Ahistorical Colonisation in Demo

[Tunch Khan]

Map Spread:

In the demo version the spread of maps is a bit faster than intended, and is further complicated by the mechanism that governs it. It's been severely tweaked in subsequent builds. In the final gold release the fastest you'll get someone else's map is 25 years after its original discovery. (Also note that you can no longer trade maps as a diplo option, nor do you get another country's maps when you capture its capital).

Sigh... getting knowledge of a province by chance is allright. And I do agree that it's a better idea to leave it outside the diplomatic deals, however, I think it's more plausable if we can learn about our enemies secrets when you win in naval battles (randomly) and conquer their capital (palace and court members confiscated). The new espionage feature is also very cool, hope we can gain knowledge of their maps through espionage later on (maybe in a patch or mod?).

Last time I checked landlocked countries can not send colonists, and there is not even an AI for them..

Good news.

 

[SonofWinter]

That could be an idea, but im not sure how that would work for I.A Russia wanting to colonize Siberia..or a land focused Sweden wanting to colonize Lappland.

A lot of Nations start with colonies as core provinces, would they need QftNW to develop them ?

Russia essentially had a QftNW tradition, it simply wasn't the same New World as W. Europe. Besides, if Russia doesn't have QftNW it won't be able to hire conquistadors to find Siberia. So only Norway and Sweden are not colonizable, unless they choose QftNW. Start them at 1000 scandinavian cities or give them pops of 500 and let them grow into 1000 cities. They have lvl. 0 natives, not like they will loose those colonies.

As for the Russian north like Kola and Archalgensk, they are PTI now.

 

[unmerged(514)]

Maybe colonists shouldn't be allowed to appear at a country's court as long as it has no shore.

There may be problems with this approach. Some landlocked countries can have unclaimed territory close to their borders they can settle.

 

[EUnderhill]

and conquer their capital (palace and court members confiscated).

I would limit that knowledge to owned provinces connected by land to the capital.

 

[Twoflower]

I think there is quite a difference between "forcing things to be exactly historical" and having colonization work in no way similar to how it was historically in all EU3 games.
We are not talking about probable deviations from history that happen in one way or another in every game and thereby keep the game interactive, realistic and fun, but about massive colonization by lots of historical non-colonizers, who historically did not get to be colonizers for sound reasons, and colonial empires being built already before 1500, more than a century before even a third competitor entered the colonial stage. With the current AI setup and ressource distribution, things like Aragon colonizing West Africa will happen in every game, not just in some games as a reasonable deviation from history.
If one agrees on the basic premise that there should at least by a theoretic possibility for things to work out historically (i.e. that major ahistoric behaviour shouldn't be certain), then for example in the case of Aragon, there are two possibilities:
1. Make sure that the factors that historically prevented Aragon from colonizing are present in a reasonable amount of games. This would obviously be the nicer, but also the harder, or more exactly nigh-on-impossible solution
2. Give Aragon an AI that usually doesn't colonize, and will only do if Aragon has deviated substantially from history (I could pretty much see an Aragon that has not united with Spain and has economic and diplomatic leeway to do this join the second wave of colonizing countries after 1600)

Personally, I think that while massive early colonization by many historical non-colonizers is a major problem that Paradox hopefully will do something about, the adherence to historical colonization patterns (Portugal colonizing Brazil, France Quebec etc.) is indeed a matter of taste. As long as this is moddable (i.e. it is both possible to make the AI follow these patterns and to liberate it from such restraints), everybody should be happy.

 

[SonofWinter]

Most AIs don't have QftNW scripted in their AI so my solution would make our little problem less problematic.

 

[Havard]

Maybe colonists shouldn't be allowed to appear at a country's court as long as it has no shore.

That would be really neat for Russia, trying to fill that Siberian corridor...

 

[knul]

There may be problems with this approach. Some landlocked countries can have unclaimed territory close to their borders they can settle.

