Wasteland states DLC

[Afinati]

How about filling in the wastelands, particularly in Africa, with special provinces that cannot be cored by non-primitive states (ever), can never be bought or sold, and cannot be discovered by non-primitives unless the states occupying them have westernized?

This way you can create central African, Aboriginal, Inuit polities, etc and have them play in the playground with their primitive tech neighbors. Also, just to plug a hole ... have it that any states owning wasteland provinces cannot be annexed ... or, if they can, only the non-wasteland section gets absorbed into the parent state.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Personally I'm happy they have added the wasteland colouring, I would rather they added depth to the tags there are already than make new ones.

 

[TheeBadJoke]

Maybe rather than nations they could be represented by events for the nations that border them, giving them historical value without overhauling the whole game for them.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Maybe rather than nations they could be represented by events for the nations that border them, giving them historical value without overhauling the whole game for them.

what kind of events do you have in mind?

 

[3ishop]

I'd say two:

• Natives come to trade +X resource production for X time
• Natives attack our province X rebels appear in province(s)

Outside of that it serves no use to have them in game.

 

[Krajzen]

I'm sorry but with all my sympathy towards Inuit, Aborigines, Papua, Amazon and Pygmy, these all guys in no way in under any circumstances should be treated as political entities in eu4 timeframe and before.

They were hunter - gatherers or small farmers. No written language. Stateless society or very simple tribal organisation. Stone or iron tools and no firearms. Some of natives quite correctly regarded by anthropologists as stone-level technology prior to European contact. No organised religion. No stone architecture. No scientific method. They are so far from what eu4 encompasses about human societies, they cannot be properly modelled even with some +1000% tech cost or penalties; they quite simply completely fall out of a scale used by this game (and we have no games yet able to simulate each and every small tribe and nation in the world, processing power is limited).

Furthermore, let me say that, they would suck to play as: super boring. American empires relied on European arrival for actual game to begin, there were TWO DLCs released mainly with target to give them special half - fantasy stuff added so they would do anything at all for the first 100 years; and tribes you talk about are much more isolated and primitive.

There are siberian clans currently and they are already ridiculous; 'countries' while population of these four tribes taken together lied below 50 000 and who were on stone age technological level. Almost nobody ever plays them because they don't have (and can't have due to lack of historical background) any flavor, they have crap governments and tech and sit among barren useless ground.

Hell, many of NA tribes in EU4 are already very far fetched 'countries' (Iroquis Confederacy: probably the most organized of them IRL, population: 30 000).

 

[Afinati]

I'm sorry but with all my sympathy towards Inuit, Aborigines, Papua, Amazon and Pygmy, these all guys in no way in under any circumstances should be treated as political entities in eu4 timeframe and before.

They were hunter - gatherers or small farmers. No written language. Stateless society or very simple tribal organisation. Stone or iron tools and no firearms. Some of natives quite correctly regarded by anthropologists as stone-level technology prior to European contact. No organised religion. No stone architecture. No scientific method. They are so far from what eu4 encompasses about human societies, they cannot be properly modelled even with some +1000% tech cost or penalties; they quite simply completely fall out of a scale used by this game (and we have no games yet able to simulate each and every small tribe and nation in the world, processing power is limited).

Furthermore, let me say that, they would suck to play as: super boring. American empires relied on European arrival for actual game to begin, there were TWO DLCs released mainly with target to give them special half - fantasy stuff added so they would do anything at all for the first 100 years; and tribes you talk about are much more isolated and primitive.

There are siberian clans currently and they are already ridiculous; 'countries' while population of these four tribes taken together lied below 50 000 and who were on stone age technological level. Almost nobody ever plays them because they don't have (and can't have due to lack of historical background) any flavor, they have crap governments and tech and sit among barren useless ground.

Hell, many of NA tribes in EU4 are already very far fetched 'countries' (Iroquis Confederacy: probably the most organized of them IRL, population: 30 000).

Just make 'em tribes like in SA and NA. AI won't westernize them, and players can have fun with them. EU4 already models societies with similar complexities to the Inuits and co.

 

[Afinati]

I'm sorry but with all my sympathy towards Inuit, Aborigines, Papua, Amazon and Pygmy, these all guys in no way in under any circumstances should be treated as political entities in eu4 timeframe and before.

