-
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.
Accuracy of Africa?
Okay, I just was wondering.... how accurate is the current setup of Africa in VIP:R .01?
IRL, was it basically uncolonized land (Africa) or were there many small nations like in VIPR? which has more historical accuracy?
Okay, I just was wondering.... how accurate is the current setup of Africa in VIP:R .01?
IRL, was it basically uncolonized land (Africa) or were there many small nations like in VIPR? which has more historical accuracy?
rcduggan said:
There were many small states, there is some merging of territories into larger cultural groups that were independent, but in that it's not different from how EU2 or EU3 handle the Swahili States or Mutapa, for example.
Was is not correct is that Africa was a stateless tabula rasa where the Europeans simply went in and took over. The European powers had to either negotiate or fight local rulers to establish their control over the various regions of Africa colonized, and having them be active states much more accurately reflects the nature of colonization than simply having some claim building constructed then *poof* the land is yours.
okay... thats. 
just wanted some confirmation before moving forward with modding it.
just wanted some confirmation before moving forward with modding it.
State of Rio de Oro and the provence of Benito?
I came across this issue the other day, but I just saw it again now and figured that I'd bring the issue up here.
Why is the province of Benito in the state of Rio de Oro? Benito is just north of Libreville in central west Africa, while the rest of the state (Rio de Oro, Seguia el Hamra, and Ifni) are in northern west Africa, just south of Madagascar...
I assume that this was done to prevent early claiming of both Benito and the remainder of Rio de Oro. However, there has to be a better way to handle this. In the game which I finished playing yesterday (as Persia), nobody ever claimed the colonies even by 1936! Playing today as the French, I'm going to end up taking the Moroccan claims nearest Morocco, of course, but it just occurred to me that I could easily declare colonial war on Spain at some point (during the Spanish - American war seems like it would be a good opportunity) and grab Benito as well.
Something seems just wrong with this particular setup, but I don't know what the idea behind it is or was. Was this even intentional? And if it is intentional, what exactly is the basis for it?
I came across this issue the other day, but I just saw it again now and figured that I'd bring the issue up here.
Why is the province of Benito in the state of Rio de Oro? Benito is just north of Libreville in central west Africa, while the rest of the state (Rio de Oro, Seguia el Hamra, and Ifni) are in northern west Africa, just south of Madagascar...
I assume that this was done to prevent early claiming of both Benito and the remainder of Rio de Oro. However, there has to be a better way to handle this. In the game which I finished playing yesterday (as Persia), nobody ever claimed the colonies even by 1936! Playing today as the French, I'm going to end up taking the Moroccan claims nearest Morocco, of course, but it just occurred to me that I could easily declare colonial war on Spain at some point (during the Spanish - American war seems like it would be a good opportunity) and grab Benito as well.
Something seems just wrong with this particular setup, but I don't know what the idea behind it is or was. Was this even intentional? And if it is intentional, what exactly is the basis for it?
it is to help promote historical results in colonization in Africa.
The Spanish would get two colonies in Africa in the 19th C - Spanish Guinea (Vicky province Benito) and Spanish Sahara (the Rio De Oro). To help ensure that Spain gets its proper historical claims, the game starts with SPA having a claim building in Benito, and later in game the Moroccan claims by event go to the Spanish.
It is odd geographically, but it helps with preserving the historical environment.
Now if a player of France wants to take it over, go ahead. But in the vast majority of games where France and Spain (and Morocco) will be AI-Controlled, it is the best solution we've found to this point.
The Spanish would get two colonies in Africa in the 19th C - Spanish Guinea (Vicky province Benito) and Spanish Sahara (the Rio De Oro). To help ensure that Spain gets its proper historical claims, the game starts with SPA having a claim building in Benito, and later in game the Moroccan claims by event go to the Spanish.
It is odd geographically, but it helps with preserving the historical environment.
