Logoncal
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 660
Considering their past with the Europeans, Mexicans and Americans.... i'll sadly second that
Suggestions and Requests
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Considering their past with the Europeans, Mexicans and Americans.... i'll sadly second that
ozqar
King
In Mexico, afaik, only Tenochtitlan was razed, and basically only the Templo Mayor. Mexico City was largely built on top of Tenochtitlan. The street lay out remained, so I'm guessing that most of the city was left standing as housing and so on. Most other indigenous towns remained standing, with Spanish settlements built next to them or close by. For example, Antequera (the original name of Oaxaca city) was built just a couple of km away from Zaachila (the main Zapotec city in the area, at the time). Same with many other towns, most actually still have the original indigenous name combined with a Spanish name, eg, San Juan Chamula, Papantla de Olarte, or Calpulalpam de Méndez. Many other towns kept their original names, until today, examples are Patzcuaro, Tlaxcala, and Papantla (out many others). The Spanish were interested in converting the people (and yes, using them for labor) not so much in displacing them to acquire their lands, and they mixed in with the local population (ie, with inter-ethnic marriages). I understand that the process in Anglo and French America was completely different, though, but but I wouldn't say that "auto-raze", at least for Latin America (outside of the Caribbean), would be the most accurate description of the colonization process.
1SDANi
Sister Lady
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,934
ozqar
King
1SDANi
Sister Lady
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 2,934
First I thought you were talking to me, not Logoncal, second I'm talking about in-game regions, of which North America is separate from Central America.
ozqar
King
Point taken!
Lokki242
Emperor
Both these civs have been recommended lots (including by me)! I know for a fsct Leoreth likes them both. There's been talk of implementing a new improvement and city system so they dont clutter the old world for the Europeans.
The Iroquois would also be fine on the larger map imo
The Iroquois would also be fine on the larger map imo
Edmund Ironside
White Rabbit Object
I definitely think this would be the best solution.
pippo84
Chieftain
Hi, i'm playing as Indonesia... Going through 2nd UHV..
I've settled in Australian SIlver and Philippine Gold/Silk...
I've 6 happy resources: Dye Gold Silver Silk Gems anbd Spices
I've to trade Cotton and Pearl From Tamils; Incense from Tibet and Wine from Ottoman.
But it always happens to be one less... I've tried 15 time so far and every time I miss 1 exchange; the last time 3!! :
Tamils haven't pearl imporvements, Tibet doesn't trade incense and Ottomans haven't wine.
and Mughals NEVER has something to trade. Mongols collapse, Indians don't exist in 600 BC.
I think this UHV needs to be changed in something else, it's too much related to AI.
Maybe Have *Number* Happyness resources. (not different)
P.S. Don't know if it's the right forum
Attachments
freethink
Prince
On the Native Americans, I think the Precolombian civilizations of the Pubeloans and the Mississippians could both be added on a larger map. Game play to an extent could be about trading with each other because they both existed in a similar time fame. Perhaps one goal for them should be surviving (or doing something) until European contact. Drought was a huge threat to North American complex societies, therefore a player should be rewarded for a playing style that reflects that (by building adequate for example)
I think among native Americans the common theme of post contact history was the devastating effects of disease. This is what happened to the natives of the American South after Herando De Soto's expedition in 1542, even though many of these places would not be annexed by Europeans totally until 1800 they were permanently reduced.
I think there should be in-game mechanics that simulate this but provide the player with choices to evade the catastrophe. Perhaps if they choose to undergo irrigation and health projects before (specific to the native american civ) they will have a better chance of survival. Realistically plauge would force all Northern American native cities which existed before contact to be reduced to 1 (but I dont think this is good for gameplay without some other modifiers that can give the player the chance to do otherwise)
An idea for later native ameican civs like the Iroquois, - perhaps after 1800 or when early America's growth reaches a certain point the player human/ai can receive soldiers for a Tecumseh style war on the U.S. Or if the U.S declares war on them first. The important bottom line is game play variability and that in some situations both sides (even the natives) have a chance of winning (at least the initial conflict.
