Tinto Maps #30 - 20th of December 2024 - South America

[Apukispay]

Yeah, how big exactly would depend on type and size of the impassable terrain, but anyway while a smaller army could have it's uses when sneaking up on a enemy this might be a little too complicated to be emulated in game.

it does not have to be, it just need insanely high attrition, one that reduces an army of tens of thousands to mere thousands so it's unthinkable to pass through it with bug armies, it would be technically possible but suicide.

 

[Trovador]

You have completely failed to read anything I am saying.

I am talking specifically about army movement. The whole idea I am trying to present here is that these undeveloped rainforest locations should be impassable to armies. But other types of things should be able to go through them, like explorers, although even these things should struggle a lot. That's why they shouldn't be wastelands, but they should have so little supply that sending armies through them isn't practical.

Basically, you shouldn't be able to conquer Brazil by invading it through Peru, even if the route between them is technically passable. This is something paradoc games struggle with a lot, and it needs to be rectified.

Maybe a very small army. But any large or medium sized army should be completely unable to.

That requires you to engage in development, therefore making it no longer an undeveloped wasteland. This would be a time consuming process.

Yes, by developing it.

I think a lot of people missed that your proposal was to remove the wastelands but add movement limitations to dense jungles, which might or might not be something possible to do in this game. Still, passages to represent known paths would still be necessary, for example the "Caminho dos Indios" (in Paranapiacaba) and "Caminho do Ouro" (through Passa Quatro and then Cunha) were among the few reliable paths: despite being steep they were regularly used to transport all sorts of goods and pretty much ALL portuguese inhabitants (from soldiers to miners to farmers) and their equipments across the Serra do Mar and Mantiqueira.

In addition, the lack of river movement in the game might be a major issue to properly represent that: specially in the Amazon (but also in Mata Atlantica), river transportation was not only important, it was pretty much the only way to realiably transport large amounts of people over considerable distances.

Finally, there are reliable informations of troops of 4-5k bandeirantes from São Paulo attacking spanish cities in the Paraná river, so at the very least the Mata Atlantica in the region should allow that amount of organized troops and armies to cross it (first from the coast to the plateau, then down through the Tietê river, and finally follow the Paraná river all the way to Piquiri where the city of Guaira and others existed)

 

[Hippolyta1]

You have completely failed to read anything I am saying.

I am talking specifically about army movement. The whole idea I am trying to present here is that these undeveloped rainforest locations should be impassable to armies. But other types of things should be able to go through them, like explorers, although even these things should struggle a lot. That's why they shouldn't be wastelands, but they should have so little supply that sending armies through them isn't practical.

Basically, you shouldn't be able to conquer Brazil by invading it through Peru, even if the route between them is technically passable. This is something paradoc games struggle with a lot, and it needs to be rectified.

Maybe a very small army. But any large or medium sized army should be completely unable to.

That requires you to engage in development, therefore making it no longer an undeveloped wasteland. This would be a time consuming process.

Yes, by developing it.

The ONLY WAY Paradox currently have to impede army movement is by making a region a wasteland. That's what they did in the sad current version of this South America map.

The best solution would indeed be to add a modifier on locations with the Jungle terrain that slows down army movement and causes attrition to big armies. I completely agree with that, as long as the Jungle and the modifier can be removed by chopping down the jungle or developing the area, like was done in real history. But that would demand Paradox to build an entire new terraforming mechanic, which might not be high on their priority list of things to do.

As such, between leaving it a boring and god-forsaken wasteland or making it fully colonizeable and fully passable locations, I advocate for the latter. At the very least it would be more accurate to the later eras of the game, and it would be ten times more fun to play in that area than that wasteland hell the map currently has.

You had a nice idea, but I just don't want them to use your argument of army movement restrictions to keep the damn Wastelands, which is what they might do if they can't build the terraforming mechanic in time before the game launches.

 

[Eduardo_Pandini]

Nice map!
However, I have some considerations. The Northeast region of Brazil was the first to be effectively colonized, and became a great producer of sugar. There are no sugar-producing areas in that region in the map. This transition will be portrayed in the game?
Another concern is the green wall of the Mata Atlântica. Although it makes sense to portray it, in the map the impassable jungle covers even some of the greatest gold-producing cities in southwestern Brazil, like Ouro Preto. The impassable territory should indeed be represented, but in a smaller scale.

