I have conveniently provide the links to them. If only you'd just click on them...
Will look as soon as this post is done.
We've been over this. Historical accuracy be damned.
I don't agree. I assume I'm allowed to disagree and the community will decide?
Either this or limit the number of NA nations, I'd vote YES to either one.
Historical accuracy may be not necessarily compatible with this game, but I wouldn't curse it and throw it away. Otherwise there would be machine guns in 1500 and Mathalamus' portals would be legal. I'm ok with stretching history, but I'm not OK with cursing it out completely.
For instance, the Aztecs mounting an effective defense against the Spanish was a stretch, but a livable stretch. Hypothetically, Montezuma's men could have, like, defeated Spain via luck. I'm OK with the Aztecs having a chance in a war, even an equal chance (Or any native nation.)
A canoe reaching Europe... just isn't possible. It ruins all roleplaying, completely.
Making colonization completely impossible by everyone starting in the Americas also ruins a Renaissance game.
I say just, slightly nerf the native nations or limit their number. We don't even need both. I'm not saying nerf them to the historical extent, I'm saying stretch their abilities to the greatest extent, stretch historical accuracy, but don't kill it completely.
You know my position: no penalties based on geography.
Right. Your economy and military are limited by your gold income and your armies anyway. Even if you have 20 million people in your military but only two armies then you'll have 20 million soldiers in two armies. Only a few thousand will actually be armed, and the rest are cannon fodder. That's a good use of manpower right there!
Still powergaming even if there's no effect.
Joecoolyo, can we ban anyone who make this kind of post from now on?
While I won't state whether or not I agree, Joecoolyo can be tough. I recommend you take this type of post to PM.