If the Iroquois or another native civ survives the first American war and aligns with a western county (like Britain) than the natives should gain a population/tech bonus so that they are more fun to play in the mid-late 19th century.
For the American player some balancing should be done to also reward them for the trouble of the Indian war.
This is really difficult actually because one does not want to make European colonization/American conquest impossible either. No outcomes should be entirely predetermined.
I think among native Americans the common theme of post contact history was the devastating effects of disease. This is what happened to the natives of the American South after Herando De Soto's expedition in 1542, even though many of these places would not be annexed by Europeans totally until 1800 they were permanently reduced.
I think there should be in-game mechanics that simulate this but provide the player with choices to evade the catastrophe. Perhaps if they choose to undergo irrigation and health projects before (specific to the native american civ) they will have a better chance of survival. Realistically plauge would force all Northern American native cities which existed before contact to be reduced to 1 (but I dont think this is good for gameplay without some other modifiers that can give the player the chance to do otherwise)
An idea for later native ameican civs like the Iroquois, - perhaps after 1800 or when early America's growth reaches a certain point the player human/ai can receive soldiers for a Tecumseh style war on the U.S. Or if the U.S declares war on them first. The important bottom line is game play variability and that in some situations both sides (even the natives) have a chance of winning (at least the initial conflict.
If the Iroquois or another native civ survives the first American war and aligns with a western county (like Britain) than the natives should gain a population/tech bonus so that they are more fun to play in the mid-late 19th century.
For the American player some balancing should be done to also reward them for the trouble of the Indian war.
This is really difficult actually because one does not want to make European colonization/American conquest impossible either. No outcomes should be entirely predetermined.
ozqar
King
It would still be conceivable for a successful Native American (new ones and existing ones) civ to retain (some or all of) its home territory while the postcolonial countries (ie, the US, Canada, and Latin American civs) can still occupy the remainder of their real world territory around that native civ. Then you can have the cake and eat it, too.
MechatronicJazz
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 316
That's actually the case for most indigenous nations in the US and Canada, though it depends on how you define a state. In DoC, I think it would make sense for most AI runs of North American civs to end up with the US, Canada, and Mexico controlling all or nearly all of the cities. But it would be an interesting alt-history if things end up a bit different sometimes. And of course players will find ways to make all sorts of strange outcomes possible.
Rodnok
Prince
Why you can't build forts close to cities or close to each other? Given the cities are usually closer to each other in this mod, this seriously limits the forts usefulness.
Enyavar
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2015
- Messages
- 510
As Leo says it is mainly to counter the (human player) canal-building for their ships.
The other use for forts is connecting resources - well you have to connect the neighbor res with the proper improvement then .
So far I haven't found military uses for fort lines (they are great for choke points ofc but maintaining a good road network is definitively better than forts, imo). So how are you using them? Having a fort line with three forts each manned with two units is a worse defense than one single fort with six units.
The other use for forts is connecting resources - well you have to connect the neighbor res with the proper improvement then .
So far I haven't found military uses for fort lines (they are great for choke points ofc but maintaining a good road network is definitively better than forts, imo). So how are you using them? Having a fort line with three forts each manned with two units is a worse defense than one single fort with six units.
Last edited:
Imperator Knoedel
Simperator Knoedel
There hasn't been a major controversy on this subforum for far too long. In order to draw out snowflake Status Quo Warriors (and because I genuinely believe that we should do it) I hereby suggest that we replace all ingame instances of BC and AD with BCE and CE.
Furthermore, in the long term we could maybe also introduce civ-specific dates, like e.g. ab urbe condita for Rome. Civ5 has this curious feature where if you play Maya the actual ingame date is displayed in the Mayan system after the discovery of Calendar.
Furthermore, in the long term we could maybe also introduce civ-specific dates, like e.g. ab urbe condita for Rome. Civ5 has this curious feature where if you play Maya the actual ingame date is displayed in the Mayan system after the discovery of Calendar.
