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

[BrokenSky]

That's beside the point. What always escapes me is that when I point out a given region of the world is prone to "doing nothing" for 1/10 to 1/8 of the entire game's time period, the response is "if you don't like doing nothing, then ignore the region" rather than analyzing why that region may or may not be prone to doing nothing. Am I really in a minority in believing that doing nothing is not fun gameplay on the basis that doing nothing is not gameplay?

Or, if the region *isn't* about doing nothing during these years, as a player what am I expected to be doing that's fun?

If there were more, better and interesting peacetime mechanics, both for internal and international politics, espionage, improved missions etc. would these regions be fun to play?

 

[Jomini]

What empires are we talking about? Because other than native americans, there is no situation where Europeans won most conflicts with EMPIRES cheaply during this period. They lost against the Mughals, it took 3 wars against the Maratha empire, including a defeat/status quo ante bellum in the first one. And circumstances are much more relevant to the British advances in India than actual military superiority. The Ming defeated the Portuguese and the Dutch.

If, say, India was unified and strong in the game, there's no way the Europeans should waltz in and take it. It's purely nonsensical. But the game allows it regardless of circumstances.

Oh please, not another quibble fest. Many statelets of this era used the term empire to describe themselves. The Ming managed to "defeat" the Dutch when outnumbering them 20:1 (after losing most of their artillery mind you) while the Dutch defended a position that lacked fresh water. Oh and for fun, let us not forget that these were not actually the "Dutch" fighting, but faction within the VOC without the backing of the Dutch state.

But what the hell you had:
The Gorkah Empire
The Omani Empire
The Durrani Empire
The Mali Empire

That's beside the point. What always escapes me is that when I point out a given region of the world is prone to "doing nothing" for 1/10 to 1/8 of the entire game's time period, the response is "if you don't like doing nothing, then ignore the region" rather than analyzing why that region may or may not be prone to doing nothing. Am I really in a minority in believing that doing nothing is not fun gameplay on the basis that doing nothing is not gameplay?

The major problem the RotW has is that once you have all the territory in your local sphere you can literally do nothing until you get to exploration. What I'd like to see is for any state that has no neighbors can take some sort of decision that allows conquistadors.

I don't like the monarch point bottlenecks either, but they're not the sole factor in play. India for example does not share a nigh-guaranteed 50-70 year window of doing very little, in large part because its situation is different.

And yet many other places with few states aren't boring either. I still would rather have interesting attack vectors that make for different tactical decisions than have everything become an India like blob of statelets with simple optimizations.

Yes, you have 1 vector of attack, but unless you forfeit that, you are going to do nothing until ADM 5, then even more nothing while westernizing, then even more nothing while waiting for colonies to grow, until you can reach the new world, where guess what? Now there are multiple vectors of attack, including farming up war score on your CNs and stabhitting you, if the AI were competent enough to bother, or in practice stalling you out.


Or, you can conquer into West Africa, at which point you're basically a West African nation with a 2nd or 3rd landing point for Europeans, which is still doable and at least occupies 1444-1500.

Ehh if once you get adm 5 and Exploration you head round the Cape and up through East Africa & Asia. This limits your conflicts with Europe and allows you to build a stronger state against Asia & the Middle East.

Really the only problem with Kongo is that you are dead in the water until you have Adm 5 and can explore ... which will be exactly the same problem if we open up the Great Lakes Region and don't give them instant vision.

Basically, doing nothing isn't "unique gameplay", because doing nothing isn't gameplay :/. Numerous nations that have achievements share this "doing nothing for long stretches" theme, almost entirely due to the *combination* of MP bottleneck and lack of vision in 1444 limiting their options. These nations are, from worst to least bad for 1.13, 1. Mesoamerica 2. North America 3. Andean tech group 4. West Africa.

You get no disagreement here, but I suspect adding states will do nothing unless we also give a bunch of unhistorical vision to East Africa. Even if we include the Great Lakes Region, but no vision across to East Africa, Kongo players will just take out those states and then ... sit. Doing just as much nothing waiting for Admin 5 thanks to the cores delaying teching time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The major problem the RotW has is that once you have all the territory in your local sphere you can literally do nothing until you get to exploration. What I'd like to see is for any state that has no neighbors can take some sort of decision that allows conquistadors.

This is only a significant problem if you really strain expansion for West Africa and the new world...Muslim/Indian/Chinese/Nomad tech have big sight pictures at the start and players experienced enough to fast-conquer them out can get more revealed fast. West Africa and new world are too constrained by TI to avoid waiting, with the odd exception of SA native councils which luck into view of the most oft-early colonization spots and can often reform/start westernizing by like 1515-1520 (as opposed to 40+ years later). This creates the awkward scenario of Potiguara and Guarani being more viable to form Inca than Cuzco.

I wouldn't mind the conquistador solution though.

Really the only problem with Kongo is that you are dead in the water until you have Adm 5 and can explore ... which will be exactly the same problem if we open up the Great Lakes Region and don't give them instant vision.

Kongo can (and if pursuing African Power quickly, should) declare into West Africa ASAP and conquer that territory. I'd much rather tech to ADM 5 while western with a force limit of 25-30+ than waiting until ADM 5 and teching up as sub-Saharan to do it...acknowledging that this does nullify their 1-vector look though.

Once you have exploration, you can cycle East and West (as in colonial strikes or Europe) until you're strong enough for both.

You get no disagreement here, but I suspect adding states will do nothing unless we also give a bunch of unhistorical vision to East Africa. Even if we include the Great Lakes Region, but no vision across to East Africa, Kongo players will just take out those states and then ... sit. Doing just as much nothing waiting for Admin 5 thanks to the cores delaying teching time.

Yeah, you need the vision somehow. If the nations connect you'd get adjacent province reveal (I used this to finish westernization as Japan in 1584 w/o exploration, via bordering Genoa) but either way it's mostly going to boil down to a matter of vision. Even if the TI East of Yao were lifted, and East Africa could be seen via that route, it would open up the start significantly.

 

[mcmanusaur]

Ahistorically limiting colonization will make the game more fun because ... reasons?.

I'm all for not having arbitrary limits on colonizaton, but it's the only option to prevent ahistorical outcomes other than expanding the scope of the game's simulation. As many people have noted in the context of Iberian Siberia, that is a problem that exists in EU4 regardless of whether Africa is given a fair representation. I think in most cases like this everyone agrees that overhauling mechanics would be the ideal option, but in the interest of being realistic other possible solutions are discussed.

Definitely - I said as much in my post as well. However, posts like ours are getting a bit drowned out among all the other subjects popping up in this thread!

At this point, I'm not sure whether this thread stands more or less of a chance of getting a response from Paradox the longer it goes on, but I would very much like an answer for whether they ever plan on giving some focus to Africa.

And yet many other places with few states aren't boring either. I still would rather have interesting attack vectors that make for different tactical decisions than have everything become an India like blob of statelets with simple optimizations..

I'm not sure why you feel regions that are more railroaded geographically are somehow less a case of "simple optimization"...

 

[zsImmortal]

Oh please, not another quibble fest. Many statelets of this era used the term empire to describe themselves. The Ming managed to "defeat" the Dutch when outnumbering them 20:1 (after losing most of their artillery mind you) while the Dutch defended a position that lacked fresh water. Oh and for fun, let us not forget that these were not actually the "Dutch" fighting, but faction within the VOC without the backing of the Dutch state.

But what the hell you had:
The Gorkah Empire
The Omani Empire
The Durrani Empire
The Mali Empire

At what point was the Mali Empire conquered? I seriously have never heard of that, the Portuguese never established a firm position nor conquered any significant part of the Mali empire, at least not before it had already collapsed and lost significant territory to the Songhai.

The rest have to be a joke. Neither the Gorkah or the Omani kingdoms were much more than regional powers (Bengal would've been more relevant, but that would be a terrible example of European military superiority, wouldn't it?). The Afghans never fought the Europeans during the EU4 period and the first war was a definite Afghan victory.

There is absolutely no example of Europeans invading and conquering overseas empires cheaply with few troops. None. At best, they managed to conquer a sprawling, war exhausted and divided subcontinent by judiciously using local nobles who wielded their own armies against the other factions. Which, granted, is not an available mechanic in the game. But a united and strong empire? Not a single example.

 

[Jomini]

At what point was the Mali Empire conquered? I seriously have never heard of that, the Portuguese never established a firm position nor conquered any significant part of the Mali empire, at least not before it had already collapsed and lost significant territory to the Songhai.

The rest have to be a joke. Neither the Gorkah or the Omani kingdoms were much more than regional powers (Bengal would've been more relevant, but that would be a terrible example of European military superiority, wouldn't it?). The Afghans never fought the Europeans during the EU4 period and the first war was a definite Afghan victory.

There is absolutely no example of Europeans invading and conquering overseas empires cheaply with few troops. None. At best, they managed to conquer a sprawling, war exhausted and divided subcontinent by judiciously using local nobles who wielded their own armies against the other factions. Which, granted, is not an available mechanic in the game. But a united and strong empire? Not a single example.

Oooh look more quibbling, I already said I was speaking colloquially when I said empire. As you know historically was done.


I'm sorry that your definition of empire is something that is based off Victorian sensibilities and you feel the need to denigrate the autonyms of various states. Good day.

 

[Jomini]

This is only a significant problem if you really strain expansion for West Africa and the new world...Muslim/Indian/Chinese/Nomad tech have big sight pictures at the start and players experienced enough to fast-conquer them out can get more revealed fast. West Africa and new world are too constrained by TI to avoid waiting, with the odd exception of SA native councils which luck into view of the most oft-early colonization spots and can often reform/start westernizing by like 1515-1520 (as opposed to 40+ years later). This creates the awkward scenario of Potiguara and Guarani being more viable to form Inca than Cuzco.

I wouldn't mind the conquistador solution though.

Kongo can (and if pursuing African Power quickly, should) declare into West Africa ASAP and conquer that territory. I'd much rather tech to ADM 5 while western with a force limit of 25-30+ than waiting until ADM 5 and teching up as sub-Saharan to do it...acknowledging that this does nullify their 1-vector look though.

Once you have exploration, you can cycle East and West (as in colonial strikes or Europe) until you're strong enough for both.



Yeah, you need the vision somehow. If the nations connect you'd get adjacent province reveal (I used this to finish westernization as Japan in 1584 w/o exploration, via bordering Genoa) but either way it's mostly going to boil down to a matter of vision. Even if the TI East of Yao were lifted, and East Africa could be seen via that route, it would open up the start significantly.

I'm really not seeing what opening Africa would do for Kongo other than make it like every other coastal state where you alternate theaters, build power, mange threat vectors on two fronts and eventually take on the Europeans. Opening up some TI would do a lot (and arguably would be more historical) that wouldn't make Africa into yet another statelet blob.

I'm all for not having arbitrary limits on colonizaton, but it's the only option to prevent ahistorical outcomes other than expanding the scope of the game's simulation. As many people have noted in the context of Iberian Siberia, that is a problem that exists in EU4 regardless of whether Africa is given a fair representation. I think in most cases like this everyone agrees that overhauling mechanics would be the ideal option, but in the interest of being realistic other possible solutions are discussed.



At this point, I'm not sure whether this thread stands more or less of a chance of getting a response from Paradox the longer it goes on, but I would very much like an answer for whether they ever plan on giving some focus to Africa.



I'm not sure why you feel regions that are more railroaded geographically are somehow less a case of "simple optimization"...

The real problem is that colonization is utterly uncontested. Historically colonies set up by France and England were disrupted by the Spanish (and Spanish colonial efforts were heavily hampered by French, British, and Dutch raiding). Without the need to protect your colonies, Spain and company just fill up the map with no opposition.

 

[zsImmortal]

Oooh look more quibbling, I already said I was speaking colloquially when I said empire. As you know historically was done.


I'm sorry that your definition of empire is something that is based off Victorian sensibilities and you feel the need to denigrate the autonyms of various states. Good day.

And yet all of the significant powers are handicapped by the same criteria as those kingdoms. If the argument is that they could ship a few thousand troops overseas to conquer territory, but they couldn't when they actually faced well-organized and rich states, why should strong non-European empires receive significant penalties and be weaker than Europeans?

 

[arkhometha]

Nah, the simple and sole reason people dont speak about tribes on specific people is because these are people are supposed to live in "civilized" states. You will never hear someone calling the modern Bavarians a tibe, nor the Basques nor the Han Chines. But you will hear them calling the Tuaregs a tribe, or the Dinka, or the Amazon Indians. Simply because they think these people are primitive. Thats why they get called "tribes".
Many people who are supposed to be "tribal" (primitive) still lived in cities.

You are, of course, wrong. People do speak about the Bavarian as a tribe, part of the germanic tribes. Slavic tribes settled the balkans.
The problem with the term tribe is the connotation that came with it in the 19th century, which implies a unilinear cultural evolution of societies. That theory is bogus, of course, but it's use to denote a society with "simple" organized society or a subdivision of a group is completely valid. That theory has long been dissociated from the word. And in fact the word is still in use by many scholars.

If you want modern examples of non african/non-native americans, there's all over the world. Chechens, for example, are an ethnic group. They identify as such. But some of them still have tribes - they carry symbolism for that. Arabs often also use it (tribe) and even the flag of the Republic of Adygea has 12 stars representing, you know what? That's right, tribes. You can have an ethnic group (like the Oromo or Chechens) who have further subdivisions, that they recognize themselves, that is what we (and them) call tribes. Which is the original use of the word, and it's very much in use. "The term originated in ancient Rome, where the word tribus denoted a division within the state." Using the victorian meaning is something you are doing right now, don't imply it's what other people are doing.

The reason we call basques an ethnic group and not a tribe isn't because of the racism you yourself give to the word, but due to changing dynamics in these groups. "Ethnic group is a particularly appropriate term within the discussion of modernizing countries, where one's identity and claims to landownership may depend less on extended kinship ties than on one's natal village or region of origin."
That's why Basques are not referred to as tribes anymore. Though they were referred to as such, and you can see such references in the literature.
"Basque tribes such as the Tarbelli in Dax and Baiona, the Sibusates or(...)"
Basque Diaspora: Migration and Transnational Identity. From 2005 by Gloria Pilar Totoricaguena.
No, the author isn't a racist like you like to think for using tribe. The term is used because it's a valid term which implies (for societies in general) societies with simple organizational structures and for an ethnie (like the Chechens) a subdivision which today still has meaning for the reasons explained above. These subdivisions in some ethnic groups vanished with time, kinship and local ties vanished, so only the macro determination remains. You can't have subdivisions for them anymore.

In fact, the term is still taught around the world, you can see examples here
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/pol_2.htm
and see there's no implied racism.

The implied racism in the word is something you give to it, not the ones that used the word. Of course there is a school of thought of more politically correct researchers who also agree with you, I'm aware of that, but like you, they are biased towards it because they can't disassociate the word from the 19th century use like most people did. Biased sources (like citing a non scholarly article in a site called "tolerance.org") don't support your claim that tribes don't exist. They did, they still do, no matter if you believe in them or not.

 

[Axe99]

The numbers in EUIV are off pretty much all around though

I definitely don't disagree. I think getting the numbers closer to how they actually were would improve gameplay (more choice/challenge) and improve historical plausibility, but that's getting away from this thread, and I think there are enough interesting discussions going on already .

The most important dynamics for the RotW is that European troops should win often with a low expenditure of resources (compared to a European campaign). The fact that this currently means shipping 50K overseas is less bad than the fact that the cannot do so with historical numbers (e.g. The Aztecs should fall to very minimal numbers, not the 10K or more Spain needs in game).

