View Full Version : On the Horribly Incorrect Inuit
Singular: Inuk
Plural: Inuit
One thing is that they are a faction despite the fact that they never formed any political entities worth of mention during this period. They usually lived in small, highly mobile bands, never gathering more than a few hundred people in one place, and even this was usually quite brief and for a few times a year. Naturally, they wouldn't assemble an army larger than this in the highly unlikely case that they actually went to war.
Furthermore, they were hunter-gatherers, not agriculturalists. Whalers, sealers, fishermen, hunters. Not farmers. Sure, I can accept this. CA needed someone to inhabit the region, and they can't just make seperate play mechanics just for a minor faction
However, their graphic representation is just horrible. You have to understand that they were in fact quite recent arrivals. The Inuit (in archaeology known as the Thule culture) originally lived by the Bering Strait and didn't emigrate to the rest of Arctic North America until the 13th century, replacing or assimilating the previous Dorset people. The Vikings actually saw the coast of Labrador centuries before the Inuit arrived. Culturally, they were closer linked to Siberia than they were to the rest of America.
For this reason, the way they have been lumped with the other Native Americans simply torments me. Horses? Those would have been extremely impractical. Loincloths? Seriously, this is the Arctic. I don't think many people would enjoy freezing to death. War paint? Feathers? GAH! They haven't even been given proper names. In fact, the name of their capital, Agvituk, is the only one that originates from their language. All the others are Native American.
If CA can't even be bothered to give the Inuit real names, they might as well leave them out. The area isn't really important to gameplay after all. Switzerland could have been included with much less effort and in a much more correct manner.
End of rant.
A Very Super Market
03-19-2009, 20:21
Danke schoen.
Yeah, this pisses me off as well. Unfortunatly, most of CA's customers don't have any idea who the Inuit are in the first place, so they don't care
Hooahguy
03-19-2009, 20:23
wait for a mod.
RTW was also insanely incorrect. lorica segmentata wasnt used then.
plus flaming pigs? gimme a break.
antisocialmunky
03-19-2009, 20:37
The Natives in general need to all be fixed and not march in stiff formations, be half naked in the snow, or have more horses off plains than there are Passenger Pigeons!!!
Also, a sky bubble with a massive flock of those would be neat.
Problem is that CA totally confused them with the Innu, a totally different culture and tribe
check this out: http://www.cqsb.qc.ca/svs/434/fninnu.htm
The real Inuit live in the far northern Canada. They never lived in the region CA placed them.
Eck while they are at it they should make the Norse Inuit since they lived in Greenland and Iceland.
Fisherking
03-19-2009, 21:04
Most of the First Nation Tribes are named only because people recognize the names, that is it pure and simple. They did use tribal banners and that is about the extent of the accuracy.
The Cherokee were only in the mountains from Georgia to Tennessee & the Carolinas.
They were kept in the mountains by the tens of thousands of Creek, Choctaw, & Chickasaw behind them and the Shawnee and Miami in the Ohio Country.
I can live with them lumping them together I suppose, but putting the Pueblo on the Texas Coast was just braind damaged!
As to adding passenger pidgins, LOL then you need to call out the militia when you want to plant crops!
The game has too many demands on video already!:whip:
:laugh4:
The largest gathering on Inuit happened during the hight of the Indian raids if I remember correctly, a whole slew of them gathered in an island in the middle of a lake in the hopes they wouldn't be found. IIRC, they were and quite a few were killed. Can't seem to remember which tribe though I think it was the northern Cree.
antisocialmunky
03-19-2009, 21:13
Most of the First Nation Tribes are named only because people recognize the names, that is it pure and simple. They did use tribal banners and that is about the extent of the accuracy.
The Cherokee were only in the mountains from Georgia to Tennessee & the Carolinas.
They were kept in the mountains by the tens of thousands of Creek, Choctaw, & Chickasaw behind them and the Shawnee and Miami in the Ohio Country.
I can live with them lumping them together I suppose, but putting the Pueblo on the Texas Coast was just braind damaged!
As to adding passenger pidgins, LOL then you need to call out the militia when you want to plant crops!
The game has too many demands on video already!:whip:
:laugh4:
It would be nice if TW had some more environmental effects. I think in STW, birds flew from trees when hidden guys started moving in them. If it wasn't, it would be nice to atleast include that.
Poncho400
03-19-2009, 21:15
The Natives in general need to all be fixed and not march in stiff formations, be half naked in the snow, or have more horses off plains...
I agree. They need to change the native tactics, instead of just giving them european tactics. They would have relied heavily on ambush and would be scattered around, instead of marching in block formations.
I don't mind how they kinda lumped many tribes together, as it would be very hard to list all of the tribes back then. Also, I like how they made most of the natives hide very easily, which they would have been good at.
I think CA should make a natives expansion. They'd be able to accurately represent tribes, tactics, etc. Plus it'd be cool to play as the natives, form a pan-American alliance again, and kick the Europeans out.
More like they need to change the natives so they can't easily field armies larger than the European nations can field in Europe. And so their melee units can't beat line infantry with socket bayonets.