Now if a player of France wants to take it over, go ahead. But in the vast majority of games where France and Spain (and Morocco) will be AI-Controlled, it is the best solution we've found to this point.
Interesting. Something must have gone off the rails in the event chain in my game as Persia that I referred to above then...
anyway, thanks for the reply. This will just be something that I look after for a few games then, is all. What's the actual event where Spain receives the claims from Morocco?
anyway, thanks for the reply. This will just be something that I look after for a few games then, is all. What's the actual event where Spain receives the claims from Morocco?
I'm currently looking at Yoruba in a bit more detail.
From what I'm reading about the Yoruba, it seems that there were (in the Victoria timespan anyway), three main centres of power. One was Ibadan, which more or less inherited the mantle of the Oyo Empire after it collapsed. The other was at Ilorin (for game purposes, probably Benin province), which was a Muslim Emirate. Lastly, Lagos was an independent kingdom.
For that reason, I think it might be an idea to divide Yorubaland in three to represent these city-states and their respective spheres of influence.
From what I'm reading about the Yoruba, it seems that there were (in the Victoria timespan anyway), three main centres of power. One was Ibadan, which more or less inherited the mantle of the Oyo Empire after it collapsed. The other was at Ilorin (for game purposes, probably Benin province), which was a Muslim Emirate. Lastly, Lagos was an independent kingdom.
For that reason, I think it might be an idea to divide Yorubaland in three to represent these city-states and their respective spheres of influence.
Cinéad IV said:
There are simply not enough tags to represent that, so unless Paradox gifts us more user-made tags, I'd really have to say this idea is not really feasible.
I don't know if it's been corrected, but Portugal starts out with Fernado Poo/Bioko (at least in VIP 0.4), which was ceded to Spain in 1778, just to mention.
Divi said:
It's not Fernando Po, its Sao Tome, which is correctly Portuguese.
There is no Fernando Po in Victoria.
Gold Coast
Okay heres the thing. I want to claim the Gold Coast colony but for some reason the button isnt lit up. Does anyone know why
Okay heres the thing. I want to claim the Gold Coast colony but for some reason the button isnt lit up. Does anyone know why
Colonies which even have all provinces with buildings can not be claimed if the nation is still subject to the colony ban for that continent. As most of the colony bans for Africa do not end until 1885, that means you will not be able to claim them fully until after the ban lifts in 1885.
Why did you guys put those bans in there in the first place. Historical reasons or something like that
Taylor567 said:
Yes. Especially pre-Revolutions it was to prevent ahistorical early colonization by non-historical colonizers like USA, Russia etc. Even though Revolutions did change many aspects of colonization, to help maintain the historical environment it was decided to keep the bans in, since the main goal of VIP is to promote an overall historical environment in which the player interacts.
Rhodesia, Kenya and other African Colonies
I noticed that VIP fixed the problem with Australia and New Zealand by having a gradual increase of British. I wonder, could the same be done for other colonies such as Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Kenya etc. Obviously there need not be as many Europeans as in Australia and New Zealand, but these colonies all had sizable European minorities. It would be pretty cool to have the minorities represented.
I noticed that VIP fixed the problem with Australia and New Zealand by having a gradual increase of British. I wonder, could the same be done for other colonies such as Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Kenya etc. Obviously there need not be as many Europeans as in Australia and New Zealand, but these colonies all had sizable European minorities. It would be pretty cool to have the minorities represented.
I'm lobbying for a similar treatment of French Indo-China and the French colonies besides Algeria and Tunisia. I''l tell you whay OHGamer told me; research and find historical data on immigration to Rhodesia, Kenya etc and post it. Got to have historical basis for adding POP's.
Saiyuki02134 said:
exactly, get me numbers and locations
And keep in mind that POPs under 1000 in size (under 250 POPs) will merge with just about any POP group that is the majority. So unless you have 1000 British settlers in a province minimum at the time they are added, the British POPs will simply merge with the local POPs (we had this problem with British POPs in some Maori provinces in New Zealand).