EU4 Development Diary - 18th February 2016

Hello and Welcome to another development diary for EU4. This time we take a look at Africa, and the changes there. This one of those times when pictures are worth more than 1000 words.

First of all, we have added the entirety of the Kongo region, reaching up to the Great Lakes area. Not just home to the countries of Kongo, Loango and Ndongo, this area now have multiple nations, and could be the basis of a powerful empire.

EqLfHFP.jpg


While we have added over 20 new nations to Central Africa, we have also added new idea groups and unique ideas for these mighty states, including the Great Lakes ideas for our states near the Lake Victoria. These Central Africans also have their own unique technology group, with technology costing 65% more than Westerners.

North we find the Great Lakes Area, with lots of minor nations, some that still exist today, after a brief period of colonialism.

fGXlnQP.jpg


Southeast of Kongo, is Zambia and Mozambique is now filled with provinces and several new nations as well. Magagascar has also seen a rework, with 5 nations struggling for supremacy of the island, complete with their own national ideas and Pagan/Islamic friction

rRAeHfF.jpg


The tradesetup for Africa have changed as well, Zanzibar is now the coast tradenode, with three inland nodes of Kongo, Great Lakes and Zambezi leading to the coasts either west and east. This makes the Zanzibar node a hugely important tradenode for everyone along the Indian Ocean.

BSQYLUv.jpg


No diary on our Africa changes would be complete without giving some attention to religion in the region. Previously we had carpeted non-specific pagan areas with Shamanism or Animism. Now many of our African provinces which have not converted to Islam are portrayed with the Fetishist Pagan religion which grants greater tolerance to heathens and a diplomatic reputation bonus along with the usual pagan decision.

i47pBld.jpg


Next week, we’ll talk about two different and new concepts, one which has its own icon in the top bar.
 
  • 270
  • 44
  • 7
Reactions:

fetusthebard

Captain
44 Badges
Nov 2, 2013
393
396
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Data please.

I am well aware of the history of the place and even a lot of the numbers, I have done work from AFRICOM in the Great Lakes region.
Mr. Africa expert is completely ignorant of Africa's major populations centers, especially in this time period. By 1500 Africa had a population of 47 million, and we know that the Great Lakes region held a close proportion to the West African coast as far as population density goes according to Goldewijk, Beusen, and Jannsen's study on population density of the world from 10,000 BC to 2000 AD. Just because that population has little to do with Europe does not mean it should be precluded from the game.
The map shown does not represent the major population centers of the time period. The map does not represent anything close to what is a viable marching route in this era. Again, we are talking about a region that was a relatively short straight-line distance from major slave trading powers on the Swahili coast and even in the Kongo - yet they were never slaved in this era. There is no record of substantial trade (which we do have for places like Siber and Oriat).
You're right. The map shown does not represent the population centers of the time.
So, I guess we should remove Scandinavia, most of Russia, all of Northern Africa other than Morocco, all of North America, most of Indonesia, and all of the land north of Tibet as well?
The population density of the world at the time was lower in these places than the Great Lakes of Africa, so it only makes sense to remove all of them!
Hmm... There weren't any slaves being marched out of these areas...
This must mean there was no one living there! Not that groups in the Great Lakes had little interaction with Europeans until into the 1800's, rather that no one lived there!
And I love that you defend Siber and Oirat, both of whom had far inferior population densities.
The rivers are largely not navigable for armies. They do not link up the provinces as shown. The rift valley means there is no outlet to the sea for much of the watershed and that evaporation leaves large swathes of land with minimal (i.e. none above ground) fresh water.
Wait, did your argument suddenly change to be about whether or not Europeans could access these people? Of course they couldn't. It's inland on a continent that they had minor presence on until the 1800's. Fortunately, this is mirrored well in the game. Cape is taken, everything is left untouched.
Historically, there were isolated kingdoms that by their own oral history (and yes I have read one of the original records of it), the coastal histories, and Western histories did not interact substantially with the coast until after the period. I mean for Pete's sake some of the 1444 kingdoms listed on this map did not have relations with Portugal (who ended up owning Angola) until the turn of the 20th century.
When did we start talking about the Congo? I never said anyhthing about the states in the Congo, and hopefully Paradox will make these states very poor and unorganized with little politics outside of the basin. Like the Great Lake states, but with no ability to move towards the Swahili coast.
Since the days of EUII, I have pretty much always backed maps that were historically plausible - that in some fashion reflected the riverine transport of the era, the need for supplemental forage on the march, and the possibility for transit in good order to be a province in the EU franchise. Likewise in order to be an actual state the need for substantial economic trade, sustained foreign relations, and multi-generational territorial cohesion should all be met. This is why I think there should be some event that spawns kingdom formation in Madagascar - it was not some isolated area with minimal interaction; it had sustained foreign policy, it had sustained territorial claims, it was slaved heavily (in some places Malagasy haplotypes are the dominant ones in the known descendants of slaves).
Believe it or not, Africa existed before the slave trade. It had its own political history separate from Europe. Treating it as if it were something that was solely used for European advancement is laughable, especially in an era where it was still largely untouched by them. Using slaves to decide whether or not a nation exists seems arbitrary.
Not everywhere that supported a population also supported interactions with the global trade and diplomacy networks. And certainly far, far more internationally consequential HRE statelets are omitted from the game (states that have multiplicatively more population than some of the southern "states" shown in the map).
"They aren't European, so they aren't important."
And it does get a bit annoying that Pdox and some forum members complain about actual historical things being "ahistorical" (e.g. states expanding at the mid-term trend rate of the OE/Russians/Mughal historical rate of conquest, the British blocking Copenhagen to prevent the Danish army from crossing the straights on ice) and turning around and opening states for which there is no historical record (oral, written, or inscribed) of outside contact. We are, in fact, now including states where the first contact with the coastal powers is literally after the game period ends.
Some very good points, some absolutely terrible ones.
Good: historical rate of conquest, navies blocking straits (I've even complained about this garbage)
Bad: contact being the necessity for the inclusion of states (seriously, what even is the reasoning?), things that happened after the game ends (you can form Germany in this game, stop getting caught up on what DID happen and instead focus on what COULD HAVE happened0

