problem for the player.

Geographically, North America is about the most accessible and colony-friendly land in the world in EU2. Given that European players are brushing aside massive numbers of natives in Indonesia, one of the more inconvenient locations, by the late 16th century, I don't think American natives are going to be much of a barrier.

However, the natives could have quite serious consequences for the AI:
- The AI doesn't know about protecting conquistadors, and can't voluntarily retreat them if things get nasty. They could well get killed by large native armies.
- The AI is useless at mustering troops overseas. While getting 10 or 20 thousand men to NA in the 1500s is a simple exercise for a player (unless they're Ukraine or some power which really shouldn't be in the Americas!), for the AI it's a logistical challenge they may fail.

Also, we need to consider how many natives. If the Iroqious nations deserved 2000 people per province before, is it fair to put 12000 in each province now? But if you go for 2000 per province, they'll be even easier to take out - the first player conquistadors will probably do it themselves when they first discover the land.

So in summary, I like your idea but it's not a panacaea. Put psychotic natives in place of the NA tribes, but seeing as the area wasn't that densely populated, there's no need to go mad on the numbers. We need to use other tools to make inland colonisation less desirable, such as tax value. We could even put time constraints on some of the 'Claim of XXX' events, so players can't get cores in the American interior until very late on (if at all!)

In fact, I'm tempted to put in a blanket increase on CDM for colonial provinces, with a massive one for inland ones, as this will slow colonisation down and keep it to the coasts for a lot longer.

 

[unmerged(30761)]

plague like events that would decimate the poplation of the provinces in question every 5 years before a certain dates woudl make colonization early on also less attractive and would make for more "in europe" fighting

When i colonize i allways think in may head that for every colonist i send that costs 60 gold now i will have to have this colony that produces 10 gold a year produce it for 6 years.

10 colonists = 600 gold = 60 years
and that is at 100 percent chance colonization
natives adding to final population tally could be a bonus.
unless they rise up and kill everyone.

 

[MattyG]

The Plains area was not lightly peopled, and I think this has been well established in recent years. By the time that, say, Ohio was being colonised, the population had been already devestated by European diseases brought in through the French trading posts set up in the 1760s. I think its reasonable to say that Johan setting 2K as a starting population for plains provinces was done only from a game perspective to ensure easy conquest for the ai.

The 10000K fierce natives in the Indian provinces seem to make you think twice about how you set up a colony. One never thinks twice about setting up a colony in North America. Even 300 troops should normally be enough.

The ai is useless at collecting troops because most nations have their ais set up that way. The settings allow you to place more emphasis on gathering troops. When the major colonisers start their thing, new ais can trigger that accentuate this value.

I'd rather not tinker with tax values, as this will reduce the value of establishing trading posts, which did occur, and will cause yet more compensatory tinkering to reestablish their true values later in the game.

Johan removed map stealing when you capture capitals, but people can still trade maps with them, a thoroughly dishonest endeavour.

So, OK, lets stick with these nations, but I think they ought to be more seriously beefed up, until their smallpox events strike them and whittle down their numbers in the mid to late 1700s (or when triggered by European ownership).

But I like your CDM idea, except that I have no idea what CDM is.
And I have already removed all of the Claim events for Labrador, Hundson's Bay and West Lakes and set dates of 1750 onwards for Illinois, South Lakes and the newly created Ohio (which includes the previously missed provinces 80 and 81 ). Ditto Alaska.

 

[Incompetent]

The Plains area was not lightly peopled, and I think this has been well established in recent years. By the time that, say, Ohio was being colonised, the population had been already devestated by European diseases brought in through the French trading posts set up in the 1760s. I think its reasonable to say that Johan setting 2K as a starting population for plains provinces was done only from a game perspective to ensure easy conquest for the ai.

Yes, but there's no need to pack them as densely as Indonesian or Indian provinces. 2000-5000 natives per province ought to be enough.