 

[mattd_]

View attachment 1236125
Obviously they have to correct that... that territory is the size of today's Germany... Obviously the density of the SIR is not necessary (not even the one from europe) but they can't leave 6 locations xD
View attachment 1236128
View attachment 1236127
View attachment 1236126

in fairness, Argentina only has roughly the same population as Spain in modern day. The difference would have been even greater during the majority of the EU4.

I agree that the coasts could do with dome refinement, and the wastelands in particular need cutting back a bit around amazon and malta atlantica, but I dont think province density needs to be massively increased imo, particularly in the middle of the continent.

 

[Hippolyta1]

in fairness, Argentina only has roughly the same population as Spain in modern day. The difference would have been even greater during the majority of the EU4.

I agree that the coasts could do with dome refinement, and the wastelands in particular need cutting back a bit around amazon and malta atlantica, but I dont think province density needs to be massively increased imo, particularly in the middle of the continent.

Exactly! The entire coast of Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina should be as dense in locations as the North American coast. Paradox can be stingy in the areas further inland, which are less accessible and were less colonized, but the Eastern coast of South America, specially areas around big rivers, deserves more love and care than what it got.

Also, special attention should be given to the Sugar Plantations of Pernambuco, the Gold Mines of Minas Gerais, the cattle pastures in Rio Grande do Sul and the very fertile West of São Paulo, which were areas with abundant resources and therefore very intensely populated, deserving more locations too.

The Mata Atlantica shouldn't be a Wasteland at all. Instead, Paradox should make the Serra do Mar impassable terrain, which are the mountains separating the Brazilian Coast and the interior of the continent. A big natural barrier that acts a bit like the Appalachian Mountains in Brazil. The Mata Atlantica itself should be just a Jungle terrain type in normal colonizeable locations with modifiers slowing movement in it. And if possible there should be a possibility to chop the Jungle down.

The Amazon Rainforest, on the other hand, can continue to be a wasteland as the soil beneath it is actually very poor and the climate is much worse for colonization.

 

[lukesilveira]

You have completely failed to read anything I am saying.

I am talking specifically about army movement. The whole idea I am trying to present here is that these undeveloped rainforest locations should be impassable to armies. But other types of things should be able to go through them, like explorers, although even these things should struggle a lot. That's why they shouldn't be wastelands, but they should have so little supply that sending armies through them isn't practical.

Basically, you shouldn't be able to conquer Brazil by invading it through Peru, even if the route between them is technically passable. This is something paradoc games struggle with a lot, and it needs to be rectified.

Maybe a very small army. But any large or medium sized army should be completely unable to.

That requires you to engage in development, therefore making it no longer an undeveloped wasteland. This would be a time consuming process.

Yes, by developing it.

I agree with most of your points, but I think we should look at real-life examples of Bandeirantes to better frame this. Take Raposo Tavares as an example: the guy went from what’s now São Paulo through Mato Grosso, Bolivia, Peru, the Amazon Basin, Manaus, and Belém. By the end of his Bandeira, his party was down to just a couple dozen people and he himself was a shadow of his former self. (Edit: For our Europeans friends, that's tantamount to leaving Lisbon, traveling to Moscow, and then continuing to Tehran, Iran (Edit#2: or going back from Moscow to Paris), on foot, facing unexplored terrain, dense forests, dangerous rivers, and occasional battles).

The thing is, aside from exploring the sertões, claiming land for Portugal, addressing whatever geopolitical concerns 17th-century Portugal had with its colonial borders, he also spent time bullying Jesuit missions and enslaving / subjugating indigenous peoples. Records suggest he started the expedition with anywhere between hundreds and over a thousand people (mostly natives). We can’t say for sure how many were involved in organized violence against the Jesuits or indigenous groups, but for the sake of argument let's estimate it at a few hundred.

Now, bringing this into game mechanics, I think a lot of conclusions hold up. Specifically:
a) In Project Caesar, military units are already more granular. If I remember correctly, Johan mentioned somewhere that units start at around 100 soldiers.
b) Theerefore, territories where the Bandeiras historically took place should exist in the game and should be passable by military units.
c) However, there should be some sort of restriction or mechanic to reflect the challenges of passing through these areas.

