Why are you allowed to colonize Africa?

[Sebor13]

I'm sure it was physically possible. I doubt the laws of physics would have prevented a few European guys setting up camp somewhere in Angola.
*And Hearts of Iron also discredits any ahistorical attempt at anything in Victoria II. It's a seperate game. It isn't relevant.

Between the tons of hostile natives (more so than the Americas), deadly diseases (much more so than the Americas), lack of any resources to use the European form of agriculture(which was incredibly easy in the Americas), much nastier wildlife, lack of profit from such a colony (which was the point in colonies), and the length of time pre-Industrial travel takes, I'd say yes. It is impossible.

The coastline and South Africa are a different story though. My main gripes are the fact that Europeans colonize far into West Africa and how large the provinces are when they should be tiny coastal provinces, not much larger than a city.

There is no way that went over your head.
Victoria 2 represents historically accurate technological ability. Borders do not matter, the potential for these borders had to become real are what matters.

If Germany colonizes the Mali in V2, that was a possibility considering they had the money and technology to do it.

If Portugal colonizes Mali in EU4, that was impossible. That could not have happened and should be reflected in gameplay.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

First of all you simply cannot compare the impact the impact of disease on Native Americans with the impact of native diseases on Europeans.

European diseases killed 90%+ of native populations. Native diseases killed an infinitesimal fraction of that number of Europeans. European civilization did not collapse. It's not remotely comparable.

It's disputed whether Syphilis began in the New World or whether it was present in both continents and was only recognized in Europe after 1493.

In any case it did not cause a massive die-off of Europeans like the Black Plague. Polio was reportedly known to the ancient Egyptians and didn't originate in the Americas. And "approximately 90% of polio infections cause no symptoms at all" Once again these diseases did not cause massive die-offs.

And the reason that Europeans didn't bring lots of deadly African diseases back to Europe in this era is because they weren't trying to colonize the interior of Africa between 1446 and 1820. Those Europeans who attempted to enter the interior of Sub-Saharan Africa died in staggering numbers well into the 20th century.
.

I can, and I did. Yes, small pox had a much larger and more devastating impact than the diseases the colonizers got in the New World. You want to know one reason why? The natives in the New World did not travel to Europe and systematically and intentionally come to the Old World to infect people. If they did, a lot more Europeans would have died. The Europeans did it because it was a cheap and effective way to kill large amounts of people. You act like it had no impact on Europe just because people didn't die enmass, which is an understatement. Someone already made the obligatory semi-serious statement about the effect of neurogenic syphilis on nobles.

The reasons why Europeans did not bring back a lot of diseases from Africa is the vectors of exposure. The vectors of exposure for small pox, syphilis, hepatitis, measles etc is people. The vectors for many tropical diseases are parasites, fungi, mosquitos. Things that did not live very well outside of tropical areas.

It is not a fallacy, you misread my point => Africans were better suited to toil in the said conditions compared to either Europeans or Indians. I don't think that's really a fallacious statement though; As for the inhospitable land for cash crops, I made that point somewhere in there as well

It is a fallacy. If the Europeans lived in those conditions, they would have become accustomed to them (the ones that couldn't would obviously die). In fact, not all slaves could become accustomed to their new conditions and often died. While it would take some time to get accustomed to living in the Caribbean after living in England, compared to Central Africa. It was not some great feat like developing systematic immunity to small pox. The biggest reason why natives made terrible slaves, is if they ran away, they would find safe haven, and they looked like natives. A black person does not blend in with natives, and also probably would not know safe areas to run to.

 

[Gundi]

I think it's a stretch to say that there was successful colonization of Africa during EUIV's time period. The only real control Europeans had over Africa was limited to a number of ports and cities/towns near the coast. Certain countries like Portugal may have claimed large swaths of Africa but their influence was minimal and nobody really cared to dispute what they put on their maps. This was due to a number of reasons: Disease was one reason, certainly. Another was the large African populations who could, and would, fight off Europeans; in fact it wasn't until the late 1800s that large-scale conflict between Africans and Europeans really completely settled down.

