Solving the First Conctact dilemma

[unmerged(5549)]

As in, when the europeans hit america and the natives die off.

I suppose if we want a number of playable nations in the americas they'll need to somehow include this fact in the games.

easiest way I see to do this if for an event to trigger for each/all nation(s) in the americas at first conctact with any european nation that causes it to loose 50% to 75% of it's population based on some densitiy formula.

That way if america is discover early, maybe some nations have time to recover by the time the europeans arrive in force


Hay9000

comments?

 

[unmerged(2540)]

Wait, you mean the european nation? but that is incredibly harsh, and some might say it should be reversed. but i would like to see the American nations be more playable. But thas just me

 

[Maximilian I]

I´ve read that close to 90% of the native NorthAm. population died within 100 years after the first contact with the europeans. primarily due to diseases, but also european atrocities... there should be a switch "disease on/off" for those, who want to play amerian nations...

 

[unmerged(5487)]

Indian nations

Does it really matter what the history-books says about how many natives died after the contact with europeans?
We want the game playable and open to different outcomes every time you play. If they include all kind of facts it will be a pretty boring game.

What if the Aztecs did kill the first europeans upon arraival, and not greeted them as kind of gods according to their religious viewpoint?

The Aztecs could have decided to expand their territory to produce more food for an increasing popultaion?

Would be kind of meaningless to play any of the indian nations if they all die after the europeans arrive.

 

[Aetius]

Another question is what happens if aboriginal populations build breweries...

 

[unmerged(3034)]

The simple fact remains that those populations had no defence against european diseases, therefore to reflect reality, this should be in the game as well. Its just one of the challenges of playing the american nations.

 

[unmerged(2544)]

This is a cataclysmic event for North American populations. Has it occured elswhere too, and did it have the same effect? Perhaps this should be handled by a special event (like the treaty of Tordesillas), trigered by the inauguration of the first european colony in an area of the world. This would cause severe minuses in growth for these nations, -20% or so. Perhaps there must be a constant for each area, marking the susceptibility of the natives to European diseases, as there should be a constant marking the deadliness of local diseases to people from elsewhere (already there, in a way)

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by axi
This is a cataclysmic event for North American populations. Has it occured elswhere too, and did it have the same effect? Perhaps this should be handled by a special event (like the treaty of Tordesillas), trigered by the inauguration of the first european colony in an area of the world. This would cause severe minuses in growth for these nations, -20% or so. Perhaps there must be a constant for each area, marking the susceptibility of the natives to European diseases, as there should be a constant marking the deadliness of local diseases to people from elsewhere (already there, in a way)

It happened in other places which didn't have contact with Eurasian societies, such as Australia and Polynesia. Europeans, Asians, and Africans have always had contact with domestic animals, which are the spawning ground of most new diseases. They also after time began to gain hereditary immunities or resistance to such diseases. Those out of contact of Europeans never got the diseases, and thus never gained the resistance, and thus were incredibly vulnerable after first contact. Moreover, having virtually no domestic animals of their own, they had virtually no diseases to give the Eurasians in return (syphilis being just about the only possible example).

Read Jared Diamond's excellent book Guns, Germs, and Steel for a more in-depth study of this (and a good read for anyone interested in history in general). It should be the bible for Paradox if they wish to impliment any post first-contact pandemics among isolated populations...

 

[unmerged(4955)]

Originally posted by axi
This is a cataclysmic event for North American populations. Has it occured elswhere too, and did it have the same effect? Perhaps this should be handled by a special event (like the treaty of Tordesillas), trigered by the inauguration of the first european colony in an area of the world. This would cause severe minuses in growth for these nations, -20% or so. Perhaps there must be a constant for each area, marking the susceptibility of the natives to European diseases, as there should be a constant marking the deadliness of local diseases to people from elsewhere (already there, in a way)

The worst epidemics take place in a few years at most after exposure. Meaning that -20% growth rate wouldnt be very realistic.
A better version would be -100% growth. Assuming that their populations grow, it wouldnt wipe them out in a decade, just literary decimate them.
However, every year thereafter the penalty would lessen - say -5%/year.

So, after three years, the penalty is just 85%, or 8.5% yearly fall in population.
Still severe, maybe even crippling...but realistic.

