Petition to make New World nations actually playable.

[FOARP]

Blaming foreign elites for a lack of development? Sounds like dangerous bullshit to me.

That's a pretty poor taste comparison. I doubt that Sun Wu is calling for the extermination of the Manchu or trying to justify the anti-Manchu pogroms that broke out after the Xinhai rebellion.

Yeah. You dislike the current technological system and want to replace it with an even more absurd one, which allows a people to lose 90% of their population to disease, suffer complete collapse...yet still a)fight off a vastly superior foe and b)somehow become as developed as the foe they are fighting, despite no linguistic or cultural ties whatsoever.

I'm against the idea that the Spanish conquest was just luck when the factors that helped them win (DDT - disease, disunity, technology) appear to have been all been facets of the same huge disparity in social/technological/economic development between Europe and the Americas. I'm also against push-button no-brainer paths to success when playing as native American states. I am also against native American states catching up to Europe when they have no meaningful ties with Europeans.

However, both in game-play terms and in historical terms there is an argument for a player being able, with extreme difficulty, to develop diplomatic/political/economic/religious ties with Europeans and catch up to the point where, whilst still behind, they are at least capable of detering further invasions. This is just as justifiable as a Polish victory over Germany in WW2 (something a good player can acheive in all the HOI games).

 

[Eh up me duck]

I'm against the idea that the Spanish conquest was just luck when the factors that helped them win (DDT - disease, disunity, technology) appear to have been all been facets of the same huge disparity in social/technological/economic development between Europe and the Americas. I'm also against push-button no-brainer paths to success when playing as native American states. I am also against native American states catching up to Europe when they have no meaningful ties with Europeans.

You seem to be taking the middle ground for no other reason than it is the middle.

What possible circumstance could there be for a large scale transfer of information from Spain to the remnants of the Aztec people (if there even is such a thing), without the same Europeans organising that transfer deciding to just kill the vastly inferior natives and taking their stuff?

 

[FOARP]

You seem to be taking the middle ground for no other reason than it is the middle.

What possible circumstance could there be for a large scale transfer of information from Spain to the remnants of the Aztec people (if there even is such a thing), without the same Europeans organising that transfer deciding to just kill the vastly inferior natives and taking their stuff?

The same set of circumstances that came to bear in China, Japan - competition for influence, a desire to thwart an adversary. The motivation would be a desire to have informal empire over the whole rather than de jure rule over a part.

 

[Eh up me duck]

The same set of circumstances that came to bear in China, Japan - competition for influence, a desire to thwart an adversary. The motivation would be a desire to have informal empire over the whole rather than de jure rule over a part.

China and Japan were far more advanced than the Aztec Empire was at its peak, let alone after its people had been ravaged by the pox. It left entire villages/towns unpopulated.

You think the Europeans would trade with the remnants rather than kill/enslave them and take their land? I find that grossly unfeasable. Even if the Spanish had left them alone the French or the Portugese would have stuck their oar in at some point I'm sure.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Blaming foreign elites for a lack of development? Sounds like dangerous bullshit to me.

T/F burning of intellectuals and their families was a serious step back compared to almost Classical Liberalism
T/F almost complete ban of foreign trade was a serious step back compared to the government more or less leaving foreign trade alone
T/F restricting internal trade to 13 state approved guilds was a serious step back from laissez fire policy
T/F banning competition was a serious step back from laissez faire policy
T/F reinstating serfdom was a serious step back from tenant farmers
T/F reintroducing slavery was a serious step back from free peasantry
T/F prohibiting new mines was a serious step back from laissez faire mining policy
T/F restricting number of merchants was a serious step back from laissez faire
T/F heavily discouraging commercial cultivation in for of subsistence agriculture was a step back
T/F widespread devastation killing 25M+ was a step back

I'm not saying the Manchu were evil, instead I am insisting their retrograde policies were bad for China. I am not arguing their offspring should be punished for the sins of a few Manchu progenitors.