Basically, you're getting upset because Paradox is adding a historically accurate region to the map and including civilizations that actually existed at game start, and it was also inhabited by more people than already existent nations with unique cultures in the game.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Jomini

General
6 Badges
Mar 28, 2004
2.083
2.154
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
Mr. Africa expert is completely ignorant of Africa's major populations centers, especially in this time period. By 1500 Africa had a population of 47 million, and we know that the Great Lakes region held a close proportion to the West African coast as far as population density goes according to Goldewijk, Beusen, and Jannsen's study on population density of the world from 10,000 BC to 2000 AD. Just because that population has little to do with Europe does not mean it should be precluded from the game.

Ahem GBJ is not a "study" it is simulation based on the HYDE. The current bibliography for that database can be found here:

http://themasites.pbl.nl/tridion/en/themasites/hyde/bibliography/index-2.html

In which of these cited sources can I find the evidence of the population being discussed here? Particularly, would you mind showing me the population density for any of the approaches from the coast to the lakes themselves (do recall that you are citing a source with only 5' resolution)? You know the areas that even today struggle with alkaline waters and no navigable rivers?

You're right. The map shown does not represent the population centers of the time.
So, I guess we should remove Scandinavia, most of Russia, all of Northern Africa other than Morocco, all of North America, most of Indonesia, and all of the land north of Tibet as well?

Yes a good bit of interior Scandinavia was not able to support the transit of troops through the area due to the lack of surplus calories, navigable rivers, and lack of historical campaigns, for this reason earlier versions of EU had uncolonized provinces here which would be far more appropriate than the current setup. Closing off some of the interior for the duration of the game is likely viable. Likewise much of the North African interior is marginal at best for supporting actual states rather than sub-state level tribes.

The population density of the world at the time was lower in these places than the Great Lakes of Africa, so it only makes sense to remove all of them!
Hmm... There weren't any slaves being marched out of these areas...
This must mean there was no one living there! Not that groups in the Great Lakes had little interaction with Europeans until into the 1800's, rather that no one lived there!
And I love that you defend Siber and Oirat, both of whom had far inferior population densities.

No I have always maintained that people lived there; however I and history maintain that said people were not able to leave nor were coastal communities able to enter. For the same reason that Utah is off limits in game - the caloric surplus was minimal on the approach, being in an endorheic basin limits transportation, and the relative scarcity of potable surface water makes marching regiments across it in good order impossible.