 

[Trickrs]

Britain only managed to submit the Somalis after WWI with air-power.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

I think it's a stretch to say that there was successful colonization of Africa during EUIV's time period. The only real control Europeans had over Africa was limited to a number of ports and cities/towns near the coast. Certain countries like Portugal may have claimed large swaths of Africa but their influence was minimal and nobody really cared to dispute what they put on their maps. This was due to a number of reasons: Disease was one reason, certainly. Another was the large African populations who could, and would, fight off Europeans; in fact it wasn't until the late 1800s that large-scale conflict between Africans and Europeans really completely settled down.

Asian was not colonized in huge numbers either, but then again it was all about money not people. In terms of money, Africa was about as colonized as it could get before industrialization. Its not lack of trying that the Europeans failed, it was the lack of need. The Europeans just needed Africa to control the Asian trade and the Slave trade. In terms of those two things, they were successful enough. After industrialization and the loss of the New World, the focus in Africa change from a stop over to resource exploitation, with the Asian trade going through the Suez Canal. If Africa held more value before then, I am sure Europe would have found an effective way to eliminate restless natives and overcome disease. As there was no need, it did not happen on any large scale.

The only way to simulate this is to make overseas territories cost money to maintain, with the only way to make up for this being through trade. For the player, since they get attrition in the sea, they would just colonize 1 or so African province (ever so often to maintain no attrition). The AI, without naval attrition wouldn't really need to colonize any of Africa. Colonies should represent a large investment of money, even after they are cored. Unfortunately, they just offer free money and trade power with no risk what so ever.

 

[anubisfike]

Asian was not colonized in huge numbers either, but then again it was all about money not people. In terms of money, Africa was about as colonized as it could get before industrialization. Its not lack of trying that the Europeans failed, it was the lack of need. The Europeans just needed Africa to control the Asian trade and the Slave trade. In terms of those two things, they were successful enough. After industrialization and the loss of the New World, the focus in Africa change from a stop over to resource exploitation, with the Asian trade going through the Suez Canal. If Africa held more value before then, I am sure Europe would have found an effective way to eliminate restless natives and overcome disease. As there was no need, it did not happen on any large scale.

You are (still?) missing the whole point. The things that were needed to overcome the hardships of Africa came during or slightly before the industrialisation, which doesn't take place in this game. If you honestly believe someone in the 1500's or 1600's would have discovered modern medicine and invented a working gatling gun feel free to provide an example of such a person. Or even how that would have been possible with no other development to support such things.

 

[Manbearpig]

You are (still?) missing the whole point. The things that were needed to overcome the hardships of Africa came during or slightly before the industrialisation, which doesn't take place in this game. If you honestly believe someone in the 1500's or 1600's would have discovered modern medicine and invented a working gatling gun feel free to provide an example of such a person. Or even how that would have been possible with no other development to support such things.

All I need to overcome any and all hardships are men and weapons, and I have those in abundance.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

All I need to overcome any and all hardships are men and weapons, and I have those in abundance.

Crude, but very true.

You are (still?) missing the whole point. The things that were needed to overcome the hardships of Africa came during or slightly before the industrialisation, which doesn't take place in this game. If you honestly believe someone in the 1500's or 1600's would have discovered modern medicine and invented a working gatling gun feel free to provide an example of such a person. Or even how that would have been possible with no other development to support such things.

Small pox is a great example of why medicine is not needed. You throw enough people at a disease, you get a collective immunity. If you do it on a small enough scale you can selectively breed resistant people, thus you do not get the outcomes that small pox had, where a large amount of people get exposed over a short period of time, so the only people left were resistant. If you do it gradually enough, you find people with immunity, and just reproduce those people over and over again. All else fails, just expose millions of Europeans and keep the ones that are still healthy in the end.

