Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Removing the North American natives

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
we already talked about this....

lenape should go. i dont think ANYBODY wants them around.

the only reason to keep dakota and navajo would be for hands off games. the better hands off one is the dakota, so lose the navajo. however, CLOSE to hands off games can be played with others, so why keep either?

the southern most one should lose its coastal province.

all others stay to impede european colonization, and give a player SOMETHING to do as the iroqious.

-Matt
 
Dakota, useless. Najavo, useless. Everyone minus the Iroquis (they meet the definition of nation) and Cherokee should go. Maybe the Creek could stay, they did give America some troubles I think. Though the EEP might not be short on tags they do impede the colonizing AI alot, lots of long pointless wars.
 
Originally posted by TheLoneTaco
the only reason to keep dakota and navajo would be for hands off games. the better hands off one is the dakota, so lose the navajo. however, CLOSE to hands off games can be played with others, so why keep either?
Click to expand...
Or you can play Mercenaries or other pseudo-nations.
 
MER works fine for me for long time w/o crashes. Just don't meddle with anything.:eek:
 
I've already done this

In my own version of the grand campaign I removed all of the American and sub-saharan African 'nations'. In their place I put in 'native' values, with appropriate aggression ratings.

The game was in no way unbalanced. In fact, the colonization efforts of European powers were far more in line with actual historical developments than they've ever been with these nations.

So, removing the natives seems to be a good thing in terms of historical accuracy, from a European perspective (and this is EUROPA Universalis, after all).

I still see alot of debate over this sort of move, but I've done this for more than a dozen full games now and every time colonization was more accurate than it ever was prior to these changes.

BTW, it also encourages the historically-accurate acts of genocide committed by European powers, since, for example, the highly-aggressive Aztec 'natives' almost always attack invading Spanish armies - and get slaughtered for their troubles. No 'conquer-and-instant-American-nation' problems.

Max
 
Re: I've already done this

Originally posted by maxpublic
In my own version of the grand campaign I removed all of the American and sub-saharan African 'nations'. In their place I put in 'native' values, with appropriate aggression ratings.

The game was in no way unbalanced. In fact, the colonization efforts of European powers were far more in line with actual historical developments than they've ever been with these nations.

So, removing the natives seems to be a good thing in terms of historical accuracy, from a European perspective (and this is EUROPA Universalis, after all).

I still see alot of debate over this sort of move, but I've done this for more than a dozen full games now and every time colonization was more accurate than it ever was prior to these changes.

BTW, it also encourages the historically-accurate acts of genocide committed by European powers, since, for example, the highly-aggressive Aztec 'natives' almost always attack invading Spanish armies - and get slaughtered for their troubles. No 'conquer-and-instant-American-nation' problems.

Max
Click to expand...

You however won't find any support for removing the Aztecs, the Inca or the African nations in the EEP. One of our goals is to make the game less eurocentric, by creating accurate setups in the ROTW and allowing for interesting games with African, Asian and American nations.
 
Re: Re: I've already done this

Originally posted by Twoflower
You however won't find any support for removing the Aztecs, the Inca or the African nations in the EEP. One of our goals is to make the game less eurocentric, by creating accurate setups in the ROTW and allowing for interesting games with African, Asian and American nations.
Click to expand...
Yes and some of those nations were more advanced than european ones at the time.

The one thing your events don't do however is represent the impact of western disease and it cannot because there are no native nations there to trigger events for.

But hey, its your game, so you can play it like that, although i don't see how removing a country like Zimbobwe which has no coastal provinces would alter historical epansion.
 
Re: Re: I've already done this

Originally posted by Twoflower
You however won't find any support for removing the Aztecs, the Inca or the African nations in the EEP. One of our goals is to make the game less eurocentric, by creating accurate setups in the ROTW and allowing for interesting games with African, Asian and American nations.
Click to expand...

And I should care why? Several folks mentioned the possibility of removing the natives; I provided the data on what happens when you do, since no one else seems to have tried it and posted the results here.

Whether or not the EEP would eliminate the natives or not is entirely irrelevant to my post. The possibility was advanced; I answered the question. The rest doesn't matter to me in the slightest, especially since the only thing I utilize out of the EEP are certain select events. That is, I download the EEP, throw out about 90% of it, and incorporate the other 10% into my own home-brew alternate grand campaign - which doesn't include natives, and is why I have the data.

So you can see, I have zero interest in changing the EEP at all, because I only use very selective portions of it. My only goal here was to answer a question asked, and nothing more. I have no agenda.

Max
 
Re: Re: Re: I've already done this

Originally posted by Jinnai
Yes and some of those nations were more advanced than european ones at the time.

The one thing your events don't do however is represent the impact of western disease and it cannot because there are no native nations there to trigger events for.

