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

[FrigidSoul]

No, Eurocentrism is a choice. Thankfully pretty much all real historians recognize this fact, as I learned during the course of obtaining my history degree, but of course this belief is still quite widespread nevertheless. That is of course not to deny that certain circumstances benefited Europeans at the ROTW's expense. But why must every strategy game replicate a Eurocentric perspective? Paradox's games implicitly constitute- intentionally or otherwise- a part of that larger trend. My question to Paradox is simple- do they wish for their games to contribute to that broader pattern, or not?.

Then cite some real historians who think that a massed invasion of the areas in question would have been feasible during EU4's time period. Simply stating that Eurocentrism is a problem in general -- which may be true -- does bugger all to demonstrate that it's a problem in this particular instance.

Right now, all you have are a handful of population maps and vague accusations that Paradox assigns wasteland based on racial preference. And you're telling a genuine expert on military logistics that his airtight arguments can't affect you because he isn't a "real historian," apparently on the basis that he doesn't share your subjectivity-uber-alles view of the world -- and all of this when your own self-proclaimed historical expertise appears to be limited to Europe. Who's more Eurocentrist? The guy who's studied Africa and knows its historical limitations, or the guy who's only studied Europe and assumes there weren't any?

I still eagerly await the tale of your trip to Africa. Should be fascinating!

 

[mcmanusaur]

Then cite some real historians who think that a massed invasion of the areas in question would have been feasible during EU4's time period.

That is not my argument. My argument is that the general distribution of wasteland in Africa is the result of Eurocentrism, that there are additional states that could be represented within EU4's standards of what states constitute, and that EU4 would be well-served to transcend that very limited perspective of history.

Simply stating that Eurocentrism is a problem in general -- which may be true -- does bugger all to demonstrate that it's a problem in this particular instance.

The reality is that these kinds of issues in general are caught up in a lot of self-fulfilling prophecies and feedback loops. To replicate the status quo is to reinforce it. I'm not advocating for some crazy revisionist Afrocentric perspective; I just think it's high time for Paradox to give Africa some attention, if just in the interest of consistency with the ROTW.

And you're telling a genuine expert on military logistics that his airtight arguments can't affect you because he isn't a "real historian," apparently on the basis that he doesn't share your subjectivity-uber-alles view of the world -- and all of this when your own self-proclaimed historical expertise appears to be limited to Europe. Who's more Eurocentrist? The guy who's studied Africa and knows its historical limitations, or the guy who's only studied Europe and assumes there weren't any?

I believe that Jomini is fairly knowledgeable and possesses an enthusiasm for military history. However, I don't think that his efforts to re-frame this discussion as one of military logistic facts is productive. Nor do I believe that he is an expert in African history, if for nothing else because real experts always incorporate more nuance in their conclusions. In my experience that's a fairly foolproof way to identify true experts.

While his attempts to integrate contemporary data on geography and caloric intake with his knowledge of period logistics have been very interesting, I think it's quite an overstatement to present his arguments as remotely airtight. Perhaps by this forum's standards they are, but that's not saying much.

I have also studied Africa (for example, I took a course on the history of the slave trade in Africa), and I am quite aware of its geographical disadvantages. The difference between Jomini and I is that those disadvantages lead him to believe that these regions are better off left as wasteland, whereas I take a more optimistic viewpoint that their representation in EU4 could be greatly improved. For me a consistent degree of fidelity of representation is more important, and for him a certain set of historical outcomes is more important.

I still eagerly await the tale of your trip to Africa. Should be fascinating!

I find it quite ironic that someone so eager to condescend me for my "subjectivity" has the statement "determinism is ahistorical" in his signature.

 

[Xeorm]

That is not my argument. My argument is that the general distribution of wasteland in Africa is the result of Eurocentrism, that there are additional states that could be represented within EU4's standards of what states constitute, and that EU4 would be well-served to transcend that very limited perspective of history.

EU4 is a war game. If people can't get from one place to another to wage war on that state, the state doesn't exist. This is the crux of the argument. There is no reason to bring in any idea of Eurocentrism holding the game back, but merely simple facts. No armies could engage, and so it is considered wasteland. Bringing up some idea that it's done because of a Eurocentric POV doesn't help your argument, but makes it look silly instead.

