• 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.
That's how my family ended up in Canada.

I guess I am just concerned that the 'settling' of these areas is something not well reflected in Ricky, but it is a scenario that is fairly unique. I can't think of any other countries in the world that functioning states across oceans using people primarily of their national culture. Sure some European countries tried, but these are the only examples where the countries were independent functioning entities that had European descendants were the majority. I just want to make sure this is modeled effectively.

I guess I wasn't clear enough or maybe I understand the whole question a bit wrong. What I ment is, that f.e. Germans didn't go to USA or Argentinta because Germany supported it. It looked like some people tried to imply something like this, but maybe I didn't get it right

EDIT: Also while I understand and know about certain ways to promote imigration, it is harder to focus that imigration on certain cultural or ethnical groups.
 
Last edited:
I guess I wasn't clear enough or maybe I understand the whole question a bit wrong. What I ment is, that f.e. Germans didn't go to USA or Argentinta because Germany supported it. It looked like some people tried to imply something like this, but maybe I didn't get it right

EDIT: Also while I understand and know about certain ways to promote imigration, it is harder to focus that imigration on certain cultural or ethnical groups.

It was something more like promoting inmigration inside the country, not to other country, like saying Germany supports inmigration to Namibia after it is conquered, but not that it support inmigration to Argentina or USA.
 
If open jobs are part of migration then USA, Brasil, Argentina, Australia etc some few places will have a big advantage just due to the open RGOs. Once industrialization takes place then USA gets 2 advantages historically- 1, still plenty or free, easy to settle land(vs Brasil for instance with lots of land but tropical jungles never attracted many colonists) and many industrial jobs.

I could see a human player ensure Brasil has plenty of industrial jobs and maintain decent immigration rates despite possibly filling up most of its RGO's with immigrants. At least I hope that is a bit how it works- though for the point of ethnic groups settling more where there are already their own members present is more difficult to balance. That would lead to really low immigration for Brasil for example with only Hispania, and Africa to draw on... and even USA would have troubles where large parts of US immigrants were German and other non-English Europeans.
 
I was wondering if another issue in terms of immigration is being discussed, and that is a province's carrying capacity. The most obvious violation in the first game was seeing Alaska have millions of people there. (many times more than even current population)

I was thinking that each province should have some sort of value representing carrying capacity and that a POP would use to determine if they want to move in or move out of a place based partly on it. (this could also be used for internal migration) Of course it should not be a fixed cap since during the timeframe infrastructure and technology improvements made larger populations possible. (example is aqueducts in Southern California)
 
Keep in mind that this isn't a thread about Argentina, Brazil, USA, etc, or even really immigration in general. What I want to see is New Zealand and the Canadian and Australian West settled to historic levels. The laissez faire approach used in Ricky didn't work to historic levels.

These countries experienced a unique immigration pattern (Unlike any other European colonies) because of the lasting effects of this immigration. In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the majority of people today are still English speaking European decendents (largely British). This didn't happen anywhere else in the world.

Con Mon Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did not get enough immigrants in Ricky. The USA tagged American Democracy always gobbled them up (as they should many, but not all immigrants). Even when immigrants did come to the British dominions, they did not ever go to the right places. Vast stretches of land remained largely unattractive to Immigrants in Ricky. I want to ensure that the unique historic reality with immigration is relfected in the next game.
 
I want to ensure that the unique historic reality with immigration is relfected in the next game.

Here we are again with the epic ongoing issue in all paradox games: "is this a historical game or is this a game in a historical setup". A lot of fans always cry for more historical accurateness, but this is not the focus of paradox interactive. So I don't see that they will put a lot of effort in to this issue.
 
Here we are again with the epic ongoing issue in all paradox games: "is this a historical game or is this a game in a historical setup". A lot of fans always cry for more historical accurateness, but this is not the focus of paradox interactive. So I don't see that they will put a lot of effort in to this issue.

