Petition to make New World nations actually playable.

[unmerged(548535)]

A good way to avoid too big armies in the new world would be that army would not resplenish if they are separated by water (or foreign enemy provinces) to a core-province.
I don't think it's normal that in provinces you occupy at 5000km from your core you can rebuild your army.

PS : The idea of 300 people conquering the whole new world is a pure myth, as it is proved that he used the divisions between the different "nations" to destroy the empire.
He was just a good tactician who used the nature of the human, the religiosity (and superstition) of the people to serve his interests.

The siege of Tenochtitlan was a huge battle, probably one of the greatest battles of all time with perhaps a half million of people involved and more death than most WWI battles. The 300 people of Cortez were nothing. Even with fairly superior weapons and horses, nobody can do anything against 10, 100, 1000 times more people, even if they only have their bare hands.

The treatment of PI of these country is insulting - some could say ethnocentric.

 

[FOARP]

Is this supposed to be a response to my post?

Yes. Forgive me if I have misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that Cajamarca is not a valid example of a battle, and therefore not an example of the kind of odds the Spanish were capable of over-turning through their technological advantages. I provide Otumba as an example of something that was indisputably a battle, but in which the Spanish overturned similar odds.

 

[Dafool]

The force led by Atahualpa at Cajamarca wasn't some helpless group of unarmed civilians. It was the main Inca army, marching back triumphantly from a victorious campaign. Pizarro launched a surprise attack on them, yes; the people he attacked first had left their weapons behind, yes; but the rest of the Inca army was right there and fully armed - yet they were swept up in the panic themselves.

"When the squadrons of Indians who had remained in the plain outside the town saw the other Indians fleeing and shouting, most of them too panicked and fled. It was an astonishing sight, for the whole valley for 15 or 20 miles was completely filled with Indians. Night had already fallen, and our cavalry were continuing to spear Indians in the fields, when we heard a trumpet calling for us to reassemble at camp."

I presume you'll claim that Pizarro cheated, and an ambush doesn't really count, and just because one army is defeated by another army on the field of combat doesn't make it a "battle"?

In all fairness, neither Pizarro not Atahualpa were planning any real fighting. Atahualpa wanted to see who the Spaniards were and what they were after and Pizarro specifically wanted to ambush and capture the Sapa Inca. When the Sapa Inca did meet him, it was done in a diplomatic fashion with only his unarmed guards. Pizarro then kills his guards, orders the hidden Spanish soldiers to open fire on unknowing Inca army, who then retreat in confusion only to be run down by cavalry, and Atahualpa is captured. It's not a battle in the normal sense of the word. Were there armies there? Yes. But were these armies in engaged knowingly in combat? No. Something like this would have been called an ambush or massacre in Europe. Otumba was a battle because the Aztecs were there to fight and actually fought. Cajamarca is not so much a battle because it started as diplomatic action and ended with an attack on a retreating army.

 

[StephenT]

Something like this would have been called an ambush or massacre in Europe.

It would have been called a massacre by the side that lost, sure. The side that won would call it a glorious military triumph. Europeans (and other nationalities they fought against) broke truces all the time. It was condemned as wrong and dishonourable, but that didn't stop them.

 

[Sun_Wu]

It would have been called a massacre by the side that lost, sure. The side that won would call it a glorious military triumph. Europeans (and other nationalities they fought against) broke truces all the time. It was condemned as wrong and dishonourable, but that didn't stop them.

Truces are just speed bumps in EU3

 

[Dafool]

It would have been called a massacre by the side that lost, sure. The side that won would call it a glorious military triumph. Europeans (and other nationalities they fought against) broke truces all the time. It was condemned as wrong and dishonourable, but that didn't stop them.

First off, Pizarro and the Inca weren't actually at war at this point. Secondly, it wasn't actually propositioned as a military confrontation, it was supposed to be a diplomatic meeting. Thirdly, the Spanish launched a premeditated attack on the Sapa Inca, his guard, and the Inca army without warning. It more or less screams ambush and massacre by any meaning of the words.

 

[Fawr]

First off, Pizarro and the Inca weren't actually at war at this point. Secondly, it wasn't actually propositioned as a military confrontation, it was supposed to be a diplomatic meeting. Thirdly, the Spanish launched a premeditated attack on the Sapa Inca, his guard, and the Inca army without warning. It more or less screams ambush and massacre by any meaning of the words.

I'd say that you can judge the quality of an army (the sort of thing which should be in game, and which makes one army beat another) by how it responds to unexpected situations. By that measure the Inca did particually poorly. To me it doesn't matter if it was a battle, an ambush or a massacre. I'd use the same rational about the effectiveness of the Protestants in France as a military force by talking about Bartholomew's Day.

