what if we stop pretending eu4 one cares about supply limits and two historical accuracy and just give Africa countries that aren't in later start dates but existed in real life.
Wasteland, Eurocentrism, and a petition for an expansion focusing on Africa
- Thread starter mcmanusaur
- Start date
-
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.
except that's pretty much north America for like any native until Europeans show up but apparently Africa isn't allowed to be like that
- 5
- 2
Agreed. The mystifying thing about the vehemence with which African expansion continues to be opposed on this forum is that changes analogous to every single one of those proposed have already been made in previous updates, and have greatly benefited gameplay with minimal negative side effects. "But game mechanics!" may have sounded convincing when EU4 was first released, but those who fall back on that tired rhetoric have really no legs left to stand on at this point.
The expansion of West Africa and the addition of two new routes out of the Sahel was a good idea. The addition of empty provinces and Native American tags in parts of Western America which wouldn't be colonised until well after the EU4 time period was a good idea. Neither of these things can be demonstrated to have thrown a wrench into EU4's functioning as either a "war game," as some would like to have it, or a history simulator (in cases where the player does not interfere). Paradox's willingness to focus on ROTW in this iteration of the Europa Universalis series has been a massive boost to the game, and the fact that almost every proposal to continue that trend still encounters knee-jerk reaction from the userbase is disappointing.
- 6
- 4
Well, the current state of some north american tags, or, worse yet, the playability of the siberian clan councils isnt in any way satisfying imho.
I see no reason to make things worse by adding even worse tags in Africa, in patrticular when they are isolated, unreachable etc.
yeah but how does it make things worse it has no major negative effects on gameplay and while I agree with you on the Siberian clans and north America I don't see how one new African country couldn't be added in an event chain.
But they then need to add new provinces which of course leads to rush for africa early. The extra tag does nothing for the game other than that, the new provinces do nothing but give a colonial player a choice in the area.
The tag would be boring to play due to low number of historical events, flavours, no one to fight for most of the game and then little interaction with the wider world.
Reason Africa is ingored in most games in these ages is because it was ignored during these dates, we already have more interaction with it than did happen.
When we have nations that did have interaction with other nations not represented I'm against adding ones that didn't.
- 1
well, the difference is, as posted before, that neither the sib clan councils, nor the north american minor nations are truly isolated. They are reachable, and can reach others, by armies, diplomats and trade contacts.
An isolated tag in Africa that is not reachable by armies could, as explained a few pages before, still be contacted by diplomats and contribute to the trade network, neither of which has a historical basis.
Thats why i pointed out, that this addition would, with the current mechanics, make things worse.
And i also asked for suggestions how to make such a new tag playable, and why this would add to the game experience in a positive way...
- 5
I don't really get the "Rush for Africa" argument the more I think about it. We already have almost the complete coast of Africa included. In all the games I've played there was always a rush towards coastal regions so as to block off other colonial nations. Only far later in the game will the inland provinces be colonized. To wit, this is what the El Dorado expansion was, as far as I understood, adressing with the inclusion of the "Hunt for the Seven Cities of Gold". So why would additional inland provinces increase the african colonization? In particular if the colonizing costs and gains are suboptimal compared to the other continents?
im more in favour of expanding on west Africa and the way it interacts with Europe than adding new tags but that could be improved by improving certain mechanics.
- 3
- 1
We should take into account that nations that just "sit and do nothing" become fairly wealthy over time.
If a new tag in in central congo is by definition unreachable, the ai would invest a lot in development, which would sooner or later significantly affect the trade flow.
If it is not isolated, but only "difficult to reach", conquering these by then wealthy provinces would be profitable.
I consider it unbalancing in either way..
edit: typos
- 3
The thing is though there are actually mechanics in the game already that would allow you to access/invade an area that is initially hard to reach. For example, say you are playing as Kongo and the Angola-Zambia corridor now exists. Luba and Lunda's valuable copper mines are a tempting target, but there is a corridor of provinces with high attrition, long travel times and low supply limits. Sending an army there now would result in you losing a large chunk of your troops, leaving you at a disadvantage to invade, so what do you do?
How about taking Expansion ideas and colonising the at least some of provinces between you and them, then developing them to boost the supply limit further? That would solve most of the problems of being able to access them - your armies may still move slowly through the corridor but they won't be taking anywhere near as much damage due to it now being 'owned' territory - you should now have enough troops for an invasion (especially if you wait until a vulnerable moment to strike).
