Exactly how extensive is the world map outside of Europe? Is the whole world portrayed or are some wildnerness areas like Siberia, Canada and the Sahara abstracted or 'blacked-out' for gaming purposes?
-
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.
North Canada, Sahara, Central Australia etc. are impassable and remain unexplored through the entire game.
It's a fair abstraction. Even if you could go there, it wouldn't generate enough wealth to change the rest of the game. And there's plenty of other stuff to fight over.
/Graham
It's a fair abstraction. Even if you could go there, it wouldn't generate enough wealth to change the rest of the game. And there's plenty of other stuff to fight over.
/Graham
Scroll through some of the old conversations in this part of the forum. You may find them interesting, and they will certainly answer your query.
Sahara...does this mean you can not go below the Sahara...also, i'd like it to be known that although the Roman Empire pretty much destroyed the rainforests in north america and create the saraha desert...other countries like Spain and stuff helped (Spain vertually created the western sahara)
AP, You can’t be serious about about the Roman Empire destroying the Rain Forests of North America! The Romans never ventured past Ireland and they thought that was too barbaric (so did the English). How I hell does a Roman galley actually row across the atlantic ocean? How did they conduct this massive deforestation of North America. Why would they even want to? Who in hell teaches you history, perhaps you should consider a quality private school?
Zagys got it right...i am a dumbass ok, i suck at typing, i admit it, just dont insult it because i know!
Alright, North Africa then. The Romans conquered much of the Coastal areas of North Africa. Their advance to the interior of the continent was stopped by the Sahara desert. There were no vast rain forests that stretched to the northern shore of Africa. The Sahara desert was a barrier to human migration for tens of thousands of years. The desert was formed due to the placement of mountains, the physical size of the continent and the global rainfall patterns. Which of these does AP believe the Romans or the Spanish are responsible for changing? Whose responsible for causing the Deserts of Arabia, Australia or the American Southwest?
I will concede that some land is lost to the desert because of poor land management. However, the biggest cause of desertification of agriculture lands is global warming. Global warming causes a disruption of normal rainfall patterns. I would really like to know what the Romans and Spanish empires did to cause an environmental disaster on such a scale.
-Tacticon
I will concede that some land is lost to the desert because of poor land management. However, the biggest cause of desertification of agriculture lands is global warming. Global warming causes a disruption of normal rainfall patterns. I would really like to know what the Romans and Spanish empires did to cause an environmental disaster on such a scale.
-Tacticon
On the Sahara desert issue:
As far as geological record is concerned there never existed deserts much bigger than the Arabian desert prior to human semi-nomadic times (this means thousands of millions of years vs a few thousand years !)
So for most of the reasonably informed geologists the Sahara desert is of human making, and more specifically was created due to intensive herding in sensitive ecossystems - If you research a bit you will see that any intensive herding activity in the sahara should date from pre-early egyptian empire period (going as far as ~10.000 years)
Just an opinion from a geologist
As far as geological record is concerned there never existed deserts much bigger than the Arabian desert prior to human semi-nomadic times (this means thousands of millions of years vs a few thousand years !)
So for most of the reasonably informed geologists the Sahara desert is of human making, and more specifically was created due to intensive herding in sensitive ecossystems - If you research a bit you will see that any intensive herding activity in the sahara should date from pre-early egyptian empire period (going as far as ~10.000 years)
Just an opinion from a geologist
Henrique,
I have a question, and would be very happy for some help.
We know how the North African landscape look now, i e lots of sand very little water. But I wonder how did it look like in 1492 ?
In the late 15th century was it more thriving agricultural soil ? fresh water? temperatur ?
I know that this is perhaps a question way out of your specialization but it would be interesting to here your thoughts on the matter.
/Greven
I have a question, and would be very happy for some help.
We know how the North African landscape look now, i e lots of sand very little water. But I wonder how did it look like in 1492 ?
In the late 15th century was it more thriving agricultural soil ? fresh water? temperatur ?
I know that this is perhaps a question way out of your specialization but it would be interesting to here your thoughts on the matter.
/Greven
Greetings from Barcelona (Spain)!
