Another appeal to flesh out East Africa

[Talq]

The scramble happens because they are ahistorically weak, but nations who devoted resources to conquest did succeed like Portugal in Zenj.

No. Their weakness isn't ahistorical, although the ability of other nations to project large forces long distances is. But Africa wasn't colonised in force until past 1800, because disease would devastate any garrisons, making rulership effectively impossible (as an aside, this would also be a problem for any pan-african empire). Its not a problem that could be fixed with any technology existing within the EU period.

Of course, 'you can't do this, your men will simply drop dead' isnt a message players want to hear - that said, I'm not sure 1500 African empires are something I want to see every game.

Even that wouldn't matter so much - players will want to kill off most of the African states just for the sake of streamlining their trade routes. I think we need to bring in some nasty attrition modifiers for tropical provinces to give an idea of how inhospitable these places were to outsiders (and even locals to some extent) due to diseases like malaria and sleeping sickness.

That is also true, unless Paradox bites the bullet and rejigs trade to cut them out (either making inland nodes to cut out inland provinces, or lets people bypass them entirely).

 

[Veta]

I like the idea, OP.

 

[Mad King James]

No. Their weakness isn't ahistorical, although the ability of other nations to project large forces long distances is. But Africa wasn't colonised in force until past 1800, because disease would devastate any garrisons, making rulership effectively impossible (as an aside, this would also be a problem for any pan-african empire). Its not a problem that could be fixed with any technology existing within the EU period.

Of course, 'you can't do this, your men will simply drop dead' isnt a message players want to hear - that said, I'm not sure 1500 African empires are something I want to see every game.

You are thinking of central Africa, the states just south of the Sahara like Mali were strong states, and tropical diseases aren't a problem, but they were strong empires who were only a little behind the north African states.

I like the idea, OP.

Thanks

 

[possumcorpse]

Disease wasn't really the issue with why they couldn't take land though it would have made it impractical to hold it. The main issue was that they really weren't that far ahead technologically with ground forces in a war where they had to deploy from boats until the machine gun came along. Early rifles didn't give you an overwhelming advantage against armies with swords and arrows. If the number of troops aren't close to being equal then having early guns doesn't matter at all. It wasn't practical to field large armies in africa because of supply, deployment, and cost. Disease would compound the problem but they weren't going to be taking over large areas at the time even if those diseases didn't exist. Portugal only took over coastal cities they could attain through naval might because it was the only practical way to take parts of africa at the time.

 

[Dostayer]

They really did the whole of Africa a really unjustified handicap,Mali was one of the riches countries in the world, and they weren't hopelessly lagging behind, neither Ethiopia who weren't colonized until 1936 with the 2nd Italian invasion after a 1st failed attempt, the Dervish are also wort to be noted (Thy Fended off until the invention of the airplane).

 

[RMcD94]

No. Their weakness isn't ahistorical, although the ability of other nations to project large forces long distances is. But Africa wasn't colonised in force until past 1800, because disease would devastate any garrisons, making rulership effectively impossible (as an aside, this would also be a problem for any pan-african empire). Its not a problem that could be fixed with any technology existing within the EU period.

Of course, 'you can't do this, your men will simply drop dead' isnt a message players want to hear - that said, I'm not sure 1500 African empires are something I want to see every game.



That is also true, unless Paradox bites the bullet and rejigs trade to cut them out (either making inland nodes to cut out inland provinces, or lets people bypass them entirely).

I have to agree with you.

This is a colonial map mode of Africa in 1913

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colonial_Africa_1913_map.svg

Yes, everyone agrees that African states got destroyed by Europeans, and Europeans conquered everywhere. But that was in 1913!

http://www.heritage-history.com/maps/lhafrica/africa008.jpg

There is next to no reason to bother in this game to make Africans so weak. In history they weren't conquered until way after the time frame of this game.

 

[rbl0010]

I have to agree with you.

This is a colonial map mode of Africa in 1913

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colonial_Africa_1913_map.svg

Yes, everyone agrees that African states got destroyed by Europeans, and Europeans conquered everywhere. But that was in 1913!

http://www.heritage-history.com/maps/lhafrica/africa008.jpg

There is next to no reason to bother in this game to make Africans so weak. In history they weren't conquered until way after the time frame of this game.

I like OP's idea and Im quite sure that Pdox has something in the pipeline somewhere for Africa. However the real question is why werent they "conquered" before 1850+? Was it a simple question of sheer "force"? and whatever that reason is, how to 1) model it in game so it gives good AI results 2) model it in game so it gives good player results. It's a tough task But I certainly would be happy to see something interesting done with Africa.

I'm quite sure that they will see how new features are received with this next DLC, and it will indicate them how to go along for their next regional improvement...

 

[Teije]

Good point OP on beefing up East Africa in general and I hope to see some of these changes implemented.

And yes, Yemen is a little ridiculous right now, with those poor provinces totally unrealistic. That was the richest, most prosperous part of Arabia for centuries.

 

[Dostayer]

They should have an enormous trade power, or some sort of buff, they still controling the entrance point to between the far east to ME and Europe

 

[Rubidium]

I have to agree with you.

This is a colonial map mode of Africa in 1913

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colonial_Africa_1913_map.svg

Yes, everyone agrees that African states got destroyed by Europeans, and Europeans conquered everywhere. But that was in 1913!

http://www.heritage-history.com/maps/lhafrica/africa008.jpg

There is next to no reason to bother in this game to make Africans so weak. In history they weren't conquered until way after the time frame of this game.

And once again, they weren't conquered because a) the disease rate made European garrisons into death traps, and b) there was nothing in the interior worth the expense of establishing death trap garrisons. Anything they wanted (mainly slaves) could be obtained through trade with the locals. I think you are grossly understating the death rate from tropical diseases in these regions; even in the Caribbean (a significantly less deadly environment) there are cases of European expeditions falling apart due to disease throughout the EU time frame. It's true that the machine gun made it vastly easier for Europeans to conquer, but earlier technology allowed for it (as we see from all the various places that e.g. the Portuguese did successful conquer before it was introduced), the problem was that the disease rate made actually holding control of an area extremely costly. Even once machine guns were introduced, most of the colonial powers relied on armed Africans (e.g. the Askaris) as their enforcers, and exerted fairly nominal control over most of "their" empire.

These concerns (along with the logistics issues, which aren't modeled well by EU in any context, but were a huge concern in such a large continent with such poor inland transportation) aren't really dependent on the strength of the African states. European weapons absolutely were a huge force multiplier (which is why practically everywhere they were introduced, the locals immediately wanted to acquire them).

 

[Dakilla TM]

I would like to see East Africa more fleshed out and not have that crappy african tech. East Africa was in contact with the Middle East and India, so they they were not isolated tribesmen running around half naked. I do agree that there should be an East African tech, similar to Indian maybe, because apparently Adal doesn't know where Mecca is, despite being an Islamic Sultanate. Give East Africa more flavor!

 

[RMcD94]

Well I don't imagine it's very reasonable to be able to simulate diseases in this game so the best way to do it is simply up their ability to resist Europeans.

What happened in the 1800s that suddenly allowed the Europeans to hold huge swaths of land in Africa? They became immune to all diseases? ^^

 

[Mad King James]

Well I don't imagine it's very reasonable to be able to simulate diseases in this game so the best way to do it is simply up their ability to resist Europeans.

What happened in the 1800s that suddenly allowed the Europeans to hold huge swaths of land in Africa? They became immune to all diseases? ^^

What changed was Europe became dramatically more expansionist in general, not just Africa but most European conquests in Asia also occurred in the 19th century. Part of it was that Europe moved dramatically ahead of everyone else due to the industrial revolution, and also the same industrial revolution created a massive demand for resources which could not be met with domestic supply.

 

[Mad King James]

A reminder that until the industrial revolution, Europe was becoming more technologically advanced than Asia and the northern half of Africa but not overwhelmingly so. This changed rapidly after 1800 though, when arms went in a single generation from muskets to machine guns.

 

[PiriReis]

You should make a bug report of this.

 

[Incompetent]

A reminder that until the industrial revolution, Europe was becoming more technologically advanced than Asia and the northern half of Africa but not overwhelmingly so. This changed rapidly after 1800 though, when arms went in a single generation from muskets to machine guns.

Where do the 18th-century British conquests in India fit into this timeline? I'd say the great acceleration in European military power started a lot earlier than the adoption of the machine gun. Still, the EU games definitely get it wrong in letting Europeans go to town in Asia in the 16th century.

 

[Mad King James]

Where do the 18th-century British conquests in India fit into this timeline? I'd say the great acceleration in European military power started a lot earlier than the adoption of the machine gun. Still, the EU games definitely get it wrong in letting Europeans go to town in Asia in the 16th century.

The British were the first to industrialize, the Industrial Revolution got going in England by the late 1700s. It actually dovetails pretty well:

 

[Illanair]

Yes, sounds like a job for some enterprising modders!

Well made mods have a much better chance of becoming part of the games for sure. A lot of these suggestion threads are mostly theory and not a lot of practical changes to show it off.

 

[Incompetent]

The British were the first to industrialize, the Industrial Revolution got going in England by the late 1700s.

Perhaps, but I wouldn't say that Britain's military was much more advanced than that of its less industralised European contemporaries, because the technology required to mass-produce armaments didn't emerge until somewhat later (the beginning of fully-fledged "industrial warfare" is generally dated to the mid-19th century). It was more that Britain's island position and naval power meant that it could focus its military resources on distant overseas conquests in a way that say France could not.

 

[Sun_Wu]

I know this is becoming a semi-annual event, but nevertheless, I feel like I have to again bring up the topic of East Africa. Unlike west, south and central Africa, East Africa was quite a bit more "plugged into" the world, it was part of the greater Indian Ocean cultural horizon if you like, and received technological developments at about the same rate and around the same time that the Indian states did.

Also all of East Africa and Yemen are all way too poor. Yemen was the richest part of Arabia, and the Rasulids were the big power in Arabia, but in EU4 it is by far the poorest and Yemen rarely survives a few decades into the game.

Anyways my proposal:

Sudanese should be in the Arab-Berber culture group as should Somali and Ethiopian, Ethiopian is a Semitic language and Somali has been influenced by Arabic as much as Amazigh (Berber) has. If you're going to leave Tuareg as a stand-in for Libyan, can you at least put that in the Arab-Berber group as well?

Even if you completely ignore my East African suggestion, I would like to argue for Yemen being much richer than it is, and I can justify Sana'a being so rich (6 tax). Modern Yemen may not be considered wealthy but neither is Sicily these days, but they were both wealthy back in the EU4 period, rich provinces that people wanted to get a hold of. Also shouldn't Yemen have some of their own national ideas, Yemen was a trade oriented sultanate like Oman, it should have ideas more like Oman than Hijaz. Yemen also is way too homogenous, there were the Zaidi imams in Sanaa who should be trying to rebel all the time and break away from the Sunni Rasulids. There are possibe revolters in Hadramawt like the Kathiri.

Also Qatar and Bahrain would make a lot more sense under Hasa than Najd, it was only centuries later Najd tribes invaded that area. The UAE provinces should really be in Oman shouldn't they?

Try out M&T and give us suggests.