Add some wastelands to Southern America

[Dutchman251]

Wastelands serve two important purposes: they disable army movement and influence the manoeuvres during war, and secondly they prevent uninhabited provinces from becoming inhabited by colonization.

As I feel these things were not sufficiently represented in Southern America, I decided to look some things up and propose some wastelands to make the continent more interesting. It turned out that the Brazilian forest, the Andes and Patagonia could use some wastelands. Therefore, I will treat them in this order. Proposed wastelands are drawn in red.

Firstly, the eastern Brazilian forest deserve some wasteland. Therefore, I propose that the provinces Inhambupe and Rio de Contas become a wasteland, as they were hardly inhabited in the timeframe of EU4. The southern part of these forests (Minais Geras) however was a very important mining area, so that I would leave it as it is.

Secondly, the Amazonian forest could be expanded somewhat southwards, in a separate wasteland or in a new one. Since until the 19th century only Cuiaba rose to a degree of colonization, I feel that these provinces do not deserve it to be colonizable.

Thirdly, I would like to create some wastelands in the Andes, as a big and important mountain range. It really deserves it, any other mountain range of importance has some wastelands. It really influenced manoeuvres in these areas as well. I did not treat the Inca empire, though I think some wastelands should be added in Greater Peru as well, but I don't know which ones. Therefore, I will limit myself to the borders of Chili.

In the north, I propose to just leave the passes of Arica to Oruro and of Calama to Chichas around.

In mid-Chili, I propose that just the passes from Puna de Atacama to Santa Catalina to Jujuy and to Catamarca be left in place, as shown above. Moreover, the cross indicates that these provinces should form a four-province corner, which should disable diagonal movement. A wasteland is not necessary in that case.

Moreover, I propose that a wasteland be added that disable any movement from Chiquiyami to the coastal provinces.

Finally, since Patagonia was never colonized until the 19th century, as wasteland that makes this region uncolonizable would be welcome. Of course the coasts should still be colonizable, but an uncolonizable interior is welcome, methinks.

What do you think? Are these wastelands making sense? And does someone have ideas about Peruvian wastelands?

Sources:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histoire_de_l%27Argentine#Une_conquête_lente_et_difficile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mountain_Passes_of_the_Andes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuiabá#History

 

[neondt]

I'd like more wastelands in South America. Have you seen this thread? Contributing to the discussion there could be beneficial. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...he-map-and-gameplay-of-south-america.1135662/

 

[Dutchman251]

No, I didn't check out that thread. Will engage in the discussion there, these posters probably know more about South America than me!

 

[purplephoton]

Wastelands serve two important purposes: they disable army movement and influence the manoeuvres during war, and secondly they prevent uninhabited provinces from becoming inhabited by colonization.

I'd like more wastelands in South America.

I don't see why impeding army movement and preventing colonization is important. I also don't see why it's good - if anything, I consider it a bad thing to have too many wastelands. With areas like the southern Andes, it makes perfect sense and can certainly add immersion, but in Eastern Brazil it's inaccurate and unnecessary. Even if Geral Mountains, Diamantina Tableland, and the land between them were sparsely inhabited in EU4's timeframe as you say, there are two good reasons why it shouldn't be a wasteland.
First, there is nothing preventing an army from marching into there (the elevation and climate are not that extreme, and the army could just follow the Contas, Pardo, Paraguacu, or Jequitinhonha rivers), so it shouldn't disable army maneuvers (and I would argue that Paradox shouldn't disable too many army maneuvers in the first place because precise army maneuvers are the kind of skill that gives good players a tiny edge without hurting bad players). Second, there is also very little preventing settlers from wanting to settle it (the climate is a bit arid, but the soil is fertile enough to grow crops), so there's no historically reason for it to be uninhabitable.

 

[Dutchman251]

Well, to further expand on it: Wastelands add the opportunity for more intelligent manoeuvres, as they make decisions more impactful. I don't think complete micromanagement of armies is desirable in itself, btw.

And colonization should, in my humble opinion, be guided by real-world resembling choices. This implicates that only the areas should be colonizable, that were colonized or could have reasonably colonized in EU4's time. That's why I also object to all those tags in central Africa. The Kongo update was nice, but they really went to far into filling the African interior with provinces. There is no need to make it possible to play or conquer countries that never really interacted with the wider region. Wastelands are perfect to keep these regions virgin, uncolonized and unconquered.

 

[purplephoton]

Wastelands add the opportunity for more intelligent manoeuvres

I don't see how. Mostly they just take away movement options. Maneuvers aren't intelligent if your only option is to have to push your way through a mountain fort, fort example. Sure, you could spend 4 months walking around to avoid it, but you can do so anyway. The decisions are not more impactful put together because there are so much fewer decisions to make.

I don't think complete micromanagement of armies is desirable

Of course it's not desirable most of the time, but it's always better to have the option of micromanagement than not, even if you're probably not actually going to micro.

colonization should, in my humble opinion, be guided by real-world resembling choices

It already is, mostly. There are some potentially colonizable areas in-game that weren't actually colonized irl because the benefits could never outweigh the costs, but certainly could have been. The current issue is more that colonization is too easy and not that there aren't enough wastelands.

This implicates that only the areas should be colonizable, that were colonized or could have reasonably colonized in EU4's time.

I somewhat disagree with this. Those areas weren't colonized because it was financially inefficient. It would cost a lot of money to set up a colony in Zambia for any European country (except maybe Portugal, since Portugal controlled some not-too-distant parts of Mozambique). In addition, it's not outside the realm of possibility that some people in the Congo would manage to unite the region and subjugate the natives of the uncolonized area.

The Kongo update was nice, but they really went to far into filling the African interior with provinces. There is no need to make it possible to play or conquer countries that never really interacted with the wider region.

That is downright Eurocentric. You're saying here that inner Africa is irrelevant because it never interacted with Europeans, while completely ignoring their achievements such as establishing their own kingdoms. What next, you're going to make Ethiopia a wasteland because Europeans never conquered it in any time frame? Make Laos a wasteland because Europeans never colonized it? Make Japan a wasteland because its isolationism policy meant minimal interaction with Europe beyond that one trading outpost? This game may have a slight focus on Europe but it is not all about European colonization, so get your white man's burden out of here.

"Wastelands are perfect to keep these regions virgin, uncolonized and unconquered."
You heard him folks, if Europeans didn't conquer it, it must be a complete wasteland.