Native American factions overpowered?

[Dayve]

I've also had frustrations against the American natives. I had an entire army, including 3 sets of 12 iber cannons, dragoons, line infantry and all the auxiliaries that go with them, completely wiped out when i was ambushed by some tribe in north-west Canada. I started with 1,200 men, they had double that amount, i killed 300 of them, they killed 1,123 of mine... all that escaped was a unit of native indian musket mercenaries. The irony!

Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.

Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.

[Oleander Ardens]

Screenshots requested!

What kind of bayonets did you have? With solid ring long boyonet a well trained unit has a long spear with which they should be able to hold more than their own against lightly armored foes.

It is sad that archers seem to do overly well given that Indians tried to get muskets instead as fast as possible.

BTW: This comes from somebody who was quite decent with a heavy bow.

[ArtillerySmoke]

I've also had frustrations against the American natives. I had an entire army, including 3 sets of 12 iber cannons, dragoons, line infantry and all the auxiliaries that go with them, completely wiped out when i was ambushed by some tribe in north-west Canada. I started with 1,200 men, they had double that amount, i killed 300 of them, they killed 1,123 of mine... all that escaped was a unit of native indian musket mercenaries. The irony!

Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.

Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.

LOL...you got worked by Native Americans.

J/K, but seriously ...it's good that I'm seeing so many reports of people getting beat. M2TW was a cakewalk for everyone day 1.

[Subotan]

That's kinda what happened, right? A huge army would march off into the woods of North America, only to disappear, and never be seen again.

[Fisherking]

That's kinda what happened, right? A huge army would march off into the woods of North America, only to disappear, and never be seen again.

Well it did happen at least three time dealing with the Shawnee and Miami that I can think of.

French & Indians vs. Braddock and twice with Americans. Anthony Wayne finally won at Fallen Timbers. (Indian camp hit by tornado)
His was the third expedition with the first being whipped, the punitive expedition being wiped out and him training his force for more than a year before taking them on. He also made sure he took the Choctaw with him. He may have been Mad Anthony but he was no fool.


There is more to it of course, but that is the thumbnail.

[Beskar]

In my Campaign as USA, I notice I had a massive disadvantage to everyone in terms of technology, structure, economy, etc, untill I poured like 10-20 turns into turning myself into a power house. Problem with that, people built up their armies so I always been on the lower end of the army spectrum.

In my Confederate campaign, I had to blitz India due to Muhul just making sure I got no money and Mysore attacking me. In the end, when I unified it, I turned it into a powerhouse akin to modern India, I am getting profits of around 50,000 per turn, which I used to buy Riga and Ruperts Town for staging grounds in America and Europe. Also to buy technology from everyone.

[DisruptorX]

In my Campaign as USA, I notice I had a massive disadvantage to everyone in terms of technology, structure, economy, etc, untill I poured like 10-20 turns into turning myself into a power house. Problem with that, people built up their armies so I always been on the lower end of the army spectrum.

In my Confederate campaign, I had to blitz India due to Muhul just making sure I got no money and Mysore attacking me. In the end, when I unified it, I turned it into a powerhouse akin to modern India, I am getting profits of around 50,000 per turn, which I used to buy Riga and Ruperts Town for staging grounds in America and Europe. Also to buy technology from everyone.

India starts off tough, at war with the Moghuls, and with Mysore and Portugal attacking you after a few turns. Once you get the ball rolling though, and unify India, its money central. I had too much money to spend by the end.

As for native americans, I found that the 17th century militias you get in the beginning are very useful, being equipped with plate armor and swords. They win fairly easily in melee unless flanked. I never really had much trouble with the natives.

[Polemists]

I generally find it's a numbers issue more then anything else. Most of the time if you fight them on even footing you are fine.

Yet most of the pc enemies you have probably fought till this point only bring one or half stacks to the fight.

The cheeroke and even Pueblo can and sometimes will send multiple stacks against you. Even with 500 guys and a set of cannons 4000 of anything is alot. So the old tactics of keeping two units of colonial militia and relying on armed mob dosn't quick work as well.

I generally find in large battles it comes down to whether the line holds or not. So I find in battles against them since they charge the line it's better to stall them with a formation like this


_____ ______ _______

_____ ______ _______

Then say this

______ _______ ________ _______ _______ _______


In the second formation you may feel you are getting more shots off, but in long run you'll end up getting less do to natives instantly coming at you in melee.

They also bring alot of calvary to the fight, which is also different then most euro factions you fight.

[Shadow_Wolf33]

To dissuade the charge, you could also bring along some light infantry and deploy stakes in front of your lines as well. If you want to wait until the Light Infantry Doctrine tech is researched that is...just fight against europeans until then.