The reality is that these kinds of issues in general are caught up in a lot of self-fulfilling prophecies and feedback loops. To replicate the status quo is to reinforce it. I'm not advocating for some crazy revisionist Afrocentric perspective; I just think it's high time for Paradox to give Africa some attention, if just in the interest of consistency with the ROTW.

And that's great. But don't waste your time fighting a cause that doesn't need fighting. There's good areas to provide some depth to Africa and the ROTW, but this is not one of them. There's good reasons why the area is still wasteland. Shouting "Eurocentrism" is not an argument, and makes it more difficult for other areas to get provided for.

I believe that Jomini is fairly knowledgeable and possesses an enthusiasm for military history. However, I don't think that his efforts to re-frame this discussion as one of military logistic facts is productive. Nor do I believe that he is an expert in African history, if for nothing else because real experts always incorporate more nuance in their conclusions. In my experience that's a fairly foolproof way to identify true experts.

While his attempts to integrate contemporary data on geography and caloric intake with his knowledge of period logistics have been very interesting, I think it's quite an overstatement to present his arguments as remotely airtight. Perhaps by this forum's standards they are, but that's not saying much.

I have also studied Africa (for example, I took a course on the history of the slave trade in Africa), and I am quite aware of its geographical disadvantages. The difference between Jomini and I is that those disadvantages lead him to believe that these regions are better off left as wasteland, whereas I take a more optimistic viewpoint that their representation in EU4 could be greatly improved. For me a consistent degree of fidelity of representation is more important, and for him a certain set of historical outcomes is more important.

Jomini is not an expert on African history. He's never claimed to be. History is the hobby part. His job was a logistics officer; he's an expert in logistics. Sure I can see the argument that "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" but when deciding where armies can march (aka, the definition of wasteland), then logistics is a very good place to check. Bringing up facts on the area would be good. Not moral arguments.

 

[mcmanusaur]

EU4 is a war game. If people can't get from one place to another to wage war on that state, the state doesn't exist. This is the crux of the argument. There is no reason to bring in any idea of Eurocentrism holding the game back, but merely simple facts. No armies could engage, and so it is considered wasteland. Bringing up some idea that it's done because of a Eurocentric POV doesn't help your argument, but makes it look silly instead.

The issue is that the Eurocentric POV goes a lot deeper than many people in this thread have been willing to admit. Who wrote all the field manuals on logistics in modern warfare? Who originated and characterized 'war game' genre? Europeans/Westerners. We can claim our viewpoint is grounded in "facts", but by what standards do we judge those facts? That is not to say that none of the facts Jomini has brought up are valid, but that I feel there hasn't been enough consideration given to the deeper nuance. Ultimately, whether we like it or not, many of these questions involve matters of subjective interpretation, and I'm simply presenting one often-overlooked interpretation (which has to a greater or lesser extent required me to play the devil's advocate).

 

[Xeorm]

The issue is that the Eurocentric POV goes a lot deeper than many people in this thread have been willing to admit. Who wrote all the field manuals on logistics in modern warfare? Who originated and characterized 'war game' genre? Europeans/Westerners. We can claim our viewpoint is grounded in "facts", but by what standards do we judge those facts? That is not to say that none of the facts Jomini has brought up are valid, but that I feel there hasn't been enough consideration given to the deeper nuance.

We judge them by their ability to get people from point A to point B while keeping people alive. Again, you need a better argument. Saying the facts may not be true because they were written by westerners is...a really strange argument. At least have facts from another viewpoint beyond a maybe.

 

[mcmanusaur]

We judge them by their ability to get people from point A to point B while keeping people alive.

That's a bit over-simplistic.

Saying the facts may not be true because they were written by westerners is...a really strange argument.

Again, that is not my argument. I am simply saying that we should be wary of the context in which "facts" are written, as that context can lend bias (which would disqualify them as strict "facts" in the traditional sense of the word).

 

[Xeorm]

That's a bit over-simplistic.

Accurate enough.

Again, that is not my argument. I am simply saying that we should be wary of the context in which "facts" are written, as that context can lend bias (which would disqualify them as strict "facts" in the traditional sense of the word).