I have been following this forum for some months now, and I must congratulate everybody involved (both beta testers and non-beta testers) for the very good work done. I have finally felt compelled to write to you all when I have seen the discussion on the Sahara desert and the possible involvement of both Romans and Spaniards in the desertization of Northern Africa. I would like to add some ideas to this debate.
1. I agree with Henrique when he states that the Sahara desert was caused by excessive herding. I read some time ago that evidence of a very old culture has been found in the Sahara, most probably pre-Ancient Egyptian Empire, consisting of herders and maybe gatherers that thrived in the Sahara some time before the year 5000 BC. To my knowledge, since then the Sahara has mainly been a barren wasteland crossed only by caravan routes.
2. 'Spain' as a nation did not exist until the unification of the Castilian and Aragonese crowns under the same monarchs in the 15th century; before that date, the only ventures of the 'Spaniards' in Africa were the occupation of the Canary Islands in the early 15th century and some minor incursion in the Northern African coast. After the foundation of 'Spain', the interests of the new nation were largely confined to the New World and Europe, and EU already reflects this. The only involvements of Spain in Africa were:
a. Some Northern African ports, such as Oran (lost at the end of the 18th century), Ceuta and Melilla (which are still Spanish nowadays), all of them occupied since the 15th-16th centuries.
b. The Morocco Protectorate (1909-56).
c. The Canary Islands (still Spanish).
d. The Spanish Sahara (c. 1880 - 1975).
e. Spanish Guinea (c. 1880 - 1956).
To be true, I do not quite see how this could have resulted in the desertisation or Northern Africa. Besides, under the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) these territories fell in the Portuguese sphere of influence. (Please note that I am not blaming the Portuguese either!)
3. In my opinion (although take this with a pinch of salt, because I am a biologist and not a geologist) the climate of the Sahara has remained more or less the same since desertisation. The only time when the climate would have been milder would be during the minor Ice Age that affected Europe (and I think most of the world) from c. 1550 to c.1750. Would you agree about this, Henrique?
On other things. I have been following the AARs with admiration. It is tough indeed to read such interesting reports and not being able to play the game... yet. All my best wishes for all the testers, but especially for Poland. I come from a part of Spain where we speak Catalan, which is a language completely different from Spanish, and non-Catalan speakers from Spain sometimes call us 'Poles' (in a very derogatory way) because they find it hard to understand a Catalan when he/she speaks quickly. Oh well, their loss. Keep the good spirit, Poland, and show your enemies who rules the vast steppes of Eastern Europe!
Martin
I have been following this forum for some months now, and I must congratulate everybody involved (both beta testers and non-beta testers) for the very good work done. I have finally felt compelled to write to you all when I have seen the discussion on the Sahara desert and the possible involvement of both Romans and Spaniards in the desertization of Northern Africa. I would like to add some ideas to this debate.
1. I agree with Henrique when he states that the Sahara desert was caused by excessive herding. I read some time ago that evidence of a very old culture has been found in the Sahara, most probably pre-Ancient Egyptian Empire, consisting of herders and maybe gatherers that thrived in the Sahara some time before the year 5000 BC. To my knowledge, since then the Sahara has mainly been a barren wasteland crossed only by caravan routes.
2. 'Spain' as a nation did not exist until the unification of the Castilian and Aragonese crowns under the same monarchs in the 15th century; before that date, the only ventures of the 'Spaniards' in Africa were the occupation of the Canary Islands in the early 15th century and some minor incursion in the Northern African coast. After the foundation of 'Spain', the interests of the new nation were largely confined to the New World and Europe, and EU already reflects this. The only involvements of Spain in Africa were:
a. Some Northern African ports, such as Oran (lost at the end of the 18th century), Ceuta and Melilla (which are still Spanish nowadays), all of them occupied since the 15th-16th centuries.
b. The Morocco Protectorate (1909-56).
c. The Canary Islands (still Spanish).
d. The Spanish Sahara (c. 1880 - 1975).
e. Spanish Guinea (c. 1880 - 1956).
To be true, I do not quite see how this could have resulted in the desertisation or Northern Africa. Besides, under the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) these territories fell in the Portuguese sphere of influence. (Please note that I am not blaming the Portuguese either!)
