specifically

I know that this topic is brought up every few months on a semi-regular basis, but I think it's important and Paradox has yet to address it. This is a map of EU4's map as it currently exists:Notice anything, aside from how far the map has come since previous installments of EU? Well, let me phrase that question in a different way- do you notice any areas of the world that seem to be lagging behind in the fidelity of their representation? Try matching it up to this set of historical population density maps At least half of sub-Saharan Africa remains wasteland, and as the above maps demonstrate there was historically a significant population in these areas (specifically around the African Great Lakes region). Sure, the Congo Basin contains a vast tropical rainforest, and the Namib/ Kalahari Deserts comprise a large portion of modern Namibia and Botswana, but that accounts for roughly a third of the wasteland in sub-Saharan Africa.Yes, I know "tropical disease" and "it has Europa in the name" and that the "Scramble for Africa" didn't truly begin until the 1880's, but still. Just because the Europeans didn't happen to colonize and conquer these regions until later doesn't mean that they were completely cut off from any contact with outside civilization until then. Even by simply looking at the terrain map in-game you can sort of tell there's some funny business re: what is and isn't wasteland.It's not as if these regions weren't populated. Quite to the contrary of what I've heard some people on this forum argue, this article indicates that the lowest point for Africa's population relative to the global population occurred at the turn of the 20th century, long after the game's current end date. Neither is it a case of there not being any states or empires for the game to represent in the African Great Lakes region , which is currently little more than a giant chunk of wasteland.The game's simplistic notion of "Westernization" and Eurocentric trade setup are bad enough, but fine. The game is first and foremost about European imperialists and their exploits. It's somewhat unlikely that we'll get a radical overhaul of those mechanics at this point in the game's lifecycle anyway. But does Africa really deserve this lax of a treatment compared to, say, the Americas, which are full of empty provinces as well as an assortment of OPMs that hardly fit the game's criteria for being counted as states? The only other continent with such a high fraction of wasteland is Australia, which incidentally also has a "black" indigenous population.Do I have reason to believe that Paradox are a bunch of racists? No. But do I think that representing Africa at such a low level of fidelity relative to the rest of the world is a case of unacceptable negligence? Absolutely. If you don't want to add a bunch of new tags for all the Great Lakes kingdoms, then that's fine. But at the very least, put some non-wasteland provinces there to recognize that these regions were populated and productive areas.For the next expansion, what about something focusing on sub-Saharan Africa and fleshing out that part of the map? Has Paradox ever released an expansion pack focusingon Africa (as they have for other regions in the past) for any of their games? I sure haven't been able to find record of any such expansion, so I'm guessing the answer is no. Can we all agree that's a bit slack?