Petition to make New World nations actually playable.

[Namm]

StehphenT, the fact is that the wheel wasn't used extensively (or at all, except for toys). Why is that? Because Native Americans are racially inferior? An abundance of maise in the diet? The warm climate? Well, no. They had no animals to primarily use the wheel with, so no other uses for the wheel (such as wheelbarrows or cranes) had an "wheel-abundant" (and "wheel-friendly") environment to develop in.

Here's photo evidence of a Mayan not using the wheel by the way:

 

[Homero]

These are Portuguese victories, but what do they show?

In fact, according to Guilmartin (The Military Revolution: Origins and First Tests Abroad)
"...Military success in the face of seemingly overwhelming odds is a common theme in the Iberian conquests, no less in the Portuguese than the Spanish case. While the numerical odds confronted by Da Gama, Cabral, Almeida and Albuquerque may have been less than those faced by Cortés and Pizarro, the disparity was still overwhelming and the technological advantage considerably less.
... In the words of historian George Winius, “Only their brutality, learned in Morocco, and their reckless disregard for personal injury can account for their regular‑and baffling‑successes” To be fair to Winius, he is saying much the same thing as does Parker in emphasizing the relative lethality of European styles of warfare in comparison to Asian forms based on the use of slave soldiers"
"...That fixedness of purpose expressed itself not only in tactical cohesion, but in strategic design. The dispatch of an expeditionary force which, in 1541‑43, saved the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia from an expansive Muslim enemy which was using acquired Ottoman gunpowder technology is perhaps the most dramatic case in point but hardly the only one"
Last but not least,
"...Finally, though we are prone to forget it,the Portuguese were thoroughly competent in positional and held operations on land though, to return to the previous two points, their numbers were so small that they could engage in field operations only with the support of local allies"

near the end of the Ming dynasty traditional Confucian thought was being heavily challenged and reason was increasingly focused on

Wel, Confucianism survived the White Lotus movement (14th century), survived the Mongol dynasty (almost one century) and the Manchu dynasty (3 centuries); in fact they quickly became imbued with Chinese traditions; Confucianism survived an era of book burning, survived the Taiping revolutionaries (that borrowed their key notions from Christianity) , survived the anticonfucian movements of the early/middle 20th century, and even survived Mao Tse tung era/marxism, and still plays a formative role in the chinese society today.

They had no animals to primarily use the wheel with, so no other uses for the wheel

In fact, human porters were more efficient at carrying individual packs over large distances, and yes, the Aztecs had no large pack animals.

 

[FOARP]

Wel, Confucianism survived the White Lotus movement (14th century), survived the Mongol dynasty (almost one century) and the Manchu dynasty (3 centuries); in fact they quickly became imbued with Chinese traditions; Confucianism survived an era of book burning, survived the Taiping revolutionaries (that borrowed their key notions from Christianity) , survived the anticonfucian movements of the early/middle 20th century, and even survived Mao Tse tung era/marxism, and still plays a formative role in the chinese society today.

The label 'Confucian' is applied willy-nilly to almost all aspects of East Asian culture, many of which pre-date Confucius, come from different origins, or are even specifically against the teachings of Confucius - see particularly neo-Confucianists like Daniel Bell and Jiang Qing who like to argue that the modern Chinese political system is a 'Confucian' 'meritocracy' when serious scholars all agree that it is still essentially Leninist, and even a casual observer can see how far it falls short of being a meritocracy. I would be wary of taking the idea that Confucianism has survived to the modern era both unaltered and undiminished. Personally I find the description of China as "Confucian" to have about the same or less utility as describing Cuba as "Christian".

 

[StephenT]

StehphenT, the fact is that the wheel wasn't used extensively (or at all, except for toys). Why is that? Because Native Americans are racially inferior? An abundance of maise in the diet? The warm climate? Well, no.

Of course not, though it's revealing that your mind goes to such 'explanations' first.

I think the real answer is that technological progress is not nearly as simple as the people calling for fast and easy Westernisation in EUIV think it is. Adopting new technology often takes an entire cultural paradigm shift (unless it's very similar to something you've used before and offers obvious advantages). That sort of thing is really, really difficult and rare. You can see it in the way that certain inventions - writing is the classic example - have only ever been discovered three or four times in human history. Other societies copied the technology from people who did make the breakthrough, but the process often took centuries to happen naturally, or it happened through one society being conquered by another and the tech imposed on them. The native American civilisations, being more isolated than those of Eurasia, lacked the critical mass to make as many discoveries and see them spread form one society to another.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm not sure what your point is. You don't need a "mirror-smooth road" to benefit from the mechanical advantages of wheeled transport. Europeans and Asians were using carts on rutted dirt tracks long before paved roads became widespread.

Given that the native Americans lacked draught animals, you'd think they would be even more eager to seize on anything that would give them an advantage over the unaided human body. A man with a wheelbarrow can transport three times as much as he can on his own back: do you really think they'd have dismissed that advantage, if they'd known about it?

After some reflection, I guess it is true that had they conceived of wheelbarrow, it would have offered substantial advantage in all sorts of landscaping projects, just not in long-distance transportation of stuff.
Still, as wheelbarrow was invented long after wheel in Old World as well, it is not entirely correct to say that the New World did not invent the wheel, merely because they probably did not use one of its applications.

 

[geodejade87]

And while the highest Andes might have been comparable to the Himalayas, most of Central and south America wasn't. Your photo was taken 60 years ago. Were they still relying on porters carrying loads on their backs in Mexico in 1950, or had they started using wheeled vehicles there?

Clearly, You haven't spent much time in the central Mexican highlands. Half of Mesoamerica is rugged mountains and most of the rest is jungle. In that kind of terrain using a wheeled vehicle without a draft animal makes little sense over long distances. And as has been pointed out, they had conceptual knowledge of the wheel.

Frankly these kinds of debates are counterproductive. It has absolutely no bearing on the game. It obviously did not impede their ability to build cities or form empires. Their cultural, political, and economic systems were what they were, and the presence or absence of wheels is irrelevant. We should try to stay focused on things that the game actually represents instead of making up overgeneralized checklists for technological advancement.

 

[illapa]

^ I agree 100% it seems that most people just want endless lists of evidence of these nation's technology. Maybe Paradox making their tech rate at 40% now instead of 10% is a sign that they might be looking a little more favorably upon the Native Americans. I've put my ideas out lots of times I'm wondering if other people have "simple" to implement ideas that would make the gameplay more accurate and more fun without overhauling an entire part of the game. I kept mine to a simple add an event chain showing disease devastation, instability, and then recovery after contact and maybe a decision for the Inca showing their administrative ability (increase efficiency maybe?), maybe a decision for the Meso American states we could have it be based off the flower wars and be + army tradition yearly because they're always fighting ceremonially anyway. For the USA/Canada natives I'd be kinda stumped they were very adaptable and at the same time managed to remain stable so maybe a tiny 1% tech boost and 3% stability cost modifier? My only other thing is the accurate boundaries and manpower/tax base. I might be off by 1-2 provinces but basically here is a map where purple = what the in game empire is and I added in red what they should also have (you can debate the northern one the southern half of it was Inca the natives spoke the Inca language of Quechua so for me that justifies it).

The total population of the Inca region if you take the starting populations of each province is 50,024 (yes I've counted the starting pop of every Inca core province the dates for the starting pops rage from 1399 to 1472) the total population of the Inca Empire at 1438 is an estimated 12-32 million. Since Europa only depicts urban populations his would mean that 0.004% of the population lived in urban areas. Which is hopelessly wrong. Keep in mind that calculation is using one of the LOWEST possible estimates of Inca population. The Inca had an orderly system of provinces where each province had 200,000-400,000 people. there were 20 provinces each with lets say 12 million people. In game there are about 30 provinces in the Inca Empire that would make it pretty close to the historical number of inca provinces which means each province would have a population of 150k-300k. The estimate of population in 1571 (after the last remnants of the Inca were finally defeated) was 6 million. Again our in game estimate of 50,000 living in urban areas compared to a population of 6 million is still wrong for a nation built much like Japan with the population concentrated in fertile valleys since most of the terrain is jungle or desert or mountain.

