Another way to improve the new world is to put in more regarding European control of it after the conquests.
Petition to make New World nations actually playable.
- Thread starter illapa
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
This is where we're running into the problem. Laskaris presented some interesting ideas, but they're very theoretical and not all that relevant to improving the Americas. Most of his arguments are based on the long term technological growth of the Europeans, but that particular line of thinking only tells us about the Europeans and it doesn't tell us anything about anyone else. The new start date is roughly 1444 (IIRC), which means Europeans aren't going to be too far off of their starting tech when they discover the Americas. Likewise for the Natives and First Contact. So we need to not look so much at what particular tech rate is most efficient, but instead at what exactly everyone starts with. Native Americans currently don't have access to merchants, forts, buildings, ideas, military technology, or real governments. At least in Mesoamerica and the Andes they should have all of these things. Naval technology should be just about the only place where they should be lagging, but if New World nations are still modeled the same, then it won't matter because you won't be able to build ships anyway. These people had large armies, complex governments, big cities, and so on. We can't call it good historical gameplay to deny them these.
And those are just the gameplay factors. If we are to look at the historical set up in the Americas, then we've got another can of worms to open, because that too is incredibly messed up. I could go into exactly how, but the one main issue is this: the states in these areas are wrong. Even in 1444 the Andes shouldn't be united. That's the time when the Incas are rising. Mesoamerica should be much more divided. Much more. This is right after the Aztecs have started consolidating in Mesoamerica. Both of these scenarios are quite fun and interesting and it would be nice to see them not only exist as they should, but also be playable for that matter.
And this is where people disagree. Sure, they should have access to merchants, and to forts and to some buildings that nobody knows why players need to build them anyway (marketplace anyone?), but as for military technology...
Also, what do you mean by real governments? Feudal monarchy?
Ano 1453 lets start with them being tribal democracies in the current game. Anyone who even bothered to read the wikipedia articles would know that their governments were 1 sophisticated and 2 not democracies. Would it seriously be that difficult to make a tribal empire government type? Or to just give it feudal or despotic monarchy government types or just call it an empire outright in the case of the Inca. This whole tribes must be at war thing in the current game is ridiculous for natives. Iroquois were a confederacy that made great efforts to solve issues through talk. The South Eastern North American natives also weren't constantly at war any more than the rest of the world's states.
I understand that Divine Wind did many changes to the "tribal" governments but Old World Khanates and military focused tribes do not translate well to North America and only barely translate well to Central America (Look up Aztec flower wars if you want more info). Are those examples on the governments enough?
I understand that Divine Wind did many changes to the "tribal" governments but Old World Khanates and military focused tribes do not translate well to North America and only barely translate well to Central America (Look up Aztec flower wars if you want more info). Are those examples on the governments enough?
A great effort until they decided (almost in a player-like decision) to use the European alliances to launch the Beaver Wars and raid much of the Great Lakes coasts. It is actually very interesting and I'd love to try to reproduce the whole situation.
The Native Americans were very different from all the stereotypes. I remember in my history of Ohio classes learning that they were essentially a bunch of hippies but the reality was very, very far from the classes and stories.
No, and that is what I didn't understand, if you want them to have access to the European government types or just a new government type.
No need to get aggressive.
I don't think the Incas & Aztecs would have the same government type. Or, if they do, most of the provinces of the Aztecs would be OPM vassals rather than owned. However, I'm not sure the Aztecs had the concept of annexing and directly administering conquests, while the Incas clearly did. In that context, the Aztecs would again be a different government type that can't annex only vassalize.
I don't see how anyone mildly knowledgeable could disagree with anything here. The settled states of the Americas had armies, had barracks, had forts, had weapons, and had tactics. Were there necessarily as good as European versions? No, in most cases not, but that doesn't mean they're non-existent. Currently Native Americans can't even fight their own rebels because their technology and units are so bad. And by real governments I mean governments that historically fit them and aren't inherently terrible. Neither the Inca nor the Aztecs had particularly "bad" governments in real life, especially in the case of the Inca. Whether they're tribal or not is debatable, but ultimately they shouldn't be the same type of nation as Bedouins, Iroquois, or Mongols.