Wait, did your argument suddenly change to be about whether or not Europeans could access these people?
No my argument is about other Africans being able to access it. Take Kongo and related states. Which of them invaded these areas? Or had large scale trade? Or had large scale intermarriage (as evidenced by haplotyping of descendents). Or come from the Swahili side, which states did any of this with the Great Lakes region?

Why is that Islam arrived in the area only in the 19th century (at least according to the Ugandan Imams I have talked to)? After all Islam made it to Zanzibar in the 8th century, but somehow no one in Zanzibar made it inland for a millenium for ... reasons.

We can punt all the European sources and all the European questions. If this region is so well connected to the rest of Africa, why are there no African records (oral or otherwise) of large scale interaction? Why are there so few haplotypes from the Great Lakes region on the Swahili coast or in the Muslim slave trade diaspora?


When did we start talking about the Congo? I never said anyhthing about the states in the Congo, and hopefully Paradox will make these states very poor and unorganized with little politics outside of the basin. Like the Great Lake states, but with no ability to move towards the Swahili coast.

Are you kidding? Look at the OP. We have states straddling the headwaters of the Zambezi and the Congo proper; an area that was sporting unorganized tribes in 1900.


Believe it or not, Africa existed before the slave trade. It had its own political history separate from Europe. Treating it as if it were something that was solely used for European advancement is laughable, especially in an era where it was still largely untouched by them. Using slaves to decide whether or not a nation exists seems arbitrary.

"They aren't European, so they aren't important."

Do me a favor and have the guts to engage real points, not strawmen. The slave trade in Africa long predates European colonization and the slave trading networks ran from Iceland (raided by the Berbers) throughout the Mediterranean coast, into Poland, to Siberia and on to East Asia. Every European could have mysteriously died in 1444 and we would still have the Swahili slave trade going.

So again I ask, do you think the Swahili were particularly stupid?

We have records of them slaving in Juba but no records of them slaving in the Great Lakes region. Slaving expeditions being far easier to pull off than marching regimental armies across in good order, why did Swahili slaving expeditions go from Zanzibar to places hundreds or thousands of km further away than the Great Lakes region?

We had states in Kongo, Ethiopia, and Zanzibar (plus coastal states), all of these, according to the new map are within a quarter campaign season of marching from the Great Lakes region. So unless you think that all those states were inept, there should be some record of their interactions with the states of the Great Lakes region.

Some very good points, some absolutely terrible ones.
Good: historical rate of conquest, navies blocking straits (I've even complained about this garbage)
Bad: contact being the necessity for the inclusion of states (seriously, what even is the reasoning?), things that happened after the game ends (you can form Germany in this game, stop getting caught up on what DID happen and instead focus on what COULD HAVE happened0

Basically, you're getting upset because Paradox is adding a historically accurate region to the map and including civilizations that actually existed at game start, and it was also inhabited by more people than already existent nations with unique cultures in the game.

Nope. My problem is that moving armies in this era requires extensive amounts of surplus calories. Period strategists knew quite well what sort of marches were possible and what were not (e.g. Napoleon estimated he could march from Egypt to India, but not much further south than Sudan). The Great Lakes region was part of the cassava belt and of course the East African Plantain is self-evident, unfortunately these are among the least practical staples to provide calories for marching troops. The approaches to the Great Lakes requires crossing a lot of places with less than ideal drainage, such that to this day the place struggles with acidic (in the highlands) and alkaline (in the lowlands) soils and water. Keeping water remotely potable for regimental forces is not going to happen. Smuts could barely manage to operate in the Great Lakes region (literally losing 90+% of some regiments in under a season) ... and he had steampower, railroads, canned rations, modern sanitation habits, and a holy host of other advantages that no state in 1820 could have hoped to manage.

Sorry, but no. As much as you would like to be a cultural imperialist and impose your definition of states and "possible" on this region, historically it was isolated for geographic reasons and that isolation would not be breakable by any state - African or not.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:

fetusthebard

Captain
44 Badges
Nov 2, 2013
393
396
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Prison Architect
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
Ahem GBJ is not a "study" it is simulation based on the HYDE. The current bibliography for that database can be found here:

http://themasites.pbl.nl/tridion/en/themasites/hyde/bibliography/index-2.html

In which of these cited sources can I find the evidence of the population being discussed here?
I'm sorry, it appears you just asked for evidence while listing a literal cornucopia of evidence from sources at the time. The UN created this group specifically to study population changes, are you doubting that these scientists findings are robust? If so, where is your rebuttal and would you provide a copy that I could peruse for free? Because I fail to see how if these UN studies (and let's be honest, the report is a study of its own, peer reviewed like any other publication) were incorrect the scientific community would just sit and nod their heads like good little cattle?
Particularly, would you mind showing me the population density for any of the approaches from the coast to the lakes themselves (do recall that you are citing a source with only 5' resolution)? You know the areas that even today struggle with alkaline waters and no navigable rivers?
You can see the map. Not many people lived in the approach, but that doesn't mean that there was never a force that was prepared to make the march. It means for a multitude of reasons (and perhaps potable water was one of them) they did not. No, I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt. They were most likely most deterred by the lack of hospitable travel conditions. This does not mean it was completely impossible for other states in Africa, states that actively traded with these people. And it was FAR easier than other areas of the game that are deemed passable, especially if Paradox decides that Congo is passable as it seems may happen. I would have a far harder time defending armies marching through that hellhole.
Yes a good bit of interior Scandinavia was not able to support the transit of troops through the area due to the lack of surplus calories, navigable rivers, and lack of historical campaigns, for this reason earlier versions of EU had uncolonized provinces here which would be far more appropriate than the current setup. Closing off some of the interior for the duration of the game is likely viable. Likewise much of the North African interior is marginal at best for supporting actual states rather than sub-state level tribes.
Well at least you are consistent. But... why aren't you making a fuss about this still? You seem inordinately angry at this particular example and Salish, both of which are multitudes more tame than 90% of the other lands that should be backed up to a wasteland. And if you are going to argue that state construction wasn't congealed enough at the time, that can be said about almost everything except Europe. Asia had just started with complex imperial structure at the game start, and even then societies in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and India had societies much more comparable to tribes. The exception in the Middle East is the Ottoman Empire, but even under the empire tribes kept their local control. Hell, you could argue that until the 20th century this was still the case. Does this mean that the entirety of the world should reflect perfectly the issues and borders of states? If it was, we would have a great deal fewer playable nations!
No I have always maintained that people lived there; however I and history maintain that said people were not able to leave nor were coastal communities able to enter. For the same reason that Utah is off limits in game - the caloric surplus was minimal on the approach, being in an endorheic basin limits transportation, and the relative scarcity of potable surface water makes marching regiments across it in good order impossible.
And yet the trade still exited from the area, as the Congo basin received a deal of the wealth from that side of the continent. Not only this, but how did the people even migrate to the area if it is that inhospitable? The people living in the area can be traced back to Egypt. I suppose Egyptians had access to modern medicine, steamboats, and trains?
No my argument is about other Africans being able to access it. Take Kongo and related states. Which of them invaded these areas? Or had large scale trade? Or had large scale intermarriage (as evidenced by haplotyping of descendents). Or come from the Swahili side, which states did any of this with the Great Lakes region?
Kongo wasn't even distantly related to the Great Lakes region. They did trade with the region though, along with countries like Luba. It's odd that you're denying obvious trade that happened. Although marriage between the tribes? I don't know of any evidence for this, but I don't see why there would be either.
Why is that Islam arrived in the area only in the 19th century (at least according to the Ugandan Imams I have talked to)? After all Islam made it to Zanzibar in the 8th century, but somehow no one in Zanzibar made it inland for a millenium for ... reasons.
I have no idea about the historical accuracy here, and trust your experience talking to Imams. But this doesn't mean that no relations at all were possible.
We can punt all the European sources and all the European questions. If this region is so well connected to the rest of Africa, why are there no African records (oral or otherwise) of large scale interaction? Why are there so few haplotypes from the Great Lakes region on the Swahili coast or in the Muslim slave trade diaspora?
That would be nice.There are records of trade taking place, especially between the states of Congo. And I never said that it was well connected to the rest of Africa, just that the connection was possible in the time-frame. Especially for a country already from the region.
Are you kidding? Look at the OP. We have states straddling the headwaters of the Zambezi and the Congo proper; an area that was sporting unorganized tribes in 1900.
You mean, there are states where there were actually states? :eek:
Do me a favor and have the guts to engage real points, not strawmen. The slave trade in Africa long predates European colonization and the slave trading networks ran from Iceland (raided by the Berbers) throughout the Mediterranean coast, into Poland, to Siberia and on to East Asia. Every European could have mysteriously died in 1444 and we would still have the Swahili slave trade going.