[Polemists]

stakes work well, I would say don't use trenches. I had them when I fought the NA, basically the Native American factions and other AI don't know how to manuever around the trenches which makes it just a turkey shoot.

[Suraknar]

Natives are rightfully balanced the way they are. They held the balance of Power back in the early 18th century.

I think what some maybe neglecting here is the Technology, once you develop it, then you see your armies getting the upper hand, but in the beginning non native powers do not have the upper hand over the natives and it is as it should be, and as it was historically too.

[Oleander Ardens]

From what I've read the problem seems to be twofold, stragical and tactical. First the native nations are able to amass far too many warriors and second the same warriors are rather powerful. When people write that they have more troubles conquering Russia or Europe than the Inuit tribes than something is quite rotten. The various Indian wars or better the wars of European powers against Indians were small affairs compared to campaigns in Europe, with task forces perhaps the tenth of size than in Europe.

Anyway I really keen to play ETW now

[NimitsTexan]

I don't know that, man for man, the Cherokee or Huron should be grossly inferior to British or French (though let's face it, the Europeans were using firearms over bows for a reason, namely firearms, even muskets, are generally superior to bows across a wide variety of tactical applications), but when the whole Spanish army is, say, maybe two and a half stacks, and the Cherokee have 3 or 4 full stacks . . . that is a bit unbalanced. The American Indians, at least by the 1700s, simply did not have the sort of manpower to support that kind of war effort. The Iroquois, for example, in the decade leading up to the French and Indian War, probably did not have more than 1000-2000 effective warriors. So yes, the Indians handed the British some defeats, but these rarely involved more than 5000 men combined. Given the general scale of TW battles, a fight like the Ambush of Braddock should probably be about around 1-3 units per side, not stacks of 15-20. Yet in the game, I can conquer Spain with 15 units, but I need 30-40 to manage the Cherokee. It should be the other way around. If a Eurpean nation had ever committed a 40,000 man force against a single Indian tribe or confederation, it would have been quickly overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

[geala]

I find the natives balanced in some way. I had two battles against them (Pueblo and Iroquois) and beat them with relative ease. It was however only on h and rather late (1750's), so my military tech was well developed. I will try the Cherokee soon.

I think early in the 18th century when the flintstone muskets (fusils) fired about two times a minute (compared to one shoot a minute with a matchlock) the bow armed natives should have had rather good chances. With the better fire drills in the second half of the century musket fire started to rule the battlefield, but earlier also major European players favored melee and cold steel, especially the French and the Swedish. After most armies had followed the Prussians and introduced iron ramrods and Prussian fire drill the rate of fire increased considerably. After 1780, when the Prussians had the iron ramrod with equal ends and the conical hole for ignition they could fire 6 times a minute (not over a longer time however). Others could not fire that fast but 3 to 4 shots a minute were possible.

Nevertheless a bow armed unit could beat a musket armed unit because of even faster and longranged "fire". In reality the Europeans won because of far better organisation, disciplin and logistics and not greater fire power. The natives were at most times not uniform but divided in groups hostile to each other and could be and were used against each other by the Europeans.

Why did the Europeans abandon the bow and started to use only firearms? Because firearms did not need such well trained soldiers, were relatively cheap and powerful (could pierce normal plate armor). Why didn't they reintroduce bows after plate armor (which was in the 17th c. often proof against pistols at point blank and muskets at about 50 m, and of course proof against most bow shots) had been abandoned in the later stages of the Thirty Years War? Because you need specialists for the bow, constant training and certain social circumstances for bow armed armies. It was not possible to use the bow as a military weapon when you have to feed armies of about 40000 combatants and more. And after the introduction of the ring bajonet for the musket there was the possibility of an uniform army with uniform weapons and uniform tatics. You can do nothing with the bow alone against cavalry attacks, so pikes had to be used ever on reducing the overall ranged power of an army. With the bow excaustion, a constant feature for the soldiers in the prolonged wars after 1500, is a far greater problem than with muskets, reducing the performance dramatically. The question of arquebuse or bow was discussed intensively in England in the late 16th century. You can take many arguments for both sides from that discussion.

Why did many Indians try everything to get muskets instead of bows? Mostly a matter of prestige imho. But a fusil had also some advantages for the individual. It is ready to shoot at any time and has not to be strung first. The first shot is in the weapon and has not to be taken from a quiver. You can fire almost immediatly instead of having to draw the bow first. It did not need the same maintenance than a composite bow. It is far more robust than a bow. It throws a projectile of far greater energy than a bow, important for some hunting situations. It throws it with the same energy each time wether you were tired or not. You could hit a person with a musket from about 40 to 50 m, enough in the woods theatre. You can use a gun from cover far better than a bow. If I were an Indian general with undisputed command I would have ordered my Indian soldiers to use the bow and train controlled shooting together. But the decisions were made by the individual Indian soldier. No chance to stand against professional European full-time-soldiers on the longer run. The weapons used were of minor importance. Praerie indians use of better rifles did not help them against the US army a century later, too.

