This sends the message that other places are simply incapable of producing slaves which is very obviously not true. Personally it always bugged me that slavery was almost exclusive to the African continent, because history didn't have to be that way. This is also a good choice because it allows for slave provinces to exist outside of Africa. One of the biggest reasons that the Iberians actually began participating in the slave trade en masse was because all the natives were dying too quickly and nobody was alive to work in the mines. This happened many times, especially in the new world with the Spanish and Portuguese enslaving the natives to grow sugar cane or work in the mines. To make more sense historically, slavery should be a trade good you can convert a province to if they are both not your religion and not an accepted culture. It used to be that Eastern Europe was the largest source of slaves for the west, but as they became more Christianized traders started looking for different sources.
European Christian slave traders specifically purchased slaves from Africa because owning Christian slaves was not allowed. First off, where exactly are the slaves coming from? It doesn't make sense that rulers would simply have a province where they take slaves from, especially if it starts as their religion and culture. The way that slavery works in EU4 is very poorly thought out, and not very realistic.
Unlimited Powaaaa, Plot Twist, It's African.Scottish Colombia seems less yellow than I remember.Poland is more OP with this one permenant modifier.
You were supposed to destroy the Ottomans, not join them!.Ah yes, I too remember when the Shogun converted to Christianity to defeat Christianity.EU4 1.31 "Ma.ja.pa.hit?" Patch Notes: What They Actually Mean.
0 kommentar(er)
