Can Africa Be Made Interesting?

[Killerrabbit]

Also that the US put their foot down for real after WW2. UK had to abandon colonies to receive loans. They protested and protested, but eventually gave in.

But this isn't really about decolonization, but rather about revolts. It's not only that they only succeed or fail, they also build pride and a real sense of unity among the colonized peoples.

Well that's all true, but nonetheless, it seems the period between 1930 and the 1950s was notable for the lack of armed uprisings in Africa, even on a small scale. Do you think this is just random chance, or do you think there was some kind of factor / combination of factors at work - and if so, how to simulate them?

I don't think you'd actually wanna simulate the conditions that led to the lack of uprisings, other than perhaps stipulate at which point the removal of them would be likely to lead to revolts.

We're talking about making Africa more fun, well - having to make decisions is the essence of all games. And the most interesting choices would be within the context of conflicts. Now conflict isn't the same as war always, but they have to be meaningful.

Most would agree that North Africa is kinda interesting in the context of how much resources to devote to winning there. But the rest of the continent suffer from that there are no choices to make there. Now, you can say that building factories there as the UK would be an choice, problem is it's not an interesting one. Maybe if the factory either benefited the colony mostly, unless you are harsher there and have to commit more troops to keeping the peace.

Maybe not all uprisings doesn't have to be killing and armed revolt, but rather them refusing to pay any taxes, or to sell you any subsidized goods? And maybe add inter-european layers of diplomacy. Gentle treatment of one colony leads to greater demand for the same treatment in neighboring? Have an desicion generated to demand they up the harshness there - can't have that anti-imperialist sentiment messing with our subjects. At the same time the harshest treatment could destabilize neighbor countries if people flee or go there to organize armed opposition.

 

[Tempestra]

Maybe not all uprisings doesn't have to be killing and armed revolt, but rather them refusing to pay any taxes, or to sell you any subsidized goods?

This would be a pretty major addition to the game, although that's not actually an argument against it.

But again, I have to ask, did this actually happen during the game era?

The fact is, during this era, sub-Saharan Africa was kind of a strategic and military backwater. If it's not "interesting", there's an argument that this is a deliberate choice to represent the way the world actually worked.

By the same token, Oklahoma isn't very interesting, but that is not necessarily an argument for creating an Oklahoman revolt.

 

[Killerrabbit]

This would be a pretty major addition to the game, although that's not actually an argument against it.

But again, I have to ask, did this actually happen during the game era?

The fact is, during this era, sub-Saharan Africa was kind of a strategic and military backwater. If it's not "interesting", there's an argument that this is a deliberate choice to represent the way the world actually worked.

By the same token, Oklahoma isn't very interesting, but that is not necessarily an argument for creating an Oklahoman revolt.

The thread is "Can Africa be made interesting?" I'm simply replying to it with ideas on how that can be done from a game mechanical point of view.

I'm not trying to tell you that Africa was a hotbed of constant excitement during WW2. I'm not trying to prove an big theory, nor am I trying to prove other ideas here invalid.

It's just that there are two different conversations here. I'm talking about a game and mechanics surrounding it, how these could work to create things to deal and manage in Africa, while you are talking about what happened during WW2 in Africa. If your opinion is that it's futile and pointless to make africa interesting, then that's an opinion too.

 

[Tempestra]

Well, the meta question is "can we make the game more interesting"? Making Africa interesting would do that, but it would also strain believability to some degree - Imagine the complainy forum posts "IRL the British/French had no problems in Africa, but in my game I'm always having to smack down German supported rebels, OMG so unrealistic devs please fix".

Maybe there's a way to make the game more interesting that doesn't contradict history so much?

 

[SaydaNeen]

There is more pressing issues to focus on, and better game mechanics to input into the game. Naval combat should be the first to be implemented, and I'd rather see better diplomacy, espionage, better logistics, better AI, Middle East, etc. before Africa goes any deeper than it is.
I think the next area that needs some definite TLC is the Middle East and Asia Minor. Some focus trees for Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey would be nice, how long are they going to be overlooked? They have a chance to throw a wrench into multiplayer when dealing with Russia, Allies African campaign, or India.
Besides, fixing the AI, fixing Naval combat and Naval AI will improve the African campaign in itself.

 

[Sourlol]

They added no mans land to Africa.

