Africa, or, the Beige Continent

[Kyoumen]

Bloody nose? Taking out an expeditionary force might be worth a stubbed toe.

They lost over 1000 men in one battle, and that was just to the Zulus. That was not considered a stubbed toe to them, funnily enough.

The only war worth mentioning is the Second Boer War, which considering that Orange and Transvaal are not what we're talking about, it hardly matters.

The British won the second Boer war, but lost the first Anglo-Ashanti war (the British withdrew to Sierra Leone and withdrew all protection offered to coastal tribes from the Ashanti) and had a stalemate in the second. I'm not sure why a war the British won is more significant than two wars they couldn't win.

Upon further reading it seems to me that the Ashanti and Zulu are romanticized by the British because they actually put up a fight. Not much, but fight they did.

The Ashanti annihilated two British expeditionary forces and won a war against them. "Winning decisively" |= "putting up a fight"?

African casualties even for native victories were obscene.

The Zulus took less casualties than the British in the Battle of Isandlwana where the killed over 1300 British. The Ashanti took negligible casualties in destroying the British force at the Battle of Nsamankow, and their casualties over the entire nine-year war are actually pretty mild for a winning effort against the most powerful country in the world.

And once Britian actually brought their guns to bear, the fighting was ended quickly.

"It took four wars over 70 years to subdue the Ashanti" = "fighting was ended quickly"? That's a pretty interesting standard of "quickly".

Also, the Ashanti had guns. Quite a few of them, in fact. This may be difficult for you to believe, but it wasn't actually unusual for African states to have guns (particularly rich states with well-organised militaries, like the Ashanti). The Zulu were more unusual for not having them, in fact, which was due to choice (their army was trained around the use of spears) rather than necessity.

Bruised British pride does not dictate that African nations should be treated as states.

I don't believe anyone said a thing about bruised British pride except you. Also, native states put up stiff resistance to a lot more than Britain. France, for instance, the most potent land power in the world at 1836 other than perhaps Russia, ended up using a full third of their army (over 100,000 troops by 1840) to subdue Algeria over a period of a decade, and they didn't find nothing but victory either - the French army was defeated and thrown out of Constantine in 1836, right at game start, and didn't manage to capture the city again until a year later.

I'm not at all certain why the concept of having more historical detail in Africa and representing more of its historical states makes you angry, nor why you want to persist in believing that Europeans (especially in 1836!) could just roll over every native state without difficulty in the face of all historical fact to the contrary, but you know, nobody is forcing you to read this thread about a feature you don't want.

 

[marnues]

My problems are as follows:

They lost over 1000 men in one battle, and that was just to the Zulus. That was not considered a stubbed toe to them, funnily enough.

Of course not, because it hurt their pride. It certainly didn't weaken the Brits one iota while the Zulus lost a hell of a lot of men and economic power due to the fighting.

I'm not sure why a war the British won is more significant than two wars they couldn't win.

Didn't win, yes. Couldn't win, now you're just making things up. Again, calling them wars is silly. First and foremost, the British government had no knowledge of until after the conflict ended. No reinforcements were sent for any lost conflict. Why? Because the crown didn't want the conflicts in the first place. The crown had better things to do than trouble their self with the antics of petty governors in the backwaters of the empire.

The Ashanti annihilated two British expeditionary forces and won a war against them. "Winning decisively" |= "putting up a fight"?

You make too much of beating expeditionary forces. These were not Special Forces. And I would expect a decisive victory to mean the victors won something other than their continued freedom. The Ashanti won nothing, as in every conflict.

The Zulus took less casualties than the British in the Battle of Isandlwana where the killed over 1300 British.

Casualties were less, but not by much. Now factor in the over 10:1 numerical superiority. The British didn't even show up with a standard V2 Infantry regiment. The Zulus didn't defeat the British, they were embarrassed because once again they thought they could just show up and win. As I said the Zulus put up a fight. The Brits didn't expect that. If they did they may have actually tried.

"It took four wars over 70 years to subdue the Ashanti" = "fighting was ended quickly"? That's a pretty interesting standard of "quickly".

Quoting out of context is more than just rude. Do you not understand what I said? Maybe you need more context. The British didn't actually attempt to fight the Ashanti until the 3rd conflict. And they came out ahead very nicely. Definitely subdued at that point. Short of conquered certainly, but that wasn't the British way. I get the feeling you don't have a sense for this though.

Also, the Ashanti had guns. Quite a few of them, in fact.

Of course I believe that. I also know that they were poorly maintained and had a limited supply of munitions. Do you know who sold the Ashanti those weapons? The Dutch might have made some trades, but it was mostly the British. Hardly the sign of a national conflict.

I don't believe anyone said a thing about bruised British pride except you.

Thank you for bringing up my main point! The conflicts with the Ashanti and Zulu are clearly romanticized affairs. The British don't like to admit they lost to low tech forces while the Africans like to beam pride about beating the greatest empire on Earth. Neither side wants to admit the truth though. Both the Ashanti and the Zulus were powerful nation with hundreds of thousands of warriors to call upon. But their nations were inferior because each and every soldier was also a contributing member of the economy. 19th century British soldiers on the other hand were at best misfits and at worst were hardened criminals. Their loss was no one's but the commanding officer and the governor-general's (often one and the same in these small conflicts). The dirth of unnecessary lower class citizens that show up in V2 were a real world event in the Western world. One of the many reasons the 19th century played out as it did. The British public didn't like these losses because it showed they were not invincible as common sense was at the time.

I'll ignore your statements about North Africa. I purposely stated sub-Saharan African because the North Africans were much more in tune with the rest of the World at the time.

I'm not at all certain why the concept of having more historical detail in Africa and representing more of its historical states makes you angry...

Not angry. I am annoyed that I need to stand up for accurate history over romanticized nonsense once again. I prefer accurate history and a rose-tinted view of sub-Saharan African in the 19th century is anything but. Referring to these African nation other than Liberia and Ethiopia as a state is a gross misunderstanding of what a state is. The Ashanti and Zulu nations were mighty and powerful, but they had no place in the 19th century. They had no sense of the division of labor, industrialism, urbanization, educated upper classes, liberalized trade, globalized merchants, etc. Adding them (or Western American Native tribes, or Amazonian tribes) into V2 is asking the rest of us to accept Politically Correctly nonsense.

Nobody is forcing you to read this thread about a feature you don't want.

You do understand how that statement makes no sense, correct? I care deeply about this game, not only because it is the first of the PI games I played, it is the most interesting to me. The Victorian Age was the time when economics finally began trumping the pride of royalty as the primary motivation for nation-states. The Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution transformed our world and those left behind truly were inferior. Not in being, but in substance. I stand in defiance of your point because I don't want to entertain the notion that Victoria could be ruined further than it has. I already suffer impotent rebellions and an antithetical Spring of Nations.

Now, before we quarrel further, let me state that I care about your point. I would like to see a comprehensive Scramble for Africa system. I am fully aware of the earlier African slave trade and how it transformed the continent. I also thoroughly enjoy reading about the Brits getting their noses rubbed in some seriously arrogant blunders. "Zulu" is my favorite war movie (partially because it was my deceased father's favorite as well). I do consider myself a social liberal. Because of this I can't stand romanticizing the accounts when there is plenty to work with as is. If the British ever have more than 3 competent generals in V2 (admirals notwithstanding), you know the game is rigged. There is plenty to do with the Scramble for Africa and only the British dealt with the Ashanti and the Zulu, which I find as no coincidence. The Dutch didn't and the French moved around the Ashanti threat. I'm still quite confident that both the Dutch and the French could have, but neither would have wasted a war in the process. The economic incentive wasn't there until it was too late for either of those nations to move into the gold or diamond trade in the regions. If war had actually come to pass, and I mean any European power bringing tens of thousands of soldiers to bear, it would have meant the extdnction of any nation of sub-Saharan African.

 

[unmerged(205148)]

Well, if the Zulu are already in, might as well include Ashanti.

 

[Kyoumen]

My problems are as follows:

Of course not, because it hurt their pride. It certainly didn't weaken the Brits one iota while the Zulus lost a hell of a lot of men and economic power due to the fighting.

The Zulu lost barely 1000 men and no economic power of consequence whatsoever (indeed, they gained it by capturing British stores and weapons).

Didn't win, yes. Couldn't win, now you're just making things up. Again, calling them wars is silly. First and foremost, the British government had no knowledge of until after the conflict ended. No reinforcements were sent for any lost conflict. Why? Because the crown didn't want the conflicts in the first place. The crown had better things to do than trouble their self with the antics of petty governors in the backwaters of the empire.