Supply could work, as long as both the AI and the player understand that marching 50k troops through the wilderness would mean losing 98% of them. But maybe there’s room for an additional mechanic by development level thresholds?

 

[Braziler]

I agree with most of your points, but I think we should look at real-life examples of Bandeirantes to better frame this. Take Raposo Tavares as an example: the guy went from what’s now São Paulo through Mato Grosso, Bolivia, Peru, the Amazon Basin, Manaus, and Belém. By the end of his Bandeira, his party was down to just a couple dozen people and he himself was a shadow of his former self. (Edit: For our Europeans friends, that's tantamount to leaving Lisbon, traveling to Moscow, and then continuing to Tehran, Iran, on foot, facing unexplored terrain, dense forests, dangerous rivers, and occasional battles).

The thing is, aside from exploring the sertões, claiming land for Portugal, addressing whatever geopolitical concerns 17th-century Portugal had with its colonial borders, he also spent time bullying Jesuit missions and enslaving / subjugating indigenous peoples. Records suggest he started the expedition with anywhere between hundreds and over a thousand people (mostly natives). We can’t say for sure how many were involved in organized violence against the Jesuits or indigenous groups, but for the sake of argument let's estimate it at a few hundred.

Now, bringing this into game mechanics, I think a lot of conclusions hold up. Specifically:
a) In Project Caesar, military units are already more granular. If I remember correctly, Johan mentioned somewhere that units start at around 100 soldiers.
b) Theerefore, territories where the Bandeiras historically took place should exist in the game and should be passable by military units.
c) However, there should be some sort of restriction or mechanic to reflect the challenges of passing through these areas.

Supply could work, as long as both the AI and the player understand that marching 50k troops through the wilderness would mean losing 98% of them. But maybe there’s room for an additional mechanic by development level thresholds?

Impose the same cost on warm forests that already have icy mountains may work.

 

[Marcelo2]

in fairness, Argentina only has roughly the same population as Spain in modern day. The difference would have been even greater during the majority of the EU4.

I agree that the coasts could do with dome refinement, and the wastelands in particular need cutting back a bit around amazon and malta atlantica, but I dont think province density needs to be massively increased imo, particularly in the middle of the continent.

The old territories must have greater density because they fall within the line of the game, it is absurd that Patagonia has the same (or greater) density than Buenos Aires.

On the Patagonian coast there were a handful of forts and settlements since, although without real control, they were nominally Argentine territories.

 

[Fanega70]

Will Guano be represented as a good?

 

[lxlTiagolxl]

The Amazon Rainforest, on the other hand, can continue to be a wasteland as the soil beneath it is actually very poor and the climate is much worse for colonization.

This is considering development as constructing common plantations or pastures, but the forest has far more riches than that: there is medicaments, wood, fruits, gems, gold, dyes and more, plus there are goods that should be possible to introduce such as cocoa.

Land acess would need a lot of infrastructure construction, deforestation and probably a mechanic for it so it will not happen, but the roads of Amazon are it's rivers so as long a territory is close to a navigable river it makes sense that it's development is possible in game instead of being considered a wasteland.

Edit:Oh, does anyone have any information on whether an army navigated, or if it would be capable of navigating on the waterways in the timespan of the game?

Amazonian waterways (hidrovia(PT-BR) )

 

[lxlTiagolxl]

Was looking at the goods at the Amazon and i couldnt help but think:
Shouldn't there be at least some fish where the Amazon river passes? The natives in those areas probably ate more fish than other proteins.

 

[Conde de Montanelas]

I agree with most of your points, but I think we should look at real-life examples of Bandeirantes to better frame this. Take Raposo Tavares as an example: the guy went from what’s now São Paulo through Mato Grosso, Bolivia, Peru, the Amazon Basin, Manaus, and Belém. By the end of his Bandeira, his party was down to just a couple dozen people and he himself was a shadow of his former self. (Edit: For our Europeans friends, that's tantamount to leaving Lisbon, traveling to Moscow, and then continuing to Tehran, Iran (Edit#2: or going back from Moscow to Paris), on foot, facing unexplored terrain, dense forests, dangerous rivers, and occasional battles).

