Petition to make New World nations actually playable.

[Homero]

I would be wary of taking the idea that Confucianism has survived to the modern era both unaltered and undiminished

In China, confucionism has made a strong comeback and is being revived as a philosophy, an ethical system.

modern Chinese political system is a 'Confucian' 'meritocracy' when serious scholars all agree that it is still essentially Leninist

Ye, it is still essentialy leninist: what happened to the Confucius statue (2011)?

--
geodejade87

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

Indeed...

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.

Good point; but we should keep in mind that the European presence in Americas grew substantially through migration in the 16th and 17th centuries. For example, by 1584 the white population of Brazil was about 25,000, and ,as more white human took residency in the colony, there may be about 50,000 whites in the mid-17th century; and the migration intensified as a result of news of gold strikes. Wew also should keep in mind the increasing numbers of persons of African origin transported ; about 560,000 in the 17th century.

 

[Grubnessul]

In China, confucionism has made a strong comeback and is being revived as a philosophy, an ethical system.

It does indeed, yet it has been changed and modified over the years.

 

[FOARP]

In China, confucionism has made a strong comeback and is being revived as a philosophy, an ethical system.

It's fair to say that there are groups of people who are trying to do so. It's also fair to say that it's hard to distinguish between bona fide Confucians and people who are just trying to come up with reasons why the Chinese communist party's rule is more suitable for China than that of a multi-party democracy. The successful democracies existing in 'Confucian' societies like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan indicate otherwise. At the very least, the writings of self-described neo-Confucians like Daniel Bell and Jiang Qing cannot be displeasing to the current Chinese leadership, and as such appear to have avoided the censorship directed toward democratic reform.

Yes, it is still essentialy leninist: what happened to the Confucius statue (2011)?

Yup, disappeared after people remembered that Confucius and Communism didn't quite mix. I can only talk from personal experience, but I found that whilst most people know some of Confucius's more famous sayings, the influence of Confucianism in the general population in mainland China is barely detectable - that is unless you wish to include traditional Chinese family relations as an example of Confucianism, although to do so is somewhat similar to labelling relations in the average US/UK/German/Cuban family 'Christian'. Neo-Confucianism at the moment seems to be a phenomenon restricted to university-bound nationalist-oriented academics.

Back on-topic though, I guess people complaining about how commenters keep coming here and saying what the Aztecs/Inca lacked should remember what the opening comment on this thread says: that the Spanish conquests were a fluke and that the Aztecs/Inca were "light-years ahead" of Europe. It therefore shouldn't surprise you if new commenters keep coming here and saying "WTF?! That's total nonsense". The result of the last 83 pages bears out that broad analysis.

 

[Homero]

. It therefore shouldn't surprise you if new commenters keep coming here and saying "WTF?! That's total nonsense"

Right
Back to the point 5 (geodejade87),
"Europeans should not be able to move large numbers of troops to the New World in the early 16th century",


It's worth to note that already as early as in the 17th century, troops from Brazil were dispatched to Angola to help the Portuguese settlers; periodic shipements of Brazilian horses and individual soldiers from Brazil strengthened Portuguese power in central Africa.

 

[Eh up me duck]

Joe, Dafool, please stop arguing, this is getting us no where, and it is pointless!

Fair enough.

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.

Did they interact with each other in the same way that European nations did? If so, fair enough.
Also bare in mind the infamy cost for annexation. If you fill the new world with tiny states you're putting some big breaks on european expansion in the area - brakes that cannot be circumvented and are essentially railroading the player into a very specific path.

You'd also cause widespread revolts around colonial empires and we all love that, obviously.

It's all very well saying that one thing is historical, while ignoring the completely unhistorical concequences that it has.

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.

More of a semantic thing but okay.

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.

Disagree here. Why should the New World be deterministic when the Old World isn't?

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

Not that hard. A destruction of base tax rates would suffice (actual population in-game is irrelevent). -90% tax rate for 100 years after first contact?

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.

