What I see is basically a few tiny naval bases and the conquering of Kongo, and Mozambique, not mainstream colonies, like you see in the Americas.
Why are you allowed to colonize Africa?
- Thread starter maxirage
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What I see is basically a few tiny naval bases and the conquering of Kongo, and Mozambique, not mainstream colonies, like you see in the Americas.
Plus how do you call merely installing a small armed garrison in the major coastal tows of Mozabique qualify as 'colonising' proper?
If you have ever been to West africa, And seen some of the areas such as Elmina along the Gold Coast (Ghana) , You will know it is not just a naval base, but a center of trade. Albeit, slave trade and mineral trade, but still about equal to some of the colonial mechanics as is allowed in EU.
There certainly were and are important trade ports all along the coast of Africa but the issue is that most these provinces are just empty in the game. If you want to "conquer" it you send a colonist there that flips the province to your main culture and your religion implying that it's now populated by people from your own mainland. This is simply not accurate at all and makes very little sense when you look at what actually happened. If there was a way to create a trade post or something similar, like in EU2, that should be used instead. I don't understand why Paradox won't implement something like this.
This is exactly correct! For 300 years after its discovery, the Ivory Coast was a death trap for Europeans due to the horrific toll that disease took on the colonists.
It was normal during even the late 19th century for doctors to advise people not to travel to West Africa at all:
The reason that colonization succeeded in the New World and basically failed in Sub-Saharan Africa is almost entirely due to disease.
Above 90% of Native Americans died from recurring waves of epidemics like Smallpox within 100 years of Columbus, in many cases in America, before they even met any Europeans. The 17th century settlers of Arcadia and Jamestown found a largely empty landscape that they rapidly filled with Europeans.
In Africa by contrast, even during the late 19th century, Europeans died from disease faster than they could be replaced and colonists were routinely dead within a month of emigrating.
Hence these regions were not settled and the people living there today are largely the original inhabitants. I.E. colonization ultimately failed in most of the world, despite superior weapons and tactics, because the people living there failed to die off and make room for Europeans. Except in the New World.
Thus, today, the inhabitants of Sierra Leone mostly speak Mende or Temne, and the people of Indonesia speak Malay or Javanese, not Dutch, but in New York they speak English or Spanish, in Argentina Spanish and in Brazil Portuguese.
Last edited:
This is also entirely correct.
The pattern of "colonization" prior to the late 19th century throughout most of the world was to implant a few officials or traders, living as colonial masters above a largely untouched native population. That's true for India, Indonesia, China, as well as Africa. And it's why after throwing off the yoke of colonial rule in the 20th century, these countries emerged with their own languages and culture largely intact.
In reality, colonization was a lot more like the trade nodes, which aren't a geographical location, but the sum of all the provinces and merchants and trade fleets present in all the provinces of that node.
You shouldn't be able to push a button and "convert culture" or simply kill a few thousand natives and import Castillian culture. Except in the New World, where they basically did exactly that.
The only point is that Paradox uses the same simulation for colonization in the New World versus colonization in Africa and Asia, except they're not remotely the same. In the New World the natives were decimated and replaced, so rapidly, that it was necessary to import African slaves to use as forced labor, since the Native Americans had largely died off within the first century and 1/2.
In the rest of the world, Europeans did not replace native populations and they're still there today.
Where are all the Creeks and Cherokee and Iroquois now? Only a few scattered remnants of their once powerful tribes are left.
It really depends on where in the New World you're talking about. Much of Central and South America is still either majority native or has a very large native/mestizo minority.
There are several reasons for that, ranging from different starting populations, different settlement patterns, and different colonial policies. That said, all of this is going to presumably be changed in the upcoming expansion, anyway.
How do you figure? It looks like all that is changing is new features for native North Americans and new "colonial nations." We will still have Africa full of European cultures and cores, which makes absolutely no sense.
Since American colonization got improved via DLC, perhaps a second colonization DLC could fix Africa and Asia colonization? I'd buy that.
Agree, the gold coast inland areas shouldn't be colonizable. They should redo it so that it's only very thin provinces around the african coast and maybe a bit deeper in certain areas like Kongo and South Africa.
