I think both Argentinians civs and Gran Colombians civs should be as technically similar as possible to Mexican civs. All these countries won their independence in the 19th century from Spanish rule. I think these things should be common to these civs:
Soldado
Cathedral
Hacienda
Additionally, the Gran Colombians civ should have a similar option for a revolution to the Maya - the Muisca revolution. It would be honoring a third group (next to Mesoamerica and the Incas) of highly developed pre-Columbian civilizations.
All those uniques are too warping gameplaywise to make the civilizations stand apart from each other imo.
Haciendas just feel off for Argentina anyways, and given Cathedrals to a civ whose foundations are heavily based on laicism doesn’t suit me well either.
It also reduces the uniqueness of Mexico and forces Colombia and Argentina to be designed around Mexico’s mechanics. It also doesn’t help at all to highlight the distinctiveness of Spain’s colonies.
Yeah, the Eso Rider. Interestingly enough, that value can take other variables to modify rate of fire, but haven’t researched yet what else may be useful.
Of course, Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay as revolutions of Argentina would be fine… Paraguay since in 1811 decided not to support the First Patriotic Junta of Argentina, Bolivia simply because from 1810 to 1825 it fought against both the Argentine patriots and the peninsular soldiers… and good,Uruguay obviously for the League of Free Peoples (which included the provinces of the Paraná River) fighting against the Spaniards and the patriotic troops from Buenos Aires…
Sí,por ahora solo habría que incluir países federales:Estados Unidos,México,Brasil,Argentina y Gran Colombia…ya luego con países unitarios como Perú,Chile y Haití es más dificil,aunque el último al ser un imperio en sí,es más fácil…
Fortresses Age: Argentine Confederation and State of Buenos Aires (1831-1861) (the General skin changes to Juan Manuel de Rosas and Bartolomé Mitre respectively)
Industrial Age: Jordanist Rebellion and Mithrist and Autonomist Revolutions (1870-1880) (the General skin changes to Ricardo López Jordán and Bartolomé Mitre respectively)
Imperial Age: Radical Revolutions (1890-1905) (the General skin changes to Leandro Alem and Hipólito Yrigoyen respectively)
Of course, at least Colombia and Peru could be applied but instead of being in provinces it would be by departments…Chile is already another song as it is a unitary country…
Claro,igual tengo un conocido que es historiador chileno y me dice que de haberse aplicado el proyecto federal en Chile,habría sido como en Argentina y el país hubiera tenido mucha inestabilidad política hasta la década de 1850…así que al ser unitario,se salvó un poco de la inestabilidad presente en la región por esos años…
My philosophy is to only create unique units as long as the civ unit composition requieres it. Mexico is a great example. The united states, while not that good, still have a gameplan on their design. Take for example the barrack units: Regulars have extra range compared to other musketeers because the US doesn’t have normal skirmishers that can duel enemy infantry, as the state militias short range and passive ability gears them toward more grindy tactics, with the general flags aiding them to outlast their enemies.
From what I see, your Argentina proposal focus on outlasting the enemy: I can see how patricios and pardos can synergize with eachother, while Pata Blancas are more of a selfsustaining force thanks to their zeal.
Infernales also have a tenacity mechanic. I think you could make Infernales into mounted infantry, so they can function as skirmishers on foot (the civ lacks real skirmishers) to suplement Patas Blancas.
Horse grenadiers being artillery units and not heavy cav will always be cancer, but what can we do at this point.
Sí,al menos se salvaron de eso…incluso en el caso de haber sobrevivido Portales en 1837,Chile habría sido una gran potencia del tamaño de la Argentina de principios del siglo XX,incluso rivalizando en el siglo XXI con Brasil y Estados Unidos…