105 replies to this topic

[blablahead]

Quote

A large european army would have an advantage against the indians,but the colonial armies who fought against them could be easily defeated.

Exactly. An army of highly trained, elite European troops could probably defeat most Indians very easily, however the soldiers who were fighting them weren't elite troops, but colonists and militia for the most part.

Also, leaving Native Americans out of a Colonial mod would be like leaving Rome out of 0 AD.

For a timeline, I don't know really but starting in 1492 is good.

PS: Maybe that could be the name of the mod, 1492? Just a thought. I like how it alludes to 0 AD.

Edited by blablahead, 28 December 2008 - 02:36 AM.

[Abadu]

So as we cant leave rome out of 0 AD...
Actually I have two ideas for the timeline.The first is to make the mod ranges from,as you said,1492 to the early/mid XVII Century,and make the mod about the colonizatin of the americas and the european wars of that period.The main atractive of this period is that we would have diverse armies and the factions would also have more variation between them.
My other idea is to make the mod from the late XVII Century to the american revolution (Or latter).By this,the nations would already have established their colonies and the mod focus would be in the colonies and in the colonial wars of the period (And this gives us the chance of include some cool looking colonial militias).
Of course,we can always make a big timeline,but I'm not a big fan of games with large timelines.The players either rush at the beggining of the game and cant see the later ages or the game becomes a race for the last age.This is,however,my opinion,what do you think?
Also,I'm going to PM the other people who were interested in the mod and ask them if they still want to help.

[blablahead]

I like the first timeline better, personally. The way I felt about AoE3 was that it was almost like it should be two games, because technology progressed so rapidly during that period.

Also, I didn't like how they included the Ottomans. They didn't have any colonies in the Americas.

Since Tathar hasn't been active for like a year, I think we should sort of overhaul this thing.

[Belisarivs]

blablahead, on Dec 27 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

PS: Belisarius, I would point out how wrong you are about the Indians, but Abadu already did it. I think that to leave them out of this mod would be silly, and I don't really like the way they did it in AoE3, but it's better than nothing.

Actually, although I don't like AoE3 much, I find depicting of natives here as quite accurate if you mean those trainable local auxiliary troops.

blablahead, on Dec 27 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

PPS: Why would a Iroquois warrior, for example, or a Cree warrior armed with a musket be any less effective than a British or French soldier armed with the same weapon?

Regular infantry is always better than irregulars. They receive proper training, have higher discipline and morale.

Military training is not only about aiming gun at enemy and pressing trigger.

The only disadvantage of colonial armies was small number of soldiers who could still inflict terrible casualties to overwhelming force of native indians.

How do you represent this? Will you gice indians pop limit 200 and to Spanish 50? Or will you make missballancing tweaks like those in Aztecs in AoK?

No. I don't really believe, that aztec could defeat European heavy infantry so easily.
Aztecs were starting to be beaten by Tarascans (or Tlaxcalans) who revealed how to make copper weapons.
Which was technology known for Centuries in Old World.

Edited by Belisarivs, 28 December 2008 - 09:47 AM.

[Belisarivs]

blablahead, on Dec 28 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

Exactly. An army of highly trained, elite European troops could probably defeat most Indians very easily, however the soldiers who were fighting them weren't elite troops, but colonists and militia for the most part.

Sorry?
I don't really believe, that Spanish Conquistadors, who swept away Indians even though they were small in numbers were just militia.

And if so, that would mean that Indians were really weak.

blablahead, on Dec 28 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

Also, leaving Native Americans out of a Colonial mod would be like leaving Rome out of 0 AD.

I think, that making Indians as trainable local Auxiliary troops would be sufficient.

[Abadu]

I like the Aoe3 use of the indians,but we need to improve it a bit.Something between a civ and auxiliary troops maybe....
Hey Belisarivs,lI was missing you here dude!Do you wanna help us here?
EDIT:The aztecs arent a real example of a strong native american civ (Outdated weapons and their need to capture enemies instead of killing them were weak points of their military),but the iroquois,the mapuches and even the incas certanly gave some trouble to the europeans.
EDIT2:Blablahead,the ottomans never had colonies,but they raided the north american coast in the XVII Century

Edited by Abadu, 28 December 2008 - 02:34 PM.

[Belisarivs]

Abadu, on Dec 28 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

Hey Belisarivs,lI was missing you here dude!Do you wanna help us here?

Hi.
I was still there. Less active hough. My studies ended. I'm now employed by Novell and working on SuSE Linux.

My collegue is one of the 5 most important persons in KDE development.

Abadu, on Dec 28 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

EDIT:The aztecs arent a real example of a strong native american civ (Outdated weapons and their need to capture enemies instead of killing them were weak points of their military),but the iroquois,the mapuches and even the incas certanly gave some trouble to the europeans.

Aztecs killed their enemies. Sooner or later. In fact, when Spanish arrived, they just were in progress of great conquest. And this can't happen when you are weak. They just didn't know metal.

