So is the idea delayment basically another nerf for hordes?

[yerm]

Why are we nerfing the everliving shit out of colonists exactly? That's not a good solution, that's not even a solution at all.

"Realistically" colonizing should be easier, but said colonies should be tricky to hold onto without said administration and navy. People should skip colonizing because the resources needed to maintain the colonies are not worth it, not because colonizing requires tons of hurdles just to do. If anything, give everyone a colonist at dip tech 4, and have people's unwillingness to spend gold upkeep and protection for it just to have its trade be siphoned by more powerful others be what keeps most from using it.


Swedish colonized Lenape, please.

 

[Wizzington]

Why are we nerfing the everliving shit out of colonists exactly?

We're not. Tone down the hysteria.

 

[Draker5]

But of course making sweeping generalisations about the development of a whole continent of people is a credible argument?

I looked at the sources provided and for example, Cahokia, which is a very nice looking settlement, is not really on par with Europe at the time. That's what my original point was about. It was not disrespect towards natives or anything like that. I mean, Cahokia was the most important center for the Mississippians but even in its peak in the 13th century, 200 years before the games start, it peaked in population at 6000 to 40000.
And that's not much.

You can imagine all you want that there were dozens of thriving metropol...ia(sp?) in North America when the Europeans came but the fact is, there weren't. They were tribes, nomadic tribes mostly.
And you still really didn't counter Europe's Napoleon, HYW, Spanish Succession, renaissance, reformation with Native American large scale religious, dynastic or nationalistic disputes.
Or the fact that it was indeed Europeans who crossed the ocean in their huge ships, clad in metal and shooting cannons instead of the other way around. And before someone screams "racism racism, they did have and do stuff", yes they had and did but it was not on the same level.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I looked at the sources provided and for example, Cahokia, which is a very nice looking settlement, is not really on par with Europe at the time. That's what my original point was about. It was not disrespect towards natives or anything like that. I mean, Cahokia was the most important center for the Mississippians but even in its peak in the 13th century, 200 years before the games start, it peaked in population at 6000 to 40000.
And that's not much.

You can imagine all you want that there were dozens of thriving metropol...ia(sp?) in North America when the Europeans came but the fact is, there weren't. They were tribes, nomadic tribes mostly.
And you still really didn't counter Europe's Napoleon, HYW, Spanish Succession, renaissance, reformation with Native American large scale religious, dynastic or nationalistic disputes.
Or the fact that it was indeed Europeans who crossed the ocean in their huge ships, clad in metal and shooting cannons instead of the other way around. And before someone screams "racism racism, they did have and do stuff", yes they had and did but it was not on the same level.

Again, it's worth pointing out that the native councils are the *only* new world nations that are not materially spanked by this nerf. They'll spam native buildings and bank money into reform + develop similarly to before. It's the non-councils there that are hosed, and they *did* have impressive cities, ships that could reach the Caribbean, and militaries that would have been serious trouble for Europe were they not caught in civil war/turned on each other. Their abstracted weakness in the game is ridiculous because it sells short their potential and that these conquests required careful diplomatic manipulation (or just overt dishonesty and opportunism in Spain vs Inca), all while making the colonial game mind-numbingly easy for western powers.

This was supposedly intended to slow down colonization, but in practice it's going to delay that about 13 years tops, while gimping ROTW far more. The worst part, however, is the impact this has on playing a nation like Aztec or Inca. Strong play in these regions already saw them mostly or entirely conquered while focusing ADM and hitting ADM 4. This virtually guarantees time spent sitting around waiting, and with delayed colonization you might realistically be done with 5 reforms as Aztec by 1510 (and that's very slow, you can do it by 1470) and then having no European showing up anywhere you can possibly border them until 1570-1580. Even if they're faster (which would then make the slower colonization an implausible statement), you're guaranteed to be stuck longer than previously.

Hordes feel this pain a little, but it's not worse than other ROTW. Generally reforming super early as a horde is a misplay, and their issue is always that they need both a reform group and one of religious or humanist unless they're Sunni...but if you go a reform group and reform you lose your good CB and have no replacement available. They'll feel this nerf, but nothing like Mesoamerica or Japan/Korea will feel it.

