North African countries are still a joke.

[maxirage]

In fact, they seem to have made them even weaker than they were in EU3! As Portugal, I crushed Morocco's army like a bunch of ants. What the game implies is that any of the Christian nations could easily take over all the Berber states, but they didn't care to spare the time or resources to do so. There was a thread about this issue before the demo released, and I believe it was concluded this representation is very ahistorical. Both Portugal and Castille historically would have loved to take over North Africa if they could.

 

[stevetry]

so like is the game out or something ?

 

[Antrolf]

The demo is out

 

[xcrissxcrossx]

so like is the game out or something ?

the demo is.

 

[Lordrac]

so like is the game out or something ?

What are you gibbering about?

 

[kingofnoobs]

so like is the game out or something ?

Go home stevetry, you're drunk!

 

[safe-keeper]

Not one on-topic reply.

I agree, Hearts of Iron III had the same problem, "minor" nations that were way too easy to just steamroll as opposed to how it was in reality.
Not sure how to solve this in EU IV, though. Should the nations in question be given bigger armies/more manpower? Better fighting skills? Higher revolt risk when occupied?

 

[unmerged(608922)]

Yes, they are easy to crush, but hard to core. It's best to leave them alone.

 

[JustinianI.]

I think non-westernised states should get a defense bonus while fighting on their own territory. But I am sure less radical solutions might work as well, and if the Berber states end up being annexed immediately every game, they will most likely buff them.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

The Barbary states get their own idea group, but unfortunately it doesn't make conquering them any more difficult (even if they are more expensive to core).

Personally, I would suggest this brief change:

berber_ideas = {

	start = {
		enemy_core_creation = 2.0
		global_ship_cost = -0.10
	}
	bonus = {
		global_trade_power = 0.10
	}
	trigger = {
		OR = {
			tag = ALG
			tag = MOR
			tag = TUN
			tag = FEZ
			tag = TRP
		}
	}
	free = yes
	
	ber_barbary_pirates = {
		naval_forcelimit_modifier = 0.33
	}
	desert_warfare = {
		land_attrition = -0.33
		[COLOR="#FF8C00"]hostile_attrition = 0.66[/COLOR]
	}
	trans_saharan_trade = {
		global_trade_income_modifier = 0.1
	}
	corsairs = {
		navy_tradition = 1
	}
	tuareg_cavalry = {
		cavalry_power = 0.10
	}
	dual_diplomacy = {
		diplomatic_upkeep = 2
	}
	brothers_barbarossa = {
		galley_power = 0.20
	}
}

Once unlocked, that should give them (the defender) 33% less attrition, and you (the attacker) 66% more whilst in their territory. That'd make them a real challenge to conquer, and you'd seriously have to consider whether the manpower losses would be worth it.

 

[KaiserJohanHome]

Desert should definately give more attrition.

Still, it's extremely costly to core. Trying to core Fez cost like 372 diplo (or is it admin?) power

 

[Jomini]

The desert should definitely not give more attrition, all the historical forces fielded by Portugal had extremely low attrition rates.

In any event North Africa should be weak. The period rulers knew they were unable to stand alone against the Iberians, so they went out and did diplomacy. Some made their peace with the Iberians for a while others got aid from the Ottomans. For example the single biggest win for the North Africans came after adopting Ottoman tactics and military technology. Likewise, the Barbary Pirates benefited heavily from Ottoman naval technology and logistics.

Historically the average North African campaign went something like: the Iberians siege a city, it falls, there may or may not be one big battle, and the Iberians hold a coastal trade center that ends up being ever less useful as time progresses. Eventually, the Iberians either outright abandon the coastal enclave or they put so little effort into securing (because it is relatively so worthless) that it eventually falls (though the most lucrative remained Iberian for hundreds of years). Pdox very accurately simulates history here. The Iberians can beat the North Africans most of the time (as was historical in the EU era), but they don't really want to beat on the North Africans.

372 AMP is almost a tech or 37 temples (which is 37 gold per year - before modifiers, compared to the pitiful return you get from Fez - once you core, convert, and culture flip it). It is completely not worth the effort unless you have nothing else to do. Of course, historically, if you had nothing else to do, you certainly would take it.