The British Empire fought a nine-year-war with the Ashanti where they sent out an expeditionary force to replace the one that got destroyed, and then when the second expeditionary force was defeated sent a third one with cutting-edge rocket artillery, and then issued a directive giving the Ashanti more or less everything they wanted (retreating to Sierra Leone and abandoning their tribal allies). Your assertions that they didn't send reinforcements and didn't know the war was going on are in contradiction to basic historical facts. I also know of no significant historical record that doesn't call the First Anglo-Ashanti War a war.

You make too much of beating expeditionary forces. These were not Special Forces. And I would expect a decisive victory to mean the victors won something other than their continued freedom. The Ashanti won nothing, as in every conflict.

As I've already noted, the British gave the Ashanti actual concessions after the first war. Also, if someone invades you and you drive them out, you are generally considered to have won the conflict even if you gain nothing beyond that. Ethiopia did not annex Italian Eritrea (or Sicily, or what-have-you) and yet are uncontroversially considered to have won the war with Italy in 1895-96 precisely because they preserved their independence and gave up no significant concessions. You cannot change the definition of what constitutes winning a war (or indeed, what a war is) simply to satisfy your apparent desire to not have Europeans ever lose to sub-Saharan Africans.

Quoting out of context is more than just rude. Do you not understand what I said? Maybe you need more context. The British didn't actually attempt to fight the Ashanti until the 3rd conflict. And they came out ahead very nicely. Definitely subdued at that point. Short of conquered certainly, but that wasn't the British way. I get the feeling you don't have a sense for this though.

It wasn't the British way to conquer? That's a rather ridiculous statement to make about the largest empire in human history.

Your argument that the British weren't trying to fight the Ashanti in a nine-year-war they sent multiple reinforcements to is also pretty ridiculous. Curiously, it seems that you are actually the one here most concerned with saving the face of the British.

Of course I believe that. I also know that they were poorly maintained and had a limited supply of munitions. Do you know who sold the Ashanti those weapons? The Dutch might have made some trades, but it was mostly the British. Hardly the sign of a national conflict.

They got the weapons from the slave trade, primarily. Thus the weapons and munitions would have come primarily from the Portuguese, Dutch and British. The slave trade was already finished before the first of the Anglo-Ashanti wars, and the British were not trading them weapons at that time. Also, arguing that one side having sold weapons to another side before a war makes it not a real war would make an awful lot of wars not real wars.

Thank you for bringing up my main point! The conflicts with the Ashanti and Zulu are clearly romanticized affairs. The British don't like to admit they lost to low tech forces while the Africans like to beam pride about beating the greatest empire on Earth. Neither side wants to admit the truth though. Both the Ashanti and the Zulus were powerful nation with hundreds of thousands of warriors to call upon. But their nations were inferior because each and every soldier was also a contributing member of the economy. 19th century British soldiers on the other hand were at best misfits and at worst were hardened criminals. Their loss was no one's but the commanding officer and the governor-general's (often one and the same in these small conflicts). The dirth of unnecessary lower class citizens that show up in V2 were a real world event in the Western world. One of the many reasons the 19th century played out as it did. The British public didn't like these losses because it showed they were not invincible as common sense was at the time.

Aside from being incorrect (the Zulu army was composed of professional soldiers, not farmers, to name one), what exactly does that have to do with anything? There were battles and wars, and the British lost some of both. What earthly difference does it make how much each state involved valued the lives of their soldiers?

Not angry. I am annoyed that I need to stand up for accurate history over romanticized nonsense once again. I prefer accurate history and a rose-tinted view of sub-Saharan African in the 19th century is anything but. Referring to these African nation other than Liberia and Ethiopia as a state is a gross misunderstanding of what a state is. The Ashanti and Zulu nations were mighty and powerful, but they had no place in the 19th century. They had no sense of the division of labor, industrialism, urbanization, educated upper classes, liberalized trade, globalized merchants, etc. Adding them (or Western American Native tribes, or Amazonian tribes) into V2 is asking the rest of us to accept Politically Correctly nonsense.

Uh... huh. Okay. Let's handle this in order. Liberia was a backwards anarchic mess that couldn't even control its own territory and is decidedly less of a state than most African states; your inclusion of it as somehow being "more" of a state than Ashanti beggars belief. Ethiopia was not particularly more advanced than other significant African states. "No place in the 19th century" is a meaningless statement. Your list of what they had "no sense" of (ignoring that of course they'd know about those things, since every state mentioned had contact and trade with European nations, and usually European advisors) is strange in a number of ways (many Western nations didn't have liberalised trade, for one), and also would mean that most unciv nations in the game shouldn't be states (probably neither would Russia, Haiti, and several other "civilised" states). Pointing out the historical fact that Western nations lost battles and even wars to sub-Saharan Africans and that it was not a walk in the park to conquer the continent is simple fact, not "political correctness".

