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

[brobman22]

4. Africa. The relationship of African coastal states to Europe is utterly lacking currently. The AI makes the correct decision if European that African states are worthless allies (that is how they are modeled currently) when instead these nefarious alliance of slavers and slave traders defined African history for centuries (African states that limited slaving getting brought low by European guns and warships). Likewise, in the East the network of Islamic - African alliances and trade is utterly nonexistant. Beyond that, Africa had far fewer defined borders before Europeans arrived so I would love for Africa to have mechanisms that reflect this - maybe allow states to "own" uncolonized land for some set of benefits.

This would be my favourite DLC.

 

[thissideup]

What I want, though, is not just a hodge-podge of "let's pretend Africa is Europe, just slower" or "Asia is just Europe, but bigger"; instead I'd like them to be unique and reflect the strategic tensions that states in those areas uniquely faced (granted there might be some overlap like with Crimean slave raiding).

Well I hardly think anyone could disagree with this? (I also second your list)

Makes you wonder a little bit what all the fuss in this thread is about, though.

 

[Chieron]

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.

Being impassible to armies is one of the most important implications for wastelands. Just as being passible is an important characteristic for normal provinces. Areas that were out of reach could've been devoid of life just as well. Producing goods / trade value is another thing, but historically, there wasn't intense trading, either.

Also my in-depth understanding of the african colonization may be lacking, but why is the argument repeatedly made that you couldn't move soldiers through the congo basin? Of course its nigh impossible to move through there. But you can reach the great lakes considerably easier from the east and the north. How else could the Islam spread there? But looking at the map: There are only small coastal provinces. Why is that?

The Great Lakes region isn't really Islamic, so I don't understand, what you are aiming at. Apparently, it did not spread there.. likely due to not being reached from the coasts?

 

[thissideup]

The Great Lakes region isn't really Islamic, so I don't understand, what you are aiming at. Apparently, it did not spread there.. likely due to not being reached from the coasts?

You're right. My mistake.

 

[MCBC6]

Has the argument been brought up that Central African tribes could be represented as just that: tribes, like the native Americans are? Were the Iroquois a federation in 1444? I don't think so. Eu4 also represents ahistoricity; what if one of these tribes had conquered the others and formed a centralized kingdom? It is a possibility.

 

[tuareg109]

I'm not convinced that your score-keeping efforts contribute to the discussion, to be completely honest.

Well then we're birds of a feather, aren't we?

 

[Jomini]

Has the argument been brought up that Central African tribes could be represented as just that: tribes, like the native Americans are? Were the Iroquois a federation in 1444? I don't think so. Eu4 also represents ahistoricity; what if one of these tribes had conquered the others and formed a centralized kingdom? It is a possibility.

This is the sort of shoe-horning that is counterproductive. African states in the Great Lakes region were far more settled than the Iroquois, but genetics suggest that large scale intermarriage (including slavery and concubinage) with peoples from the coast was limited. While these were certainly settled kingdoms that had far more infrastructure than any of the NA tribes, their territory was such that nobody took them over or displaced them (as happened to the Iroquois). You really could not march an army in or out during the era so it makes no sense to have them be provinces where armies can do that.

What would be nice is recognition that contact in Africa was vastly different than in the Americas or in Asia. The African states were not decimated by disease and more than India or Southeast Asia maintained freedom in their affairs - often parlaying the slave trade into empire building. Ideally, any African DLC would give Africa unique mechanisms to represent a period development with literally globe altering affects. What I find most interesting about African history in the era is how state-state conflict had a lot of low intensity components with less strict borders & territorial questions, the struggle between Islam, Christianity, and the traditional faiths, the way the slave trade tilted the balance of power (allowing rapid reversals of fortune and allowing native states to play one European off another), and the like.

 

[3ishop]

Are there any coastal nations/tribes/possible factions that could be added in time span? I think it could add more interation on the Cape/Madagascar to the game rather then the heart of africa.

Also talking about the NA natives, I've always thought a few more that they would actively join together could make it more interesting. Not much seems to happen with them as AI, seems they become Catholic and protectorates most of the time in my games.

Siberian clans I don't see any use other than getting hold of a gold province and would be happy to see them gone.

Oh and discussion of slavery, I think Pdox don't really want to go much in depth with it due to the subject matter but they couldn't just omit it in game.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

To Jomini: How many of your suggestions, re: how to better model the strategic considerations of particular regions, do you think would be able to be accomplished using existing game mechanics? I.E. how much of it would require changes to the hard code of the game, and not just scripting?

Have any modders used your input in developing their projects?