 

[Shiranui]

The desert should definitely not give more attrition, all the historical forces fielded by Portugal had extremely low attrition rates.

In any event North Africa should be weak. The period rulers knew they were unable to stand alone against the Iberians, so they went out and did diplomacy. Some made their peace with the Iberians for a while others got aid from the Ottomans. For example the single biggest win for the North Africans came after adopting Ottoman tactics and military technology. Likewise, the Barbary Pirates benefited heavily from Ottoman naval technology and logistics.

Historically the average North African campaign went something like: the Iberians siege a city, it falls, there may or may not be one big battle, and the Iberians hold a coastal trade center that ends up being ever less useful as time progresses. Eventually, the Iberians either outright abandon the coastal enclave or they put so little effort into securing (because it is relatively so worthless) that it eventually falls (though the most lucrative remained Iberian for hundreds of years). Pdox very accurately simulates history here. The Iberians can beat the North Africans most of the time (as was historical in the EU era), but they don't really want to beat on the North Africans.

372 AMP is almost a tech or 37 temples (which is 37 gold per year - before modifiers, compared to the pitiful return you get from Fez - once you core, convert, and culture flip it). It is completely not worth the effort unless you have nothing else to do. Of course, historically, if you had nothing else to do, you certainly would take it.

This. It's just not worth all the effort to conquer.

 

[Haresus]

Worthless land that you don't need. That is why North Africa was not conquered historically, and that is why you should not conquer it unless you are out of targets.

 

[Conch]

In fact, they seem to have made them even weaker than they were in EU3! As Portugal, I crushed Morocco's army like a bunch of ants. What the game implies is that any of the Christian nations could easily take over all the Berber states, but they didn't care to spare the time or resources to do so.

They didnt do it because the handful of sand they could conquer is just... worthless?

 

[Revshawn]

And for the record by the 1920's...

 

[Dutchling]

Conquering North Africa is the same thing as throwing away your admin points.

As Portugal or Spain it might be good to get the provinces with the trade post modifier to get more Sevilla trade power, but other than that you really don't want them.

 

[Knab]

I agree; the matter is making Iberian States more interested in colonizing the Americas rather than conquering North Africa.
It seems to me that EUIV is achieving the goal, whereas in EUIII vanilla (+DW) Castille used stretch from Morocco to Egypt.
A 30 Years span is too little to judge properly, though.

 

[Cynical Dreamer]

The Barbary states get their own idea group, but unfortunately it doesn't make conquering them any more difficult (even if they are more expensive to core).

Personally, I would suggest this brief change:

berber_ideas = {

	start = {
		enemy_core_creation = 2.0
		global_ship_cost = -0.10
	}
	bonus = {
		global_trade_power = 0.10
	}
	trigger = {
		OR = {
			tag = ALG
			tag = MOR
			tag = TUN
			tag = FEZ
			tag = TRP
		}
	}
	free = yes
	
	ber_barbary_pirates = {
		naval_forcelimit_modifier = 0.33
	}
	desert_warfare = {
		land_attrition = -0.33
		[COLOR="#FF8C00"]hostile_attrition = 0.66[/COLOR]
	}
	trans_saharan_trade = {
		global_trade_income_modifier = 0.1
	}
	corsairs = {
		navy_tradition = 1
	}
	tuareg_cavalry = {
		cavalry_power = 0.10
	}
	dual_diplomacy = {
		diplomatic_upkeep = 2
	}
	brothers_barbarossa = {
		galley_power = 0.20
	}
}

Once unlocked, that should give them (the defender) 33% less attrition, and you (the attacker) 66% more whilst in their territory. That'd make them a real challenge to conquer, and you'd seriously have to consider whether the manpower losses would be worth it.

Hi,

Actually, this seems like a very sound idea. I hope it gets implemented in a patch.

 

[spinoza013]

Good for a bit of a jaunt with your army to see new Combat/siege mechanics etc. Outwith that a drain on MP. Maybe increase army tradition a bit and a spattering of Tariff fees but not really worth it. Although I did notice that Melilla seems to be a base for Barbary Pirates or something ( can't quite remember what screen or tooltip I saw it) and controlling it helps Trade somehow. It was late okay? 2am because you can't save the demo!