Maybe. The chance of conquistadors failing would be pretty small though. Sure they start as a trickle but it gets more and more as time goes on.

Some sort of conquistador system would be awesome though, a combination of existing leaders and (small) armies.

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.

Agreed.

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.

As long as it's nothing like Death & Taxes. Slowing down colonisation of the Americas by having a crap load of states in the New World and heaping infamy on the player is not cool.

 

[panionios]

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.

1. Agreed. It would also be a lot more fun for the player as well. Right now there's not much you can do. You just sit and wait for the Europeans to arrive.

2. Don't know, don't care, don't bother.

3.Agreed.

4. If that can be scripted somehow, would be great.

5. I think there could be a penalty for having more than a certain amount of troops in the regions of the Americas and Australia (until a certain date).

6. Definitely.

 

[FOARP]

Did they interact with each other in the same way that European nations did? If so, fair enough.
Also bare in mind the infamy cost for annexation. If you fill the new world with tiny states you're putting some big breaks on european expansion in the area - brakes that cannot be circumvented and are essentially railroading the player into a very specific path.

You'd also cause widespread revolts around colonial empires and we all love that, obviously.

It's all very well saying that one thing is historical, while ignoring the completely unhistorical concequences that it has.

The organised agreements, built cities, and went to war with each other, so yes. I don't think we have to worry about infamy so much since the aim should be that they're likely to be unified by the time Europeans reach the area - plus we don't know anyway how EUIV is going to handle infamy.

 

[Eh up me duck]

The organised agreements, built cities, and went to war with each other, so yes. I don't think we have to worry about infamy so much since the aim should be that they're likely to be unified by the time Europeans reach the area - plus we don't know anyway how EUIV is going to handle infamy.

So it's okay for the New World to get that sort of determinism, but you want to make it impossible for the historical conquest method to be viable?

Either it's all a sandbox or none of it is. What mechanics would you implement to ensure that these nations *always* unify? And how would you do it without screwing up the game for the rest of the world?

1. Agreed. It would also be a lot more fun for the player as well. Right now there's not much you can do. You just sit and wait for the Europeans to arrive.

Playing as Bar is no fun. They always get annexed by Burgondy or France. So they should get base tax 50 and 1000 a month manpower.

Obviously I'm being flippant, but I don't see why a culture that's destined to have it's people destroyed by disease and overwealmed by a technologically superior foe, should nessesarily *have* to be fun, when the side affect of this is a serious lack of historical plausability in the colonisation game.

 

[geodejade87]

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

I disagree on this point, namely on the grounds that this would defeat the point of adding in other factors to help the Europeans, like smallpox and internal revolts. It should be easy for Europeans to conquer the Americas with a small force due to these other factors. If they fail to take advantage of these factors when they present themselves, and the Natives somehow survive the initial conquest (which shouldn't happen very often), then Europe should have to commit more forces (i.e., in the 10s of thousands.) Either way the default should be European victory, so that when a European AI faces of against a native AI, the Europeans win. The only thing that should be able to change this chain of events is direct player intervention.

As for these other tech issues people have been raising (trade tech, government tech), I think the new tech system addresses my issues. Namely, by reducing the tech gap to 40% instead of 10%, but redefining what that means. With the new tech system, a 40% research efficiency just means that you get fewer technologies to invest in, not that all of your technologies are 40% as good as Europe. I'm happy with that new mechanic, so I don't have reason to complain. (Although I certainly understand if the rest of you do.)

EDIT:

Obviously I'm being flippant, but I don't see why a culture that's destined to have it's people destroyed by disease and overwealmed by a technologically superior foe, should nessesarily *have* to be fun, when the side affect of this is a serious lack of historical plausability in the colonisation game.

See? This is what happens whenever we turn the discussion to productive topics. Now some pro-native guy is going to take offense to this and start talking about how the Natives were more sophisticated than you think and deserve more attention. Then some anti-native guy is going to dispute those points and we're back in a discussion about who's more advanced and by how much.

