Intro and Summary: This post addresses some concerns that I've had about Africa in Vicky for a while now, and although the developer diary on unciv addressed some of the concerns (And made playing an unciv much more interesting), the biggest concerns I had were left unanswered. This is the interpretation of Africa as an "empty" continent, and one that doesn't have any meaningful conception of "peoples" aside from a few of the more famous examples such as the Zulu, Algeria, Ethiopia and Sokoto (states which are famous primarily because they made life difficult for Westerners trying to take their land, usually by killing them). This is an incorrect interpretation of Africa, not just from an African perspective, but also from the point of view of the colonising Europeans. My criticism is two pronged - that there are not enough African states in Vicky, and that those present are too weak. Although I am aware that it is getting late in the development cycle for AHD, I hope that the concerns I raise will not just be considered by Paradox for future expansions, but also that awareness will be raised amongst fans of the Paradox series that they are missing out on not just a historically rich part of 19th Century history, but also an enjoyable and interesting game experience.
Why the Colonisation of Africa in Vicky is Badly Represented: This is an image of Sub-Saharan Africa as it currently is in the game. Pretty much the whole of Africa is not just stateless, but for the purposes of the civilised player, empty land that offers absolutely no resistance or challenge. It would be a waste of my breath to go into detail into how many African peoples did completely the opposite, but examples that particularly come to mind that aren't present in the game are the Ashanti, the Kingdom of Kongo, the Dervish State, the Mahdists and the successor states of the Djolof Empire. All of these states resisted European attempts at colonisation for many, many decades - something which never, ever occurs in Vicky.
The current system of colonisation of these areas is something that can be done almost without thinking. A tiny commitment of resources and time inevitably nets thousands of square miles in territory and millions of POPs. This is not historically incorrect in the sense that it is debatable, but objectively wrong. The current system of colonisation of beige areas allows no opportunities for Africans to resist imperialism, and must be changed to order to escape an interpretation of history that has only ever been accepted by social darwinists and racial supremacists. Furthermore, the inclusion of more African states would make things more interesting to the player, even if he or she did not play as an African state - interacting with new and different states that challenge the player is inherently more interesting than click the box that says "Colonise" and waiting for a little green bar to finish loading.
Why African States Are Too Weak: Those few African states that are present in the game are always, always smashed to bits within a few months of war breaking out. This is partly due to the nature of the game's military system - only conventional battles are modelled in-game, and this places non-Westernised armies at a distinct disadvantage. However, there are examples of Europeans being defeated in pitched battles - Adowa and Isandalwana particularly come to mind, but there are others.
This short-ish article about military systems in Africa in the time period is a great read, and provides some facts and statistics that may surprise players - for example, the Ashanti in 1820 could field 80,000 soldiers, of which 40,000 were professionals. This is a number that is comparable to many contemporary European armies, and the Ashanti were particularly noteworthy for their adoption of modern firearms technology. As it happens, were the Ashanti in the game now, they would be stamped like a bug in every single engagement with Europeans. Even those states which weren't as innovative or successful as the Ashanti were often still able to present a serious military threat to local European interests, something which never happens in game. This could be addressed by introducing some massive penalties for bringing loads of civilised troops into "uncivilised" territory, fixing the AI so that they don't do that and lose millions of men in the Congo, and giving a boost to Africans when defending their own territory.
Why Africa in Vicky is not how Victorian Europeans saw Africa: Sure, racist propagandists for the imperial powers declared that Africa really was a continent without any civilisations or states to speak of, and that the European conquest was the natural order of things. However, the way in which the Europeans actually colonised Africa belies that policy makers in the West did not treat the process of colonisation in this manner. You may have noticed that the termination date for many of the states I listed in the second paragraph were all well into the 20th Century, long after control of the area by European forces was established. This is because rather than swooping in and murdering everyone, European powers engaged in negotiation with the various political entities in Africa in order to establish their colonial empires. These kind of negotiations, by which I mean protectorates, the cessation of territory, etc. don't happen in Vicky, leaving the player no choice but to invade African states in order to secure control (With the sole exception of France and Madagascar). A much more interesting way, as well as a historically accurate way, of playing Vicky would be to incorporate these various methods.
Likewise, there needs to be more competition between the Great Powers as part of the colonisation process. IRL, European colonisation of Africa was initially restricted to trading posts and coaling stations for two reasons - one was that Africa had lots of nasty diseases that Westerners could not treat, and lack of foreign competition. There was no need to expand up the river to secure the Ruritanian Plateau if access to the supply of McGuffins was secure - but if a foreign power threatened to seize control, then it made sense to pre-emptively act. Both of these constraints need to be gone for European colonisation to take place - if just medicine is required, then the first power to discover Nationalism and Imperialism always paints Africa Red or Blue, and the other Great Powers can't protest. Either the inventions that N&I fire to lower acceptable life ratings need to be able to fire for all of the Powers once N&I is discovered by one power, or there need to be additional triggers to spur a competitive Scramble for Africa.
On a side note, it is always really sad to see Portugal as the Milhouse of Europe in every single game, with two terrible excuses for colonies in Africa that hinder access to the Angolan/Mozambican interior by other colonial powers. Portugal really needs a boost, or an event chain to secure the whole of Angola/Mozambique.
