The US colonizing Africa

[unmerged(3999)]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Is it possible to have explorers + tech that doesnt allow the exploration of inner africa until a certain time period/event AND the coding of France/UK to colonize their historical colonies ?

From what I've heard, it seems like tweaking the Quinine invention would do the trick nicely - it seems to increase the life ratings of tropical areas. Maybe lowering those ratings drastically to start, so you need quinine to colonize them?

As for AI preferences - Sheridan, it has been said that the US AI does not have Africa in its preference list, it's going there because it's (apparently) more valuable than western North America. Which begs the question, if Africa is so valuable, why aren't the British/French/Belgians going after it too...

 

[Akmatov]

My 2 cents

As best as I hazily recollect, central africa was impossible for Europeans and Americans to colonize because of disease until the latish 19th century. Death rates among explorers ect were well over 50%, which kind of discouraged colonization.

Which suggests neither the European or the Americans should be colonizing Africa so early.

 

[unmerged(18282)]

Originally posted by Theodotus1
You should study more history.

I live in the Pacific North West, and have visited the sites of British colonial occupation in what is now the State of Washington. In actuality, Britian played quite freely in what you call the U.S. backyard, right up until the point at which the two countries sorted out the situation in order to avoid war. This event is in the game. Realize, however, that nothing required the actual result in which war was avoided and the U.S. got the territories south of what is now Canada. Some other course of events could easily have taken place. (In point of fact, from what I've learned at historical sites here, war was expected. And the U.S. might well have lost. Which would have meant Washington would be part of B.C. now.)

It wasn't just a question of America's will to conquer the west. Actual events also depended on the actions of other countries.

You're missing my point:
Yes, war was expected (54'40' or Fight being the battle cry), however, Americans would not have gone off on some colonial adventure when
1. There was a continent left to "fill"
2. They could dominate Latin America much more economically.
There simply was no desire to go subjugate some African jungle when the Americas were right there. The US took the Philippines in the Spanish American war because at that point the US was the premier North American power and the British and they were partners in the exploitation of South America.
Even then, there was massive opposition to American colonialism, with such public figures as Mark Twain strongly opposing it.

Bottom line, yes, global imperialism could have happened, and did, but only after all the other lines of expansion had been taken and the US was strong enough to deal with Britain as a roughly equal partner.

 

[unmerged(1179)]

There WAS an African American colony; other comments re: U.S. destiny

Well - just to throw this in - the U.S. actually did have something of an African colony, Liberia. Although it wasn't an official colony, it was a group of Americans who created a country in Africa that has remained - to this day - closely affiliated with its mother country. True, these Americans were of African descent, but the vast majority of their ancestors had been in North America for more than 3 generations. So the possibility of other African colonies is not that remote, especially if that ridiculous notion of "African colonization" (where the African-American population was removed "back" to Africa) ever got more off the ground.

As for the Pacific, as early as the 1810s the U.S. was trading heavily in the major ports of the Pacific, and a fair number of Americans were settling in places like Hawaii, where, as early as the 1820s, they would soon be a major cultural factor. Now, whether the U.S. would have made these places outright colonies before they actually did is debatable, but it is plausible that de-facto colonies would have existed then.

Finally, for most Americans (and here I mean "citizens of the United States," rather than those "other" Americans, the citizens of Mexico or Canada), the idea that the West (i.e., Mexican North America) "belonged" to them through "Manifest Destiny" was one that only really existed after the mid-1840s, and even then only among a minority of people. For most Americans, the lands of California or New Mexico were exotic, far-away places: after all, they didn't even speak English there! It was only when large numbers of U.S. citizens flooded into California during the Gold Rush that California came to be seen to be as much an "American" place as "Mexican." Despite that, though, (as was noted in an earlier post), there was a vocal antiwar movement that argued that the U.S.'s seizure of half of Mexico during Mr. Polk's War was illegal and immoral. Many in the antislavery movement saw that seizure as merely a grab for more territory for slavery (which subsequent events may have proved true).

Finally, Mexico was undergoing some deep structural problems in 1836 (relating mainly to political stability; Santa Anna himself was certainly a significant factor) that continued through to the end of the Mexican-American War. If these factors had been a bit different - Mexico was, and remains, a potentially rich country - then the Mexicans could have won the 1836 war against Texas or, later, the United States. It's mere arrogance to assume that either of those outcomes were destined to be.

So - in fact, although the "60% of Africa" eventuality is an extremely unlikely (historically speaking) event, some sort of colonization of Africa is possible. Likewise, some sort of Pacific colony. Likewise, no U.S. conquest of the American West. None of these things are written in stone, and I have to respect any game that allows them to happen. (Within reason, of course