3. In my opinion (although take this with a pinch of salt, because I am a biologist and not a geologist) the climate of the Sahara has remained more or less the same since desertisation. The only time when the climate would have been milder would be during the minor Ice Age that affected Europe (and I think most of the world) from c. 1550 to c.1750. Would you agree about this, Henrique?
On other things. I have been following the AARs with admiration. It is tough indeed to read such interesting reports and not being able to play the game... yet. All my best wishes for all the testers, but especially for Poland. I come from a part of Spain where we speak Catalan, which is a language completely different from Spanish, and non-Catalan speakers from Spain sometimes call us 'Poles' (in a very derogatory way) because they find it hard to understand a Catalan when he/she speaks quickly. Oh well, their loss. Keep the good spirit, Poland, and show your enemies who rules the vast steppes of Eastern Europe!
Martin
Greven
'
We know how the North African landscape look now, i e lots of sand very little water. But I wonder how did it look like in 1492 ?'
I think that in general terms you should separate the shore regions of north africa which most have a typical mediterranean climate from the inland that becomes quickly a rock/or sand desert in arid climate.
The only reasonable variation I have heard of climate/vegetation in north africa is in the Lybia/cyrenaica region were desertefication grew steadily since roman times until the middle ages (but as remained basicly the same since) - This might be the desertification the 'american kid' was talking about - it relates to arqueological findings in cyrenaica of several agricultural vilas, located many km into the actual desert, which supposedly maintained intesive exploration of the region until desertefication hit them (some say the romans also deforestated the zone and that the greater erosion rate opened the way for the advance of the desert)
Martin
'the minor Ice Age' occurred due to a change in the ocean waters circulation in north atlantic. The best evidences point to an interruption of the water flow from the great lakes in North America which diverted the warm gulf flow to the north Atlantic. Without the amenizing effect of the warm waters in scandinavia temperature dropped drasticly...in northern europe.
There are is no solid evidence (of which I know about) of climate change towards southern mediterranean. Note that this climate change was a local and not a global one (at least not in a significant way -but hey I am a geologist and 'significant' to me might not be the same to you)
a SMALL correction Martin:
'Ceuta and Melilla (which are still Spanish nowadays), all of them occupied since the 15th-16th centuries'
Ceuta was conquered by the PORTUGUESE in 1415! and remained under Portuguese rule until the 'union' with Spain (under your 'Philip II' ours 'Philip I') - 1580 end of the XVI cent.
In fact the Portuguese controled almost all of the morocan atlantic coast until King Sebastião tried to conquer the morocan inland and fried portuguese independence in the end.
Lastly I also don´t understand what the spanish did in North Africa that could lead to desertification...In fact what is leading to desertification is what the Portuguese and the Spanish did/are doing in the South of the Iberian Peninsula: Alentejo, spanish Estremadura and that stretch of land somewere between Madrid and Barcelona - sorry I don´t no the name of the place, it is near the Ebro´s valley.
'
We know how the North African landscape look now, i e lots of sand very little water. But I wonder how did it look like in 1492 ?'
I think that in general terms you should separate the shore regions of north africa which most have a typical mediterranean climate from the inland that becomes quickly a rock/or sand desert in arid climate.
The only reasonable variation I have heard of climate/vegetation in north africa is in the Lybia/cyrenaica region were desertefication grew steadily since roman times until the middle ages (but as remained basicly the same since) - This might be the desertification the 'american kid
' was talking about - it relates to arqueological findings in cyrenaica of several agricultural vilas, located many km into the actual desert, which supposedly maintained intesive exploration of the region until desertefication hit them (some say the romans also deforestated the zone and that the greater erosion rate opened the way for the advance of the desert)Martin
'the minor Ice Age' occurred due to a change in the ocean waters circulation in north atlantic. The best evidences point to an interruption of the water flow from the great lakes in North America which diverted the warm gulf flow to the north Atlantic. Without the amenizing effect of the warm waters in scandinavia temperature dropped drasticly...in northern europe.
There are is no solid evidence (of which I know about
) of climate change towards southern mediterranean. Note that this climate change was a local and not a global one (at least not in a significant way -but hey I am a geologist and 'significant' to me might not be the same to you)a SMALL
correction Martin:'Ceuta and Melilla (which are still Spanish nowadays), all of them occupied since the 15th-16th centuries'
Ceuta was conquered by the PORTUGUESE in 1415! and remained under Portuguese rule until the 'union' with Spain (under your 'Philip II' ours 'Philip I') - 1580 end of the XVI cent.
