They ruined North America

[Barron of Gondor]

UGH, where do I begin. The Native Americans get WAY to big WAY to fast. There is basically no point to grab expansion ideas... How the fudge dose a tribe of natives make an empire the size of the mamelukes by 1543?!!!

Then if you colonize that area; get ready to constantly enforce peace on them for attacking your colony. I was just playing a chill France game, and I colonized Louisiana. My colony got jumped by a coalition of natives, so I had to go save them. In the middle of the war (That I was the war leader of) half my colony got annexed by a confederation that formed. I got confused and thought they unconditionally surrendered. So I reloaded a save and peace out before half the colony was annexed... Nope they still annexed them though a decision. I've never played a North American tribe, and I don't really care to in the future. So I have no idea what is going on here. But I think its something to do with their stupid tribal land mechanic that the dev's are so fond of (side note; That mechanic SUCKS!)

This glitch is game ruining to me. It just sucks all the fun out of the colonization game. And honestly, unless they remove these stupid North American tribes mechanics; I doubt I'll ever play EU4 again.

 

[Demony]

I totally agree. Colonizing North America is totally impossible right now. There are way too many tags allied to each other which AI swarm your colonial nation leaving any technological advantage worthless. It makes absolutely no sense neither from a gameplay viewpoint because it ruins the game experience or a historical viewpoint considering that historically North America was very sparsely populated.

 

[I like wars and maps]

This can be easily solved by reducing the amount of provinces and tags in America. Pls just reduce them we dont need a continent nobody plays in except when to check for rebellions in their colonys to have some of the highest province density in the entire game,

 

[Nostalgium]

This can be easily solved by reducing the amount of provinces and tags in America. Pls just reduce them we dont need a continent nobody plays in except when to check for rebellions in their colonys to have some of the highest province density in the entire game,

I fully agree here, though it's very unlikely to ever happen. I wouldn't want to be the marketing guy in charge of selling a patch where you take away content, for one.

It comes down to the Federation mechanics (where IIRC a known bug makes them swipe Tribal Land), Tribal Land itself (which they settle when they reform) and just the sheer quantity of soldiers you can sustain on Tribal Development. It makes for an okay experience in isolation, it just doesn't play well with the rest of the game. I don't really have any productive suggestions on changes (beyond fixing the bug that lets them steal Colonies for free of course) though, since I think NA would be well served with a drastic rollback, which again, won't or is very unlikely to happen.

 

[Uskayaw]

You can disable realistic colonization by turning off Conquest of Paradise DLC.

 

[Sukramo]

In my Provance->France game, the 5th greatest power was a North american tribe in the 1700s. Madness.

 

[MatthewP]

Paradox has said they’re aware of the hyper-aggression problem from tribes and plan to address it and also I’m sure they’ll fix the weird annexation bug. With those fixed IMO it’s in a pretty good spot. Tribes should frequently survive until the end date and occasionally prosper enough to rival Europe.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Paradox has said they’re aware of the hyper-aggression problem from tribes and plan to address it and also I’m sure they’ll fix the weird annexation bug. With those fixed IMO it’s in a pretty good spot. Tribes should frequently survive until the end date and occasionally prosper enough to rival Europe.

"Occasionally prosper enough to rival Europe"?

You and I have fundamentally different opinions on how this game should be viewed. I believe you are under the impression that the game is 100% a sandbox with a historical start... I do not.

I view the game as a sandbox with a heavy emphasis on a reasonable historical progression.

No matter what the native North Americans did, they had zero chance to ever rival Europe. They had a technology level akin to cave men. I'm not trying to sound Eurocentric, but they were hunter gatherers with no knowledge of metal working, limited agriculture, and (outside of modern Mexico) only one tribe knew architecture(Pueblo).

So anytime I hear someone tell me that the mechanics have merit; I can't help but roll my eyes... Yes, the Aztecs and South American natives were reasonably advanced. But I'm not taking issue with them.

 

[MatthewP]

"Occasionally prosper enough to rival Europe"?

You and I have fundamentally different opinions on how this game should be viewed. I believe you are under the impression that the game is 100% a sandbox with a historical start... I do not.

I view the game as a sandbox with a heavy emphasis on a reasonable historical progression.

No matter what the native North Americans did, they had zero chance to ever rival Europe. They had a technology level akin to cave men. I'm not trying to sound Eurocentric, but they were hunter gatherers with no knowledge of metal working, limited agriculture, and (outside of modern Mexico) only one tribe knew architecture(Pueblo).

So anytime I hear someone tell me that the mechanics have merit; I can't help but roll my eyes... Yes, the Aztecs and South American natives were reasonably advanced. But I'm not taking issue with them.

