A.I. always maxes Innovation.

[Zhou Yu]

I just checked my own current game, and every major power in the world has max innovative: Great Britain, France, Castille, Burgundy, Ming and Vijayanagar.

Granted, I began from 1453 and it is now 1719, but max innovative for everyone? The results are somewhat...off, I should think.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Maybe you misread me, I said make missionaries and colonists right-specific.. meaning that you only get them if you go narrowminded, but don't get negative numbers by going innovative.

Sorry, my bad. Indeed, that could be a solution.

Though, ideally, I'd rather see AI which would understand the value of getting colonists.

 

[unmerged(71642)]

What if the trade-off in colonization between Innovative and Narrowminded was thus:
At Full Innovative, you get +10% chance to establish colony, and get +0.0 colonists per year.
At Full Narrowminded, you get -10% chance to establish colony, and get +2.0 colonists per year.
Thus, the Innovative nations are better able to adapt to their new colonial situation and go about their efforts more carefully, equipping each colony ship with what it will need for any circumstance. The Narrow-minded nations, however, force colonists to go off less-prepared, as political or religious refugees even, and they go at a greater danger of failure, yet they go more often.

 

[unmerged(12709)]

Mm Colonists being specific to religious persecution? Nice one American High School education system.

Sadly, that is incorrect.

There were indeed SOME American colonists who were persecuted and moved to America due to a narrowminded BRITISH society.

But, what about Spain's colonies? Religion was only part of the factor, and in many cases not even the main one for minor nobility who found themselves living in the new hinterland of Old Castille, instead of the newer Castillian territories or southern territories.

Portugal? Partly religious, but also mainly for trade.

France? set up trading posts and colonies that were for the most part unrelated to religion, except for the roman catholic priests they brought over.

Britian? A number of different reasons, what you might not know is America was ALSO a penal colony, one of the reasons Australia was used, was because the American penal outlet had become lost to them. They also attempted to set up trading posts. These were mainly government sponsored or initiated due to trading concerns.


Colonists should be a part of three sliders.. Economy, Social Policy, and Naval /Land.

They should all give bonuses in the appropriate (Merc.., close-minded, Navy based) side, but not so much on the negatives, except for land based.

For example, land based powers like Austria should be literally unable to colonize, unless they put points in their naval slider.

 

[Greenlake]

Mm Colonists being specific to religious persecution? Nice one American High School education system.

Sadly, that is incorrect.

There were indeed SOME American colonists who were persecuted and moved to America due to a narrowminded BRITISH society.

But, what about Spain's colonies? Religion was only part of the factor, and in many cases not even the main one for minor nobility who found themselves living in the new hinterland of Old Castille, instead of the newer Castillian territories or southern territories.

Portugal? Partly religious, but also mainly for trade.

France? set up trading posts and colonies that were for the most part unrelated to religion, except for the roman catholic priests they brought over.

Britian? A number of different reasons, what you might not know is America was ALSO a penal colony, one of the reasons Australia was used, was because the American penal outlet had become lost to them. They also attempted to set up trading posts. These were mainly government sponsored or initiated due to trading concerns.


Colonists should be a part of three sliders.. Economy, Social Policy, and Naval /Land.

They should all give bonuses in the appropriate (Merc.., close-minded, Navy based) side, but not so much on the negatives, except for land based.

For example, land based powers like Austria should be literally unable to colonize, unless they put points in their naval slider.

Wow, are you trying to troll or what? Flaming America's education system when half of what you said is just flat out wrong? Please...

America was never a major penal colony, ever.. where did you pull that out of?

Religious persecution/turmoil was THE driving factor for 17th/18th century colonization of what is now the USA.

The other colonizing nations of the time period covered in EU3 did not have anywhere near the number of permanent colonists that England did.

EU2 had it better, having Trading Posts and Colonies.

 

[Palle]

IMO there's only one reason for this. AI computes that Innovatiness gives the most benefits of all the sliders and then moves it accordingly. A simple solution would be to give less benefit for innovatiness. Maybe the research bonus/penalty could be halved?

I agree that current slider values for colonists are not logical. Also I don't see why catholics and protestants get different amounts of colonists. A good solution would be to give all christian countries one or even zero colonist/year and make some slider settings increase that value, but no setting would decrease it.

 

[unmerged(25273)]

Renown - if you prevent landed nations from getting colonists this means Russia would have to develop into a naval power in order to colonise Siberia.
While I agree that overall naval countries colonise more landed should also be able - the right specific colonists bonus for naval is the most plausible to me in vanilla.

Mierin - population does not directly translate into colonists else France would have had many more than England/Britain or Spain.

In the end of the day - whatever were the causes historically - we have to come to balanced solutions in the game environment.

 

[Darkrenown]

Also I cannot see why catholics get 2 while protestants only get 1.

Didn't you ever see Monty Python's Meaning of life? Specificly the "Every sperm is sacred" song

Perhaps rather than changing slider effects the AI could be taught to take the +colonists NI before maxing innovation if it's a colonial nation (check for QFTNW maybe).