The thing is, there was no reason to even try to colonize Africa because the money was not worth it. If Africa was littered in things that Europeans wanted at the time, the nobles would have mobilized large armies, sacrificed as many peasants as they could get away with, until they got what they wanted. The thing is, industrialization not only made colonizing Africa cheaper, it also gave them a reason. Before industrialization, farmed goods were the most sought after goods in the world (cotton, spices, tobacco, sugar, etc). After industrialization manufactured goods were the most sought after. Since Africa did not provide farmed goods or gold, there was no reason to go there. If it did, I am sure Europeans would know have high rates of sickle cell anemia, high rates of resistance to a wide array of diseases and parasites, but they do not. Instead, they are resistant to European, Asian, and North American diseases because that is where the money was for centuries (Africa was never exploited long enough or with enough people to help create those kinds of resistances).

 

[anubisfike]

Small pox is a great example of why medicine is not needed. You throw enough people at a disease, you get a collective immunity. If you do it on a small enough scale you can selectively breed resistant people, thus you do not get the outcomes that small pox had, where a large amount of people get exposed over a short period of time, so the only people left were resistant. If you do it gradually enough, you find people with immunity, and just reproduce those people over and over again. All else fails, just expose millions of Europeans and keep the ones that are still healthy in the end.

The thing is, there was no reason to even try to colonize Africa because the money was not worth it. If Africa was littered in things that Europeans wanted at the time, the nobles would have mobilized large armies, sacrificed as many peasants as they could get away with, until they got what they wanted. The thing is, industrialization not only made colonizing Africa cheaper, it also gave them a reason. Before industrialization, farmed goods were the most sought after goods in the world (cotton, spices, tobacco, sugar, etc). After industrialization manufactured goods were the most sought after. Since Africa did not provide farmed goods or gold, there was no reason to go there. If it did, I am sure Europeans would know have high rates of sickle cell anemia, high rates of resistance to a wide array of diseases and parasites, but they do not. Instead, they are resistant to European, Asian, and North American diseases because that is where the money was for centuries (Africa was never exploited long enough or with enough people to help create those kinds of resistances).

So all else aside you assume 16th century Europeans had a clue about microbiology and development of resistance to certain types of diseases? They had barely invented a microscope at the time. If only Africa was richer (disregard the fact that it was and is a very rich continent and things like cotton, coffee, sugar etc. grow there just fine) they would have known to "breed" humans to develop a resistance to local diseases in order to colonize Africa? Sorry but no.

By the way I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, it certainly wasn't profitable to colonize Africa for the most part but even if it was I still very much doubt there would have been any way to do so successfully.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

So all else aside you assume 16th century Europeans had a clue about microbiology and development of resistance to certain types of diseases? They had barely invented a microscope at the time. If only Africa was richer (disregard the fact that it was and is a very rich continent and things like cotton, coffee, sugar etc. grow there just fine) they would have known to "breed" humans to develop a resistance to local diseases in order to colonize Africa? Sorry but no.

By the way I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, it certainly wasn't profitable to colonize Africa for the most part but even if it was I still very much doubt there would have been any way to do so successfully.

Did anyone but modern man know about genetics? Of course not. Yet animal husbandry and selective breeding was common. In fact selective breeding in humans was common as well ("superior" humans never bred with "inferior" humans). Based upon your logic, wolves should have never become dogs, wild animals should have never been genetically tamed to make cows, goats, cats, etc. If some humans survived disease, people at the time (depending on circumstances) would think one of two things, either they had some resistance to getting sick or they were a witch. in the case of resistance, people were smart enough to think that they could mate traits, even if they did not full understand the why.