 

[illapa]

what percentage about would you say is almost every time

I believe Europeans should win 90%+ of the time so 90%-99% of the time with an AI controlled New World Nation the New World nation should lose so that the player (who is somewhere else in the world) gets something similar to historical realism. Like Dafool said by win I mean they should survive, westernize, and not get curb stomped.

It isn't shooting other people in the leg, it is one person starting their run on a dirt track, another on grass, a third on loose sand, the next on a modern surface, one in mud, and perhaps even one in a swimming pool. With barriers between the tracks that take a time and effort to cross. The starting positions are way off, and changes have to be made to be innovative. Especially since the front runner is running towards the gun at the end of the track.

That basically sums it up really well. Again I don't mean to just describe the tech rate that needs to be changed I'd prefer a tiny amount of events and buffs to their provinces for base tax/manpower (event to nerf because of disease) when Europeans take them over of course too). Tech seems to be what most people are interested in debating though. You also left out that as Tribal Governments the Natives get a further -50% research rate. So they aren't starting a race over a swimming pool its more like over a pool of lava or at least quicksand.

@ Arilou No one is debating that this period should have European increases in power. We just want other vital areas of the world to be more playable and represented more accurately. This would make BOTH the challenge of surviving AND conquering a colonial empire more challenging and thus better for both sides. We still want the trend of European dominance to almost always happen we just don't want it to fall into the trap of EU: Rome and make it practically deterministic. For X nations to become invincible.

@JoeIsGreat Interesting that you cite the Siege of Cannanore because it is a siege. Ridiculous one sided battles are common in sieges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_G%C3%BCns a "victory" for the ottomans that basically doomed their entire campaign because it took so long to win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_%281480%29 Why not chuck in the famous 1st Ottoman Siege of Rhodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias Why not throw in Britain's greatest military failure of the era. Siege of Spanish Cartagena de Indias in Colombia.

Or since you wanted a victory of Europeans gloriously crushing vastly larger armies lets take Portugal and give you a counter example: The Battle of the Three Kings or the battle of Alcacer Quibir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A1cer_Quibir one of the most (in)famous battles in Portuguese history. It manages to be a crushing defeat of the entire European army. About 23k Portugese fight 40k Moroccans (personally I believe the one Portuguese source of 100,000 men is utter BS because he's trying to cover up for his country's failure). Portugal's army is annihilated with 8k dead 15k captured. Leads to Portugal being forced into a Personal Union with Spain and the death of a 100 year old dynasty because the idiot got himself killed in battle with no son. Had he only played CK2 he's know the danger of using your ruler as a leader without having children.

Also the French were known for making friends with natives and keeping them more like vassals than conquering them. There's a quote that goes, "Spanish civilization crushed the Indian; English civilization scorned and neglected him; French civilization embraced and cherished him."

 

[Eh up me duck]

@JoeIsGreat Interesting that you cite the Siege of Cannanore because it is a siege. Ridiculous one sided battles are common in sieges.

The seige being lifted by 300 men was my point, anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_G%C3%BCns a "victory" for the ottomans that basically doomed their entire campaign because it took so long to win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rhodes_%281480%29 Why not chuck in the famous 1st Ottoman Siege of Rhodes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias Why not throw in Britain's greatest military failure of the era. Siege of Spanish Cartagena de Indias in Colombia.

Or since you wanted a victory of Europeans gloriously crushing vastly larger armies lets take Portugal and give you a counter example: The Battle of the Three Kings or the battle of Alcacer Quibir http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alc%C3%A1cer_Quibir one of the most (in)famous battles in Portuguese history. It manages to be a crushing defeat of the entire European army. About 23k Portugese fight 40k Moroccans (personally I believe the one Portuguese source of 100,000 men is utter BS because he's trying to cover up for his country's failure). Portugal's army is annihilated with 8k dead 15k captured. Leads to Portugal being forced into a Personal Union with Spain and the death of a 100 year old dynasty because the idiot got himself killed in battle with no son. Had he only played CK2 he's know the danger of using your ruler as a leader without having children.

So you've proved that Arab countries were not severely overwealmed by Europeans. Good job. Feel feel to prove why 2 plus 2 is four, too.

