Sub-Saharan techgroup is now only +60%!
- Thread starter rulethechaos
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ok, thats also one solution, though "Muslim techgroup" sounds a bit weird for Christian Nubians and Ethiopians.
.png){kind=avatar}
I'm a little sad that Air is in the Sub-Saharan group but I guess that means it would be more satisfying to Westernize then rise up against Europe.
Ethiopia is going to be great with Muslim tech :O
Unfortunately I will now fall behind my neighbors since they get the Muslim tech bonus from piety sadly. Going to miss my protectorate overlord Mameluke sort of. They were always nice in helping my conquest of the Arab nations as I expand my control
Unfortunately I will now fall behind my neighbors since they get the Muslim tech bonus from piety sadly. Going to miss my protectorate overlord Mameluke sort of. They were always nice in helping my conquest of the Arab nations as I expand my control
Ethipian SHould be Eastern with african Units. Paradox could expand the tech Groups, Like Japanese, West, East and Tribal Africans. That kind of this. Even inside Europe, Like German, French, English...
I mean I know that technically doesn't put them ahead of India tech; however, the likelihood of them bordering a western nation or muslim tech nation is very high and gives them a reduction in cost. This seems a bit unbalanced (to push interest to their new map zone) unless the other regions are adjusted as well.
You are confusing North Africa with SS africa, North Africa was once a fertile farmland, where roman grain imports came from. But it was of punic culture, its people mediterranian, and later berber-arab.
Down the sahara, is where the 'blacks' are from, there is little contact between SS-africa and Europe for majority of history, only when islam spread there was there arab slave raids and occasional hajjs from SS africa to middle east.
By 1444 there is no way the americas is more populated than Europe, hunter-gathers have low population densities, and central america and the incas (the sedantry civilizations) are only small countries by their area of control.
SS-africa, even today, is still dominated by tribalism, the people there lack a understanding of nation-state or respect for institutions, which is why 90% of the countries there are horrible failures compared to the exceptional development made by East Asia (or even less successful SEA and South Asia), to suggest they are in any way remotely close to Europe, and hence capable of rapid science development is insulting, even China with its million strong bureaucracy fell behind, making the tech difference any smaller is trivialising the massive struggles that many countries made for westerization. 60% for West africa is already quite generous and only there because of their muslim contacts.
If the 'lesser' tech groups are getting buffed to have less of a tech penalty, then what's the point of westernizing then? Wouldn't there be an even higher opportunity cost in doing so as opposed to just teching normally? ( Not counting of course the new world tech groups)
What European diseases? I know the problem of colonization very well but I have never ever encountered any descriptions of European diseases destroying Africa (as opposed to poor Americas). Furthermore, it were rather Europeans travelling to Africa - especially in pre - industrial era - who were suffering very much from diseases and climate.
Also, I didn't talk about 19th century Africa so I don't get what is your problem
<by the way, I don't like treating 'European colonisation!' as the way of releasing modern Africans from all responsibility for their continent being absolute pariah of the world today (2% of global economy/industry/trade/science etc with 10% population), colonisation has ended 50 years ago and since this time the quality of life and GDP per capita in Africa has fallen! Why? Because while Europeans were in Africa long enough to destroy old tribal order - and build hella lot of infrastructure, basic industry, hospital, schools etc - they were not long enough to reshape African societies (although they didn't aim at this at all). What I am trying to say, suddenly in 60s Africa was thrown into the modern world, in the middle of Cold War, perfectly equipped with weapons of mass extermination but with mentality of old patrilinear tribes and almost without intellectual elite/middle class. Well, here we can see the results.
On the other hand: Taiwan, Korea, China, Malaysia and Thailand had all lower standards of living than Africa in 60s and even worse colonial/war experiences (except Thailand) and what now? >
I hate when there is a discussion obviously about SUB SAHARAN BLACK AFRICA and everyone on the word 'Africa' instantly starts spamming Ancient Egypt, Carthago, Maghreb etc as the way of showing 'hey black Africans were so advanced
This is like discussing about European countries to someone suddenly adding Mongols to the discussion because hey technically this is also EURASIAN LANDMASS!Honestly, in my opinion - and in the opinion/mentality of many North Africans from what have I read - North Africa is so extremely different from Subsaharan Africa in terms of culture, history, geography and ethnicity that it could be simply named other continent in the same way Europe is distincted from Asia despite being - again - technically the same landmass.
Returning to the thread: SUBSAHARAN Africa was always in the history less populated and poorer than Europe. 100 years ago Africa - continent few times bigger than Europe - had 4x less people. Estimates say Egypt had like 25 - 35% of entire African population in ancient times; other calculations show that Europe has been relatively densely populated and rich - with those numbers better than numbers for SS Africa/Americas even in pre - Roman times.
