EU4 Development Diary - 18th February 2016

[Atlantians]

I think, for the first time in my life, I just read a whole dev diary and thought it was not a step forward for EUIV.

Africa needs more wasteland, less provinces, not vice versa. The devs should be focused on making outside interaction with Africa more realistic, not less so. We need trade outpost and fort-enclave mechanics to represent that Europeans did not control territory within the African continent during the timeframe of the game, not whole provinces that will undoubtedly result in European conquests of all Central Africa by 1700. We need less absurdness, not more.

The Europeans didn't conquer and colonize Africa because it was inconvenient and unprofitable. Not because they couldn't.

I do agree that we need trade posts and small coastal areas that can be made into forts and posts rather than full colonies.

 

[ChildeR]

Is it really accurate to model Madagascar as that many settled provinces? I know it is large geographically, but what was the population size in 1444 and were all parts actually settled? Maybe some inland provinces should be colonizable?

Sorry, I don't really know what I'm talking about but I can only find numbers for the population in early 20th century when it was less than 5 million. If it was anything like the rest of Africa, it would have been much less than that in the 15th century.

 

[Kyoumen]

Africa needs more wasteland, less provinces, not vice versa. The devs should be focused on making outside interaction with Africa more realistic, not less so.

In my opinion, the devs should be focused on making Africa more realistic (and fun), not less so. And that would not be helped in the slightest by more wasteland.

This is a big step forward for that.

 

[Atlantians]

Is it really accurate to model Madagascar as that many settled provinces? I know it is large geographically, but what was the population size in 1444 and were all parts actually settled? Maybe some inland provinces should be colonizable?

Sorry, I don't really know what I'm talking about but I can only find numbers for the population in early 20th century when it was less than 5 million. If it was anything like the rest of Africa, it would have been much less than that in the 15th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Madagascar

Madagascar is very large. Twice the size of the British Isles.

 

[Blindbohemian]

Have you thought, perhaps, that this change was not done for Europe?

Certainly. But the fact is that it doesn't benefit any part of the map—any part at all—except the areas that were added, and the regions immediately fringing upon them (which, by and large, should also be wasteland). So, for an improvement upon gameplay that probably shouldn't even be part of the game at all they've made changes that which will have massive negative impacts on gameplay for literally the entire rest of the world. You thought S-Iberia was bad? Wait until you see Spanish Uganda in 1532.

The Europeans didn't conquer and colonize Africa because it was inconvenient and unprofitable. Not because they couldn't.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to this idea because it's so patently ridiculous. You are incorrect in every particular. European empires could—perhaps—have conquered the Sahel in the time period covered by the game. Conquering or "colonising" (Europeans never really colonised Africa at all) the Congo? Uganda? Impossible.

In my opinion, the devs should be focused on making Africa more realistic (and fun), not less so. And that would not be helped in the slightest by more wasteland.

Yes it would. Africa as wasteland is vastly more realistic than Africa conquered by Italy/Denmark/Aragon/Portugal/Spain/France/whoever in 1600. Except, of course, for the massive empires in random parts of the continent that will be fully westernised. It's absurd.

 

[ChildeR]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Madagascar

Madagascar is very large. Twice the size of the British Isles.

Did you even read my post?

I acknowledged that it is large (and that I don't really know what I'm talking about). I asked about the population, for which that wiki article gives no numbers.

 

[Freudia]

Certainly. But the fact is that it doesn't benefit any part of the map—any part at all—except the areas that were added, and the regions immediately fringing upon them (which, by and large, should also be wasteland). So, for an improvement upon gameplay that probably shouldn't even be part of the game at all they've made changes that which will have massive negative impacts on gameplay for literally the entire rest of the world. You thought S-Iberia was bad? Wait until you see Spanish Uganda in 1532.

Spanish Anything-in-Africa-that-isn't-West-Africa already doesn't happen by 1532. Why would it start happening now?

 

[Vaximillian]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Madagascar

Madagascar is very large. Twice the size of the British Isles.

Large in area, definitely. Large in population, dubious.

 

[Atlantians]

I'm not even going to bother to respond to this idea because it's so patently ridiculous.

Well, you did. Thanks for the arrogant and pretension start to your response, though.

You are incorrect in every particular.

Every particular? Such as it being unprofitable and inconvenient to do so?

European empires could—perhaps—have conquered the Sahel in the time period covered by the game. Conquering or "colonising" (Europeans never really colonised Africa at all) the Congo? Uganda? Impossible.

Please, humour me; why would Uganda and the Congo be impossible for Europeans in the 1500s and 1600s to colonize?

 

[Blindbohemian]

Spanish Anything-in-Africa-that-isn't-West-Africa already doesn't happen by 1532. Why would it start happening now?

