Petition to make New World nations actually playable.

[Dafool]

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?

Frankly that's Illapa. Most of have been arguing that Natives should essentially be like a very backward Old World nation in terms of gameplay. Currently there are a few specific rules unrelated to history that are used to nerf the New World. So no, the bad but not unusable units and 30% research rate I mentioned earlier are not the same thing as making "them basically European nations except with more obsidian and feathers". The ability to survive as the Natives, once more, is not a declaration that their gameplay is sound.

 

[geodejade87]

Obviously their military and naval technology was vastly inferior to that of Europeans. I don't think anybody is arguing against that. But I don't see how that should translate to inferior Government, Production, or Trade technology. In these areas, I would argue, the Mesoamericans/Andeans were comparable to their contemporaries in Eurasia. That's not really disputable – even the conquistadors themselves acknowledged that in their accounts of the conquest. (For example, see Bernal Diaz del Castillo's description of the Great Market at Tlatelolco; he describes it as larger and better organized than similar markets in Spain).

Civilizations are not pokemon. They don't move through a series of technological stages where they "level up" from Stone Age to Bronze Age or whatever. (Though I understand that for a video game this kind of breakdown is necessary for simplicity's sake). Advancements in one kind of technology do not necessarily translate to advancements in another, and the American Indian civilizations are a case in point. The argument is pretty much irrelevant though, since we have no idea how technology is going to function in EU4. It might be that they decide to split up the tech research rates so that the Aztecs/Inca can take heavy penalties to Land/Naval without similar impediments on the others.

 

[Fawr]

So long as we all scrach this point from the OP I'd be mostly happy. If noone is arguing it anymore then thats good.

2nd: The fact that it was historically plausible for them to have not only survived but beat back European invasions to be shown in game. The Spanish were only able to take advantage of EXTREMELY unlikely political situations to divide and conquer. The player, since he knows what is coming, should be able to prevent those incredibly unlikely scenarios and save his realm.

Obviously their military and naval technology was vastly inferior to that of Europeans. I don't think anybody is arguing against that. But I don't see how that should translate to inferior Government, Production, or Trade technology.

To me a large market is more about a large population, and less about trade tech. To me trade tech includes stuff like the abiltiy to build trading ships which can sail from Portugal to India in the early 1500s, and then make a profit on the trade. However you would have to ask the devs what exactly they think of as trade tech. I know the COT mechanic is changing, but I think it would be flawed if EU3 trade tech let the Aztec trade in the Lisbon COT as soon as they were discovered by the Portugese. They just didn't have the ships to do that.

Similarly production tech in the 1500s to me encompases things like printing presses. Its no accident that languages which aren't alphabets are the ones where there are technology minuses.

For government tech I'll try to quote Matthew Restall's book which geodejade87 recomended, where he concludes why if the seven myths were myths the Americas ended up conqured by Spain:

The second great ally of the conquistadors was native disunity in its many forms and manifestations. Native American identiy was highly localized; native peoples saw themselves as members of particular communities or city-states, very seldom as members of larger ethnic groups and certainly not as anything even approaching the category of "Indians" or "Natives". The nature of native identity was thus the root of a native disunity that the invaders encoraged to blossom.

To me a better simulation of the Native Americans would have to include that. I see government tech as a road towards the nation state so I'd include this in there, rather than invent a new mechanic. But again thats a game designer thing.

 

[unmerged(424342)]

Though I agree that New World nations are rather unfun to play as, they can easily be tweaked to your liking with a modicum of work and effort in a user mod.
Then again, you'll be playing a nation designed to your liking, which may not be as "fair" as you feel.

 

[geodejade87]

To me a large market is more about a large population, and less about trade tech. To me trade tech includes stuff like the abiltiy to build trading ships which can sail from Portugal to India in the early 1500s, and then make a profit on the trade. However you would have to ask the devs what exactly they think of as trade tech. I know the COT mechanic is changing, but I think it would be flawed if EU3 trade tech let the Aztec trade in the Lisbon COT as soon as they were discovered by the Portugese. They just didn't have the ships to do that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't trade range governed by Naval tech in EU3 for exactly that reason? Trade technology only impacts things like trade efficiency and compete chance. That's more about efficient distribution of resources, control over monetary policy, etc.

Similarly production tech in the 1500s to me encompases things like printing presses. Its no accident that languages which aren't alphabets are the ones where there are technology minuses.

Ah, see for me, production refers to how efficiently they're able to extract resources and transform them into finished products. Things like agricultural yield and textile manufacture fall under that category. And in those respects, Mesoamericans could compete with medieval Europe.

For government tech I'll try to quote Matthew Restall's book which geodejade87 recomended, where he concludes why if the seven myths were myths the Americas ended up conqured by Spain:

To me a better simulation of the Native Americans would have to include that. I see government tech as a road towards the nation state so I'd include this in there, rather than invent a new mechanic. But again thats a game designer thing.