So no, they would not know some organism caused the sickness, no they would not know that some possibly heritable property caused the resistance, but they would know they had resistance. People were not as daft as modern man makes them out to be. Superstitions were common because correlation and causation are confused (they still are today). People could correlate a person surviving a sickness (caused by who knows what) and assumed that they being who they are caused them to survive. If you mate enough people that survived, through chance alone (if there is a heritable trait) you should end up with some collective immunity. Once it gets above a certain threshold, the incubation of a disease will become a limiting factor and it cannot spread. In the cause of a non heritable immunity, people that were resistant would keep exposure rates low, allowing for either a collective immunity based upon lack of enough viable hosts to become endemic or allowing for a slower exposure leading to an immunity just based upon long exposure times of small amounts of pathogens.

You do not have to know about genetics to know that people with desirable traits might be able to pass on those traits. Nobility exploited that fact to justify their rule was by divine intervention, and did not mix with commoners because it would taint that trait.

All said and done, if they could conceivably develop resistance to disease, fighting the natives is another problem they would have to overcome. It would have been very difficult and costly, but it was not impossible (admittedly failed conquests of Morocco showed the importance of logistics, technology differences, and a bit of luck; none of which were really in the European's favor, and in the case of tech, not a large enough gap to make up for logistics and luck).

 

[Labrynian Rebel]

Britain only managed to submit the Somalis after WWI with air-power.

This makes the "Swahili Coast Silly Mega State" even more annoying

 

[WiseGreen]

Thing is, even with a very limited geographical scope, european presence in Africa from the late 15th century until the 19th century, before the Scramble, wasn't unimportant, far from it. Without the Atlantic slave trade, there would have been no colonization of the Americas, at least not on the scale it historically happened; the influx of african slaves shaped what many, if not all, countries in America (North and South) are today, and also had a significant impact on many African peoples themselves. While having European nations colonizing huge lots of Africa that early is ahistorical, removing the European presence in Africa is also so.

Maybe an alternative would be encouraging players and AI to have peaceful Sub-Saharian neighbors; maybe removing the Slave goods altogether, and giving european countries with good relations with Sub-Saharian neighbors a permanent modifier like "Western Arms Trade", but giving a bonus to tariffs rather than tech discounts. It also would help to portray the slaves-for-arms trade, with both countries "benefiting" from the presence of each other. Except the enslaved peoples, of course.

 

[unmerged(815621)]

Thing is, even with a very limited geographical scope, european presence in Africa from the late 15th century until the 19th century, before the Scramble, wasn't unimportant, far from it. Without the Atlantic slave trade, there would have been no colonization of the Americas, at least not on the scale it historically happened; the influx of african slaves shaped what many, if not all, countries in America (North and South) are today, and also had a significant impact on many African peoples themselves. While having European nations colonizing huge lots of Africa that early is ahistorical, removing the European presence in Africa is also so.

While African had significant impact on the world, colonization of the new world still would have happened on the same scale even without it. Africa was a source of cheap disposable labor, which is true, but there were many other sources, such as the poor people in Europe and Asia. On top of that, the extent of slaves is often overstated. Sure the southern US and parts of South America used them in decent numbers. However, Many parts of North American did not. In fact these parts of America are the most populous and wealthy parts of the Americas. Religious and economic hardships colonists did more to shape the new world than did slavery. Slavery was never a necessity, just a cheap bonus.

If you want to delve into the Vicky time period a bit. Economic hardship migrants had a significantly larger impact than slavery ever could have. Its the emotional impact of slavery that often helps to overstate their impacts, which is why the pyramids are generally associated with slavery, despite the fact they could have never been built without all the skilled labour they employed (as carving and fitting stones is not a slaves job as it required a very specialized set of skills)

 

[anubisfike]

While African had significant impact on the world, colonization of the new world still would have happened on the same scale even without it. Africa was a source of cheap disposable labor, which is true, but there were many other sources, such as the poor people in Europe and Asia. On top of that, the extent of slaves is often overstated. Sure the southern US and parts of South America used them in decent numbers. However, Many parts of North American did not. In fact these parts of America are the most populous and wealthy parts of the Americas. Religious and economic hardships colonists did more to shape the new world than did slavery. Slavery was never a necessity, just a cheap bonus.

