Africa: A big empty hole?

[unmerged(146860)]

And? This is a game. Africa is supposed to feel different than Southeast Asia and utilize different systems, hence they utilize this one. Sokoto is there as an abstraction for other states, the Zulus because, well, people might want to play as them! Unless a different system of interaction with other countries is developed, adding more countries there serves no purpose.

Yeah it's a game but it's a game set in 1836. And part of the charm of Paradox's games is that you play in a historically accurate setting and can choose to be any country in the world. Africa is a part of the world and despite what most high school history courses teach, it had a lot of countries in it during the 19th century. It wasn't just a mass of undifferentiated natives whose sole purpose was to regulate the speed of colonial expansion.

I know a forum post isn't going to change anything for Vicky 2 at this point, but I hope next time Paradox makes a game they keep in mind that there is more to the world than Europe. They should be trying to find a fun way to model Africa realistically.

 

[unmerged(164401)]

Cool, Hedjaz will be in

i am not sure if they should be in. Hedjaz (which i think it was only a name of a regio) was under the Egyptian rule as far as i know. the Egyptian lands seem to be overstreched too. they seem to be owning a part of Anatolia. no big deal though.

 

[OHgamer]

i am not sure if they should be in. Hedjaz (which i think it was only a name of a regio) was under the Egyptian rule as far as i know. the Egyptian lands seem to be overstreched too. they seem to be owning a part of Anatolia. no big deal though.

That is correct - after Kutahya in 1833, the Egyptians held Cilicia, including Adana, as well as all of geographic Syria.

 

[Alexander Seil]

And part of the charm of Paradox's games is that you play in a historically accurate setting and can choose to be any country in the world.

Take a look at the Japanese OOB in the 1944 scenario in HoI3, and then tell me you still believe that :rofl:

Africa is a part of the world and despite what most high school history courses teach, it had a lot of countries in it during the 19th century. It wasn't just a mass of undifferentiated natives whose sole purpose was to regulate the speed of colonial expansion.

No, but it's the purpose they have in the game.

I know a forum post isn't going to change anything for Vicky 2 at this point, but I hope next time Paradox makes a game they keep in mind that there is more to the world than Europe. They should be trying to find a fun way to model Africa realistically.

I'd say that given Paradox's perennial inability to deliver a balanced product on day 1, it's probably for the best for them to design a clean model and then add to it, than try to bite off everything at once.

 

[unmerged(164401)]

That is correct - after Kutahya in 1833, the Egyptians held Cilicia, including Adana, as well as all of geographic Syria.

oh, my bad then. looks like the Ottomans were screwed.

but no Hedjaz right?

 

[OHgamer]

oh, my bad then. looks like the Ottomans were screwed.

but no Hedjaz right?

Hejaz could be considered satellite to Egypt, since the Hashemites were still Sharifs of Mecca in that period AFAIK. The Egyptians were not directly ruling the Haramayn, as opposed to say Syria where Egyptian officials were indeed posted to administer the territories.

 

[unmerged(68110)]

In my VIP thread, this discussion went pretty well. OHGamer is pretty reassuring in terms of "filling" that void, thankfully!

Also, I noticed that on the trailer, but looking as a screenie I must say:

Africa is HUGE. The European colonies are very very tiny! Is that a CLIO design, OHGamer?

 

[twinxor]

No, but it's the purpose they have in the game.

I guess it's probably true that African minors mainly serve as speedbumps, but it's disappointing to me. Historically kingdoms like Buganda didn't have long-range military power or clout in the global economy, but they had a great influence on the social structure and everyday life of the people who lived there, including their subjects and their descendants. And they weren't gobbled up by military force as Vicky might have you believe – Buganda, for example, was acquired as a protectorate with many traditional institutions intact. Seeing these countries abstracted away, as if they were Civ 4 barbarians, is frustrating because it feels like so much of the richness of history is being thrown away too.

 

[Sebastian Jarl]

I know the Victorian attitude might have been that sub-Saharan Africa was trackless wasteland full of chaotic tribes, but this is not a political map of Africa in 1836.

You said it yourself, it's the Victorian attitude we're after, not what we have now learned. And, assuming this pre-Berlin conference map of Africa is a genuine display of what the Victorians believed, it's a great representation.

 

[twinxor]

In my VIP thread, this discussion went pretty well. OHGamer is pretty reassuring in terms of "filling" that void, thankfully!

Also, I noticed that on the trailer, but looking as a screenie I must say:

Africa is HUGE. The European colonies are very very tiny! Is that a CLIO design, OHGamer?

It's historically faithful. Before the New Imperialism of the late 19th century, European powers had little interest in conquering and administering lots of land. They established coastal "factories" (fortified trading posts) and dealt with African intermediaries to trade for goods and slaves. In that screenie, you have small French, British, and Portuguese cities on the West African coast.