You could also make similar arguments about the disunity of France and Germany in this time period, but they don't get lower government tech than the rest of Europe. They're just decentralized and have less control over their provinces. Government tech is about institutions and bureaucracies. The Aztecs had a really sophisticated bureaucracy. They had a court system and mandatory public schools – even universities in some of the major cities. The Inca were also similar in their bureaucratic sophistication, but they had much more control over their provinces. The Inca disunity had to do with the smallpox-instigated civil war that the spanish walked into.

The debate is moot, though. They've already said that they're revamping their tech system, and the dev team isn't reading this thread anyways.

 

[Fawr]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't trade range governed by Naval tech in EU3 for exactly that reason? Trade technology only impacts things like trade efficiency and compete chance. That's more about efficient distribution of resources, control over monetary policy, etc.
...
The debate is moot, though. They've already said that they're revamping their tech system, and the dev team isn't reading this thread anyways.

In EU3 Trade range is based on trade tech. Colony range is based on naval tech.

I agree there isn't much point on a 50 page discussion that noone who can change anything will read... Particually when we don't know what is included in tech and what isn't.

 

[Valens Bellator]

Dear lord I've done it! It took three days, but I've finally read all 41 pages.

First off, I had no idea that the nature of "facts" allowed for such a great variety of contradictions! I'm also fairly surprised that so many individuals that claim to be professional historians use phrases like "it's simply a fact" which are immediately thereafter followed by complete conjecture. If I recall correctly, the first "no-no" you learn in the universities is to refer to opinions and conjecture as "fact". I won't name any names of course, but you guys might want to stop throwing that word around with such flippant bravado.

Unfortunately, having actually read all 41 pages, I find that there's little left to contribute to this thread. While I doubt Paradox will provide an accurate representation of the Aztecs, Inca and Mayans to the degree that Dafool and others want, there will be the added "Coalition Warfare" mechanic in this next game. While we have not heard much about it yet, such a mechanic has the potential to rather accurately represent the means by which Cortez and such actually conquered the natives without needing to nerf said natives into irrelevance. While it would likely require a mod like the one Dafool made to bring these little city-states into existence (an excellent mod, btw), a Coalition Mechanic, properly implemented, could carry it from there.

I suppose it all depends on how Coalitions will work in EUIV, but it could provide for far more realistic clashes between the old and new worlds. From what I understand at this point it is supposed to be triggered by an upset of the balance of power in a region, and initially this would make it seem unlikely to be applicable to these circumstances. If this balance is based on regions, however, then it seems highly likely that some small subjugated states might be perfectly willing to side with the distant Spanish over the adjacent Aztecs. It really all depends on just how much work Paradox puts into the Diplomatic options of this game.

 

[Colombo]

Dear lord I've done it! It took three days, but I've finally read all 41 pages.

First off, I had no idea that the nature of "facts" allowed for such a great variety of contradictions! I'm also fairly surprised that so many individuals that claim to be professional historians use phrases like "it's simply a fact" which are immediately thereafter followed by complete conjecture. If I recall correctly, the first "no-no" you learn in the universities is to refer to opinions and conjecture as "fact". I won't name any names of course, but you guys might want to stop throwing that word around with such flippant bravado.

Unfortunately, having actually read all 41 pages, I find that there's little left to contribute to this thread. While I doubt Paradox will provide an accurate representation of the Aztecs, Inca and Mayans to the degree that Dafool and others want, there will be the added "Coalition Warfare" mechanic in this next game. While we have not heard much about it yet, such a mechanic has the potential to rather accurately represent the means by which Cortez and such actually conquered the natives without needing to nerf said natives into irrelevance. While it would likely require a mod like the one Dafool made to bring these little city-states into existence (an excellent mod, btw), a Coalition Mechanic, properly implemented, could carry it from there.

I suppose it all depends on how Coalitions will work in EUIV, but it could provide for far more realistic clashes between the old and new worlds.

Thats all I want. Better diplomacy mechanic. That would be not "resources spend to improve ONLY natives in america", but general mechanic aplicable all around world. Then, all this discusion about tech is largery irelevant.

 

[Valens Bellator]

Thats all I want. Better diplomacy mechanic. That would be not "resources spend to improve ONLY natives in america", but general mechanic aplicable all around world. Then, all this discusion about tech is largery irelevant.

Aye, it would indeed fix just about everything. The main challenge, of course, is developing an AI sophisticated enough to utilize the new tools they implement in a way that is logical and loosely adheres to historical events.

 

[Dafool]

Valens, I'm sure going through all 41 pages was quite an interesting read as things have twisted and turned quite a bit. In general, I think the controversy and arguing are due to everyone trying to interpret very specific things like a particular battle, or what type of currency someone used, or whether something is writing. In the end most of this has little to nothing to do with the game. Ultimately there are two largely undeniable problems with EU3's New World: It's not particularly historic and it's gameplay is very bad. I don't think anyone can provide a decent argument for why the game shouldn't at least present a semi-realistic setup and I also think it would be hard to argue that bugfixing is bad. I really don't expect to see anything in depth done, but I really do hope that with all the shuffling around and revisiting of mechanics, someone at PI might say "The New World doesn't play very well right now" and then maybe we get something that's not such a mess.

