Native American factions overpowered?

[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.