Songhai Empire?

[unmerged(181)]

Is the Songhai Empire (sometimes spelled Songhay) in the game? I do not remember it being mentioned in the country list. It was a fairly large empire in West Africa just south of the Sahara, where it dominated the gold trade in the 16th century. The Songhai had little if any coastline (it was an inland empire) and the area was not colonized by the Europeans until the 19th century, so it may be hidden from the map.

 

[unmerged(41)]

It's not in the game and its territory is not part of the playable map. So it won't and can't exist. End of story.

 

[unmerged(181)]

Thanks for the info.

I guess it is not a big deal in the general order of things. The Songhai, though wealthy, were conquered by Morocco in the 1590s. The Moroccans had firearms. The Songhai had bows and spears. The result was inevitable.

On a related note, I wonder if the EU creators considering including the interior of Africa on the map but barring the Europeans from colonizing/conquering it? The way I understand it, the reason Europe did not go into the interior of Africa was not an inability to do so but because of malaria and other diseases for which the Europeans had no resistence or treatment. These interior African nations did have an impact and traded with the Europeans.

 

[unmerged(35)]

Prehaps that could be a possibility for EUII

 

[unmerged(41)]

The map will not be altered in any way what so ever before publication. The developers will not even correct errors, so expanding its scope is purely for dreamers.

 

[unmerged(9)]

Well except for naming errors and ownership. No redrawing will be made.

I agree though that EU2 should focus on the imperialistic era. Actually the whole game could be from 1792 to 1914 and go more indepht into this like Pax Brittanica did.

Marcus

 

[Doomdark]

I agree though that EU2 should focus on the imperialistic era. Actually the whole game could be from 1792 to 1914

I think that would be a little inappropriate for several reasons...

1) EU is a conversion of a board game, and the license might not cover a sequel that is not related to the original.

2) 'Europa Universalis' is not a name that would fit as well in the era 1792 to 1914. While Europe was certainly still dominant, the world also saw the rise of the USA, Japan, Mexico, etc.

3) 1792-1914 is well covered by several other computer and board games.

Personally, I would rather see EU 2 build on the same time period as the original, only with more bells and whistles. E.g. more advanced diplomacy, dynastic relations and nameable provinces. I think that they could also extend the time frame a little, say 1400-1800.

However, I would not be adverse to a computer conversion of Empires in Arms...

/Doomie

 

[unmerged(175)]

ya but then there would be steam powered steel ships...fortresse sobsolete, trenches, calvary is basicly useless, and early tanks and cars/trucks, machine guns, semi-automatic weapons...

why not the bronze age?

 

[unmerged(181)]

The more I think about it, the exclusion of the Songhai and other interior African empires is not a big deal. The Europeans did not meddle in the area and the countries in the game that did meddle there (like Morocco) were not that strong anyway. Since I think all the trade with the rest of the world took place on the coastline, control of the African coastal areas should simulate the trade adequately.

As for EUII, I haven't had a chance to see EU yet. But assuming that the game is as good as it sounds so far, a sequel would be a great idea. But WWI would be difficult to simulate given the technological advances that APKicks put forth plus the development of airplanes, submarines and heavy, long-range artillery. Aircraft add a whole new element to warfare that would be hard to integrate into a simulation of 18th century warfare. You may be able to push the simulation up to the end of the 19th century without too many changes though.

 

[KaiserIsak]

Originally posted by Doomdark on 06-03-2000 01:39 AM2)
'Europa Universalis' is not a name that would fit as well in the era 1792 to 1914. While Europe was certainly still dominant, the world also saw the rise of the USA, Japan, Mexico, etc.

/Doomie

Mexico? I dont think Mexico in any way rised to be a great power during this period, and USA is infact a european country. The only difference is Japan, and the fall of China.
I think the sequal should cover both the eras, maybe from 1400-2000? At least 1492-1914.

 

[unmerged(180)]

Most Americans would disagree about the US being a 'European country'. If you mean by that, that they are primarily from European heritage, then I'd agree. The same could be said of Australia, NZ, S. Africa, some of Mexico, Canada, etc., though I'm sure that they'd disagree with being called Europeans too.

Jason (tongue firmly in cheek)

 

[unmerged(28)]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak on 06-03-2000 05:25 PM
Mexico? I dont think Mexico in any way rised to be a great power during this period, and USA is infact a european country. The only difference is Japan, and the fall of China.
I think the sequal should cover both the eras, maybe from 1400-2000? At least 1492-1914.
--------------------------------------
I definately do not concede to flush out such large timespan as 1400-2000 in one game, if you don't want a Civ-type game. There are no way to portrait the change from pre-capitalistic society to capitalistic society within one gamemechanism. And the military technological evolution is hard to portrait in any coherent fashion using one mechanism. It will not be hard-core, rather a arbitrarily pointsystem as in Civ's. As an historian I have seen the problems that really are in this game presently. That is how to merge the late medival society in 1492 with the dorrstep to industrialization in 1792. It is hard as it is to make it historically believable.

/Greven

 

[unmerged(9)]

I disagree that 'Pax Brittanica' has been done before. Except for Pax Brittanica the boardgame and Colonial Conquest (abstract but very fun).

What else is there that covers this period exactly?

Marcus

 

[unmerged(175)]

actually, the majority of the United State's population is very varied, so in theory, we are own ethnic culture because we have traits from many cultures.

 

[Greyshaft]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak on 06-03-2000 05:25 PM
I think the sequal should cover both the eras, maybe from 1400-2000? At least 1492-1914.

I have to disagree. Much as I'd like to see the expansion of EU, I think the applying the EU game system to the 1800's would have a problem with:

1. almost no lands left to discover.
2. the later stages of the industrial revolution and the changes in economic patterns.
3. napoleonic warfare - introduction of the General Staff by Prussia and the decline in importance of individual generals
4. influence of the American War Between the States on strategy.
5. Railroads - see points 2 and 4

and expanding EU to the 1900's with the introduction of Trench Warfare? Forget it

However EU could move backwards in time to the Roman era.

1. Forget about discovery. Europe/Med is the limit of movement.
2. Trade is less controlled. No creation of Trading posts. You want the trade? Conquer the province and its yours.
3. Artillery is almost unknown. Seige engines exist, but they are not very effective.
4. Land and Naval technology cannot be researched... or maybe only a little bit.
5. More politics. Have you played 'Rise of Rome' by Avalon Hill?
6. Barbarians on the borders invading on alternate years.

But lets see how EU succeeds first.


/Graham

 

[unmerged(175)]

your saying a WW1 game wouldn't be a fun game? But, no one has tried to make one yet so i guess we will have to wait and see.

why not a strategy game based on the begining of power during the greek-city state era, and that ends during the rise of rome , the map would be more detailed on a small area, like basicly Mediteranean Europe, North Africa, Turkey, Middle East, and such.

 

[KaiserIsak]

USA is a european country, thats for sure. Their populution is mainly european, their culture is european. Everything is european. But they still have their own seperated culture inside europe, just like russia, france or spain.

South America is also kinda part of europe, but they have evolved in another way, and i think they are more non-european then USA and Canada.

Anyways: All u americans out there, dont be offended, this is just my simple opinion.

------------------
Kaiser

 

[unmerged(180)]

'America is a European country...' Hmmm. Still have to disagree, though I did say that it was based on European society.

Oh well. Anyway, I think that another good period would be the crusades timeframe. You could have 2 or 3 Muslim factions, 1 Byzantine, and several Christian factions.

Jason

 

[unmerged(175)]

And the pope is hitler's homosexual lover.

America has a high mexican,asian,south american, european, and cuban population..

 

[KaiserIsak]

(=