Africa in Vicky 2

[Alexander Seil]

Have we had any word from the developers what "Vicky's idea of what a state is" actually is?

You saw the screenshots and the diaries. It cannot handle a state that is not organized along the formal lines of a European state, which means, in practical gameplay terms, things like ability to systematically collect tariffs, establish a uniform income tax (or some functional equivalent), maintain an education system, regular armed forces, political parties (even countries like Russia are getting pretty awkward here!), press laws, social welfare, etc. and, finally, necessarily and inevitably progress towards a bright 20th century future because of the way the technology tree works.

Unfortunately, some states do have to be included and modeled awkwardly with this system (how do you model Confucian China? Oh, let's fudge the numbers of bureaucrats and aristocrats and let the aristocrats work as bureaucrats in absolute monarchies...), but it also means that this should be avoided where it adds virtually nothing to gameplay. I don't much care for 40 identically underdeveloped states in Africa. It adds zero to my gameplay experience.

Now, King obliquely alluded to certain specific options available only to uncivilized states, but we are yet to hear anything concrete.

 

[Easy1]

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

Beware now people! When paradox says just below Europe it means something like this :rofl:

 

[byzantium43]

Beware now people! When paradox says just below Europe it means something like this :rofl:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[unmerged(48056)]

Beware now people! When paradox says just below Europe it means something like this :rofl:

Considering some of the maps we've seen from Paradox something like that wouldn't surprise me

 

[yourworstnightm]

I think everyone should just deal with the fact that given Vicky's idea of what a state is, representing most native states would be a travesty against common sense. Apart from a few major sultanates to spice things up, Africa should be empty for grabs. The game would have enough problems dealing with China alone for developers to also be considering the balance implications of letting any old middle of nowhere to industrialize Japanese-style.

Well, um Africa open for grabs was a bloody affair. Also with that logic Ethiopia shouldn't even be included since 1836 it was just a couple of rivalling states in the Highlands. Egypt stretching that far down in Sudan as on the map is wrong for 1836, the southward expansion had barely begun. Not that any Indian minor really should be included, since they were nothing but parts of the British Empire.

The point is, Europe should colonize Africa through military campaigns, since that was how it was done in reality.

 

[Vladislav]

Beware now people! When paradox says just below Europe it means something like this :rofl:

Lmao. Let's hope Africa in Vicky 2 won't be "just below Europe" like Alaska is "right across the Bering Strait from Kamchatka" in EU3.

 

[Colon]

The point is, Europe should colonize Africa through military campaigns, since that was how it was done in reality.

Partly, and even those military campaigns tended to be a haphazard affair.

Congo Freestate was negotiated and bought (from European POV at least). British East Africa and Cameroon grew out of (private) trading posts. Botswana requested protection from expanding Boers.

For all intents and purposes, Africa really was up for grabs.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Partly, and even those military campaigns tended to be a haphazard affair.

Congo Freestate was negotiated and bought (from European POV at least). British East Africa and Cameroon grew out of (private) trading posts. Botswana requested protection from expanding Boers.

For all intents and purposes, Africa really was up for grabs.

Yeah, but then there way Ibadan, the Sokoto Caliphate, Mutapa, Darfur etc. All bloody affairs.

 

[Colon]

For whom? The Africans?

 

[yourworstnightm]

For whom? The Africans?

Mostly, yes.

 

[Cinéad IV]

You saw the screenshots and the diaries. It cannot handle a state that is not organized along the formal lines of a European state, which means, in practical gameplay terms, things like ability to systematically collect tariffs, establish a uniform income tax (or some functional equivalent), maintain an education system, regular armed forces, political parties (even countries like Russia are getting pretty awkward here!), press laws, social welfare, etc. and, finally, necessarily and inevitably progress towards a bright 20th century future because of the way the technology tree works.