You even cited England vs Spain as an example of European vs non-European so I'm loathe to take your views seriously.

Feel free to show me evidence of Indians performing anything like as effectively as Arabs. You keep dismissing the Seige of Cannamore as a seige and therefore an outlier, despite me saying on several occasions that the arrival of 300 Portuguese was enough to break the siege, that is the important thing. Do you think the Seige of Rhodes would have been broken if 500 Europeans showed up? Of course not, the Ottomans would barely sneeze.

 

[Sir Iain]

The arabs prove a significant point though: Untill the middle of the 1650's land battles between ottoman and North African Armies were not overwhelmingly in favor of the Europeans. While around 1800 European armies had far less problems fighting them. EU3 Technology system doesn't cover this shift at all.

 

[Graspiloot]

The arabs prove a significant point though: Untill the middle of the 1650's land battles between ottoman and North African Armies were not overwhelmingly in favor of the Europeans. While around 1800 European armies had far less problems fighting them. EU3 Technology system doesn't cover this shift at all.

The EU3 system I think has problems showing how much easier defending was than attacking (until your technology becomes far more superior). Also it makes it look far too easy to conquer a territory (and keep it, especially in countries with a different religion/culture to yours).

Edit: This has no connection to the topic, but just wanted to put it out there.

OT: Why is everyone having so much trouble with an unlikely scenario happening 1 in 20 times or so? And why can't westernisation not just mean learning to use horses and guns to fight?

 

[Eh up me duck]

The arabs prove a significant point though: Untill the middle of the 1650's land battles between ottoman and North African Armies were not overwhelmingly in favor of the Europeans. While around 1800 European armies had far less problems fighting them. EU3 Technology system doesn't cover this shift at all.

I'm not sure how true that is. IIRC Ottoman soldier quality isn't lower than Europeans' in-game until very late on. Would happily be corrected on this, but Ottoman players, indeed the Ottoman AI, has no problem stomping Europeans in the Balkans.

You could argue that the rest of North Africa is too weak. From a gameplay point of view I'd say all the Arab North African states need higher tax bases, but I've no idea if that is "historical" or not.

 

[Eh up me duck]

OT: Why is everyone having so much trouble with an unlikely scenario happening 1 in 20 times or so? And why can't westernisation not just mean learning to use horses and guns to fight?

1 in 20 times the Aboriginies in Australia will independantly civilise and create an empire in South-East Asia. That's the level of plausability we're dealing with.

 

[StephenT]

From a gameplay point of view I'd say all the Arab North African states need higher tax bases,

Why do you want to buff Castille even more than it already is, by making their African empire even more valuable?


North Africa wasn't especially rich. The problem was the same one EU3 has always suffered: in real life, raising an army to defend your homeland was far easier and far cheaper than raising one to ship hundreds of miles overseas to conquer a foreign province. A European king might have 60,000 soldiers on paper, but he probably couldn't afford to pay and feed more than 10,000 of them for more than a month or two away from home: a Barbary sultan might only have 40,000 soldiers, but every one of them would be ready to defend his home.

 

[Sun_Wu]

1 in 20 times the Aboriginies in Australia will independantly civilise and create an empire in South-East Asia. That's the level of plausability we're dealing with.

What is your opinion on my post?

 

[Eh up me duck]

I didn't want to seem rude but I don't want to get into a completely separate discussion about the Qing Conquest Theory. This thread has been far too off topic as it is.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Why do you want to buff Castille even more than it already is, by making their African empire even more valuable?


North Africa wasn't especially rich. The problem was the same one EU3 has always suffered: in real life, raising an army to defend your homeland was far easier and far cheaper than raising one to ship hundreds of miles overseas to conquer a foreign province. A European king might have 60,000 soldiers on paper, but he probably couldn't afford to pay and feed more than 10,000 of them for more than a month or two away from home: a Barbary sultan might only have 40,000 soldiers, but every one of them would be ready to defend his home.

Which again comes down to logistics.

