Neither the Gauls nor the Germanic tribes were actually nomads, though. At least not in the same sense as the inhabitants of the Steppes.
- 1
- 1
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.
Not a judgement, but I wonder how many people play, or would play, a Sub-Saharan tag?
I'd personally love to play those nations if they were flavored up, but I just don't think the average person cares enough to warrant a DLC anytime soon.
I'd personally love to play those nations if they were flavored up, but I just don't think the average person cares enough to warrant a DLC anytime soon.
I don't think anyone has mentioned this but..
Do you all know why the AI does nothing with North America for so long while gobbling South and the Caribbean?
Development.
America has very low development. So low that Europe doesn't start to care until the 1700's. The average developement is almost 5. Does anyone see where I am going?
I'll spell it out, give NA more development hidden behind colonization (so that the tribes don't overpower the area). This will take the colonizers away from useless and cheap provinces in Asia and Africa with 7000 + natives and leave the interior African nations unconquered until late-game. Past 1700. It's not completely historical, and I agree that there should be very high attrition in this area too, but this fixes a lot of the problems and reflects the explosion of population in NA after colonization very well.
Do you all know why the AI does nothing with North America for so long while gobbling South and the Caribbean?
Development.
America has very low development. So low that Europe doesn't start to care until the 1700's. The average developement is almost 5. Does anyone see where I am going?
I'll spell it out, give NA more development hidden behind colonization (so that the tribes don't overpower the area). This will take the colonizers away from useless and cheap provinces in Asia and Africa with 7000 + natives and leave the interior African nations unconquered until late-game. Past 1700. It's not completely historical, and I agree that there should be very high attrition in this area too, but this fixes a lot of the problems and reflects the explosion of population in NA after colonization very well.
- 1
I get where you're coming from, but this line of thinking is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Paradox continues to neglect Africa under the premise that no one wants to play there, then people are never going to want to play there.
- 10
I've played as Air, but that was mostly for the name and color. Too bad most of the African rulers except Amina are terrible.
Ugh, just add massive attrition to those provinces, disallow core creation to them ... even if there's a cored province chain up to those interior provinces, permanently terra incognita them. It's not impossible to solve this.
- 5
Well done: You've created invulnerable countries, which are objectively bad for gameplay.
- 5
- 1
Central African states that aren't invulnerable to their pre-existing African neighbors, who don't give the penalties that I described when being invaded by their African neighbors, and states that are generally so weak that they'll not blob out. The penalties to coring, supply, discovery ... should not happen to sub-Sahara tech countries ... but should to everybody else. When Songhai conquers the whole region, Britain can only take non-central provinces and can't annex a state that has central African provinces.
Can't sell or buy central African provinces. What other problems does this model bring up in MP?
If it's that an outside power props up a central African one until it can blob out and/or Westernize and escape its region, make penalties there.
My interest in this is to allow African states from coast to center to coast to mess with each other and to model central Africa. However this works out, if it could, could work from the Inuits to the Aboriginal people too maybe.
If we're considering unusual solutions, we could have an interior of Africa map, completely blocked off to the outside by wasteland and only able to interact through events.
The main problem with the game wrt Africa is the a-historical speed with which the entire map is uncovered. Africa is a part of that, but so is the southern ocean and the lack of Terra Australasia Incognita quite quickly into the game. Perhaps if discovery of provinces was overhauled, the solution wrt Africa would also become simpler?
The main problem with the game wrt Africa is the a-historical speed with which the entire map is uncovered. Africa is a part of that, but so is the southern ocean and the lack of Terra Australasia Incognita quite quickly into the game. Perhaps if discovery of provinces was overhauled, the solution wrt Africa would also become simpler?
Last edited:
- 1
Playable interior regions could be blocked in by wasteland but connected to the outside by overland straits (making conquest from either side significantly more difficult). The vanilla map doesn't use this technique but some mods do, particularly in the Sahara.