Unfortunately, some states do have to be included and modeled awkwardly with this system (how do you model Confucian China? Oh, let's fudge the numbers of bureaucrats and aristocrats and let the aristocrats work as bureaucrats in absolute monarchies...), but it also means that this should be avoided where it adds virtually nothing to gameplay. I don't much care for 40 identically underdeveloped states in Africa. It adds zero to my gameplay experience.

Now, King obliquely alluded to certain specific options available only to uncivilized states, but we are yet to hear anything concrete.

Well, while a lot of African states might have not had all of these attributes a lot of them had some, or most of these. Some of these states, given different circumstances, may well have survived into the present day as, for example, Ethiopia did. Swaziland, Burundi and Rwanda are essentially continuations of ancient kingdoms brought under European suzerainity in the colonial period, as is modern day Benin.

Granted, it's probably best to represent genuinely acephalous societies where the highest level of organisation is the village chief as a blank (but hostile) province. There were a lot of places in Africa where this was the case, and which were really quite easy for European countries to colonise (the Congo springs to mind). But certainly in the case of the states OHGamer listed, you have independent ruling authorities with powers and diplomatic capabilities roughly comparable to those of European or Asian governments. Often, these were states led by men who knew perfectly well about the outside world, and played one great power off against another to great effect.

As I say, had things gone differently we might still have kingdoms in West Africa ruled by the great grandsons of Samori and Usman dan Fodio.

The point is, Europe should colonize Africa through military campaigns, since that was how it was done in reality.

Yes, absolutely. But, by the same token, it would be quite good if we could do it with very small armies, as was usually the case in most colonial campaigns. Nothing was more annoying in Vicky 1 than seeing 30,000 men armies lugging artillery through the Congo with little side effects.

There is also room for diplomacy: a lot of colonialism was achieved through treaties, rather than at gunpoint.

 

[unmerged(51662)]

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

You never cease to make me feel dissapointed. But at least you're honest unlike most devs.

 

[OHgamer]

Beware now people! When paradox says just below Europe it means something like this :rofl:

you do know that V2 is using the Clio map developed as a mod for V1, and I can assure you that Africa is most definitely depicted in its correct geographic location relative to Europe.

 

[unmerged(36774)]

What would countless annexation wars against uncivilized African nations add to the game? If those African nations are created as suggested you can annex them with one cavalry division the same way you can annex Madagascar for example.

 

[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.

 

[unmerged(56465)]

There is also room for diplomacy: a lot of colonialism was achieved through treaties, rather than at gunpoint.

Or treaties at gunpoint.

 

[Cinéad IV]

Or treaties at gunpoint

Very, very true

Or, to quote Dylan Moran: 'What's your name? Listen Mfubu - Fubi - I've got some beads here in my pocket, would you like to see them? Would you, would you like... do you want to... - listen, little clicky clacky sounds they make, aren't they pretty. You keep those, you have those, you enjoy those, walk away - they're yours! I'll just have from where you're standing to the horizon."

 

[yourworstnightm]

What would countless annexation wars against uncivilized African nations add to the game? If those African nations are created as suggested you can annex them with one cavalry division the same way you can annex Madagascar for example.

And there's another state I don't really understand. How come Madagascar of all nations are in Vicky 1, when many much more stable and developed nations on the African mainland is ignored.

Also, the point is, this was the Swansong of the African kingdoms, they all withered and died at the hands of the Europeans during the 1800s (except Ethiopia that acctually was recreated and expanded deuting thsi century). The European colonization was in many cases a conquest of an already existing kingdom (although certainly not in all), in many cases it was the toppling of an fairly old civilization. And often it was internal instability in these kingdoms that made the Europeans bold enough to conquer them.

 

[unmerged(150564)]

Twas knowen as the "Scramble for Africa" time period for a reason....

Africa should not be under rated at all but i don't think it should receive any large amount of time on the scale to rival europe etc.

As OHgamer has stated if Africa is under stated then i am sure a talented modder can add some african nations in a mod and TADA, problem solved?