The portuguese... and pretty much every British colony (well, every British settlement colony) except the US. Lots of exception for one rule. I don't think it make sense to make it "the rule" given that.
The West - A Dynamic Colonial Overhaul for Europa Universalis IV
- Thread starter unmerged(445219)
- Start date
-
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.
The portuguese... and pretty much every British colony (well, every British settlement colony) except the US. Lots of exception for one rule. I don't think it make sense to make it "the rule" given that.
This sounds interesting, but shouldn't we wait to see what the designers have up their sleeves?
However if you released this for EU3 I would get it.
However if you released this for EU3 I would get it.
And the spanish. It would even trigger for the french if they hadn't lost most of them by the end of the time period. You would have to fiddle to stop it happening to Spain and Portugal earlier than England. You also would have to stick in a 'land connection to capital' exception to stop it happening to Russia.
What he's basing his idea off is actually the exception, which isn't a good start.
@Emre Yigit. Leaving aside all the above, 3 colonies is way too small to consider an independence movement a la the US (Haiti was a slave revolt) - you need to be big enough not to be economically dependent on the mother country, AND have no nearby opponents (because declaring independence is kind of pointless when France can walk in and go 'nice place, I think I'll take it').
Kurland, not Courland. Even in game it is Kurland, not Courland. Damnit! Damn english cannot even pronounce it right...
EDIT: Evidently, It is Ku not Kau. I dont even know why english even bother to add unnesacary letter... to a non-english word.
Last edited:
Because some languages need this extra "o" to pronounce "Kurland" the way you do ?
And that English strongly takes from said languages, probably.
Are you native Polish speaker, btw? Then this statement looks quite odd considering the way the consonants are constructed in Polish.
When and if the colonies go independent would be entirely up to the decisions of the Mother Country. If you managed your colonies like Spain, they would/wouldn't rebel in a similar fashion. That is all for the endgame of colonies, the concept is really fleshing out the early to mid game, where colonies develop. Endgame behavior would have to be tweaked to allow for historical plausibility, while still allowing the player to have an effect on his colonies.
Small islands and smaller colonies wouldn't develop any significant independence movements such as large colonies. Colonial Centers would be set to give a malus, instead of a bonus if you included islands such as Bermuda, caribbean islands, Haiti, ect inside of them. The AI would be programmed in such a manner as well. The main purpose of these islands, in terms of colonization, should be to grab just a FEW as a naval outpost and then move onto the mainland.
The actual colonies from our history generally had four groups living in them:
1) The white (motherland pure race) nobility/land owners.
2) The white general populous.
3) The mixed race populous.
4) The slaves, primarily of African decent.
Each of these groups should have an effect on your colonies, and a breakdown of them and their moods wouldn't be a bad inclusion either. It should also be possible for each of them to do a rebellion. A colony's independence should be able to come about from the nobles making power grabs, the whites and land owners trying to gain better property rights, the mixed races trying to gain equal status for themselves, the slaves having an uprising to free themselves, a member of the royal family declaring themselves the king of the colony and so on. All of these kinds of revolts did happen in history. However, these rebellions should not be inevitable. Similarly, a colonial culture may or may not spring up should be separate from whether or not independence movements do. Of course, a new culture might be created as part of a group's bid for independence, and once an area is independent, a new culture should probably develop.
1) The white (motherland pure race) nobility/land owners.
2) The white general populous.
3) The mixed race populous.
4) The slaves, primarily of African decent.
Each of these groups should have an effect on your colonies, and a breakdown of them and their moods wouldn't be a bad inclusion either. It should also be possible for each of them to do a rebellion. A colony's independence should be able to come about from the nobles making power grabs, the whites and land owners trying to gain better property rights, the mixed races trying to gain equal status for themselves, the slaves having an uprising to free themselves, a member of the royal family declaring themselves the king of the colony and so on. All of these kinds of revolts did happen in history. However, these rebellions should not be inevitable. Similarly, a colonial culture may or may not spring up should be separate from whether or not independence movements do. Of course, a new culture might be created as part of a group's bid for independence, and once an area is independent, a new culture should probably develop.
We're now focusing on colonising the America's with their endless space for Europeans to start a new life, but what we shouldn't forget is the first backyard of profits for the European countries; Asia.
You should add a cyclus for them as well, as their way of being a colony is simply different.
I.m.o it should be as followed:
Little Asian states getting occupied by Europeans.
->
Asians of one colony are creating their own identity and so becoming nationalistic
->
Rebellion
It's not a big difference, but you can't treat American/Asian/African colonies equal.