In fact the Portuguese controled almost all of the morocan atlantic coast until King Sebastião tried to conquer the morocan inland and fried portuguese independence in the end.
Lastly I also don´t understand what the spanish did in North Africa that could lead to desertification...In fact what is leading to desertification is what the Portuguese and the Spanish did/are doing in the South of the Iberian Peninsula: Alentejo, spanish Estremadura and that stretch of land somewere between Madrid and Barcelona - sorry I don´t no the name of the place, it is near the Ebro´s valley.
Greven
I noticed I might not have been clear in one point:
Much of the coastal regions of north Africa don´t look like a desert,on the contrary the coastal regions are 'similar' to southern Italy, Greece and so on. In fact some of the best agricultural regions in the mediterranean are in Algeria/Tunisia (since Roman times) - Egypt doesn´t count on this one of course
I noticed I might not have been clear in one point:
Much of the coastal regions of north Africa don´t look like a desert,on the contrary the coastal regions are 'similar' to southern Italy, Greece and so on. In fact some of the best agricultural regions in the mediterranean are in Algeria/Tunisia (since Roman times) - Egypt doesn´t count on this one of course
Greven
Now I have a question for you
Are the Azores/Madeira/Canarias/Cabo Verde/St Helen islands in the game?
Some of these are minute but they had a tremendous importance in the exploration and trade period - in game terms I suppose this would reduce attrition during exploration.
In fact several Historians say that Portugal knew of Brasil since the 1470-80s because they used it as a safe harbour in their voiages in the south Atlantic - (in case you don´t know there was, and I suppose still is, a Europe-India sea route (that passes near Brazil) different froma the India-Europe sea route (that goes near the african coast) - all because of the winds and currents of the south atlantic (I think I posted something on this issue before)
Anyway, just as Brazil was important in this scheme so were the several Atlantic isles!
Now I have a question for you
Are the Azores/Madeira/Canarias/Cabo Verde/St Helen islands in the game?
Some of these are minute but they had a tremendous importance in the exploration and trade period - in game terms I suppose this would reduce attrition during exploration.
In fact several Historians say that Portugal knew of Brasil since the 1470-80s because they used it as a safe harbour in their voiages in the south Atlantic - (in case you don´t know there was, and I suppose still is, a Europe-India sea route (that passes near Brazil) different froma the India-Europe sea route (that goes near the african coast) - all because of the winds and currents of the south atlantic (I think I posted something on this issue before)
Anyway, just as Brazil was important in this scheme so were the several Atlantic isles!
My 2 cents worth:
I don't see how the Roman caused the the Desertification of North Africa, but have heard that they contributed to the Deforestation of certain areas like the Holy Land. I have heard about forest planting efforts in Isreal attempting to restore some of the forests that existed in Biblical times.
It is my understanding that alot of these forests were cut down during the period of the Roman Empire. It wasn't necessarily the Romans who did it, just the general population during this time of population growth. Could the same thing have occured in North Africa and elsewhere?
Is this what you meant?
Any thoughts?
[This message has been edited by Keifer (edited 30-05-2000).]
I don't see how the Roman caused the the Desertification of North Africa, but have heard that they contributed to the Deforestation of certain areas like the Holy Land. I have heard about forest planting efforts in Isreal attempting to restore some of the forests that existed in Biblical times.
It is my understanding that alot of these forests were cut down during the period of the Roman Empire. It wasn't necessarily the Romans who did it, just the general population during this time of population growth. Could the same thing have occured in North Africa and elsewhere?
Is this what you meant?
Any thoughts?
[This message has been edited by Keifer (edited 30-05-2000).]
Well by romans I meant the citizens of the roman empire - and this means a lot of people - not just romans from Rome
As far as Palestine is concerned, well it´s lack of forest surely as a conection with the fact that the first urban settlements in the world were nearby!
And from Biblical to Roman times several centuries went by and local population kept on deforesting the region for agricultural land. Well this happened everywere, specialy in europe - which went from some 80-90% forest cover to the actual 5-10%. The only big difference between Europe and North Africa/Palestine is the climate, Europe can afford the luxury of deforestation, the others can´t!