I wanted to point out, that Indians didn't reach technological level comparable to Europeans. They weren't able to make own guns or cannons. They had to buy or capture it. And this is quite uncertain source of weapons

You'll have to make them more powerful than they really were or give them superior numbers (which is more correct).

If they managed to win, it was never against numerically superior Europeans. While Europeans achieved many such victories.

Also, Indians could use native territory to their advantage. But how do you want to implement this?

AoE3 Warchiefs were imho terrible. I don't believe that indians had cannons worth mentioning.

Abadu, on Dec 28 2008, 03:08 PM, said:

EDIT2:Blablahead,the ottomans never had colonies,but they raided the north american coast in the XVII Century

Never knew about it. Could you provide some links?

[blablahead]

Quote

No. I don't really believe, that aztec could defeat European heavy infantry so easily.
Aztecs were starting to be beaten by Tarascans (or Tlaxcalans) who revealed how to make copper weapons.
Which was technology known for Centuries in Old World.

The Aztecs are hardly a good example. When Cortes arrived, they believed him to be their god Quetzalcoatl, and when the King Moctezuma invited them into his city, they took him hostage. Later, the Aztec nobles led a rebellion and drove the Spanish out of Tenochtitlan. The Spanish lost more than 600 of their men. They then found refuge with their allies, the Tlaxcala. The Aztecs then attempted to drive the Spanish out once and for all but they were defeated. He then told the Tlaxcala that is they defeated the Aztecs, they could have Tenochtitlan, which was a lie. They then advanced and took over all the Aztec cities except Tenochtitlan. When they attacked though, the city was going through a smallpox epidemic, which had killed hundreds of thousands. One third of the resisdents died in under 6 months. The Spanish also had ships armed with cannons firing at the city and thousands of Tlaxcalan warriors. The last Aztec king finally surrendered.


The idea that a few Spanish soldiers walked in and slaughtered the Aztecs is simply untrue and ignorant.

Quote

Regular infantry is always better than irregulars. They receive proper training, have higher discipline and morale.
Military training is not only about aiming gun at enemy and pressing trigger.
The only disadvantage of colonial armies was small number of soldiers who could still inflict terrible casualties to overwhelming force of native indians.

The Indians quickly learned to use European technology. For example, Plains Indians, like the Sioux and the Comanche used horses for hunting and warfare as good as or better than the Europeans.

I think you are right about the cannons, though. To the extent of my knowledge, not many Indian civilizations used cannon.

Quote

Sorry?
I don't really believe, that Spanish Conquistadors, who swept away Indians even though they were small in numbers were just militia.
And if so, that would mean that Indians were really weak.

The Conquistadors are the exception. Most colonists in North America in the beginning were either killed by the Indians or the environement and had to return to Europe.

Edited by blablahead, 28 December 2008 - 08:16 PM.

[Belisarivs]

blablahead, on Dec 28 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

The Aztecs are hardly a good example. When Cortes arrived, they believed him to be their god Quetzalcoatl, and when the King Moctezuma invited them into his city, they took him hostage. Later, the Aztec nobles led a rebellion and drove the Spanish out of Tenochtitlan. The Spanish lost more than 600 of their men.

La Noche Triste? In fact, it was supposed to kill them all. Fact, that they could escape means something.

Also, loss of 600 men meant significant loss. Such casualty is nothing worth mentioning for Aztecs.

blablahead, on Dec 28 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

They then found refuge with their allies, the Tlaxcala. The Aztecs then attempted to drive the Spanish out once and for all but they were defeated.

Yes. Artillery and gunpowder guns did work. As well as metal weapons.

blablahead, on Dec 28 2008, 08:21 PM, said:

He then told the Tlaxcala that is they defeated the Aztecs, they could have Tenochtitlan, which was a lie. They then advanced and took over all the Aztec cities except Tenochtitlan. When they attacked though, the city was going through a smallpox epidemic, which had killed hundreds of thousands. One third of the residents died in under 6 months. The Spanish also had ships armed with cannons firing at the city and thousands of Tlaxcalan warriors. The last Aztec king finally surrendered.
The idea that a few Spanish soldiers walked in and slaughtered the Aztecs is simply untrue and ignorant.

OK. Epidemies did kill many people. However Spanish military was still superior to that of natives. And many battles proven it.

[blablahead]

Quote

La Noche Triste? In fact, it was supposed to kill them all. Fact, that they could escape means something.
Also, loss of 600 men meant significant loss. Such casualty is nothing worth mentioning for Aztecs.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I guess what I mean by all this is that it's quite unfair to call the Indians naked men with clubs and spears, when they had complex societies, massive cities, powerful governments and advanced philosophy and mathematics. And they obviously wore clothes.