You do understand how that statement makes no sense, correct?

Any expansion that seriously focused on Africa would be a smaller modular one created under the new Paradox system for interchangeable, non-essential expansions. Therefore, if you didn't like it, you don't have to buy it (and you would still get patches, be able to use most mods, etc.). That is why I suggest that there is no reason for you to come in and complain in a thread requesting a more accurate Africa (or a more "politically correct" Africa, as you would presumably say). It will not "ruin" your game.

If war had actually come to pass, and I mean any European power bringing tens of thousands of soldiers to bear, it would have meant the extdnction of any nation of sub-Saharan African.

Which doesn't change the fact that it was not the walk in the park for any European power with two divisions to spare that it currently is in game and which you argue it should be.

 

[Thormodr]

It's about time that Africa got done right in a Paradox game. You make a lot of excellent points there Kyoumen.

I quite like the way Africa is set up in Pride of Nations. They certainly aren't pushovers there and there aren't any big holes in the center of the continent either.

Hopefully Paradox adopts some more of the good ideas used in that game.

 

[Anony1200]

So yeah, let's put in all the African nations. Let's make it so that expanding into Africa takes military prowess and huge technical forefronts, let's give Zulu and Ashanti the manpower and soldiers of China, and let's make it so you can't even expand without taking gigantic infamy hits until far too late into the game for them to give you any serious benifit, like the mod they bring up so much (Yes, 10 years really does make that much of a difference if you aren't basically guarenteed the win.)

Hell, let's do what Kyoumen and Phalanxia want and make their armies an actual huge threat- like they historically, you know, weren't unless you were the governer of cape colony with a bunch of badly trained and equipped irregulars no crown on earth was paying attention to- that basically means you lose every battle unless you're coming in packing Bolt-Action-Rifled guards with tank support from the Mainland.

The problem is with that is the "Is it worth it" problem. Africa wouldn't have been systematically carved up by the European powers if they were as much of a threat as the volks are presenting it- And if you had to fight war after exhausting war against superpowered natives who had no access to gunpower and yet beat anything short of top-level-tech guards, devoting troops away from beneficial wars that you could be winning, then I could almost assure you that Africa would just be barren 3/4ths of the time.

Let's get real. It's full of low-population states with barely beneficial resources outside of a select few. While I'm not saying "Keep 3 or 4 possible states in" as it is now, colonization would just certainly not be worth it in any form or fashion for how late the game is if we just made Africa into a thousand little citystates. It requires enough sacrifice as it is- NFs aren't easy to come by unless you're a place like the U.K. or Germany- and while it wouldn't hurt to put in a few more major countries, put in the ones that had a chance to seriously fight back, even though the majority of them are in the game already.

Africa as is is mostly a continent with the purpose of getting land and drawing conflicts for land from the major powers. Until things are implimented which would let you peacefully trade land- which Paradox has already said absolutly will not happen- it's simply for acquiring more land for more craftsmen, workers and factories. (Not in real life, of course, but that's how it's represented in game as is).

Putting in the likes of, say, the Ashanti? Sure, why not. Putting in all the little African states that were run over the moment Europe had a nasty thought about them and give them the same abilities? As I said, absolutly not worth it.

 

[Kyoumen]

BTW, colonising Africa actually was by and large a huge money sink that was pointless except as a wang-measuring competition for the GPs.

 

[WeissRaben]

If war had actually come to pass, and I mean any European power bringing tens of thousands of soldiers to bear, it would have meant the extdnction of any nation of sub-Saharan African.

...how? How would you handle the supply lines, the medics and medicaments needed to contrast illness, and the costs of all of this? Wars are not fought in a sterile ring - territories and distances are components that can be used - and WERE used. Saying "if they could have brought their whole army" and "if they had been armed with laser rifles" are equally ridiculous statements.

 

[Hibernian]

So yeah, let's put in all the African nations. Let's make it so that expanding into Africa takes military prowess and huge technical forefronts, let's give Zulu and Ashanti the manpower and soldiers of China, and let's make it so you can't even expand without taking gigantic infamy hits until far too late into the game for them to give you any serious benifit, like the mod they bring up so much (Yes, 10 years really does make that much of a difference if you aren't basically guarenteed the win.)