 

[Dafool]

I'd say that you can judge the quality of an army (the sort of thing which should be in game, and which makes one army beat another) by how it responds to unexpected situations. By that measure the Inca did particually poorly. To me it doesn't matter if it was a battle, an ambush or a massacre. I'd use the same rational about the effectiveness of the Protestants in France as a military force by talking about Bartholomew's Day.

I'd perhaps agree if the army were actually engaged in combat or even aware that the Spanish were hostile. Instead they were attacked in the middle of a diplomatic meeting. The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre was the result of long standing tension. There is a bit of difference between a tense situation exploding into chaotic violence and a well set trap resulting in a massive defeat.

 

[Talq]

Ambushes are still fights, and depending on numbers, battles. While the result may have been a 'massacre' in one sense of the word, people carrying weapons are not civilians so killing them isn't 'unfair'.

And I'm not sure what key point is being made here. If a similar stunt had been pulled in Europe, Atahualpa's army wouldn't have been routed, and Pizzaro and his men would probably have been killed.

 

[Dafool]

Ambushes are still fights, and depending on numbers, battles. While the result may have been a 'massacre' in one sense of the word, people carrying weapons are not civilians so killing them isn't 'unfair'.

The original claim was that Cajamarca was a clear example of Native forces suffering massive casualties and total defeat in battle at the hands of the Spanish. This ignores the entire context of the situation and most of what actually happens as the events unfold. You could certainly argue that an ambush is a type of fighting, but generally they are not considered battles unless two organized forces engage each other. The Inca army was not there to fight the Spanish and they ultimately didn't fight the Spanish. Instead, having had no idea what was happening, they fled. This was a poor albeit natural reaction, but in the end there really wasn't much of a battle. It was ultimately a clear loss for the Inca, but it was not a loss due to their martial ability and thus we can't draw many conclusions about the military capabilities of the Inca from it.

And I'm not sure what key point is being made here. If a similar stunt had been pulled in Europe, Atahualpa's army wouldn't have been routed, and Pizzaro and his men would probably have been killed.

It's actually kind of funny for you to phrase it like that, because Pizarro did think he had walked into a deathtrap when he saw the Inca army. It was only after Atahualpa proposed a separate meeting away from armed forces that Pizarro knew he could set a trap that would give him a chance for survival.

 

[geodejade87]

The Inca army wasn't going to charge Pizarro after he'd taken the emperor hostage. The emperor had an almost god-like status to the Inca, and they wouldn't have done anything that could have put his life in danger. Plus, I'm skeptical of the whole narrative because archaeologists have already debunked the Spanish account of the Battle of Cuzco. (Most of the casualties in Manco Inca Yupanqui's army were killed by Indian weapons, in direct contradiction to the conquistadors' account). Pizarro's men were writing their accounts at a time when the King of Spain was trying to prevent the conquistadors from becoming a new aristocracy by denying them land grants, so these testimonies were politically motivated.

This Jared Diamond-esque view of the conquest as being driven primarily by technology is just factually wrong. The first two conquistadors to enter Mesoamerica were Francisco Hernandez de Cordoba and Juan de Grijalva. Both of them got the shit kicked out of them by the Maya. The last independent Mesoamerican city-state to fall to the Spanish was Tayasal, and they held out until 1697. The conquest of the Aztec and Inca empires was more about smallpox the Spanish playing native factions off of each other. It would seem to me that if you were to program these factors into the game, you could make the native factions way more advanced but still give europe the tactical edge. Everybody wins. I'm not sure why this idea is so unpopular.

 

[Fawr]

Plus, I'm skeptical of the whole narrative because archaeologists have already debunked the Spanish account of the Battle of Cuzco. (Most of the casualties in Manco Inca Yupanqui's army were killed by Indian weapons, in direct contradiction to the conquistadors' account). Pizarro's men were writing their accounts at a time when the King of Spain was trying to prevent the conquistadors from becoming a new aristocracy by denying them land grants, so these testimonies were politically motivated.

That sounds to me like you are ignoring all the primary sources which don't agree with your version of history. If 5 minutes of google doesn't make mention of any controversy between the archaeological record and the written reports in Spanish then you need to say who your sources are.

The Inca army wasn't going to charge Pizarro after he'd taken the emperor hostage. The emperor had an almost god-like status to the Inca, and they wouldn't have done anything that could have put his life in danger.

Back on topic, the strengh of an army is based on its weakest component. If the capture of a leader results in an army's value going from huge to trivial then thats a serious weakness, and needs to be taken into account when you talk about the strengh of an army. You can't just assume that the spanish will fight ahistorically fairly.

