This presents a problem for countrys like Oranje (why dont they just call it Vrystaat?) and Transvaal. Since you cant really expand other then taking on the Zulu's (which generally get eaten by Portugal early on) or committing suicide by attacking the Brits.

Always nice to hear @Mann Co. Gaming

Damn, this is honestly one of the most in depth and intellectual conversations I've ever seen on steam. I guess it ain't saying much compared to the average conversation in a Steam comment section, but jeez, I actually learned some stuff from further research on the topics you guys brought up, lol.

@Mountie Judge

Already did! Now touching my BIG... machinegun?

Holy shit both of you go touch grass

There were a few technological feats that probably did help, like vaccines and stuff like that. A lot of places in africa are dominated by insects and non-africans don't really have many defenses against them. Vaccines changed that fact.

Yeah, as if normal humans ever needed something like machineguns to build homes and cities inside africa... It would make more sense to have an event about "conference of berlin" or "conference of this country's capital or of that country's capital" allowing the scramble of africa to start. I don't know, it's just my opinion. I dislike having to tech mil technology to actually start colonizing. It is a bit of a non-sense, since what really moved colonization was greediness and the need for more money / resources - in short, economic reasons. Rifles did help but most of europeans already had far superior weapons by the 1840s compared to africans. Even Indians, on India, were still fighting with primitive weapons and were subjugated by the British easily despite their huge numbers.

As for logistics, all I can say is that ammo is easier to move then troops, it also eats less and tends not to complain! XD

I do agree that it doesn't make any sense that machine guns would affect the life rating of a province. I mean machine guns would allow you to use fewer men, but the land isn't technically easier to live on or occupy. Then again I suppose they needed SOMETHING as a trigger to allow colonization, because... Paradox logic! XDXDXD

I think you overestimate the logistical and reliability issues of a Maxim pattern machine gun. It was a fairly reliable weapon, given that it was recoil operated weapons with a fairly loose feed. Weapons like that are harder to jam then the lighter gas-operated GMG's we use nowadays. The downside is that they are heavy (especially given that a Maxim is water cooled) and hard to move. Although those aren't an issue in a small colonial fort where they would be in fixed positions. It wouldn't take many men with Maxim's to hold a for against a native army without firearms or heavy weapons. continued...

A machinegun was a weapon with many flaws and often jammed or had other issues that required regular maintenance. Deep in Africa it would be a real nightmare to even repair one. Not to mention ammunition, like I mentioned. Even during 1940's, war in Africa was mostly rifle-based. Even in many parts of Europe.

You are correct on the economical part, but 'investors' often had 'special ways' to get the money they wanted from the locals in africa. In many cases, they tried to obtain monopolies of certain goods in the area, usually through shady schemes, forcing everyone to buy from them. Or through a 'hut tax' that was often very lucrative. In Portugal, the brits or even the germans could force the natives to work for them for years (for free), just to pay a similar tax.

But still, I don't see how machineguns would help with 'life rating' - and even in settling in the desert.