Nations in Oceania and inland Africa

[AndrejK]

I think africa and Oceania are VERY-UNDERREPRESENTED in the game and at least the following countries should be added:
Africa:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuba_Kingdom
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Kitara
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buganda
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Burundi
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Rwanda
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Luba
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Lunda

Yeah I know the area was preety inaccessible for Europe at the time but so was Central Asia

Oceania certainly needs to include.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuʻi_Tonga_Empire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudeleur_Dynasty
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Easter_Island
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hawaii
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand#Early_contact_period various Maori chiefdoms
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Tahiti

 

[AndrejK]

Also Oceania should get a specific tech group similar to North American Natives or Incas..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Also Oceania should get a specific tech group similar to North American Natives or Incas..

You wouldn't want to make them primitives, they'd be unplayable...unless the ridiculous ship nerf were reverted/handled differently.

 

[Demetrios]

I think africa and Oceania are VERY-UNDERREPRESENTED in the game and at least the following countries should be added:
Africa:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuba_Kingdom
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Kitara
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buganda
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Burundi
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Rwanda
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Luba
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Lunda

Yeah I know the area was preety inaccessible for Europe at the time but so was Central Asia

Oceania certainly needs to include.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuʻi_Tonga_Empire
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudeleur_Dynasty
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Easter_Island
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hawaii
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_New_Zealand#Early_contact_period various Maori chiefdoms
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Tahiti

I definitely agree that the African Great Lakes region and associated nations should appear in game. But I do have to say that Central Asia being inaccessible to Europeans would have come as a surprise to the Russians who by the end of the game period were ruling the place...

Oceanic nations would be more of a problem, with the no ships malus.

Also, the suggestions for Madagascar in this thread (including some by yours truly) https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/madagascar.869464/ also merit some attention...

 

[AndrejK]

Maybe make something like like Polynesian traditions -40% Navy cost

As with technology I am not very sure on which level they were before contact

 

[TheeBadJoke]

Given how involved the Maori were in the colonization of New Zealand I'm surprised they didn't get one nation to represent them in game.

Also Oceania should get a specific tech group similar to North American Natives or Incas..

That is definitely necessary as well if the nations are to be emulated properly.

 

[123e55]

-30% diplomatic cost?

 

[AndrejK]

As with Maori chiefdoms practically all are OPM save South Island... based on this map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:IwiMap.png we get, on North Island (north to south)
Nga Puhi
Ngati Mahuta
Ngati Awa (Center, northeast)
Te Ati Awa (sothwest)
Ngati Kahungunu (SE)

South island is united in one country called Ngai Tahu.

To form Aotearoa you need to hold one province in South Island and 4 in North Island

 

[tman144]

I agree, Africa is too empty. The "Scramble for Africa" didn't occur until after the game ends, so being un-accessible to Europeans is actually a reason to include them.

 

[PsysmicSound]

But I do have to say that Central Asia being inaccessible to Europeans would have come as a surprise to the Russians who by the end of the game period were ruling the place...

I thought they were referring more to the likes of Tibet and Nepal. Even through the 19th century, surveying of major mountains (including Qomolangma/Everest) was done based on what was visible from India, because the aforementioned nations wouldn't let foreigners in at all, not even to gawk at the topography and ask the locals what they called it (hence Qomolangma/Everest being predominantly known by its English name, as opposed to most other mountains in the area).

 

[AndrejK]

Well yeah I know that Scramble for Africa happened much later but it does not prevent Kongo or Swahili from interacting with the nations in inner Africa also strengthens African positions because then maybe a unified state in DRC would actually prevent Portugal from conquering Kongo...

 

[Sagif]

We must keep in mind that there are A LOT of worth including in-game nations. Angola had a powerful kingdom that resisted the Portuguese for a long time, and not to mention great empires / kingdoms from Africa to Oceania.

But we must also remember that adding all of these nations would almost ruin the colonial gameplay, restricting it almost to North America.

In order to change that, we could add all of these kingdoms (and possibly more) and by doing that, adding a LOT more provinces to Africa, Oceania, etc, etc... This would, I believe, add IMMENSELY to game immersion and gameplay.

 

[AndrejK]

Well we should keep in mind that the areas which aren ot owned by any country in EU4 were not effectively No Mans Land, since there WERE SOME TRIBES AND CHIEFDOMS who DID RESIST foreign rule...The lands WERE NOT EMPTY... what I would say that any organized kingdom should get representation in-game,and we should make some clear standart and border as to who should get representation and which provinces will have just generic natives... I suggest that all hunter-gatherers should be treated like colonisable, free land, while real chiefdoms who made contact with their neighbours should get representation

 

[hangmanwa7id]

I know that in the Society Islands, there were a number of true state-level kingdoms, each with different flavors. Bora-Bora was a militaristic state that conquered Tubuai at some point. Ra'iatea was more religious (I think it included Taha'a as well). I think Huahine and Mo'orea were independent but I don't know much about them. Tahiti started as several chiefdoms, gadually consolidating into one kingdom, which then began a campaign of conquests eastward through the Society Islands. The Tuamotus were pretty much a hinterland except for Mangareva, which was an important source of resources in the area.

I think though that to do it well, the height and terrain maps would need a serious overhaul in the Pacific; a lot of things are jumbled up and misplaced or even just fabricated (that huge mystery island south of Tonga, anyone?).

 

[Sagif]

But let's differentiate things... We cannot give every nation that ever existed a chance to appear in EUIV.
Otherwise we could not have any colonial provinces.

Society Islands could have had a true state-level kingdom, but it was completely irrelevant in the global context. The same with Hawaii. Hawaii had a booming and a powerful nation, but it does not make sense to include them in-game. How could they expand? They are an island (group of islands) in the middle of the Pacific.

 

[AndrejK]

Same logic applies to Kongo for example or tribes in Siberia... the nations in Oceania could get some bonus for the navy..

 

[Moarice]

They really should include Oceania. After all, there were some independent kingdoms even after Europeans came. Also, if anyone says that there were no great conquerors in the region or that they had no good historical kings - look up Kamehameha I.

And here we would get a formation decision - what about an ability to form Polynesia in game?
Speaking of Polynesia, why is Polynesian in Malayan culture group?

 

[Jomini]

Ahh yes, let us include a bunch of states that had no major wars with outsiders in 400 years, were not tightly integrated into trade networks, and just for fun make every region of the world less distinct.

I honestly have zero idea how this endless multiplication of states and provinces actually makes the game more interesting to play. The fewer strategic chokepoints you have, the less important it is where you start and the more the game degenerates into a simple min-max of point efficiency and AE.

But what the heck, let's throw out all 400 years of Kongolese strategy and make them face ahistorical threats from the east. Let's make the East African coast face the prospect of invasions that never did nor could have occurred. Who cares if the strategic imperatives are less historical or if we railroad states into ahistorical outcomes we get more countries that can join the glorious world shakers of Siberian Clan Councils.

 

[Itchel]

i Agree but most of these tags come into existence around in the 1700's or 1780's... which is probably not worth adding a tag for

 

[AndrejK]

The Maori resistance was qiuite coordinated though