If you feel like looking at my sources most aren't on the internet really but here's a list http://suite101.com/article/inca-population-how-many-incas-were-there-a307276

Inca are the biggest problem with land/tax base/manpower the other nations are far more accurate with the exception of Meso America not being city states but I feel like thats a bit much to ask for.

*edit* For this giant geographical area and lets take the after disease population of 6 million. The in game player gets a standing army of 20-30k with FULL Quantity sliders. The population of Castile in 1516 was 4.5 million and I think everyone here has played enough EU3 games to know that Castile can raise an army of 50k with that. I know this is a slippery slope because it would seem like I'm asking for the Inca to get an army of like 80,000 which to be honest I think would be accurate because that was the size of the royal army at the end of the Inca Civil War BUT I think it would be much harder to balance the game so that Castile almost always wins. The Event chain I mentioned above would have to be truly devastating and cut the army in half for say 30 years or something very drastic like that.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

I think the biggest changes that need to be made to Old World nation colonization are:

1) Transport ships cannot cross ocean spaces until 1600-1650 at the earliest, or go to other continents save through sea spaces. Something that lets you send troops to Iceland still needs to be available.
2) The ability to deploy small squads of 300-500 troops from your large ships, but are limited based on the number of conquistadors or colonists you have.
3) The option to send either conquistadors, colonists, spies, or diplomats to lands held by natives on "expeditions" that then fire event chains that let you interact with the natives that allow for the historical conquests that we saw in those areas.

We can then actually effectively model the situation there at the start date.


As for the tech changes, can we please do it in a new thread, because people cannot stop arguing here about things that really are not relevant?

Thread: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ology-group-mechanics&p=14672714#post14672714

 

[brifbates]

As for the tech changes, can we please do it in a new thread, because people cannot stop arguing here about things that really are not relevant?

What is relevant, at least to the title of the thread, is whether the native american nations are "playable". There is more than enough evidence available to unequivacably state that they are. The discussion then devolved into arguments for powering up the natives because "yes you can select them but the gameplay sucks" without any reasonable suggestions to do so. "There's nothing to do", "I can't beat rebels", etc. are the underlying argument Dafool is making while trying to pretty it up with overstating native accomplishments and/or pooh-poohing evidence that the Europeans were, in fact, that far ahead of the natives in many areas.

There's nothing to do because you have no one to interact with (once you conquer your corner of the new world). This is a fact of life for any nation that is isolated (play Kongo or a west African state to see the same albeit for a shorter period of time). Absent nations to interact with the game is a snoozefest and there's really nothing wrong with that. If you want to play a game that is about running your country, not about making your country a bigger fish in the world pond then EU is probably not the series for you (maybe Victoria?). Adding in extra minutiae regarding the interior workings of your country often just results in tedious micromanagement which can make larger or more active nations unbearable to play (unless that's the kind of gameplay you happen to like).

Now, if you want to have a discussion about ways to better model the historical happenings in the new world that would be an entirely different conversation to the vast bulk of this particular thread.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

I meant off topic for the tech discussion that we started. Since it isn't really the purpose of this topic either, a new thread does make sense.


I don't know, that sounds to me to be pretty much the same as most of my games once I've unified my cultural group. Either I pick away at other nations, or I'm just left to my own devices since no one can do anything to me. I've played an extensive Aztec game in D&T, and aside from about a 30 year period were I was waiting for the Europeans to show up, it was basically exactly the same as my other games of EU3 since I westernized instantly after they arrived and was able to bypass the diseases sequence entirely thanks to a bug.

Unless a nation is completely cut off from any other neighbors, you can still do something. Plus that D&T game as the Aztecs was a lot more fun then the vanilla Aztecs, let me guarantee you.

 

[Dafool]

What is relevant, at least to the title of the thread, is whether the native american nations are "playable". There is more than enough evidence available to unequivacably state that they are. The discussion then devolved into arguments for powering up the natives because "yes you can select them but the gameplay sucks" without any reasonable suggestions to do so. "There's nothing to do", "I can't beat rebels", etc. are the underlying argument Dafool is making while trying to pretty it up with overstating native accomplishments and/or pooh-poohing evidence that the Europeans were, in fact, that far ahead of the natives in many areas.