[Justinian]

True they had big cities, true they had... hierarchy, true they had clothes but they didn't have the things Europe took for granted in those days.
Their cities where big, but not in the greatest strategic positioning (Case in Point: Tenochtitlan), Their hierarchy and religion was sophisticated when it first came out, but compared with what we have now (and then) it was kinda obsolete and brutal (Cut off the head and the body will roll), sure they had arms and clothes, but they didn't have guns and full metal armor (Feather vs Shot = Death, Steel vs. Obsidian = Force Damage but not death).

All these things they didn't have really brought about their end... in the end.

[Belisarivs]

blablahead, on Dec 28 2008, 10:50 PM, said:

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

I guess what I mean by all this is that it's quite unfair to call the Indians naked men with clubs and spears, when they had complex societies, massive cities, powerful governments and advanced philosophy and mathematics. And they obviously wore clothes.

I never called them naked men with clubs and spears. I know about their advanced medicine, architecture and society.

I was speaking clearly about military which was no match to that of European armies.

No metal, no horses, no wheel, no gunpowder, no navy.

If there was battle to happen between Spanish and Indians in open field in 1 : 1 in numbers, would you bet your money on Indians? I wouldn't at all.

Yes, Indians could have some bought or captured guns or other equipment, but that was all.

[blablahead]

Quote

They were just naked men with wooden or obsidian clubs and spears.

Umm...

Quote

...no horses...

Just feel the need to point out that there were no wild horses in the Americas, and they deffinently did have metal. And they did invent the wheel, but used it only in childrens toys. But that is another story...

Quote

Their cities where big, but not in the greatest strategic positioning (Case in Point: Tenochtitlan)

Umm, a city in the middle of a huge lake, how is that not great strategic positioning?


Anyways, I'm just saying the Natives weren't nearly as weak or primitive as most people seem to think. Obviously their technology wasn't on par with Europeans, but they very misunderstood.


To move on, shall we start sort of planning this mod? For civilizations, the main ones that I can think of are Spanish, French, British and Portugese.

Edited by blablahead, 29 December 2008 - 07:37 PM.

[Abadu]

About the ottoman naval raids:I found the info on wikipedia (So it may be wrong),but this site also mentions it.
About the indians:I think they should only be fully playable if we can implement territorial advantages and such (Maybe we can add some total war features while leaving the game as an rts...),but even if not fully playable,they should appear in the mod.
About development:What do you guys think of,intead of a mod just based on americas,make this bod about the Renaissance and XVI Century (Like a FHaG "sucessor")?Because the only european factions really important in the americas were the spanish,the british,the portuguese,the french and the dutch (The swedes,danes and poles only had a few colonies for a very short time...).
Say what you think.

[blablahead]

Yeah, I did some research about the Ottomans, and although I didn't know about that before, I still don't think they should be included.

About the Indians: Aren't the Iberians in 0 AD sort of like that? They are better in trees and at guerilla warfare, or did I just imagine that? Of course this wouldn't work for all Indian cultures, but it definately would work for some.

[Abadu]

Yeah,the iberians might provide us with the features we need for the indians.
Guys,I will be travelling tomorrow to the countryside,and I will only get back on february.I wont be able to post here regularly,but keep trowing ideas here,and if you can,do some research (Important nations from the XVI/XVII centuries,units of those nations,etc...) ok?Cheers

[blablahead]

Here are a few basic ideas:

Spain

Rodelero: Basic infantry used by Cortes. Lightly armoured. Uses sword and buckler.
Tercio: Heavy infantry. Good armour, armed with a long pike.
Miquelet: Light gun armed infantry.
Jinete: Fast light cavalry that throws javelins.
Adelantado: Heavy cavalry armed with sword.
Conquistador: Armoured cavalry armed with musket.

French

Gendarme: Very heavy cavalry armed with a lance.
Chasseurs a Pied: Light infantry, renowned for sharpshooting and skirmishing skills.
Chasseurs a Cheval: Light cavalry armed with carbines.
Coutilier: Heavy infantry armed with voulge.
Mousquetaire: Ranged infantry armed with a musket.
Coureur des Bois: Weak infantry armed with musket. Good at hunting, woodcutting, etc.


Pics coming

[Abadu]

Hey guys,I'm sorry for my lack of partcipatonon here.I dont dnt know if there is still anyone interested,but I havent gave up,and I have some ideas for the mod:
1)About the timeline:What about around 1607 (Founding of Jamestown Settlement) to 1776 (American revolution)?
2)I think it would be easier and better if we started by planning a few nations only.I'm thinking about England,France,Spain,Portugal and maybe the Dutch.Besides being easier to create,having a small number of nations would make it possible to make those more original and detailled.

For now,those are the ideas.What do you think?

[buggy123]

the problem with this time period is that units aren't very diverse. around this time the wars were pretty much fought by lines of muskets with cannons and occasionally a cavalry flanking movement

[Abadu]

It wasnt so simple,there were also grenadiers,halberdiers(in the XVII century),light infantry skirmishers,rangers,light cavalry and so on... (The Spaniards even had a longbowman regiment in the XVIII century!)