Non-European Countries

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Achiles
The thing I always found to be rediculous about the Iroquois was their population levels. All their provinces have about 300 to 400 people in them while the territorries around them have 1000 to 2000 natives in them. This seems rediculous to me. It is totally contradictory and stupid and is mearly another way of giving the non-european nations the shaft and keeping them ripe for european conquest. I always give the Iroquois an extra 1000 people in all their provinces. I sure am glad they are going to do a better job on the non-european nations in EUII.

Its because you mix-up carrots with apples my firend...
The 300-400 you talk about is the pops of the provincial capital. The 1000-2000 natives in the territories around them are the number of warriors that could be mustered in those provinces.

/Greven

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Achiles
Then the fault is with the game engine. It doesn't properly simulate true conditions.

Well I'm fond of the idea of having the total provincial population listed rather than just the city's. But quibbling over this one aspect of the engine seems rather inefficient-there are many areas, if not all, where the game engine doesn't simulate true conditions. The Iroqious are simulated correctly in terms of the game's design-any legitimate alterations within this framework would only make them weaker, such as removing their ahistorically huge armies, or the Tuscarora who didn't affiliate with the Confederation until 1722!

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Greven


Its because you mix-up carrots with apples my firend...
The 300-400 you talk about is the pops of the provincial capital. The 1000-2000 natives in the territories around them are the number of warriors that could be mustered in those provinces.

/Greven

That's what I've been saying-maybe he'll listen to you!

How do you rationalise the presence of 30000 Iroqious warriors at game start? Is this just a game balancing tool? I can understand the inclusion of the Tuscarora from the start, but the large army.......

 

[alvaro]

Well, I think that colonization should make native pop decrease and native pop should reduce the probability of success in colonization much more. I think that if you manage to get 20-30 years of peace in the XVI cnty. and you colonize like a mad you just boost your economy enough to be major power the rest of the game. IMO it should be more difficult, and native pop should suffer more about it...I mean...no hard feelings...it's the way it was

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


That's what I've been saying-maybe he'll listen to you!

How do you rationalise the presence of 30000 Iroqious warriors at game start? Is this just a game balancing tool? I can understand the inclusion of the Tuscarora from the start, but the large army.......

My rationalization is this..... (this is weak so don't kill me) Once upon a time there was a Boardgame by the name of Europa Universalis it had numbers of natives added to the map. These figures was adapted to this game. The number might have changed but in such case it was out of game balance reasons.

/Greven

 

[Agelastus]

Native populations do suffer in the game when a conquistador discovers them-but they then seem to recover quickly, which is completely against the historical pattern, particularly in Mexico and the West Indies.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Agelastus
Native populations do suffer in the game when a conquistador discovers them-but they then seem to recover quickly, which is completely against the historical pattern, particularly in Mexico and the West Indies.

And the french has a hard-coded negotiation bonus... Can't explain why or how it works really.

/Greven

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Greven


My rationalization is this..... (this is weak so don't kill me) Once upon a time there was a Boardgame by the name of Europa Universalis it had numbers of natives added to the map. These figures was adapted to this game. The number might have changed but in such case it was out of game balance reasons.

/Greven

You're right, that is weak! Still, I guess that's what you get with a semi-faithful board game conversion. It just feels strange when you know that the largest force the Iroquois ever managed to muster at one time was about 2200 warriors!

 

[Achiles]

Ok, if it is accurate then tell me why the hell there Fifty-Two-Thousand people in the city of Tunis in the GC!?!?

 

[Agelastus]

What's the problem with that? North Africa's been a fairly urban culture since Roman times-not even the Arab conquest really changed that. As for Tunis it's on the site of both Roman and Phoenician Carthage-it's been a major seaport/city since ancient times as the capital of Roman Africa. Outside of Egypt it's also the most fertile area of northern Africa, certainly before the French drainage schemes in neighbouring Algeria in the Nineteenth century.

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Achiles
Ok, if it is accurate then tell me why the hell there Fifty-Two-Thousand people in the city of Tunis in the GC!?!?

Because it was nearly 100 000 inhabitants there in 1550...
Cairo had 200 000 inhabitants in 1550...
Damascus had nearly 100 000 inhabitants in 1550...
Aleppo had 100 000 inhabitants in 1550...

/Greven

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


You're right, that is weak! Still, I guess that's what you get with a semi-faithful board game conversion. It just feels strange when you know that the largest force the Iroquois ever managed to muster at one time was about 2200 warriors!

Yeah but it is proportional to the ahem large ahem forces that one can bring there in the CG.

/Greven

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Greven


Yeah but it is proportional to the ahem large ahem forces that one can bring there in the CG.

/Greven

True!

Thanks for the city figures by the way-I give the historical reasons, you give the facts. What an equitable division of labour!

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by Agelastus


True!

Thanks for the city figures by the way-I give the historical reasons, you give the facts. What an equitable division of labour!

(lol) Splendid!!!

/Greven