North American tribes mod

[brandogoku]

I noticed that there was a weak amount of important tribes in North America, i was surprised how the Cree, and the Apache, Cheyenne and the Lakota and Dakota's where not featured as important native american nations, I have no idea if somebody is already taking this mod idea, if so, then I will probably just keep the mod for myself, but if not I will definitely release to the community. Anyways, the mod focuses on the Apache, and Cree, and Cheyenne, and Dakota/Lakota Native Nations, starting from 1444 I plan to have the Apache separated into small historical tribes, I plan to give them special events and missions but one mission will be to conquer all the tribes and establish the greater Apache tribe, I will also give the Apache a combat modifier I am not sure what it will be yet, but I plan too to simulate the Apache being every aggressive and powerful tribe they had important history raiding and fighting off the Yankees, and Spanish, mostly fighting off the Spanish and raiding keeping areas such as modern day western Texas hard to establish a good colony in for quite a few years because of the aggression they had. The Cree were also important in the northern areas of Eastern North America,, and the Cheyenne and Lakota/Dakota do not really have that much important history until the Victoria era, but the formation, and alliance treaties between the Cheyenne and the Dakota/Lakota can impact western North America if a European country colonizes that far west, and the European country could run into some temporary setbacks. I think these Tribes should be represented in this time era, as they influenced the colonization of North America quite a lot, although they end up being conquer easily by the Europeans they can make gaining choke points, and forming alliances with the Natives to send them against other great powers in North America quite fun and interesting. So, if there is anything you would like to see in this mod, I would enjoy to hear it!

 

[Rhysheart]

I worked on a similar mod for EU3. But i stopped work on it. Would love to see what you come up with.
Im currently doing other little things for EU4 to help reduce lag for people.

If you add a good amount of tribes, i think it would make for a more interesting america. It was rather dull in EU3 and from what you've said, has not changed

Cheyenne, Lakota / Dakota, Cree, Apache. Good Start but don't forget about the Navajo and maybe some others.

Good Luck, Ill be looking back here to see what you come up with.

 

[brandogoku]

So far I plan to add in this list of tribes.
- Navajo
- Comanche
- Apache
- Seminole
- Ottawa
- Cree
- Algonquian
- Beothuk
-The crow and the Sioux will be start as a separated tribes, but later on join in as the greater Lakota/Dakota Tribe
- Ojibwe
- Cheyenne
- Pawnee
Although this seems like a lot most tribes will be small, and will be conquered into other tribes

 

[Evie HJ]

The problem is, many of the tribes you're talking about only really formed their identity in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, and moved to the areas we now associate with them at around the same time. In the EU era, most of them lived much further east, and didn't yet have the horseback riding culture they would become famous for. This is especially true of the Cheyenne, who around 1500-1600, were likely still along the shores of the GReat Lakes. The Sioux were more recognizeable, but even they lived further east (Eastern Minnesota, Wisconsin) than the territories (Western Minnesota, Dakotas) they would become associated with. The Comanche (whom you didn't list) were also very far from Comancheria at the time: in the mountains of Wyoming/Montana/Idaho.

Moreover, the Cree...which Cree? You can't just make one big united Cree blob ranging from the Rockies to Ungava - the Crees were never united on that scale (or on any scale at all), and opposed very little military opposition to colonization.

Not to say that there's anything wrong with adding North American tribes (I wouldn't have done it back in Divine Wind if it wasn't a good idea in my opinion). Just that the tribes you named are probably not the best target for an EU-era game mod.

EDIT. From your expanded list :
- Navajo.
Definitely a strong candidate. Most historians agree they were where we know them by pretty early in the Europa era, and they interacted significantly with the Spanish. A reasonably strong sense of tribal identity, too (unlike, say, the Cree or Apache)

- Comanche
See above. Before 1700, they'd need to be far north in the Rockies - in provinces that are wasteland at game start. Probably a bad pick.

- Apache
The problem here is that the Apache were even less united than most tribes, who were already pretty disunited. But at least they don't need to migrate over the course of the game.

- Seminole
Basically didn't exist at all until the 18th century, when they formed from off-shots of Yamasee and Creek. Among the civilized tribes, it's the Chickasaw and Choctaw, not Seminoles, who are missing.

- Ottawa
A reasonable pick, but you could probably lump them together with the Ojibwe (and Potawatomi) in a "Three Fires" tag, after the Three Fires Confederacy. This would probably better enable them to resist the Irouois (as they should)

- Cree
A vast linguistic family. Which Cree are we looking at here?

- Algonquian
A linguistic family more than a single people. Never any shred of sign of tribal unity, except in that most of them rallied to French leadership. Probably best to leave their land open to colonization.

- Beothuk
Is it really worth it to spend a country tag on them?

-The crow and the Sioux will be start as a separated tribes, but later on join in as the greater Lakota/Dakota Tribe
The crow are not Lakota/Dakota that I know of. To the best of my knowledge, the Sioux split into the Lakota and Dakota...and that happened very late in the EU era.

- Ojibwe
See under Ottawa

- Cheyenne
Were you planning to have them start historically near Lake Superior? Like the comanche, the Cheyenne as we know them were non-existence before the 1700s.

- Pawnee
Probably the single most historical choice of a plains tribe. Fairly decent degree of unity by Native tribes standards. A good pick.