Joe, I understand that you are against any changes from EU3, which you consider to be historically accurate enough for the game's purposes. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Sun_Wu]

In China, confucionism has made a strong comeback and is being revived as a philosophy, an ethical system.

Ye, it is still essentialy leninist: what happened to the Confucius statue (2011)?

--
geodejade87

Indeed...


Good point; but we should keep in mind that the European presence in Americas grew substantially through migration in the 16th and 17th centuries. For example, by 1584 the white population of Brazil was about 25,000, and ,as more white human took residency in the colony, there may be about 50,000 whites in the mid-17th century; and the migration intensified as a result of news of gold strikes. Wew also should keep in mind the increasing numbers of persons of African origin transported ; about 560,000 in the 17th century.

New COnfucianism≠Confucianism

 

[Eh up me duck]

See? This is what happens whenever we turn the discussion to productive topics. Now some pro-native guy is going to take offense to this and start talking about how the Natives were more sophisticated than you think and deserve more attention. Then some anti-native guy is going to dispute those points and we're back in a discussion about who's more advanced and by how much.

Joe, I understand that you are against any changes from EU3, which you consider to be historically accurate enough for the game's purposes. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I just don't see how the survival of native culture and governmental structure is compatable with the destruction of the population by disease.

 

[Dafool]

I just don't see how the survival of native culture and governmental structure is compatable with the destruction of the population by disease.

While it's true that disease and First Contact would inevitably fracture and warp Native American culture, it far from erased it. For every tribe, city, or state that faded into nothing there was another that changed, adapted, and at least for a time survived. And this ignores that nearly a quarter of the game passes before that great transition takes place. As several of us have pointed out, even if you don't personally have an interest in seeing any changes to the New World, that doesn't remove the fact that they're both justifiable and long overdue.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

See? This is what happens whenever we turn the discussion to productive topics. Now some pro-native guy is going to take offense to this and start talking about how the Natives were more sophisticated than you think and deserve more attention. Then some anti-native guy is going to dispute those points and we're back in a discussion about who's more advanced and by how much.

And then some pro-native guy will follow in geodejade87's footsteps and say we can't compare anything because Native Americans are "different" (unless it is them doing the comparing of course).

 

[FOARP]

So it's okay for the New World to get that sort of determinism, but you want to make it impossible for the historical conquest method to be viable?

Where in god's name did I say that I didn't want the historical conquest of the Americas to be viable? As for determinism - at the moment in EUIII, when you arrive at the Americas, Mesoamerica and the Andes are almost always unified. My argument is that this will most likely continue to be the case even if these areas are divided between more states. Actually this is specifically directed to the Andes which were in no sense unified in 1400 AD and this would also solve the problem of how to allow the Inca Empire to form from a historical start - I'm not sure Mesoamerica needs many more states.

I just don't see how the survival of native culture and governmental structure is compatable with the destruction of the population by disease.

Except what we're talking about is the adaptation to and adoption of western culture and governmental structures by natives, not survival of native culture/government structures.

New Confucianism≠Confucianism

Agreed. One is a religio-socio-political system that in different forms served as a basis of Chinese governance and law until the Xinhai rebellion, the other is a tendencious academic phenomenon considered useful to China's current rulers.

 

[Grubnessul]

I disagree on this point, namely on the grounds that this would defeat the point of adding in other factors to help the Europeans, like smallpox and internal revolts. It should be easy for Europeans to conquer the Americas with a small force due to these other factors. If they fail to take advantage of these factors when they present themselves, and the Natives somehow survive the initial conquest (which shouldn't happen very often), then Europe should have to commit more forces (i.e., in the 10s of thousands.) Either way the default should be European victory, so that when a European AI faces of against a native AI, the Europeans win. The only thing that should be able to change this chain of events is direct player intervention

Tens of thousands? India was conquered with less...

 

[DanubianCossak]

New COnfucianism≠Confucianism

Who cares as long as China keeps growing? Ni Hao!