I'd really prefer they flesh out the WW2 game before going full bore into bonkers alt history like what Africa and SA would be. Because lets be honest, as compared to Europe, N. Africa, N. America, Oceania, and Asia South America and Africa were irrelevant.

I'd like to see PDX get out the remaining belligerent nations and then continue to flesh out existing and add new mechanics/systems. Once the game is done, they can add fantasy land bullshit for SA and Africa.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

@Sourlol totally agree, no more fantasy bollocks but more realism instead. Why do they care about Middle East anyway?

 

[billcorr]

Acquisition of resources for some people is interesting.

The resources in Africa could be adjusted. For those resources that are increased, acquiring these resources could make the African game interesting.

+ 9 Aluminum in Ghana (Ghana, aka The Gold Coast, produced 0.47% of the world's bauxite or aluminum from 1936 to 1945. This assumes that 1 ton of bauxite = 1 ton of aluminum).
+ 1 steel in French Morocco, which produced 0.05% of the world's iron ore or steel from 1936 to 1945. This assumes that 1 ton of iron ore = 1 ton of steel.
+ 7 steel in Sierra Leone, which produced 0.36% of the world's iron ore or steel from 1936 to 1945. This assumes that 1 ton of iron ore = 1 ton of steel.
+ 12 units of chrome in Sierra Leone, which produced 0.62% of the world's chromium from 1936 to 1945.
257 units of chrome in South Africa, which produced 12.7% of the world's chromium from 1936 to 1945.
376 units of chrome in Southern Rhodesia, which produced 18.6% of the world's chromium from 1936 to 1945.
6 units of oil in Egypt, which produced 0.27% of the world's crude petroleum from 1936 to 1945.

To be rigorous in this approach, then steel units would be subtracted from Algieria and Spanish Morocco.

 

[billcorr]

Why do they care about Middle East anyway?

What is the thinking behind this statement?

Details, please.

 

[hkrommel]

Acquisition of resources for some people is interesting.

The resources in Africa could be adjusted. For those resources that are increased, acquiring these resources could make the African game interesting.

+ 9 Aluminum in Ghana (Ghana, aka The Gold Coast, produced 0.47% of the world's bauxite or aluminum from 1936 to 1945. This assumes that 1 ton of bauxite = 1 ton of aluminum).
+ 1 steel in French Morocco, which produced 0.05% of the world's iron ore or steel from 1936 to 1945. This assumes that 1 ton of iron ore = 1 ton of steel.
+ 7 steel in Sierra Leone, which produced 0.36% of the world's iron ore or steel from 1936 to 1945. This assumes that 1 ton of iron ore = 1 ton of steel.
+ 12 units of chrome in Sierra Leone, which produced 0.62% of the world's chromium from 1936 to 1945.
257 units of chrome in South Africa, which produced 12.7% of the world's chromium from 1936 to 1945.
376 units of chrome in Southern Rhodesia, which produced 18.6% of the world's chromium from 1936 to 1945.
6 units of oil in Egypt, which produced 0.27% of the world's crude petroleum from 1936 to 1945.

To be rigorous in this approach, then steel units would be subtracted from Algieria and Spanish Morocco.

Honestly that doesn't increase the value of those places very much. 1 steel is nothing, and depending on export laws 7 steel is nothing. If I want Chromium I'll invade Turkey, it's just not worth sending my troops thousands of miles out of the way in horrible attrition to grab a couple units of resources here and there, since those resources won't pay off the losses.

 

[billcorr]

Africa And South America shouldn’t even be represented in this game, there is no need to allocate resources, build political relationships and potential interactions with those countries since they have done nothing in WW2.

For the British, their African possessions provided resources and manpower for the war effort. Presumably, the same could be said for France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

A bit about the King's African Rifles (copied and pasted from Wikipedia)

Second World War

28 September 1941. Personnel from the King's African Rifles collect weapons surrendered by Italian forces at Wolchefit Pass, Ethiopia, following the end of the East African Campaign
The KAR fought in several campaigns during the War of 1939–1945. It fought against the Italians in Italian East Africa during the East African Campaign, against the Vichy French in Madagascar during the Battle of Madagascar, and against the Japanese in Burma during the Burma Campaign. The Somaliland battalions were heavily involved in defending the colony against the Italian invasion of August 1940, but were forced to retreat and evacuate after defeat in the Battle of Tug Argan from 11-15 August.[3]

Initially the KAR was deployed as the 1st East African Infantry Brigade and the 2nd East African Infantry Brigade. The first brigade was responsible for coastal defence and the second for the defence of the interior. (See 1st SA Infantry Division). By the end of July 1940, two additional East African brigades were formed, the 3rd East African Infantry Brigade and the 6th East African Infantry Brigade. Initially a Coastal Division and a Northern Frontier District Division were planned, but, instead, the 11th African Division and the 12th African Division were formed.


