Are colonies going to be fixed?

[Doimper]

There's been a lot of interesting things that the devs have promised for this game, and I'm looking forward to them. But there's one thing that I haven't seen mention of - are colonies going to be fixed? In EU3, every little state and their grandmother staked out one or two provinces in Brazil or the Caribbean and it was pretty messy. Are there plans to avoid this in EU4?

 

[Featauril]

Well, you'll need national ideas just to have colonists, so that should help.

 

[unmerged(498175)]

that was annoying and ugly indeed. Especially since the hansa would gobble up the whole west african coast. ugh.

Colonization should be much more expensive, and it should be riskier; if you cant defend your colonies with a big navy the other countries should size the opportunity and just take your colonies. As happened historically i believe.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

what country without a significant fleet successfully colonized anything?

 

[Doimper]

what country without a significant fleet successfully colonized anything?

Well, yes, that's the point of this thread. I don't think the Papal States, to use one example, had a significant fleet.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Agreed I just felt like being a historical terms (na word censored into jerk) to make the thread more interesting because nobody liked seeing most of the new world belong to minors.

 

[Zenith Darksea]

what country without a significant fleet successfully colonized anything?

Someone is going to mention Kurland's colony in the Caribbean, so it might as well be me. But that was the exception that proved the rule.

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

 

[Featauril]

Sweden and Denmark also had small outposts.

Another thing is that the point of a colony is moot unless you can control the trade, which you can't unless you are one of the western European countries. Otherwise you're giving more money to England and Portugal.

Maybe they'll have the canadian COT connect to France and the New England COT connect to England and so on and so forth.

 

[MiracleTortoise]

Sweden and Denmark also had small outposts.

Another thing is that the point of a colony is moot unless you can control the trade, which you can't unless you are one of the western European countries. Otherwise you're giving more money to England and Portugal.

Maybe they'll have the canadian COT connect to France and the New England COT connect to England and so on and so forth.

I'd imagine their paths meet somewhere in the edge of the Caribbean, and can be steered to your nodes from there.

 

[Thandros]

Hmm I think there removing the Automatic Colonists Christian countries get which should mean that only those who take the ideas will be able to colonize should reduce the number of little powers who colonize the New world.

 

[Ananasen]

Someone is going to mention Kurland's colony in the Caribbean, so it might as well be me. But that was the exception that proved the rule.

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

That article gives some interesting insights to (one of) the reason(s) why there were not really any minor powers colonising the Americas - because the great powers wouldn't let them.

Sweden and Denmark also had small outposts.

Both which had a (relatively) significant navy.

---

Either way, I fully agree something has to be done about this.

 

[Matt714]

The number of colonists you get in MEIOU is tied to the size of your population. Maybe implement this mechanism; I actually haven't seen small countries having more than 1-2 colonies (which is not a lot for the map's high number of provinces)

 

[Schwungrad]

The ahistorical point isn't everyone claiming colonies. The ahistorical point is everyone gets to keep them when in reality a lot of minor countries' colonial projects were conquered by the major colonizing nations or given up because of their high maintenance costs and sold to one of the major powers.

 

[cacra]

Both which had a (relatively) significant navy.

Denmark's navy comprised mainly of small ships like galleys, and i assume the same for sweden. They are great for enclosed seas but not so good for atlantic crossings. Denmark also had some factories going in India

 

[Wallain]

Denmark's navy comprised mainly of small ships like galleys, and i assume the same for sweden. They are great for enclosed seas but not so good for atlantic crossings. Denmark also had some factories going in India

Uh. We had ships of the line, frigates, etc. That was our navy and the deciding force. Not the smaller ships.

 

[unmerged(498175)]

yes, and sweden certainly didn't have mostly galleys.

 

[Killzerslaul]

I think it could be interesting if your number of ships affected colonist chance and colony growth. It would block out the minors from serious colonisation and would make countries like France have to make a realistically serious effort to colonise on a competitive level with England/GB.

 

[Wallain]

I think it could be interesting if your number of ships affected colonist chance and colony growth. It would block out the minors from serious colonisation and would make countries like France have to make a realistically serious effort to colonise on a competitive level with England/GB.

Not a bad idea.

 

[Doimper]

I think it could be interesting if your number of ships affected colonist chance and colony growth. It would block out the minors from serious colonisation and would make countries like France have to make a realistically serious effort to colonise on a competitive level with England/GB.

I like this notion. Naval tech would have to be factored in somehow, though.

 

[unmerged(612669)]

Sweden and Denmark also had small outposts.

Another thing is that the point of a colony is moot unless you can control the trade, which you can't unless you are one of the western European countries. Otherwise you're giving more money to England and Portugal.

Maybe they'll have the canadian COT connect to France and the New England COT connect to England and so on and so forth.

Those had substantial navies while

Someone is going to mention Kurland's colony in the Caribbean, so it might as well be me. But that was the exception that proved the rule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couroni...f_the_Americas

Once it got on the map it did very well or did the lack of a significant Courland Navy and the non-existence of the Polish Navy (except during Wladyslaw IV an oxymoron) mean it was easy prey for buccaneers and even easier prey for the Dutch, and as soon as they felt like it they chased the Courlanders out? There was nothing either Courland or Poland could do about it either. If anything considering the great power of the Polish Army at that point Courland's defenseless colony reinforces the idea that strong navies should be a requirement for successful colonization.