Maybe limiting colonists to countries with a shore OR bordering colonizable provinces would do the trick. That way Russia can colonize to its hear's desire.

 

[SonofWinter]

That would be really neat for Russia, trying to fill that Siberian corridor...

Is Russia possible without St. Petersburg? or Ingermanland if you will? If its not, then the point is moot.

 

[colonelkadaffy]

For sake of argument and clarity, i thought i'd post some picture from my last game (where umugst other things scotland founded great britan in 1514 but i digress )

Scotish Great britian having a whale of a time in an empty carrebean.

Brazil south america, why would anyone ever colonise thouse, honeslty.

Castile and Portugal chilling out in the northern part of the u.s, that blue to the south is creek or something not france.

Aragon having quebec

 

[Havard]

Is Russia possible without St. Petersburg? or Ingermanland if you will? If its not, then the point is moot.

It is quite possible for Russia to get landlocked though...

 

[SonofWinter]

It is quite possible for Russia to get landlocked though...

That seaport was Russia's lifeline to the Western World. Without it, it would have become the backward country it was in the 1300s and just trying to survive its dangerous neighbors, instead of colonizing anything.

So again, no port no QftNW, no colonizing. Get a port and you are once again someone with something to say and probably capable of colonizing, because you again have trade.

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]
If you want to play where the Portuguese are guaranteed to be ensured to be in India and the Spanish in the Caribbean, start at a later date (1500 for ex) after the historical events have already happened and become part of the prologue to the drama you are going to play as the guiding force of the nation you choose.

The problem with your argument is the fact the game starts geographically historical, but not contextually historical.

Beging the pardon for the example that folows, I will try to the best of my paltry ability to give you a practical example on what is definitely wrong with the demo of the game:

Consider Football Manager 2007. I don't know if you are a fan of the series or not (I am!) but the design philosophy we have in FM2007 is, at its core, the same as in EU. You start at a realistic point, and after that, it is all up to the player and to the AI to produce the results, the History of Football, if you want. It is NOT deterministic in any way.

However, as a player we can expect Manchester United to perform consistently better than, say, Exeter City FC. In fact, it was supposed Exeter was light years behind Man Utd in capability. On another parallel, it is supposed Milan to be another great team, a team with the power most of the time to prove a challenge against Man Unt.

Ok, now suppose in order to provide "open handedness", "randomness" or "undeterministic approach" to a game that already had that, FM2007 designers choose at the same time to totally randomize the relative power of the teams. Not happy with that "small" change, they would randomize their natural competing place. I mean, Milan starts playing in the Premier, Rosemborg on Spanish first division and Bayern on the French First division.

What would the average gamer say of a non deterministic football management game where the Premier League was disputed between say Exeter, Milan, Leiria, Aachen and Man Utd (among others) and the game of the title was between Exeter Vs Aachen while the lowly Man Utd was disputing last place with Milan? an educated guess would be: "Something is seriously wrong".

Transposing this to EU3, it is not supposed Pommerania to colonize as well as or better or even just a bit worse than Castile or Portugal, like it is not supposed Exeter to consistently win over Man Utd. It may happen once (Castile can very well be defeated in a naval battle by Pommerania) but not consistently.

Also it is not supposed Norway to colonize as well as or better or even just a bit worse than Castille, like it is not supposed Milan to compete in the same Championship of Man Utd. While Castille has the power and the drive and the context to go overseas, Norway, in a completely different position within a completely different context will have different matters to worry about, each one playing on a league of their own.

By transposing the percieved EU3 problem to other "reality" I hope I made some sense with my argument now.

 

[Havard]

Transposing this to EU3, it is not supposed Pommerania to colonize as well as or better or even just a bit worse than Castile or Portugal, like it is not supposed Exeter to consistently win over Man Utd. It may happen once (Castile can very well be defeated in a naval battle by Pommerania) but not consistently.