I wish they slimmed down the province sizes and made wastelands larger. That way it would feel less like you were controlling Africa but more controlling certain garrisons.
So they should reduce the african inland provinces and slim the appearance of the coastal ones. They should also increase the trade value produced in the slave ones so they compensate for reducing the number.
I wish they slimmed down the province sizes and made wastelands larger. That way it would feel less like you were controlling Africa but more controlling certain garrisons.
So they should reduce the african inland provinces and slim the appearance of the coastal ones. They should also increase the trade value produced in the slave ones so they compensate for reducing the number.
If there were 30 million people living in South/Central American civilizations in 1492 and then 150 years later there were something like 3 million, well that's virtual annihilation.
Today, there are still descendants of Aztecs and Mayans but they aren't the dominant cultures in their own countries. Immigrants swamped and overwhelmed them and mixed with them.
And in North America, the Native Americans were fewer in numbers to begin with. Many nations were totally wiped out and the survivors are scattered and few in number today.
But ask yourself this. What language do they speak in Mexico? Spanish, not Nahuatl !
What language do they speak in China? Chinese (and maybe some English for business purposes, but not because Britain and the U.S. colonized and replaced the Han people).
It would have to overhaul the gameplay on Africa entirely though. It should introduce tradeposts for the Europeans perhaps coupled with the Protectorate system already seen in the Live Streams? It on the other hand shouldn't exclude the native kingdoms like Mali or Songhai to expand their borders inland.
Would it be to far fetched to suggest an Africa which is open to the natives yet closed to the outsiders - whether European or Muslim or Asian, the only ever attempted expansion was that of the Moroccans which ended in a sad deluge at Timbuktu, the price of communications across the Sahara (also an abhorrent feature of the map => there were multiple routs across the Sahara dessert both from Morroco and Algiers - see the maps in Braudel's Mediterranean - yet they choose to display it as an arbitrary north-south route that looks so ugly on the map).
Native 'African' culture/Tech Group should be allowed to colonise an extended interior of Africa - with features along the lines of what the natives of the Americas will now receive, but then geared for the African context. In terms of taxation the majority of these lands would be piss poor, but it could in return be migitated by wealthy trade. This trade would thus be in luxury merchandise such as ivory but also in humans of course. May not be nice, but the major feature of African trade was the slave trade both with the muslim world and with the Europeans - both distinctly different in nature, thus leading to different events as well. A muslim nation with a strong share in the African slave trade should get events like 'the most beautiful servants' or 'lazy servants' or whatnot while Europeans should get events related to the harsh exploitation of slave labour proper, 'slaves revolt', 'slaves runaway', etc.
European slave trade was the harsher of the 2, geared for forced labour in abysmal conditions across the Atlantic, muslim slave trade was geared for domestic household slaves and women, not labour (the only time the a muslim state relied on slave labour proper was the Zanj in Abassid Iraq - ended in full scale revolts all over the place). European slave trade was highly disruptive, taking hostage the native socio-economical and politico-institutional development. Henceforth the west African states were no longer their own masters, but were defined by their approach to the Atlantic triangular trade: either deal with the Europeans and receive arms and whatever trinkets or try to resist them, which meant generally fleeing landinward and building up a state there. In game terms those that choose the former should get military bonuses representing European arms while those who choose the latter should get other bonuses indicating their resistance (could be morale, or in terms of manpower/prestige/taxes/etc).
European presence in the main time should be focused exclusively on the litorral in Trade Posts. These should be a miriad of small colonisable provinces (or an other option 'trade post' in this context) which would serve as focal points of your presence in Africa and your progress beyond, sailing for the Indies or whatnot. The Europeans could install protectorates over certain states, either by diplomacy or manu militari, for example over your 'favoured' supplier of slaves, but just as easily over the non-slave trade geared nations mentioned above.
