Well seeing as the first 2 nations you mentioned are in i guess that Johans reseoning is solid :wacko:,
Africa: A big empty hole?
- Thread starter twinxor
- 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.
- Status
Well seeing as the first 2 nations you mentioned are in i guess that Johans reseoning is solid :wacko:,
That's what I intended with the post.
And that's three nations (Zulu, South African Republic and Orange Free State).
The only thing odd to me is that places represented as full countries in EU3 aren't included in Vi2ky. In general, though, I prefer the Vicky model of African colonization more than any alternative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toucouleur_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassoulou_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Ashanti
The massive blobbing would have been true to the period. Many minor African kingdoms were topples during the era, and replaced by large, but short-lived, empires, the ones founded by Samory Ture and Umar Tall being the most prominent of the period.
But Paradox have already judged that Africa is not important to warrant meaningful inclusion into the game, so this whole discussion is useless anyway.
Yes the Afircan Kingdoms are not important at all during the period.
Yes they all eventually fell to European invaders, but it wasn't as easy as them just waltzing in with machine guns and taking whatever they wanted. The British first recognized the Ashante sovereignty over Gold Coast in 1817 and it took 84 years and four wars before they finally managed to subdue them.
Could you please post or PM me a map of the approximate Egyptian rule after 1833? I am very interested but I have never found a real map for it.
Cheers.
How complex? And how large where those cities? Without context those words are meaningless.
Allow me to quote the Dahomey article in wikipedia:
[quote="Dahomey", Wikipedia]...Based in his capital of Agbome, Wegbaja and his successors succeeded in establishing a highly centralized state with a deep-rooted kingship cult of sacrificial offerings. These included an emphasis on human sacrifices in large numbers, to the ancestors of the monarch.
...Economically, however, Wegbaja and his successors profited mainly from the slave trade and relations with slavers along the coast. As Dahomey's kings embarked on wars to expand their territory, they began using rifles and other firearms traded with French and Spanish slave traders for young men captured in battle, who fetched a very high price from the European slave merchants. Under King Agadja (ruled 1708-1732), the kingdom conquered Allada, where the ruling family originated. They thus gained direct contact with European slave traders on the coast. Nevertheless, Agadja was unable to defeat the neighbouring kingdom of Oyo, Dahomey's chief rival in the slave trade. By 1730, he became a tributary of Oyo. This means that Dahomey had to pay a yearly duty of heavy taxes, but otherwise remained mostly independent.[/quote]
There are later the plantations for the extraction of palm oil, a big deal in the industrial age.
Lessee:
1 - Central government in form of a semi-theocratic monarchy;
2 - A defined economic character that was reason for war, even;
3 - Taxation, tributary relations and other sophisticated political devices.
So yeah, there is nothing there, amirite
[quote="Dahomey", Wikipedia]...Based in his capital of Agbome, Wegbaja and his successors succeeded in establishing a highly centralized state with a deep-rooted kingship cult of sacrificial offerings. These included an emphasis on human sacrifices in large numbers, to the ancestors of the monarch.
...Economically, however, Wegbaja and his successors profited mainly from the slave trade and relations with slavers along the coast. As Dahomey's kings embarked on wars to expand their territory, they began using rifles and other firearms traded with French and Spanish slave traders for young men captured in battle, who fetched a very high price from the European slave merchants. Under King Agadja (ruled 1708-1732), the kingdom conquered Allada, where the ruling family originated. They thus gained direct contact with European slave traders on the coast. Nevertheless, Agadja was unable to defeat the neighbouring kingdom of Oyo, Dahomey's chief rival in the slave trade. By 1730, he became a tributary of Oyo. This means that Dahomey had to pay a yearly duty of heavy taxes, but otherwise remained mostly independent.[/quote]
There are later the plantations for the extraction of palm oil, a big deal in the industrial age.
Lessee:
1 - Central government in form of a semi-theocratic monarchy;
2 - A defined economic character that was reason for war, even;
3 - Taxation, tributary relations and other sophisticated political devices.
So yeah, there is nothing there, amirite
I don't want to be the kind of person that wants to play the same kind of games that people like you want to play. Please reveal less about yourself.
Back on topic: I propose three letters- V.I.P
Most of the wars in Africa between Europeans and African states, "states", and natives were fought generally as a complete sideshow (if even that) to the Europeans. The main difference with the Zulus was that it didn't stay a sideshow.
Maybe if it was possible to have the countries exist, but the Europeans can colonize over their provinces. The countries could declare war (if they are centralized enough) to wipe the buildings, of course at the cost of being pacified. If the Europeans win, they can colonize with bonuses and no resistance during the truce period. If the African nation wins, any remaining colonies in the nation are wiped (on top of any other concessions forced).
This also lets Great Powers plop down SoI's in Africa and fight for them.
Maybe if it was possible to have the countries exist, but the Europeans can colonize over their provinces. The countries could declare war (if they are centralized enough) to wipe the buildings, of course at the cost of being pacified. If the Europeans win, they can colonize with bonuses and no resistance during the truce period. If the African nation wins, any remaining colonies in the nation are wiped (on top of any other concessions forced).
This also lets Great Powers plop down SoI's in Africa and fight for them.
An addition to above - you should get a small benefit from European colonization - research benefit, money, etc. Depends, obviously, on what type of colonization it is. This forces players of sub-saharan African nations to walk that fine line - take advantage of the first stages of colonization, but ready themselves for the war with the Europeans they'll be forced to fight before they find their nation taken right out from under them.
Were I to ask what exactly "highly centralized" is supposed to signify, are you then going to offer me a quote stating it was "complex"?
It was pretty amusing to read the wiki-article on the Empire Ashanti, 3 times it refers to a "sophisticated" bureaucracy and 3 times it fails to explain what exactly made it so sophisticated.
I'll just pitch in and say that separate ministries (including foreign offices) weren't really that common in Africa at the time.
Wilhelm.
it's way too late to be asking for major changes like this. Devs are busy finishing the game, features are locked. Let's save our game-changing ideas for after we've played so they can include them in the inevitable game-fixing expansion.
I wasn't replying to you, just contributing to the thread.
No expert in African history here, but if there any parallels, I would link those with the great pre-Colombian civilizations. The Aztecs had a highly centralized state combined with a theocratic system, together with an advanced system of education and public service, which used slave labour and went to war for it as well.
I wish I could offer a deeper insight on those matters, but then again, I am no scholar of African kingdoms. The little I know show that they were sophisticated governments as any we find around the world, the difference being that they are not complex in a Western manner, which a lot of people think it is the only form of sophistication that matters.
- Status