3 ms·

Never saw the RaR mod, thanks for the tip. I don't remember the mission/artillery thing from the game, either, but why wouldn't it make sense to take cover in

Never saw the RaR mod, thanks for the tip. I don't remember the mission/artillery thing from the game, either, but why wouldn't it make sense to take cover in a sturdy building when cannonballs are falling on your village?

eropple 12y ago
Because it converts them to be your units. It turns them into "Indian Convert" units that are agricultural producers but useless in manufacturing capacities. It's a bandaid over frigging slavery.
- joeclark77 12y ago
  Or it could represent, I don't know, maybe conversion?
  - eropple 12y ago
    No, conversion happens from establishing a mission and keeping peace with a native power for a long enough period of time. Conversion from attacking them? Let's be real here. It's a stand-in for European abuses from Haiti to Canada and all points between. And you know it's indefensible, so let's not play dumb.
    - joeclark77 12y ago
      You're not describing the mechanic well enough to make that clear. You're saying that if you had a mission in an Indian village, and then you shelled the village with artillery, the Indians became converts all of a sudden? Or was it when another power attacked? The way you describe it it actually sounds like a bug or an exploit. If the attack had to come from another civ, maybe it represents "refugees" flocking to your civ? You are taking for granted that everyone here prefers the 20th-century Marx-Zinn (yes, politically correct) version of American history, and as a consequence of that, that Meier was deliberately trying to "lie" about that history (which is itself false). If you drop your problematic assumption, there's no way to get to "indefensible" and "play dumb" from this feature/bug you're describing.
      - eropple 12y ago
        It could be a bug. Given their shitty treatment of People Who Aren't White in the sequel, too, I am comfortable not giving them the benefit of the doubt. As for your second paragraph: "Marx-Zinn" history? Dude! We have the receipts for people that done got bought and sold. Forget your attempts to cast history that happens to not glorify every white person ever in that "politically correct" light, these are primary sources. Are primary sources hissssssss socialist hissssssss too? There is nothing "politically correct" about "the people you are making a game about systematically enslaved and exterminated people and you have a duty to not look the other way." That's not even "lefty", that's just being a basically functional human being. Does it make you upset that you are not entitled to rework history because it looks bad for Dead White People? That's a shame, but it's minimum viable humanity. I promise you that it's not that hard to meet that low, low bar.
        joeclark77 12y ago
        Conventional history deals with things that are actually true, not with things that fit the narrative you prefer. There was no systematic extermination in American history (at least not until 1974). European settlers in the New World did not invent slavery, instead, they fought a great crusade to end it. There is a great deal to celebrate about the colonization of the new world and the creation of the new nations here. The narrative you are telling about American history was basically invented in the 20th century to fit the Marxist vision of history as perpetual war between oppressor and oppressed. We would not use the term "politically correct" to describe it if it were actually "correct".
        eropple 12y ago
        Wow. Wow. Wow. Is that really your dodge? "Well, we didn't invent it!" We did it. It is our job to fairly and accurately represent our history. Guess what? The facts are clear as fucking day: We. Imported. Black. People. We. Enslaved. Natives. There is no dodge to that. There is no escaping that. There is only acknowledgement of it. This is not "narrative", we have the receipts. And omitting it in a "historical" game in favor of heroification is unforgivable.

eropple 12y ago

Because it converts them to be your units. It turns them into "Indian Convert" units that are agricultural producers but useless in manufacturing capacities. It's a bandaid over frigging slavery.

joeclark77 12y ago
Or it could represent, I don't know, maybe conversion?
- eropple 12y ago
  No, conversion happens from establishing a mission and keeping peace with a native power for a long enough period of time. Conversion from attacking them? Let's be real here. It's a stand-in for European abuses from Haiti to Canada and all points between. And you know it's indefensible, so let's not play dumb.
  - joeclark77 12y ago
    You're not describing the mechanic well enough to make that clear. You're saying that if you had a mission in an Indian village, and then you shelled the village with artillery, the Indians became converts all of a sudden? Or was it when another power attacked? The way you describe it it actually sounds like a bug or an exploit. If the attack had to come from another civ, maybe it represents "refugees" flocking to your civ? You are taking for granted that everyone here prefers the 20th-century Marx-Zinn (yes, politically correct) version of American history, and as a consequence of that, that Meier was deliberately trying to "lie" about that history (which is itself false). If you drop your problematic assumption, there's no way to get to "indefensible" and "play dumb" from this feature/bug you're describing.
    - eropple 12y ago
      It could be a bug. Given their shitty treatment of People Who Aren't White in the sequel, too, I am comfortable not giving them the benefit of the doubt. As for your second paragraph: "Marx-Zinn" history? Dude! We have the receipts for people that done got bought and sold. Forget your attempts to cast history that happens to not glorify every white person ever in that "politically correct" light, these are primary sources. Are primary sources hissssssss socialist hissssssss too? There is nothing "politically correct" about "the people you are making a game about systematically enslaved and exterminated people and you have a duty to not look the other way." That's not even "lefty", that's just being a basically functional human being. Does it make you upset that you are not entitled to rework history because it looks bad for Dead White People? That's a shame, but it's minimum viable humanity. I promise you that it's not that hard to meet that low, low bar.
      - joeclark77 12y ago
        Conventional history deals with things that are actually true, not with things that fit the narrative you prefer. There was no systematic extermination in American history (at least not until 1974). European settlers in the New World did not invent slavery, instead, they fought a great crusade to end it. There is a great deal to celebrate about the colonization of the new world and the creation of the new nations here. The narrative you are telling about American history was basically invented in the 20th century to fit the Marxist vision of history as perpetual war between oppressor and oppressed. We would not use the term "politically correct" to describe it if it were actually "correct".
        eropple 12y ago
        Wow. Wow. Wow. Is that really your dodge? "Well, we didn't invent it!" We did it. It is our job to fairly and accurately represent our history. Guess what? The facts are clear as fucking day: We. Imported. Black. People. We. Enslaved. Natives. There is no dodge to that. There is no escaping that. There is only acknowledgement of it. This is not "narrative", we have the receipts. And omitting it in a "historical" game in favor of heroification is unforgivable.