I have played a few games of EU3 now. The countries that, consistently, perform best colony-wise seems to be Portugal, Castile/Spain, England, France...

 

[Niptium]

I have played a few games of EU3 now. The countries that, consistently, perform best colony-wise seems to be Portugal, Castile/Spain, England, France...

And what about the Netherlands ? Do they usually form ? And do hey start a colonial empire ?

 

[Havard]

They rarely form if you play from 1453 in my experience. I haven't tested enough on later starts to say...

 

[unmerged(514)]

[...]

I can't help but feel that this is all so overblown by a few people that want colonization exactly historical. I can assure you this will not be changed unless Paradox decides to change the focus of the EU series entirely. As it is now, Paradox has stated quite clearly that EU is all about ahistorical outcomes.

First, Europa Universalis games were ALWAYS about ahistorical outcomes. It has always been the focus of the series. That's why I like them so much.

Second, I don't have here " factual proof" of my findings. But judging from the amount of people who already mentioned colonization problems, much more so than the ones who, at least verbally, support the current situation, I guess this kind of demand is a bit off the mark. You see, its just not me that find specifically the colonization aspect completely wrong.

Third, to enlighten you on my position, as you were not capable of getting it before, most assuredly due to my poor english, let me say this: I expect this game to provide at all levels a sense of alternate history (the key word here is "alternate"). Alternate History lead to great deviations from History in a time span of centuries, not in a time span of years. As such, given the fact the game starts in 1453, I expect to see the two usual suspects colonizing by 1500. The four or five usual suspects (or maybe a couple more that got randomly "promoted" - ahistorically) by 1600.
Now, I do not have a problem if Milan, through a royale marriage gets Portugal, to have the Portuguese colonies all over the world by 1700.

Understand now my position?

 

[SonofWinter]

They rarely form if you play from 1453 in my experience. I haven't tested enough on later starts to say...

Good riddance. No offense to the Dutch, but 140 years of putting down revolts was just annoying.

 

[unmerged(514)]

That could be an idea, but im not sure how that would work for I.A Russia wanting to colonize Siberia..or a land focused Sweden wanting to colonize Lappland.

A lot of Nations start with colonies as core provinces, would they need QftNW to develop them ?

Maybe the thing can be tweaked with preferred areas of expansion. That existed in the AI files of all the major nations in EU2...

 

[unmerged(514)]

I think there is quite a difference between "forcing things to be exactly historical" and having colonization work in no way similar to how it was historically in all EU3 games.
We are not talking about probable deviations from history that happen in one way or another in every game and thereby keep the game interactive, realistic and fun, but about massive colonization by lots of historical non-colonizers, who historically did not get to be colonizers for sound reasons, and colonial empires being built already before 1500, more than a century before even a third competitor entered the colonial stage. With the current AI setup and ressource distribution, things like Aragon colonizing West Africa will happen in every game, not just in some games as a reasonable deviation from history.
If one agrees on the basic premise that there should at least by a theoretic possibility for things to work out historically (i.e. that major ahistoric behaviour shouldn't be certain), then for example in the case of Aragon, there are two possibilities:
1. Make sure that the factors that historically prevented Aragon from colonizing are present in a reasonable amount of games. This would obviously be the nicer, but also the harder, or more exactly nigh-on-impossible solution
2. Give Aragon an AI that usually doesn't colonize, and will only do if Aragon has deviated substantially from history (I could pretty much see an Aragon that has not united with Spain and has economic and diplomatic leeway to do this join the second wave of colonizing countries after 1600)

Personally, I think that while massive early colonization by many historical non-colonizers is a major problem that Paradox hopefully will do something about, the adherence to historical colonization patterns (Portugal colonizing Brazil, France Quebec etc.) is indeed a matter of taste. As long as this is moddable (i.e. it is both possible to make the AI follow these patterns and to liberate it from such restraints), everybody should be happy.

I could not have said better!