I always split them into two groups. "Tributary Empires" in Mesoamerica and "Tribal Kingdom" in the Andes. And the Aztecs did have a concept of annexing land. They usually vassalized stronger states and directly annexed less populated areas, usually the ones along important trade routes.
I read on this forum (it might have been in the history forum if i'm not mistaken) that the Inca were more or less vassals of Spain who got diplo-annexed rather than totally conquered at the start.
We agree then. Of course they had forts and weapons, and the like, that was never in discussion.
The only real reason I would like to see the America's reworked is not because I think the native Americans should be playable, rather so that their interactions with Europe are unique and present a better representation of colonization from a European standpoint.
The thing I dislike about EUIII is that the game is basically a race for Aztec, Inca, Maya etc because all those "colonies" are not treated like colonies at all. Sure they are a rebel nightmare for a while but as long as the player stations two armies (one to defend fort construction and another to play whack-a-rebel) it is a great investment.
In reality these conquests should be either abstracted into AI controlled expeditions or really expensive investments for the player to manage.
The thing I dislike about EUIII is that the game is basically a race for Aztec, Inca, Maya etc because all those "colonies" are not treated like colonies at all. Sure they are a rebel nightmare for a while but as long as the player stations two armies (one to defend fort construction and another to play whack-a-rebel) it is a great investment.
In reality these conquests should be either abstracted into AI controlled expeditions or really expensive investments for the player to manage.
Yeah I agree with you about the unhistorical nature of placing army stacks in overseas colonies. When did spain ever have more troops in the New World then at home? Maybe there should be a force limit on colonial armies. 200k french soldiers in jamaica seems far fetched.
That summarizes pretty well my opinion.
What I find difficult is to come up with an alternative that¨does not slow down unnecesarily the expansion in america and dont hide that most of conquistadors/explorers have basically been natural born plunderers or in the best case entrepreneurs.
mmmm, ... that doesnt sound that bad.
that might be an idea. you send an expedition to a territory with a john doe explorer. it costs more than the old conquistador characters because it has troops and sickness enough to destroy empires. when the guy gets in contact with a native country you lose control upon him (as it happened with Cortes, for instance) and he might turn to be an entrepreneur, an explorer, a diplomatic, giving different types of benefits from native countries or the guy turns berserk and conquers the land to be praised and hated. types might be affected by national ideas or slides or something else.
it´s not perfect but looks like a way of giving more chances to natives to survive and giving more tension to the adventure in new lands.
if you like it you may want to develop this better.
Well, here is one glaring weakness of EU3 as it stands anyway. There are way too many wars going on all through the game, all over the world. Why would the natives be any different? The game is far too sandbox in allowing wars IMO.
As for the topic at hand, while the American tribes (in the ai hands) currently exist as punching bags for the Europeans, that is also true of most ai nations in the game. The simple fact is that without more rigid restraints the big boys are going to stomp on the little nations as soon as they encounter them because they can. Without constraints on player/ai behavior that some will scream DETERMINISM!! about you can't alter this. Take a saved game at 1399 start, dissolve the HRE, and watch what happens to all the OPMs. Without the determinism of the HRE mechanics they have no hope. The ai is designed to blob at the expense of weaker nations so it is going to happen.
As far as being playable, the number of players with African Power and No Trail of Tears achievements demonstrates that in player hands nations starting in those scenarios are perfectly able to succeed. Is it fun to play them? Not really, having to abuse the stupid ai and/or cheesy mechanics isn't really fun. OTOH, it should be hard for those nations to succeed; the only real problem I see is how quickly they get eliminated, not that they eventually do.
@ alvaro Won't happen. Controlling your own explorers is a substantial part of the gameplay fun and a key part of the EU experience. People want to conquer the Aztecs themselves, not send people to the border and hope for some good dice rolls. In any event, you seem hung up on 'chances for the natives to survive'. The Aztecs and Inca didn't for very good reasons. In practice the only reason why an American native tribe is going to survive contact with the europeans is if the land they are on is of no value to them.
