So, changing subject from the hundreds of bugs and unifished textures, let me bring up some very bizarre things about the actual map changes in Leviathan Warships, ''Free time projects'' which were front and centre portrayed as a keystone of the patch that was to come alongside the expansion pack.
As some of you might remember, i made a similar post on Golden Century, but the Anglophone bias has only gotten worse, believe it or not Just like i said then, the development stats indicated that the EU4 team seemingly doesnt give a rat's backend about CNs that dont speak english in the modern day, and voila, Leviathan made a USA + Australia patch. Despite the absolute state of South America in EU4.
As for the development numbers themselves, through the use of custom nations, i measured the development of colonial regions yet again, and the results are complely beyond the pale. Here are they: https://i.imgur.com/FCafUSy.png
Your eyes do not decieve you. Colonial Australia has more development than Peru, the beating heart of the Spanish and Inca Empires. This is the kind of bias that would make the most wild of balkan nationalists blush. I already elaborated extensively in said biases in my old post, but this is now getting well into utterly comedic levels. Many of these areas didnt have a single urban settlement, compared to the many hundreds of those in modern Peru alone. Canada is also wealther than Colonial Peru somehow, i guess all those fur traders had some real nice hidden cities in the tundra.
The USA bias in development grew even more relentlessly, with the Thirteen Colonies continuing to be the worst offender. I've seen 4th of July parades less proud of the USofA than Paradox, who made just the eastern seaboard have almost twice the wealth of the Inca Empire before contact. Louisiana also got a buff for some reason, despite being throughly underdeveloped and of no interest to colonizers throughout the timeframe. South America was abandoned to rot yet again, except of one monument. Speaking of, fun fact! South America is the continent with the least number of Monuments in the game. Just one. As i said two years ago:
> And in the end, this is why North America has twice the number of Colonial Regions, and why Iberia did not get a ''proper'' update, as well as its most important Colonial holdings: EU4's modernity biased view of history, and col
... keep reading on reddit ➡
The empires ofSouth and Meso America were much larger and seemingly more centralized and militarily advanced than those in the north. Obviously I understand that the Inca had just undergone a brutal civil war making them even more susceptible to conquest and the Aztecs had many hated vassal and tributary groups that joined the conquistadors. And lastly disease was a huge aspect to the fall of both groups to Europeans/ Americans. Though one could say the conflict between the British and French and later Americans and British kept them expansion low, the Portuguese were in near the Spanish with Brazil. The terrain of North America would seem less hostile and difficult than meso america and definitely the peaks of the Incan empire. Did the more centralized and more technologically development of the empires make them weaker. The Incan roads made travel in the empire easy for them but it made it far easier for the Conquistadors to move horses, troops, cannon and ammunition than it would’ve been without it. South and Central America seem larger than Latin America though north and south than east and west. And though both groups died of diseases like small pox, the conquest of the north took hundreds of more years, the native groups existed as independent nations such as the Iroquois confederacy, Tecumseh’s confederacy,and waged war such as by the Seminoles and runaway slaves, king Philips war, and battles such as little big horn and the massacre of wounded knee. Many native groups adapted European arms and in the case of horses even more so than the Europeans/ Americans . Yet the native populations are larger down south and including mixed/mestizo populations of people with some native blood it’s even larger.
I would like to hear your opinions regarding this topic. Since it was a union of smallers "kingdoms" I always wonder what to call the people there. Inca was a title given to royalty. They did speak the Quechua language but there were also aymara speakers as well as other minor languages.
I would like to hear out your opinions on what you would call them thank you!
How could this change or affect the history, culture, development, etc of the modern countries that make up the Inca Empire?
The Incan empire is well regarded as masters of their mountainous territory but one look at a map of the area they inhabited shows that they were a very coastal empire and would have had as much access to the ocean as they did the Andes mountain range. However even though they had a lot of access to the pacific ocean I've never seen any mention of an Incan navy or any of their sailing abilities. Did the Inca people regularly sail/fish in these waters and have a kind of navy or were they mountain people through and through?
I’ve always been fascinated by both of these empires due to the fact that they were large, isolated empires that were not European or Asian. They managed to create these large empires without the use of horse or cold forged steel.
Right now, I’d like to start a friendly discussion.
Let’s compare both the Zulu Empire (during the time of Shaka Zulu) and the Inca Empire (during the era of Pachacuti), to see who is superior in terms of:
- Technology
- Military Culture and Tactics
- Speed of Conquest
- If both fight, who will win?
Its time for bronze vs iron to decide who is... the deadliest warrior! (cue Deadliest Warrior intro)
I've just been remembered about this continental scale abomination by this article which again made each cell of my body cringe. Their ritual children mass sacrifices are against everything we know as natural and human. Nobody would want to live in a world so ill-devised and threatening as the one running for centuries on the American continent. As savage as the Europeans themselves may have been when they set foot on Incas territories, their reaction is historically understandable. Such a ”civilization” simply didn't deserve to thrive in such a manner.
How will this affect the history, culture, development, demographics, etc.... of the Inca Empire?