I think (if devs or modders want to pursue the issue of intra-Empire immigration) they can get the best of both worlds by figuring out which factors and policies led to the phenomenon Malch described in Canada, Australia and NZ, but not in the colonies of other overseas empires; and granting those factors and policies a sort of "home country immigration bonus"? Or maybe package it all up in a national decision for dominions to gain a boost in migrants from the home country when everything is right and the planets are aligned?

I agree that something like this shouldn't be hard-coded for Canada/Australia/New Zealand (what you describe as PI's focus, I happen to like a lot), and we have to understand that there's nothing particularly unique about these territories that drew British migrants to them. Given the right historical circumstances and government policies, the same thing could have conceivably happened anywhere.
 
Here we are again with the epic ongoing issue in all paradox games: "is this a historical game or is this a game in a historical setup". A lot of fans always cry for more historical accurateness, but this is not the focus of paradox interactive. So I don't see that they will put a lot of effort in to this issue.

If the mechanics of the game cannot allow for a historic outcome even in theory, they are deficient.
 
Here we are again with the epic ongoing issue in all paradox games: "is this a historical game or is this a game in a historical setup". A lot of fans always cry for more historical accurateness, but this is not the focus of paradox interactive.

Don't you think that the British Empire is pretty significant in the 19th century? It would be nice to see it modeled effectively, that's all.

If the mechanics of the game cannot allow for a historic outcome even in theory, they are deficient.

Here Here!
 
Keep in mind that this isn't a thread about Argentina, Brazil, USA, etc, or even really immigration in general. What I want to see is New Zealand and the Canadian and Australian West settled to historic levels. The laissez faire approach used in Ricky didn't work to historic levels.

These countries experienced a unique immigration pattern (Unlike any other European colonies) because of the lasting effects of this immigration. In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the majority of people today are still English speaking European decendents (largely British). This didn't happen anywhere else in the world.

Con Mon Canada, Australia, and New Zealand did not get enough immigrants in Ricky. The USA tagged American Democracy always gobbled them up (as they should many, but not all immigrants). Even when immigrants did come to the British dominions, they did not ever go to the right places. Vast stretches of land remained largely unattractive to Immigrants in Ricky. I want to ensure that the unique historic reality with immigration is relfected in the next game.

Any mechanic that works with some regions or colonies will have to work with everywhere else though. I don't care if the game reaches historic levels of immigration as that would be quite hard to do everywhere perfectly. As long as the migration doesn't end with 1 million in Alaska and 20 million in California with virtually nothing in between in N Amercia and that not all English emmigrants go to S Africa in the dominions that would be ok with me.

Also remember that there probably won't be a huge difference between internal and external migration between states. Simply internal migration will have POPs weight staying in the same nation more heavily. Since most European nations 4x growth(-emmigration) during 1800s then slightly slower between 1900-1930 and then after 1930 the rest of the world outside Europe started to grow that fast while Europe slowed down. Migration to open jobs will be part of it because especially until 1860-70s when in the game industrialization really starts to pick up it might be hard to provide enough jobs for that level of population growth as it doubles then 4x in that period.

It will be more interesting if there is a mechanic to slow down population growth late in the game otherwise you'll have way more population than historically in many areas. In V1 population kept growing at about 2-3% the entire game which means about every 50 years the population doubled or more than doubled.
 
A simple solution could just be a non-hard-coded immigration bonus to certain countries. Then you can tweak it all you want to get historical or ahistorical outcomes.

You could also give sweeping bonuses to certain continents. If in EUIII there were mechanics to separate out the continents, then there could easily be the same here.

Those two things would solve most of the problems and allow people to modify things all they want to get it as "perfect" as possible for their games.

Everyone should remember too that if you make the system mostly reliant upon the provinces, then technologically backwards (yet liberal) countries in Africa could easily get immigrants too. It's not totally out of the question of possibility, but switching around a few government policies and competing with the US may be a bit strange to say the least...
 
There should a be tier system for levels of desireability. Climate and distance are important; the USA is climate wise much more similar to Europe than, say, Brazil, and is alot closer, as well. This kind of system could also negate the Alaska conundrum. Also it could be hardcoded that POPs gravitate towards their own kind; an Englishman would sooner emigrate to be around other Brits in Canada than settle with Italians in Brooklyn
 
There should a be tier system for levels of desireability. Climate and distance are important; the USA is climate wise much more similar to Europe than, say, Brazil, and is alot closer, as well. This kind of system could also negate the Alaska conundrum. Also it could be hardcoded that POPs gravitate towards their own kind; an Englishman would sooner emigrate to be around other Brits in Canada than settle with Italians in Brooklyn

I'm not sure those were really much of a factor, I'd rather say that it was, for instance, that Brazil didn't have many opportunities for those who wanted to own their own parcels of land, and immigrants were in some cases treated not unlike African slaves were. In fact, IIRC, later on Italy prohibited it's citizens to emigrate to Brazil precisely because of that.
 
I'm not sure those were really much of a factor, I'd rather say that it was, for instance, that Brazil didn't have many opportunities for those who wanted to own their own parcels of land, and immigrants were in some cases treated not unlike African slaves were. In fact, IIRC, later on Italy prohibited it's citizens to emigrate to Brazil precisely because of that.

I was just suggesting one additional factor. Opportunity is obviously the most important reason to move elsewhere, as anyone from Detroit could confirm
 
I'm not sure those were really much of a factor, I'd rather say that it was, for instance, that Brazil didn't have many opportunities for those who wanted to own their own parcels of land, and immigrants were in some cases treated not unlike African slaves were. In fact, IIRC, later on Italy prohibited it's citizens to emigrate to Brazil precisely because of that.

Brazil has the second biggest italian comunity outside Italy after Argentina, and they did had land, but it wasn't the kind of land an European inmigrant would want(Matto Grosso or Jungle). Just remember that after banning slave trade they needed new workers for cofee plantations. Many were portuguese, german and italian. Also many of them moved after southwards to Argentina, Uruguay and Rio Grande do Sul because of the climate.
 
There should a be tier system for levels of desireability. Climate and distance are important; the USA is climate wise much more similar to Europe than, say, Brazil, and is alot closer, as well. This kind of system could also negate the Alaska conundrum. Also it could be hardcoded that POPs gravitate towards their own kind; an Englishman would sooner emigrate to be around other Brits in Canada than settle with Italians in Brooklyn

Totally agree. Like saying if the first Italians in Argentina start to concentrate in Buenos Aires the new italian immigrants will mostly go there.
And also agree with Climate. Giving an example in real life, inmigrants in Argentina settled mostly in Buenos Aires, Santa Fe and Cordoba because of the climate and didn't do so in the Northwest or in most of the Patagonia(which in vicky could have millions of inmigrants in each province, when in real life the only places capable at that time of holding around 1 million inhabitants were the Chubut valley(Trelew province) and the High Valley of Rio Negro and Neuquen(Nequen province, Choele Choel province and General Roca province))
 
Brazil has the second biggest italian comunity outside Italy after Argentina, and they did had land, but it wasn't the kind of land an European inmigrant would want(Matto Grosso or Jungle).

You get me wrong. There was plenty of good land owned by nobody, but the land laws in Brazil didn't really allow for the distribution of lands to form small farms.
 
You get me wrong. There was plenty of good land owned by nobody, but the land laws in Brazil didn't really allow for the distribution of lands to form small farms.

From wiki: [...]Of these, 45.73% were Portuguese, 35.74% of "other nationalities," 12.97% Germans, while Italians and Spaniards together did not reach 6%. The total number of immigrants per year averaged 6,000.[13] Many immigrants, particularly the Germans, were brought to settle in rural communities as small landowners. They received land, seed, livestock and other items to develop[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Brazil
 
From wiki: [...]Of these, 45.73% were Portuguese, 35.74% of "other nationalities," 12.97% Germans, while Italians and Spaniards together did not reach 6%. The total number of immigrants per year averaged 6,000.[13] Many immigrants, particularly the Germans, were brought to settle in rural communities as small landowners. They received land, seed, livestock and other items to develop[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Brazil

I didn't say it didn't happen, only that the Land Law made the land distribution in Brazil far worse for potential small landowners than the United States.