Look, I'm only a mediocre player and I managed to conquer Europe as the Aztecs
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.
yes. somehow 200k french soldiers landing on a desert island seems weird to me
, they need to make sure that doesn't happen.
Wrong and wrong.
It would have been incredibly unlikely for the Spanish to come back anytime soon if Cortes had failed. Not only was Cortes acting illegally on the risk that his venture might yield enough treasure to clear his name, but it was also a complete unknown to the Spanish, who had no idea that the Aztecs even existed. If Cortes had perished, chances are that more Spanish adventures wouldn't have shown up for at least a few years, if not a decade or more.
The diseases that hit the Native Americans were bad. There's no denying that, but ultimately the terrible rates of 95% are averages from over 300 years. The diseases initially wiped out around 40-60% of the Natives that were exposed. That sounds bad, but many areas of Europe had faced a similar rate in the 14th century and Europe didn't collapse into nothingness. So we can't view the diseases as handing the Americas over to the Europeans the instant they show up.
Seeing as how im eurocentric, i could care less about what they do to the new world nations
i just want their land.
i just want their land.
Dafool! You should post more, that was some cool info. :ja:
I reckon that if the first batch of Conquistadores were killed, the Aztecs would learn from the situation and prepare properly when the next batch came. No Spanish conquest, but possibly a Christianised, Mexican-speaking state would result, one which might fall under colonial influence later.
Uh I built up my treasury, set up sliders and fought off the Europeans with overwhelming numbers, then since the only got one province I westernised (you know you can invest in stability right?) from there I tided up stability, built up a navy and invaded with my European level units.
The disease didn't hand it over no, but it's a HELL of a lot easier fighting an army suffering from a truly vicious plague which your own side is damn near immune to. Ignoring the attrition of the army you have to factor in the massive blow to logistics and administrative structure. Suddenly your food production drops and your crop yields are rotting away because you don't have the manpower to harvest/sow.
Sure, you can recover, but having a vicious rampaging army attacking you at this time makes said recovery a hell of a lot harder.
Without disease I doubt those tiny armies would have had a shot in hell to do what they did, it's not the only factor but it's a pretty staggering advantage to have on your side.
Sure, you can recover, but having a vicious rampaging army attacking you at this time makes said recovery a hell of a lot harder.
Without disease I doubt those tiny armies would have had a shot in hell to do what they did, it's not the only factor but it's a pretty staggering advantage to have on your side.
Exactly. I'd argue all day that the diseases should make the Natives much easier to conquer. They are probably the number one reason the Spanish could pull off those conquests. The problem is that this is a unique and therefore one time event. We'll never know exactly what would have happened if the Spanish hadn't immediately pushed their advantage. That's the fun of EU3 and hopefully EU4 though. We can play out those scenarios and see what happens.
The NA nations surviving isn't historically plausible. The Aztecs could have beaten back Cortez, yes, but he was just one man with an extrodinarily small army. If he could beat them, the force of an actual Spanish invasion force would have smashed them. The same can be said of most other nations.
And even if Spain completely fell apart, the NA would have likely fallen to another European nation. The Europeans' tech advantage only grew during the period, so the latter the year the less ability the NA nations' would have to resist.
And even if Spain completely fell apart, the NA would have likely fallen to another European nation. The Europeans' tech advantage only grew during the period, so the latter the year the less ability the NA nations' would have to resist.
It shouldn't be Plausible for an AI native nation to survive, but neither should they be complete push overs.
Once more, let me restate this: In the case of Cortes failing, it becomes much less likely that the Spanish are going to immediately send another force back into Mesoamerica, let alone a larger force. His venture was costly, risky, illegal, and outside of Spanish control. And also, the tech advantage of Europeans over just about anybody else in the world only becomes noticeably apparent in the 17th and 18th century. Technology had very little to do with their quick victory. If the Spanish haven't invaded the Aztecs by the 1600's (when that technology might have been relevant) then there's absolutely no reasonable connection between that context and the actual context in which those conquests actually happened.
Central and South American nations I agree. North American Tribes are a no until later on in the game where the Iroquois confederacy created.
The engineering feats achieved by the Aztec and others are impressive that doesn't make them advanced. Like the Egyptians the Aztec pyramids and aqueducts are impressive mostly because of the amount of labor they managed to harness in building them, the actual technique used in their build though is not particular advanced, as you point out they didn't even make use of the wheel in engineering.
As I said luck works as an explanation for one Spanish conquest how do you explain the others? They just kept getting lucky is a weak argument. Admittedly there was an element of luck in when the Cortes faced the Aztecs but it wasn't luck that lead to many of the other native nations taking the Spanish side in the conflict, it was a weakness in the Aztec's tributary system with is neighbors. You mention reading the writing of the Conquistador, I think this an important point, Pizarro could read the reports of Cortes and plan his attack, the Inca had no writing system and the Aztecs had a proto-writing system. This gives the European countries a huge advantage in knowledge of who they were facing.
I just don't think it's realistic that starting when the game does the American nations would be able to advance enough to withstand the Europeans in the long run. It's certainly possible they could have done better than they did but even if say La Noche Triste had ended with the Aztecs killing Cortes they weren't going to magically learn advanced metallurgy. The Europeans would eventually come back better armed and better prepared.
All that said I agree that they way they play isn't realistic or historical (although that could be said about a number of countries even some in Europe) and I still support making them a more interesting experience for somebody to play.