 

[brandogoku]

The Cheyenne were never further east they were always west according to this map http://geacron.com/en/?v=m&lang=en&z=4&x=-71.213371156305&y=39.939958626508&nd=9&d=1533A1535A1538A1568A1616A1618A1675A1710A1731A1737&di=1444&tm=p&ct=0&ly=yyyyyyy&fi=-500&ff=1500&sp=2&e=0&rp=0&re=0&nv=2 I understand that the Cree were never unified, I was not going to blob a big Cree Tribe in the North I was going to divide the Cree up, between the Mid west Cree, and the North east Cree, but because of the wasteland the North west Cree will not be featured in this mod. I see your point, so I should include.

- Three fires
- Cree mid west, and north east
- The Sioux
- Pawnee
- Navajo

 

[Evie HJ]

The Cheyenne were very much further east.

"Cheyenne (Tsistsistas) An important Algonkian tribe of the High Pains, whose earliest known home was present Minnesota between the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers, are the Cheyenne. They seem to ahve been in contact with La Salle's fort on the Illinois River in 1680. At this time, they lived in fixed villages, practice dagriculture and made pottery, but lost these arts after being driven out onto the plains to become nomadic bison hunters." - Encyclopedia of Native Tribes of North America (2007), "Cheyenne", p. 100.

The Atlas of the North American Indian, Third Edition (2009) state substantially the same thing - at the time of European contacts, the Cheyennes were not on the plains, but they moved on the plains much later from the North-East, along with most of the other plains group.

Similarly, I have in my collection of files on the topic a map from the National Atlas of Canada (5th edition) which places the main body of the Cheyenne population in Eastern North Dakota, between the Missouri and the Red River of the North, around 1740.

Honestly, I'm not sure focusing on the Plains or the far north is really doable: we know too little about what was going on in the Plains for much of the era.

The other thing to keep in mind is gameplay balance - would any of those nations be fun to play? If they're isolated, a single nation without any contact, then all they'll ever be is a speed bump for the AI and player.

Personally I'm much more heavily in favor of developing the eastern regions: lots of important tribes are missing there (like I said, Chickasaw, Choctaw), and they can actually form together an interesting region to play. In addition, because they were closer to the explorers, we have much better data on their location in the EU timeline. On the other hand, with the Plains, any group you would end up adding would be a little lonely.

But if you want to include additional tribes across the continent...that's a good start of a list. You could probably keep the Apache too (because you need a tribe in much of Texas); you may want to look into the Wichita tribe (for between the Pawnee and the Apache). The Pueblo people are probably also worth consideration.

 

[brandogoku]

I see... I guess that map was not as reliable as I thought. I think with the Navajo, the Apache, and the Pawnee as the plains tribes will not be that lonely if I balance it enough to have the tribes close together, I see your point on he east though so I will work on adding the Chickasaw, and Choctaw in the mod. I also have plans on adding the pueblo, but they seem to be conquered and converted pretty easily, before the revolt against the Spanish in 1680, but I will work on them too. I did not know about the Wichita though? I guess I will have to enlighten myself, thanks for the tips though! You helped a lot.

 

[Evie HJ]

You're welcome - this is something I've researched a lot for EU3. And I do intend to bring part of my research into the game, but focusing east of the Mississippi (because I also want to add stuff in Mexico, the Andes, Africa and Indonesia)

(The Pueblo should be in precisely because they got conquered easily - Europeans (usually Spain) SHOULD be able to conquer that part of the map, without having to colonize it.

 

[adecoy95]

does it really matter? they are all just waiting to be stomped by western countries anyways

 

[Evie HJ]

If it didn't matter to us, we wouldn't be talking about it here.

Besides which, many of the groups much nearer to the coast lasted until nearly or past 1800. That's not exactly "just waiting to be annexed" (which is Paradox going for hyper-simplified history)

 

[unmerged(671782)]

does it really matter? they are all just waiting to be stomped by western countries anyways

Might as well make Africa a blank slate then.
Anyways it was mostly just a handful of European countries doing colonizing. Might as well just make the others unplayable.
In fact it should just be a game about colonizing.
We can call it Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness.

 

[adecoy95]

Might as well make Africa a blank slate then.
Anyways it was mostly just a handful of European countries doing colonizing. Might as well just make the others unplayable.
In fact it should just be a game about colonizing.
We can call it Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness.

well from what i have seen of the videos out there, they are pretty unplayable as it is, i don't really see the loss in your idea

 

[Enewald]

You have to remember that while adding countries makes the map look far prettier, it also imbalances the game. You can just land your superior armies to NA and annex anything that you meet. You just conquered half of the continent in whack-an-indian wars.

 

[unmerged(671782)]

You have to remember that while adding countries makes the map look far prettier, it also imbalances the game. You can just land your superior armies to NA and annex anything that you meet. You just conquered half of the continent in whack-an-indian wars.

Would be the perfect time for your European neighbors to invade you though.

 

[Evie HJ]

In a properly designed mod, you would have just wasted your diplomatic and military points on taking lands that will be extremely hard to core and bring you very little because you have to build their economy from the ground up.

(In a properly designed vanilla game to. The only reason they aren't is because people at Paradox keep insisting on treating the NA natives as Aztecs)

 

[brandogoku]

So far what I plan to do with the Apache tribes is to split them up into there historical tribes, because the Apache were never unified, but to award the player for his/her hard work if they manage to conquer the other tribes or diplomatically annex the other tribes and manage to hold on to all of them for 10 years, they can get a special event to unify the Apache tribe, yes I know they were never unified in history but the player and possibly the AI, should still be allowed to unify the tribe if they work hard enough at it. Three fire, I think I will just keep the three tribes split up and give them both missions that lead to becoming the three fire, for game play purposes.