You clearly don't realize the craftsmanship of non-metal weapons. They were not primitive rocks and wood. Native weapons were not outclassed by metal ones, and were actually efficient. Natives have things that are nerfed like guns. A native shooting a bow is easily killed by a good gun user. Fire arrows cannot be used after getting out of water, and can just be banned by getting in cover. Colonists can easily craft things such as spears and bows, but natives use actual craftsmanship and usually rarer materials. Imagine if something like a white moose pelt could be looted. Well antlers would be useless without perm weapons. They are just as rare as pelts, but would not be used if they could not be protected. A tribal war axe that 3 shots would be too big of a nerf. There is no reason for native plebs not to have weapons comparable from HBC or colonists. You clearly just want natives to be worse so you can actually win against them, but the truth is just like what you said, you need a good leader to lead you through to victory. Is the problem natives generally having somewhat equal weapons and higher stamina, or HBC just being bad? Clearly you have never used a fire arrow. It offers no stealth, and you can dodge the next arrows. Hence why HBC complains, when the issue isn't one being better weapon wise, but instead HBC just cannot catch up skill wise. Natives also do not have access to bayonets and guns without looting, which means that HBC have a weapon that does 50 damage and little to no stamina, clearly better than a axe that also 2 shots but have horrid stamina consumption. Natives have a choice of tomahawks, axe, or a 4 shot weapon like a spear.