Troops of 11th (East Africa) Divisionon the road to Kalewa, Burma, during the Chindwin River crossing
The two divisions included East African, Ghanaian, Nigerian, and South African troops. The Ghanaian and Nigerian troops came from the Royal West African Frontier Force. Under the terms of a war contingency plan, a brigade each was provided from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and from Nigeria for service in Kenya. A Nigerian brigade, together with two East African brigades (the KAR brigades) and some South Africans, formed the 11th African Division. The 12th African Division was similarly formed, but with the Ghanaian brigade instead of the Nigerian brigade.

In 1941, during the East African Campaign, Sergeant Nigel Gray Leakey of the 1/6th Battalion was awarded the regiment's only Victoria Cross (VC).

The 11th African Division was disbanded in November 1941 and the 12th African Division was disbanded in April 1943. In 1943, the 11th (East Africa) Division was formed and it fought in Burma. In addition, two independent infantry brigades were sent from East Africa to India for service in Burma. The 22 (East Africa) Infantry Brigade served in the Arakan under command of XV Indian Corps, while the 28th (East Africa) Infantry Brigade served under IV Corps, playing a crucial role in the crossing of the Irrawaddy River.

By the end of the war the regiment had raised forty-three battalions (including two in British Somaliland), nine independent garrison companies, an armoured car regiment, an artillery unit, as well as engineer, signal and transport sections.

 

[billcorr]

Honestly that doesn't increase the value of those places very much.

@Zaerth - Last Sunday at 6:42 AM Someday we'll play a game where asia and USA are relevant

I see the point that Africa and South America and Asia/America are not where the action is.

A map that focuses on the Eastern Front and Western Europe with a bit of Africa and the Middle East would represent the majority of the events covered from 1936 to 1945.

A map similar to this one:

 

[RolandRahn]

Yes, Africa could be made more interesting.

However, this would mean that we go alt-history *or* post-war.

I feel that there are more pressuring areas that should be addressed first - like
- Naval system
- logistics
- fuel (No oil should mean more than just "Producing tanks/airplanes/ships is less efficient")

After that....with the ability of Germany going back to the Kaiser and Japan going Communist, an early decolonization sounds plausible (at least MUCH more plausible than Japan becoming communist).

 

[hkrommel]

For the British, their African possessions provided resources and manpower for the war effort. Presumably, the same could be said for France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

A bit about the King's African Rifles (copied and pasted from Wikipedia)

Second World War

28 September 1941. Personnel from the King's African Rifles collect weapons surrendered by Italian forces at Wolchefit Pass, Ethiopia, following the end of the East African Campaign
The KAR fought in several campaigns during the War of 1939–1945. It fought against the Italians in Italian East Africa during the East African Campaign, against the Vichy French in Madagascar during the Battle of Madagascar, and against the Japanese in Burma during the Burma Campaign. The Somaliland battalions were heavily involved in defending the colony against the Italian invasion of August 1940, but were forced to retreat and evacuate after defeat in the Battle of Tug Argan from 11-15 August.[3]

Initially the KAR was deployed as the 1st East African Infantry Brigade and the 2nd East African Infantry Brigade. The first brigade was responsible for coastal defence and the second for the defence of the interior. (See 1st SA Infantry Division). By the end of July 1940, two additional East African brigades were formed, the 3rd East African Infantry Brigade and the 6th East African Infantry Brigade. Initially a Coastal Division and a Northern Frontier District Division were planned, but, instead, the 11th African Division and the 12th African Division were formed.