What is not realistic with ETW natives is the fact that they come in huge numbers. That was often not the case. The lone small bunch of heroic white soldiers facing huge hordes of natives is more often than not an artistic convention.

[Mister V]

My English army consisting of homeland Line Infantry, some heavy cav and 12-lber artillery units has been completely obliterated by several native armies on Hard (even if they killed around three quesrters of the enemy and died to the last man, and I haven't got a lot of tech advances), so yes, I think they're overpowered (I'll lower the setting to Medium and try again later). What's with them having musket line infantry that is actually somewhat effective? Sheesh. They also seem more than capable of destroying the Thirteen Colonies.

Although I agree that this is at least some challenge... would be boring if they were another pushover.

[Khorak]

The only thing I don't like, with considered thought (instead of the massive hate-on I get playing the game), is that the Native American factions get their own version of line infantry, and their cavalry is hilariously overpowered. They shouldn't have entire units of musket infantry, those units should just be flat out removed. Second, their cavalry completely destroys the European cavalry forces they'll realistically be facing, which is...nonsensical.

[Bob the Insane]

I can certainly see why your losing to the Native American factions on Hard or Very Hard difficulties. On Medium (normal?) it is a hard fight between British Line Infantry and Native Warriors and will the bonuses seen in Hard and Very Hard individually your units stand little chance.

[NimitsTexan]

My English army consisting of homeland Line Infantry, some heavy cav and 12-lber artillery units has been completely obliterated by several native armies on Hard (even if they killed around three quesrters of the enemy and died to the last man, and I haven't got a lot of tech advances), so yes, I think they're overpowered (I'll lower the setting to Medium and try again later). What's with them having musket line infantry that is actually somewhat effective? Sheesh. They also seem more than capable of destroying the Thirteen Colonies.

Although I agree that this is at least some challenge... would be boring if they were another pushover.

Problem is, you SHOULD face this sort of challenge when fighting the European armies. If you go into an Indian war the way most Europeans did historically (mabye 1-2 Infantry units and 1-2 Cavalry/artillery) then yes, you should stand a decent chance of gettin wiped out. But if you can find the men and resources to put 2-3 stacks into Indian territory, the American Indians should struggle based on weight of numbers alone. On the other hand, going to war with Spain, Austria, France, etc. should require 2-3 stacks, minium. Assuming the stacks represent somthing in the order of a small corps or large division, most of the European powers should be able to field 3-5 on a more or less permanent basis, but one full stack should, at the most, represent the upper limit of American Indian manpower.

[Marquis of Roland]

I've also had frustrations against the American natives. I had an entire army, including 3 sets of 12 iber cannons, dragoons, line infantry and all the auxiliaries that go with them, completely wiped out when i was ambushed by some tribe in north-west Canada. I started with 1,200 men, they had double that amount, i killed 300 of them, they killed 1,123 of mine... all that escaped was a unit of native indian musket mercenaries. The irony!

Don't forget, these people are savage in melee combat and will go through any musket infantry you put in front of them. I've watched them charge at units of British line infantry, take a volley, lose 1/6 of their men, clash with the line infantry and wipe them out in under 15 seconds.

Their archers are also a pain... longer range than anything you have, save cannons, and inflict massive casualties. That's where your rangers come in, or even better, cavalry.

LOL yeah I just fought that battle in RTI myself the other day. They probably killed you when half their army jumped out of the bushes opposite the other half right? Fortunately for me I had units of line infantry as my 2nd line and so I simply about faced and opened fire point blank. I also still had my cavalry uncommitted so they had a chance to roll up their flank. Still took about 400 or so casualties though

[Megas Methuselah]

Lmao, this thread makes me proud. I hope someone quickly gets an unpacker for ETW soon, I can't wait to play as all the minor factions, especially the Native Americans!

[A Very Super Market]

Fine, take your sick pleasure from the christians, but my Ottomans have taken over Malta and are now looking over the Atlantic.... :D

[pevergreen]

Lmao, this thread makes me proud. I hope someone quickly gets an unpacker for ETW soon, I can't wait to play as all the minor factions, especially the Native Americans!

Oh we have unpackers. We just can't mod.

[Megas Methuselah]

Elaborations on that statement would be much appreciated.

[pevergreen]

something that is better discussed in the mod forum or in private (PM me or on my wall thingo)

[Megas Methuselah]

Native American factions are tough stuff.