Hmm... Interesting way to put it, but I still fail to see a convincing argument. As I've said before, your definition of playable is clearly not universal. I would say they are not playable in the same sense that other nations are. You cannot interact with numerous game mechanics normally, regardless of whether there is a historical reason or not. There's also the point that some of these issues have been labeled as bugs elsewhere and have since then been fixed. That seems to suggest that some of these issues are not intended. Complaints like "There's nothing to do" and "I can't beat rebels" are valid concerns. At best you're encouraging mediocrity and at worst praising buggy features. This isn't a matter of historical debate. It's a matter of game design.

There's nothing to do because you have no one to interact with (once you conquer your corner of the new world). This is a fact of life for any nation that is isolated (play Kongo or a west African state to see the same albeit for a shorter period of time). Absent nations to interact with the game is a snoozefest and there's really nothing wrong with that. If you want to play a game that is about running your country, not about making your country a bigger fish in the world pond then EU is probably not the series for you (maybe Victoria?). Adding in extra minutiae regarding the interior workings of your country often just results in tedious micromanagement which can make larger or more active nations unbearable to play (unless that's the kind of gameplay you happen to like).

I fail to see what you're getting at here. I think almost everyone is in agreement that the New World does not need unique gameplay mechanics or a ton of focus to work. Most of us seem to be hoping for more historical depth and better integration into the game's preexisting mechanics. If some of the more glaring issues would be worked on, then these areas would not be isolated and boring, but instead would be active and interesting with their own histories and setups.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about ways to better model the historical happenings in the new world that would be an entirely different conversation to the vast bulk of this particular thread.

Threads like this tend to cycle through tangents. It's a broad topic with many smaller ideas and arguments that are bound to come up. As I said before, if we could avoid the "_____ didn't have ______" arguments every time anything is brought up, then we'd probably have a much more concise thread.

 

[Sun_Wu]

^ I agree 100% it seems that most people just want endless lists of evidence of these nation's technology. Maybe Paradox making their tech rate at 40% now instead of 10% is a sign that they might be looking a little more favorably upon the Native Americans. I've put my ideas out lots of times I'm wondering if other people have "simple" to implement ideas that would make the gameplay more accurate and more fun without overhauling an entire part of the game. I kept mine to a simple add an event chain showing disease devastation, instability, and then recovery after contact and maybe a decision for the Inca showing their administrative ability (increase efficiency maybe?), maybe a decision for the Meso American states we could have it be based off the flower wars and be + army tradition yearly because they're always fighting ceremonially anyway. For the USA/Canada natives I'd be kinda stumped they were very adaptable and at the same time managed to remain stable so maybe a tiny 1% tech boost and 3% stability cost modifier? My only other thing is the accurate boundaries and manpower/tax base. I might be off by 1-2 provinces but basically here is a map where purple = what the in game empire is and I added in red what they should also have (you can debate the northern one the southern half of it was Inca the natives spoke the Inca language of Quechua so for me that justifies it). View attachment 68340

The total population of the Inca region if you take the starting populations of each province is 50,024 (yes I've counted the starting pop of every Inca core province the dates for the starting pops rage from 1399 to 1472) the total population of the Inca Empire at 1438 is an estimated 12-32 million. Since Europa only depicts urban populations his would mean that 0.004% of the population lived in urban areas. Which is hopelessly wrong. Keep in mind that calculation is using one of the LOWEST possible estimates of Inca population. The Inca had an orderly system of provinces where each province had 200,000-400,000 people. there were 20 provinces each with lets say 12 million people. In game there are about 30 provinces in the Inca Empire that would make it pretty close to the historical number of inca provinces which means each province would have a population of 150k-300k. The estimate of population in 1571 (after the last remnants of the Inca were finally defeated) was 6 million. Again our in game estimate of 50,000 living in urban areas compared to a population of 6 million is still wrong for a nation built much like Japan with the population concentrated in fertile valleys since most of the terrain is jungle or desert or mountain.