 

[Dafool]

Back on topic, the strengh of an army is based on its weakest component. If the capture of a leader results in an army's value going from huge to trivial then thats a serious weakness, and needs to be taken into account when you talk about the strengh of an army. You can't just assume that the spanish will fight ahistorically fairly.

The problem is there is a certain double standard created by hindsight. When I brought up La Noche Triste earlier, this was StephenT's response:

The Noche Triste was a defeat for the Spanish in México because they were caught totally by surprise, in the middle of a city where their advantages in cavalry were useless.

There seems to be a trend where people feel there was a fair degree of certainty that Natives were going to be defeated, but when the Spanish faced similarly crushing defeats it's a matter them merely being put in a bad position. If La Triste Noche was merely lost because the situation was unfavorable to the Spanish, then why can't we take a similar approach to the explaining Native defeats? Or if you look at it the other way and say that context is important in a battle, then you must also admit that the Spanish had no advantage which could guarantee them victory since there were clearly factors outside their control which allowed them to be defeated.

I'm mainly arguing that we can't count every Native defeat as being purely military. There were complex political and cultural forces at work as well. Admitting that some cannons and horses couldn't win these wars alone isn't surrendering European superiority, but some people seem just downright offended at the idea that Natives could actually challenge the Spaniards from time to time.

 

[geodejade87]

Back on topic, the strengh of an army is based on its weakest component. If the capture of a leader results in an army's value going from huge to trivial then thats a serious weakness, and needs to be taken into account when you talk about the strengh of an army. You can't just assume that the spanish will fight ahistorically fairly.

There are numerous examples of battles between Eurasian armies where a king gets captured or killed and the army routs. I'd like to think Europa already accounts for events like that in its battle mechanics. What I'd suggest is something resembling an event that triggers when Europeans first make contact that causes massive population/manpower loss and a string of rebellions. Then you could lower the tech gap and still have the same outcome. But that way playing a native faction during the conquest period could be more about holding together a crumbling empire than throwing waves of peasants at a group of invincible conquistadors.

That sounds to me like you are ignoring all the primary sources which don't agree with your version of history. If 5 minutes of google doesn't make mention of any controversy between the archaeological record and the written reports in Spanish then you need to say who your sources are.

It's pretty well established. The original research on this battle was published in spanish:
Espinoza Soriano, Waldemar
1972 Los Huanacas, aliados de la conquista: Tres informaciones inéditas sobre la participación indígena en la conquista del Perú. 1558-1560-1561. Anales Cientificos de la Universidad del Centro del Perú. 1:2-407.

There's a number of English Language sources that talk about it though:

1. National geographic did a a documentary about it. It's also available on netflix.

2. The Incas, by Terrence D'Altroy – the premiere expert on the Inca in the United States talks about it in his chapter on the conquest.

3. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, Chapter 3 is devoted entirely to the underrepresentation of native allies in the historical records.

 

[StephenT]

There seems to be a trend where people feel there was a fair degree of certainty that Natives were going to be defeated, but when the Spanish faced similarly crushing defeats it's a matter them merely being put in a bad position. If La Triste Noche was merely lost because the situation was unfavorable to the Spanish, then why can't we take a similar approach to the explaining Native defeats?

Mostly because when an army of 50,000 men defeats an army of a few hundred men, it doesn't really need much explanation. But when it's the other way around - and when it happens not just once as a fluke but multiple times - you do need to look for the reason.

 

[Fawr]

There's a number of English Language sources that talk about it though:

1. National geographic did a a documentary about it. It's also available on netflix.

2. The Incas, by Terrence D'Altroy – the premiere expert on the Inca in the United States talks about it in his chapter on the conquest.

3. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest, Chapter 3 is devoted entirely to the underrepresentation of native allies in the historical records.

Thanks for those links, they so far I've read the whole transcript for #1, but getting & reading the other two will take longer.

In summary of #1 they found a graveyard where there was a layer of dead who looked to be buried without normal Inca burial customs (which is unique). The dead looked war dead, and while there is evidence of iron sword wounds and gunshot wounds there are also some killed by stone clubs.

From this the conclusion is that the Spanish had help from local allies (like what happened in Mexico).

Like most TV shows it left some unanswered questions and then made some additional bolder claims without any backup for them (I need to read the books). Were there it dozens or thousands of Inca helping the Spanish? Which side were these dead fighting on (allies of the Spanish who died would have been killed by stone clubs too)? Were they killed in battle, or were they civilians? Were the dead all at the same time, or were they 10, 20, 50 years later?

 

[Dafool]

Mostly because when an army of 50,000 men defeats an army of a few hundred men, it doesn't really need much explanation. But when it's the other way around - and when it happens not just once as a fluke but multiple times - you do need to look for the reason.