Right. And it's right to be cautious of things. But being cautious of something doesn't mean the fear is true, just that something could be bad, and you haven't proven that anything is bad yet. Whenever I go to eat food, I know it may be spoiled. That fear makes me give the food a quick once over to make sure it's still good. I don't throw the food away because it might be bad.

 

[gdj]

The issue is that the Eurocentric POV goes a lot deeper than many people in this thread have been willing to admit. Who wrote all the field manuals on logistics in modern warfare? Who originated and characterized 'war game' genre? Europeans/Westerners. We can claim our viewpoint is grounded in "facts", but by what standards do we judge those facts? That is not to say that none of the facts Jomini has brought up are valid, but that I feel there hasn't been enough consideration given to the deeper nuance. Ultimately, whether we like it or not, many of these questions involve matters of subjective interpretation, and I'm simply presenting one often-overlooked interpretation (which has to a greater or lesser extent required me to play the devil's advocate).

This statement pretty much reveals the reasons why your petition is met with resistence. You require changes to a game for political reasons in order to serve a political goal without bothering too much about what this game and its engine can provide, and what this would mean to game balance. The game simply cannot model isolated states, trade, diplomacy and AI behaviour will always be affected by having additional tags.

But instead you ask Pdx to rethink the wargame genre in general, because this genre is eurocentric. I mean, seriously?

What bothers me even more is the attitude in which you indirectly accuse Pdx of being not "politically correct", only because a few tags are in your opinion absent in this game. Do you realize how much effort was made to portray non European nations more accurately in this game? Have you compared EU4 to its predecessors, not to mention other games in this genre? After playtesting computer games and similar software for our Ministry of Interior for 6 years i can assure that EU4 is one of the least eurocentric or politically unbalaced games of this genre that i have seen so far. So, please, let us not overdramatize things, agreed?

 

[thissideup]

I find it very remarkable that so many people on this forum interested in history obviously seem to never have heard of constructivism. Now I don't pretend that constructivism is the only metatheory that one can scientifically adhere to, but insinuating that someone argues out of "political reasons" (gdj: #268) while quite clearly he just points out that most historical viewpoints are mostly eurocentric, is not only wrong, it is absolutely insulting. Just because something is "the least eurocentric or politcally unbalanced" (ibid.) whatever doesn't make that thing non-eurocentric.

It is bothersome that poeple have to face the accusation of argumenting "morally" or "politcally" whenever they state that viewpoints are always (subjectively) based on norms learned and/or gained and thus any rationalisation of anything is subject to these norms. Constructivism is an acclaimed theory in many if not all sciences and arguments based on its notion shouldn't be dismissed so easily and reproachfully. Sorry but this ignorance just rubs my nose.

Now I want this thread to come back to a productive discussion, that of fleshing out the africas for a DLC. Personally I would like to have an africa-focused expansions, because imho I'd often liked to play as an african minor - in fact, I could never be bothered to play as an american or middle-asian one. That is to say that we all are different players and have different tastes of whom to play. So I think it right for the OP to point out that it is strange that the americas have gained 2 expansions and europe gained 4, but asia and africa not one (central asia will get one). Again neither the OP nor I think that Paradox is in any way politcally incorrect. Far from it. They are eurocentric maybe, but so am I, and maybe the OP too. Which isn't a bad thing, just something to be aware of. That I think was the whole point of the OP's arguments the last couple of posts.

What I find difficult is not how to balance the game when changing/adding provinces. It's: what else would this expansion include? Just adding provinces and minors to the map hardly constitutes an expansion. I think by Paradox's standards it doesn't even constitute a flavor pack. So what new mechanic could accompany an expansion focused on Africa?

After reading this thread (which in fact mainly focussed on the question if it is okay to flesh out africa in any way, because the scramble for africa didn't take place before the late 19th century) only two main topics were suggested: better colonialism and better slave trading. Both mainly focussed on the trade mechanics (which I whole-heartedly agree should be better). From my experience playing, colonizing asia was always a bit of a letdown. The wealth of the netherlands for example was dramatically dependent on their colonies in the east asias and they were an important player in the 17th century mainly because of that but in EU4 this is not the case (unless I am playing totally wrong but I haven't yet figured out how to historically model that in the game). So for me tuning colonialism should be first made focussing on east asia before africa. This as well would follow a historical timeline (i.e. first a colonizing america expansion, second a colonizing asia expansion, last a colonizing africa expansion).