 

[ulmont]

IMO there's only one reason for this. AI computes that Innovatiness gives the most benefits of all the sliders and then moves it accordingly. A simple solution would be to give less benefit for innovatiness.

Or change the AI computation to weight the benefit differently, which would seem more accurate. After all, you don't see a whole lot of players agreeing with the AI's calculation.

 

[Palle]

Or change the AI computation to weight the benefit differently, which would seem more accurate. After all, you don't see a whole lot of players agreeing with the AI's calculation.

Yes, there might be something wrong in AIs computation. Easy way to check it would be halve research penalty/bonus and then play the game for a while to see if AI still moves it's sliders.

 

[Misha]

America was never a major penal colony, ever.. where did you pull that out of?

As most American history texts teach, one of the driving forces behind James Oglethorpe's founding of Georgia was as a penal colony.

Religious persecution/turmoil was THE driving factor for 17th/18th century colonization of what is now the USA.

Certainly religion played a heavy role in the 16th & 17th centuries, particularly in New England & the Middle Colonies. Many Separatists, Calvinists, Quakers, Dunkers, Catholics, & other religious minorities left Britain to come to the Colonies to seek religious freedom - or with the intention to impose their own brand of religious tyranny in the Colonies. But the heavy immigration into Virginia & the tobacco South from the beginning was more directly economically motivated. And by the 18th century, the religious motivation for emigration from Britain was receding. Certainly many non-British subjects emigrated from their homelands to British North America for religious reasons, but the great flood of British dissenters moving across the Water had declined to a trickle. By the mid 18th century the primary reasons for British emigration to the Colonies were economic & social.

The other colonizing nations of the time period covered in EU3 did not have anywhere near the number of permanent colonists that England did.

Agreed. But religion was only one factor contributing to the large numbers of British colonists during the period in question.

 

[Greenlake]

Hey, guess what you are wrong. Georgia was never a debtor's colony. The original intention of the colony was to relieve the strain on the debtor's prisons, but the idea never panned out and it was colonized by freemen. Whoops, guess you should open up a history book before spouting off nonsense. Not to mention the total white population at the start of the war wasn't even 20,000 people.

The vast majority of colonists came because of religious persecution (to one degree or the other). You are just wrong about the "tobacco south." I don't know where to begin...

Religion was THE factor in settlement of what is now the USA. How EU3 handles it is really weird, narrowminded=more settlers which makes sense in a way, but they are settlers of the same religion, which makes it not make sense.

The best idea so far in this thread is to give Inno a +% to colonize and Narrow more colonists. As it is right now, going Innovative is something only the AI really does, which actually weakens AI nations in the long run.

 

[RobRoy3]

...Georgia was never a debtor's colony. The original intention of the colony was to relieve the strain on the debtor's prisons, but the idea never panned out and it was colonized by freemen...

That's my understanding, also, that his intent (to found a colony for "worthy poor" instead of sending them to debtors prison) was never realized, but that the myth of Georgia as a penal colony lives on.

But it's also my understanding that many prisoners (primarily debtors and other riff-raff) were auctioned off as indentured servants and sprinkled all over the colonies, but ending up primarily in the northern and mid-Atlantic states, since the deep south did seem to have a marked preference slave labor. I've seen estimates that as many as a quarter of the 18th century migrations were indentured prisoners.

There is one area of concentrated prisoner settlement that I'm aware of: the scottish settlements in North Carolina's piedmont. These were largely supporters of the failed uprisings, some of whom were sent after serving some time in prisons, some of whom left one step ahead of arresting officers with the understanding that they wouldn't be pursued too aggressively if they left without a fuss (making the land seizures and clan breaking easier).

...Religion was THE factor in settlement of what is now the USA...

The religious persecution motivation was certainly true in the New England states, initially, and in Pennsylvania and Maryland. But it's debatable whether it was a major factor in the other colonies or whether it remained as significant during the higher volume population shifts of the 18th century (when compared to economic motivations). Many colonies, particularly in the deep south were openly hostile to other religious sects and even had prohibitions against settlement by undesirable religions (including Maryland and New England at various times). Of course, New England did account for the majority of colonial settlement, from Britain at least.

...How EU3 handles it is really weird, narrowminded=more settlers which makes sense in a way, but they are settlers of the same religion, which makes it not make sense.

The best idea so far in this thread is to give Inno a +% to colonize and Narrow more colonists. As it is right now, going Innovative is something only the AI really does, which actually weakens AI nations in the long run.

Yeah, there's something unsatisfying about the way it handles colonists, now. Another area where the EU2 rules seemed better balanced, IMHO. I'd say the narrow-minded slider has become TOO important, particularly if the AI seems not to value the colonists appropriately.

And I'd agree that Catholics getting a bonus versus Protestants has no basis in history, one area where EU2's mistakes seem to be carrying over. All the migration statistics I've seen show Protestant England's emigration numbers far exceeding those of its Catholic counterparts

 

[Chris8b]

but they are settlers of the same religion, which makes it not make sense.

For some cases, that may be true. But, for example, the Puritans were of the same religion (in game terms) though they left for the New World due to religious intolerance. (Gross oversimplification, I know.)

Now, back on topic, everyone...