I don’t think I have a very different idea of what the game should be, I just think you’re wrong. The idea that it would be impossible for native tribes, given contact with Europe and a different set of circumstances, to have adapted to and adopted European technology seems unimaginative. Native peoples actually did survive until well after the game’s end date, and stopped being important players in large part because everyone but the British badly lost the battle for North America and so there were no alliances to play off and it was basically the natives trying to stave off the British empire and later America. Had colonization taken a different track, with more successfully competing powers willing to make deals to get native help against their rivals, things could gone quite diffferently.

 

[Rawme]

"Occasionally prosper enough to rival Europe"?

You and I have fundamentally different opinions on how this game should be viewed. I believe you are under the impression that the game is 100% a sandbox with a historical start... I do not.

I view the game as a sandbox with a heavy emphasis on a reasonable historical progression.

No matter what the native North Americans did, they had zero chance to ever rival Europe. They had a technology level akin to cave men. I'm not trying to sound Eurocentric, but they were hunter gatherers with no knowledge of metal working, limited agriculture, and (outside of modern Mexico) only one tribe knew architecture(Pueblo).

So anytime I hear someone tell me that the mechanics have merit; I can't help but roll my eyes... Yes, the Aztecs and South American natives were reasonably advanced. But I'm not taking issue with them.

The Indians used guerrilla tactics, a type of warfare that the Europeans had never before seen. The Indians' method of war was so effective that both the French and the British employed Indians, often through rewards for enemy scalps, to fight most of the ground battles in the Imperial Wars. The importance of having Indians fight the European war was recognized early on. In 1711, a governor in New France remarked at the outset of the Imperial Wars that, "The Iroquois are more to be feared than the English colonies," and years later a New York colonist reminded his governor that, "on whose side the Iroquois Indians fall, they will cast the balance [in the war]"

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=inquiry_2005#:~:text=The%20Indians%20used%20guerrilla%20tactics,battles%20in%20the%20Imperial%20Wars.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

I don’t think I have a very different idea of what the game should be, I just think you’re wrong. The idea that it would be impossible for native tribes, given contact with Europe and a different set of circumstances, to have adapted to and adopted European technology seems unimaginative. Native peoples actually did survive until well after the game’s end date, and stopped being important players in large part because everyone but the British badly lost the battle for North America and so there were no alliances to play off and it was basically the natives trying to stave off the British empire and later America. Had colonization taken a different track, with more successfully competing powers willing to make deals to get native help against their rivals, things could gone quite diffferently.

Unless they found out how to manufacture vaccines and antibiotics... No.
Fun fact, North America had a larger population than Europe. Mostly in Mexico, but they did have a large population in the modern US too... But then the natives got infected with all the diseases that the Europeans had an immunity to. The Population dropped to 6 million a little over a century later. So no, they would not of been able to rival a technologically superior cavillations, with less than a tenth of the population.

The Indians used guerrilla tactics, a type of warfare that the Europeans had never before seen. The Indians' method of war was so effective that both the French and the British employed Indians, often through rewards for enemy scalps, to fight most of the ground battles in the Imperial Wars. The importance of having Indians fight the European war was recognized early on. In 1711, a governor in New France remarked at the outset of the Imperial Wars that, "The Iroquois are more to be feared than the English colonies," and years later a New York colonist reminded his governor that, "on whose side the Iroquois Indians fall, they will cast the balance [in the war]"

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&context=inquiry_2005#:~:text=The%20Indians%20used%20guerrilla%20tactics,battles%20in%20the%20Imperial%20Wars.

Guerrilla tactics were invented in the 1800's the north Americans did not use guerrilla tactics. What your thinking of is raiding. And they were only proficient at it after two major things were introduced to them by the Europeans. The horse, and the musket. They did beat back the Spanish using those tactics, however the English used a very different method to combat the native raiders... They allowed their colonists to have guns. This is why most of the British colonies had very little need for a standing army. Because if the native war parties came by, the townsfolk would go grab their gun and fought it off.. The French and Spanish did not do that.

 

[Atomcreator]

Totally, utterly, absolutely agree with the OP.
If North American colonisation is ruined, then EU4 is no longer an EU game, it is now a non historical fantasy sandbox of the period dictated by modern sensibilities.

 

[MatthewP]

Unless they found out how to manufacture vaccines and antibiotics... No.
Fun fact, North America had a larger population than Europe. Mostly in Mexico, but they did have a large population in the modern US too... But then the natives got infected with all the diseases that the Europeans had an immunity to. The Population dropped to 6 million a little over a century later. So no, they would not of been able to rival a technologically superior cavillations, with less than a tenth of the population.

If all of the Europeans were in North America, sure, it would probably have been hopeless.