- 3
I don't think completing blocking off central Africa with wasteland is necessary. I think something along these lines this would be a fair compromise- it still leaves out a lot of habitable land as wasteland (the Kalahari is nowhere near that big), but it provides room for the most populous and politically developed regions (light grey areas split into some number of non-wasteland provinces):
Just put a couple empty provinces between the Great Lakes kingdoms and the coastal states of East Africa, and possibly break up Kongo's provinces a bit more as well.
Just put a couple empty provinces between the Great Lakes kingdoms and the coastal states of East Africa, and possibly break up Kongo's provinces a bit more as well.
- 6
- 2
I don't think completing blocki, rightng off central Africa with wasteland is necessary. I think something along these lines this would be a fair compromise- it still leaves out a lot of habitable land as wasteland (the Kalahari is nowhere near that big), but it provides room for the most populous and politically developed regions (light grey areas split into some number of non-wasteland provinces):
Just put a couple empty provinces between the Great Lakes kingdoms and the coastal states of East Africa, and possibly break up Kongo's provinces a bit more as well.
This would be good if the whole exploration thing got a bit reworked. Ideally discovering anything but coastal African provinces would require you to actually put a conquistador on africa and send them exploring, and if searching in Africa required dip tech at some quiet high level (20+?) and the Ai wouldn't do it under normal conditions then it might stay unexplored for the whole game?
Possibly also if colonist in different regions required different levels of Dip-tech (medic is dip, right?) based on hostility, the whole colonizing Africa too soon ahistorically could be sorted?
It would of course be different regions for different original tech groups, representing how Africans were more immune to local virus than foreigners. Mesoamericans would have a hard time colonizing in Europe (hypothetically) too because smallpox.
- 1
A lot of people have suggested something that pits tech level against a province's "life value", but I don't think that's necessary in the context of EU4. It really can just be handled on a region-by-region basis, as a couple of the alternatives that I've proposed have suggested.
- 1
There shouldn't be ANY Wastelands in the world. Rather, there should be a terrain penatly where certain tech groups are barred from owning (and moving troops into) certain territories. In the case of Africa, large swathes of land would be "Malarial," preventing colonization by Western and Eastern nations.
With that implemented, all of Africa could be represented through provinces, and Native American migration mechanics could be introduced.
With that implemented, all of Africa could be represented through provinces, and Native American migration mechanics could be introduced.
- 7
- 2
This is terrible. Even today there are certain terrains where no military is going to be able to field thousands of infantry (Antartica in the deep winter when the weather prevents overflight for instance).
One of the things to consider in Africa is could African armies transit the areas in question. In all of recorded Kongolese history, no army ever invaded the place from the Great Lakes region. Likewise, the history of the Great Lake Regions have zero mention of organized armies invading from the coast or Kongo.
Rarely, you had groups of people migrating into the Great Lakes regions, but never at the head of organized armies. Up until the 19th century, it just wasn't feasible for large scale armies to transit from Kongo to East Africa.
Some places really were not part of the global trade and military networks in the EUIV era.
- 4
- 1
I admit ignorance to the terrain of the region, unlike say the US west. Why wasn't over-land marching through the region feasible? To what extent was it a matter of "I can't march a military through here because there are no resources to support doing it" versus "invading these guys is a useless waste of time with far greater expense than utility".
It's not like African armies were toting cannons around or doing major shipping logistics in 1450. Nations in reality didn't conquer "because I can", but that's not atypical in EU. Would that path really be significantly harder on a military than crossing the Sahara, which the game allows?
Macina's looks decent until you realize you just picked regency bait lol. Songhai's rulers are super old so you can play the lotto there (and with the only non-tribal in the region...for some reason). Mali and Kanem Bornu are extra special terrible. Benin is okay though.
- 2
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emin_Pasha_Relief_Expedition
Given the hellish time Stanley had at the end of the 19th Century, imagine how bad it would have been centuries earlier.
That whole area between the Great Lakes and Kongo is more or less filled with nearly impenetrable jungle. If you want a cross-Africa corridor, it would be much more reasonable to have one a bit further south, from Zambia to Angola. That's still pretty rough terrain, but at least moving armies through there during the time period could potentially have been feasable (although still unlikely).
- 2
- 1
Mostly it was people dying from disease. Before the modern era, disease usually killed the most soldiers.