Re Governments, the chances of Paradox making a unique government type for one nation unless it was essential for gameplay is exactly nil, in part because as well as bonuses you then have to think about alternate options and upgrade path. That said what is there already could be improved. Also breaking up the Aztecs into 9 (or more) OPMs in gameplay terms means 9 separate peaces and possibly multiple DOWs, which among other things devalues the value of defeating the aztecs themselves.
Re Governments, the chances of Paradox making a unique government type for one nation unless it was essential for gameplay is exactly nil, in part because as well as bonuses you then have to think about alternate options and upgrade path. That said what is there already could be improved. Also breaking up the Aztecs into 9 (or more) OPMs in gameplay terms means 9 separate peaces and possibly multiple DOWs, which among other things devalues the value of defeating the aztecs themselves.
fair point. what i said is just an approach not a well founded idea.
about native nations what i had in mind is to provide chances of alternative history where natives give more trouble. i think that in the long run they had no chance of resisting european thirst for gold but imagine this scenario: spain sends a conquistador-explorer and portugal sends a trader-explorer grabing a big chunk of gold trade to Lisbon. spain tries to conquer the natives. portugal is not happy and allied with France attacks spain.
other than using the idea i proposed or something better designed, i think that complicating the relations and interactions with colonization and colonial conquest might help the experience.
But that is a bit of a strawman argument, isn't it? I don't remember anyone in this thread arguing that "all non-European nations should only exist to be curb stomped". This thread is specifically about the Americas. There are other non-European nations, like the Ottoman Empire or Ming China, who were major players during the era (the Ottomans did quite a bit of "stomping" on Europeans, if you remember). Technologically, they should be on par or even ahead of the Europeans around 1444, depending on what field of technology we are talking about. At the same time, they should probably have a slower growth rate, because (based on the factors I have mentioned) their cultures were not as open to innovation as the Europeans. Of course, a player should be free to try and reform this over time, in my view.
As for the Americas, the pre-Columbian civilizations in 1444 were among the least technologically advanced of all the "nations" that will be playable in EUIV, worse not just than the Europeans, but also worse than China, the Islamic world and so on. Of the playable nations in EUIV, only those in sub-Saharan Africa are worse off in terms of technology (I don't expect the Polynesians or the Australian Aborigines to be playable). This is a well-established historical fact, and the game should represent it, I think.
Actually, authors like Toby Huff deal extensively with the non-European cultures, analyzing their intellectual cultures, their institutions etc. and pointing out where and how they differed from their European counterparts. Or, if you want someone who focuses on geographical rather than cultural factors, you could take Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel (I don't agree with him on everything, but I believe the gist of his arguments is quite correct).
But let's not get into that whole debate again.
I fully agree. The pre-Columbian civilizations should have access to forts, buildings etc., it's just that their forts, buildings etc. should be worse (i.e. on a lower tech level) than their European counterparts. Which they historically were - for instance, the Aztecs would not have had the engineering know-how to build great cathedrals like the Europeans did at the time.
For the sake of gameplay, I think it should even be possible for a good human player of a pre-Columbian civilization to survive the European onslaught. It may be ahistorical, but what is the point of even having these nations in the game otherwise?
So, it seems to me that we are not actually that far apart in terms of what we want for the game. My main disagreement was simply with a commenter who claimed, several pages ago, that the pre-Columbian civilizations were "roughly equally advanced" as the Europeans at the time. Because that is just wrong.
I already said something similar at some point a while ago. I don't think we disagree on anything particularly relevant to the topic at hand: making the New World playable. Our only real difference seems to be more in the obviously speculative realm of "what ifs" when dealing with the Natives. Anyway, I never argued that they were "as advanced", but instead that they were merely comparable in terms of the types of civilizations. The two civilizations we are mainly focusing on were settled, urbanized, and agricultural, not disorganized, Stone Age tribes. Whether there was a distinct disadvantage for these nations is unquestionable. You've mentioned a number of inherent differences based on their disconnect from Eurasia, which I completely agree with. I've mentioned a number of cultural differences in things such religion and warfare. There's no arguing that they were exactly like Old World nations, but it's also just as bad to say they were so different that they shouldn't even be playable.