Troops of 11th (East Africa) Divisionon the road to Kalewa, Burma, during the Chindwin River crossing
The two divisions included East African, Ghanaian, Nigerian, and South African troops. The Ghanaian and Nigerian troops came from the Royal West African Frontier Force. Under the terms of a war contingency plan, a brigade each was provided from the Gold Coast (now Ghana) and from Nigeria for service in Kenya. A Nigerian brigade, together with two East African brigades (the KAR brigades) and some South Africans, formed the 11th African Division. The 12th African Division was similarly formed, but with the Ghanaian brigade instead of the Nigerian brigade.

In 1941, during the East African Campaign, Sergeant Nigel Gray Leakey of the 1/6th Battalion was awarded the regiment's only Victoria Cross (VC).

The 11th African Division was disbanded in November 1941 and the 12th African Division was disbanded in April 1943. In 1943, the 11th (East Africa) Division was formed and it fought in Burma. In addition, two independent infantry brigades were sent from East Africa to India for service in Burma. The 22 (East Africa) Infantry Brigade served in the Arakan under command of XV Indian Corps, while the 28th (East Africa) Infantry Brigade served under IV Corps, playing a crucial role in the crossing of the Irrawaddy River.

By the end of the war the regiment had raised forty-three battalions (including two in British Somaliland), nine independent garrison companies, an armoured car regiment, an artillery unit, as well as engineer, signal and transport sections.

Which is something, but none of this really changes what sub-saharan Africa is in-game or was IRL: A minor source of manpower and a minor source of resources, with the exception of chromium which could be had much more easily for the Axis in Turkey. In-game South Africa can become much more powerful than IRL already.

 

[tommylotto]

For the British, their African possessions provided resources and manpower for the war effort. Presumably, the same could be said for France, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

Don't forget the Italian Ascari. They formed 25 Brigata Coloniale (each 3 or 4 battalions of infantry and a battalion of light artillery) and were in the process of forming 10 more.

 

[Tempestra]

It's cool to share pictures, but it's not really an argument. Sub-Saharan Africa was a source of manpower, but that's already modeled.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

What is the thinking behind this statement?

Details, please.

You know very well why I said that. Nothing happened in South America, Africa and Asia.

Since you know soooooo much about ww2, with pics and articles and all the rest you should know who did what. Isn’t it?

We don’t want to change history.

 

[billcorr]

Just curious (and I am...looking to learn more),

What is the thinking behind the statement (or similar statement),

• "Sub-Saharan Africa was not important in WW2?"
• "Nothing happened in Africa"

 

[Sourlol]

billcorr

You know what he means, don’t be pedantic.

Of course, in absolute terms sub Saharan Africa was impacted by the war.

Relative to all other continents—or rather large geographical regions—it is very difficult to argue that Sub-Saharan Africa and South America (people, materiel and geography) were nearly as involved as all other inhabited large geographic regions.

Even North America which never saw shots fired in anger at fascists or communists was MUCH more involved than SA or Sub-Saharan Africa.

@wastedshampoo

We absolutely want to change history—that’s why we are playing the game. If I want to see the whole thing unfold as it did, I’ll watch Band of Brothers and Ww2 in color.

There are basically two camps: those who want memes and “fun” and those who want realism (I’d argue you, billcorr and myself fall into camp 2). When I as Germany alter my war plan from history, I want the UK, France and the USSR to respond in the most authentic way—as per our best guess when looking back in history.

Only slightly worse than Imperial Switzerland would be player Germany acting ahistorical and all AI nations continuing on as though they have blinders on and a carrot dangling in front of them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They added no mans land to Africa.

I'd really prefer they flesh out the WW2 game before going full bore into bonkers alt history like what Africa and SA would be. Because lets be honest, as compared to Europe, N. Africa, N. America, Oceania, and Asia South America and Africa were irrelevant.

I'd like to see PDX get out the remaining belligerent nations and then continue to flesh out existing and add new mechanics/systems. Once the game is done, they can add fantasy land bullshit for SA and Africa.

We don't need fantasy land as a priority. We don't need anything "fleshed out" as a priority.

The games current core mechanics provably don't work. They haven't worked since release. Why are they not higher priority + discussed more? Did the community and devs alike just give up on WP/occupations/capitulations actually working with any consistency?

Even the naval game in its dismal state is more consistent and solid than the non-logic applied to "who gets control of this land + resources + factories for the next 3+ years until the war is resolved".