Iroquois and Algonkins

[viper37]

First, there is a spelling error in the game.
It should be spelled IroQUOis instead of IroQOUis. I don't know about the GC, but in the IGC, it is wrong. Someone will be scalped...

Second, their territories are a bit misplaced. In 1492-1792, they were a bit more up north than in the game with the Mohawks in Quebec, along the Richelieu River. And there was five nations at this time, not six like today. The nation most to the south was in front of Niagara

If anybody wants to see the map, go to
La Grande Paix de 1701
Take the link (on top) for "The Great Peace" than Map of the 1700.

Also, given the fact that the Abenaki, the Nipissing, the Timiskaming, the Ottawa, the Illini, the Miami, the Ojibwe, the Sauk, the Fox and the Cree, to name but a few, were of the same language family (and also allied like the Iroquois), shouldn't they represent a nation in the game? I know they were mostly nomad, lack the social structure of the Iroquois, but still, they were a power to be reckoned with.

Oh, and btw, should The Great Peace of 1701 be an event where the Iroquois would seek peace with the major non-allied power in NA? I'm not sure how to implement it though. Maybe give a increase in relation around 1699-1700 to favor peace and maybe forbid nations to make war for 50 years.

Anybody care to comment?

 

[unmerged(2238)]

Unfortunately, I don't think there are any other tags for N. American Indians besides that one. Unless you want some Bantu graphic-ed N. American indians...

In addition, the problem with adding native civs in the Americas is one big one: it's extremely advantageous to the colonizers and colonization escalates the more native nations are there. It's a lot harder and more time consuming to add five territories with large high aggression native populations than it is to go in and crush the Iroquois nation with military force. Trust me. Same with the Aztecs and Incas. Spain would have a much more difficult time getting its empire up and running if it didn't have the huge populations and already orderly cities of the Aztecs and Incas to take over. So, in the end, it's really annoying because it'd be really cool to have these nations in (I know it would. I wish we had them all), but in game terms, it makes things way too easy to colonize the Americas.

 

[viper37]

You're probably right . Unless we cheat with history and provide them with level 5-6 fortresses at the beginning, nothing can stop a colonizer from conquering their empire. The tought of conquering the NA Indians never occured to me (seriously!). We could provide them with the maximum troops they can have for each provinces. Would make them a tougher nut to crack, if we can adjust the revenues so that they don't go bankrupt.

And I tought it was simple... I wonder how Paradox designers and the scenarios creators don't go insane thinking about all these small details to keep the balance between the countries and history.

 

[unmerged(2238)]

As for your other comment, about the misplacement of the Iroquois home territory too far south, that probably wouldn't be too hard to fix. If you'd like, just mention it in the IGC main thread, and Doomdark will see it and add the changes to the IGC. Or he may even be reading this thread...

 

[unmerged(2711)]

Also, you shouldn't really force players to comply with a "great peace". After all, we know how closely European powers followed treaties with native powers...

If anything, now that I think about it, European powers really shouldn't suffer the stability penalty for violating a peace treaty if it is with a native power. It'd probably disturb game balance too much, but historically speaking America and other colonizers broke treaties all the time without major disturbances for it.

 

[unmerged(3021)]

The problem I have noticed (having tested the Iroquios during a GC) is that their capital city has only about 600 residents. And its tax rating is low, so they can't build any troops. If we were to go through and make it where they could build more troops, it might get really interesting.

 

[viper37]

Also, you shouldn't really force players to comply with a "great peace". After all, we know how closely European powers followed treaties with native powers...

I must object.

First, the French were more respectful of the NA natives than other Europeans. Not really by kindness of heart, but more because they were few French on the continent compared to other European or Indian Nation (and Montreal was very near of the Mohawk territory and constantly attacked because it was defensless).

The great peace wore the Royal Mark and the Marks of all the Indian Nations in this area (from the Great Lake to the Mississipi). It was signed by the Governor of Nouvelle-France in the name of King Louis IV and at his request (or his intendent). This treaty was as valid as any treaty signed with a European nation, and it was kept in safe place, in Paris. Peace endured from this time up to the conquest (Iroquois did not participate directly in the Seven Year wars against the French, if I remember well, and the French and their Indian allies did not attack the Iroquois).

Once the British invaded the country, they, of course, did not respect the conditions of the treaty, no more than the Americans respected the British treaties.

Imho, the Iroquois should be made stronger than they are and long term peace should be at least a convincible thing in or around 1700-1701 if we want to respect historical accuracy.

The Iroquois and the Algonkins represented a major threat to the European settlements, until they were strucked by plagues and their population was on a ongoing decline that not even war could compensate with it's many captures.

Maybe put them really strong from 1492-1700, then, forced peace and continuous decline due to plague. Or a bit before, say 1670-1680 the first plagues strikes, than a few ones every year.

Or maybe create an entirely new scenario from, 1608 to 1792 focusing mainly on N. America with strong indian tribes.

 

[Bearnie]

A strange thing I have thought about is that the Iroqouis get a +5% in population growt, because their provinces is colonies, this can't be right.

 

[BiB]

Why not ? Colonies happen to get 5% extra pop growth.

 

[Bearnie]

but they're not colonies their homeprovinces

 

[BiB]

Colonial home provinces then

 

[Bearnie]

Colonial home provinces then

You can't ague with such a person