Guerrilla tactics were invented in the 1800's the north Americans did not use guerrilla tactics. What your thinking of is raiding. And they were only proficient at it after two major things were introduced to them by the Europeans. The horse, and the musket. They did beat back the Spanish using those tactics, however the English used a very different method to combat the native raiders... They allowed their colonists to have guns. This is why most of the British colonies had very little need for a standing army. Because if the native war parties came by, the townsfolk would go grab their gun and fought it off.. The French and Spanish did not do that.

And here you help prove the point. Of course it was historically possible for Europeans to wipe out the natives; it happened. Again, in large part because the British won out, with their guns and their much more population-intensive approach to colonization and their burgeoning industrialized global empire. But colonization didn’t have to go that way. The French, dutch and others had models based more around trading that benefitted from natives existing rather than the opposite. As you say, different powers had different levels of succeptibility to native tactics (although you’re way overstating the British immunity to native warfare, which was not just raiding but a highly effective approach using terrain, surprise and ambush to compensate for numbers).

edit: and just to take this to its logical conclusion, if the nation that primarily colonized the NA east coast ends up being a huge winner globally, defeats all other colonizers and establishes a unified massive colonial sphere up and down the whole coast, yes that should be very hard for the natives to deal with. And it is in the game; once a large “new whoever” exists, the writing is on the wall. The only thing that’s currently ahistorical is the degree of aggression of the natives towards the earlier settlers which sometimes prevents large colonies from being established until much later. This paradox has already said they plan to fix.

 

[Barron of Gondor]

If all of the Europeans were in North America, sure, it would probably have been hopeless.

And here you help prove the point. Of course it was historically possible for Europeans to wipe out the natives; it happened. Again, in large part because the British won out, with their guns and their much more population-intensive approach to colonization and their burgeoning industrialized global empire. But colonization didn’t have to go that way. The French, dutch and others had models based more around trading that benefitted from natives existing rather than the opposite. As you say, different powers had different levels of succeptibility to native tactics (although you’re way overstating the British immunity to native warfare, which was not just raiding but a highly effective approach using terrain, surprise and ambush to compensate for numbers).

No, you are proving my point. they were not even facing a portion of the European population and were still conquered.
In this game the natives are fielding armies around 30-100k men fighting in pitched battles with the European colonizers. That never could of happened. Hell it was rare for the Europeans to field armies that big in the 16'th century. You are overstating the importance of their war parties. Because that's all they were, two or three hundred guys who would go raid some farming town. They did not field armies. They would trade with the French, and occasionally fight for them. But only because it was cheaper than to move an army from Europe to the new world for the sole purpose of raiding their rival England. They were never a serious threat to say... Boston, or New York. Maybe to a frontier town. but not to the larger cities... In this game these natives took New Orleans from Spain, and then sieged it down from my colony, and after I saved it glitched it from me.. New Orleans was a 20 dev center of trade, with a fort on it. No. That is ridiculous!

And if you think otherwise, you've watched to way to much fantasy.

 

[Volbound]

UGH, where do I begin. The Native Americans get WAY to big WAY to fast. There is basically no point to grab expansion ideas... How the fudge dose a tribe of natives make an empire the size of the mamelukes by 1543?!!!

Then if you colonize that area; get ready to constantly enforce peace on them for attacking your colony. I was just playing a chill France game, and I colonized Louisiana. My colony got jumped by a coalition of natives, so I had to go save them. In the middle of the war (That I was the war leader of) half my colony got annexed by a confederation that formed. I got confused and thought they unconditionally surrendered. So I reloaded a save and peace out before half the colony was annexed... Nope they still annexed them though a decision. I've never played a North American tribe, and I don't really care to in the future. So I have no idea what is going on here. But I think its something to do with their stupid tribal land mechanic that the dev's are so fond of (side note; That mechanic SUCKS!)

This glitch is game ruining to me. It just sucks all the fun out of the colonization game. And honestly, unless they remove these stupid North American tribes mechanics; I doubt I'll ever play EU4 again.

Colonization is trashed for multiple reasons:

1. Too many natives, especially in the Eastern nations which prevents AI from colonizing let's say India or East Indies very well
2. The Colonial Nations kind of broke the game as well. Just setup 5 colonies and then create nation and let it go. Kind of makes colonization boring
3. AI is so broken that you rarely get fun colonization from European nations (especially Portugal who just spams the Caribbean with its advantages instead of being, Portugal)
4. Treaty of Tordesillas is totally broken and doesn't even make sense as it doesn't even match the concept of the real treaty.