As far as Palestine is concerned, well it´s lack of forest surely as a conection with the fact that the first urban settlements in the world were nearby!
And from Biblical to Roman times several centuries went by and local population kept on deforesting the region for agricultural land. Well this happened everywere, specialy in europe - which went from some 80-90% forest cover to the actual 5-10%. The only big difference between Europe and North Africa/Palestine is the climate, Europe can afford the luxury of deforestation, the others can´t!
Henrique
Yes, I agree with you about Ceuta. I remembered while I was eriting the message, and then I forgot to include it! Too many things in my mind, I am afraid. I am sorry about not stating that Portugal conquered Ceuta and then the city was 'transferred' (so to say) to Spanish control. I wonder why the city did not go back to Portugal after the end of the Portuguese war of independence (in 1665, am I right?) After all, most of the Portuguese empire was returned, and the closest example I can think of right now is Tangiers, which was first Portuguese, then 'Spanish' (meaning the United Kingdom of Spain and Portugal), then again Portuguese, then English (until 1685) and then (I think) it returned to Portugal but I am not too sure about what happened to the city of Tangiers after 1685
Yes, you are also right that Portugal all the Atlantic coast (and I think most of the Indian coast, too) of Africa, until King Sebastiao blundered at Alcazarquivir. I have always wondered about what Portuguese would think about the period 1580-1640, when the whole Iberian peninsula was unified... although at the same time I did not think you would have a very good opinion of the Spaniards! At the same time, please allow me to remind you that at the time Spain was really a confederation of different kingdoms and principalities, all under the same King but with different laws in each part of the country. In that sense, when one talks about 'Spanish' imperialism during the 16th-17th centuries, it is rather Castilian (i.e., Central Spain) imperialism. The frontiers of the old kingdoms were still there, and taxes were collected when goods had to go from one kingdom to the other. I believe that until the 1700s and the War of the Spanish Succession it would be more correct to talk about the 'Iberian Confederation' rather than 'Spain'. Granted, most of the war effort was made by Castilla, but most of the grants and posts at the Spanish court also went to Castilians, so many non-Castilians (such as Portuguese, Catalans and, to a lesser extent, Aragonese and Basques) felt left out. And when the Spanish government started asking for higher and higher grants of money, the situation grew worse until 1640, when revolt broke openly in Portugal and Catalonia, and severe disturbs happened in Southern Spain, Aragon and Naples. Talking about having -3 Stability level...
By the way, the stretch of barren land between Madrid and Barcelona is called 'los Monegros' and yes, it is close to the river Ebro. However, the part of Spain that is getting closer to being a desert is in Almeria (SE Spain).
One minor note about the map. For what I have seen in the screenshots, the European map follows closely the board game edition of EU. Am I right? I am saking because I have this game at my home, and whereas the borders of other provinces in France, Italy and, I think, also England try to follow what one would call 'historical regions'. I congratulate the map designers for trying to be accurate, and I believe that overall they have done a good job; however, it is a pity that they did not apply the same effort to the Spanish provinces, which are the ones I am more familiar with. What's even worse: some of the names are displaced. I am not the only one thinking thus; you should have heard the comments my friends here in Barcelona said when they saw the map!
Martin
Yes, I agree with you about Ceuta. I remembered while I was eriting the message, and then I forgot to include it! Too many things in my mind, I am afraid. I am sorry about not stating that Portugal conquered Ceuta and then the city was 'transferred' (so to say) to Spanish control. I wonder why the city did not go back to Portugal after the end of the Portuguese war of independence (in 1665, am I right?) After all, most of the Portuguese empire was returned, and the closest example I can think of right now is Tangiers, which was first Portuguese, then 'Spanish' (meaning the United Kingdom of Spain and Portugal), then again Portuguese, then English (until 1685) and then (I think) it returned to Portugal but I am not too sure about what happened to the city of Tangiers after 1685
Yes, you are also right that Portugal all the Atlantic coast (and I think most of the Indian coast, too) of Africa, until King Sebastiao blundered at Alcazarquivir. I have always wondered about what Portuguese would think about the period 1580-1640, when the whole Iberian peninsula was unified... although at the same time I did not think you would have a very good opinion of the Spaniards!