But hey, its your game, so you can play it like that, although i don't see how removing a country like Zimbobwe which has no coastal provinces would alter historical epansion.
Click to expand...

Precisely because it is my game and I will do with it as I please, I removed the native nations. In return, I got a consistently more accurate colonization effort by European powers.

It's a game. It worked. That's all I care about. Whether or not these 'nations' were of any consequence is irrelevant in that light. Leave them in and the EU2 AI can't even come close to the historical outcome of colonization efforts; remove them and the situation is much improved.

The great thing about this game is we can each pick and choose what we please; every one of us can have, and play, a different game. More choice is always a good thing.

Max
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: I've already done this

Originally posted by maxpublic
Precisely because it is my game and I will do with it as I please, I removed the native nations. In return, I got a consistently more accurate colonization effort by European powers.
Click to expand...
I wonder...since you play with a bare area already...can you see if it makes a differance if you added in navaho and dakota and well as zimbobwe and zanj?

I have a feeling it won't. Those countries are isolated enough tht for most of the game they will be unencountered or are themselves right next to Terra incognita so they colonizing country wouln't get much anyway.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I've already done this

Originally posted by Jinnai
I wonder...since you play with a bare area already...can you see if it makes a differance if you added in navaho and dakota and well as zimbobwe and zanj?

I have a feeling it won't. Those countries are isolated enough tht for most of the game they will be unencountered or are themselves right next to Terra incognita so they colonizing country wouln't get much anyway.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would make a difference to leave them in. But in for a penny, in for a pound - I removed the lot of them and replaced them with 'natives' and, as that works quite well, I'm not motivated to put them back in and see what happens.

I should say - I've run about a dozen campaigns that I've actually played and things worked out. For testing, I created 'The Kingdom of Hawaii' for hands off (since it seems no one ever goes there) and ran a number of other games to see what happens.

I should also say by 'more historically accurate' I mean 'better European colonization'. This game rarely comes close to 'historically accurate' in the way it plays, which is in fact why we play it in the first place (else we might as well just go buy a good European history text and read that instead).

Of course, if I felt like playing the Dakota I could add them back in with little enough work. But I've never had a hankering to do that. Clearly what I've done won't work for those players who want to play the American or sub-Saharan African nations.

Max
 
Re: Re: Re: I've already done this

Originally posted by maxpublic
And I should care why? Several folks mentioned the possibility of removing the natives; I provided the data on what happens when you do, since no one else seems to have tried it and posted the results here.

Whether or not the EEP would eliminate the natives or not is entirely irrelevant to my post. The possibility was advanced; I answered the question. The rest doesn't matter to me in the slightest, especially since the only thing I utilize out of the EEP are certain select events. That is, I download the EEP, throw out about 90% of it, and incorporate the other 10% into my own home-brew alternate grand campaign - which doesn't include natives, and is why I have the data.

So you can see, I have zero interest in changing the EEP at all, because I only use very selective portions of it. My only goal here was to answer a question asked, and nothing more. I have no agenda.

Max
Click to expand...

I quote the statement from the "Welcome to the EEP forum" sticky:
Hey everyone, welcome to the new EEP forum! This forum is for the posting and discussion of events for the Project. Please read Jools' FAQ for more information on the EEP.

You know the drill, keep it on subject and keep it nice!
Click to expand...
Hence, if you don't care about EEP and don't want to contribute, there's no use in posting to the EEP forum since this forum is only about the EEP. Your posts are entirely irrelevant here and should be deleted if they don't refer to EEP.
 
Hey, cut him some slack. He was providing information (that he's done tests and that the results were decent) that is highly relevant to the discussion at hand. Sort if like the issue with the Uzbeks :)
 
Although harsh, there is the point that he posts became rather irrelevant once it was known that there was no interest in changing the EEP (specifically as such changes were unacceptable). Not to be saying he shouldn't give us information (in fact that was good) but multiple posts on how "his game" works isn't particularly helpful...:(
 
To get back to the matter at hand, I would have to vote for the elimination of all N.A. Indian nations. In EU2, I can conquer and annex an Indian nation and BOOM, I have lands populated by several thousand inhabitants. the former indian population. In reality the indians never formed an integral part of a european colony, either killed/diseased off or moved/forced off to other lands. I say make them aggressive natives which will not give much benefit for the colonizer and none for the invader.
 
The Five (Six) Nations should stay, as should the Cherokee. I can even see a case for a smaller Shawnee.

The thing is the Five Nations and Cherokee are not aggressive enough in the game. The former was historically an extremely aggressive and expansionist state, going so far as to nearly depopulate Ohio and reduce the Shawnee to vassal status. Likewise, the Shawnee lost lands to the Cherokee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back