• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Seanmatt

Private
Dec 17, 2014
10
0
I have an Idea how about in victoria 3 or the next expansion pack they create the "settler" pop and you can recruit those settlers into military like units where once you recruit the settler you can move that settler to other provinces then settle them down increasing the provinces population by 3k per regiment of settler once the settler settles in a province that it was not recruit in the pops will have a high chance of changing professions so you don't have a bunch of settlers just staying settlers instead of farmers or factory workers post what you think below
 
you can also convert the culture of some area based on the provinces demographics so if you recruited an irish settler unit then sent it to auckland,NZ that would in crease aucklands irish population by 3,000 pops
 
Well first off the game would have to model the difference between settler colonies and political colonies.

I don't think direct control of settlers makes much sense, though. It's already weird enough that soldiers are POPs before they're even recruited, but recruiting them has no ill effect because they weren't doing anything before—you're not converting someone from garrison duty to a deployable unit, for instance, you're just making a new soldier.
 
well i think that it's annoying that you haft to encourage immigration to one of your colonies and "hope" that people come there,and wait what do you mean by settler and political colonies,I think that settlers should just be used as a tool to have people migrate to where you want them to migrate,I'm open to ideas
 
Last edited:
well I would not expect many settlers to be around if they were not paid by the government like soldiers i just think that the soldier settler grouping would just make the most sense
 
well I would not expect many settlers to be around if they were not paid by the government like soldiers i just think that the soldier settler grouping would just make the most sense
That's not how settling worked. They weren't paid to leave with money, they were seeking new opportunities (and cheap land) elsewhere.
 
Theres one rather major problem: outside a few areas, this isnt how victorian colonization worked.

The Era of bringing your people across the waves and physically displacing the existing population, while increasing the areas population, is over, victorian colonies are far less about actually expanding your people and more about painting your name across a map and stealin' all does colonial resources and soldiers for your home industries and inefficient victorian wars.

The GP's didn't settle the interior of africa, they claimed it as theirs and coulkd back it up,the areas where settling did still happen: The americas and australia, aren't enough to justify something that will only mess up colonization as a whole, and the americas already get, and will likely get, massive assimilation rates
 
well i was not trying to revamp colonization it's more like i wanted to revamp the actual colonists,even if did not want your colonies to have settlers you could just send settlers to increase the population of an other province in your states,I guess this should be a mod or something
 
Last edited:
Actually a distinction can be made between direct and indirect colonial rule. Indirect rule - which characterized some British colonies - let the locals govern themselves more or less while tax and external affairs were controlled by the colonial power. Assimilation wasn't a priority in this case.

But direct colonial rule - exemplified by the French - did place importance on assimilation of "natives".

I think the game could distinguish between the two forms of colonial administration. Maybe for direct colonial rule, the bureaucrats should be primary culture.

Modding-wise, I looked through the commands and there doesn't seem like a straightforward way of doing this. First, you can't change a pop's culture. You can move pops over, but I don't think you can't move x% of your bureaucrats over to a colony...it's either all or nothing.

The settler pop idea might work though, in that you have a settler "reserve" that gets moved to the colony and then an event converts them to bureaucrats (or whatever poptype).
 
Theres one rather major problem: outside a few areas, this isnt how victorian colonization worked.

The Era of bringing your people across the waves and physically displacing the existing population, while increasing the areas population, is over, victorian colonies are far less about actually expanding your people and more about painting your name across a map and stealin' all does colonial resources and soldiers for your home industries and inefficient victorian wars.

The GP's didn't settle the interior of africa, they claimed it as theirs and could back it up,the areas where settling did still happen: The americas and australia, aren't enough to justify something that will only mess up colonization as a whole, and the americas already get, and will likely get, massive assimilation rates
victoria 2 is a game about history and alternate history why not have the ability to change it
 
victoria 2 is a game about history and alternate history why not have the ability to change it

I always find this to be a weak argument. 'Because it is alternative history I should be able to do every damn thing I want, no matter what', no that is not how it works. You should be confined by the constrains of there era. Colonisation in the Victorian Era had nothing to do with colonisation of the 17th and 18th century. The whole mass moving of people to settle the land went out of vogue quite some time before the start of the game. And the area's where it did happen, it happened on private initiative. When you would include a settler POP as you proposed, the game would leave the realm of plausibility and enter the realm of fantasy.

Unfortunately, I feel Paradox has been catering to the people who feel everything should be possible already *cough*EU4*cough*Byzantium*cough*

I did look into modding colonisation, perhaps tying it to the national focus, but that doesn't seem possible.
 
Unfortunately, I feel Paradox has been catering to the people who feel everything should be possible already *cough*EU4*cough*Byzantium*cough*

.

besides one DLC, Wiz is on statement that Byz. is already ahistorically stronger than it should be, and it won't be getting any more love.

That and all the complaints about Byz. Nerfs.

victoria 2 is a game about history and alternate history why not have the ability to change it

These games are less about alternate history and more about plausible history. It's plausible that the UK will fall from grace or Texas will lose the war, or that one country industrializes more, ect. its plausible Dynasty x falls in ck2 or some other nation forms x area instead of area y being the core. Its plausible that some other nation might experience a France style revolution instead of France. its hyper plausible that Germany could have been steamrolled in ww2 if neither side hadn't pussy footed around the border for a year.

in the end, these games are set in the period they are in, and in the Victorian era, colonization wasn't about settling people, and this is nothing but a game about playing in the Victorian era. Thats also why not every country geta a meiji reformation decision, and why the gamke acts like liberalism, then socialism/commies and fascism area thing, conceivaby they might not end up being, but they cant account for that.

When it does deviate into Ahistorical and Alternate historical, it tends to be from player interaction or because of early game shenanigans in the other games.
 
Last edited: