The West - A Dynamic Colonial Overhaul for Europa Universalis IV

  • 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.
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.

At the end of the seventeenth century (ie 1700), the West Indies supplied 9 per cent (by value) of English mainland imports, the North American colonies supplied 8 per cent. They also took a slightly higher amount of England's exports. The French West Indian islands (St Dominique in particular) were even more relatively important to France (wikipedia says that: "By the 1780s, Saint-Domingue produced about 40 percent of all the sugar and 60 percent of all the coffee consumed in Europe. This single colony...produced more sugar and coffee than all of the British West Indies colonies combined." - i suspect a slight exaggeration on the first half, but its importance to France was still substantial, while the importance of their north american possessions was somewhat less than the english equivilents). Suffice to say their importance was somewhat more than "strategic positions for trade, navies, and control:, which is also why the English and the French were prone to send large fleets out there when ever they went to war during the 1700s.

The reason for the importance of the islands was that they produced goods (notably sugar) that couldn't be produced efficiently in Europe. Thus they got the greater share of investment and population (first settlers then slaves) at first. Additionally, producing stuff matters little unless somebody wants to buy it, and that means being able to ship it to them. Absent the railroad (& refrigeration), large chunks of North America were of little value for precisely this reason (this is why the Appalachians were the edge of the English north american colonies for so long).

The extent to which the importance of the future US only grew (somewhat remarkably it should be added) after 1700 is somewhat underappreciated.
 
At the end of the seventeenth century (ie 1700), the West Indies supplied 9 per cent (by value) of English mainland imports, the North American colonies supplied 8 per cent. They also took a slightly higher amount of England's exports. The French West Indian islands (St Dominique in particular) were even more relatively important to France (wikipedia says that: "By the 1780s, Saint-Domingue produced about 40 percent of all the sugar and 60 percent of all the coffee consumed in Europe. This single colony...produced more sugar and coffee than all of the British West Indies colonies combined." - i suspect a slight exaggeration on the first half, but its importance to France was still substantial, while the importance of their north american possessions was somewhat less than the english equivilents). Suffice to say their importance was somewhat more than "strategic positions for trade, navies, and control:, which is also why the English and the French were prone to send large fleets out there when ever they went to war during the 1700s.

The reason for the importance of the islands was that they produced goods (notably sugar) that couldn't be produced efficiently in Europe. Thus they got the greater share of investment and population (first settlers then slaves) at first. Additionally, producing stuff matters little unless somebody wants to buy it, and that means being able to ship it to them. Absent the railroad (& refrigeration), large chunks of North America were of little value for precisely this reason (this is why the Appalachians were the edge of the English north american colonies for so long).

The extent to which the importance of the future US only grew (somewhat remarkably it should be added) after 1700 is somewhat underappreciated.

To be able to properly model that would require a different naval and goods system than currently in EU3 or scheduled for EU4. The question then becomes HOW do you want the Caribbean to turn out. If it is homogeneous every single game, it becomes a boring area for the player. The way it turned out historically, with multiple countries controlling different islands would be very interesting for extending European conflicts into the area. Should you lose a naval battle in the West, you could then retreat your navy to your port. The smaller islands (not counting Haiti/Cuba) should not have rebellion movements as they would be too small and too distant from the colonies to form a common culture. The uncommon games where a single country managed to take over most of the islands should be the only time when such an event occurs.
 
Me likes this system of proposition of the colonial, like a glove.

I guess colonialism as PI have planned includes the use of colonial emissaries to a large degree. Maybe a good starting proposition would be to invest in landing points, which cost an administrative and military point each month to maintain which gradually evolves into state size colonies, making it costly but less fiddly. The landing point then become colonial capital this system proposes.

Then again, it's hard to determine costs without the game released, since it could be balance hell in the end, either becoming absolutely worthless, or too overpowered. I do suspect the endgame will be more about the trade routes and manpower colonies produce, and less about raw income. It makes perfect sense that the endgame will see a transition in the value of colonies to be more burdersome though, and not just from a whack-a-rebel point of view. The latter ain't fun, that's what makes Jason's idea so appealing. If revolts are to be modeled properly in a gameplay point of view, they should be large and decisive. Other countries should be able to influence other countries colonies aswell, making them more inclined to demand sovereignity.