Anyway, my understanding at least, is that Confucianism was a philosophy that aims to sort of hint people into thinking a certain way that made it easier for them to peacefully fit into a specific kind of society (all suggestions pretty much hint that way) and make everything within society as harmonious as possible. Its very unfair to criticize that way of thinking from historic point and the way it exists today, specially from the foreign perspective, because no country in the world faces the same set of problems as China does, as there are very few societies that can compare in terms of sheer number of people. For those who want to understand why China is the way it is, it all makes perfect sense. Without this "cult" of order and obedience there could never be China at peace (200+ cultures). I lived in a country that was made of maybe 5-6 cultures, and as soon as those ideals were gone, all hell broke loose, and the very worse of human nature surfaced.

 

[panionios]

Obviously I'm being flippant, but I don't see why a culture that's destined to have it's people destroyed by disease and overwealmed by a technologically superior foe, should nessesarily *have* to be fun, when the side affect of this is a serious lack of historical plausability in the colonisation game.

I agree only with respect to the AI and what it should be able to achieve. It should never survive. But here, I am talking about a human player. Take for example Byzantium. The AI never achieves anything and usually gets eaten by the Turks. Which is fine by me. But when a human player decides to take the helm, then that's a different matter. And people love playing BYZ (and Paradox loves them as well, they get by far the best and most interesting missions than any other nation). If people want to achieve sth playing a new world culture, they should be able to do so and, yes, it should be challenging but it should also be interesting and fun (this also applies to BAR, BYZ and any minor). As for the AI, I repeat. It sould never achieve anything meaningful.

 

[FOARP]

Anyway, my understanding at least, is that Confucianism was a philosophy that aims to sort of hint people into thinking a certain way that made it easier for them to peacefully fit into a specific kind of society (all suggestions pretty much hint that way) and make everything within society as harmonious as possible. Its very unfair to criticize that way of thinking from historic point and the way it exists today, specially from the foreign perspective, because no country in the world faces the same set of problems as China does, as there are very few societies that can compare in terms of sheer number of people. For those who want to understand why China is the way it is, it all makes perfect sense. Without this "cult" of order and obedience there could never be China at peace (200+ cultures). I lived in a country that was made of maybe 5-6 cultures, and as soon as those ideals were gone, all hell broke loose, and the very worse of human nature surfaced.

Actually, this is pretty much the neo-Confucian view favoured by the Chinese communist party and its backers as an excuse for their dictatorship, and bears little resemblance to the actual teachings of Confucius, who was explicit in emphasising that the relationship between rulers and ruled was a two-way street and that the people had the right to change their leaders. China's actual political system is still Leninist, it's "cult" of order and obedience at the present time is the one created and enforced by the Chinese communist party. Modern-day Mainland China is about as Confucian in its political system as Cuba is Christian.

Compare this to the current state of affairs in Taiwan, a place which is arguably more in tune with traditional Confucian teachings in both its society (cf. the emphasis on 'shame' in the media there) and its political system (particularly in state bodies like the Examination Yuan), but which also has a democratic system of government. South Korea and Japan are also examples worth considering.

Like a friend of mine who I knew in Nanjing once said: "If Confucius were alive today, he would likely be living in exile or in jail after criticising the government for its lack of rectitude and it's inability to call things by their correct names". The only thing I would add to this is he would also by now have found himself vilified as a "dog" and a "traitor to the Han" by Kong Qingdong and have had his reputation trashed by multiple editorials in Global Times.

I agree only with respect to the AI and what it should be able to achieve. It should never survive. But here, I am talking about a human player. Take for example Byzantium. The AI never achieves anything and usually gets eaten by the Turks. Which is fine by me. But when a human player decides to take the helm, then that's a different matter. And people love playing BYZ (and Paradox loves them as well, they get by far the best and most interesting missions than any other nation). If people want to achieve sth playing a new world culture, they should be able to do so and, yes, it should be challenging but it should also be interesting and fun (this also applies to BAR, BYZ and any minor). As for the AI, I repeat. It sould never achieve anything meaningful.