Yes, this isn't what happened in real life, but then the corridor regions were able to support a indigenous population, so is it that much of a stretch to think that an expansive Kongo could have muscled in there and climed the provinces instead? I'd also like to point out that there is the 'African Power' achievement already in the game, in which you have to own and core every province in Africa as Kongo, which players have achieved - isn't that a far less plausible outcome than a hypothetical Kongolese invasion of Luba, and yet still permitted within the game mechanics?
EDIT: Also - having taken another look at the current province map, the 'corridor' between Kongo and Lunda would probably only be about one or two provinces long at most.
How about taking Expansion ideas and colonising the at least some of provinces between you and them, then developing them to boost the supply limit further? That would solve most of the problems of being able to access them - your armies may still move slowly through the corridor but they won't be taking anywhere near as much damage due to it now being 'owned' territory - you should now have enough troops for an invasion (especially if you wait until a vulnerable moment to strike).
Yes, this isn't what happened in real life, but then the corridor regions were able to support a indigenous population, so is it that much of a stretch to think that an expansive Kongo could have muscled in there and climed the provinces instead? I'd also like to point out that there is the 'African Power' achievement already in the game, in which you have to own and core every province in Africa as Kongo, which players have achieved - isn't that a far less plausible outcome than a hypothetical Kongolese invasion of Luba, and yet still permitted within the game mechanics?
EDIT: Also - having taken another look at the current province map, the 'corridor' between Kongo and Lunda would probably only be about one or two provinces long at most.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
You repeatedly seem to state that this thread is about the addition of new states. I for one would be very content if we would have at least provinces in the great lakes area.
No, the entire debate in this thread has centered on how it would have been impossible for armies to traverse the areas in question. Ergo, if you want to add tags to those areas, you only have two sensible options: you can either discard the logistical/historical angle entirely and just add the tags as if they were anywhere else in the world, or you can forego the whole exercise and leave the wasteland area as it is.
If we were, instead, to make the current wasteland area into a near-impassible ultra-high-attrition zone for the sake of verisimilitude, then most likely you'd end up with a massive trap for the AI, and/or you'd have what I described earlier - unconquerable tags incapable of doing anything but sitting there, disrupting the regional diplomatic system by their unalterable presence.
North America can be extremely dull, but all of the tags on the North American continent can be reached by armies, and at least in player hands those tags have the capability, eventually, to expand. Leaving aside for a moment that the sit-on-your-hands-for-100-years gameplay of the New World isn't exactly a shining example of what we need more of in EU4, your comparison is no comparison at all.
You want to expand Africa's game play? There are plenty of ways to do that, and I'm all for it. But simply saying, "Eurocentrism," in the face of overwhelming evidence that the current wastelands are wholly justified by history, biology, and physics, isn't an argument. It's wanton contrarianism dressed up in moral-superiority clothing.
- 6
- 1
Make inner African provinces practically uncolonizable until you reach a certain high level technology?
- 1
OK, but then we are back at the earlier point of discussion whether this area was traversable or not, and whether this is the reason for the lack of contact between the peoples in this area.
If the mechanics of EU4 had some sort of dynamic technology where it is possible to invent dynamite before the Victorian Era, so you could blast a path through, well, then these areas could indeed be open for settlement, or alternatively for new tags.
But this is not the case, and i have seen no convincing argument that this area could be traversed with the technology of this era. I am neither an enigeneer nor an logistics officer, but jominis explanation seems plausible to me, and i have seen no counterargument to this..
- 1
Sorry but to claim that not one single person lived around the african great lakes is just absurd. As it stands these lakes are wasteland, which isn't justified by mere logic.
- 6
- 4
Did you read the rest of the post you quoted? Wasteland doesn't mean, "no one ever did or could live here." Wasteland means the area is for all intents and purposes inaccessible to armies.
That is the whole debate. Do try to keep up.
- 4
- 1
Entire populations managed to migrate through this area without the use of dynamite. It may have taken them a while and they may have had to take a convulted route, but it could be done. If it weren't possible there wouldn't have been any states there in the first place.
- 1
- 1
I don't believe that I have "over-dramatized things".
Unfortunately, a lack of available sources is something of a defining limitation here, especially given that I no longer have access to the kind of online research databases afforded by university study.
This is why I am skeptical of scientistic approaches to historical questions. Because it is far too easy to overstate their conclusiveness. Jomini has demonstrated a lot of confidence in his point of view, but at the end of the day his argument is entirely based on our acceptance of his personal authority.
No. There are other implications to wasteland in-game. Not being able to move armies is not the only one. That is simply the characteristic of wasteland that you choose to focus on because you happen to have some reasoning to support your position in that case.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1