 

[MatthewP]

No, you are proving my point. they were not even facing a portion of the European population and were still conquered.
In this game the natives are fielding armies around 30-100k men fighting in pitched battles with the European colonizers. That never could of happened. Hell it was rare for the Europeans to field armies that big in the 16'th century. You are overstating the importance of their war parties. Because that's all they were, two or three hundred guys who would go raid some farming town. They did not field armies. They would trade with the French, and occasionally fight for them. But only because it was cheaper than to move an army from Europe to the new world for the sole purpose of raiding their rival England. They were never a serious threat to say... Boston, or New York. Maybe to a frontier town. but not to the larger cities... In this game these natives took New Orleans from Spain, and then sieged it down from my colony, and after I saved it glitched it from me.. New Orleans was a 20 dev center of trade, with a fort on it. No. That is ridiculous!

And if you think otherwise, you've watched to way to much fantasy.

You’re sort of saying the same thing I am but then saying you disagree. Yes, once major cities like Boston and New York were well established in the 18th century as part of the very large British colonial region, the natives couldn’t realistically threaten them. This presupposes a world where the British built huge colonies fairly quickly (unlike the practices of other colonizers) and the natives completely failed to unify against them. The former seems like largely a historical accident. The latter may be the most likely outcome given how different and often antagonistic the different tribes were. But it also doesn’t seem impossible that, in a different timeline, the majority of natives could have recognized the existential threat they faced fairly early and unified against it. That also would have made things very different. In fact if the natives had been uniformly hostile from the start (as they are in the current game) it’s unlikely colonization could have been successful until centuries later when Europe actually started to be able to project significant power across the oceans. And who knows how much things would have changed by then.

 

[Jespoke]

You’re sort of saying the same thing I am but then saying you disagree. Yes, once major cities like Boston and New York were well established in the 18th century as part of the very large British colonial region, the natives couldn’t realistically threaten them. This presupposes a world where the British built huge colonies fairly quickly (unlike the practices of other colonizers) and the natives completely failed to unify against them. The former seems like largely a historical accident. The latter may be the most likely outcome given how different and often antagonistic the different tribes were. But it also doesn’t seem impossible that, in a different timeline, the majority of natives could have recognized the existential threat they faced fairly early and unified against it. That also would have made things very different. In fact if the natives had been uniformly hostile from the start (as they are in the current game) it’s unlikely colonization could have been successful until centuries later when Europe actually started to be able to project significant power across the oceans. And who knows how much things would have changed by then.

The scenario supposes both that the Europeans would give up their interests on the continent instead of dubling down, and that the natives would be able to maintain any semblance of unity across the whole east coast. Which i would rate questionable and impossible respectively. And even a scenario so favorable to the natives, still just sets the Europeans back for a while until NA gets hit by a much earlier and easier version of the scramble for Africa at some point.

 

[Aloraand]

The broken thing is that there is a higher chance of NA tribal natives surviving compared to more advanced meso/south American native societies.

I agree that natives should have a chance to survive e.g. if the French got hegemony over North America, they were sending way less settlers than the British, so a situation like Congo and Portugal could arise.

However, what need to be taken into account that the "historically" frustrating thing is seeing some random tribe like Joara becoming gp, while this never happens for Aztecs or Incas, who were in better positions in terms of ability to exercise state power, just because their catch up mechanics are much harder for the ai to go through.

Also, the sheer amount of tags present there makes you have one imperialist war after another, rather than a settler colonial conflict, with frequent coalitions, which make the whole thing just annoying rather than engaging. Tribal land does not interact at all well with this, since you can annex it as a coloniser, creating dev, hence population out of nothing.

Also, treaty of tortillas is just badly designed, since the ai never violates it, usual colonisers sometimes cannot reach na fast enough, since carribean gets blocked of. If it excluded the carribean, it would be much better tbh.

 

[MatthewP]

The scenario supposes both that the Europeans would give up their interests on the continent instead of dubling down, and that the natives would be able to maintain any semblance of unity across the whole east coast. Which i would rate questionable and impossible respectively. And even a scenario so favorable to the natives, still just sets the Europeans back for a while until NA gets hit by a much earlier and easier version of the scramble for Africa at some point.

I don’t think any kind of cross-continental coordination would be necessary, just for the natives to generally take more of an approach of working together regionally against the Europeans, which basically didn’t happen at all historically. Whether that is realistic is very complicated; obviously it didn’t happen but again it doesn’t seem impossible.

I basically agree about what would happen later, it seems like the circumstances that would have to happen for the natives to resist the industrialized, nationalized Europeans of the 19th century that conquered almost the whole the world are very low likelihood.

No point in trying to reason with him. He just wants to see a game give the world some sort of upper hand to Europe. Like I said he has consumed to much fantasy that he thinks Possibility and Probability are interchangeable. He wants a power trip when playing the natives.

You just have a good day now.

 

[Blust]

What's amazing to me is that is not fun to play as a native tribe and not fun to colonize because of those same tribes. For a game relying so heavily on colonization, it's madness to see such a failed core mechanic