Wasteland, Eurocentrism, and a petition for an expansion focusing on Africa

[Jomini]

First and foremost, the rivers all suck at transport. Due to the terrain you have steep drops which make for impossible waterfalls and rapids. Even in the early Victorian era, movement was extremely limited.

But what about walking? Well this area combines several of the hardest features to transit:
1. Elevation change. Yes you can get over elevation in the Alps or the Himalayas ... but those have a history of well made roads dating back to Roman times (or earlier). The Andes, which historically were crossed by small armies also had Incan & later Spanish roads. There is nothing comparable in this area. Worse, building them, given the equatorial location and climate is going to be much harder.
2. Poor crops. The main traditional crop in the area is sorghum. Crop density is low or absent in the barrier areas and terrible at calorie density. Worse because sorghum is gluten free, it bakes poorly. Carrying enough sorghum just isn't feasible.
3. Irregular ground. Unlike the Sahara, getting out of the Great Lakes region is not a mostly level walk, you have routine scrambling that to this day makes road connections difficult to maintain. The calorie burden for crossing this type of land on foot is quite high.
4. Climate. The highlands (where the people are) are quite nice and hospitable. The surrounding lowlands have an average temperature higher than body temp. This increases the water burden and the calorie burden. This also means that an army on the march needs more water.
5. Water. Due to the geology of the area, a lot of the water in between is alkali. Some of this is straight up non-potable, but even more it has a nasty habit of inhibiting digestion (deactivating some digestive enzymes, increasing stomach acid production, etc.).
6. Animals. Such draft animals as were there during the era were well adapted to the highlands and terrible crossing the waste. Part of this was disease based, but even things like coat density work against armies.

Historically, exactly one full invasion occurred across the Sahara. It was, frankly, an astonishing feat of logistics done by the Moroccans on level ground with limited water needs. Pretty much only a fully mounted force with no artillery should be able to manage that crossing in this era. This is the westernmost corridor through the Sahara and the only one present when EUIV was released. The other routes were added due to fan demands and are based on very low density/high value trade routes.

Unlike all the trans-Saharan routes, getting into the Great Lakes region is not made easier by using camels or horses. The water requirements are steep (even with camels) and the terrain is much more likely to break legs; few of the period breeds have the endurance for the trip (lots of altitude change on rough terrain); those that have the endurance typically lacked the water/food efficiency. All of them would have had significant trouble in the alkali waters.

There are a very small number of invasion routes in this era that were fully land based, every where else you need to look to the river networks and this part of Africa is terrible for riverine transport to or from the coasts (much worse than the Congo).

 

[mcmanusaur]

One of the things to consider in Africa is could African armies transit the areas in question. In all of recorded Kongolese history, no army ever invaded the place from the Great Lakes region. Likewise, the history of the Great Lake Regions have zero mention of organized armies invading from the coast or Kongo.

Rarely, you had groups of people migrating into the Great Lakes regions, but never at the head of organized armies. Up until the 19th century, it just wasn't feasible for large scale armies to transit from Kongo to East Africa.

I will just point out that whether African empires did move armies through these areas and whether they could have moved armies through these areas are different questions. The latter is not a cut and dry matter, and removing the wasteland from these regions would hardly create outcomes that are more counterfactual than those currently possible in EU4. In addition, we already have mechanics like attrition that should represent these forces. Even if they do an inadequate job of that in their current manifestation, that's not in my mind an excuse to neglect whole regions where many people lived historically.

 

[Itchel]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emin_Pasha_Relief_Expedition

Given the hellish time Stanley had at the end of the 19th Century, imagine how bad it would have been centuries earlier.

That whole area between the Great Lakes and Kongo is more or less filled with nearly impenetrable jungle. If you want a cross-Africa corridor, it would be much more reasonable to have one a bit further south, from Zambia to Angola. That's still pretty rough terrain, but at least moving armies through there during the time period could potentially have been feasable (although still unlikely).

just as it is in the kongo,ethiopia and western africa though, right?

 

[Greyhound_Gen.]

Perhaps giving the inland routes extra long travel times and hellish attrition values? Is it possible to make the troops of certain nations immune to particular attrition modifiers? If so maybe adding a 'Malaria' modifier in these provinces that only the African nations are (partially?) resistant to?