The thing is, aside from exploring the sertões, claiming land for Portugal, addressing whatever geopolitical concerns 17th-century Portugal had with its colonial borders, he also spent time bullying Jesuit missions and enslaving / subjugating indigenous peoples. Records suggest he started the expedition with anywhere between hundreds and over a thousand people (mostly natives). We can’t say for sure how many were involved in organized violence against the Jesuits or indigenous groups, but for the sake of argument let's estimate it at a few hundred.

Now, bringing this into game mechanics, I think a lot of conclusions hold up. Specifically:
a) In Project Caesar, military units are already more granular. If I remember correctly, Johan mentioned somewhere that units start at around 100 soldiers.
b) Theerefore, territories where the Bandeiras historically took place should exist in the game and should be passable by military units.
c) However, there should be some sort of restriction or mechanic to reflect the challenges of passing through these areas.

Supply could work, as long as both the AI and the player understand that marching 50k troops through the wilderness would mean losing 98% of them. But maybe there’s room for an additional mechanic by development level thresholds?

Thank you for sharing this very interesting story.

It's worth noting, however, that the Bandeiras were not regular military units, but rather militarized overland expeditions, with an ad-hoc organization, as you are probably very well aware.

 

[HKD140]

Is strange to see the Goitacá culture and location name in the place that should be the city of Rio. The Tamoio and Temiminó tribes was the ones how lived there.

 

[wenka16]

Wow, very disappointed with the wasteland on southern Brazil. Those we're not unpopulated in the XIV century and beyond. My hometown is in that area and that field trip to see native pottery at the city museum is still engraved in my mind! Please review it.

 

[wenka16]

Jesuit missions, with thousands of people in it. Meanwhile paradox: can't happen, ~wastelands~

 

[FFFanboy7]

I dont really have the time to make a detailed feedback but I'll just point out a few small things for the Argentina area.

1. the provinces you called "Timbu" and "Chana" should probably not be going over either the Parana's main course or the Uruguay's main course respectively. I dont see a reason to make the provinces shaped like that when every other one next to them respects the course of the rivers, and all it does is fuck with "natural borders" and it looks strange
2. The provinces of "Ituzaingo" and "Tuvicha Mini" seem kind of strange. You might want to split them into 3 provinces so that current-day Buenos Aires is very clearly in a location thats bounded by the Matanza/Riachuelo river and by the Reconquista/de las Conchas river on the other end. Or just expand either of the 2 provinces so they use that boundary
3. "TuVicha Mini" should push farther down to the Salado river (like "Chivilco" and "Timbu" do) as that was pretty much where the border with the natives was after the Spanish finished expanding. There were a lot of fort towns in that area, and again it is a fairly natural border as it is the biggest river as you head into the interior. "TuBicha Mini" should probably be reshaped to take some of Tandil's coastline so that it doesnt end up too small. Also for God's sake change those names because they will be confused. I have never heard of either of these and I understand its some sort of native toponym but they are the same name and they border eachother.
4. You might want to make a new location off of Pillahuinco/Wangulen to represent the Sierra de la Ventana hills. They are not huge hills so I understand if you dont but they break up the scenery quite a lot and they are the most major hills in the province, and in that general area unless you go up to Cordoba. The Tandil hills are also quite relevant (Much more so economically) but geographically they are really not very significant at all, so I understand if you just leave them as flat.
5. The vegetation in La Pampa should have a 1-location wide belt of woods. These are the Caldén forests (pictured), and they are the transition zone between the grassy pampas and the more arid west.
6. Arid grasslands going as far south as Comodoro Rivadavia seems correct to me. I would say that the westernmost parts of La Pampa province (at least "Atuel" and "Viluco" maybe a little more) should be Sparse. That area is very very dry compared to the rest of the province and there is absolutely nothing. Even today, there is barely enough to get goats living there. (If you compare to even a little more East, inside the location of "Vuta Chadihue" you can see a decent amount of cows, and there is actual grass on the soil.)

I apologize that I am not able to draw these suggestions but I was as clear as I could be.