But on another note - were the Indians really capable of defending themselves? Europe was in almost constant armed conflict since the fall of the Roman empire and things werent much better before that either (just seen Gladiators on Discovery). That led to quick development of military tactics, weapons, training, etc, while the Indians lived in relative peace. European conquest of the New world was, in a sense, predestined. In a sense.

McHrozni

 

[Winkelried]

Re: Indian nations

)

Originally posted by Mr.Motzfeldt
Does it really matter what the history-books says about how many natives died after the contact with europeans?
We want the game playable and open to different outcomes every time you play. If they include all kind of facts it will be a pretty boring game.

What if the Aztecs did kill the first europeans upon arraival, and not greeted them as kind of gods according to their religious viewpoint?

The Aztecs could have decided to expand their territory to produce more food for an increasing popultaion?

Would be kind of meaningless to play any of the indian nations if they all die after the europeans arrive.

I agree, this wouldn't make any sens if Paradox wants to make some native nations playable. Besides I imagine that some players slaughter the natives anyway (I prefer to integrate them into colonies but sometimes they turn aggressive just before the colony is large enough)

 

[unmerged(212)]

Two points:

First - The bubonic plague was carried by infected rats that were introduced into densely populated Europe. I've read that these rats were believed to have originated in Asia and they tagged along in trading ships that carried oriental goods into Southern Europe. We all know about the 50% population declines - but a positive development (for the survivors) was natural selection and increased immunity.

Second - It's clear that the Native American populations declined after the Europeans arrived. However, many tribes regions were cleared of inhabitants not only by disease/massacre but by forced migration. A way to model this in EU2 would be for the natives to migrate to a new region if they survive an attack rather than simply being reduced and more vulunerable to follow-up attacks. The end result would be natives (in N. America) that are forced westward would become stronger & stronger and harder to conquor with the typically small new world armies. It would also be realistic for these native populations to periodically raid their former provinces to strike back at the encroaching colonies - this happened quite often to the early American colonists IRL.

 

[unmerged(5073)]

Initually there were high deaths among American Indians (AIs) upon European contact, but they survived. A problem AIs had also was wars between themselves, Europeans, and the lack of food (Pilgrims looted the winter food storages of AIs, hence why there was never a second "thanksgiving").

The AIs definately had the power to defeat the Europeans. In King Philip's War (1675-76), the AIs around Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts united under "King Philip" (forget his native name, the king label was an English joke that a savage would think himself equal to King of England) and destroyed 24 towns and killed over 600 New Englanders. However, due to lack of food, many AIs stopped fighting. Also some groups were offered large sums of European goods to stop. The Mohawks faught with the New Englanders and helped drive King Philip to a small handful of warriors. King Philip was killed by a AI working for the English.

Alright you ask how does this show the AIs could of won? well, like the Aztec, the AIs welcomed the Europeans and helped them, but the Europeans exploited this as a weakness (thinking AIs were afraid of them). By the time King Philip was able to unite and attack the European settlements it was already too late, the European population was too big. Also the AIs valued life and never attacked a fortified city or Fort - thus could never of driven Europeans out! Had the AIs been aggressive and united at the beginning, they could of driven the Dutch, English, and French out as they landed on the beaches.

Josef Weidt

 

[unmerged(5073)]

Since on topic of European colonization of North America, why is it the English always settle in N.America first? In 1624 the Dutch were first to have a permanent settlement in N.America. They built New Amsterdam and Albany in present-day state of New York. They held that region until 1664 when they were defeated by the Duke of York, thus New Amsterdam became New York.

Amazing how US history books (K-12) never mention the Dutch, or possibly a small blurb about English defeated the Dutch at New York. Ah well, US education system is crap anyway (Detroit schools don't even have books for half their students!).

Josef Weidt

 

[unmerged(5487)]

indians could easily defeated the europeans

McHrozni wrote:


But on another note - were the Indians really capable of defending themselves? Europe was in almost constant armed conflict since the fall of the Roman empire and things werent much better before that either (just seen Gladiators on Discovery). That led to quick development of military tactics, weapons, training, etc, while the Indians lived in relative peace. European conquest of the New world was, in a sense, predestined. In a sense.