So again I ask, do you think the Swahili were particularly stupid?
How would I know that this wasn't your position? You had been talking exclusively about European expansion in the era. And the sentence that I used the strawman in was basically a paraphrased version of what you wrote. You've only just started to use examples where they matter in the slightest, and the reasoning has basically been because it didn't happen it could never happen.

No, the Swahili were not stupid. They had other options, and didn't need to expend as much by traveling elsewhere.
We have records of them slaving in Juba but no records of them slaving in the Great Lakes region. Slaving expeditions being far easier to pull off than marching regimental armies across in good order, why did Swahili slaving expeditions go from Zanzibar to places hundreds or thousands of km further away than the Great Lakes region?

We had states in Kongo, Ethiopia, and Zanzibar (plus coastal states), all of these, according to the new map are within a quarter campaign season of marching from the Great Lakes region. So unless you think that all those states were inept, there should be some record of their interactions with the states of the Great Lakes region.
Yet again, saying that it didn't happen isn't proof that it couldn't happen. Perhaps the area was stigmatized by the peoples due to ancient defeats and hardships in the area. Perhaps the prevalence of population once was associated with giant military might that decayed after centuries. Perhaps the nations (and this is going to be a huge shocker!) had other more pressing concerns than invading an area that was more than likely unsuitable to capture citizens and send them out of. The point is that saying something is impossible because there was no historical precedent is horribly naive, we might as well say something like nuclear winter was impossible because of US and Soviet interactions. There are instances in which this is a gross oversimplification of the Cold War.
Nope. My problem is that moving armies in this era requires extensive amounts of surplus calories. Period strategists knew quite well what sort of marches were possible and what were not (e.g. Napoleon estimated he could march from Egypt to India, but not much further south than Sudan). The Great Lakes region was part of the cassava belt and of course the East African Plantain is self-evident, unfortunately these are among the least practical staples to provide calories for marching troops. The approaches to the Great Lakes requires crossing a lot of places with less than ideal drainage, such that to this day the place struggles with acidic (in the highlands) and alkaline (in the lowlands) soils and water. Keeping water remotely potable for regimental forces is not going to happen. Smuts could barely manage to operate in the Great Lakes region (literally losing 90+% of some regiments in under a season) ... and he had steampower, railroads, canned rations, modern sanitation habits, and a holy host of other advantages that no state in 1820 could have hoped to manage.

Sorry, but no. As much as you would like to be a cultural imperialist and impose your definition of states and "possible" on this region, historically it was isolated for geographic reasons and that isolation would not be breakable by any state - African or not.
Then you should be complaining about nearly half the territory in this game. You are not. So allow nations that existed during the time period exist, and stop attempting to halt expansion of game mechanics because you feel that the history of the world is set in stone and was never grey.
I like this cultural imperialist notion coming from someone that actively denies that trade existed between these groups because it wasn't a slave trade. Unfortunately though, you'll find that I've made no such claim about states. It was isolated, and yes that was in part due to it's geography. That does not mean the isolation was unbreakable, or that trade wasn't possible there. It also doesn't mean that any African state (funny, I thought you just rebuked me for using this parlance) would be impossibly precluded from the area. There have been stranger occurrences, for instance, how they even got there in the first place.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:

Jomini

General
6 Badges
Mar 28, 2004
2.083
2.154
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
I'm sorry, it appears you just asked for evidence while listing a literal cornucopia of evidence from sources at the time. The UN created this group specifically to study population changes, are you doubting that these scientists findings are robust? If so, where is your rebuttal and would you provide a copy that I could peruse for free? Because I fail to see how if these UN studies (and let's be honest, the report is a study of its own, peer reviewed like any other publication) were incorrect the scientific community would just sit and nod their heads like good little cattle?
I'm sorry, I know it might be hard, but I did not ask for a giant appeal to authority. I asked you to point out for me which entry in their bibliography - the source for all their data in the database. Say I wanted to publish something, rather than citing a secondary source (which the authors clearly agree their papers and database are) which citation would I use?


You can see the map. Not many people lived in the approach, but that doesn't mean that there was never a force that was prepared to make the march. It means for a multitude of reasons (and perhaps potable water was one of them) they did not. No, I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt. They were most likely most deterred by the lack of hospitable travel conditions. This does not mean it was completely impossible for other states in Africa, states that actively traded with these people. And it was FAR easier than other areas of the game that are deemed passable, especially if Paradox decides that Congo is passable as it seems may happen. I would have a far harder time defending armies marching through that hellhole.