 

[Lemont Elwood]

What it all comes down to is that Europe needs to be kept out of Africa and Africa needs to be enjoyable to play.

 

[Xeorm]

Perhaps giving the inland routes extra long travel times and hellish attrition values? Is it possible to make the troops of certain nations immune to particular attrition modifiers? If so maybe adding a 'Malaria' modifier in these provinces that only the African nations are (partially?) resistant to?

Marking an area as wasteland in EU4 terms means that the area has a 100% attrition rate. Any men from an army that might survive the trip (and there's no guarantees there would be such people) would no longer constitute an army. People can live in these areas, and usually did. Armies require a larger number of people to support, and some areas just can't do that.

 

[Jomini]

I will just point out that whether African empires did move armies through these areas and whether they could have moved armies through these areas are different questions. The latter is not a cut and dry matter, and removing the wasteland from these regions would hardly create outcomes that are more counterfactual than those currently possible in EU4. In addition, we already have mechanics like attrition that should represent these forces. Even if they do an inadequate job of that in their current manifestation, that's not in my mind an excuse to neglect whole regions where many people lived historically.

Seriously? At what point do we actually have history come into play here? We know that historically the Rwandan kingdom had extreme difficulty even making it through Kivu, making it to the Congo basin is going to be even harder. We can also follow the conflict routes and while it has been a long time since I read anything about the old logistics in the area, what I know from Kagame's campaign during the genocide suggest that, yes Rwanda at least would not be able to manage to maintain an army to get to Kongo or the coastal states.

Just because other ahistorical nonsense has made it into the game, there is no reason we should continue in that direction. I don't want EUIV to drift into some silliness where it is just a giant blob of statelets everywhere with none of the historical strategic concerns in play. Part of what I like in half my games is having historical threats and outcomes. What's next, opening up Antartica to settlement? Or maybe maybe having an Atlantis setup?


In any event, this is not simply "high attrition". We aren't talking about an army marching and losing half its manpower, that was the Russians crossing the Alps. This would be far worse, an army making this transit would cease to be. Raising transit times and making it an attrition blackhole is a giant nerf to the African AIs, which are not exactly in need of nerfing at the moment.

At some point history has to mean something to EUIV. Okay you want more states for reasons. I get West Africa and a number of RotW starts are boring, but that is not the fault of there being an insufficient number of states, it is the fault of the monarch point system where getting to Techs 5 and 7 make the early game endlessly boring as you wait for a crappy tech group nation to hit some magic value that lets you go find the Europeans or actually give your nation some character and unique abilities.

 

[Demetrios]

just as it is in the kongo,ethiopia and western africa though, right?

Those massive, impenetrable jungles of Ethiopia and Mali are totally impassible...

The only area in West Africa as impassible as the jungles of the Congo Basin is already a wasteland. And as for Kongo, it's a coastal state, and while it does have its fair share of jungles, didn't become basically impassible until its eastern border... which, conveniently, is right where the wasteland begins.

Again, there's an arguable case to for a trans-African corridor in the Angola-Katanga-Zambia region. But the Congo basin should, like its Amazonian counterpart, remain virtually all wasteland.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Seriously? At what point do we actually have history come into play here?

At some point history has to mean something to EUIV.

In any event, this is not simply "high attrition". We aren't talking about an army marching and losing half its manpower, that was the Russians crossing the Alps. This would be far worse, an army making this transit would cease to be.

My point is that we have to be tentative with our historical interpolation. It's quite easy for us to overestimate our knowledge and certainty re: this period and place. The apparent reality that no organized army tried to travel through these regions does perhaps suggest a certain amount of futility to that endeavor (or alternatively that they simply had no pragmatic reason to do so, as TheMeInTeam wisely suggested), but that is not the equivalent of proof that it could not possibly have happened, logically speaking.

The unfortunate reality is that history is still marred by justifications for European imperialism to some extent, and therefore we have to be somewhat skeptical that the inhospitability of Africa has been inflated. That's not easy to accomplish, because the sad truth is that we don't have too much else in the way of records pertaining to these regions, but for these reasons I'm actually more open to the idea of taking some creative liberties in this particular case.

Just because other ahistorical nonsense has made it into the game, there is no reason we should continue in that direction.

