I don't mean the ToT, I mean the automatic CB that Spain gets on ROTW nations. Either remove that or give it to other European colonization nations that historicaly attacked other nations. (England, France, Dutch, and Portugal come to mind)
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by Skullcrusher
Chaka Zulu and Chief Detroit sigh and shake their heads.
Detroit is a French word meaning "by the river". I've never HEARD of a Chief Detroit, and I've lived here all my life. You could be referring to Chief Pontiac, I'm thinking.
The AmerInds need to go. The Iroquois can stay, and the Central/South AmerInds of course. But the rest are a bad representation of a poorly defined nebulous area.
If they stay, they need to be involved in constant civil war since they fought as much with each other as they did with the white man. (And anyone who says they were just "show battles" for honour is in a serious state of denial. Get your thorazine upped.)
Duuk
I agree that all the NA "countries" must go. However organized the Iroquois Confederacy may have been compared to other tribes, they still didn't have anything like the organization, infrastructure and political institutions of the European or Asian states. To model them with the same system as England or China is completely ridiculous imo. "Native controlled" provinces may be a bit of a simplification, but it's certainly a lot closer to the real-life situation than native "states" with armies, cities, fortresses, diplomats, manufactories, merchants, etc.
Phil
Phil
well they had armies, cities, and diplomats... and its not like they are getting anything close to what Europe does in research, which models their shortcomings in trade, infra, and tech nicely... IMO
I can agree with wanting to knock them back to natives. I had one particularly bizarre game where Songhai had unified all of north africa and was invading southern russia. Seeing Zuluesque models in the russian snow was a bizarre sight.
There are some problems with modeling the various primitive societies the same way as the main nations I suspect that fixing the problems colonial powers have (no casus belli) would fix it. I've seen the amerinds survive into the 1700s as powers, just because england/france wouldn't DoW on them.
There are some problems with modeling the various primitive societies the same way as the main nations I suspect that fixing the problems colonial powers have (no casus belli) would fix it. I've seen the amerinds survive into the 1700s as powers, just because england/france wouldn't DoW on them.
Originally posted by Lord Joseph
well they had armies, cities, and diplomats... and its not like they are getting anything close to what Europe does in research, which models their shortcomings in trade, infra, and tech nicely... IMO
I disagree that they had cities and armies. True, many tribes established semi-permanent villages (definitely no fortresses that might require a siege, though), and individual warriors would (sometimes) band together into large groups to fight common enemies, but I really don't think these "count" as cities and armies in the European sense (or as they are in the game). And yes, they had people who acted as diplomats, but the point is that they had no legitimacy in the eyes of the Europeans. The fact that native tribes might consider an area their territory meant nothing to the Europeans.
If the NA and African states must remain in the game in order to give "flavor" to North America and Africa (which was their only purpose to begin with, I'd wager), I’d like to see them have nothing but (easily burnable) trading posts, and maybe be in a permanent state of war with all Europeans (like Pirates or Rebel Scum), though the latter might not be necessary with the new BB rules. Furthermore, I think that they should receive no merchants. Seeing Lenape traders in Mecklenburg is just silly, you must admit.
Phil
Originally posted by Duke of Earl
I disagree that they had cities and armies. True, many tribes established semi-permanent villages (definitely no fortresses that might require a siege, though), and individual warriors would (sometimes) band together into large groups to fight common enemies, but I really don't think these "count" as cities and armies in the European sense (or as they are in the game). And yes, they had people who acted as diplomats, but the point is that they had no legitimacy in the eyes of the Europeans. The fact that native tribes might consider an area their territory meant nothing to the Europeans.
If the NA and African states must remain in the game in order to give "flavor" to North America and Africa (which was their only purpose to begin with, I'd wager), I’d like to see them have nothing but (easily burnable) trading posts, and maybe be in a permanent state of war with all Europeans (like Pirates or Rebel Scum), though the latter might not be necessary with the new BB rules. Furthermore, I think that they should receive no merchants. Seeing Lenape traders in Mecklenburg is just silly, you must admit.