There was never a force able to make the march prior to the advent of steam power, machine tools, modern explosives, the introduction of higher caloric density agriculture, etc. The native African porters from Smuts's force had higher attrition rates than the line regiments.

And do not BS about trade. How much poundage was moved along these alleged trade routes? If these routes were large scale why, unlike every other active trade route in world history, did they not leave a genetic legacy? Why do we not see any evidence of East - West pandemic spread across this highly used passage.

I fully grant that there are states inside the Great Lakes region (albeit nowhere near as close to the model as anything in India), those states were just isolated by the realities of geography.

Well at least you are consistent. But... why aren't you making a fuss about this still? You seem inordinately angry at this particular example and Salish, both of which are multitudes more tame than 90% of the other lands that should be backed up to a wasteland.
Oh heck no, I have consistently argued for some sort of restraint in provinces to actually reflect the strategy and history of the time. If that has been in North America, through the Sahara, or in the Himalayas. This particular one bugs me more because it is far more likely to result in the Western AIs ahistorically getting further bogged down in Africa and nuking East Asia with even more pointless waiting time to westernize (which unfortunately is still mind-boggling overpowered).


And if you are going to argue that state construction wasn't congealed enough at the time, that can be said about almost everything except Europe. Asia had just started with complex imperial structure at the game start, and even then societies in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and India had societies much more comparable to tribes. The exception in the Middle East is the Ottoman Empire, but even under the empire tribes kept their local control. Hell, you could argue that until the 20th century this was still the case. Does this mean that the entirety of the world should reflect perfectly the issues and borders of states? If it was, we would have a great deal fewer playable nations!
India had multiple states which met multiple conditions many times. While, yes, I would leave some of Asia and the ME as open ground for spawnable tags, those places do have long history of forming empires that managed diplomatic relations (in some cases with Rome and China), regularlized fighting forces, long range campaigns, etc. I could be convinced to have some "wasteland" in central SE Asia, but I am not sure exactly how that would fall out.

And yet the trade still exited from the area, as the Congo basin received a deal of the wealth from that side of the continent. Not only this, but how did the people even migrate to the area if it is that inhospitable? The people living in the area can be traced back to Egypt. I suppose Egyptians had access to modern medicine, steamboats, and trains?
What trade? I know of no large volume trade that left the area.

The point I have been talking about is that EU simulates regimental warfare. Having done actual military logistics and read people like van Creveld, I know that moving large bodies of men is much more difficult than just pointing a column in one direction and saying "march".

Case in point Gustavus Adolphus once wanted to relieve a siege that would require a 50 mile march from the nearest navigable river. However, the countryside had been picked clean by several sequential campaigns. One of the most brilliant logisticians of the era was unable to achieve one of his stated strategic priorities for want of sufficient caloric density along his marching path. Now we are talking about a longer march, with even inferior caloric density, water issues, and far less forgiving terrain.

So what was possible? Small scale movement. 10 men can move through areas that 100 cannot. 100 can move where 10,000 cannot. Water sources, like rain pools can easily support small bands that can disperse over wide frontages. Likewise, if you are not trying to feed thousands of soldiers, but instead of pastoralists moving with food on the hoof, you can slowly cross terrain by moving on the order of miles per month or year by letting your much hardier animals graze over extremely wide frontage and then slaughtering them for calories. This is how, after all, the Inuit managed to live on honest ice pack at times. This is why the Rockies, which can trivially support small foraging parties, were impassable to large scale armies (such that even in 1848 the US army went down the Gila instead of crossing the place).

Kongo wasn't even distantly related to the Great Lakes region. They did trade with the region though, along with countries like Luba. It's odd that you're denying obvious trade that happened. Although marriage between the tribes? I don't know of any evidence for this, but I don't see why there would be either.
Name another trade route without haplotype mixing. We have Dutch haplotypes in Taiwan. We have Irish haplotypes in Spain and all manner of haplotypes in North Africa from the slave trade.

The reason I doubt the existence of large scale trade is the records in Zanzibar of opening the trade in 1844. For instance, the Kabaka of Buganda was recorded as having never seen guns before by bin Ibrahim (a trader out of Zanzibar). Shortly thereafter when large scale slaving started in the area, it was regarded as virgin territory by the slavers. You are basically calling a whole bunch of Zanzibari traders liars or idiots who certainly did alter the trade patterns of the time.