It doesn't happen because there isn't room for it to happen. I have seen Spain conquer vast swathes of West Africa—the only region of the African continent, currently, with a comparable province and tag density to the suggested additions in Central Africa. Perhaps 1532 is an overestimate of the AIs capabilities (which, hah, are themselves a major flaw that adding provinces in Africa isn't gonna fix...) but the fact still stands that the AI loves to snap up small, weak, nearby primitives and West Africa (and now Central Africa) are perfect examples of that. I will be shocked if we don't see vast swathes of these new territories in European hands by 1700, disappointed if we do, and even more disappointed if we don't because Paradox told the AI that it just shouldn't do that.

As of now, the AI has trouble getting to India and the East Indies, let alone East Asia. The AI has trouble reliably forming important, world-shaping players like Prussia and the Netherlands. The AI as Spain and Portugal often has trouble reliably doing things it historically did, because it gets bogged down in absurd conquests of West Africa that should be neither possible nor desirable. And adding more provinces and tags to bog it down on its way to Asia, to distract its attention from things that actually matter, to slow down the game even further (because it will, even if not by much)—in a part of the world with no relevance to or bearing upon the greater geopolitics of this nominally geopolitical game—is meant to help?

Now don't think I'm being racist here, or anything like that. I'm as interested in the little-known cultures and histories of Central Africa as the next person—I wrote a paper on the Maravi Empire. I just think that:

A) The representation of Africa in EUIV right now suffers more from the fact that Europeans can conquer and core territory there (rather than just building outposts and forts) than the fact that huge, largely irrelevant areas are wasteland... Which, in the European consciousness (and the consciousness of everyone else in the world, too) they were.

B) The mechanics of the game as it stands are inadequate to represent the polities we already have, much less the polities that will get introduced with Central Africa. Even with new tags and provinces, gameplay in Africa will be basically the same as gameplay anywhere else, but not as good as it is in Europe.

C) The addition of provinces and tags in a meaningless and irrelevant part of the world (in terms of the wider geopolitics of the era) provide a negligible benefit to gameplay while simultaneously producing negative impacts left, right and centre.

D) Dev time would have been better spent doing almost literally anything else at all rather than opening the way for a 1600s scramble for Africa.

I just don't understand what benefit it provides, apart from a new landscape to potter around in for twenty minutes until you realise it's exactly the same as every other landscape but with worse gameplay.

And to be absolutely clear, because this is the Internet, I don't have anything against Africa or Africans. What I have a problem with is wedging irrelevant rubbish into the game that's going to have a negative impact on the gameplay as a whole, rather than working on mechanics to provide greater depth (or, even better, fixing and tying together mechanics that need fixing and better integration). I would have an equally negative reaction if Paradox were to include provinces in the Australian interior and make Australian Aborigines playable, or Māori—and I am Māori. We don't need more unnecessary, irrelevant junk cluttering the game and making issues like the incompetence of the colonial AI even more pronounced. We need less.

 

[Vivi_]

Magagascar has also seen a rework, with 5 nations struggling for supremacy of the island, complete with their own national ideas and Pagan/Islamic friction

MaDagascar.

Aside this, all of these changes in Africa sound promising.

 

[huyderman]

Seems like an incentive for another stab at African Power.

Adding extra provinces in central africa will make the region much more interesting to play in. As it is now, it's just too much of a waiting game; waiting for terra incognita disappearing, waiting for tech for colonising and exploring, waiting for an western power you might westernize off, etc.

With these new provinces, you can actually have wars and alliances, and it becomes it's own little microcosm.

 

[Blindbohemian]

Well, you did. Thanks for the arrogant and pretension start to your response, though.



Every particular? Such as it being unprofitable and inconvenient to do so?



Please, humour me; why would Uganda and the Congo be impossible for Europeans in the 1500s and 1600s to colonize?

I tried to make it more scathing, but I'm not very good at it. Okay, instead of pointing you to the mounds of literature about how technological advances like quinine, the maxim gun and steam ships made the Scramble for Africa possible, I'll humour you.

Africa is and was profitable. Gold, tropical woods like ebony, ivory, gems, slaves, dyes, pelts, even iron and lumber were all useful resources throughout the Early Modern period and Europeans traded extensively for them. Granada was a Muslim kingdom in the south of Iberia and survived until 1492—despite being thoroughly outclassed by its Catholic neighbours—because it was a vital trading hub for the (predominantly Islamic) trans-Saharan route bringing gold from the mines around Bambuk to the Mediterranean. It was widely known that Africa had resources that were valuable to European countries.