Slave trading on the other hand (though grossly disgusting, that needs to be said) could open up possibilities. The arguments made of inland-vs-outland "states" in africa were among other things pointing to trade incentives. What I find extremely lacking in EU4 in general is inter-state trading. We have strange icons that represent stuff being produced in provinces and some weird numericals that should say something about demand or some such. We also have a percentage bar "representing" mercantilism. In fact EU4 is a grand-strategy game almost completely lacking strategical trade incentives. The only exceptions are hard-wired trade-nodes that never move. Now how historical is something like that? Of course I know that changing the trade system is extremely difficult and teaching the AI even more so. But honestly from what I can image such a change would constitute the only (?) reason to make an Africa expansion. (But that would be an expansion I'd pre-order)

Unless someone has some other ideas of what mechanic an Africa expansion could bring with it?

 

[thissideup]

EU4 is a war game. If people can't get from one place to another to wage war on that state, the state doesn't exist. This is the crux of the argument.

No it's not. It's your interpretation of the game, not everyones. I for one play it as a large-scale trade-strategy game. Don't imply that your views are universal.

 

[gdj]

I find it remarkable that noone who supports this petition could answer the question why these states would be fun to play with.

If there was no trade contact bewteen them and their neighbours, how to do you model their trade?
If the area was virtually inaccessible, how do you model political and/or military contact?
If these states dont appear in 1444 but much later in a non-westernized version, what should stop the European powers from destroying them instantly?

Perhaps someone might finally point out some gameplay reasons and ways to properly model these states instead of pointing to eurocentrism, constructivism etc., preferably ways to model this without reprogramming the engine from scratch.

 

[thissideup]

I find it remarkable that noone who supports this petition could answer the question why these states would be fun to play with.

Since you seem to be quoting me I am inclined to answer even though - as you know - I haven't even promoted adding "these states" (or any state for that matter). But, whatever...

If there was no trade contact bewteen them and their neighbours, how to do you model their trade?

That's an absurd question and you know it. If something isn't present you don't model it.

If the area was virtually inaccessible, how do you model political and/or military contact?

Well obviously you would model it in the way it must have (one way or another) existed. So I'd like to redirect the question back to you (or anyone who claimes the area being inaccessible while acknowledging the existence of people there): how did the people there existed without political/military contact or with bad accessibility?

If these states dont appear in 1444 but much later in a non-westernized version, what should stop the European powers from destroying them instantly?

In CK2 they modelled the arrival of the hordes by doomstack-events. A cheasy (you see what I did there? ) way, I know, but it worked. I am not promoting the same here but there are always ways.

Perhaps someone might finally point out some gameplay reasons and ways to properly model these states instead of pointing to eurocentrism, constructivism etc., preferably ways to model this without reprogramming the engine from scratch.

Perhaps you shouldn't simply hide behind the slogan of "too complicated". This attitude never achieved much in history. As you probably know.

 

[gdj]

Trade: so, if something isnt there, it shouldnt be modelled. Which means that the interior of Africa should be connected to no trade node at all. Yep, makes sense. Especially for a "large-scale trade-strategy game".

Accessibility: so, people existed in this region and they were isolated. Im sure thats terribly fun to play.

Doomstacks: this is perhaps the only real modelling suggestion here. And not one you would really want to have i presume..

Hiding behind "too complicated": well, i did not suggest to add anything. Instead i simply asked for suggestions how to model this. Anyone?

 

[Jomini]

No, Eurocentrism is a choice. Thankfully pretty much all real historians recognize this fact, as I learned during the course of obtaining my history degree, but of course this belief is still quite widespread nevertheless. That is of course not to deny that certain circumstances benefited Europeans at the ROTW's expense. But why must every strategy game replicate a Eurocentric perspective? Paradox's games implicitly constitute- intentionally or otherwise- a part of that larger trend. My question to Paradox is simple- do they wish for their games to contribute to that broader pattern, or not?