European (or Muslim, Asian, etc) colonisation of the interior should be excluded wholesale as it was simply IMPOSSIBLE. People died. Horribly. Conquest of the already existing native states should be either impossible or restricted to the coastal area in some way, control over inland regions at best should work through a system of protectorates. It should be possible to say capture Mozambique or Congo, but the cost should be tremendous in multiple ways and thus in reality something rather not to pursue, thus directing you towards a more subtle approach. Say I'm an ambitious Portugal and I seize manu militari the Congolese seaboard, there should be an option compared to the 'liberty feeling' of the new DLC but in terms of 'native tensions rising', when it boils over - which if you are only pursuing a 'gain' strategy (get money, get trade etc) it should - leads to full scale revolts. The possible alternative would be to extremely placate the locals at a high cost (ducats etc) while losing prestige at home (you silly Portuguese handing money to African tribesmen...).
But, you may say, full scale revolts are easily crushed by European troops, Africa's tech level does not allow any form of military resistance to the European mighty arms! Correct I say, thus this should be mended in other ways. I'm thinking of expanding on what has already been mentioned: remember how you now destroy Mali with 5000 infantry? Wrong, guess again! 5000 European infantrymen marching into the African interior does not equal ??? does not equal profit... It equals DEATH EVERYWHERE
What Africa lacks in military strenght it should make up 2-fold:1) Large (rebel) armies. Yes, here we have to be somewhat liberal. It isn't because the Zulu's of the 19th century could mobilise over 20 000 footsoldiers in their impi's that all 16th century African states should be able to, but will omit that for fun's sake.
2) Enormous negative modifiers to European (and other) armies making landfall in Africa. Land forcelimits should be minimal, attrition devastating. Any army larger than say 1000-2000-3000 men should literally melt away. Especially moving away from the coast should incur serious negative bonuses in terms of morale etc (simulating the devastation wroughty by sickness), making cocky European invaders easy prey to the numerically larger yet technologically inferior African armies. The coast should thus be a feasible hold out but nevertheless to costly.
The player/AI should thus be steered in a more diplomatical divide and conquer approah to Africa. The Trade Posts should allow for larger armies to concentrate but not by much (say 4000-5000 mn), they are after all transit zones. In intra-African tribal wars European 'protectors' could be called in as well. You could then attach a force to a native army to support your candidate for victory. Same rules still apply: anything over 1000-2000 should simply melt away. What I'm thinking of is that by attaching a few regiments, even 1, to a native host, you should be able to somewhat influence the outcome of battles, still the cost should be hard in terms of manpower, and adding to many troops should have the reverse effect of seriously lowering the morale and thus spell certain doom for your combined force. There could perhaps be a modifier that seriously increases your exhaustion when having a certain number of troops fight on African soil.
The exception to the rule should be Southern Africa, at least a well specified region of it, this should be open to colonisation as it was. It was the only part of Africa the European settlers discovered to be climatologically benevolent towards the European lifestyle and agriculture. This region would allow for colonisation proper (why not in the future a colonial Cape Colony-nation?) and also have higher force limits making for bigger armies to be stationed here. Europeans should be eager to fight over this transit zone towards the Indies.
I started out thinking 'keep it short' but it ended somewhat like this. Thoughts?
Discounting the fact that much of the early colonial attempts in the new world ended in failure due to disease.
Generally the focus is on the fact that the Europeans gave the natives small pox and measles, completely forgetting the natives gave the Europeans the likes of polio, syphilis, and hepatitis. Coupled with the starvation that the early colonists faced, most of the new world colonies eventually failed. Once the Europeans built immunity to these diseases, the rate of success of colonial expansion increased. The early colonists brought a lot of the New World diseases back to Europe, creating endemics, which is something that did not really happen with many of the more deadly African diseases (at least the ones that were not already in Europe at this time such as malaria). Some of this was due to vectors of transmission, coupled with disease progression.
The difference between Africa and the New World, is that the New World was seen as a source of goods for the Old World, while Africa was seen as a source of goods for the New World. It takes a lot less people to export slaves than it does to export tobacco and cotton. If tobacco and cotton could effectively be grown in West or Central Africa, Europe would have withstood the diseases until they got greater immunity (generational persistence in the presence of disease provides an immunity that is equivalent to medicine in many cases).