Why do you think these parts of America are the wealthiest? You can't just say something like this without considering why. It's not because slave labour and the production they enabled wasn't important or profitable, it's because of the industrialisation and mass migration of Europeans to the US and Canada in the late 19th century and onward. An oft cited example is how essentially Canada was traded for a single island in the caribbean. Why would that happen if not for the fact that, at the time slavery was most widespread, it was extremely profitable?

Furthermore even the northern states in the US used slaves as well, they just banned it earlier because it wasn't as crucial to their livelihoods as it was in the south which was more focused on agriculture and specifically cash crops like cotton which is very hard work cultivating.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's more fun in a colonization style game if you can also do it in Africa, even if it's unrealistic. The knights going into massive debt to settle the new world before Portugal and somehow come up with enough people to fill half of South America before 1500 AD isn't remotely plausible. This game is based on history but it's still a game and part of the fun is the varying approaches it has.

One thing Africa COULD use, however, is more difficulty in colonizing it or more nations outright. Maybe you could give the African nations a generic NI that gives them a colonist earlier while nerfing down their initial diplomatic technology (IE they start a 2 in say admin and military, but 0 in diplomatic with a colonist). This would prevent them easily jumping Portugal to the new world, but make it much harder for the Western nations to get a serious foothold in Africa.

 

[grisamentum]

All I need to overcome any and all hardships are men and weapons, and I have those in abundance.

The more men you take, the faster they die of disease.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The more men you take, the faster they die of disease.

Depends on the disease. If 10% survive, then a colony of 1000 would only let a 100 live. But if you send 100000..... "When you send one man to die an awful disease in a foreign country it is a tragedy. When you send 1000000 in the colonial era, it is a statistic". That's how that quote went right ?

 

[victimizer]

So all else aside you assume 16th century Europeans had a clue about microbiology and development of resistance to certain types of diseases? They had barely invented a microscope at the time. If only Africa was richer (disregard the fact that it was and is a very rich continent and things like cotton, coffee, sugar etc. grow there just fine) they would have known to "breed" humans to develop a resistance to local diseases in order to colonize Africa? Sorry but no.

Yes, there are crops that will grow in Africa, but European style agriculture was not possible. River banks were too infested with disease to settle and your european animals would be killed quickly: thus irrigation and transportation was very difficult, even if you had good rivers. Colonization wasn't cheap and you needed good output to cover the expenses. And your settlers needed to stay alive.

 

[WeissRaben]

Yes, there are crops that will grow in Africa, but European style agriculture was not possible. River banks were too infested with disease to settle and your european animals would be killed quickly: thus irrigation and transportation was very difficult, even if you had good rivers. Colonization wasn't cheap and you needed good output to cover the expenses. And your settlers needed to stay alive.

Moreover, malaria is though because it is neither bacterial nor viral, but parasitic - you don't develop resistance to it. Either you start resistant, or you die. And the traits that make you resistant to malaria are mostly negative ones - ones that act on hemoglobin, like various forms of anaemia.

 

[Red_warning]

So all else aside you assume 16th century Europeans had a clue about microbiology and development of resistance to certain types of diseases? They had barely invented a microscope at the time. If only Africa was richer (disregard the fact that it was and is a very rich continent and things like cotton, coffee, sugar etc. grow there just fine) they would have known to "breed" humans to develop a resistance to local diseases in order to colonize Africa? Sorry but no.

By the way I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, it certainly wasn't profitable to colonize Africa for the most part but even if it was I still very much doubt there would have been any way to do so successfully.

It could probably have happened unintentionally. Send 1000 men to guard a fortress by the Gold Coast. 500 die to malaria, the 500 survivors are resistant. The king, in his infinite wisdom, sends 500 more men to reinforce the fortress to replace those that had the nerve to die. 250 of those die to malaria, so he sends yet another 250 etc etc.

Eventually you would end up with an African army with high resistance for African diseases.