Personally I'd be happy with overseas maintainance for troops being insanely expensive. It'd stop Castille conquering Asia Minor every game, and stop stacks building up in the new world. Maybe have a building late-game that greatly reduces the cost, to simulate improved logistics of the period.

 

[Herr Doctor]

I'm against the idea that the Spanish conquest was just luck when the factors that helped them win (DDT - disease, disunity, technology) appear to have been all been facets of the same huge disparity in social/technological/economic development between Europe and the Americas. I'm also against push-button no-brainer paths to success when playing as native American states. I am also against native American states catching up to Europe when they have no meaningful ties with Europeans.

However, both in game-play terms and in historical terms there is an argument for a player being able, with extreme difficulty, to develop diplomatic/political/economic/religious ties with Europeans and catch up to the point where, whilst still behind, they are at least capable of detering further invasions. This is just as justifiable as a Polish victory over Germany in WW2 (something a good player can acheive in all the HOI games).

The discussion started with some suggestions to improve (in some odd way) the playability and historical representation of the New World. Now it is turning to real absurdities like the known add-on theme in CK2... If it is ok for you to have the Incas reaching Europe why not then Mayan conquest of France? I have a feeling that within couple more pages of this discussion we will come there.

 

[Sun_Wu]

I didn't want to seem rude but I don't want to get into a completely separate discussion about the Qing Conquest Theory. This thread has been far too off topic as it is.

Then by PM, besides this thread has gotten so derailed it isn't funny.

Which again comes down to logistics.

Personally I'd be happy with overseas maintainance for troops being insanely expensive. It'd stop Castille conquering Asia Minor every game, and stop stacks building up in the new world. Maybe have a building late-game that greatly reduces the cost, to simulate improved logistics of the period.

Or you could have it as part of the engine so that techs can reduce it.

 

[Seli]

Going back to the original point of this thread, the worry is that that in finding that ok-ish balance PI will overlook the New World. It happened numerous times in EU3's development and was never rectified, so that is a rather legitimate concern. Also, we do know that tech group penalties are still in and presumably somewhat similar to EU3. That has been confirmed already.

The technological balance (barring the irritation resulting from the absence of fortresses) is probably the best modelled part of the New World nations in EU3. The only thing that could make the fit better (within the game model) was introducing tech levels below the ones already present to be able to differentiate the Azteks/Maya/Inca from the northern nations.

ETA: and yes I know you disagree with this assessment of their technological level

 

[Dafool]

Okay, you win. Europe was no more technologically advanced than the rest of world from until 1800, when everything fell into place.

I'm glad you're learning some sense.

...according to your opinion. Anything you like is dynamic and good gameplay, anything you don't like is a crock of shit.

Someone's getting quite defensive and even more rude.

The technological system of EU games is not exactly unpopular.

Really? Is that why almost every major mod revamps it or why we've had countless threads on it? Or maybe you like it and don't see anything wrong with it and thus ignore any legitimate criticism?

To quote from that article "The Portuguese garrison was on the verge of being overwhelmed, when on 27 August a fleet of 11 ships under Tristão da Cunha, the 8th Armada, coming from Socotra, appeared. 300 Portuguese soldiers were landed, forcing the lifting of the siege and relieving the fortress.[7][8]"
300 Portugese soldiers was enough to force 60,000 Indians withdraw from the seige. That's a pretty clear military advantage, but deny it if it helps you

You just proved my point. The Portuguese nearly lose a battle and then get saved by their naval power. Congratulations on proving nothing new.

Yeah. You dislike the current technological system and want to replace it with an even more absurd one, which allows a people to lose 90% of their population to disease, suffer complete collapse...yet still a)fight off a vastly superior foe and b)somehow become as developed as the foe they are fighting, despite no linguistic or cultural ties whatsoever.

Here you go with the crazy, comical exaggerations again. When you actually start making an argument maybe we'll have more to discuss here.

Well I honestly can't remember the last time I played EU3 and thought "DAMN YOU TECH SYSTEM!!!" the way I do when the horde wreck up all of Eurasia. Maybe you do.

