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.
I like this idea. It seem odd to see that when AI colonized coast, they started expanding into areas without river first sometimes. I think they should prioritize colonizing provinces with rivers or coasts first before provinces without water unless such neighboring provinces does not exist. I've noticed consistently throughout the history that settlements generally started along rivers and coasts before it filters out into areas away from them, which usually make sense considering importance of transportation and agriculture. There may be exceptions to this on occasions, though, especially if area without rivers or coasts assumes greater importance because of their resources discovered. Though I suspect most resources would be found near rivers and coasts first anyway.
On another matter, it seem curious that in EU3, goods in neighboring province next to that of colonies are not discovered by colony owner until they are themselves colonized, even though I suspect some areas would be discovered to hold resources by explorers before actual colonization started, history-wise. Perhaps, alternatively, sending a military unit with conquistador into an uncolonized province would reveal goods provided by province in question before actual colonization? Also restricting province to providing only single good seem problematic, particularly if some provinces are adequate for more than one goods for growing or mining. Though I suspect good in a EU3 province just represent the most important good provided by that province, not overall.
We've not exactly seen much in regards to Colonization yet hopefully the DD that appears covers this in good depth. But yes I feel this needs to be overhauled completely for EU4, hopefully like Navies having such a large influence over the trading system we will see something very similar in regards to Colonization.
Conceptually, though, it's a good idea. It's the sort of mechanic I like because it should result in realistic colonization patterns without imposing deterministic rules that would prevent, for example, a strong A.I. Burgundy from becoming a colonial power just because they didn't in OTL.
If you look at the actual route you will realize why they were not convenient. The problem is that most rivers flow from South to North which is not terribly helpful, so the original exploration went by a route of hopping between different rivers, but it creates number of problems since you need to establish some infrastructure to get anything shipped across - no surprise it could years to travel from West to East in Russia. So unlike cross-Atlantic shipping where one would load cargo on a ship and that ship would bring the goods to the final destination in Siberia the trade network was more like a serie of hops - one party would ship goods along one river, another would deliver them overland to the next trade town from where it would go along some other river etc... It's not a very easy or efficient way of moving goods.
That's a very good point, I think. American colonies have an easy option to trade with pretty much anyone due to an easy naval shipping routes while in Siberia trading options would be very limited. Realistically, China would be nearly the only other option (and from Western Siberia it's probably not much of an option either)
Fair enough, but the rivers were good enough for the entire non-China territory to be claimed in around 60 years, with actual forts and trade posts and such along the way.
I don't think I ever achieved that in EU3, did you?
There should be a separate option, declare colonial war (like Victoria). Zero or negligible infamy for taking these colonial provinces. No battles in the "mother country". And this casus belli should be open to all those who have colonies, without the need to actually border the colony of another state.
I WANT COLONIES TO REMAIN COLONIES. As it is now, after 50 yrs you have just another full-grown province-nothing special about it. They should have different mechanics, buildings, a governor, etc ...
A bit harsh!
This would not be very realistic at all. For example, the British conquest of French North America happened during major European wars (7 years war in particular).
This is a good point. It took the American colonies over 150 years to be prosperous enough to establish themselves, and the extent of their teriotory was quite small even then. A bit issue with previous EU games that I think would help would be to make actually establishing a colonial empire very hard, and force players to focus on one area. So Britain can set up in North America or South America, but not both, for example.
Funny, I find the European powers generally hang onto 80-90% of the Americas in my games all the way to the end, and only little tiny states become independent.
What about Spain with all of Mexico, western North America, South America except for Brazil, the carribeans/cuba, Rio de Oro, Florida, and the phillipines?
I suspect that was exactly "claimed" - it's not like they've created full-fledged provinces in 60 years.
I haven't tried it in EU3, but it's probably doable, though in ahistorical way - first conquer the hordes and then colonize everything adjacent to them. That can be done faster than in 60 years, but historical way is impossible, because you can't start colonies adjacent only to other colonies - you have to wait until the previous colony becomes a province - this is probably a flaw in EU3 mechanics.
I don't think it should be made impossible to colonize more than one continents. Just harder to hold it unless you have a strong navy and most of your colonies is scattered around hugging around the coast to make it easier to reinforce via sea. I think what The Andy-Man forgot is that the British had far-flung colonies all over the world, in Canada (as well the original Thirteen Colonies in America before it was lost), India, Cape Colony, Australia (as well New Zealand but that appear to be colonized after near the end of EU3 timeframe), Malacca, Hong Kong (again, after EU3 timeframe but I find it puzzling that Hong Kong province does not exist even in EU3 timeframe, especially if I want to establish British Empire up to its post-1820 extent in EU3 game but did not want larger province that also includes where Hong Kong should be), Egypt (that's also post-EU3), various islands in Caribbean, couple colonies on South/Central America, and so on.
Also I notice that in case of the Thirteen British colonies, most of them were generally established without government oversight (until late 17th to 18th century) short of being granted a charter that allows private companies to establish them. I believe there was EU3 event that permit this but I think it only applies to provinces immediately bordering your colonies. I think the event should extend to provinces not neighboring any of your colonies. Also, perhaps the odd for a particular province to be colonized by this event should be higher if that province was historically colonized by your nation. If anything, I'm sure British colonizer would prefer region like New England more closely resembling their homeland in terms of climate and all before anything else first.
If it can be fought over and handed over in a treaty, and if they are deriving trade from it, it's green on the map.