I'd rather not tinker with tax values, as this will reduce the value of establishing trading posts, which did occur, and will cause yet more compensatory tinkering to reestablish their true values later in the game.

How does it hurt TPs? TPs generate negligible tax income. In any case, they shouldn't be worth much by way of taxes even later on - in most places the money was coming from the fur trade, mining or cash crops, which are well represented by province goods. These places shouldn't be as tax-rich as Europe at any point in the game.

Johan removed map stealing when you capture capitals, but people can still trade maps with them, a thoroughly dishonest endeavour.

Yes, except peacefully traded maps don't reveal uncolonised provinces. So it's not that much of an issue.

So, OK, lets stick with these nations, but I think they ought to be more seriously beefed up, until their smallpox events strike them and whittle down their numbers in the mid to late 1700s (or when triggered by European ownership).

I thought we'd just agreed to remove them! Natives will work better than countries for most purposes - I just said they weren't enough on their own to prevent colonisation.

But I like your CDM idea, except that I have no idea what CDM is.

'Difficulty for Colonization' - it's one of the parameters in province.csv. Typically it's set to 6 or 7 for inland provinces, which is IMHO too low.

 

[MattyG]

Sorry, I was confusing Taxes with Province Goods as I often do.

So, lets see how others respond, but I would be very happy to see all the Plains Nations go. Also means more cultures come free for us (he he he).

And combined with your CDM changes, it will be a much better setup.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Just a note on your word use here...

The Delaware, Iroquois, and Cherokee (and Creek for that matter as well) were NOT Plains indians... the region they inhabited is the eastern woodlands/mountains. The cultures were very different by the time of contact, as the plains indians were tribes (such as the Comanche, Lakota, etcetera) who had adopted stray Spanish horses and become hunters on the Great Plains (where the mobility made such an economy possible) and become nomadic. Oddly enough, they had been farmers before. The Eastern indians were settled down, agricultural tribes, and generally assimilated somewhat more easily (the Iroquois had a republic-like government and the Cherokee developed an alphabet, though that one was post-contact.)

I would argue that, if any of the North American natives are to stay as countries, the Iroquois and Cherokee should be the top of the list.

 

[MattyG]

Really, none of these terms is especially accurate. All of them - even names such as Iroquois - are generalisations of the post-contact world. It's just so much verbosity to be genuinely accurate in a casual foum such as this.

When I simplified it for ease by calling them Plains Nations, I actually meant "those nation-state constructs within the EU2 game-world which correspond in a generalised and anglicized-naming with several of the peoples which were extant at the time of conquest and colonisation by peoples from Europe."

No offence was intended.

I agree that the Iriquois Nation (as thy became after the initial contact, but not before) and the Cherokee had the most centralized culture, but depicting them in the nation-sate EU2 system is still a huge stretch.

 

[unmerged(1047)]

Perhaps, but that's a matter of judgement. I think it is clear that the nomadic tribes of the Plains - the Sioux, Pawnee, etcetera - clearly should be portrayed as natives. Between your word useage and your locale (on the plains yourself if I'm not mistaken) I thought you might be extrapolating that to all North American indians, like the westerns do, and the conditions that encouraged a nomadic culture on the Plains simply didn't exist in the East. To a lesser extent, some of the California coastal indians were nomadic as well, but that was within a much smaller range and had to do mostly with weather and seasonal crops.

 

[MattyG]

It isn't just that these peoples were not nation states with European style administrations and economies, its also how these in-game constructs operate in reltion to the Europeans that are important, and it isn't working too well.

Lets face it, these are not the Iroquois. We attach their name to this country, give them an 'injun' sprite, layer on a few occassionally-almost-accurate names for flavour and then let the European nations pound the crap out of them. I don't see how this is a "matter of judgement" on whether this properly represents the Iroquois. We should stop pretending we are doing an appropriate job on depicting them and their culture.

I think we will have to wait for EU3 for a system of depicting the north american cultural groups in more appropriate ways.