Ahh, so you are modern revisionist. There is no choice when making country - country interaction network. India had relatively little interaction with Western Africa, but heavy interaction with England. The mechanism by which events in India affected West Africa were through English trade, commerce, and foreign policy. Literally, how else did Mysores military innovations have an impact on North America except through the British (and to lesser degrees France and Portugal)? Europe became the node through which international developments passed (taking over from the Middle East)

It is all well and good to avoid the pitfall of assuming that only state-state interactions matter or that the only important figures in determining the course of nations are dead white men ... but when you make a game where you play a state with a heavy focus on conquest and state-to-state diplomacy, that does mean that African states are properly end nodes on a relational grid while Europe are centrally located.

If we were making Egypt Universalis looking at the 6000 to 2000 BCE era, then history has an anti-European bias. The same grids constructed in the same manner for those dates would squarely place the Nile, Fertile Crescent, Indus, and Chinese river valley networks in the central nodes. Britain would be one of the more isolated end nodes.

 

[thissideup]

Ahh, so you are modern revisionist. There is no choice when making country - country interaction network. India had relatively little interaction with Western Africa, but heavy interaction with England. The mechanism by which events in India affected West Africa were through English trade, commerce, and foreign policy. Literally, how else did Mysores military innovations have an impact on North America except through the British (and to lesser degrees France and Portugal)? Europe became the node through which international developments passed (taking over from the Middle East)

In 1444 India had relatively little interaction with England. By your logic the mechanism by which events in India affected Europe was through the Middle East. What is revisionist then in saying: If event X or Y would have happened in India, Western Africa could have been directly affected by Indian politics? In fact on this very forum we have a couple of Indian WC threads. These are ahistoric, but not because the players gamed EU4 but because it is a sandbox game starting in 1444.

Really the question you arise here is whether we force actual (constructed and interpreted) history in EU4 or allow anything to happen but make it possible to get to the same situation in 1821 as it was in our historical timeline - depending on the decisions made (and those of the AI of course).

EDIT: sorry, I seem to be stalking this thread right now. I am heavily procrastinating, you know.

 

[tuareg109]

That is not my argument. My argument is that the general distribution of wasteland in Africa is the result of Eurocentrism, that there are additional states that could be represented within EU4's standards of what states constitute, and that EU4 would be well-served to transcend that very limited perspective of history.

By this point you've dropped from "Contradiction" to "Responding to Tone", it'd be nasty to go down any further. Jomini went up from "Refutation" to "Refuting the Central Point".

 

[surpi]

In 1444 India had relatively little interaction with England

Just like in the game

 

[Zelius]

It's not as if these regions weren't populated. Quite to the contrary of what I've heard some people on this forum argue, this article indicates that the lowest point for Africa's population relative to the global population occurred at the turn of the 20th century, long after the game's current end date.

Hi there, not to detract from the argument about whether Europeans should be trusted with statistics, but do you have any more links / copies of other articles on the subject?

Frankly that... digital presentation? is terrible and full of errors (I have never written or seen a paper in which a graph had a legend with 'series 1' as one of the titles, since before university). You might as well have cited (mcmanusaur et al., unpublished research) as your source, honestly.

 

[thissideup]

By this point you've dropped from "Contradiction" to "Responding to Tone", it'd be nasty to go down any further. Jomini went up from "Refutation" to "Refuting the Central Point".

The irony of your pyramid is that your "argument" starts off at "Ad Hominem".

 

[FrigidSoul]

No it's not. It's your interpretation of the game, not everyones. I for one play it as a large-scale trade-strategy game. Don't imply that your views are universal.

Without armies in EU4, there's no meaningful diplomacy. You can't have unconquerable/unreachable tags just sitting there with nothing to do and nothing to be done to them -- and if you allow invulnerable/military-incapable tags to negotiate treaties and alliances then you break the war system.

So you can talk all you like about how special your play style is, but from a game play perspective you can't weasel out of the importance of military interaction in Eu4. We're not judging you; we're judging the game's mechanics. More specifically, we're judging the proposed addition of certain isolated African tags within the context of the game's mechanics.

That is, y'know, the central sticking point in the whole thread.