 

[MCBC6]

This is the sort of shoe-horning that is counterproductive. African states in the Great Lakes region were far more settled than the Iroquois, but genetics suggest that large scale intermarriage (including slavery and concubinage) with peoples from the coast was limited. While these were certainly settled kingdoms that had far more infrastructure than any of the NA tribes, their territory was such that nobody took them over or displaced them (as happened to the Iroquois). You really could not march an army in or out during the era so it makes no sense to have them be provinces where armies can do that.

What would be nice is recognition that contact in Africa was vastly different than in the Americas or in Asia. The African states were not decimated by disease and more than India or Southeast Asia maintained freedom in their affairs - often parlaying the slave trade into empire building. Ideally, any African DLC would give Africa unique mechanisms to represent a period development with literally globe altering affects. What I find most interesting about African history in the era is how state-state conflict had a lot of low intensity components with less strict borders & territorial questions, the struggle between Islam, Christianity, and the traditional faiths, the way the slave trade tilted the balance of power (allowing rapid reversals of fortune and allowing native states to play one European off another), and the like.

Thanks for the info. Just don't study this at all, I tend to focus more on east Asia.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

That's not true. Jomini certainly does claim some personal authority, but many of his points put forth are viable regardless of experience. The main dispute wrt wasteland is the physical situation of the region in Africa during this time period. If the terrain really is that of heavy jungle + non-level + rivers that aren't navigable, then there are good reasons moving an army through such a region isn't viable. It doesn't matter if Jomini says so or someone else does in that case.

I don't have enough personal knowledge of the region to say it is certainly like that or was certainly like that (I don't even have enough to say it's probable vs not). If it was, however, it's hard to make a case for it being accessible to armies.

That said, I'm all for adding tags to Africa that existed and giving it similar detail to other regions of the world. 1.8 did a lot to help Africa but we've seen very little there before or after and seeing nations like Maldives and Siberian councils represented as tags but not anything in Madagascar is a bit of a head scratcher.

 

[mcmanusaur]

That's not true. Jomini certainly does claim some personal authority, but many of his points put forth are viable regardless of experience. The main dispute wrt wasteland is the physical situation of the region in Africa during this time period. If the terrain really is that of heavy jungle + non-level + rivers that aren't navigable, then there are good reasons moving an army through such a region isn't viable. It doesn't matter if Jomini says so or someone else does in that case.

You're conflating what I'm saying with subjectivity. Clearly, the lay of the land is a matter of objective fact. However, when you get down to it he hasn't really provided any evidence that the terrain is as treacherous as he claims. We are simply expected to take his word for it, and that is why I say his arguments are dependent on our acceptance of his personal authority.

Do I believe he is making it up completely? No, but it's perfectly possible that he is exaggerating the reality of the terrain. We simply have no way of knowing without outside corroboration. My decision not to challenge his claims (because I am not interested in pretending to be an expert on the region's geography) has led some people to conclude that his arguments are "watertight", but we're still just taking his word for the time being.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Clearly, the lay of the land is a matter of objective fact. However, when you get down to it he hasn't really provided any evidence that the terrain is as treacherous as he claims. We are simply expected to take his word for it, and that is why I say his arguments are dependent on our acceptance of his personal authority.

We have a choice though. We can certainly check the lay of the land there. I don't care to do it, and since we're the ones pushing for change to Africa (and in your case in particular the wasteland), the impetus falls to those advocating an alteration to the present state.

But it's also why I said "if the terrain is like that". I don't believe Jomini has much incentive to mislead us, but that doesn't create absolute confidence obviously (putting aside such incentive, one could simply be mistaken).

What would be a reliable outside source? I'm not a fan of the constant hindsight bias on this forum "it shouldn't be in the game because it didn't happen historically", but at the same time having no known military confrontations with nearby states raises a few eyebrows. I haven't put high enough priority on it to research it myself though, so I don't have high confidence. What Jomini said weights me towards believing based on previous interactions but I'm certainly not claiming it's "watertight".

 

[mcmanusaur]

I mean, a lot of what he's talked about is micro-level topographical features. Abrupt elevation changes that would lead to "broken legs", etc. From what I can find re: the region's geography on a larger scale, there's little to indicate that it's exceptionally treacherous to traverse (aside from the mountain ranges of the Rift Valley itself). I'm not sure where to find data on the smaller-scale qualities of the terrain, but even just some photographs of the landscape would help me visualize why he considers this region such a logistical nightmare.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's not that you get broken legs, heavy jungle is difficult to move through and even 8-10 foot drops/raises will force you to re-route (for rivers much less than that will stop boats). It's very slow going relative to, say, walking across plains and if it takes more than a day then carrying sufficient food/water for a lot of people actually is a logistical challenge. How many miles do you think an army of any size can cover through jungle per day? How far would they need to travel in order to stage a proper invasion?

