Africa: A big empty hole?

[Andrelvis]

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.

The problem is that the complexity of these societies are many times exaggerated for political reasons. Like when people say the Papuan Kula exchange was complex - yes, it was complex, but it was nowhere near as complex as Western commerce. In other words, sophistication is necessarily relative.

In any case, even if they have thoroughly complex forms of organization - if those forms of organization weren't States or State-like, then they shouldn't be in the game as States.

 

[Bob Ilyani]

I'm ok with the system as it is now, as I want to have the experience of having Africa painted my (and other nations) colors, as it was in RL.

That being said, Naggy's idea sounds like a really good compromise. Expansion perhaps?

 

[Petrarca]

In any case, even if they have thoroughly complex forms of organization - if those forms of organization weren't States or State-like, then they shouldn't be in the game as States.

The states mentioned, such as Ashante and Buganda, were states. There were plenty of stateless areas in Africa, where autonomous villages acceded to European rule. But against the states, of which there are decidedly more than Sokoto and Zulu, European countries fought wars and concluded treaties, in some cases declaring them protectorates and admitting them to the sphere of influence, in others deposing governments and directly administering territory.

 

[Jebus]

Yes the Afircan Kingdoms are not important at all during the period.

Nor was the Ottoman Empire, I suggest we leave them out too.

 

[Andrelvis]

The states mentioned, such as Ashante and Buganda, were states. There were plenty of stateless areas in Africa, where autonomous villages acceded to European rule. But against the states, of which there are decidedly more than Sokoto and Zulu, European countries fought wars and concluded treaties, in some cases declaring them protectorates and admitting them to the sphere of influence, in others deposing governments and directly administering territory.

Sure, but I was talking about his claims about countries that would be complex, but not in a "Western manner" and such, not about his conclusion (that X and Y should be in).

 

[Petrarca]

Sure, but I was talking about his claims about countries that would be complex, but not in a "Western manner" and such, not about his conclusion (that X and Y should be in).

Your conclusion, which I quoted, is wrong regardless. They were organized as states, with tax collectors, standing armies, organizational hierarchies, and treaties with European powers. They were fought as states, and they were conquered as states.

I suppose the only reason the princely states are included in India is to give the British the occasional run for their money.

 

[Andrelvis]

Your conclusion, which I quoted, is wrong regardless. They were organized as states, with tax collectors, standing armies, organizational hierarchies, and treaties with European powers. They were fought as states, and they were conquered as states.

I suppose the only reason the princely states are included in India is to give the British the occasional run for their money.

No, my conclusion isn't wrong because I never said they shouldn't be included. I said they shouldn't be included IF they weren't States or State-like, I even bolded the if. You just misinterpreted what I wrote.

 

[unmerged(164401)]

Nor was the Ottoman Empire, I suggest we leave them out too.

how so

 

[Dibujante]

Yes the Afircan Kingdoms are not important at all during the period.

Neither is South America:

1. Are they Sweden (Y/N) N
2. Are they the USA (Y/N) N
3. Are they the UK (Y/N) N
4. Are they Germany (Y/N) N
5. Are they at war with or allied with any of the aforementioned for any substantial length of time (Y/N) N

Therefore they don't really really matter. imho the Victoria 2 map should just be Europe and North America and the rest of the world should be abstracted by country decisions

 

[OHgamer]

Thread closed. This is the third thread in recent weeks to discuss the same exact issue, and the arguments on both sides have not changed. People from Paradox have posted stating why they have chosen to represent certain regions of the world as unclaimed colonizable lands, and has been pointed out several times, there will be ample opportunity for modders to apply their skills and talents into providing an alternative model to these societies post-commercial release. Simply rehashing the same arguments pro- and con- regarding the desirability of modelling societies in certain ways is not productive at this point, and until the game is released and everyone can see the various mechanics that will be at work in the game, it probably is not worth reopening again.