Sorry but this is just nonsense. Europe in 1500s had approximately 70 - 90 millions of people, Africa had 2 times less, while the entire indigenous population of Americas was less than 30 millions (estimates vary from 10 to 30 millions) with Mexico and Peru having huge majority of these. USA indigenous population in 1500 is never estimated on more than 5 million people and I have met with estimations pointing at as low as 2 millions of inhabitants,.
Furthermore, saying 'Americas are more populated now' is in this context absurd because
1) Americas are 4x times bigger than Europe and yet they have over 900 millions of people while Europe has ~750 millions, thus they have much, much worse density
2) Current high density in many areas was possible with industrialized colonization and just few centuries ago the same areas had very low density - vide Western US or Rio de Janeiro
3) I seriously can't understand how you can overlook the fact that majority of current population of Americas is OF EUROPEAN ORIGIN?
Out of those ~950 millions you know how many are pure blood Indians? 60 millions. With like ~200 millions of various mixed ethnicities and huge numbers of African Americans.Nope. Europe has been relatively primitive when compared to civilisations of Asia in ancient era, many of these Asian civilisations in the medieval and that's all; and always, literally always, even before birth of Christ, all estimates show economical and demographical advantages of Europe over Africa/Americas (high population density, quick spreading of technology). There were areas - such as Mexico or Peru - where technology was similar to European in some periods (usually very old, vide Olmec temples in ancient times) but it is brutal truth that Europe - even tribal pre Roman Europe! - along with Middle East, Egypt, Southern and Eastern Asia has been completely dominating the entire economical history of manking, with GDP at 80 - 90% level. Europe had estimated 5% of global GDP even before Roman Empire with lower estimates for - much bigger - Americas and Africa.
You can ask about verifying this data, of course these are all estimates but they aren't taken from thin air, and you don't have any better data supporting thesis of 'poor Europe'
Aztec Empire achieved high and impressive level in particular fields, while other were hopelessly backwards when compared with Europe - vide metallurgy, naval technology (duh), chemistry etc.
Ask yourself - if Aztecs were so advanced, why didn't they were first to start exploration or discover gunpowder on their own? Right, they had bad luck - for example with resources required for European - level weaponry - but this geographical/cultural bad luck is also part of EU4's penalties for ROTW technological groups, as well as part of the fall of Aztec empire.
There were amazing civilisations in Americas and Africa (Cahokia is my favourite) but let's be honest, they didn't dominate the world or managed to fight Europeans. Is this mainly result of bad luck with geography/climate/history? Yes. But history isn't fair and this is also part of their 'technological penalty'.
Furthermore, try to name 5 Subsaharan Pre - Colonial African Inventions which revolutionized the world. I mean, universal inventions not 'better method of building mud houses by Bantu tribes in Malawi' because these were one of the desperate examples I have found in my long and futile search.
Go on, you have so rich continent bigger than Europe and with - according to you - bigger intellectual traditions in some periods. Remember, Semitic Ancient Egypt nor Arabian - created imported Islam Civilisation don't count. Name great invention or great scientist from such big continent.
Do I believe Africans/Native Americans are 'worse'? Of course not and I love learning about their cultures and civilisations. However I highly value historical facts and quantitative data and I don't like wild assumptions that 'Africa never had civilisations' or opposite 'it had so awesome science that Medieval Cathedrals are nothing when compared with it'.
The truth is in the middle: Native America and Subsaharan (!) Africa were generally always less advanced than Europe, from prehistorical times, due to geographical/climatical/countless other reasons (I strongly recommend the book GUNS GERMS AND STEEL about this subject) - but on the other hand they weren't as primitive as popculture likes to show. Especially North American Indians are underrated.
To sum up, I think previous tech penalties for these nations were too high but removing them completely is a historical lie.
Last edited:
I believe that the technology will get a complete overhaul in future patch. Current adjustments are good, but only temporary measures that do not solve the key issue of the arbitrary definition of tech speed based on superficial difference of region/history (in some ways) rather than those key difference of social-political environments/ policies.
Well written Krajzen, I second the recommendation of Guns Germs and Steel as it is a good read and quite simply lays out a good clear argument to the BS that most of this thread is spewing forth.
Tech penalties are a way for a GAME to simulate the very clear and well documented differences of technological advancement of different people around the world. Is it the best way to do it? Maybe, maybe not but it's what we have. Mankind did not develop at the same rate in different parts of the world. We developed at different rates. Saying otherwise is utter nonsense to put it politely. Anyone that thinks otherwise is highly distorting facts and romanticizing the past to the utmost level.
Tech penalties are a way for a GAME to simulate the very clear and well documented differences of technological advancement of different people around the world. Is it the best way to do it? Maybe, maybe not but it's what we have. Mankind did not develop at the same rate in different parts of the world. We developed at different rates. Saying otherwise is utter nonsense to put it politely. Anyone that thinks otherwise is highly distorting facts and romanticizing the past to the utmost level.