Agreed - ironically, this isn't actually the case in EU4 - if I want to achieve an overseas victory, it's often similarly expensive to a European continental campaign.

1. This is extremely hard on the AI. Logistics belong to a class of problems for which even incomplete solutions are computationally intensive. Currently the naval attrition system consists of a simple straight line distance calculation and a timer; one of the simplest attrition models. The AI cannot handle it and ignores it via an AI only cheat.
2. The more realistic the cost of logistics, the rewards of taking territory, etc. the more smart behavior will drive the player and the AI to ship doomstacks to the ends of the earth. The highest ROR for military adventures in the era were things like the conquest of the Aztec and Inca, but even the wars of North America and India proved far more lucrative than taking swathes of Europe. Historically decision makers had no idea how lucrative overseas conquest could be. Given the problem of player knowledge about the real ROR to be had, players make vastly different choices.

I agree it'd require an overhaul - my post bringing up the subject noted that it'd be a big change (I wouldn't expect to see it in EU4, beyond something quick, dirty and easy to calculate). Just that it'd help if they were there. As for overseas doomstacks, I'm not sure this is the case - they'd ship troops overseas as they did historically, but there'd be strong diminishing marginal returns on doomstacks, particularly if they tried to go inland, if there was some kind of 'how hard is it to keep the army supplied' system, which would discourage large and hard-to-maintain armies sauntering off inland, which would discourage European conquests of Africa away from the coast. If it was done by a simple attrition thing, it wouldn't be that hard to code for the AI (potential war target's provinces have terrible attrition, ergo don't DoW there and if at war, don't send large armies there). I agree a more complex logistics approach would take a lot of work though.

Guys you know that every province has a loot bar, so why not reducing the supply limit world wide, making this the base supply limit but depending on the loot bar of the province (full, half or empty) your army is on, the supply limit is higher the fuller the loot bar is, and if you want to field a larger armies you can use more cavalry, which allows you to field even more troops but for an increasingly limited time (has cavalry reduces the loot bar quicker). Doesn't this represent period logistics more accurately?

I like this a lot - the idea might need some refining (particularly vis-a-vis how forts work now), but it would be simple to implement, easy to work into AI calcs and easy for a player to understand.

These are deeper problems than lack of partners. Game mechanics right now have MP bottlenecks that basically overwhelm most other factors. Adding a few more tags and making the map more connected will not solve those.

This just highlights the difficulties with the game not having internal gameplay mechanics. Many nations spent decades without going to war in the period, but this is far less likely to happen in-game because for a human, it's a dash dull, and for the AI, if they do it they can't remain competitive. In short, what @BrokenSky said here:

If there were more, better and interesting peacetime mechanics, both for internal and international politics, espionage, improved missions etc. would these regions be fun to play?

 

[Jomini]

Agreed - ironically, this isn't actually the case in EU4 - if I want to achieve an overseas victory, it's often similarly expensive to a European continental campaign.

Yeah, but more importantly, I rarely see overseas campaigns resulting in the next European war being a fiasco. It can be expensive, as most certainly sending 10K soldiers to China would be ... it just needs to not result in Spain getting overrun by France in the process.

I agree it'd require an overhaul - my post bringing up the subject noted that it'd be a big change (I wouldn't expect to see it in EU4, beyond something quick, dirty and easy to calculate). Just that it'd help if they were there. As for overseas doomstacks, I'm not sure this is the case - they'd ship troops overseas as they did historically, but there'd be strong diminishing marginal returns on doomstacks, particularly if they tried to go inland, if there was some kind of 'how hard is it to keep the army supplied' system, which would discourage large and hard-to-maintain armies sauntering off inland, which would discourage European conquests of Africa away from the coast. If it was done by a simple attrition thing, it wouldn't be that hard to code for the AI (potential war target's provinces have terrible attrition, ergo don't DoW there and if at war, don't send large armies there). I agree a more complex logistics approach would take a lot of work though.

Historically, though control of wide open territory that had limited exposure the most manpower efficient farming technologies (particularly if the natives died or were "displaced" during the conquest) proved to be extremely lucrative. Control over places like Cyprus proved to be of very marginal value.

Winning a few hundred square miles in Europe often cost you thousands of men and you plundered the place to oblivion to take it. With those same resources you could punch any nice lucrative statelet in India and hold it forever.

What the game really needs to help the RotW are for European states to compete more heavily outside of Europe with webs of local allies and proxies so that military technology can diffuse (e.g. how the Mughals got military tech from the OE, the NA tribes got armed in the French/English conflict, etc.) and the advantages of both sides can come into play.

 

[LinusLinothorax]

You are, of course, wrong. People do speak about the Bavarian as a tribe, part of the germanic tribes. Slavic tribes settled the balkans.

The magic word i used is "modern". And as a German i can assure you very much that modern Bavarians are not entitled as a tribe.

That theory is bogus, of course, but it's use to denote a society with "simple" organization or a subdivision of a group is completely valid.

There we have it again: Someone trying to explain "tribal" comes up with the ultra-vague explanation that is a "simple organized society". But what are these societies? No one of the tribal-explainer can ever explain that. And do you know why? Because these "societies" dont exist. There are only two types of primitive, political pre-state societies: Villages ruled by an elder/chief or nomadic clans, ruled by an elde, but there arent "tribal" societies.

If you want modern examples of non african/non-native americans, there's all over the world. Chechens, for example, are an ethnic group. They identify as such. But some of them have still tribes - they carry symbolism for that.

And let me guess: It is those who "identify themselves as tribal" who still live in the mountains and are largely untouched by westernization yet, right?

Arabs often also use it (tribe) and even the flag of the Republic of Adygea has 12 stars representing, you know what? That's right, tribes. You can have an ethnic group (like the Oromo or Chechens) who have further subdivisions, that they recognize themselves, that is what we (and them) call tribes.

There is one golden rule: Native people only identify themselve as a part of a "tribe" when they speak in English.

Which is the original use of the word, and it's very much in use. "The term originated in ancient Rome, where the word tribus denoted a division within the state."

Interesting, but what exactly has a political division of the Roman kingdom to do with our discussion? Did you took it just because "tribus" sounds similiar to "tribe"? Or because "tribus" was a political division? Then i dont understand what political divisions have to do with ethnical divisions. Or do you think these ethnical divions of the people are own political entinities? Then i have to dissapoint you, just because of the very same reason i already mentioned concerning on your second qoute.

Using the victorian meaning is something you are doing right now, don't imply it's what other people are doing.

Its the very exact thing people are still doing, they just dont notice the background of the word and dont mean it necessarily evil.

"Ethnic group is a particularly appropriate term within the discussion of modernizing countries, where one's identity and claims to landownership may depend less on extended kinship ties than on one's natal village or region of origin."

What if i tell you than even within the most primitive village with lets say 30 inhabitants not everyone is related with each other? After that definition you just gave even they have to get recognized as an ethnicity (Which is correct)

No, the author isn't a racist like you like to think for using tribe. The term is used because it's a valid term which implies (for societies in general) societies with simple organizational structures and for an ethnie (like the Chechens) a subdivision which today still has meaning for the reasons explained above.

Oh surpirse, the "society with simple organizational structures" shows up again. Why dont you just say primitive? Because this is what you are basicaly saying, what i already said dozens of times: "Tribe" is only used for appareantly "primitive" people, a and for a "society" of that very people that dont even exists.

These subdivisions in some ethnic groups vanished with time, kinship and local ties vanished, so only the macro determination remains. You can't have subdivisions for them anymore.

I am not entirely sure if i understood what you just said. What are these macro determinations? And who would make use of that macro determinations if the whole ethnic group vanished?

"In fact, the term is still taught around the world, you can see examples here
http://anthro.palomar.edu/political/pol_2.htm
and see there's no implied racism."

