Africa in Vicky 2

[King]

Africa is in Victoria 2, you'll find it just below Europe.

 

[King]

I take it from the utter (but kinda funny ) disinterest of this comment that we can expect Africa in Victoria 2 to be be more or less the same as Victoria 1.

I know I do not understand history the way you guys do here, that's why I think it is far more historical to conquer the Matabele with 12 men and a machine gun instead of 40,000 men. There again I just don't get this history stuff at all.

 

[Trin Tragula]

Not that any Indian minor really should be included, since they were nothing but parts of the British Empire..

Well no. I know very little about African history so there I cannot comment. But for instance the British in India inherited an existing taxation and banking system along with plenty of other things when they took over India, one that the indian princely states would still be using. They're vassals, nothing more and nothing less. They could be said to have atleast half of the things mentioned in the post you commented on.

Also it's technically not correct that they're all part of the empire at the start. In 1836 the ones in the far north west still haven't been incorporated into the empire (Punjab, Sind and Kalat seems to be the only ones the game chose to represent but given the size of the few others I can understand that). Gwalior in central India is still also independent, if surrounded by the empire on all sides.

 

[King]

What about Dahomey, the Ashanti and the Saharan kingdoms and empires? They were obviously conquered with 12 men and a machine gun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Ashanti_wars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Franco-Dahomean_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Franco-Dahomean_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Medina_Fort
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samory_Touré#First_battles_with_the_French

A lot of these kingdoms were not a walk in the park.

Why not actually read the wikipedia articles you post?

Look at these two again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Franco-Dahomean_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Franco-Dahomean_War

Look in particular at the number of troops involved and them compare these to the Franco-Prussian war. In particularWhile you are at it, why not remember that our smallest unit is 3,000 men and in the first war the French send less than half of that. Meaning it is not possible to actually simulate with our scale. Thus in Victoria 2 terms these kingdoms are walks in the park.

 

[King]

I was debating your ignorant comment of 12 men and a machine gun, I wasn't stating that they were equal to the Franco-Prussian war. They were not walk in the parks for the colonial powers (which is also what I am getting at) and if the game can't represent that, then you need to work a bit on the combat model. At the day, you couldn't waltz into the jungles of Ghana with 40,000 men. The colonial powers of the day also treated these nations AS nations and negotiated and fought them. If you, by any chance however, still don't understand, I don't care. The fact you even bothered to mention the Franco-Prussian war says it all.

You have the Zulus and Sokoto, but not the Toucoulour and the Ashanti. Weird.

The 12 men and machine gun comment was an ever so slight tounge in cheek remark about how the difference between how colonial wars were and how the game would handle them if we used the country model. I am sorry you didn't quite understand that. We don't have to work on our combat model at all. All we need is to find a way to simulate the carving up of Africa in a fairly historical manner, we have one. I can't see why you are so upset about this and to be honest I don't really care that much. We have clear design goals of what we want to achieve with this game, within the development budget we have. As such not everyone will be satisfied with every design decision we make, that is how things are. If you want a game that deeply simulates the colonisation of africa then Victoria 2 is not the game for you.