Oh boy. First, unless Paradox is willing to completely redo technology and westernization, most of the world besides Europe having lower tech is a necessary evil if we want any degree of historical accuracy (although the Muslim world, hordes, and China and Japan should be significantly buffed). That said...
1. The Americas were waaaay more populated than most people believe. There's quite a bit of debate on the subject, but even conservative opinions place them well above the common conception of the Americas (especially the north) as being mostly empty, while a significant portion of anthropologists and the like do believe that the Americas were more populated than Europe. The reason our mental image of the subject is so off is that numerous pandemics annihilated a stupefying portion of the population even before the Mayflower arrived. Instead of bustling civilizations, they found literal human bone yards, and they built their settlements on the ruins of old Indian ones For more information on the subject, there's an excellent article from The Atlantic here. Not that I really expect anyone to actually read up on the subject.
2. Neither northern nor southern indigenous people were strictly nomadic. The Aztec and Inca are obvious examples of advanced civilizations, but there are also many other groups that lived in North America that we no longer know much about. Early explorers of what later became the Louisiana Purchase actually found numerous advanced stone structures and ruins, but they attributed them to "Welsh Indians," because racism made Celtic people in the Americas seem like a more sensible explanation than those silly Injuns actually having technology.
3. Africa is frigging huge, and you can't really make a generalization about it always being inferior to Europe. Even excluding North Africa, present-day Somalia once had an advanced civilization comparable to Ancient Egypt that we're only just beginning to understand, while more recently you have kingdoms like the Ashanti that quickly adapted European firearms and built a vast empire. Were they ultimately conquered by the Europeans? Obviously, but writing them off when people in the West generally don't know a damn thing about the area besides what's shown in racist cartoons is just silly. And as for Africa's present instability, that probably has less to do with the nonsensical idea that they have an inferior culture and lot more to do with that one time when Europe stole everyone's crap, divided the continent into nonsensical and conflict-prone states with no respect to history or culture, and then promoted a bunch of corrupt warlords in the area.
4. EU4 is an imperfect representation of the world that fails particularly hard when it comes to technology and colonization. Consequently, no minor change is going to make the game perfectly accurate, and since a major overhaul is unlikely, it might be better to just look forward to the new features in AoW and hope for more in the next expansion.
1. The Americas were waaaay more populated than most people believe. There's quite a bit of debate on the subject, but even conservative opinions place them well above the common conception of the Americas (especially the north) as being mostly empty, while a significant portion of anthropologists and the like do believe that the Americas were more populated than Europe. The reason our mental image of the subject is so off is that numerous pandemics annihilated a stupefying portion of the population even before the Mayflower arrived. Instead of bustling civilizations, they found literal human bone yards, and they built their settlements on the ruins of old Indian ones For more information on the subject, there's an excellent article from The Atlantic here. Not that I really expect anyone to actually read up on the subject.
2. Neither northern nor southern indigenous people were strictly nomadic. The Aztec and Inca are obvious examples of advanced civilizations, but there are also many other groups that lived in North America that we no longer know much about. Early explorers of what later became the Louisiana Purchase actually found numerous advanced stone structures and ruins, but they attributed them to "Welsh Indians," because racism made Celtic people in the Americas seem like a more sensible explanation than those silly Injuns actually having technology.
3. Africa is frigging huge, and you can't really make a generalization about it always being inferior to Europe. Even excluding North Africa, present-day Somalia once had an advanced civilization comparable to Ancient Egypt that we're only just beginning to understand, while more recently you have kingdoms like the Ashanti that quickly adapted European firearms and built a vast empire. Were they ultimately conquered by the Europeans? Obviously, but writing them off when people in the West generally don't know a damn thing about the area besides what's shown in racist cartoons is just silly. And as for Africa's present instability, that probably has less to do with the nonsensical idea that they have an inferior culture and lot more to do with that one time when Europe stole everyone's crap, divided the continent into nonsensical and conflict-prone states with no respect to history or culture, and then promoted a bunch of corrupt warlords in the area.
4. EU4 is an imperfect representation of the world that fails particularly hard when it comes to technology and colonization. Consequently, no minor change is going to make the game perfectly accurate, and since a major overhaul is unlikely, it might be better to just look forward to the new features in AoW and hope for more in the next expansion.
Last edited:
There were always trade contacts.
The Inca Empire was as large as the Roman Empire at its fullest extent.
Please stop posting horrible colonialist stereotypes as if they're facts.
Guns, Germs and Steel is not a scientific textbook, and it is decidedly not accepted as gospel by the people who actually study these sorts of things for a living. That isn't to say it's worthless, but unless you know of the many, many critiques levelled at it by scientific experts on the subject, it is extremely misleading to call it any sort of last word.