The US colonizing Africa

[unmerged(21828)]

I have heard mention of how the US AI colonizes Africa, even though it would have never happened.
To balance this, I propose any US colony become confederate on the outbreak of the civil war. It would only seem practical that Americans living in Africa at the time would have depended on the slave trade and therefore would have joined the CSA to support protect their way of live.
Just a suggestion, one which could perhaps be included in the next patch.

 

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The Slade trade was outlawed by the Constitution during this time period, and there is no way that it would ever been repealed during this time period.

In addition, when you have a history based game its only natural that things that are "uinhistorical" will occur. Its just part of the genre, deal with it.

 

[shimgray]

Pedantically, I don't think the Constitution per se outlawed the slave trade...

That said, there was some US support for "back to Africa" movements - the gist of these arguments being that slavery was wrong, but that blacks & whites could not happily co-exist in the same country and, as such, they should be freed and sent "home". This was a little less popular amongst those who'd actually have to go and live in West Africa, needless to say <g> (In situations like Victoria, Liberia is often abstracted as a US colony)

US colonialism did exist, to a degree - Hawaii was essentially "grabbed" by Americans and then acquired by the US - although it tended to take somewhat different forms from European colonialism due to the very different US dynamics (ie, a vast open frontier). I don't see it as implausible that the US would end up with African colonies if some historical details went another way, although an administration explicitly setting out to do so would be unlikely.

 

[McNaughton]

The US would primarily focus on the Carribean and Pacific before going to Africa, however, if these areas are secured, they would have more of a desire to go to Africa. However, beforehand there would be little incentive/resources to expend in Africa (since they are still taming their own West during this time as well).

 

[Demetrios]

Originally posted by shimgray
Pedantically, I don't think the Constitution per se outlawed the slave trade...

Article One, Section Nine:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" (read "slaves") "shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundered and eight;"

So technically, no the Constitution didn't ban it, but Congress immediately did as soon as the Constitutionally imposed limit expired.

 

[unmerged(21828)]

I admit, I dont know much of the US constitution. But I brought up the suggestion as a way to remove the desire for US colonization in Africa. Such colonies would become confederate, giving the US player less insentive to actually colonize Africa.

I have heard of such "back to Africa" movements in regard to Liberia, but I just think it would be foolish to allow the African coast to become dominated under the blue American color in the political map.

BTW America, the territory of Easton should be our damnit!! LOL
just kiddin'

 

[unmerged(16843)]

Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
The Slade trade was outlawed by the Constitution during this time period, and there is no way that it would ever been repealed during this time period.

So, we can't trade albums from that Scottish group Slade? I guess we'll have to see chameleon, lying there in the sun, all things for everyone, run-run away by ourselves.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by BlkbrryTheGreat
The Slade trade was outlawed by the Constitution during this time period, and there is no way that it would ever been repealed during this time period.

In addition, when you have a history based game its only natural that things that are "uinhistorical" will occur. Its just part of the genre, deal with it.

SO if the game had Wallachia conquering India all the time that would be perfectly fine as well? Or if Mysore lands in London and conquers Europe by 1841? Or if Mexico Annexes the United States? Ethiopia beating Itary? Oh wait that last one really happened .

Anyway if dumb crap happens we are going to complain. The United States not caring about colonizing Oregon or California and grabbing Africa is simply stupid. If I wanted a stupid game I would make it myself and not shell out $50 to some pros to make it .

 

[SpaceCowboy]

Makes since that the African colonies would be CSA (read: slave-holding) though.

After all, they wouldn't have needed the slave trade to get slaves there.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by SpaceCowboy
Makes since that the African colonies would be CSA (read: slave-holding) though.

After all, they wouldn't have needed the slave trade to get slaves there.

Lets consider the obvious here. They US has not even freaking bothered colonzing their own historical territory yet by the Civil War...why in the world would they bother with Africa? Does this game assume the American people are a bunch of idiots? I can just see it now: "Hey that great plains and California is OK...but where we REALLY want to go is in the middle of the Sahara! Get the wagon ready!" Utter crap . Can we say MOD?