The Aztecs constructed one of the largest cities in the world and kept it fed with a complex agricultural system. The Inca built earthquake proof cities and managed to create farming networks on mountainsides. These are fairly impressive feats. I'm not arguing that the natives were more capable than Europeans in most cases, but Europeans were still building with stone and wood, their cities were still small and humble, and their impressive constructions were not particularly amazing when compared with any part of the world. My point is that there's very little argument that Europeans were more capable than the Natives in most of the normal aspects of society and culture.
It's not a weak argument. It's an observation made by many modern historians and even by the people who were involved in these events. And the Inca had the Quipu, which was essentially a form a record keeping. The Aztecs had a form a proto-writing, in which they could keep track of their history, religious practices, and knowledge. You could say that Europeans have a longer written heritage, but given that somewhere around 2% of Europeans were literate during this time, that hardly gives them an advantage. And especially when you consider that the Conquistadors came from the soldier class, the vast majority of them were illiterate. Also, Cortes's experience would have been of little value to Pizarro. Not only was the area completely different, but the circumstances and timing was much different as well.
Like I said, you're projecting a picture of Native Americans as simpletons with no technological advancements. Europe, at least at this point, was no more advanced than just about any other part of the world. If you take away shipbuilding and metallurgy, two fields where Native Americans had little interest, there's just about nothing that the Europeans were indisputably more advanced at.
This I obviously agree with, but I feel like trying to paint a picture of stone age Natives will only result in something similar to what we have now. It's only once we get a decent understanding of the historical situation that we can begin to add something remotely accurate to the game.
The problem is that the new world nations are annexed fairly quickly, where if you look in the history files it took an extended amount of time to conquer inland
That makes sense. I guess it's not such a given that the Spanish would try again so soon.
History discussions are awesome.
Probably the best part about these forums. Then we just have to hope the game turns out to be as interesting as these discussions
I would at this point in time, like to point out that the No trail of tears achievement in EU3 is staggeringly easy if you just abuse how dumb the AI is. Personally once I discovered it's weakness and used it to ruin their chances of colonizing NA while westernizing, I was able to create a massive westernized NA colonial nation that made every single European power look feeble.
My point here is, the AI doesn't stand a chance vs European powers, but you as the player do. Let's just be honest, unless the AI is programmed to westernize asap it will die and anything else would be silly. I'm not saying it should be no effort, it should be costly and so forth but it isn't the individual arms that make it hard.
What makes it hard is the cost and attrition of sending troops and if you are defeated by the natives then it should be through vastly superiour numbers. That will make it as it was.
The player character will still be able to exploit AI weaknesses and pre-knowledge of history (remember, they didn't know about Europe, you do! You will spend hundreds of years preparing for this EXACT scenario).
So you can make yourself an american superpower as a native power...if you're a masochist, sure, it'll be possible. But the natives are not going to defeat European powers, oh they might push back a stupid and poorly planned force, but they're not going to be in this for the long haul.
Look at China in EU3, big, mighty, organiced and yet...I don't know about you guys, but I've amused myself plenty of times slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their poorly equipped troops with my colonial forces. Which may sound imbalanced but does tend to mirror reality as well.
The american powers have nothing on china, china blows them out of the water, yet china itself in EU3 must see itself a victim to European aggression.
Let's just face it guys, for the last thousand years we (the Europeans and those of European ancestry among us, yes Americans you count as well, you're a colony not a real country) were damn good at butchering, conquering and submitting our fellow human beings.
There were a lot of things we failed miserably at but during the period of this game Europe was a steamroller of total helldeath and if this game is to remain even remotely accurate then it just will not be balanced across the globe.
The only realistic challenger to Europe in this period were the Muslims in the middle east, north africa and Turkey. Any other nations had the single advantage of geography, which can indeed be a powerful ally but isn't going to cut it when the troops are finally lined up.
My point here is, the AI doesn't stand a chance vs European powers, but you as the player do. Let's just be honest, unless the AI is programmed to westernize asap it will die and anything else would be silly. I'm not saying it should be no effort, it should be costly and so forth but it isn't the individual arms that make it hard.
What makes it hard is the cost and attrition of sending troops and if you are defeated by the natives then it should be through vastly superiour numbers. That will make it as it was.
The player character will still be able to exploit AI weaknesses and pre-knowledge of history (remember, they didn't know about Europe, you do! You will spend hundreds of years preparing for this EXACT scenario).
So you can make yourself an american superpower as a native power...if you're a masochist, sure, it'll be possible. But the natives are not going to defeat European powers, oh they might push back a stupid and poorly planned force, but they're not going to be in this for the long haul.
Look at China in EU3, big, mighty, organiced and yet...I don't know about you guys, but I've amused myself plenty of times slaughtering hundreds of thousands of their poorly equipped troops with my colonial forces. Which may sound imbalanced but does tend to mirror reality as well.
The american powers have nothing on china, china blows them out of the water, yet china itself in EU3 must see itself a victim to European aggression.
Let's just face it guys, for the last thousand years we (the Europeans and those of European ancestry among us, yes Americans you count as well, you're a colony not a real country) were damn good at butchering, conquering and submitting our fellow human beings.
There were a lot of things we failed miserably at but during the period of this game Europe was a steamroller of total helldeath and if this game is to remain even remotely accurate then it just will not be balanced across the globe.
The only realistic challenger to Europe in this period were the Muslims in the middle east, north africa and Turkey. Any other nations had the single advantage of geography, which can indeed be a powerful ally but isn't going to cut it when the troops are finally lined up.