You are painting your maps, telling other nations to shove off, and trading/exploting any natives/resources around to arrive at that "tax" base.
You are not building large settlements with tens of thousands of your countrymen. So when russia colonizes sibera, they are not building cities and farms to support it, they are building outposts and claiming the land on the map. It amounts to "claims", "trading posts", and "small settlements". You are assuming that "colonization" in EU4 results in large scale settlement and explotation. It's rather ridiculous in its current form. If the purpose was to represent the building of trade posts, than 3-4 small colonizable islands and provinces would be enough. But even with all the advanced resources, African colonization in the 19th century still eventually failed.Īnd yet, somehow, 14th century colonization is easy and incredibly stable, letting you paint Africa in European culture. Bypassing the problems of the numerous natives, disease, and logistics necessitated 19th century inventions (such as medicines and the machine gun). In addition there is the problem of disease, where in Africa it worked the opposite of how it did in the Americas (the settlers are the ones died en mass). Displacing the local population requires significant and persistent force - you can't just massacre the natives and remove the whole problem as the game assumes. Secondly, even if we suppose that a major power forced itself to achieve something similar, it would have been a monumental task that I don't think would have been possible.Īfrica wasn't depopulated like the Americas were.
I'm wondering because firstly, the scramble for Africa is well out of the game's time period and belongs in a different game (Victoria).
0 kommentar(er)