 

[unmerged(18027)]

I think there is a bit of overreaction. The infamous SS where the US had 60% of Africa was from the 1881 scenario. Thus its hard to acuse the US AI of ignoring colonization of the west, because it starts with the West basically fully colonized (census declares frontier settled in 1890). Obviously the US AI should know to colonize its own frontier first. After that, if it helps the AI to go for Africa over Latin America in terms of game balance I won't really mind.

 

[OriginalRafiki]

Originally posted by John Poole
Anyway if dumb crap happens we are going to complain. The United States not caring about colonizing Oregon or California and grabbing Africa is simply stupid. If I wanted a stupid game I would make it myself and not shell out $50 to some pros to make it .

FYI, California and Oregon start the 1836 GC respectively as Mexican provinces and as already colonized by the US and UK, as does the rest of the West. Either under someone's control or colonized by the US, by the UK, by Mexico or by Texas. Only area left to colonize are a couple of provinces in Alaska.

Rafiki

 

[unmerged(14235)]

Am I the only person getting sick of people asking why the US is colonizing this or colonizing that?!

Johan or Patric, I forget, already addresed this issue indirectly. They did not want to hamper the AI in any way that would make the game easier for players, or limit the AI in any way that the player themselves would exploit.

I can see it now, Paradox "patches" the game so the US never colonizes Africa or any other place in the world other than North America. . . other countries colonize only their "sphere of influence". . . the player gets most of Africa. . . players SHOUT, the game is TOO EASY!

lol

j/k

 

[John Poole]

THis screenshot + this quote:

Now after heavy industrialisation I wanted to get some colonies going around the 50's, the traditional japanese waters sounded like a good idea! But horror of horrors! The US had colonised just about everything in the pacific! Nothing left for the imperialist Japanese. Well, couldn't be helped. I decided to pounce of my friendly Korean neighbours instead.

From this thread. The Screenshot is from this thread. Make me nervous, so I am commenting on it. I love paradox but they dont always make the right design decisions...like putting the fantasy Kaliphate in EU2, which is why its great their games are so mod-able.

It appears in that screenshot the US didn't even make a real attempt to fully colonize the west...and combined that with rampant land grabs in the Pacific by the 1850s seems to indicate their colonization priorities are way out of wack.

I mean Cal-Berkley was going to win the National Collegiate Football Championship in 1920 and now they can't

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by arnoldyim
Am I the only person getting sick of people asking why the US is colonizing this or colonizing that?!

Johan or Patric, I forget, already addresed this issue indirectly. They did not want to hamper the AI in any way that would make the game easier for players, or limit the AI in any way that the player themselves would exploit.

I can see it now, Paradox "patches" the game so the US never colonizes Africa or any other place in the world other than North America. . . other countries colonize only their "sphere of influence". . . the player gets most of Africa. . . players SHOUT, the game is TOO EASY!

lol

j/k

Oh geez. Sorry...but the US should still be an awesome force just by taking the continental United States...which in at least one game they didn't even bother fully colonizing the empty provinces to the west of them...much less beating up Mexico. If the game is balanced so the United States needs to grab provinces of Africa then something is wrong with the game balance. THere should be plenty of actual colonial powers to make the race for Africa enjoyable without throwing in a bunch of countries who have no interest in wasting resources on Africa.

 

[unmerged(14235)]

The way I see it (and I can be wrong), there are 3 main views:

1. It is a game based on a map of 1836. What happens after that is a game and can be unhistorical. In essence, this makes the game more fun, since no 2 games are alike.

2. It is a game set in a historical setting. All countries have certain predispositions torwards a form of govt., research priorities, colonization priorities, etc. What happens afterwards should be guided by these guidelines, but leaves room for variability.

3. It is a historical game, and while minor variabilities should exist, China should never be able to defeat Britain, WWI should always happen, etc.


I guess most people are #2, but feel the colonization guidelines got out of wack.