You should add a cyclus for them as well, as their way of being a colony is simply different.
I.m.o it should be as followed:
Little Asian states getting occupied by Europeans.
->
Asians of one colony are creating their own identity and so becoming nationalistic
->
Rebellion
It's not a big difference, but you can't treat American/Asian/African colonies equal.
That's...a wonderful mish-mash of facts that each individually apply to SOME colonial systems, but almost never to all. I'm not even sure it applies as such to *one* specific colony. Maybe Brazil, I don't know brazil as well as the rest. (English and French colonies didn't have a separate mixed race social class - they were just lumped in with one or another existing group; Spanish colonies had it but they also had a fairly important missing "Indian" social class. Slave class was almost non-existent in some colonies, and super-important in others, often within the same nation (eg, (French) Canada: very small slave class, and what there was mostly made of natives, but Haiti: humongous slave class).
I'm not sure how broadly this applies, I don't really know much about Colonial Independence Movements, except for the U.S. and India.
I thought it would be nice for there to be differences in the amount of control you have over your colonies, for example being able to try to change colonies into full-fleged provinces late game, but with more features representing the relative autonomy of provinces. Colonies should start out, so you have very little control over them (maybe conquering should have different starting conditions than sending colonists) and there should be an incentive to gain more control over them, obvious example taxing them instead of just tariffs (should include making tariffs smaller than in eu3), access to more manpower in the colonies, or even the ability to raise armies in the colony.
Attempting to increase your control over the colonies could be what triggers colonial unrest. By trying this only being an option late game (tech) you could still control when it happens.
I think the part, about direct taxation already made it pretty obvious, that I'm just basing this on the U.S (India certainly isn't within the time frame). so let me add, that quartering acts could increase your supply base.
I thought it would be nice for there to be differences in the amount of control you have over your colonies, for example being able to try to change colonies into full-fleged provinces late game, but with more features representing the relative autonomy of provinces. Colonies should start out, so you have very little control over them (maybe conquering should have different starting conditions than sending colonists) and there should be an incentive to gain more control over them, obvious example taxing them instead of just tariffs (should include making tariffs smaller than in eu3), access to more manpower in the colonies, or even the ability to raise armies in the colony.
Attempting to increase your control over the colonies could be what triggers colonial unrest. By trying this only being an option late game (tech) you could still control when it happens.
I think the part, about direct taxation already made it pretty obvious, that I'm just basing this on the U.S (India certainly isn't within the time frame). so let me add, that quartering acts could increase your supply base.
Through pretty much all the EU period, 'those islands' were more valuable to the colonizing powers than the mainland (unless it happened to have a gold or silver mine in the province). Thus why France gave up Quebec to keep its carribean islands. Creating a mechanic that actively ignores history is... bad.
This may be your history, but could you at least give us a country to go off? Largely because you have gone the overly simplified version - for example substantial numbers of African slaves was mainly in the new world, and in the arc between the Southern US & Brazil. Different cultures also had different views about intermarriage (Spain intermarried a lot/the English frowned on it & it affected how mixed race people were treated), native populations were different etc etc.
And most irritatingly, you seem to think colonization happened only in the new world. Africa, Indonesia, Australia/NZ & certain ports around India/China had different demographics.
Sorry. I was more directing my comments at the OP in any case.
Last edited:
My apologies if it was vague, but by our, I meant the entire human species. I forgot to include native populations in that list though.
I was talking about the colonies in North and South America, yes. I was trying to keep the system relatively simple so that it could be easily adapted into game terms. The intention was not that all colonies featured all of the presented groups, or that each colony treated the groups the same. Just what the general groups are.
You are correct that I should have also included native populations as well as part of the primary groups.
They were more valuable, but they weren't really generating the raw materials that the mainland was. They were strategic positions for trade, navies and control, which did make them valuable. The amount of exploitable resources that can be found in a 1,000 km2 island couldn't compare to the mainland.
Giving up a vast, sparsely fortified region in favour of the Caribbean would easily be modeled. I don't see how, in terms of COLONIZATION, that would be bad.
This is great, I'm skeptical about it's implementation in the game, but it would be awesome.
A major problem of the current system is the population of the colony. You send a 100 colonists each time, they either fail or succeed. And after a 1000 people it is of no use to send more colonists.
I think a few things should change.
Firstly colonists come from either your own pool or can be "bought". The latest group are simply from outside your nation. The costs are for shipping and seeking them. The further the colony, the higher the costs for shipment. You can get several discounts for shipping colonists (from both pools), freedom in the colony is one discount. If you allow people from other religions to live in the colony it becomes cheaper to inhabit the colony. As does the richness of the land. Rumors of gold or rich farmland should make the colony a lot more popular, and thus more populated.