I think of it all the time. I did major modding work to try to fix it.

No it's not. If you regard the difference between tech level 1 and tech level 5/6 in minor African kingdoms as "worrisome" then it's obvious you have no idea what EU3 is all about.

So when a mechanic doesn't function at all then it's fine? I thought that was called a bug.

I'd like to relate back to my argument about Poland in HOI2. You're argueing they should have a shot at beating back the Germans and the Soviets, I'm saying it would be broken if they could.

Then clearly you want a very deterministic game. Why don't you go find one and play it and leave the rest of us to the EU series?

Blaming foreign elites for a lack of development? Sounds like dangerous bullshit to me.

Do you not believe that major political changes could bring about potential societal changes?

You seem to be taking the middle ground for no other reason than it is the middle.

What possible circumstance could there be for a large scale transfer of information from Spain to the remnants of the Aztec people (if there even is such a thing), without the same Europeans organising that transfer deciding to just kill the vastly inferior natives and taking their stuff?

The fact that many Natives adopted some basic European customs and ideas, learned to use European weapons and tactics, and ultimately survived through much of this period does lend credit to the idea that some basic transfer of technology did take place. But I thought you were for straight-jacket style determinism? How can you simultaneous want Europe to crush everyone and Natives not gain some basic European technology? Unless... *gasp* maybe you're just focusing on the European aspect of technology and know next to nothing about it anywhere else! No, no. That could never be the case.

China and Japan were far more advanced than the Aztec Empire was at its peak, let alone after its people had been ravaged by the pox. It left entire villages/towns unpopulated.

You think the Europeans would trade with the remnants rather than kill/enslave them and take their land? I find that grossly unfeasable. Even if the Spanish had left them alone the French or the Portugese would have stuck their oar in at some point I'm sure.

Then why did many Natives find a nice niche in trading with and allying with colonial powers? Is history "grossly unfeasable"?

The seige being lifted by 300 men was my point, anyway.

You didn't even address his point. It was a siege.

So you've proved that Arab countries were not severely overwealmed by Europeans. Good job. Feel feel to prove why 2 plus 2 is four, too.

But supposedly by your theory of history, Europeans were fully capable of conquering everyone else and it only made sense for them to do so. So why didn't the Europeans overwhelm the Arabs then?

Feel free to show me evidence of Indians performing anything like as effectively as Arabs. You keep dismissing the Seige of Cannamore as a seige and therefore an outlier, despite me saying on several occasions that the arrival of 300 Portuguese was enough to break the siege, that is the important thing. Do you think the Seige of Rhodes would have been broken if 500 Europeans showed up? Of course not, the Ottomans would barely sneeze.

You forget the ships, which play a vital part and you also forget that the siege was lifted. It wasn't the defenders being beaten handily by the Portuguese, it was them leaving from a siege they didn't think they could win. And what about the La Noche Triste? The Spanish are beaten, nearly wiped out, and driven away by the Aztecs for quite a while.

 

[Dafool]

The technological balance (barring the irritation resulting from the absence of fortresses) is probably the best modelled part of the New World nations in EU3. The only thing that could make the fit better (within the game model) was introducing tech levels below the ones already present to be able to differentiate the Azteks/Maya/Inca from the northern nations.

ETA: and yes I know you disagree with this assessment of their technological level

Not as much as you think. My main gripe with the technological system's effect on the New World is that it deprives them of numerous mechanics they should have access to. Markets, barracks, and other buildings should all be constructable. I understand the same could be said of Europe, but at least they unlock them quickly. The New World doesn't get them at all. Or trading. The Natives can't even trade in their own CoT's, which is not only contrary to history, but also just plain weird. Or combat. Natives got seriously screwed by the changes to combat that came throughout EU3's development. Changes to morale and the inclusion of tactics nerfed their armies more than they already were, making them utterly incapable of winning battles, even against their own rebels. As I've been saying throughout this thread, the main point that many of us have made is that the New World doesn't necessarily need to be more powerful, but it does deserve a handful of fixes so that it functions reasonably within the mechanics of the game.