For your information, Cortez had only 600 men, a few small canons, 13 muskets and 16 horses when he invaded Mexico in 1519 (source The Times concise atlas of world history), and that is NOT a formidable army.
Pizarro had only 180 men!, 27 horses and 2 cannons when he attacked the Inca empire in 1531. No guns at all!
It was not a matter of numbers, other factors played a big role.
The indians could easily erased Cortez and Pizarro if they wanted.

 

[unmerged(4955)]

And about 100,000 native allies for logistic and arrow fodder (Id say cannon fodder, but..) during the siege of the Tenothitlan (sp?).

But you dont oppose my point, really. It was the cultural differance that played the most important role.
Aztecs belived Cortez was the god Quetzelkotl (sp?), the Feathered Snake.
Incas belived that their empire was going down due to prohpecies.

Come to think of it, those prohpecies were pretty much real: Cortez looked exactly as predicted, came at exactly the right time and also behaved as a god in most respects. He also took control of the Aztec empire.
Same for the Incas: their empire did collapse.

And about the numbers - I didnt mean that Europeans were able to conquer because their armies so vastly outnumbered the Indians, but because Europe was more densly populated and this lead to both increased number and severity of the conflicts. Europeans couldn't get along even if they shared the same religion, the Roman Catolichism, for example. When it came to Moslems, ...
Inquisition, should I say more?

Yes, the Aztecs were violent and bloodthirsty but not that much.

McHrozni

 

[unmerged(212)]

Originally posted by Demetrios
Read Jared Diamond's excellent book Guns, Germs, and Steel for a more in-depth study of this (and a good read for anyone interested in history in general).

I second the motion: this is indeed a good read. I get the sense that EU2 is going to have many more settings that are going to add to the complexity of the game. I imagine that one of them will be to make it difficult for New World colonization. Who knows, perhaps we'll find Aztec colonists attempting to set up shop in Gascone France!

 

[unmerged(5336)]

well first off, if your going to say someone did something first, why not give a date. but also the dutch werent the first to colonize N america, the spanish were. Also England founded virginia in 1607, and before that they had attempted colonization before then. the one lesson from this is winners write the history, and the english "won" new york from the dutch.

ps. tenochitlan is the city i think. one of the coolest places built in the middle of a lake (other than boston).

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by Weidt
Since on topic of European colonization of North America, why is it the English always settle in N.America first? In 1624 the Dutch were first to have a permanent settlement in N.America. They built New Amsterdam and Albany in present-day state of New York. They held that region until 1664 when they were defeated by the Duke of York, thus New Amsterdam became New York.

Amazing how US history books (K-12) never mention the Dutch, or possibly a small blurb about English defeated the Dutch at New York. Ah well, US education system is crap anyway (Detroit schools don't even have books for half their students!).

Josef Weidt

I'm not sure where you're getting your history from, but the English had permanent settlements at Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 and in Plymouth, Massachussets in 1620. Both of these beat the Dutch in New Amsterdam by several years. Of course, the Spanish had them both beat, having settled St. Augustine, Florida in 1565 and in New Mexico in 1598.

 

[unmerged(301)]

Ahhh... My favorite topic

Another good read with quite a bit of detail on Native American interactions with colonial powers is "Crucible of War" by Fred Anderson (in English). It's about the 7 years war and aftermath in North America from 1754-1766.

There's quite a bit about British and French interaction with the Iroquois and other Native groups.

One interesting thing he talks about it the dependance that the Native tribes had on European trade goods at this time, to the point where they would starve if they couldn't get guns and ammunition before the hunting season.

Also, groups of Natives where still being decimated by European diseases even after hundreds of years of contact with settlers. Several French Allied tribes experienced deadly smallpox epidemics during this period which killed off 10-50% of their populations.

It seems to me that the Natives had very little chance to hold off European settlement in the long term, although in the short term they definately had some success. I don't know what it will be like to play Native American nations, but if the game is to have any historical basis, there has to be some modelling of disease.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Re: Indian nations

Originally posted by Mr.Motzfeldt
Does it really matter what the history-books says about how many natives died after the contact with europeans?

Heaven forbid that a history-based game would have any basis in history....