Conclusion: Africa has been neglected by Paradox, and as such players have an incredibly simplistic model of African history to work with. This model is lacking in both historical accuracy and features, to the detriment of the player's experience. African states need to be more fleshed out than they currently are, both in terms of the diplomatic and military spheres. Meanwhile, European states need more ways of engaging with both African states, and with other colonisers about African politics. Africa should be a flashpoint for Europeans, not a winner takes all scenario.
Why the Colonisation of Africa in Vicky is Badly Represented: This is an image of Sub-Saharan Africa as it currently is in the game. Pretty much the whole of Africa is not just stateless, but for the purposes of the civilised player, empty land that offers absolutely no resistance or challenge. It would be a waste of my breath to go into detail into how many African peoples did completely the opposite, but examples that particularly come to mind that aren't present in the game are the Ashanti, the Kingdom of Kongo, the Dervish State, the Mahdists and the successor states of the Djolof Empire. All of these states resisted European attempts at colonisation for many, many decades - something which never, ever occurs in Vicky.
The current system of colonisation of these areas is something that can be done almost without thinking. A tiny commitment of resources and time inevitably nets thousands of square miles in territory and millions of POPs. This is not historically incorrect in the sense that it is debatable, but objectively wrong. The current system of colonisation of beige areas allows no opportunities for Africans to resist imperialism, and must be changed to order to escape an interpretation of history that has only ever been accepted by social darwinists and racial supremacists. Furthermore, the inclusion of more African states would make things more interesting to the player, even if he or she did not play as an African state - interacting with new and different states that challenge the player is inherently more interesting than click the box that says "Colonise" and waiting for a little green bar to finish loading.
Why African States Are Too Weak: Those few African states that are present in the game are always, always smashed to bits within a few months of war breaking out. This is partly due to the nature of the game's military system - only conventional battles are modelled in-game, and this places non-Westernised armies at a distinct disadvantage. However, there are examples of Europeans being defeated in pitched battles - Adowa and Isandalwana particularly come to mind, but there are others.
This short-ish article about military systems in Africa in the time period is a great read, and provides some facts and statistics that may surprise players - for example, the Ashanti in 1820 could field 80,000 soldiers, of which 40,000 were professionals. This is a number that is comparable to many contemporary European armies, and the Ashanti were particularly noteworthy for their adoption of modern firearms technology. As it happens, were the Ashanti in the game now, they would be stamped like a bug in every single engagement with Europeans. Even those states which weren't as innovative or successful as the Ashanti were often still able to present a serious military threat to local European interests, something which never happens in game. This could be addressed by introducing some massive penalties for bringing loads of civilised troops into "uncivilised" territory, fixing the AI so that they don't do that and lose millions of men in the Congo, and giving a boost to Africans when defending their own territory.
Why Africa in Vicky is not how Victorian Europeans saw Africa: Sure, racist propagandists for the imperial powers declared that Africa really was a continent without any civilisations or states to speak of, and that the European conquest was the natural order of things. However, the way in which the Europeans actually colonised Africa belies that policy makers in the West did not treat the process of colonisation in this manner. You may have noticed that the termination date for many of the states I listed in the second paragraph were all well into the 20th Century, long after control of the area by European forces was established. This is because rather than swooping in and murdering everyone, European powers engaged in negotiation with the various political entities in Africa in order to establish their colonial empires. These kind of negotiations, by which I mean protectorates, the cessation of territory, etc. don't happen in Vicky, leaving the player no choice but to invade African states in order to secure control (With the sole exception of France and Madagascar). A much more interesting way, as well as a historically accurate way, of playing Vicky would be to incorporate these various methods.
Likewise, there needs to be more competition between the Great Powers as part of the colonisation process. IRL, European colonisation of Africa was initially restricted to trading posts and coaling stations for two reasons - one was that Africa had lots of nasty diseases that Westerners could not treat, and lack of foreign competition. There was no need to expand up the river to secure the Ruritanian Plateau if access to the supply of McGuffins was secure - but if a foreign power threatened to seize control, then it made sense to pre-emptively act. Both of these constraints need to be gone for European colonisation to take place - if just medicine is required, then the first power to discover Nationalism and Imperialism always paints Africa Red or Blue, and the other Great Powers can't protest. Either the inventions that N&I fire to lower acceptable life ratings need to be able to fire for all of the Powers once N&I is discovered by one power, or there need to be additional triggers to spur a competitive Scramble for Africa.
On a side note, it is always really sad to see Portugal as the Milhouse of Europe in every single game, with two terrible excuses for colonies in Africa that hinder access to the Angolan/Mozambican interior by other colonial powers. Portugal really needs a boost, or an event chain to secure the whole of Angola/Mozambique.
Conclusion: Africa has been neglected by Paradox, and as such players have an incredibly simplistic model of African history to work with. This model is lacking in both historical accuracy and features, to the detriment of the player's experience. African states need to be more fleshed out than they currently are, both in terms of the diplomatic and military spheres. Meanwhile, European states need more ways of engaging with both African states, and with other colonisers about African politics. Africa should be a flashpoint for Europeans, not a winner takes all scenario.
Last edited:
