Another appeal to flesh out East Africa

[Mad King James]

Ethiopia has always been one of my favorites since EU2 and I've been playing the country recently in EUIV.

I understand the desire to see more countries and, generally, more attention given to areas like East Africa. However I have to say that the simplified political landscape over there and Ethiopia's relative seclusion is one of its few saving graces. It's difficult enough with the atrocious tech group and the constant threat of getting curb stomped by the Mamluks and/or Arabian minors. I wonder if I'd have a chance at a meaningful game at all if I had to spend even more time securing a basic position with a bunch of bickering states taking up valuable growing space.

Well that's just it, Ethiopia was historically an actual threat to Egypt that the Mamelukes and even the Ottoman Empire took seriously. That is laughable in EU4, but this is because things are not accurately portrayed and Ethiopia is a poor backwards target to smush.

 

[VolitionNewlove]

I agree with MKJ, it would be nice to see Africa as a whole improved. I have added 14 new East and West African states to my own mod and could easily think of more, if ressources was no issue. I would personally much rather have seen Paradox do that for their first DLC instead of adding 50 new 1-province minor North American natives, but eh.... maybe next time.

Is the USA supposed to be a huge seasonal big-seller of a topic? The previous DLC was one that was entirely based on the United States. Perhaps just feels like an unusual choice.

 

[Talq]

Is the USA supposed to be a huge seasonal big-seller of a topic? The previous DLC was one that was entirely based on the United States. Perhaps just feels like an unusual choice.

The randomised new world is probably what made the choice for the DLC (it is certainly the part that Johan was most enthusiastic about). The indians and colonial nations are just other things you can put in the new world.

 

[Dustman]

A lot of things in all EUs are too biased toward Europe. Asians are too weak, Europeans are too strong, Africans portrayed as savages, and American Natives can't fight even smallest detachments from other continents. Chinese base tax should be higher than whole Europe combined, but it would start shouts through these forums. European population didn't explode till late in the game period, and would never be bigger than Chinese. Even Russian population was only twice as big as Japanese.

Back to Africa. Africans were not conquered by Europeans because they were just too strong early on, and disease was indeed a major threat to outsiders (Actually, disease is what made life for conquistadors so easy in Americas, where by lowest estimates half of population died from epidemics). Lack of easy inland transportation didn't help either. Both West and East Africa were quite developed, with strong Muslim upper class due to Indian/Moroccan trade ties. Africa produced mostly resources and would export manufactured and luxury goods from elsewhere. All Muslims knew pretty well North African and Arabian geography, and many East African states had direct or indirect trade contact with both India and China. Firearms were popular and it was one of the few goods Europeans could offer for trade early on. North Africans were a thorn in European underbelly, and quite few naval innovations of the time have roots over there.

But this all is lost on Paradox... I wouldn't expect them to fix any of this in EU4. They ignored it for over 10 years, why do it now? Even if the player start industrial revolution in 17th century Japan or Ethiopia, with Europe falling behind, region will be still considered backward and nothing away from immediate player's reach will be changed. Map of Europe grows all the time, as well as tax values there, while Asia and especially Africa is mostly ignored... Well, at least Divine Wind was made for Far East to try and fix it, albeit it failed miserably.

 

[Sun_Wu]

A lot of things in all EUs are too biased toward Europe. Asians are too weak, Europeans are too strong, Africans portrayed as savages, and American Natives can't fight even smallest detachments from other continents. Chinese base tax should be higher than whole Europe combined, but it would start shouts through these forums. European population didn't explode till late in the game period, and would never be bigger than Chinese. Even Russian population was only twice as big as Japanese.

Back to Africa. Africans were not conquered by Europeans because they were just too strong early on, and disease was indeed a major threat to outsiders (Actually, disease is what made life for conquistadors so easy in Americas, where by lowest estimates half of population died from epidemics). Lack of easy inland transportation didn't help either. Both West and East Africa were quite developed, with strong Muslim upper class due to Indian/Moroccan trade ties. Africa produced mostly resources and would export manufactured and luxury goods from elsewhere. All Muslims knew pretty well North African and Arabian geography, and many East African states had direct or indirect trade contact with both India and China. Firearms were popular and it was one of the few goods Europeans could offer for trade early on. North Africans were a thorn in European underbelly, and quite few naval innovations of the time have roots over there.

But this all is lost on Paradox... I wouldn't expect them to fix any of this in EU4. They ignored it for over 10 years, why do it now? Even if the player start industrial revolution in 17th century Japan or Ethiopia, with Europe falling behind, region will be still considered backward and nothing away from immediate player's reach will be changed. Map of Europe grows all the time, as well as tax values there, while Asia and especially Africa is mostly ignored... Well, at least Divine Wind was made for Far East to try and fix it, albeit it failed miserably.

While for much of the period the sub-Saharan Africans were weaker than Europeans militarily they were plenty strong enough to repel the small forces Europeans could land. In most of the places that didn't really have civilizations there those were typically far too inhospitable for Europeans to conquer and hold.

 

[Dustman]

While for much of the period the sub-Saharan Africans were weaker than Europeans militarily they were plenty strong enough to repel the small forces Europeans could land. In most of the places that didn't really have civilizations there those were typically far too inhospitable for Europeans to conquer and hold.

If by 'civilization' you mean states and cities, it's true. But Africans aren't and weren't backward savages as portrayed in EU series. And since historically they could thwart European conquest for so long, their strength is simply underestimated by people thinking of tech as a mean and an end.

 

[Sun_Wu]

If by 'civilization' you mean states and cities, it's true. But Africans aren't and weren't backward savages as portrayed in EU series. And since historically they could thwart European conquest for so long, their strength is simply underestimated by people thinking of tech as a mean and an end.

Yes, I do mean cities (above 1000) and states (villages, organized political structure, sedentary).

 

[Dustman]

Yes, I do mean cities (above 1000) and states (villages, organized political structure, sedentary).

Mali empire was anything but weak by your standards. Songhai, replacing it, wasn't weak either. Ethiopians managed to resist Muslims around them for centuries, and Europeans couldn't conquer them way beyond EU's time frame.

Definition of civilization to be sedentary is wrong. Very nice example is Mongols. While they didn't leave much in a way of architecture, their military innovation and administrative genius manifested themselves in scale of their conquest. No empire before or since managed to do this. More recent example is Great Plains tribes after introduction of horses. Prior to that most these tribes were sedentary. Nobody will change lifestyle dramatically if new one isn't better. And trade... In this nomads always had huge advantage comparing to agricultural societies. Even seamen of sail era can be considered nomads, since many voyages would take at least an year.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Mali empire was anything but weak by your standards. Songhai, replacing it, wasn't weak either. Ethiopians managed to resist Muslims around them for centuries, and Europeans couldn't conquer them way beyond EU's time frame.

Definition of civilization to be sedentary is wrong. Very nice example is Mongols. While they didn't leave much in a way of architecture, their military innovation and administrative genius manifested themselves in scale of their conquest. No empire before or since managed to do this. More recent example is Great Plains tribes after introduction of horses. Prior to that most these tribes were sedentary. Nobody will change lifestyle dramatically if new one isn't better. And trade... In this nomads always had huge advantage comparing to agricultural societies. Even seamen of sail era can be considered nomads, since many voyages would take at least an year.

Indeed; if someone thinks Ethiopia was uncivilized they are incredibly ignorant.

I wouldn't quantify a nomadic people as a civilization, I also wouldn't call them savages.

A person can live a largely nomadic life while still being civilized if the culture they belong to is civilized.

 

[Dustman]

I wouldn't quantify a nomadic people as a civilization, I also wouldn't call them savages.

Until very recent time nomadic way of life provided more protein rich diet leading to steady population surplus, manifesting itself in constant aggressive expansion when other options were blocked. Contrary, European cities for a long time had a net negative population growth, which was only countered by constant migration from countryside. Persians lived nomadic life for millennia, migrating forth and back between plains and mountains, depending on season. Even now in Caucasus Mountains many men are shepherds living in dales on winter and alpine pastures on winter.

Mass invasions, undertaken by countless nomads through out history, are simply impossible without developed political system. And while such systems were mostly decentralized, they proved their efficiency by crashing sedentary neighbors again and again. Sedentary societies relied mostly on political elites for development and military protection, while nomadic tribes were far more individualistic, where even low ranking freemen had more influence than a wealthy peasant in a statist society. If individual liberty and voluntary contract are concerned, most nomadic tribes would be far, far ahead of contemporary sedentary states.

 

[Incompetent]

A big factor in the economic weakness of Africa in the EU era (and why African provinces should be so poor by 1820) was the slave trade. By the end of the era, there were whole empires whose way of life was based on waging wars and selling the prisoners as slaves, because Arabs and especially Europeans paid such a high price for them. At the same time, other countries would either not be involved or actively try to prevent slave-trading. I don't know how this could be simulated accurately in-game without making players squeamish, though. It should be possible for a player-controlled African country at least to make a choice.

This applies much less to East Africa than it does to West Africa, though.

 

[AndreasPhokas]

Ethiopia and Adal should be atleast at muslim tech levels, and bump the base tax and manpower up by atleast 1 across the board. Ethiopia if it fully unifies the horn of Africa should atleast be able to have 15-20 forcelimits instead of like...10

 

[Gebhard Blucher]

Just one more thing to add here, for now. I'm sure this is nothing new to most here, but it's an interesting image nonetheless.

 

[mcmanusaur]

That'd be interesting, if provinces could both wax and wane in tax. You could buff them in the early game by providing them a higher tax, but give a nod to their historic decline by subtracting 1 every 150 years or something.

While I'd love dynamic province values, the way you have suggested sounds like an awful bit of determinism overkill.

 

[mcmanusaur]

A lot of things in all EUs are too biased toward Europe. Asians are too weak, Europeans are too strong, Africans portrayed as savages, and American Natives can't fight even smallest detachments from other continents. Chinese base tax should be higher than whole Europe combined, but it would start shouts through these forums. European population didn't explode till late in the game period, and would never be bigger than Chinese. Even Russian population was only twice as big as Japanese.

Back to Africa. Africans were not conquered by Europeans because they were just too strong early on, and disease was indeed a major threat to outsiders (Actually, disease is what made life for conquistadors so easy in Americas, where by lowest estimates half of population died from epidemics). Lack of easy inland transportation didn't help either. Both West and East Africa were quite developed, with strong Muslim upper class due to Indian/Moroccan trade ties. Africa produced mostly resources and would export manufactured and luxury goods from elsewhere. All Muslims knew pretty well North African and Arabian geography, and many East African states had direct or indirect trade contact with both India and China. Firearms were popular and it was one of the few goods Europeans could offer for trade early on. North Africans were a thorn in European underbelly, and quite few naval innovations of the time have roots over there.

But this all is lost on Paradox... I wouldn't expect them to fix any of this in EU4. They ignored it for over 10 years, why do it now? Even if the player start industrial revolution in 17th century Japan or Ethiopia, with Europe falling behind, region will be still considered backward and nothing away from immediate player's reach will be changed. Map of Europe grows all the time, as well as tax values there, while Asia and especially Africa is mostly ignored... Well, at least Divine Wind was made for Far East to try and fix it, albeit it failed miserably.

I have to pretty much agree with this. Still, at least tech groups are fairly easy to mod out as far as I'm aware.

 

[imperiumiv]

I like this. I'd also include the Swahili coast in the area that needs to be spruced up (by dividing it into city-states, and giving it much better tech than it has now - maybe even Muslim tech). Swahili culture should also arguably be in the Arab culture group.

The Swahili shouldn't be put into the Arab culture group. They are Bantu speakers. Their religion was primarily Muslim. However, I think there needs to be a distinct Technology group for historically advanced African states. Central, Western, and East Africa should have a lower tech cost penalty in my opinion. The same applies to Swahili. They consisted of numerous Maratime city states and benifited from interaction and trade with the NEar East, India, and China. But I think they need to be split into multiple factions, not one massive one. This is particularly true for Ethiopia.

 

[grisamentum]

The Swahili shouldn't be put into the Arab culture group. They are Bantu speakers. Their religion was primarily Muslim. However, I think there needs to be a distinct Technology group for historically advanced African states. Central, Western, and East Africa should have a lower tech cost penalty in my opinion. The same applies to Swahili. They consisted of numerous Maratime city states and benifited from interaction and trade with the NEar East, India, and China. But I think they need to be split into multiple factions, not one massive one. This is particularly true for Ethiopia.

Not to mention the flat penalty to monarch points you get for being Chinese / Muslim.

If anything it should be a bonus, while retaining the tech penalty.

 

[Sun_Wu]

Until very recent time nomadic way of life provided more protein rich diet leading to steady population surplus, manifesting itself in constant aggressive expansion when other options were blocked. Contrary, European cities for a long time had a net negative population growth, which was only countered by constant migration from countryside. Persians lived nomadic life for millennia, migrating forth and back between plains and mountains, depending on season. Even now in Caucasus Mountains many men are shepherds living in dales on winter and alpine pastures on winter.

Mass invasions, undertaken by countless nomads through out history, are simply impossible without developed political system. And while such systems were mostly decentralized, they proved their efficiency by crashing sedentary neighbors again and again. Sedentary societies relied mostly on political elites for development and military protection, while nomadic tribes were far more individualistic, where even low ranking freemen had more influence than a wealthy peasant in a statist society. If individual liberty and voluntary contract are concerned, most nomadic tribes would be far, far ahead of contemporary sedentary states.

Civilization or civilisation (in British English) generally refers to state polities which combine these basic institutions: a ceremonial centre (a formal gathering place for social and cultural activities), a system of writing, and a city. The term is used to contrast with other types of communities including hunter-gatherers, nomadic pastoralists and tribal villages. Civilizations have more densely populated settlements divided into social classes with a ruling elite and subordinate urban and rural populations, which, by the division of labour, engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending human control over both nature, and over other human beings.[1]

Also, some people in a civilization being semi-nomadic isn't the same as it not being a civilization

Ethiopia and Adal should be atleast at muslim tech levels, and bump the base tax and manpower up by atleast 1 across the board. Ethiopia if it fully unifies the horn of Africa should atleast be able to have 15-20 forcelimits instead of like...10

ikr?

 

[Mad King James]

Just one more thing to add here, for now. I'm sure this is nothing new to most here, but it's an interesting image nonetheless.

View attachment 96236

Haha that's a good graphic