Now I also want to address some feedback other people have given:

1. The idea of making part of the Pampas into wetlands, rather than grasslands, is very very questionable. Looking at it in real life, I dont really see how you can call them wetlands, there aren't any swamps, they are not humid inhospitable areas, or anything else I can think of that'd make them "wet"lands. They are, as the game currently shows, flat and grassy lands, and yes there are a lot of little lakes and ponds sprinkled about. Some of which are always there, some of which form when there is a lot of rain, but its not something which damages inhabitation or production, on the contrary it benefits it.
By making them as wetlands in-game, you would be equating them as the Parana Delta for example, which is a very obviously different area, prone to flooding if theres too much water coming from upstream, where the average person gets by on a boat, where the soil is constantly humid. I don't know any of the specific numbers that you are using to balance these locations, but changing from Flatlands to Wetlands would (probably) significantly damage the economic potential of these areas, and it'd be even more bizarre because you'd be damaging the livestock and agriculture, which is what the region was/is known for, and has the best competitive advantage in.
Comparatively, the Parana Delta produces basically nothing, and I assume in the game it is also going to be a fairly unproductive region.
The only location that I think would be accurate to make a wetland, is the "Tubicha Mini" province, if you do make it take up more of the coastline. The area between the Salado river, going south along the coast, up to "Mar Chiquita" lagoon, fulfills the conditions of a wetland a lot more. There is a lot more area taken up by lakes, lagoons, ponds and rivers. You can easily check this out on google maps.
But if you do make it into a wetland, you should definitely rearrange the "Tubicha Mini" and "Tandil" provinces, and probably make a new province out of them that would satisfy your wetland (This province could be called "Ajó" as that -apparently- is a native word to refer to the soft wet soil in that area. It is present in some of the modern day placenames)

2. On the natural harbors of the Rio de La Plata. I believe Montevideo should definitely be the best harbor in the area. All the others are either the mouths of little rivers or are upstream into a river itself. I dont know if you're going to change the layouts of the locations but some relevant ports on the Argentine side were obviously Buenos Aires (this is the mouth of the Matanza/Riachuelo river), you had Las Conchas (nowaday Tigre) at the mouth of the Rio de las Conchas (Reconquista today), you had Ensenada which back then looked as pictured, rather than the way it looks today.
And then obviously you have pretty much every major town on the Parana has some sort of port that they could access world trade with. I understand that the river isnt navigable in-game, but there should at least be some sort of distance bonus (for control and trade) to represent the natural highway that the Parana river was.

I also agree with another poster that Quequén ("Kla Rome Ko" in game) should be made into a natural harbor, even if its a basic one. It is at least as good as the other locations that have been made into harbors. And I understand that almost the whole coastline has natural harbors, but that's more of a symptom of the locations being too big.

Now, I've read some people say that the ports here should be discounted, because they were shallow, there are sand deposits, and it requires some dredging today. And that is very much true, but it wasn't nearly as relevant for boats back then as it is today, and there were numerous sea battles both on the River Plate, and upstream into the Parana, so I dont really see why they should be discarded as harbors when they were very much used during the time period and boats had no trouble going up and down without dredging. Sure, you do need a map to not get stuck in the shallower parts of the River Plate, but at the port itself, you are fine.

Battle of Martín García - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of San Nicolás - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Juncal - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Vuelta de Obligado - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here are various naval battles, either on the River Plate or upstream into the Parana.

Anyway, that is all the feedback I can muster for now, and I haven't collected any serious academic sources, but I believe none of my suggestions are very controversial so I hope they are useful to you. The only topic that I believe could be controversial is about the grassland/wetland situation, but the way you've presented it is in my opinion the more correct representation, so if it is to be changed into a wetland it should be the argued by the ones who want to change it.
Thank you to those who have read all this.

 

[JohnCro]

They said somewhere that it's a limitation of the game code. Every location needs a majority culture and religion, even when there's no pops. As soon as the first person moves to the location, it switches to their culture and religion.

Ah so that is why, I hoped they managed to fix that

 

[marsh_otter]

I made another, more in depth feedback with a lot of pictures, but I can't post it because of the spam filter. It's really frustrating because I dedicated a lot of time to it.

 

[viola]

I made another, more in depth feedback with a lot of pictures, but I can't post it because of the spam filter. It's really frustrating because I dedicated a lot of time to it.

Have you tried breaking it up in multiple posts? Maybe it helps.