Success and failure of colonial ventures ultimately came down to money and goods, and the New World was a better source of it. It wasn't until the over abundance of New World goods, the New World breaking away from the old World, and advances in medicine, mining, and industrialization did Africa become a hotbed of new colonization.
Partially true but glossing over some key factors though.
Large parts of the Americas proper (north to south) were not inhospitable to European settlement - the Tropical Belt was, not just northern America but larger parts of Mexico and Argentina as well, the Inca lands were high mountainuous not tropical jungle as well. Bottom line is the jungle, and taking Portuguese Brazil for example, the exploitation was largely done by slave labour, because they could work better in the present conditions, the populace of Portuguese Brazil henceforth was very mixed and living in conditions that were anything but comfortable to modern eyes. And to state the point even further: how much of southern America was really colonised?
Moreover as you point out: America had something to offer which Africa did not for pre-19th century Europe. Raw metals are only the tip of the iceberg. The Americas were overal suitable for agriculture and husbandry on a large scale. Africa was not, apart from the south. It had incentives and was on the whole less devastating to the settlers than Africa, unless you only look at the Tropical belt area.
Perhaps the main issue is that AIs have a rather easy time colonizing, especially Africa. I rarely, if ever, see the big western colonizers (Portugal, Spain, France) loose colonies due to native attacks. And believe me, they have no troops in there most of the time.
Also, climate attrition levels should be culture-specific and more harsh and each province should have attrition tolerance for certain tech groups. Meaning Mali could colonize Africa no problem, but western nations would suffer. This would also prevent Ottoman troops rampaging through China and would require much more effort for British to conquer India.
Natural scientist advisors could cut cultural attrition by half in addition to the 10% production bonus.
Also, climate attrition levels should be culture-specific and more harsh and each province should have attrition tolerance for certain tech groups. Meaning Mali could colonize Africa no problem, but western nations would suffer. This would also prevent Ottoman troops rampaging through China and would require much more effort for British to conquer India.
Natural scientist advisors could cut cultural attrition by half in addition to the 10% production bonus.
I would say they were inhospitable more due to infertile land for farming cash crops on a large scale than because of disease or climate. While those areas tended to be hot and humid, that was not much of a factor, as hot and humid areas with arable land tend to be heavily populated throughout the world.
I think it is a fallacy to say that slave labour was better suited to harsher conditions. Slaves often knew little to nothing about farming and forestry before coming to the new world (especially on the scale they did it). In the time it took for the slaves to be effective farmers on a large scale, their overlords would have adjusted to the climate. The difference is, the death of a slave versus the death of a European was treated much differently, and had little to due to whether or not the slaves were better suited to the climate (as that is something that people get accustom to fairly quickly, and the ones that do not, often die).
The tropical areas of the New World were largely untouched for the simple fact they could not grow the cash crops of that era on the scale to be profitable. What they could grow often could not survive being shipped across the world. If a banana could survive months at a time, sold for $50/kg instead of $1/kg (admittedly in modern prices), South America would be one of the most populous places on the planet during the time, despite it being tropical.
The AI cheats in regards to colonization, which is why they essentially colonize in places that the player never could/would (like many of the pacific islands).
If you look at the places the French and British went, you will see that culture should have no role in attrition. Logistics is and always was the biggest determining factor for attrition. An African nation should not have an easier time colonizing the Sahara and parts of Western and Central Africa than a European for the simple fact that it was not England's race or culture that was inhibiting colonizing enmass, but the simple fact that growing enough food on a scale to support cities was not possible during this time. It does not matter if you were an African living in the area or a European colonizer, as a plantation style farm would never happen. Sure the local tribes would initially survive better until the Europeans learned how to survive in the area. However, neither would grow to mega-cities as the technology to support them did not exist for hundreds of years later.
I also think that people tak our time line as the divine position for this game. If portugal could colonize such african areas they could of gone for other spots instead. I agree that it wasn't realistic for Europe to control the central african states but honestly I would say that the coast is completely plausible as it was done.
Yeah, it's more bullshit lazy design. The AI just does not get as many native attacks because they haven't figured out how to make the guard its colonies.