The hardest fights I've had in this game are against pirates and natives.
antisocialmunky
03-19-2009, 21:24
I dunno, it usually hit the fan when the Natives to get into HtH. I don't mind the huge army sizes because the army sizes for the new world are inflated anyways.
Fisherking
03-19-2009, 21:25
It would be nice if TW had some more environmental effects. I think in STW, birds flew from trees when hidden guys started moving in them. If it wasn't, it would be nice to atleast include that.
I agree.
In a perfect world where all the video works and the game is stable clouds of Passenger Pidgins and Carolina Parakeets would be wonderful. I wouldn’t mind seeing the park like forests with wild turkey, wood buffalo and swarms of deer and water foul either. The American part of the game would almost make a great stand alone with a few additions.
As it is though, the game has its issues. Still it has some memory leaks and some battles never seem to load, leading mostly to disastrous auto resolves for me, at least.
Not to mention putting the correct tribes where they go!:smash:
edit:
As to the Tribes being over powered, I have not found it so.
At least not yet!
In Chapter 4 of RTI I managed to clean the floor with the Huron with close to even number. I had a few less men but had one cannon battery and I took them on to wipe them out after about 4 battles.
The Cherokee are dastardly evil in this game, but that is more for their raids. They actually took the Carolinas and destroyed every building. I was just out of intercept range too. I took it back the next turn and a turn later I finished the game.
NimitsTexan
03-19-2009, 23:38
Man for Man, American Indians are more powerful than European soldiers in the first half of the game. Obviously, this is debatable. I personally disagree that Indians, particularly those not armed with firearms, were that effective against European troops. If you look at most Indian victories, they occured when (a) the Indians had adapted to some degree, European technology and/or (b) they had signifcant numerical advantages. There are few, if any examples, of Indians going toe to toe with similar or superior numbers of European or American model infantry and Cavalry.
However, the bigger issue, of course, is that the Indian factions (which historically struggled to put 1,000-2,000 men in the same place by the time of the French and Indian War), are able to put together multiple armies of 1500+ 5-10 years into the game, while European nations are generally fielding armies half their size. Forget that, accepting that the game plays out at somewhere around a 1:5-1:10 scale, the Indian armies in game are often several times bigger, at 1:1, than their real life counterparts.
When playing as Sweden once I brought over maybe a 3/4 stack of soldiers (line infantry mostly, maybe 1 or 2 cannons) and conquered the inuit with no problems whatsoever. I later traded tht region for Newfoundland (which was much more profitable).
Kobal2fr
03-19-2009, 23:50
More like they need to change the natives so they can't easily field armies larger than the European nations can field in Europe. And so their melee units can't beat line infantry with socket bayonets.
The hardest fights I've had in this game are against pirates and natives.
Precisely. Which is how it has to be, just like they gave the Aztec/Maya/Apache one heck of a leg up in the Americas campaign of Kingdoms.
Had the Native Americans been portrayed historically, there would have been dozens, hundreds of one province, poor as heck, fourth-of-a-stack-army-tops factions. Loosely allied at best, but more likely infighting like all get out while the European powers laugh and roll over them one by one, until the last remaining free tribes get the hint and unite... a couple centuries too late. Yay, challenging ! ;)
Poncho400
03-20-2009, 02:12
There were a few times the natives almost kicked the Europeans out of the Americas. One instance is Pontiac's rebellion in the mid 1700's, where the eastern/midwest natives united and almost forced the British out. They only failed due to infighting between the Iroquois and I believe Huron (forgot the other one, maybe it was the Naragansett), and a critical fort not being taken fast enough (it may have been fort Niagara).
You have to remember that during these times, most European nations didn't have extremely large investments in North America. They were so busy fighting in mainland Europe that they coudn't spare enough to really go after the Americas (minus the Spanish, and even they didn't bother with N. America). Also, after the French defeat in the French/Indian war (7 years war), is when the native become f***ed, as the British had free reign over N. America without the French stopping them.
You'd be surprised how bad our modern interpretation of the natives back then are.
Edit: It was the Iroquois and Senca. Also it was Fort Pitt, not Niagara.
NimitsTexan
03-20-2009, 03:11
Yeah, but even in Pontiac's rebellion, the Indians still generally had (marginal) numerical superiority, and the total forces involved on boths sides was in the 3000-4000 range.
ETW Indians are still too effective (really, it may just come down to CA's rather crazy and innaccurate decision to depict bows and longer ranged and more accurate than muskets, when the opposite was true), and more importantly, too numerous (relative to the European nations they are fighting).
Sheogorath
03-20-2009, 03:19
Considering the inaccuracies within the European armies, you guys really think CA put a lot of effort into the natives?
Overall, I'd say TW was pretty lazy in regards to faction research and unit design.
I mean, look at the Ottoman Janissary Corps units. I'm PRETTY sure that they didn't march into battle in green, open vests while not wearing shirts. Also, leopard skin hats. And grenade launchers.
A Very Super Market
03-20-2009, 04:04
Jannisaries were historically free to dress and do whatever the hell they wanted, but this is really just over-the-top.
Sheogorath
03-20-2009, 04:18
Jannisaries were historically free to dress and do whatever the hell they wanted, but this is really just over-the-top.
They look more like they're going to some sort of gay techno orgy than into an 18th century battle.
Just my opinion.
antisocialmunky
03-20-2009, 04:28
Maybe 18th century battlefields were the 'gay techno orgies' of their day. You got music, lights, smoke...
A Very Super Market
03-20-2009, 04:30
Piles of bodies...
Poncho400
03-20-2009, 04:32
Yeah, but even in Pontiac's rebellion, the Indians still generally had (marginal) numerical superiority, and the total forces involved on boths sides was in the 3000-4000 range.
ETW Indians are still too effective (really, it may just come down to CA's rather crazy and innaccurate decision to depict bows and longer ranged and more accurate than muskets, when the opposite was true), and more importantly, too numerous (relative to the European nations they are fighting).
I do agree they are too numerous. In a native expansion, they could limit the sizes of the armies and units to make it more accurate. Both the natives and europeans/colonists wielded small armies in N. America, and only until the mid/late 1700's did the europeans step up their military presence. Working with small armies instead of massive ones could be quite the change. The coolest part would be turning a native tribe into a world superpower.:laugh4: (yes you can do this if you mod ETW to use the minor factions, but it's just not as fun as the real deal).
Sheogorath
03-20-2009, 04:35
Maybe 18th century battlefields were the 'gay techno orgies' of their day. You got music, lights, smoke...
Lots of men in funny costumes.
IMore like they need to change the natives so they can't easily field armies larger than the European nations can field in Europe. And so their melee units can't beat line infantry with socket bayonets.
The hardest fights I've had in this game are against pirates and natives.
I'll second that. I've never lost a battle to anybody where i was superior in number or quality, except to the American natives. I've even won battles where i was outnumbered and using inferior units to European factions, but in America against natives i have to bring the absolute best of the best units, and outnumber them 3-1 if i am to have a chance, and even then i lose over half the army in doing so.
Dead Guy
03-20-2009, 09:50
The easy way to annihilate natives:
Set up on a slope, infantry at the base and more infantry and cannon behind. Start shooting round shot to make the natives send some units at you (sometimes it's possible to lure them to you by flanking with cavalry and running back behind your line), switch to cannister and watch them rout. If you have fire by rank, they will be completely undone when your second line of infantry starts firing. Charge their annoying bowmen with cavalry. I managed to destroy 5 units of bowmen that were bunched up with 2 units of cavalry.
I've won when slightly outnumbered losing maybe 150 men. It may be better to attack than to defend, sometimes the natives have sent a quarter of their army at me at a time... Once they sent all their cavalry first, then all their melee and finally they only had bowmen left. Fail. Just don't get into one big melee with these guys, that's not using your advantages but letting them use theirs.
Oleander Ardens
03-20-2009, 09:59
I think the best way to limit their numbers is to increase the upkeep by a rather large factor (1.5-2.5) for the very cheap units.
The historian
03-20-2009, 15:03
The natives are a bit over the top, in melee they are unbeatable by any European units,except for the bowmen which are really poor in melee.
Sheogorath
03-20-2009, 15:38
The easiest way to annihilate the natives is simply to set up in a corner of the map, with your general unit behind a line or two of infantry at the corner of the formation.
In my experience, the natives almost always charge directly at your general. And if you've got fire by rank especially, that means they're going to essentially be charging down a corridor of horrific death.
The tactic worked against the Cherokee repeatedly for me. You can put the infantry on the edges of the formation into square mode as well, that helps a bit for the 'flanking' with cavalry.
The easy way to annihilate natives:
Set up on a slope, infantry at the base and more infantry and cannon behind. Start shooting round shot to make the natives send some units at you (sometimes it's possible to lure them to you by flanking with cavalry and running back behind your line), switch to cannister and watch them rout. If you have fire by rank, they will be completely undone when your second line of infantry starts firing. Charge their annoying bowmen with cavalry. I managed to destroy 5 units of bowmen that were bunched up with 2 units of cavalry.
As is, this works entirely too well on any AI army without artillery. They will form a column (badly) and walk headlong into your firing line. Thx advanced AI.
Precisely. Which is how it has to be, just like they gave the Aztec/Maya/Apache one heck of a leg up in the Americas campaign of Kingdoms.
Had the Native Americans been portrayed historically, there would have been dozens, hundreds of one province, poor as heck, fourth-of-a-stack-army-tops factions. Loosely allied at best, but more likely infighting like all get out while the European powers laugh and roll over them one by one, until the last remaining free tribes get the hint and unite... a couple centuries too late. Yay, challenging ! ;)
Really? I don't mind combining them so we aren't fighting hundreds of tribes, but they still shouldn't be stronger than European factions.
The armies I sent to Texas and Chicasa were slightly more numerous and a lot more technologically advanced than the one that conquered Madrid. I still had more trouble with the natives. I eventually resorted to cheesing them. I attacked the village with its weak units and lined up my troops near the reinforcement point where their army came in. Two horse artillery lobbing canister shots where they zone in, surrounded by 5 line infantry w/ fire by rank and 2-3 light dragoons beat them.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.