I agree that it should be very unlikely that the AI can acheive anything playing as the Aztecs/Incans.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

Who cares as long as China keeps growing? Ni Hao!

Anyway, my understanding at least, is that Confucianism was a philosophy that aims to sort of hint people into thinking a certain way that made it easier for them to peacefully fit into a specific kind of society (all suggestions pretty much hint that way) and make everything within society as harmonious as possible. Its very unfair to criticize that way of thinking from historic point and the way it exists today, specially from the foreign perspective, because no country in the world faces the same set of problems as China does, as there are very few societies that can compare in terms of sheer number of people. For those who want to understand why China is the way it is, it all makes perfect sense. Without this "cult" of order and obedience there could never be China at peace (200+ cultures). I lived in a country that was made of maybe 5-6 cultures, and as soon as those ideals were gone, all hell broke loose, and the very worse of human nature surfaced.

That's probably because the Serbs wanted to be the most exclusive Yugoslavs when they weren't really in a position to, whereas every Han Chinese viewed themselves as being in the same race (i.e. northerners don't try to ethnic cleanse southerners) and that in itself is not due to Confucianism but by folklore.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Tens of thousands? India was conquered with less...

Not really, it was conquered by a core of European soldiers and Indian soldiers who were given European weapons and trained to European standards.

Who cares as long as China keeps growing? Ni Hao!

Anyway, my understanding at least, is that Confucianism was a philosophy that aims to sort of hint people into thinking a certain way that made it easier for them to peacefully fit into a specific kind of society (all suggestions pretty much hint that way) and make everything within society as harmonious as possible. Its very unfair to criticize that way of thinking from historic point and the way it exists today, specially from the foreign perspective, because no country in the world faces the same set of problems as China does, as there are very few societies that can compare in terms of sheer number of people. For those who want to understand why China is the way it is, it all makes perfect sense. Without this "cult" of order and obedience there could never be China at peace (200+ cultures). I lived in a country that was made of maybe 5-6 cultures, and as soon as those ideals were gone, all hell broke loose, and the very worse of human nature surfaced.

Okay FQ, I herd u liek GCD

It is not about one way relationships, it is about two way relationships, this is why the Emperor gave larger gifts to tributaries than he received. Yes the ruled obeyed the ruler, but the ruler had to govern as if he deserved it.

That is because Han is the Borg, prepare to be assimilated oh. More like 56 peoples

Actually, this is pretty much the neo-Confucian view favoured by the Chinese communist party and its backers as an excuse for their dictatorship, and bears little resemblance to the actual teachings of Confucius, who was explicit in emphasising that the relationship between rulers and ruled was a two-way street and that the people had the right to change their leaders. China's actual political system is still Leninist, it's "cult" of order and obedience at the present time is the one created and enforced by the Chinese communist party. Modern-day Mainland China is about as Confucian in its political system as Cuba is Christian.

Compare this to the current state of affairs in Taiwan, a place which is arguably more in tune with traditional Confucian teachings in both its society (cf. the emphasis on 'shame' in the media there) and its political system (particularly in state bodies like the Examination Yuan), but which also has a democratic system of government. South Korea and Japan are also examples worth considering.

Like a friend of mine who I knew in Nanjing once said: "If Confucius were alive today, he would likely be living in exile or in jail after criticising the government for its lack of rectitude and it's inability to call things by their correct names". The only thing I would add to this is he would also by now have found himself vilified as a "dog" and a "traitor to the Han" by Kong Qingdong and have had his reputation trashed by multiple editorials in Global Times.



I agree that it should be very unlikely that the AI can acheive anything playing as the Aztecs/Incans.

Ding ding ding

That's probably because the Serbs wanted to be the most exclusive Yugoslavs when they weren't really in a position to, whereas every Han Chinese viewed themselves as being in the same race (i.e. northerners don't try to ethnic cleanse southerners) and that in itself is not due to Confucianism but by folklore.

err, Northerners and Southerners are sort of the same race, northerners sought and killed the southern men and then the northern soldiers stayed there and took southern brides.