The general problem is that for thick jungle (I'm picturing interior Borneo for example where I've seen some footage then looked up pictures etc), but maybe the region in question isn't like this) is that you are very likely to run into "micro features" that re-route you because going through them would take too much time/energy. Maybe the great lakes region had a viable path though? I don't know. If it's like that though it's not something you can just casually walk through, and an army foraging and still progressing is hard to imagine in that environment.

 

[mcmanusaur]

It's not that you get broken legs, heavy jungle is difficult to move through and even 8-10 foot drops/raises will force you to re-route (for rivers much less than that will stop boats). It's very slow going relative to, say, walking across plains and if it takes more than a day then carrying sufficient food/water for a lot of people actually is a logistical challenge. How many miles do you think an army of any size can cover through jungle per day? How far would they need to travel in order to stage a proper invasion?

The general problem is that for thick jungle (I'm picturing interior Borneo for example where I've seen some footage then looked up pictures etc), but maybe the region in question isn't like this) is that you are very likely to run into "micro features" that re-route you because going through them would take too much time/energy. Maybe the great lakes region had a viable path though? I don't know. If it's like that though it's not something you can just casually walk through, and an army foraging and still progressing is hard to imagine in that environment.

I'm just not sure that most of the areas we've been discussing in this thread can be characterized as heavy jungle in that manner.

At any rate, in the absence of any input from Paradox, I'm leaning toward turning this into a little modding project. Several people have expressed concern that what I am proposing will have unpredictable/detrimental effects on gameplay, and I suppose there's really only one way to test that.

However, I would still be interested to see some sources for the notion that the topography of these areas is especially treacherous.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

An open side question. If Africa was enhanced, do you think they should add creatable European style nations such as South Africa and Liberia?

I define European as countries either created by colonists, or set up in the style of European governments.

 

[Demetrios]

Are there any coastal nations/tribes/possible factions that could be added in time span? I think it could add more interation on the Cape/Madagascar to the game rather then the heart of africa.

There's a nice thread in the Suggestion subforum on Madagascar that has been linked to this thread before. If Madagascar were to (deservingly) get some more provinces, a tag for the Merina Kingdom would very reasonable to include (they were, with a minor stretch, there at the game's start, and ruled basically the entire island by the end). Tags for Boina and Menabe would also make sense, but would need Ashanti-type events to appear later in the game.

As for the Cape area, there really wasn't any sort of high level political organization until the Zulus, who would appear only in the last few decades of the game era...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm just not sure that most of the areas we've been discussing in this thread can be characterized as heavy jungle in that manner.

At any rate, in the absence of any input from Paradox, I'm leaning toward turning this into a little modding project. Several people have expressed concern that what I am proposing will have unpredictable/detrimental effects on gameplay, and I suppose there's really only one way to test that.

However, I would still be interested to see some sources for the notion that the topography of these areas is especially treacherous.

I'm mildly curious myself.

To cite a whole different set of experience, I believe that the impact of making such changes would be pretty limited wrt gameplay outside the immediate region, unless it created a pre-exploration link between West and East Africa (which Pdox seems to be against for some reason). What AI is going to colonize there? What other-side threat vector is realistically there? In most games, unless the player wants to do a cross-Africa run, it's not going to change the global picture.

I leave open the possibility that I'm wrong with that prediction, but I have a lot more confidence in that prediction than I do with the topography of the region in reality .

 

[thissideup]

Can we please move on from the discussion wether we should have a passage between Kongo and the great lakes? Ever since it was suggested it is being held as a scapegoat why east africa shouldn't be expanded.

Frankly, looking at the geography of contemporary Tanzania, Kenya, South-Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, I cannot see a reasoning for it not to be included, accessible from the Swahili coast. It actually seems very far more passable than other places already on the map, like the Rockys, Persia, the Alps or even contemporary Sudan and Ethiopia. I have only read once why these areas would be implausible to march troops through other than: it just didn't happen. This is the only post going to other detail:

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.

@Jomini: Could you give me references for books (and maybe papers, but science papers are usually behind paywalls, so...) that give more informations to these points (particularly 2, 3, 4 and 5)? Not because I refute your claims but simply out of interest (this discussion here has spiked that considerably).

The thing is, the kingdoms there could have expanded, they just didn't for far more and different reasons than troop maintenance. Likewise the Europeans/Portugal could have colonized more than the thin Swahili coast, they just didn't for far more and different reasons than troop maintenance. Reducing everything to whether or not troops could have walked somewhere is extremely one-dimensional.