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

[Greyhound_Gen.]

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.

Could I also suggest Malawi for consideration (as that would allow the Maravi Kingdom to be included)?

 

[AndrejK]

Africa is the largest wasteland currently in EU4 (having wasteland in Sahara makes sense but not in Zambia and Uganda.

 

[grommile]

Africa is the largest wasteland currently in EU4 (having wasteland in Sahara makes sense but not in Zambia and Uganda.

I wish Paradox hadn't called it "Wasteland", since the popular modern connotations of the term imply places like the Empty Quarter, central Taklamakan, northern Siberia, and so forth, which doesn't paint an accurate picture of why somewhere like the African interior merits being impenetrable.

Beyond that, I have no problem with parts of the African interior which can be empirically demonstrated to have had no meaningful contact even with the represented-in-game coastal AFrican polities being treated as Inaccessible Land.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Beyond that, I have no problem with parts of the African interior which can be empirically demonstrated to have had no meaningful contact even with the represented-in-game coastal AFrican polities being treated as Inaccessible Land.

I don't even know what it means to empirically demonstrate such a thing.

 

[grommile]

I don't even know what it means to empirically demonstrate such a thing.

There are various ways to empirically demonstrate that two populations probably had meaningful contact with each other. (Genetic studies, epidemiology, archaeology, linguistics, reading the historical accounts of either group, etc.)

In the case of the peoples of the African interior regions under discussion, it appears that those methods show that any contact with the coastal polities of Africa was extremely limited and probably not of the kind that justifies the inland peoples' inclusion in the game as tags.

 

[Xeorm]

I wish Paradox hadn't called it "Wasteland", since the popular modern connotations of the term imply places like the Empty Quarter, central Taklamakan, northern Siberia, and so forth, which doesn't paint an accurate picture of why somewhere like the African interior merits being impenetrable.

Beyond that, I have no problem with parts of the African interior which can be empirically demonstrated to have had no meaningful contact even with the represented-in-game coastal AFrican polities being treated as Inaccessible Land.

Agreed. Wasteland tends to denote inhospitable areas, but the usage in game is of territories that you can't reasonably march armies through. The midwest in America is also a popular question on why they consider it a wasteland.

But, I can't think of any other good word either. Inaccessible maybe, but it doesn't have the same tone.

 

[thissideup]

There are various ways to empirically demonstrate that two populations probably had meaningful contact with each other. (Genetic studies, epidemiology, archaeology, linguistics, reading the historical accounts of either group, etc.)

In the case of the peoples of the African interior regions under discussion, it appears that those methods show that any contact with the coastal polities of Africa was extremely limited [...]

Could you hint to textbooks/papers stating these things? From the limited information I could garther, limited trade was happening by means of muslim caravans, mainly through Kenya? The problem is that you can empirically say that people don't have contact through your stated means, but it is interpretation to state why they didn't. And honestly that Why really bothers the heck out of me since yesterday...

 

[mcmanusaur]

There are various ways to empirically demonstrate that two populations probably had meaningful contact with each other. (Genetic studies, epidemiology, archaeology, linguistics, reading the historical accounts of either group, etc.)

In the case of the peoples of the African interior regions under discussion, it appears that those methods show that any contact with the coastal polities of Africa was extremely limited and probably not of the kind that justifies the inland peoples' inclusion in the game as tags.

Okay, I think it's a bit of a stretch to call that empirical, but what are your sources for this claim?

 

[Demetrios]

Could I also suggest Malawi for consideration (as that would allow the Maravi Kingdom to be included)?

As I said many, many pages ago, Maravi should be the first thing added in any expansion of territory on the African mainland. It would definitely make the area more interesting to play, especially for Mutapa. And it did have interactions with the coastal states, including Portugal.

 

[Shadowstrike]

Here's a more useful way to phrase the question: which parts of Africa should remain PTI? I think the argument could clearly be made for the Kalahari, the Sahara (minus the trade route paths that exist). The interior of the Congolese jungle should probably also be considered, so that you divide the east-west paths to the edge of the Sahel, and then to the path through Katanga/Zambia.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Rejoice! Let the record show that as of today's dev diary Paradox has actually improved these regions in line with what we have discussed in this thread! Thanks to everyone who gave productive input to this thread!

 

[TheDungen]

Rejoice! Let the record show that as of today's dev diary Paradox has actually improved these regions in line with what we have discussed in this thread! Thanks to everyone who gave productive input to this thread!

You necroed a months old thread to do what? tell us to read the dev diary?

 

[mcmanusaur]

You necroed a months old thread to do what? tell us to read the dev diary?

Please excuse me in so inconveniencing you. /s

Anyway, this thread can be locked if needed, but I think it fully deserved a post in light of today's dev diary.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Oh god no, they didn't remove wasteland, did they?

 

[TheDungen]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-development-diary-18th-february-2016.909070/

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Yeah, I went and read it. Pretty much worst case scenario, although madagascar should be cool I guess.

 

[Chieron]

Oh god no, they didn't remove wasteland, did they?

They did

 

[TheDungen]

Assuming that they put in some measure safeguards against an early scramble for africa I'd say it being represented is a good thing, after all it wasn't a wasteland, it was just not possible to colonise without steamboats and machien guns.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Oh god no, they didn't remove wasteland, did they?

How dare they enhance underrepresented parts of the world with greater historical accuracy and engaging gameplay.

 

[Xeorm]

How dare they enhance underrepresented parts of the world with greater historical accuracy and engaging gameplay.

Because they made it more unrealistic in the order to appease those who didn't know better. It's made the game worse, not better.