However, for me, while I am #2, I do not feel countries should be limited, unless the player is limited too. If the computer US can not colonize Africa, since it was never a priority, then a player US should not be allowed either. However, since this is a game about flexibility, as in determining the course of your country, and determining whether you want to play it historical or not, I do not think the player should be limited. . . hence, the AI should not either. Otherwise, I feel that it handicaps the AI at the expense of a player's challenge. . .

But that's just me. . .

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by arnoldyim
The way I see it (and I can be wrong), there are 3 main views:

1. It is a game based on a map of 1836. What happens after that is a game and can be unhistorical. In essence, this makes the game more fun, since no 2 games are alike.

2. It is a game set in a historical setting. All countries have certain predispositions torwards a form of govt., research priorities, colonization priorities, etc. What happens afterwards should be guided by these guidelines, but leaves room for variability.

3. It is a historical game, and while minor variabilities should exist, China should never be able to defeat Britain, WWI should always happen, etc.


I guess most people are #2, but feel the colonization guidelines got out of wack.

However, for me, while I am #2, I do not feel countries should be limited, unless the player is limited too. If the computer US can not colonize Africa, since it was never a priority, then a player US should not be allowed either. However, since this is a game about flexibility, as in determining the course of your country, and determining whether you want to play it historical or not, I do not think the player should be limited. . . hence, the AI should not either. Otherwise, I feel that it handicaps the AI at the expense of a player's challenge. . .

But that's just me. . .

Yes indeed...but isn't it better for the US to fully colonize the west first? I mean if I was playing the US I certainly wouldn't give a flying *&^ about Africa if I didn't have California and New Mexico et al from Mexico. It looks to me that the AI is acting in a fashion that is stupid, not exploring alternate options. As France or Britain I will kick the crap out of the USA any day of the week if they dont colonize half of their territory!

I mean in EU2 I suppose as the Ottoman Empire you could ignore Thrace and concentrate on rushing for Timbuctou but that would be idiotic. Sort of the what I think about this.

The AI should have some sense about what is important and what is not and Africa should be WAY down the priority list for countries like the USA with lots of territory ripe for the taking at its front door!

Again to draw a parallel it would be as if Britain suddenly built hundreds of infantry divisions and ignored the navy. While I certainly dont want a rule that says Britain CANT build lots of infantry divisions...doing so will seriously undermine that country's potential.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by John Poole
[BIt appears in that screenshot the US didn't even make a real attempt to fully colonize the west...and combined that with rampant land grabs in the Pacific by the 1850s seems to indicate their colonization priorities are way out of wack.[/B]

At the start of the Grand Campaign, every province in the American West already has a colonial building in them - it is just that some of them are British (to simulate the dual claims to the Oregon Territory). There are a set of events for the Oregon Treaty that should occur in the 1840s (provided that the US & the UK are not hostile) that sort out the colonial building situation in the West (i.e. all UK buildings south of the 49th parallel are seceded to the US, & all US buildings north of the 49th parallel are seceded to the UK). Did these events not occur? If they didn't, that might explain the situation in the American West.

 

[Dinsdale]

I think that anything should be able to happen, within reason. If the US colonizes strangely in some games fine, but if the game devolves into fantasy every game then something is wrong.

The other part of this is; where are Britain, Germany and France? Why no colonization from them?

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
There are a set of events for the Oregon Treaty that should occur in the 1840s (provided that the US & the UK are not hostile) that sort out the colonial building situation in the West (i.e. all UK buildings south of the 49th parallel are seceded to the US, & all US buildings north of the 49th parallel are seceded to the UK). Did these events not occur? If they didn't, that might explain the situation in the American West.

In that game the player was playing Texas...he just waited until after the turn of the century to finally attack Mexico and took all that realestate which the US had make no effort to take. It also doesn't explain the fact that Oklahoma, Colorado, Idaho, et al are not yet fully colonized and States by this point...which even if you dont get Oregon would surely have been if the US AI was even half-way competent.