At the same time, please allow me to remind you that at the time Spain was really a confederation of different kingdoms and principalities, all under the same King but with different laws in each part of the country. In that sense, when one talks about 'Spanish' imperialism during the 16th-17th centuries, it is rather Castilian (i.e., Central Spain) imperialism. The frontiers of the old kingdoms were still there, and taxes were collected when goods had to go from one kingdom to the other. I believe that until the 1700s and the War of the Spanish Succession it would be more correct to talk about the 'Iberian Confederation' rather than 'Spain'. Granted, most of the war effort was made by Castilla, but most of the grants and posts at the Spanish court also went to Castilians, so many non-Castilians (such as Portuguese, Catalans and, to a lesser extent, Aragonese and Basques) felt left out. And when the Spanish government started asking for higher and higher grants of money, the situation grew worse until 1640, when revolt broke openly in Portugal and Catalonia, and severe disturbs happened in Southern Spain, Aragon and Naples. Talking about having -3 Stability level...By the way, the stretch of barren land between Madrid and Barcelona is called 'los Monegros' and yes, it is close to the river Ebro. However, the part of Spain that is getting closer to being a desert is in Almeria (SE Spain).
One minor note about the map. For what I have seen in the screenshots, the European map follows closely the board game edition of EU. Am I right? I am saking because I have this game at my home, and whereas the borders of other provinces in France, Italy and, I think, also England try to follow what one would call 'historical regions'. I congratulate the map designers for trying to be accurate, and I believe that overall they have done a good job; however, it is a pity that they did not apply the same effort to the Spanish provinces, which are the ones I am more familiar with. What's even worse: some of the names are displaced. I am not the only one thinking thus; you should have heard the comments my friends here in Barcelona said when they saw the map!
Martin
Greven
Now I have a question for you
Are the Azores/Madeira/Canarias/Cabo Verde/St Helen islands in the game?
---------------------------------------
Yes, all but Madeira. I think it has to do with gamescale though. Perhaps Madeira would be too close to Portugal. However, I don't really know. However you can also add Fernando Po and the Falklands islands. It should be named the Malvinas but you can't get everything can you ?
In the Indian Ocean you got got stops like Soccotra (south of Yemen), Mahe, Zanzibar, reunion, and Bourbon.
I will not discuss the Pacific there are too many islands to write down here.
--------------------------------------
'Some of these are minute but they had a tremendous importance in the exploration and trade period - in game terms I suppose this would reduce attrition during exploration.'
This is basic tactics in the game. You have to have 'coaling rights' to use a 19th century concept to be able to get your navies and armies to the other side of the globe.
'In fact several Historians say that Portugal knew of Brasil since the 1470-80s because they used it as a safe harbour in their voiages in the south Atlantic - (in case you don´t know there was, and I suppose still is, a Europe-India sea route (that passes near Brazil) different froma the India-Europe sea route (that goes near the african coast) - all because of the winds and currents of the south atlantic (I think I posted something on this issue before)
Anyway, just as Brazil was important in this scheme so were the several Atlantic isles !'
Yes, I concede. And happy to tell you that the game portraits this. The map as you probably know has a 'authentic' feeling about it this arbitrarily places Brazil closer to Europe and Africa than geography tells us. But gives you an incitement to take historical paths.
P.S Thank you all for the info on N.Afr.
/Greven
Now I have a question for you
Are the Azores/Madeira/Canarias/Cabo Verde/St Helen islands in the game?
---------------------------------------
Yes, all but Madeira. I think it has to do with gamescale though. Perhaps Madeira would be too close to Portugal. However, I don't really know. However you can also add Fernando Po and the Falklands islands. It should be named the Malvinas but you can't get everything can you ?
In the Indian Ocean you got got stops like Soccotra (south of Yemen), Mahe, Zanzibar, reunion, and Bourbon.
I will not discuss the Pacific there are too many islands to write down here.
--------------------------------------
'Some of these are minute but they had a tremendous importance in the exploration and trade period - in game terms I suppose this would reduce attrition during exploration.'
This is basic tactics in the game. You have to have 'coaling rights' to use a 19th century concept to be able to get your navies and armies to the other side of the globe.