They were hunter - gatherers or small farmers. No written language. Stateless society or very simple tribal organisation. Stone or iron tools and no firearms. Some of natives quite correctly regarded by anthropologists as stone-level technology prior to European contact. No organised religion. No stone architecture. No scientific method. They are so far from what eu4 encompasses about human societies, they cannot be properly modelled even with some +1000% tech cost or penalties; they quite simply completely fall out of a scale used by this game (and we have no games yet able to simulate each and every small tribe and nation in the world, processing power is limited).

Furthermore, let me say that, they would suck to play as: super boring. American empires relied on European arrival for actual game to begin, there were TWO DLCs released mainly with target to give them special half - fantasy stuff added so they would do anything at all for the first 100 years; and tribes you talk about are much more isolated and primitive.

There are siberian clans currently and they are already ridiculous; 'countries' while population of these four tribes taken together lied below 50 000 and who were on stone age technological level. Almost nobody ever plays them because they don't have (and can't have due to lack of historical background) any flavor, they have crap governments and tech and sit among barren useless ground.

Hell, many of NA tribes in EU4 are already very far fetched 'countries' (Iroquis Confederacy: probably the most organized of them IRL, population: 30 000).

Just make 'em tribes like in SA and NA. AI won't westernize them, and players can have fun with them. EU4 already models societies with similar complexities to the Inuits and co.

 

[TheeBadJoke]

what kind of events do you have in mind?

I was thinking trade events, events that would spawn natives trying to raid your provinces, assimilating natives which would give you development, and small encounter flavour events which would yield monarch points.

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

I was thinking trade events, events that would spawn natives trying to raid your provinces, assimilating natives which would give you development, and small encounter flavour events which would yield monarch points.

As much as I like the idea, I cant ever see it being something high up the development list, if anything it would just annoy me if it just happened on wastelands, perhaps a few frontier events generally on borderlands with either wasteland or uncolonised provinces

 

[TheeBadJoke]

As much as I like the idea, I cant ever see it being something high up the development list, if anything it would just annoy me if it just happened on wastelands, perhaps a few frontier events generally on borderlands with either wasteland or uncolonised provinces

Sorry, I should have specified. These events would occur for nations that have provinces bordering the wastelands. Not for being stationed in Wastelands.

 

[Itchel]

I think some(key word, SOME) wastelands should be colonizable but with severe consequences, All uncolonized land that is a historical wastelands or very uninhabitable should have a province modifier giving
negative settler chance of around -50/-100 settler chance just to keep them from being colonized at earlier dates and to promote colonizing land that's more important
and very high attrition making it a risky idea to run through such provinces
and finally(this can be said for all provinces... if the ammount of natives in a province is higher than 2000/4000 your culture does not override theirs, if 6000/8000 then your religion does not override theirs

 

[Fluffy_Fishy]

Sorry, I should have specified. These events would occur for nations that have provinces bordering the wastelands. Not for being stationed in Wastelands.

I got that you meant that, I just feel like a frontier rather than wastelands is more applicable, generally as you come across more edges of "civilisation" than you do wastelands

 

[Afinati]

One person objected directly to the legitimacy of representing these regions with pre-existing state mechanics and another person suggested that it's not a high priority issue.

Do the other commenters and respectfully disagreeing folks fit into these camps or is there another glaring, unspoken shared opinion that makes my OP suggestions unpalatable?

 

[TheeBadJoke]

I got that you meant that, I just feel like a frontier rather than wastelands is more applicable, generally as you come across more edges of "civilisation" than you do wastelands

Okay. I just wanted to specify to clear up any confusion. I agree with you on how it applies more to frontier then wasteland.

One person objected directly to the legitimacy of representing these regions with pre-existing state mechanics and another person suggested that it's not a high priority issue.

Do the other commenters and respectfully disagreeing folks fit into these camps or is there another glaring, unspoken shared opinion that makes my OP suggestions unpalatable?

I think most of the respectfully disagreers fall into the first option you've presented. I personally believe we need to flesh out Africa more, but in areas where the tribes/kingdoms were more defined such as Madagascar or adding more flavour to the existing nations such as Mali.