Phil
I haven't seen Lenape traders in Mecklemburg... if they are its because the Euros gave the maps to the Indians
Your wrong on the cities and armies... but since you really don't bring up any points other than naive, Euro-centered views, I am not gonna get into it. There are several good threads in the history forum about the legitimacy of Native tribes, you might want to check them out
Originally posted by Lord Joseph
I haven't seen Lenape traders in Mecklemburg... if they are its because the Euros gave the maps to the Indians
Your wrong on the cities and armies... but since you really don't bring up any points other than naive, Euro-centered views, I am not gonna get into it. There are several good threads in the history forum about the legitimacy of Native tribes, you might want to check them out
Thanks, I'll check out the history forums. But what's wrong with Euro-centered views? Europa Universalis is, after all, a Euro-centered game...
My main beef with the RotW states in the game is that most of them (especially the African states) present a much bigger obstacle to European colonization than they did IRL (for the AI at least). Conquering them can also provide much bigger bonuses. (When Europeans wrested control of an area from the natives, they didn't get a city with 10000 citizens, and they didn't have to send a 20k army plus cannon to get it in the first place. Nor could the Europeans demand and receive tons of gold from the natives).
Really, I think the RotW nations should exist somewhere between "neutral provinces w/natives" and "native kingdoms with cities and fortresses." Till EU3 I suppose we'll just have to disagree over which extreme approximates the reality more closely.
Phil
Actually most of the African nations weren't fully conquered, only the coastlines were conquered...
Re: Re: Re: Re: What?
In currently playing my first France 1.04 game and I'm trying to get total control of the antillas area and trust me Spain taught me the error of my ways by walking allover my undefended colonies/TPs.
/dev
In currently playing my first France 1.04 game and I'm trying to get total control of the antillas area and trust me Spain taught me the error of my ways by walking allover my undefended colonies/TPs.
/dev
Yes, that part of the game is somewhat unhistorical as well... what do you mean by "it works both ways"?
Phil
PS- I checked the history forums, and in the threads I read the only person arguing for keeping the natives as powerful as they are was you, LJ.
Actually I agree with LJ too, Europe has it really easy on natibves already, to weaken them would make it even easier...
Afaik Europe had it pretty easy on natives IRL... I'd prefer historicity over "game balance;" that route is a slippery slope to Civ-dom.
Phil
You must be joking! Détroit means strait or channel. Like in 'le détroit de Gibraltar' for example. Or to be more specific a 'relatively narrow waterway connecting two larger bodies of water'.
Originally posted by Lord Joseph
I haven't seen Lenape traders in Mecklemburg... if they are its because the Euros gave the maps to the Indians
Your wrong on the cities and armies... but since you really don't bring up any points other than naive, Euro-centered views, I am not gonna get into it. There are several good threads in the history forum about the legitimacy of Native tribes, you might want to check them out
I think you've missed the entire point. Its not the I or others don't view the ancient natives of america as 'legitimate' civilizations, it's that the Christian Nations of Midieval Europe didn't.
I've already said that the peoples of the Americas (with a few exceptions, such as the Aztec) were Semi-Permanent Stone Age Farming Societies - the equivalent of the first civilizations (10-8000 BC) established in Messopotamia. For the most part these civilization's 'armies' were hunting parties, or very rarily raiding parties.
Heh Heh, look what I started with my stupid comment. Yep It's probably Pontiac or something but I couldn't remember and many times in America they named cities and towns from Famous Chiefs. So I took a Guess and look at the mess I've made.
On A more serios note I'd have to say that I'm with Lord Joseph on this. They Native Amricans were historiclly a major threat to the Colonials who lived in constant fear of native attacks for the first couple hundred years of the Colonial era. Granted the game engine Dosn't accuratly depict the NA's real Governmental situation, but I think with the Tech restrictions the NA's accurately represent the obstical that they were and should be. Also you don't need a 20k army to fight them, they easily are crushed with 8k and then you can even more easily assault there fortresses with near 100% victories after you reach colonial Land tech. As for the African and Asian Nations they were for the most part historiclly unconquored by colonial forces during the game timeframe so why should it be super easy for us to do it in this game.