Three primary factors conspired to make it impossible for Europeans to colonise or conquer sub-Saharan Africa, despite the fact that they knew it had value, until the late nineteenth century: disease, terrain, and natives. African territories, particularly around the Congo basin, were rife with malaria and yellow fever that killed Europeans in droves. Any European army landing in Central Africa would be scythed down by what the Russians might call 'General Disease'. Yellow fever basically causes one to vomit up a thick, viscous, blood-like substance that is in fact composed of the sufferer's lung linings and so on. It's nasty. Even in nineteenth century villages struck by yellow fever would often lose all of their European inhabitants (if there were any, I keep pointing it out but I don't think people realise that Europeans never really colonised Africa). Other diseases were equally vicious, and even attacked horses. Europeans could not deploy an army in Africa. And without an army, how would you conquer? How would you enforce your rule?

The second factor keeping Europeans out of Africa was the ridiculously harsh terrain. A brief look at a topographical map of Africa will show you that most of Sub-Saharan Africa is composed of a high plateau, which reaches virtually to the coast on all sides. This means that (unlike the Amazon, for example), the mighty rivers of Africa could not be negotiated by ship. The only way through Africa was to march on foot... Through vicious jungle, terrible heat, and tsetse fly-infested savanna. Impossible, for an army of 1500 or 1600s Europe to survive. And then, even if you could somehow get an army into Africa and conquer a city it would be almost impossible to govern. Your European governors would drop like flies, messages (which could not be transmitted into the interior by boat) would take aeons to arrive (if they arrived at all), and reinforcement would be virtually impossible.

Finally, the natives in most regions of Africa were numerous, capable of defending themselves, and at home in an environment that—for most Europeans—would be about as hospitable as the surface of Mars. Any army that managed to hack its way, disease-ridden, without supplies, without horses to drag cannon or carry cavalry, into the heart of the Dark Continent would be faced by a horde of warriors for whom this is home. And then, even if that army were somehow—by some miracle—successful, actually governing the conquered territory would require the same miracle to be repeated constantly, over and over and over again. It could not be done.

So yes. Conquering Africa in the 15- 16- or 1700s was impossible for any European country. The continent was valuable, and they knew it. It would be hugely profitable. But it was not merely inconvenient—colonising the Americas was inconvenient—it was impossible. You are incorrect in every particular.

 

[Mujado]

Why are some people pretending here Eu4 is some hard core strategy historical representation? Just play one game and look at the ridiculousness. It's not. It's a sandbox where user should be not limited.

And secondly EU peace time is as good was watching paint dry, it'd be wrong move by devs to put any limits on conquering and colonisation. Adding more attrition is probably best outcome which might make player think about whether it's worth it in early game to loose so much manpower but no way does it stop him.

 

[TheDungen]

Please, humour me; why would Uganda and the Congo be impossible for Europeans in the 1500s and 1600s to colonize?

Already posted it once but:
The africa part begins at 3:20

Why are some people pretending here Eu4 is some hard core strategy historical representation? Just play one game and look at the ridiculousness. It's not. It's a sandbox where user should be not limited.

And secondly EU peace time is as good was watching paint dry, it'd be wrong move by devs to put any limits on conquering and colonisation. Adding more attrition is probably best outcome which might make player think about whether it's worth it in early game to loose so much manpower but no way does it stop him.

You want freedom? There's pen and paper.

 

[Mujado]

Already posted it once but:
The africa part begins at 3:20

.

Ahhhhh if only EU was a history hardcore game but alas its a sandbox in its core, google what sandbox means and you'll know why EU team will never implement complete stop to conquering or colonising of those areas. Attrition and bad events are the only reasonable choices.

 

[sterrius]

Also a lot of the "fixes" suggested impact directly the africa countrys.

Some people like to play african nations, its a different challenge and more provinces there help this a lot instead of watching paint dry with kongo for example.

Autonomy already make sure that conquering africa will not give any european country money there.

As it is now in 1.15. If you wish profitable africa you will make a trade company and protectorade the africans regions. Its the most profitable way already!
if you conquer you're limite to a 25% income from the province. The trade value there will drop a lot.

Summer atrittion is the best way to increase the hardships inside the scope of the game. In a game where you can conquer siberia with Spanish troops like they are used to a -20º winter.
Or like russians going to middle east having no problem with a scorching 40º degrees summer.

If EU4 really goes historically no one would be able to leave its continent until 1700´s.
And colonization would be placing outposts and use protectorade with the astecs.

 

[Artess]

Well the colonial range mechanic needs reworkign anyway. Remember in reality we reached india by sea before colombus set out looking for a western path there.

It's weird that according to the map, in 1444 we don't even know that India exists.

 

[Llyw olaf]

Much appreciated, bit of a shame that Coptic and Fetishist don't get unique mechanics but hopefully new African units, advisor portraits and flavour events will be added.

 

[Gustav91]

There could be some nasty events for non Africans conquering/colonizing Africa....
Colonization disease events killing of the colonies.
If you conquer areas an event for killing of your administration in diseases and hand it over to it's native owner can happen.
Killing of non-African soldiers by events full regiments can get disbanded en masse.
Allow special African mercs to be hired that are unaffected by diseases but restricted by your subsaharan military development or something.