I get West Africa and a number of RotW starts are boring, but that is not the fault of there being an insufficient number of states, it is the fault of the monarch point system where getting to Techs 5 and 7 make the early game endlessly boring as you wait for a crappy tech group nation to hit some magic value that lets you go find the Europeans or actually give your nation some character and unique abilities.

Ahistorical mechanics are ahistorical mechanics. That really has nothing to do with whether a particular region should receive a relatively neglectful treatment. If your mechanics stand in the way of basic consistency, then the solution is to fix the mechanics, not to become complacent with an inconsistent setup. In my previous posts I've explored how these regions could be opened up with minimal changes to the game's mechanics, while still maintaining EU4's general concern with historical outcomes.

What's next, opening up Antartica to settlement? Or maybe maybe having an Atlantis setup?

That's fairly disingenuous. Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Rusky]

The whole supply system needs reworking. Such things as crossing the Sahara should be possible with a good military and administrative ruler and advisers. Difficult crossings, Invasions, and supply limits should be based on a nations Admin and Mil capability, with the toughest terrains and crossings being possible only by the best leaders with the best advisers with generals that have high maneuver pips.

 

[tuareg109]

At some point history has to mean something to EUIV.

Take it up with Wiz. Oh no wait, he'll just make fun of you for not wanting to play a fantasy game.

 

[Xeorm]

My point is that we have to be tentative with our historical interpolation. It's quite easy for us to overestimate our knowledge and certainty re: this period and place. The apparent reality that no organized army tried to travel through these regions does perhaps suggest a certain amount of futility to that endeavor (or alternatively that they simply had no pragmatic reason to do so, as TheMeInTeam wisely suggested), but that is not the equivalent of proof that it could not possibly have happened, logically speaking.

The unfortunate reality is that history is still marred by justifications for European imperialism to some extent, and therefore we have to be somewhat skeptical that the inhospitability of Africa has been inflated. That's not easy to accomplish, because the sad truth is that we don't have too much else in the way of records pertaining to these regions, but for these reasons I'm actually more open to the idea of taking some creative liberties in this particular case.

Jomini already related information of the area that we can check currently. The geography of the place hasn't changed all that much in the last 400 years, nor would the other factors. There's no reason to require we be skeptical of the exact details.

I'd think it better to say that given the information that we know, more proof should be given beyond saying that "maybe, everything we know about this area is wrong and we really could send armies this way".

The whole supply system needs reworking. Such things as crossing the Sahara should be possible with a good military and administrative ruler and advisers. Difficult crossings, Invasions, and supply limits should be based on a nations Admin and Mil capability, with the toughest terrains and crossings being possible only by the best leaders with the best advisers with generals that have high maneuver pips.

Eh, this isn't a time where supply could reasonably be stretched all that far. Instead of modern times where we have the energy capacity of oil for fuel, we have the very inefficient fodder. Pure sugar has half the energy density of gas by weight, and fodder itself is far away from being pure sugar. For a lot of scenarios, there's areas where you can't get through. The physics don't work out.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Jomini already related information of the area that we can check currently. The geography of the place hasn't changed all that much in the last 400 years, nor would the other factors. There's no reason to require we be skeptical of the exact details.

I'd think it better to say that given the information that we know, more proof should be given beyond saying that "maybe, everything we know about this area is wrong and we really could send armies this way".

While I definitely appreciate his input and effort, I think it's quite debatable from a historiographical perspective whether the information that Jomini related can be considered sufficiently conclusive for the kinds of generalizations he was making. Thanks to the lack of records we may feel as though we have no other choice but to arrive at those conclusions, but we should always be mindful that a lack of information is not necessarily information. My other point is that the fact that we cannot be entirely certain about the details of this period could be seen as a reason to take creative liberties in this particular context.

 

[Xeorm]

While I definitely appreciate his input and effort, I think it's quite debatable from a historiographical perspective whether the information that Jomini related can be considered sufficiently conclusive for the kinds of generalizations he was making. Thanks to the lack of records we may feel as though we have no other choice but to arrive at those conclusions, but we should always be mindful that a lack of information is not necessarily information. My other point is that the fact that we cannot be entirely certain about the details of this period could be seen as a reason to take creative liberties in this particular context.