 

[Eh up me duck]

I've seen the changes you made in D&T. You want the natives to be grossly over-powered, and capable of westernising almost immediately, and reliably. It's genuinely laughable that you think the Aztecs, in 50 years, could transform themselves on a par with Europe.

So, while Europeans were building this:

And the aztecs were building Egyptian-era pyramids. You think there's some parity there.

Frankly I'm happy with the model PI have made. The fact that they made the natives playable at all, despite an overwealming lack of interest from players in general (this thread is not representative of the player base as a whole), shows they care a great deal.

 

[Garek Maxwell]

I've seen the changes you made in D&T. You want the natives to be grossly over-powered, and capable of westernising almost immediately, and reliably. It's genuinely laughable that you think the Aztecs, in 50 years, could transform themselves on a par with Europe.

So, while Europeans were building this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...0_03.jpg/640px-VillaFoscari_2007_07_10_03.jpg

And the aztecs were building Egyptian-era pyramids. You think there's some parity there.

Frankly I'm happy with the model PI have made. The fact that they made the natives playable at all, despite an overwealming lack of interest from players in general (this thread is not representative of the player base as a whole), shows they care a great deal.

I'm sorry, but while the Italians were messing around with their paltry little buildings, the French built Versailles. Clearly France needs to able to have superior culture tech than all of Italy because they always dominated culture in Europe.

Also, while Europe was squabbling over monarchs, America was building freedom!
I propose the US of beautiful A starts with a 20+ government bonus from the start. Also, 'Merica natrually was better with industry because we had freedom. 20 level to production I say!

I can play the unnecessary and heavily Ethnocentric "my culture is better than your culture" game too. That they built entirely different building styles means little. And let's not forget the whole issue of materials. It's a little hard to have marble carved decor when you have little to no marble, or even good marble to work with.

 

[Eh up me duck]

I'm sorry, but while the Italians were messing around with their paltry little buildings, the French built Versailles. Clearly France needs to able to have superior culture tech than all of Italy because they always dominated culture in Europe.

Also, while Europe was squabbling over monarchs, America was building freedom!
I propose the US of beautiful A starts with a 20+ government bonus from the start. Also, 'Merica natrually was better with industry because we had freedom. 20 level to production I say!

I can play the unnecessary and heavily Ethnocentric "my culture is better than your culture" game too. That they built entirely different building styles means little. And let's not forget the whole issue of materials. It's a little hard to have marble carved decor when you have little to no marble, or even good marble to work with.

No, but feel free to show me anything the natives did that wasn't simply stone piled on top of more stone.

 

[Styrbiorn]

I can play the unnecessary and heavily Ethnocentric "my culture is better than your culture" game too. That they built entirely different building styles means little. And let's not forget the whole issue of materials. It's a little hard to have marble carved decor when you have little to no marble, or even good marble to work with.

Where did "better culture" come into it? It's all about technology, which hardly has anything to do with the semi-racist insinuations you are doing. You have to be pretty ethnocentric to deem it ethnocentric to give superior technology to nations that actually happened to have superior technology.

And let's not forget materials indeed, below is but one example what the barbarian Europeans did with their limestone centuries before gamestart:

 

[Colombo]

Where did "better culture" come into it? It's all about technology, which hardly has anything to do with the semi-racist insinuations you are doing. You have to be pretty ethnocentric to deem it ethnocentric to give superior technology to nations that actually happened to have superior technology.

Define superior technology. Whats the metric?

 

[Sun_Wu]

I've seen the changes you made in D&T. You want the natives to be grossly over-powered, and capable of westernising almost immediately, and reliably. It's genuinely laughable that you think the Aztecs, in 50 years, could transform themselves on a par with Europe.

So, while Europeans were building this:

And the aztecs were building Egyptian-era pyramids. You think there's some parity there.

Frankly I'm happy with the model PI have made. The fact that they made the natives playable at all, despite an overwealming lack of interest from players in general (this thread is not representative of the player base as a whole), shows they care a great deal.

Except for the part where you get ravaged by brutal plagues and AIs that want all your lands.

 

[Styrbiorn]

Define superior technology. Whats the metric?

The last 40 pages contain the answers that. Short summary: stuff that makes you more succesful gamewise, i.e. more control, better weapons, better ships and more money.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Except for the part where you get ravaged by brutal plagues and AIs that want all your lands.

what?

 

[Colombo]

The last 40 pages contain the answers that. Short summary: stuff that makes you more succesful gamewise, i.e. more control, better weapons, better ships and more money.

No, that wasn't on those 40 pages. So better technology is what makes you better in game? So if we take Civilisation and wheel, nerf the wheel technology in civilization, it would be worse tech than making wood needles? Thats the metric for assuming whats the better technology? Realy?

 

[Eh up me duck]

No, that wasn't on those 40 pages. So better technology is what makes you better in game? So if we take Civilisation and wheel, nerf the wheel technology in civilization, it would be worse tech than making wood needles? Thats the metric for assuming whats the better technology? Realy?

No but take one group of people with established military doctrine and firearms, and another group of people armed with stone clubs, and it should be obvious who'll win.