Because of this system, which causes people from different cultures to live in your colony, the culture of the colony could be different than the culture in the motherland. It could also be called mixed, multi-cultural or multi-ethnic or be "colonial".
If the motherland succeeds in keeping this colony and the relation between the motherland and colony stays strong the dominant culture will become the same as that of the motherland. If the motherland does not succeed in keeping the colony, or keeping the relation tight, then the colonys stays a different culture and can develop it's own.
This way smaller nations should have more trouble in getting enough colonists, especially when the motherland is rich, peacefull and stable and people have no reason to leave.
Other things this system does, when for example you allow more religious freedom in the colony, the religion of the colony might be different than the religion in the motherland. This can cause trouble later, while it also gets more people to your colony.
Big nations with a big population are more likely to dominate the colonial trade, such as England, France and Spain, as they historically did. Richer nations can still affort a large colonial empire, but need people from outside the country to populate the colonies as well, as the Netherlands historically did.
If a region in Europe is plaqued by war, famine or other problems more people will leave this region and become available for shipment as colonists, the price should be less, downside is that their religion and culture might spread in your colonies.
Later in the game other question might arrive, such as those mentioned by the OP. If the colonists have been given the same freedom and rights as the people in the motherland, if they pay the same taxes and have been given the same love (roads and other government structures) they are more likely to stay loyal to you. But this is more expensive for you, you have to spend a lot of money on your colonies, money that just as well good be spend on expanding and improving your empire in Europe.
But if you decide to keep spending in your colonies as low as possible, if you don't give them any rights. They start to feel disconnected from the motherland. If they are already a different culture and religion they are very likely to rebel against you. So you should keep a strong military in your colonies.
If you treat your colonists the same as the people in the motherland, then colonists are more likely to rebel, as they are further from the reach of your hands.
I think a few things should change.
Firstly colonists come from either your own pool or can be "bought". The latest group are simply from outside your nation. The costs are for shipping and seeking them. The further the colony, the higher the costs for shipment. You can get several discounts for shipping colonists (from both pools), freedom in the colony is one discount. If you allow people from other religions to live in the colony it becomes cheaper to inhabit the colony. As does the richness of the land. Rumors of gold or rich farmland should make the colony a lot more popular, and thus more populated.
Because of this system, which causes people from different cultures to live in your colony, the culture of the colony could be different than the culture in the motherland. It could also be called mixed, multi-cultural or multi-ethnic or be "colonial".
If the motherland succeeds in keeping this colony and the relation between the motherland and colony stays strong the dominant culture will become the same as that of the motherland. If the motherland does not succeed in keeping the colony, or keeping the relation tight, then the colonys stays a different culture and can develop it's own.
This way smaller nations should have more trouble in getting enough colonists, especially when the motherland is rich, peacefull and stable and people have no reason to leave.
Other things this system does, when for example you allow more religious freedom in the colony, the religion of the colony might be different than the religion in the motherland. This can cause trouble later, while it also gets more people to your colony.
Big nations with a big population are more likely to dominate the colonial trade, such as England, France and Spain, as they historically did. Richer nations can still affort a large colonial empire, but need people from outside the country to populate the colonies as well, as the Netherlands historically did.
If a region in Europe is plaqued by war, famine or other problems more people will leave this region and become available for shipment as colonists, the price should be less, downside is that their religion and culture might spread in your colonies.
Later in the game other question might arrive, such as those mentioned by the OP. If the colonists have been given the same freedom and rights as the people in the motherland, if they pay the same taxes and have been given the same love (roads and other government structures) they are more likely to stay loyal to you. But this is more expensive for you, you have to spend a lot of money on your colonies, money that just as well good be spend on expanding and improving your empire in Europe.
But if you decide to keep spending in your colonies as low as possible, if you don't give them any rights. They start to feel disconnected from the motherland. If they are already a different culture and religion they are very likely to rebel against you. So you should keep a strong military in your colonies.
If you treat your colonists the same as the people in the motherland, then colonists are more likely to rebel, as they are further from the reach of your hands.
Last edited:
Actually, he's somewhat right. A small Caribbean island, with its sugar plantations, ports, and likely denser population could create a much larger output than vast, largely empty stretches of continental land. Resources from far inland would be very hard to extract for much of this era. Things like agricultural goods and timber are not easy to transport across long distances of land and thus those large inland areas never held nearly the same economic incentive as a rich Caribbean island would have.