We can go over right now and through the power of science can get accurate data on the area back 400 years ago. We don't need to rely on old data. And our current data agrees with Jomini's assessment. Armies couldn't work in the area.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the land is as Jomini says (as I said I *really* don't know this region) I'm forced to agree about leaving it wasteland for regions like that. The undertaking from an engineering standpoint to just build a road/path through areas like that for travel would be pretty horrific, probably like trying to move through central Borneo or something. 10-20 ft drops or more with terrible water, thick jungle, and similar sheer cliffs further up is something an experienced person carrying supplies could manage individually, but if the terrain's like that I can't picture not just African armies, but even theoretical disease-immune European armies 3 centuries after the game's start getting through that in fighting shape :/.

If we're talking canal-like levels of project (canal is probably easier other than Panama) to construct a pass for armies there I think it's fair to leave it wasteland :/.

 

[Jomini]

My point is that we have to be tentative with our historical interpolation. It's quite easy for us to overestimate our knowledge and certainty re: this period and place. The apparent reality that no organized army tried to travel through these regions does perhaps suggest a certain amount of futility to that endeavor (or alternatively that they simply had no pragmatic reason to do so, as TheMeInTeam wisely suggested), but that is not the equivalent of proof that it could not possibly have happened, logically speaking.

The grades on the approaches have not changed except where roads were blasted into them with dynamite. We have a an extremely good knowledge of how much water and calories are required by the human body per pound of body mass (there is actually software for mapping that out if you are planning long range patrols in places like Afghanistan). Getting out via that terrain is much like crossing the Rockies - when it was done by military units in the Victoria Era they needed tools that don't exist in the EUIV era, eating food that did not exist in the EUIV era, and often medicine & other technological advances that did not exist in the era.

The unfortunate reality is that history is still marred by justifications for European imperialism to some extent, and therefore we have to be somewhat skeptical that the inhospitability of Africa has been inflated. That's not easy to accomplish, because the sad truth is that we don't have too much else in the way of records pertaining to these regions, but for these reasons I'm actually more open to the idea of taking some creative liberties in this particular case.

Thankfully cartography and chemistry are agnostic to European imperialism. Thanks to some plate tectonics, the area has an atypical drainage system. Like the highlands in New Guinea, this allows enough water to be had for dense farming in the highlands, but thanks to runoff & evaporation makes water scarce in the lowlands. Worse, because the highlands are far inland and the rock is alkali, you end up with water that is either downright not potable or induces impaired digestion with stomach & muscle cramps. This is why this region of Africa, today, has to have fairly expensive wells - the water closer to the surface is poor for farming & drinking.

We know what crops where grown in the region, when more efficient American and Eurasian varieties were developed that could grow there, and how traditional draft animals perform. The calorie density of sorghum is, if anything, actually worse back in the mists of history than what a modern measurement of the traditional varieties would be.

None of this has anything to do with historical bias. There are precisely two major westward roads leading out of Rwanda into the Congo basin. This is after the advent of dynamite, mechanized land clearance, and high efficiency diesel engines to reshape terrain (for comparison Switzerland has 5 with each being larger that those leading out of Rwanda combined). This should tell you something about how hard it is to move in and out of the area.

Ahistorical mechanics are ahistorical mechanics. That really has nothing to do with whether a particular region should receive a relatively neglectful treatment. If your mechanics stand in the way of basic consistency, then the solution is to fix the mechanics, not to become complacent with an inconsistent setup. In my previous posts I've explored how these regions could be opened up with minimal changes to the game's mechanics, while still maintaining EU4's general concern with historical outcomes.

The area is not be neglected, it is being represented how every neighboring state treated it historically. Kongo never marched into the place after receiving a massive tech boost from Portugal (instead they solidified their control of the coast). The Swahili states never mentioned campaigning there even when Ottoman muskets would have provided a severe advantage. Good game mechanics need to give both the Swahili and Kongo secure rear areas; your proposal is the one that would vacate that.


Land based connections between the Great Lakes Regions and the rest of Africa did not exist in any fashion that could sustain armies. Not every place that had people living in it makes it into EUIV.

That's fairly disingenuous. Don't be ridiculous.

Why? It is easier to transit the Antarctic coast than interior Africa. You have a ready food source for a campaign or two in penguins and marine mammals, the terrain is flat and has more available water. Frankly, it is just as ridiculous to open Antarctica as it is to allow armies to cross Africa. Like Atlantis the idea that every state had the wherewithal to contribute to international trade & warfare is pure fantasy.