Much <3 Jason. I can finally forgive you for leaving a huge, stable AI blob as my neighbour in that MP game in CKII. :D
 
I'm sorry, but, though it may seem like an attractive idea when you're from North America, it makes colonies much too important. Sure, the South American and Carribean colonies were valuable and made Spain a fortune during a century or two, but to most countries colonies were fairly trivial until the advent of imperialism. By the eighteenth century Asia was becoming much more important to European countries than the colonies. They were richer, more advanced, more populous and had an attractive culture, all of which were lacking in the Americas. These are all intriguing ideas, but in my opinion don't really reflect the importance of american colonies of the era.
 
It would be very difficult to represent the very sparsely populated French trading provinces without a system like this. Plus representing the conquered natives would be much easier with this system.
 
i rly have to say i like this idea! it was always so sad that there never was any real breakaways in euII and eu III from colonies.... it just was getting as much land as possible and then become rich with them for ever...
but i have a question... did i understood it right that those colonial centers will start to make colonys in empty provinces around them even if i as the motherland maybe dont want those lands?
How much freedom will they have? will they have there own income from which they start improving there lands?
 
i rly have to say i like this idea! it was always so sad that there never was any real breakaways in euII and eu III from colonies.... it just was getting as much land as possible and then become rich with them for ever...
but i have a question... did i understood it right that those colonial centers will start to make colonys in empty provinces around them even if i as the motherland maybe dont want those lands?
How much freedom will they have? will they have there own income from which they start improving there lands?

They would start without the ability to make colonies themselves. If players didn't like colonial centers making their own colonies, it could just be handled by event. The colony approaches you to make a colony in a certain province and you can allow them or disallow, depending on whether you wanted that area colonized or not. They would have their own income, and eventually their own militia. Both a hand-off and active colonization role will be available for play.
 
the possibility for small countries to colonize is a good thing, for exemple to go out of vassalization... I remember Navarra, always vassalized after a few years, which I directed into a colonization policy... when big enough I went out of vassalization.
 
the possibility for small countries to colonize is a good thing, for exemple to go out of vassalization... I remember Navarra, always vassalized after a few years, which I directed into a colonization policy... when big enough I went out of vassalization.

Small countries would be able to colonize with a large enough income, usually from trade. If Navarra is anything like EU3 (High free trade policy), a competent player would easily be able to colonize with her.
 
Ah, a great idea!

Besides this, I've read a suggestion that natives be represented differently... instead of having a static population, randomly rising up, and the player being able to "Attack" them to commit an ahistorical genocide, they work more like pirates and require a constant militia presence to keep them down.
 
You should be able to make "Colonial Vassals" with its own government (But you should still be able to move their troops if you want to). You should be able to control the tariffs of each colony, increasing the revolt risk if you push them too much.

This way, you could name your new colonies (Like you do with the provinces in EUIII).

If the colony is attacked by other country, you can decide joining or not to their war, that is a great example of situations in real history.

The independence wars should not be only rebels, but a big war like in CKII (When colonies declare war, their forcelimits should decrease).

And, then another colonial country declares war on you (And your colonies) you wont have to micromanage all the little provinces from Madagascar to Florida...


EDIT: When I say colonies I mean a group of provinces together, like the duchies in CKII.
 
Last edited:
+1 behind the OP's insightful analysis and creative approach to making colonization better. I hope the devs are reading and reflecting upon your contributions.
 
Just one complaint. I believe you said that these would not be separate nations? Many players here want to be able to play as a colony, including me (I love the colonial game), and this would be perfect for representing it.

Of course, tags would be a problem. I'm thinking names should be dynamic (players can choose colony and revolutionary names, but AI will use from a list of reasonable ones), but there could be a large number of generic tags that they are assigned from. To give an example, I go straight for the Caribbean, and then later roll over the Aztecs. I set up two colonial charters, naming them Columbia and Cortez. When my competitor (say it's France for this scenario) shows up in the Caribbean, they set up New France. All three of these nations would be tied to a random tag, Tag1, Tag2, and Tag3. If it's necessary to manage AI and prevent using up all of these free tags, there could be a distance limit on planting down these centers (so that I can't place one in Manhattan and one in Connecticut, for example).

But there are also other factors. That would represent the colony itself excellently.