'In fact several Historians say that Portugal knew of Brasil since the 1470-80s because they used it as a safe harbour in their voiages in the south Atlantic - (in case you don´t know there was, and I suppose still is, a Europe-India sea route (that passes near Brazil) different froma the India-Europe sea route (that goes near the african coast) - all because of the winds and currents of the south atlantic (I think I posted something on this issue before)
Anyway, just as Brazil was important in this scheme so were the several Atlantic isles !'
Yes, I concede. And happy to tell you that the game portraits this. The map as you probably know has a 'authentic' feeling about it this arbitrarily places Brazil closer to Europe and Africa than geography tells us. But gives you an incitement to take historical paths.
P.S Thank you all for the info on N.Afr.
/Greven
Martin,
I read what you said about the map errors. And I would like to say that I absolutely agree with you on the problem of boundaries in the BG. I was also really surprised by some crucial mistakes for Spain, like inversion between Navarra and Euzkadia. It's not exactly right, because Navarra had no coast, and Euzkadia should be in contact with France (a very tiny one in fact). And if you play Navarra as an independant minor in 1492, this change everything as you can imagine.
But I must add that Spain is not the only affected country. It seems that the map designer didn't worry about too much accuracy, because you can find mistakes on nearly every country. Look where Amsterdam is located, the size of the Calais province (three times bigger in the BG than in reality), the Sudeten province design, the Antillas so big, etc. I really don't know why he did so. If s/o has a good explanation, I'm interested in it.
But I saw with great pleasure that some of these kind of mistakes had been corrected on the CG. Navarra and Euzkadia were at the good places, except that Navarra still has a coast and Euzkadia no contact with France. So it seems that some mistakes were corrected but some others were not (and should be).
On the fact that Brazil was dicovered earlier than the official Cabral discovery (in 1500), I'd like to add that this had a very big importance in the Treaty of Tordesillas. It was probably because the King of Portugal Joao II had been said that there was some unknown coast in the southwest that he displaced the partition line 370 miles west of Azores instead of 100 like the Pope established in his initial bull. I can also imagine that he had probably been reported that the Portuguese had found cadavers brought by the sea in Cabo Verde that seemed strange to them (not of the white or black race). This could be simulated in the Treaty of Tordesillas event, as it has a great importance for the rest of the game.
Raphaël
I read what you said about the map errors. And I would like to say that I absolutely agree with you on the problem of boundaries in the BG. I was also really surprised by some crucial mistakes for Spain, like inversion between Navarra and Euzkadia. It's not exactly right, because Navarra had no coast, and Euzkadia should be in contact with France (a very tiny one in fact). And if you play Navarra as an independant minor in 1492, this change everything as you can imagine.
But I must add that Spain is not the only affected country. It seems that the map designer didn't worry about too much accuracy, because you can find mistakes on nearly every country. Look where Amsterdam is located, the size of the Calais province (three times bigger in the BG than in reality), the Sudeten province design, the Antillas so big, etc. I really don't know why he did so. If s/o has a good explanation, I'm interested in it.
But I saw with great pleasure that some of these kind of mistakes had been corrected on the CG. Navarra and Euzkadia were at the good places, except that Navarra still has a coast and Euzkadia no contact with France. So it seems that some mistakes were corrected but some others were not (and should be).
On the fact that Brazil was dicovered earlier than the official Cabral discovery (in 1500), I'd like to add that this had a very big importance in the Treaty of Tordesillas. It was probably because the King of Portugal Joao II had been said that there was some unknown coast in the southwest that he displaced the partition line 370 miles west of Azores instead of 100 like the Pope established in his initial bull. I can also imagine that he had probably been reported that the Portuguese had found cadavers brought by the sea in Cabo Verde that seemed strange to them (not of the white or black race). This could be simulated in the Treaty of Tordesillas event, as it has a great importance for the rest of the game.
Raphaël
The romans did alot of deforistation in north africe, carbon dating shows that there were Hippo's and rives there, then like the more power rome gained the less forest there became because they needed ships to keep power in the sea...and Africa had forests a plenty..but just kind of look at a map of where the romans ruled at there high of power and where deserts are...
dunno i could be wrong...but this is what i hear
dunno i could be wrong...but this is what i hear