If you feel like looking at my sources most aren't on the internet really but here's a list http://suite101.com/article/inca-population-how-many-incas-were-there-a307276

Inca are the biggest problem with land/tax base/manpower the other nations are far more accurate with the exception of Meso America not being city states but I feel like thats a bit much to ask for.

*edit* For this giant geographical area and lets take the after disease population of 6 million. The in game player gets a standing army of 20-30k with FULL Quantity sliders. The population of Castile in 1516 was 4.5 million and I think everyone here has played enough EU3 games to know that Castile can raise an army of 50k with that. I know this is a slippery slope because it would seem like I'm asking for the Inca to get an army of like 80,000 which to be honest I think would be accurate because that was the size of the royal army at the end of the Inca Civil War BUT I think it would be much harder to balance the game so that Castile almost always wins. The Event chain I mentioned above would have to be truly devastating and cut the army in half for say 30 years or something very drastic like that.

It only depicts the population of one city, otherwise most Chinese provinces would be 999,999

 

[geodejade87]

... while trying to pretty it up with overstating native accomplishments and/or pooh-poohing evidence that the Europeans were, in fact, that far ahead of the natives in many areas.

Those advocating for more development in the Americas have a similar perception of the conversation, but in reverse. Both sides seem to think the other is exaggerating one way or the other, so statements like this are getting us nowhere. I'm willing to admit that some American-advocates in this thread have exaggerated native sophistication, but only in response to equally hyperbolic statements that seek to discredit the American civilizations of things that they actually did do. I think everybody (myself included) needs to calm down and stop taking things personally.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about ways to better model the historical happenings in the new world that would be an entirely different conversation to the vast bulk of this particular thread.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. This is what we should be talking about. In that spirit, let me outline the changes that I would like to see:

1.) There should be more nations in Mesoamerica and the Andes so that players in those regions have more factions to interact with while waiting for Europe to arrive.

2.) Nations in Mesoamerica and the Andes should be monarchies and noble republics (or the some other equivalent), not tribes. Both of these cultures have traditions of urban civilization going back thousands of years, so that designation makes no sense.

3.) The Aztecs and the Inca should have the ability to expand to their historical borders, and the AI for these countries should be programmed to do this through the course of the game.

4.) The conquest should be remodeled to account for other factors besides just European military technology, such as smallpox and internal revolts.

5.) The Europeans should not be able to move large numbers of troops to the New World in the early 16th century, so that they are forced to rely on those other factors to make up for their small army size. This should be eventually overcome by better naval technology, so that if the initial conquistadors fail to succeed the European nations can still conquer them the old-fashioned way.

6.) Mesoamericans/Andeans should have forts. They don't have to be the same as European forts, but just something that prevents an army from immediately controlling a province just by standing on it.

Numbers four and five are the only drastic changes to gameplay, and that's only in the interest of historical accuracy. I don't think that these changes are unreasonable. In addition to making the game more fun for those who like to play as American nations, it would also make the European conquest more fun and interesting for players that like to play Spain or Portugal.

 

[nanomagnetic]

1.) There should be more nations in Mesoamerica and the Andes so that players in those regions have more factions to interact with while waiting for Europe to arrive.

2.) Nations in Mesoamerica and the Andes should be monarchies and noble republics (or the some other equivalent), not tribes. Both of these cultures have traditions of urban civilization going back thousands of years, so that designation makes no sense.

3.) The Aztecs and the Inca should have the ability to expand to their historical borders, and the AI for these countries should be programmed to do this through the course of the game.

4.) The conquest should be remodeled to account for other factors besides just European military technology, such as smallpox and internal revolts.

5.) The Europeans should not be able to move large numbers of troops to the New World in the early 16th century, so that they are forced to rely on those other factors to make up for their small army size. This should be eventually overcome by better naval technology, so that if the initial conquistadors fail to succeed the European nations can still conquer them the old-fashioned way.

6.) Mesoamericans/Andeans should have forts. They don't have to be the same as European forts, but just something that prevents an army from immediately controlling a province just by standing on it.