I have no idea about the historical accuracy here, and trust your experience talking to Imams. But this doesn't mean that no relations at all were possible.
So a place you say is easy to get to (places that are hard to march an army into are easy for small scale groups to enter), that had regular trade somehow missed the whole religion thing from one of the two most evangelistic religions in world history; a religion with a LONG history of attaining converts via its trading prowess? And did so consistently for a millenium?

Remember, we have historical records of Islam being introduced, converting large swathes of the population, and declaring an Islamic state in just a few decades (the last was put down by a Catholic-Protestant alliance with western imperialist backing).

So somehow this totally-not-isolated region just ignored Islam for ... reasons.

That would be nice.There are records of trade taking place, especially between the states of Congo. And I never said that it was well connected to the rest of Africa, just that the connection was possible in the time-frame. Especially for a country already from the region.

You mean, there are states where there were actually states? :eek:

How would I know that this wasn't your position? You had been talking exclusively about European expansion in the era. And the sentence that I used the strawman in was basically a paraphrased version of what you wrote. You've only just started to use examples where they matter in the slightest, and the reasoning has basically been because it didn't happen it could never happen.
Please, reread the thread. I have never said these states didn't exist. I have said the marchable approaches to them did not. My request for population data has nothing to do with the size of the population on the lakes themselves, and everything to do with supporting a march into the interior.

No, the Swahili were not stupid. They had other options, and didn't need to expend as much by traveling elsewhere.
And what, exactly, were these alleged expenses? Why would they be higher to slave in Buganda than in Juba and Madagascar?



Yet again, saying that it didn't happen isn't proof that it couldn't happen. Perhaps the area was stigmatized by the peoples due to ancient defeats and hardships in the area. Perhaps the prevalence of population once was associated with giant military might that decayed after centuries.
So where else in the world have these century spanning "stigmas" stopped conquest and large scale trade? I know of nothing such as this anywhere in world history.

Perhaps the nations (and this is going to be a huge shocker!) had other more pressing concerns than invading an area that was more than likely unsuitable to capture citizens and send them out of.
Any place you can march regiments through is suitable for slaving. Slaving bands take an order of magnitude lower of caloric density to maintain. On both the East and West coasts, the value per pound or per calorie was higher for slaves than just about anything (spices, gold, and ivory would be higher). The slaving states on both the East and the West both expended massive resources, far more than required to march a regiment overland hundreds of miles acquiring slaves.

You cannot have it both ways. Either it is possible to move regiments through the hinterlands and hence easy to move slaves through ... or it is hard (at best) to move slaves through and impossible to move armies through. I hold to the later - the lack of navigable rivers, the problems with alkalinity, the staple crops of cassava and plantains, the highland terrain ... all of these are things that say you do not have armies moving through here.

Further I have an ace in the hole. During WWI large scale regimental warfare was tried, invading the region from the coast. Regiments lost the vast majority of their manpower. Hundreds of thousands of men died or were casualties of just the terrain. When the Germans fled in front of the overwhelming strength of the South Africans, they retreated not across the inhospitable terrain you suggest would be easy for a 20th century German force ... but instead invaded Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) because of its caloric density (something only possible thanks to machine tools, climate tolerant wheat varieties, and several other mid-late 19th century advances). When people had their lives on the line they acted as though this march was not possible.

The point is that saying something is impossible because there was no historical precedent is horribly naive, we might as well say something like nuclear winter was impossible because of US and Soviet interactions. There are instances in which this is a gross oversimplification of the Cold War.
Nuclear winter is impossible. The maximal nuclear exchange (sometime in the early-mid 70s) had nowhere near enough energy to eject mass greater than that of Pinatubo. Now sure, if you use crappy propaganda calculations that model an earth without oceans, maybe you will see something like nuclear winter ... but in the real world we know how much stratospheric ejecta is possible with the standard megaton warheads and we can pretty easily calculate that even at worst case scenarios (a 1970s full launch with no counter-force strikes) we would get maybe a degree of cooling on a global basis.