And have you actually played the mod we're talking about? I doubt it, or you wouldn't think these ridiculous things.

Hell, let's do what Kyoumen and Phalanxia want and make their armies an actual huge threat- like they historically, you know, weren't unless you were the governer of cape colony with a bunch of badly trained and equipped irregulars no crown on earth was paying attention to- that basically means you lose every battle unless you're coming in packing Bolt-Action-Rifled guards with tank support from the Mainland.

Again this is crap, no one said they wanted it to be anything other then the historical level of difficulty that it actually was, no more, no less. You'll find that by the 1880s Europeans can fairly easily defeat African Uncivs, but not always, there's a level of chance to it.

The problem is with that is the "Is it worth it" problem. Africa wouldn't have been systematically carved up by the European powers if they were as much of a threat as the volks are presenting it- And if you had to fight war after exhausting war against superpowered natives who had no access to gunpower and yet beat anything short of top-level-tech guards, devoting troops away from beneficial wars that you could be winning, then I could almost assure you that Africa would just be barren 3/4ths of the time.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about, you haven’t played the mods, nor know what they do.

Let's get real. It's full of low-population states with barely beneficial resources outside of a select few. While I'm not saying "Keep 3 or 4 possible states in" as it is now, colonization would just certainly not be worth it in any form or fashion for how late the game is if we just made Africa into a thousand little citystates. It requires enough sacrifice as it is- NFs aren't easy to come by unless you're a place like the U.K. or Germany- and while it wouldn't hurt to put in a few more major countries, put in the ones that had a chance to seriously fight back, even though the majority of them are in the game already.

No one said there should be a thousands tiny city-states (physically impossible on the map anyway), we created 45 African countries for NNM/PDM, and they take up about half the continent, that's it.

Africa as is is mostly a continent with the purpose of getting land and drawing conflicts for land from the major powers. Until things are implimented which would let you peacefully trade land- which Paradox has already said absolutly will not happen- it's simply for acquiring more land for more craftsmen, workers and factories. (Not in real life, of course, but that's how it's represented in game as is).

And that's just suggests there are several fundamental problems with the game's ability to represent things historically, but it doesn't me we can't improve it by modding and Paradox could certainly do better if they tried.

Putting in the likes of, say, the Ashanti? Sure, why not. Putting in all the little African states that were run over the moment Europe had a nasty thought about them and give them the same abilities? As I said, absolutly not worth it.

This is the same argument as "I never heard of this country, it doesn't matter to me, so it shouldn't be in the game", the same can be said about Sikkim or Luebeck, they never do anything interesting in the game and usually just get conquered, but the point is THEY EXISTED, so they're in the game. Why on Earth should that same philosophy not be followed for Africa.

 

[Kyoumen]

And have you actually played the mod we're talking about? I doubt it, or you wouldn't think these ridiculous things.

Just to clarify, I've never mentioned PDM (assuming that's what he's referring to) and in fact don't particularly think it improves Africa (or uncivs in general) over vanilla other than by adding more countries and some (quite fun) decisions and unifications. The underlying mechanics are virtually identical and as unsound as vanilla, and some things (such as uncivs ahistorically being barred from achieving any political or social reforms) are actually more ahistorical than vanilla. I don't believe I've tried NNM though to my knowledge it also doesn't particularly change vanilla mechanics for the area.

This is why I'd like to see an actual expansion focusing on the area, with the sort of serious changes only Paradox could do. I think it's still a long-shot, but the new modular expansion system makes it at least possible.

 

[murlocmancer]

Bringing in Africa will be complicated due to the reason that many europeon crowns didn't send reinforcements into the region. But in the game, Britian will do it, and uless you make the African nations to powerful, they will get killed early on. Just adding them won't work, but you need to add some special flavors, such as you can't invade until certain technolongy. But then again, if Britian did win the first ashante war, they would of expanded, so there is more diffuculties to simulating this. But I don't think it is of top importance, but could be nice to add.

 

[Phalanxia]

Well, I haven’t played it, but I've heard that Pride of Nations has a much better and more detailed colonisation system, where you can make treaties with local rules to create protectorates, etc. If we stick with the current colonisation mechanic of NFs, then I would at least want to see those costing money and resources (and maybe having some influence on the political debate). But only Paradox could add stuff like that.

I tried Pride of Nations and quit after about ten minutes as I found the interface unbearable. Could anyone here give a description of what makes the colonisation system in PoN special?