All of these gameplay points would be great for playing either a new world nation or even a colonizing nation. The fifth point about limiting troop movements is really important. It pushes gameplay to trend more historically in a number of different ways. Early colonization efforts will be hard-fought, and the colonies established that much more valuable. And late game independence movements will stand a chance when the home country has to suffer attrition or the logistics effort of moving an entire army overseas.

And if the new AI recognizes the opportunity of a rival sending boatloads of troops overseas to quell rebellions or establish colonies, that would be even better.

At the very least, the major new world civilizations need the political and military power in-game to force those kinds of situations, alongside an increase in the political and economic cost for colonial powers sending expeditions. It's historical and it makes for more interesting gameplay.

 

[Fawr]

This thread has taken a turn towards gameplay. Overall I like the balance in EU3, but the way it was done could be improved. In that light here are my suggestions:

My suggestions of bonuses to the American countries:

• Let forts be built, but they shouldn't be as good as Eurasian fortresses (due to tech gap)
• Let traders trade in america, but they shouldn't be anywhere near as effective as european traders at the start (due to tech gap in stuff like wheels, flat roads, the efficiencies that come with naval trade, long distance naval trade).
• Get rid of the current westernisation decision and either don't replace it or (better) replace it with something more difficult/disruptive than the process that you follow in vicky2. The current decision is too easy for players, too hard for AI and a no brainer to do if you get the option.
• There should be small bonuses from your neighbours/trade partner's tech. However these shouldn't be big enough to catch up to someone in a better tech group. Think the conditional modifer for western weapon trade in EU3 (+6 land tech per month). Maybe this should be as significant as 1/2 a tech group.
• Inca should be able to colonise. Just look at the EU3 map in 1400 and 1492! I'd make that an Inca specific decision or Inca specific national idea though, as it seems unique to them.
• Increase attrition based on the travel time back to your nearest core province. No stupidly big European armies in the americas until ship speed increases/provinces out there become cores.
• Small/trivial forces or Europeans should be able to collect native allies, and together conquer large territory for European countries.
• AI should know that taking on weak American countries isn't cost effective, but rich ones are.
• Americans should be able to take advantage of tech bonuses and penalties.
• Don't let all the natives ever be killed in "empty" provinces (until it becomes a normal province). Its too easy to just kill all the natives before your first settlers arrive, and that wasn't really common anywhere.

To balance that out I'm suggesting these:

• Plague and disease. In EU3 population was basically "base tax" and manpower, so those are the things which should drop right down as waves of disease go through.
• Real inflation due to using non-durable money sources (beans instead of something like gold). This should make it impossible to have 50 years stored income when first contact happens.
• Don't lower the differences in tech speed as a way of buffing the Americans. If you want to make them stronger make them stronger in historical ways (see above)

Those advocating for more development in the Americas have a similar perception of the conversation, but in reverse. Both sides seem to think the other is exaggerating one way or the other, so statements like this are getting us nowhere. I'm willing to admit that some American-advocates in this thread have exaggerated native sophistication, but only in response to equally hyperbolic statements that seek to discredit the American civilizations of things that they actually did do. I think everybody (myself included) needs to calm down and stop taking things personally.

Posts like this and the one last week where you said the EU3 balance was right (just the mechanics were wrong) are the sort which we need more of.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Since the natives have such low tech rate, why not just start them off at a tech level comparable to what they should have come the European arrival?

 

[Namm]

Great posts by geodejade87 and Fawr.

Of course not, though it's revealing that your mind goes to such 'explanations' first.

I think the real answer is that technological progress is not nearly as simple as the people calling for fast and easy Westernisation in EUIV think it is. Adopting new technology often takes an entire cultural paradigm shift (unless it's very similar to something you've used before and offers obvious advantages). That sort of thing is really, really difficult and rare. You can see it in the way that certain inventions - writing is the classic example - have only ever been discovered three or four times in human history. Other societies copied the technology from people who did make the breakthrough, but the process often took centuries to happen naturally, or it happened through one society being conquered by another and the tech imposed on them. The native American civilisations, being more isolated than those of Eurasia, lacked the critical mass to make as many discoveries and see them spread form one society to another.

I don't particularly disagree with you... The, uhm, "debate" got a little too heated for a moment.

On a related note, there was swift, technological change in the Americas. The introduction of horses and with that the entire transformation of the Great Plains natives comes to mind. If a non-nomadic, New World state had survived the initial contact with the Europeans and if the conditions were right, I don't see why they wouldn't have begun using horses, oxen, the wheel, metal tools, gunpowder weapons...

 

[FOARP]

1.) There should be more nations in Mesoamerica and the Andes so that players in those regions have more factions to interact with while waiting for Europe to arrive..

I agree with this. This also solves the problem of depicting the unification of the Incan Empire.

2.) Nations in Mesoamerica and the Andes should be monarchies and noble republics (or the some other equivalent), not tribes. Both of these cultures have traditions of urban civilization going back thousands of years, so that designation makes no sense.

Makes sense for the Inca/Aztecs.

3.) The Aztecs and the Inca should have the ability to expand to their historical borders, and the AI for these countries should be programmed to do this through the course of the game.

This is enabled by 1). A "form Incan/Aztec empire" decision for all of the contending states in these areas allows these empires to appear without straitjacketing the system to only have one possible winner in each area. Historically the Kingdom of Cuzco expanded its borders overwhelmingly through conquest anyway.

4.) The conquest should be remodeled to account for other factors besides just European military technology, such as smallpox and internal revolts.

Judging by the Sunset Invasions CKII DLC's disease feature, they have already looked into how this may be allowed in-game. Revolts, though, are probably best abstracted as a low government tech - I'm not sure you'd want to represent this in game if you were pursuing game play as you'd spend most of the game dealing with the problems that result. I guess I can see a situation where keeping the Aztec empire together requires the same effort that keeping together a kingdom does in CKII, but I guess without CKII's personal interaction features it wouldn't be much fun at all to do so.

5.) The Europeans should not be able to move large numbers of troops to the New World in the early 16th century, so that they are forced to rely on those other factors to make up for their small army size. This should be eventually overcome by better naval technology, so that if the initial conquistadors fail to succeed the European nations can still conquer them the old-fashioned way.

This appears to be a function of naval technology - make caravels capable of reaching the new world more expensive so only a few can be built, whilst keeping the price of lower-tech cogs (or whatever) which are not capable of reaching the new world due to attrition low enough to allow England to invade Ireland with 10-20 thousand men. The Aztecs/Incans end up facing 1-2,000 Spanish/Portuguese rather than 10-20,000. They should still find them very, very hard to beat though - actually this requires that the 0-level tech be nerfed compared to EUIII, and that the auto-win mechanism when you are outnumbered more than 10-to-1 be removed/altered.

6.) Mesoamericans/Andeans should have forts. They don't have to be the same as European forts, but just something that prevents an army from immediately controlling a province just by standing on it.

The tech to build a Level 1 fort seems sufficient. Pictures of, e.g., Mayan forts reveal fairly basic stone fortifications.

 

[Seli]

...

On a related note, there was swift, technological change in the Americas. The introduction of horses and with that the entire transformation of the Great Plains natives comes to mind. If a non-nomadic, New World state had survived the initial contact with the Europeans and if the conditions were right, I don't see why they wouldn't have begun using horses, oxen, the wheel, metal tools, gunpowder weapons...

The problem with that is that it seems unlikely the state would survive the introduction of that many disruptive technologies at the same time. Each single advancement you introduce is linked to a power-shift within the society you had before contact. And while the people might adapt, the state and society are a completely different matter.

 

[Yeekim]

I don't see why they wouldn't have begun using /.../ gunpowder weapons...

Using? Sure. Manufacturing? Hardly.

The only "alternative history" where I can imagine some rapid technological breakthrough happening in New World requires:
1) Total breakdown of Iberia after initial discovery of Americas due to something as devastating as 30YW, making it impossible for these countries to launch any state-sponsored invasions for few decades at least.
2) During that time, knowledge of these places leaks to other European powers, who all establish colonies there.
3) When one of them attempts to conquer the native empires, they are able to ally with its rival, requesting weapons and support in exchange for trade privileges.

Best I could come up with... and not all that likely to happen.