 

[unmerged(36449)]

a small point of order... only the Sioux were plains Indians... the rest were forest dwellers. How about you just give the East Coast tribes a bit more population and tech to offset the Euro advantage? Make them tougher, not extinct.

 

[yourworstnightm]

I wouldn't care if you ditched the north american tribes. They weren't that organized anyway. You could keep the Iroquis and Cherokee though, but the rest could easily be ditched, and I wouldn't mind if they all were ditched either.

 

[DSMyers1]

I do note that this is aberration, and we don't have to follow history exactly.
I propose that the Iroquois develop their government and society to the point that they were a nation in the true sense of the word, similar to the Azteks in Mexico, only with smaller population and larger area. They were on the verge of uniting quite a large area into a stable government, which would have given them a huge advantage over the other tribes, if they had done it a little earlier and had tried to assimilate the other tribes into their confederation instead of being so warlike.

So could we have an aberration of the Iroquios, that they are a dominant society of the Northeast? We could do events for the peaceful assimilation of other tribes in the area before contact with the whitemen, giving a single nation for the Europeans to battle.

 

[MattyG]

I do note that this is aberration, and we don't have to follow history exactly.
I propose that the Iroquois develop their government and society to the point that they were a nation in the true sense of the word, similar to the Azteks in Mexico, only with smaller population and larger area. They were on the verge of uniting quite a large area into a stable government, which would have given them a huge advantage over the other tribes, if they had done it a little earlier and had tried to assimilate the other tribes into their confederation instead of being so warlike.

So could we have an aberration of the Iroquios, that they are a dominant society of the Northeast? We could do events for the peaceful assimilation of other tribes in the area before contact with the whitemen, giving a single nation for the Europeans to battle.

I prefer this option. It has the right plausability and the storyline makes for interesting roleplaying.

But it would be an additional stretch to increse their technology, so they are still going to be mown down by Europeans in good numbers. So it goes. But I will beef them up in the numbers they deserve. And I'll remove all of the other ##### (insert here the quote from above).

 

[unmerged(1047)]

I wouldn't see a problem with beefing up their starting technology, etcetera, but it would be too implausible to make them too competitive. Maybe give them land 4, infra and trade 2 or something to give them a stronger start, but still with the slow-as-molasses tech advancement....

 

[MattyG]

I wouldn't see a problem with beefing up their starting technology, etcetera, but it would be too implausible to make them too competitive. Maybe give them land 4, infra and trade 2 or something to give them a stronger start, but still with the slow-as-molasses tech advancement....

Land tech 4 is a lot. Especially as it represents not just better tech but a more organised military. That would really represent a major change to their culture whose origins would have to go back even further to be believable. I seriously think that a great population and MP will ensure that they are a hardy challenge, especially as the interior provinces are going to be tougher to settle, and without province connections to the edge of the Iriquois, the attrition is going to be tough on the Europeans. It may just become - as it was - a prize with too high a price tag until the 1700s.

But, we can give them some good leaders.

 

[unmerged(30761)]

I would give them a COT of their own this shoudl help with their income a bit

 

[MattyG]

I would give them a COT of their own this shoudl help with their income a bit

As the only #### nation it would die out in a matter of years from lack of trade.

We can cover the icome problem, if there is one, by starting them with fortresses and taxcollectors. We can also give the ai some cash events if they prove to have real problems. But what do they have to spend money on? They won't be involved in wars until the Europeans arrive.

 

[Incompetent]

As the only #### nation it would die out in a matter of years from lack of trade.

We can cover the icome problem, if there is one, by starting them with fortresses and taxcollectors. We can also give the ai some cash events if they prove to have real problems. But what do they have to spend money on? They won't be involved in wars until the Europeans arrive.

If the Iroquois are civilised and all the other tribes uncivilised, we can represent the Iroquois' gradual assimilation of the other tribes by colonial expansion. This will be quite expensive enough with the new CDMs!

 

[DSMyers1]

Yes, that would work, provided we set them up so that they GET colonists.