Yes, the setup is meant to simulate the Era of the Princes when Ethiopia was split up into rival factions of lesser kings competing to become the Emperor (Negusa Nagast). There are two events for the three Coptic Christian Factions (Gonder, Shewa and Tigray) to be able to conquer the others, become the Emperor and create the country of Ethiopia. Then Ethiopia gets cores on all the rest of the smaller Muslim and Pagan kingdoms (the area of all modern-day Ethiopia and Eritrea) and gets another event that boosts them if they can unite the whole country.

Does the AI often manage this?

What about accurately depicting Chinese zones of control? Or separating the work of Western corporations from their respective governments? What about religious conflict or multiple currencies? There are many abstractions in this game and the obviousness of leaving the Dark Continent beige is far from the most egregious.

This is a false dichotomy. Content does not have to be sacrificed to add different content.

I would personally like to see angola's life rating increased to 30 - 20 so that portugal can actually take the whole colony rather than just having this annoying coastal strip that screws up borders

I remember seeing an excellent phrase elsewhere on the forum that sums up the problem with Angola and Mozambique perfectly - it's ahistorical determinism. In every single game, AI Portugal is stuck with the same crummy colonies, and it never ever manages to expand to its "correct" size, let alone expand further.

The attribution of the Dark Continent meme to racist nonsense is a clear misunderstanding of the times. And the way you propose the Scramble for Africa is a different abstraction that ignores how effortlessly sub-saharan Africa was colonized.

lolwut

Not angry. I am annoyed that I need to stand up for accurate history over romanticized nonsense once again. I prefer accurate history and a rose-tinted view of sub-Saharan African in the 19th century is anything but. Referring to these African nation other than Liberia and Ethiopia as a state is a gross misunderstanding of what a state is. The Ashanti and Zulu nations were mighty and powerful, but they had no place in the 19th century. [!!!] They had no sense of the division of labor, industrialism, urbanization, educated upper classes, liberalized trade, globalized merchants, etc. Adding them (or Western American Native tribes, or Amazonian tribes) into V2 is asking the rest of us to accept Politically Correctly nonsense.

So you're offended that other people find the current representation of Africa offensive?

View attachment 44833

BTW, colonising Africa actually was by and large a huge money sink that was pointless except as a wang-measuring competition for the GPs.

Bwaha. Sums up my thoughts about Anony1200's post perfectly.

...how? How would you handle the supply lines, the medics and medicaments needed to contrast illness, and the costs of all of this? Wars are not fought in a sterile ring - territories and distances are components that can be used - and WERE used. Saying "if they could have brought their whole army" and "if they had been armed with laser rifles" are equally ridiculous statements.

I don't like making development proposals, as I'm not a dev. I'm just identifying problems and asking for both community contributions and insight.

This is the same argument as "I never heard of this country, it doesn't matter to me, so it shouldn't be in the game", the same can be said about Sikkim or Luebeck, they never do anything interesting in the game and usually just get conquered, but the point is THEY EXISTED, so they're in the game. Why on Earth should that same philosophy not be followed for Africa.

EXACTLY. The African minors if anything have more of a reason to exist than the various German and Italian minors, who were usually historical anachronisms, rather than nations exercising their sovereignty and way of life.

 

[Dyranum]

...
Let's get real. It's full of low-population states with barely beneficial resources outside of a select few. While I'm not saying "Keep 3 or 4 possible states in" as it is now, colonization would just certainly not be worth it in any form or fashion for how late the game is if we just made Africa into a thousand little citystates. It requires enough sacrifice as it is- NFs aren't easy to come by unless you're a place like the U.K. or Germany- and while it wouldn't hurt to put in a few more major countries, put in the ones that had a chance to seriously fight back, even though the majority of them are in the game already...

Actually, the whole population of Africa is inaccurate. It is far lower than it shoud be. Someone pointed this out, and also modded the POP to the correct size. Why this error exists in the first place is beyond me.

Also, can we all stop the personal attacks? Please?

 

[Grubnessul]

Actually, the whole population of Africa is inaccurate. It is far lower than it shoud be. Someone pointed this out, and also modded the POP to the correct size. Why this error exists in the first place is beyond me.

Also, can we all stop the personal attacks? Please?

Probably for balance reasons. To prevent the GPs from acquiring even more African soldiers and craftsmen, I think.

 

[Dyranum]

Probably for balance reasons. To prevent the GPs from acquiring even more African soldiers and craftsmen, I think.

Well, from what I picked up, it was an error by Paradox. It was unintentional.