 

[twinxor]

You said it yourself, it's the Victorian attitude we're after, not what we have now learned. And, assuming this pre-Berlin conference map of Africa is a genuine display of what the Victorians believed, it's a great representation.

I count half a dozen West African countries on that map, plus Darfur, Zanzibar, etc. Plus lots of the local peoples are labeled, so it's not like the cartographer thought of it as a big empty spot. Don't get me wrong – I'm not claiming that all land should belong to someone. Even though pretty much all the territory was inhabited, regions like the Sahara or the Congo basin didn't have a lot of political organization, so it doesn't make sense to go drawing countries in there. (The Whole World Mod for EU3 actually has an option to put in countries for practically every province in the world, and you can see for yourself how disastrous that is.)

 

[unmerged(68110)]

It's historically faithful. Before the New Imperialism of the late 19th century, European powers had little interest in conquering and administering lots of land. They established coastal "factories" (fortified trading posts) and dealt with African intermediaries to trade for goods and slaves. In that screenie, you have small French, British, and Portuguese cities on the West African coast.

Indeed, I am not only aware of that but I agree with you as well regarding the exclusion of African kingdoms in the game.

 

[unmerged(7537)]

I know a forum post isn't going to change anything for Vicky 2 at this point, but I hope next time Paradox makes a game they keep in mind that there is more to the world than Europe. They should be trying to find a fun way to model Africa realistically.

Since Paradox is essentially utilizing the same historical data for Vicky 2 as they have for Vicky 1, I doubt that this was even an option on the table. More detail for Africa would have required research, and it's been fairly clear that Paradox have chosen to focus on gameplay instead of researching historical data this time around.

It's historically faithful. Before the New Imperialism of the late 19th century, European powers had little interest in conquering and administering lots of land. They established coastal "factories" (fortified trading posts) and dealt with African intermediaries to trade for goods and slaves. In that screenie, you have small French, British, and Portuguese cities on the West African coast.

Except, of course, that there will be no trade with African intermediaries in the game.

 

[alvaro]

I think setting too many countries is Africa is wrong. It would make it to easy to spread "colonization" through war.
Maybe middle solution would fit the situation. I am thinking of revolters that in case they succeed in a given province will trigger more revolters in all the area/state/country they belong to or triggering immediate independence to their country. That way it would make you to fight that war.

The problem would be how is the AI going to deal with it.

 

[Woody Man]

You'd probably also get massive blobbing by the African minors, and I am really really tired of odd blobbing.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

I kind of actually prefer the vicky take on Africa rather than the VIP take. It may not be accurate but the original vicky model of 'big empty africa' allowed for more rushing for colonies. Something like this coupled with an EU3-fighting the natives would be my prefered option.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

VIP went way too far. There's a case to be made for more states in the Sahel, Ashanti, maybe Buganda, but that's it.

How's this for a new rebel type: 'slaver'. Like normal rebels, but if they start overrunning your provinces you suffer steep population loss and all the abolitionist majors get a CB on you

 

[unmerged(1823)]

remind me again which sub-saharan african states that were not defeated by a random company of europeans with machineguns?

 

[Gatkramp]

remind me again which sub-saharan african states that were not defeated by a random company of europeans with machineguns?

A random company? You mean non-military?

Boer Republics, Zulu Kingdom and thats about it. The Zulu Kingdom lost to the British after several wars agianst the colonial powers and the Boers. Probably the only non-European sub-Saharan nation to have actually managed to got to the point of forcing the Europeans into real wars.

The Boers themselves were in several wars, against the English and the locals. They obviosuly got annexed by the British after the Second War of Independence at the turn of the century.

Most other African "nations" were highly decentralised, had no real functioning military or government and aren't suitable for representation as countries in Victoria 2. Some are possibly, but most are not.

PS. Even then. The only sub-saharan war that can actually be considered a real war in European terms is the Second War of Independence (aka: Boer War, Second Boer War, Second Anglo-Boer War, African War, and several others).

 

[alvaro]

A random company? You mean non-military?

Boer Republics, Zulu Kingdom and thats about it. The Zulu Kingdom lost to the British after several wars agianst the colonial powers and the Boers. Probably the only non-European sub-Saharan nation to have actually managed to got to the point of forcing the Europeans into real wars.

The Boers themselves were in several wars, against the English and the locals. They obviosuly got annexed by the British after the Second War of Independence at the turn of the century.

Most other African "nations" were highly decentralised, had no real functioning military or government and aren't suitable for representation as countries in Victoria 2. Some are possibly, but most are not.

PS. Even then. The only sub-saharan war that can actually be considered a real war in European terms is the Second War of Independence (aka: Boer War, Second Boer War, Second Anglo-Boer War, African War, and several others).

Zulu and boers were countries in V1. The guy has a point.