If the land is as Jomini says (as I said I *really* don't know this region) I'm forced to agree about leaving it wasteland for regions like that. The undertaking from an engineering standpoint to just build a road/path through areas like that for travel would be pretty horrific, probably like trying to move through central Borneo or something. 10-20 ft drops or more with terrible water, thick jungle, and similar sheer cliffs further up is something an experienced person carrying supplies could manage individually, but if the terrain's like that I can't picture not just African armies, but even theoretical disease-immune European armies 3 centuries after the game's start getting through that in fighting shape :/.

If we're talking canal-like levels of project (canal is probably easier other than Panama) to construct a pass for armies there I think it's fair to leave it wasteland :/.

The modern roads in the area required some horrific amount of dynamite to put through. To this day the lack of good transportation limits the ability of the lowlands to support high populations or extract valuable resources from the ground (gold has literally been left in the ground because getting transportation links up was too expensive). If you look at a road map you see very dense (particularly for Africa) road networks in the highlands, and then steep drops in road density in the lowlands.

 

[FrigidSoul]

While I definitely appreciate his input and effort, I think it's quite debatable from a historiographical perspective whether the information that Jomini related can be considered sufficiently conclusive for the kinds of generalizations he was making. Thanks to the lack of records we may feel as though we have no other choice but to arrive at those conclusions, but we should always be mindful that a lack of information is not necessarily information. My other point is that the fact that we cannot be entirely certain about the details of this period could be seen as a reason to take creative liberties in this particular context.

You advocate for change; therefore the burden of proof is on you.

But hey, I'm all for further investigation. We eagerly await the details of your trip to Africa!

 

[Greyhound_Gen.]

You advocate for change; therefore the burden of proof is on you.

But hey, I'm all for further investigation. We eagerly await the details of your trip to Africa!

Well, it may not be an army, but there were people moving through and living in what are currently considered wasteland provinces - the Luba, Lunda, Kuba and Lozi Kingdoms (among others) all existed during the EUIV time period. Even though it was impossible to travel by boat for any significant distance up the rivers of the Congo Basin there were tribal societies living along them (such as the Mongo and Lingala speaking groups). While I agree that getting an army across without crippling numbers of casualties should be impossible, I'd argue that having a route affected by a combination of long travel times, high attrition modifiers and low supply limits would be preferable to the impassable void of the current 'wastelands'. If it were only possible to get a couple of units at most across it wouldn't be worth sending them in the first place so you'd be unlikely to see any significant cross-continental wars.

I do also agree that if there is an east-west corridor the best candidate would be a route through what is today Zambia and southern D.R. of Congo - using the Upemba Depression to leapfrog between Kongo and the southern part of Lake Tanganyika, rather than a more northern route.

 

[Chieron]

Well, it may not be an army, but there were people moving through and living in what are currently considered wasteland provinces - the Luba, Lunda, Kuba and Lozi Kingdoms (among others) all existed during the EUIV time period. Even though it was impossible to travel by boat for any significant distance up the rivers of the Congo Basin there were tribal societies living along them (such as the Mongo and Lingala speaking groups). While I agree that getting an army across without crippling numbers of casualties should be impossible, I'd argue that having a route affected by a combination of long travel times, high attrition modifiers and low supply limits would be preferable to the impassable void of the current 'wastelands'. If it were only possible to get a couple of units at most across it wouldn't be worth sending them in the first place so you'd be unlikely to see any significant cross-continental wars.

I do also agree that if there is an east-west corridor the best candidate would be a route through what is today Zambia and southern D.R. of Congo - using the Upemba Depression to leapfrog between Kongo and the southern part of Lake Tanganyika, rather than a more northern route.

The existence of tribal kingdoms there is not enough, they need to have meaningful interactions with the outside world. If their continued existence was due to being unconquerable by virtual military isolation, these interactions will not be possible.
Opening the Wastelands would just give the AI opportunities to ruin themselves (e.g. going by land instead of a naval invasion or just ignoring it). If no army can cross the area and arrive in fighting shape, it should be impassable.

 

[grommile]

I'd argue that having a route affected by a combination of long travel times, high attrition modifiers and low supply limits would be preferable to the impassable void of the current 'wastelands'.

Why? Argue from gameplay only.