Lol, bands is a nice word for clans. Except of that, this link provided nothing new for the discussion. All i see is the author writing about some native clans and villages and describes them as "tribal".
Also check out how he wants to put a nomadic Native American community into a whole "tribe" (2nd picture of the "tribes"-part), with the elder deciding the fate of his "tribe". So appareantly tribes are now not the the whole subdivisions of people anymore, but just tiny communities instead. Strange how the deifinion of "tribe" changed so fast suddenly. I guess showing this link was pretty contra-productive for you, as it just underlined my opinion about "tribe": A very vague term randomly used for native, non-westernized communities (Or sometimes for whole people, that depends on the mood of the author), putting them somehow into a primitive political entity linked by ethnicity.



Ah, and btw. please stop your lame attempts to make me look like a whiney, left and "political correct" pussy. Better come up with properly arguments that proof me wrong instead.

 

[ImperatorLJ]

NERRRRDS! GO OUTSIDE!

 

[superZAKTAN]

Shouldn't we get Naval and Asia beforehand?

 

[generalolaf]

There is one golden rule: Native people only identify themselve as a part of a "tribe" when they speak in English.

Because it's an English word. Where I live, in New Zealand, the indigenous people (the Maori) have a concept - iwi - that is analogous to the proper definition of a 'tribe' in English. It doesn't necessarily imply political unity, but iwi tend to live in the same areas, claim descent from a common ancestor, didn't tend to infight, though they did often exist as several separate entities and now tend to exist as singular units within 'Maoridom'. This fits the general definition of a tribe and if you're using the English language, that's how you refer to them properly. It's not considered offensive - it's just the word used to describe a society that works inside those parameters.

So, anyway, why is this important with regard to whether or not there should be more land and nations within Africa? I forget and don't care to re-read the thread.

 

[LinusLinothorax]

Because it's an English word.

Indeed. And because it doesnt have a fitting counterpart in any native language.

Where I live, in New Zealand, the indigenous people (the Maori) have a concept - iwi - that is analogous to the proper definition of a 'tribe' in English. It doesn't necessarily imply political unity, but iwi tend to live in the same areas, claim descent from a common ancestor, didn't tend to infight, though they did often exist as several separate entities and now tend to exist as singular units within 'Maoridom'.

Looks like the ordinary definition of "sub-people" to me. If i see it right, every Iwi even has its own dialect.

 

[Duarte]

So, anyway, why is this important with regard to whether or not there should be more land and nations within Africa? I forget and don't care to re-read the thread.

The Bantu were referred to has tribe, discussion with very little relevance to the topic started.

 

[generalolaf]

Indeed. And because it doesnt have a fitting counterpart in any native language.
Looks like the ordinary definition of "sub-people" to me. If i see it right, every Iwi even has its own dialect.

That isn't the case. There are two Maori dialects in mainland New Zealand, and they're by location (North versus South Island) not by iwi.
Inter-iwi fighting was very, very common in the EU period.

Besides, you're being overly pedantic: a tribe is roughly the same thing as a sub-people or a clan, and it's a very old word with no negative connotations, at least in modern language. Sometimes it's used incorrectly.

Alternatively, I'd argue a tribe is a society that exists independent of the city.

The Bantu were referred to has tribe, discussion with very little relevance to the topic started.

Well, that would depend for me on the existence of cities in that culture. I understand Bantu cities have existed, but haven't there also been Bantu societies that didn't have cities? Those would be trbes, the ones with cities monarchies and the group as a whole should be labelled as a culture.

Anyway. I think there's enough material for expansion in that area that Paradox could justifiably do this. We should try not to get too bogged down in semantics.

 

[Axe99]

NERRRRDS! GO OUTSIDE!

Haha, given that anyone posting in these forums isn't just into strategy titles (niche and kinda nerdy by definition), they're so into them that they've registered and are active on the forums, I reckon we've all got an element of nerd/geek to us, including those posting that we're nerdy and should go outside .

 

[Itchel]

There's a good reason why this game is focused on europe, Currently even the game functions work better for a european kingdom or republic... and I dont mean map detail