But once more you've repeated the problem. You're arguing that there was something concrete that governed the Native losses, while something intangible like luck governed the Spanish losses. You simply can't hold that double standard and hope to make a consistent argument.

If it was luck that governed things, then why does this apply to the Spanish only? Why can't we look at luck and other uncontrollable circumstances when examining Native defeats?

If luck has nothing to do with it and Spanish prowess and technology carried the day, then how could the Spanish have actually lost a battle? If it's because those advantages are dependent on the Spanish being able to utilize them, doesn't that imply that they were entirely defeatable?

 

[geodejade87]

Thanks for those links, they so far I've read the whole transcript for #1, but getting & reading the other two will take longer.

In summary of #1 they found a graveyard where there was a layer of dead who looked to be buried without normal Inca burial customs (which is unique). The dead looked war dead, and while there is evidence of iron sword wounds and gunshot wounds there are also some killed by stone clubs.

From this the conclusion is that the Spanish had help from local allies (like what happened in Mexico).

Like most TV shows it left some unanswered questions and then made some additional bolder claims without any backup for them (I need to read the books). Were there it dozens or thousands of Inca helping the Spanish? Which side were these dead fighting on (allies of the Spanish who died would have been killed by stone clubs too)? Were they killed in battle, or were they civilians? Were the dead all at the same time, or were they 10, 20, 50 years later?

Basically, the point was that when you read the Spanish accounts they describe the Spaniards charging headfirst (alone) into the Inca army, killing Manco Inca, and the rest of the Inca army disintegrates. The archaeological research carried out over the last 30 years paints a different story. The battle was more like a prolonged siege, and most of the fighting was Indian on Indian. This is the norm across the Americas. These conquests were more like civil wars, the Spaniards played native factions against each other for their own benefit. EU3 doesn't show that, it makes it look like the europeans march in with guns and horses and slaughter the natives with no effort whatsoever.

I feel like we're deviating way off topic here. When I read this thread, I see two common arguments being lobbed back and forth:

1. The American Indian civilizations/empires should be more advanced (i.e., not "Tribal" and with more population/base tax), more realistic, and more fun to play.

2. Europe should win by default. Given that the conquest was so instrumental in shaping the history of this time period, it should happen by default 9 times out of 10 (barring player intervention).

I'm having a hard time seeing why these two goals are mutually exclusive. Even if Cortés and Pizarro were killed (which could have easily happened), smallpox killed 50% of the population of Mexico in the first outbreak, 70% over a few years, and 90% of the entire Americas over 100 years. No civilization can survive that – that's an apocalypse. Look at the devastation that the bubonic plague wrought on Europe only a century or so before, and that had a 30% casualty rate. This was three times more deadly than the Black Death. Yeah, the initial conquests by Cortes and Pizarro might have been flukes, but somebody else would have showed up eventually, and with a larger army. It would have been a longer, bloodier conquest, but the end result would have been the same. If they made the conquest more realistic in EU4, you could make the native factions more advanced without screwing up the game for European players.

 

[Dafool]

I'm having a hard time seeing why these two goals are mutually exclusive. Even if Cortés and Pizarro were killed (which could have easily happened), smallpox killed 50% of the population of Mexico in the first outbreak, 70% over a few years, and 90% of the entire Americas over 100 years. No civilization can survive that – that's an apocalypse. Look at the devastation that the bubonic plague wrought on Europe only a century or so before, and that had a 30% casualty rate. This was three times more deadly than the Black Death. Yeah, the initial conquests by Cortes and Pizarro might have been flukes, but somebody else would have showed up eventually, and with a larger army. It would have been a longer, bloodier conquest, but the end result would have been the same. If they made the conquest more realistic in EU4, you could make the native factions more advanced without screwing up the game for European players.

I completely agree with your general points here. The problem mainly stems from the belief by a few people that the Natives should generally not be playable at all. That the game should more or less end when the Europeans show up. That there shouldn't be anything beyond that. I feel that the conquests of the Natives should be handled like any other conflict in EU4, one where you make decisions and mistakes and have to deal with the outcomes. It should never be an auto-lose situation where the player had no input.

 

[StephenT]

When I read this thread, I see two common arguments being lobbed back and forth:

1. The American Indian civilizations/empires should be more advanced (i.e., not "Tribal" and with more population/base tax), more realistic, and more fun to play.

The counter argument to that is not that the native Americans should "lose by default" - but that by giving them more advanced tech than they had historically, you'd be making them less realistic and less fun to play.

At the moment, playing a native American nation in EU3 is a big challenge - but it's possible to win through with skilled play, and you feel a sense of achievement when you make it. What some people are arguing for is to make them basically European nations except with more obsidian and feathers, that have almost the same capabilities - and so playing them would be pretty much the same as playing a European power. In which case why bother?