I posted an idea to fix colonies (link = http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...c-Colonial-Overhaul-for-Europa-Universalis-IV) which you might be interested in.
Are colonies going to be fixed?
- Thread starter Doimper
- 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.
That would seem strange, since Russia had no significant fleet (if any) during most of EU3 timeframe but it didn't prevent it from being one of the largest colonizers (and about the only one that managed to make most of their colonies stick).
Russia was directly connected to its colonies though, except for Alaska, and there it had the benefit of having no strong neighbours. The west coast was sparsely inhabited until the 19th century.
A russian colony in Florida would not succeed as well.
That's why it's strange to connect colonist chance and growth to the navy. However navy influencing overseas range and some other overseas parameters would make more sense.
Or it could only apply when there was not a direct land route to the capital.
It's probably a non-issue anyway.
To colonize you need to devote an idea group to it. Why would you, unless you had some way to control the trade from them? And you need a strong navy to take advantage of your colonies, both for tariffs and for trade protection missions.
Russia gets a national idea for colonists which removes that limitation, but they're one of the only ones.
To colonize you need to devote an idea group to it. Why would you, unless you had some way to control the trade from them? And you need a strong navy to take advantage of your colonies, both for tariffs and for trade protection missions.
Russia gets a national idea for colonists which removes that limitation, but they're one of the only ones.
Thinking about it made me wonder why Russia never had problems with colonies trying to break away? It's probably not the distance or travel time, since getting into the eastern Siberia is worse than crossing Atlantic. Were there some policies that resulted in colonies completely integrated into the country? I can't think of anything obvious. Could other countries repeat this strategy?
Siberia is fairly barren (at least compared to north america), and the "natives" (IE steppe peoples) much stronger then in North America, so the "colonists" were very dependent on the mother country to support them. In fact, not many people even settled in Siberia, even today Siberia is very sparsely populated.
getting into eastern siberia is worse than crossing the atlantic in some ways but easier than others. In the summer I presume it happens quite nicely, you can get fed along the way along the posts and change your horses, and you dont need to be afraid of hurricanes.
I don't believe there were any particularly strong "natives" in Russian part of Siberia, steppe and steppe tribes are a bit further South, more in the area of modern Kazakhstan. At various time in the past Russian has controlled that territory too, but that wouldn't be right to say that they "colonized" it. Colonization was primary in a forested parts where local population was quite small. I doubt that there was much reliance on the mother country because of the distances and difficulty of travel - distances are huge and there aren't any convenient waterways, so until the railroads came all settlements would be very isolated. Siberia as a whole isn't that sparsely populated - it's similar to Canada or Australia and similarly to those countries population is distributed very unevenly - large areas are populated very sparsely while there's pretty high concentration of population in other areas.
I am not sure it would work that easily. This might be ok for mail, but transporting any sort of supplies would be much more problematic. I don't imagine they had very good roads there either. I wonder if the colonies were actually taxed which by itself might have been the main reason they never rebelled
That's funny 'cuz the original travel routes through siberia were the "Siberia River Routes"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_River_Routes
"Siberian River Routes were the main ways of communication in the Russian Siberia before the 1730s, when roads began to be built. The rivers also were of primary importance in the process of Russian exploration and colonisation of vast Siberian territories. Since the three great Siberian rivers, Ob River, Yenisei River and Lena River all flow into the Arctic Ocean, the problem was to find parts or branches of these rivers that flow approximately east-west and find short portages between them. Since Siberia is relatively flat, portages were usually short. Because of this, and the weakness of the Siberian tribes, Russian Cossacks were able to expand from the Urals to the Pacific in only 57 years (1582-1639)."
The expansion through Siberia was extremely fast compared to the one in, say, North America. It was eventually kept in check by conflict with Qing China and Korea in the late 1600's which resulted in a loss of Russian territory to China, later reversed in 1860 when the tech advantages to Russia outweigh the numerical and supply advantages of the Chinese.
I'd like to see some way to have colonization along river routes - this would make the colonization or north america and canada much more realistic.
Perhaps the new trade node system will encourage settlements along the trade routes.
They were small and economically dependent on the more populated lands to the west. (USA when it broke away was nearly as large population wise as England, while the Spanish colonies were no longer dependent on Spain (they could trade with US, France, England instead). One does not expect tax obligations to have been terribly high in any event (its a long way to go for not much tax). They also were at pretty much zip risk of intervention from another great power.
Estimated population of Great Britain in 1776 is 6.5 millon and the estimated population of the thirteen colonies is around 2.2-2.5 million so your fact about the population of the USA and Great Britain is wrong. Also at the time of Independance USA was still dependant on Great Britain for a lot of things, and French support of the Americans in the War of Independance bankrupted France. The only reason America won was because America was a backwater at the time that Great Britain frankly didn't care about.