And this is exactly what is happening here. You are making wild assumptions that does not jive with known limits of physics and geography. Marching men on the local diet (the only choice without navigable rivers) is nigh unto impossible for ranges in the hundreds of km. Maintaining a supply of fresh water when you evaporate out all your water is pretty hard to impossible for thousands of men. Like nuclear winter, you need a plausible mechanism to overcome hurdles.

How do you feed regiments in this terrain before you hit the caloric jackpot around the lakes proper?
How do you supply potable water when the surface is salty and alkaline from millenia of evaporation?

Then you should be complaining about nearly half the territory in this game. You are not. So allow nations that existed during the time period exist, and stop attempting to halt expansion of game mechanics because you feel that the history of the world is set in stone and was never grey.
I like this cultural imperialist notion coming from someone that actively denies that trade existed between these groups because it wasn't a slave trade.



Oh cut the BS. I bring up the slave trade because:
A. It was the dominant trade at the time
B. Anywhere you have large concentrations of people it was a viable trade good (be it in Poland, Iceland, or Africa)
C. When recorded trade was established it was one of two main goods traded (the other being ivory).

Bin Ibrahim is recorded as the first trader ever there. When he arrived, guns and manufactured cloth were the top of his trade goods. Given how the whole African coast was awash in guns from the slave trade oh say 150 years prior it is shocking that the most powerful man in the kingdom had never heard of guns if there were regular large scale trade contacts.

But don't take my word for it:
This is all recounted by Ugandan sources: http://www.monitor.co.ug/SpecialReports/-/688342/1361764/-/vwys08/-/index.html

But let me guess, you know their history better than they do.

See the funny thing is all the major trade players of the 19th century: the Zanzibari slavers, the Khedivan Egyptians/Sudanese ivory traders, and the British Indian army all arrived in the area thinking it was an isolated area that had untapped trade potential. And they all promptly build trade networks in and out based on advances in transportation, argiculture, and tools that were not available in the EU era. I guess all of them and the Ugandans were idiots who did not know the history of the area better than you.



Unfortunately though, you'll find that I've made no such claim about states. It was isolated, and yes that was in part due to it's geography. That does not mean the isolation was unbreakable, or that trade wasn't possible there. It also doesn't mean that any African state (funny, I thought you just rebuked me for using this parlance) would be impossibly precluded from the area. There have been stranger occurrences, for instance, how they even got there in the first place.
Any African state would be precluded from this area. The caloric density does not support regimental marching. The potable water is not there. In spite of many reasons to set up trade, it was not done until the 1840s (and initially on a small scale).

Bin Ibrahim, Ismail Pasha, Mutesa I, John Hanning Speke ... they are all idiots who thought the area was just barerly approachable with the then current tools. You are only non-idiot thinking about this.
 

CrisisCauser

Sergeant
26 Badges
Jul 9, 2011
94
37
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Magicka 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Europa Universalis III
Will there be anything to help the African nations keep from getting conquered by the Europeans, clear across the continent? I'm pretty sure that sort of thing didn't really happen until the Scramble for Africa in the late 1800s, after all.

Yeah, this is the first thing that stands out. There's a reason no European ever saw Lake Victoria in the time span of EU4. Now any 16th Century nation can waltz there with a series of easy war victories, with no reflection of the environmental enemy.

I'd love to see any nation without a capital on the continent get outrageous attrition penalties in certain parts of the interior. That, albeit reduced, even still apply to cored provinces. I would love to see an actual struggle to maintain this area, as any revolt would mean your troops safe on the coast would have to march through attrition hell to defeat the rebels. Things like this interest me.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:

grommile

Field Marshal
60 Badges
Jun 4, 2011
19.762
23.427
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • March of the Eagles
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
I'd love to see any nation without a capital on the continent get outrageous attrition penalties in certain parts of the interior. That, albeit reduced, even still apply to cored provinces. I would love to see an actual struggle to maintain this area, as any revolt would mean your troops safe on the coast would have to march through attrition hell to defeat the rebels. Things like this interest me.
From an interstate gameplay angle, this doesn't work.

Invulnerable gameplay agents are bad for gameplay.
 
  • 1
Reactions:

Yxklyx

Field Marshal
47 Badges
Jan 30, 2011
4.712
720
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Prison Architect
  • Age of Wonders: Planetfall
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
I'm not sure I like this particular change from both gameplay and historical perspectives. I'm finding that european nations are warring much more outside of europe now, in africa instead. I think the new provinces should stay but perhaps they should only be accessible until a much later point in the game.