 

[Magean]

I looked at the sources provided and for example, Cahokia, which is a very nice looking settlement, is not really on par with Europe at the time. That's what my original point was about. It was not disrespect towards natives or anything like that. I mean, Cahokia was the most important center for the Mississippians but even in its peak in the 13th century, 200 years before the games start, it peaked in population at 6000 to 40000.
And that's not much.

You can imagine all you want that there were dozens of thriving metropol...ia(sp?) in North America when the Europeans came but the fact is, there weren't. They were tribes, nomadic tribes mostly.
And you still really didn't counter Europe's Napoleon, HYW, Spanish Succession, renaissance, reformation with Native American large scale religious, dynastic or nationalistic disputes.
Or the fact that it was indeed Europeans who crossed the ocean in their huge ships, clad in metal and shooting cannons instead of the other way around. And before someone screams "racism racism, they did have and do stuff", yes they had and did but it was not on the same level.

First, do you realize that in 1500 London had about 50000 thousands inhabitants and Lisbon 60000 ? And they were by far the largest cities of their respective countries.

Then, you are mixing up technological advancement on one side, political and social interactions on the other. Have you ever (even ?) read accounts by European explorers in the Americas or Africa ? They would meet people living in huts and fighting with spears and yet conducting intricate political relations.

Stop the strawman here. Nobody said American natives had the same technological level than Europeans, nobody accused you of racism. All it's about is your previous comment stating that the natives had "boring" lives.

Finally, you say they were nomadic tribes and this is simply wrong. It's a mere assertion. Many native cultures did make use of agriculture, and kept doing so even after the fall of the main cities. Besides, regarding those who were nomadic... well, would you discard the Mongols for the same reason ?

 

[Aries666]

It is worth pointing out that mesoamericans get a colonist through reforming their religion so the delay in being able to take exploration does not delay them in colonising toward a western country when they arrive.

 

[Montem]

It is, but it wasn't intended to be. We may have to look at a way of compensating for it depending on how hordes play out now.

Have you considered having all Eurasian nations now start with Tech 3?

 

[LastSalian]

If the problem really is Castile and Portugal rushing colonization, as other posters already noted, there are many other better ways to balance that other than screwing ROTW up again.

Couple of days ago, on regards to 50% idea enforcement, mentioned an hypothetical scenario where Starcraft or any other MP game developers would prevent rushing tactics by restricting creating units til minute 10, following PDX approach to balance EU4, and now I learn they are restricting ideas til level 5

Common on, guys. You can certainly do better.

 

[Magean]

Again, it's worth pointing out that the native councils are the *only* new world nations that are not materially spanked by this nerf. They'll spam native buildings and bank money into reform + develop similarly to before. It's the non-councils there that are hosed, and they *did* have impressive cities, ships that could reach the Caribbean, and militaries that would have been serious trouble for Europe were they not caught in civil war/turned on each other. Their abstracted weakness in the game is ridiculous because it sells short their potential and that these conquests required careful diplomatic manipulation (or just overt dishonesty and opportunism in Spain vs Inca), all while making the colonial game mind-numbingly easy for western powers.

This was supposedly intended to slow down colonization, but in practice it's going to delay that about 13 years tops, while gimping ROTW far more. The worst part, however, is the impact this has on playing a nation like Aztec or Inca. Strong play in these regions already saw them mostly or entirely conquered while focusing ADM and hitting ADM 4. This virtually guarantees time spent sitting around waiting, and with delayed colonization you might realistically be done with 5 reforms as Aztec by 1510 (and that's very slow, you can do it by 1470) and then having no European showing up anywhere you can possibly border them until 1570-1580. Even if they're faster (which would then make the slower colonization an implausible statement), you're guaranteed to be stuck longer than previously.

Hordes feel this pain a little, but it's not worse than other ROTW. Generally reforming super early as a horde is a misplay, and their issue is always that they need both a reform group and one of religious or humanist unless they're Sunni...but if you go a reform group and reform you lose your good CB and have no replacement available. They'll feel this nerf, but nothing like Mesoamerica or Japan/Korea will feel it.

What's more, I have the feeling the new fort system will make it even more difficult to resist the onslaught. If the AI doesn't spread thin to carpet siege, you have zero chance of getting ticking warscore. It's already difficult enough to beat a 3K stack with 12 times that many troops when you're unreformed...

 

[Parapluman]

But of course making sweeping generalisations about the development of a whole continent of people is a credible argument?