CLAIMING LAND
To claim land you simply march your conquistador through it, but there would be distance limits (it would have to be so close to a dependent colony, and could be a further distance from a self-sufficient colony). So when my first batch of colonists arrive at New Orleans I can stake out part of Louisiana, when I get a self-sufficient colony it would expand more, and once the colonial charter is established it would extend to cover a country-sized area or more. The main purpose of this is conflict. The first nation to lay down claims (represented by a lighter shade of your national colors) would have the right to evict competitor colonies, and any secondary nations (lines) can do so but with penalties. As England I can't just sail down to Brazil and plant my flag, but I can plant it all over the Ohio Valley, since it's nearby.

NATIVES
North Americans would benefit from (some) Horde mechanics. When I move into Iroquois and Cherokee land, I shouldn't automatically colonize that land, it should revert to "the wild". South Americans and Mesoamericans are probably fine as they are, though, as I understand the Spanish basically just took over administration from the previous establishment.

"Wild" natives would be better if we had some diplomatic tools. I'd recommend having them produce some amount of goods (things like Furs and foodstuffs) and also consume some (the white man's goods). We should be able to do things like arm the natives of a province against encroachment, ally with our own through trade, and play them against each other to lower the population. First contact (conquistadors landing) should cause a ripple effect of Smallpox utterly destroying their numbers. There was a civilization along the Mississippi River valley that was just as magnificent as the Aztecs or Maya, but it died out from the disease before explorers arrived to write of it. In fact, it would be great to have several more native empires, and have special event chains dealing with the collapse of their civilizations (first your manpower and tax drops to nothing, then you take huge Stability hits, and finally places start reverting to wild).

Also, natives ought to be allowed to colonize similar land (I have the same opinion of African natives). I don't know what kind of special mechanics would exist, but I imagine it would be done through both war and settlement. It should be expensive but entirely possible.

CLASSES
Forgot to mention. While everything else should be moddable, I doubt this one would. There ought to be something like four different classes, basically whites, natives, and blacks (with blacks being purchased on the markets or produced from provinces). There could be boni to having different kinds. If revolt risk, culture, and all that was divided between the three classes, we could have things like a slave rebellion and the option to exploit resources more efficiently. Resource-wise, different terrains and colony types would require different types of population.

Let me use the big three colonial powers as an example. New England is specialized for production and a balanced economy, which benefits mot from whites. Thus, the reasonable policy for the motherland would be getting settler numbers up as much as possible (Natives and Blacks can't work in factories or the like, and are rebellious, so you have every interest in running them off). Dixie and the Caribbean, though, are tropical/subtropical cash crop zones. Whites drop like flies, and Natives aren't that good either, so you want to import large numbers of Blacks. When you get into Mexico or the Andes, though, you want to mine all the minerals you can, so it's good to work your Natives to death to extract as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
Just one complaint. I believe you said that these would not be separate nations? Many players here want to be able to play as a colony, including me (I love the colonial game), and this would be perfect for representing it.

Of course, tags would be a problem. I'm thinking names should be dynamic (players can choose colony and revolutionary names, but AI will use from a list of reasonable ones), but there could be a large number of generic tags that they are assigned from. To give an example, I go straight for the Caribbean, and then later roll over the Aztecs. I set up two colonial charters, naming them Columbia and Cortez. When my competitor (say it's France for this scenario) shows up in the Caribbean, they set up New France. All three of these nations would be tied to a random tag, Tag1, Tag2, and Tag3. If it's necessary to manage AI and prevent using up all of these free tags, there could be a distance limit on planting down these centers (so that I can't place one in Manhattan and one in Connecticut, for example).

But there are also other factors. That would represent the colony itself excellently.

There is no reason why it couldn't be modeled as a separate nation. Whether the colonial center is a separate nation from the start, or a certain level of reform creates a TAG for them would be determined in balancing. Playing as colonies (loading up a start before 1776 and playing as the US) should be possible. Right now the concept is as simple as possible so as to have it actually have a chance of being implemented. A dynamic TAG system is long overdue, as I've mentioned in other posts. Frankly, with the high possibility of there being a Country Designer DLC, I would bet that a dynamic TAG system will also be implemented. It is just so simple to add. T00 - T99 would be more than enough tags. Every current tag uses letters, so it wouldn't cause any issue major issue.

With dynamic tags being necessary for a Country Designer, they can EASILY be used for colonies as well. Not to mention that an official CK2->EU4 converter would benefit tremendously from such a system. So would unofficial converters.