Of course its not, but it is a reason to answer with a good argument instead of an equally poor one. Besides eventually a quite interesting example was given.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It is worth pointing out that mesoamericans get a colonist through reforming their religion so the delay in being able to take exploration does not delay them in colonising toward a western country when they arrive.

Let's not confuse the issue. Compared to using exploration for QFTNW, "colonizing towards western countries" is a joke. You're better off selling a province to westernize than trying to colonize towards Brazil, but you can only sell a province if you've "met" the AI, which is one-sided and can't happen until you see a completed colony of theirs or they declare war.

The only way this colonist does anything at all from a westernization perspective is if the AI happens to colonize Rio Grande somewhat early. In 1.11 that only happens on occasion in the 1500-1530 window. If they colonize anywhere else, the reform colonist is *completely useless* from the standpoint of westernization, though of course you do still get extra provinces from it so you should use it.

I have had games where not going exploration as Aztec means that you can't possibly westernize until 1580 or later...and the AI is going to be slower supposedly. The nerf is bad enough, the fact that this guarantees the player sits around for a substantially longer portion of the early game is excruciating.

 

[yerm]

We're not. Tone down the hysteria.

I should have quoted, my fault. I meant the suggestions preceding my post. CS isn't nerfing the everliving shit out of colonization, this idea would be:

Take colonisation. You'd unlock the Exploration idea group - but a 'new' version would lose the 2nd extra colonist (the fifth bonus), replaced with something else (maybe lower native aggression or something). If you want to really go for it and get Expansion (which lets be honest, is usually the 2nd idea colonialists always go doe), then you would first have to unlock something else to go alongside it. Perhaps maritime or naval - or if you were a land coloniser, administrative.

Meanwhile,

I have had games where not going exploration as Aztec means that you can't possibly westernize until 1580 or later...and the AI is going to be slower supposedly. The nerf is bad enough, the fact that this guarantees the player sits around for a substantially longer portion of the early game is excruciating.

Realistically, this is "fixed" by allowing a central american native to westernize soon after they complete the religious mini-game. Ideally, the game should not be phenomenally awful for Americans unless they westernize. I know it's "realistic" for the natives to be fodder to a logistically-unrestrained European invader, it's just boring to not have other options I guess. There's just too much open land that is click click click and nothing to "do" as one of these unified American empires, the way something like a Prussia can immediately just keep going and expanding further.

Maybe some way to "modernize" would be helpful; a stable and unified nation of large enough size can start chipping at its tech penalty in exchange for similar issues to what westernerizers face.

If the problem really is Castile and Portugal rushing colonization, as other posters already noted, there are many other better ways to balance that other than screwing ROTW up again.

Couple of days ago, on regards to 50% idea enforcement, mentioned an hypothetical scenario where Starcraft or any other MP game developers would prevent rushing tactics by restricting creating units til minute 10, following PDX approach to balance EU4, and now I learn they are restricting ideas til level 5

Common on, guys. You can certainly do better.

A 10 minute no rush restriction is analogous to something like what Vicky 2 does, not EU4. In that game certain mechanics are unlocked at certain dates. EU4 could certainly do that too - close off European discovery of and expansion to the new world until 1492, for instance. Instead, they do what the StarCraft devs ACTUALLY did - they put things behind a tech wall. Building units requires you to build the requisite buildings, which often require prerequisite buildings themselves, causing a player to be unable to just pop out OP units from the get go. In this case, exploration requires admin technology followed by a dip idea group, which delays it without some specific, exact and arbitrary time constraint. This is actually the exact thing most any game does when it wants to limit the early use of a mechanic, and is the ideal way to do so in most cases. Making siege tanks require a tech lab, or making QFTNW require a colonist idea pick and admin 4 or 5 first, are perfectly valid balance choices.

 

[pikaemperor]

It is worth pointing out that mesoamericans get a colonist through reforming their religion so the delay in being able to take exploration does not delay them in colonising toward a western country when they arrive.

Only if you own or have el-doritos enabled.

 

[Aries666]

Only if you own or have el-doritos enabled.

Did not know that, my bad.

 

[Wagonlitz]

The lack of a writing system to record stuff doesn't mean nothing happened. Besides, the Eastern part of North America had sedentary people that formed trading cities, the Mississippi people among other. Some of these civilizations collapsed shortly before the game timeframe, and that would be quite interesting events if anything.

Indeed. If I am not completely misremembering then Iberian explorers noted lots and lots of columns of smoke from large settlements, fields, and few forests on the American east coast. 100 years later the English arrive, find no fields and no large cities, but lots of forests.

No, I'm talking about Northern Amerindians, as I said. They went back to semi-nomadism when the plagues hit, but there was no European conquest to immediately form a further social structure. The Little Ice Age didn't help.

Indeed. Weren't there also a civilisation in California? (Although that collapsed around 1200 as far as I remember.)

 

[Clownie]

It may be a bit of a nerf to hordes, but it's an absolutely crushing blow to Mesoamericans and Andeans, who need to get exploration as soon as humanly possible to not get devastated by all of western Europe.

 

[LastSalian]

A 10 minute no rush restriction is analogous to something like what Vicky 2 does, not EU4. In that game certain mechanics are unlocked at certain dates. EU4 could certainly do that too - close off European discovery of and expansion to the new world until 1492, for instance. Instead, they do what the StarCraft devs ACTUALLY did - they put things behind a tech wall. Building units requires you to build the requisite buildings, which often require prerequisite buildings themselves, causing a player to be unable to just pop out OP units from the get go. In this case, exploration requires admin technology followed by a dip idea group, which delays it without some specific, exact and arbitrary time constraint. This is actually the exact thing most any game does when it wants to limit the early use of a mechanic, and is the ideal way to do so in most cases. Making siege tanks require a tech lab, or making QFTNW require a colonist idea pick and admin 4 or 5 first, are perfectly valid balance choices.

For the subject of this discussion, colonization, the effect is the same, though: delaying game milestones for the sake of "balancing" it. Rather than providing mechanics to counter a supposedly "unbalanced" tactic, you restrict it to be only viable later in the game. It wouldn't be that bad but:

1. Unnecessarily delays the game phase for everyone.
   
2. Already restricts nations are the most affected.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

For the subject of this discussion, colonization, the effect is the same, though: delaying game milestones for the sake of "balancing" it. Rather than providing mechanics to counter a supposedly "unbalanced" tactic, you restrict it to be only viable later in the game. It wouldn't be that bad but:

1. Unnecessarily delays the game phase for everyone.
   
2. Already restricts nations are the most affected.

Actually, comparing a "tech gate" in StarCraft to one in EU isn't apples to apples anyway. The techs themselves are a kind of "no rush for 10 minutes" setup because of "ahead of years". StarCraft is solely resource-constrained, it doesn't have other blocks in addition to those resources. EU could have gone that route too but it would have had to create a completely difference resources system to manage it...we're far past the point where that would be a realistic avenue to take in EU IV.

 

[yerm]

Actually, comparing a "tech gate" in StarCraft to one in EU isn't apples to apples anyway. The techs themselves are a kind of "no rush for 10 minutes" setup because of "ahead of years". StarCraft is solely resource-constrained, it doesn't have other blocks in addition to those resources. EU could have gone that route too but it would have had to create a completely difference resources system to manage it...we're far past the point where that would be a realistic avenue to take in EU IV.

I don't consider ahead of years to be impactful on tech 4, even 5 really, but I get the point. Admin tech 10 for nation forming is a very clear time lock. Admin tech 4 or 5 for an idea group is a MP limitation. Also, Natives don't hit ahead of time penalties of course.

No Starcraft analogy is apples to apples, it's the game the person brought up so I rolled with it. Usually we see Civ or TW analogies. The one I brought in was Vicky, where there is an absolutely clear time restraint when significant game features came out; eu4 could very much do the same by having a MTTH date is at least 1490 global event unlock the crossing of Atlantic ocean tiles. Portugal would be circling Africa, sure, but finding the Caribbean has to wait ~5 decades.

The problem here is that colonization is a necessary way to end the phenomenally awful boredom of a 16th century American. Delaying colonization hurts because it delays them ending other awful mechanics, or namely the lacking of any mechanics; the tech level delay would be fine if these nations had shit to do once they're done their immediate sphere of influence conquests and religious reformation nonsense.

 

[TheBromgrev]

It is, but it wasn't intended to be. We may have to look at a way of compensating for it depending on how hordes play out now.

Since the intent was to delay the start of colonization, a better way could be to move around the colonist in the exploration idea group. Maybe have explorers first, increased colonization range 2nd (to allow explorers to go further), and the colonist 3rd. You could then put the first idea back in admin 4.