Build forts not retail outlets!

[Owl]

It always struck me as a bit strange that in EU you could stake a claim to a sizeable country just by sending 10 shopkeepers and establishing a trading post. OK so you've opened a branch in the rainforest - now no other country can go there without declaring war?
No. A trading post should be more like sending a merchant. You make money but you can't necessarily stop the rest of them coming in to trade with the natives.

BUT if you want to stake a claim to a province for strategic reasons and keep out the others, you don't send in Benetton or Coffee Republic and build a shopping mall. You build a fort.

That's what happened in history, isn't it? That's what should happen in EU2. You don't need to wait for a settler unit, you land some troops and get an option "build military base" or similar. It costs you say 100 ducats; once it is completed you get reduced attrition for the troops you station there and perhaps an enhancement to their defensive capability if attacked. You then have a more realistic basis for raising the flag and claiming the territory for Queen and country.

You shouldn't need a special unit to build a fort, either. The regular soldiers would have done the job in most cases. I'm not suggesting Barad-Dur, just a fortified camp.

It would make sense for the natives to react less favourably to the fort than to the TP. They may very well choose to burn it if it's not well defended. And like a Trading Post, the enemy could raze it if they defeat your troops.

Perhaps you could also have a "build naval base" (i.e. a harbour) option?

Nothing to stop you building a TP in the same province of course - there's room for both icons.

What do you think?

 

[unmerged(1631)]

Good Idea. I like it.
Not sure about the naval base though since the fort would probably be built to defend the harbour anyway.
What would the naval base do?
Would the fort have an inherent garrison?

 

[draco]

The Harbor idea doesn't sound all that great. I do agree with the Fort idea but instead of having a garrison created from thin air that there has to be troops stationed there and if there are none stationed then the natives have a chance to take over the fort and gain the defensive bonus.

 

[unmerged(2238)]

Originally posted by draco
The Harbor idea doesn't sound all that great. I do agree with the Fort idea but instead of having a garrison created from thin air that there has to be troops stationed there and if there are none stationed then the natives have a chance to take over the fort and gain the defensive bonus.

I don't agree with the natives taking over the forts part--forts were always built to defend against other European powers, not natives. In Africa and Asia, the Europeans knew they could NEVER hold off a real attack from the native powers. In these early periods, European traders actually paid "rents" for the land for the forts--in Africa, for sure, I think in Asia, for that long early period Europeans were there simply at the whim and advantageous trading of the local powers who lived there.

The building forts does have some merit, however, in staking your claim to a province--a trading post would never do the trick to keep out other powers.

 

[merlin2199]

GREAT IDEA

I love it.....it makes sence.....and it is perfectly historical. The forts could increase friction between enemies for control of key stretegical locations ie. Fort Duquesne. There should also be some way of staking claim to a territory without having to build TP's/Forts all over it. Much of New France was only claimed.....most of the actual population was concentrated on the banks of the St. Lawrence from Qubec to Montreal. Forts such as Detriot, Duquesne, Louisbourg, Halifax, and many others allowed the French to keep their claims by holding back British advances. After the Seven Years war the Biritsh had taken all French strongholds, thereby giving them the rights to all French lands east of the Mississippi.....Thus allowing a nation to stake a claim for land, without having to build all over it....Still, other nations can build within this zones, leading to increased animosity between monarchies....eventually leading to wars. One thing that could be implemented in the game, per historical facts, is a fee/priviledge/penalty for such valuable assets. Lets say you are playing as Portugal and have good relations with England. The Brits want to build a naval base in the Azores, or at least gain access to that port. It would cost them to build it/gain access to the port(to be determined by programers ) If you accept, this could improve relations between you and the English, but damage relations with the Spaniards and the French, as this would give thier rivals a base from which they can patrol/control the North Atlantic. This could also be applied to forts which could be built in a province after another country has already gained control of it. Ofcourse, if the fort/base is built on an unclaimed territory, you obtain control over the fort/base and the province. If a friendly nation wants to set up TP's in the province the above process may apply. This will also accurately portrait colonial disputes between England/France in North America and India....and the United Province/Portugal in the East Indies. I don't know if this will be hard to implement in the game, I am not really that good when it comes to programming, but I think it would make the game even better and more historically accurate. It also would make the diplomatic and politic aspect of the game even more depth. This would make the cituation in India even more realistic since now all the minor Indian princes will be played against eachother by the French and British as they try to take control of the Indian trade......Of course, the idea might need fine tuning, but all suggestions are welcomed.....besides, as Michelangelo said "a work of art is never finished....it is only abandoned."

 

[merlin2199]

One more thing

The forts would have to be garrisoned with troops transported to the province from the home country. Having a fort does not give you a naval base...the two should be independent of each other. Though naval bases could come with a much smaller and weaker fort to defend it in case of an amphibious assault, but the fleet staioned there would be its main defece. I have noticed most of you don't like the naval base idea, but I think it is just as important, for without naval bases your fleets couldn't and wouldn't be able to protect your trading assets, nor protect your far flung garrisons against amphibious assaults. Though the two would be independent within a provice, I think the forts and the naval bases are equally important.

 

[Cakravarti]

Whats wrong with using traders to rule. After all the English essentially used the East India COMPANY and the French used some French COMPANY and etc. So therefore i think that there should be nothing wrong with using traders to stake claims to certain territories.

 

[unmerged(9)]

I agree. This is one of the better ideas I've seen on the EUII board.
Could be hard to implement perhaps?

What about the concept of "Protectorate"? Maybe there should be more levels of colonization? Ranging from small outpost to full colony status.

Marcus

 

[Carolus Rex]

It is pretty weird to control a whole province just cuz you got 10 traders there.

 

[Cakravarti]

sorry accidently presed the submit button without finishing the post

anyway as i was saying it would be fine to send traders but the only way they could keep the territory is if they build forts. Then once they build forts they can have options such as hiring mercenaries, of a small number to drive out any other TPs built in the same province, etc.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Yes, that would be good, but think about the high level of micromanagement it would require in the game.

 

[Cakravarti]

I dont think it would involve too much micro-management. Say that if you succesfully erect a TP you could then left-click on said TP and you could then choose to build a fort. This would involve as much micro-management as building a city and then fortifying it, except that you wouldnt need 7 successive expansions. Also conscripting mercenaries should be similar to building troops in a city, except that there should be a certain cap placed on the size of the mercenary army.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Ok, you have convinced me.
It is a good idea, worth giving more thought.

I also like marcusjm's idea with more levels of colonization.

 

[unmerged(4783)]

There's another thread that makes a similar suggestion Feitorias! I Want Feitorias!. Carlos Duarte made the point that the Portuguese (and others added that Sweden, England, Netherlands, also took this approach in certain areas) built them throughout their colonial empire.

These forts were normally built in order to facilitate trade and give your nation's traders some sort of protection from foreign powers and natives, even though it could be very difficult to defend them if the natives were really angry at the Europeans.

 

[Carolus Rex]

I might add that just because two nations were not at war with each other did not mean that they did not disrupt or destroy their trade and/or colonies and TP's.

 

[unmerged(349)]

The concept of the naval base wasn't really a big deal until the advent of coal power. On the other hand, if you have a fort established in a province where you have no colony, then it would need to be resupplied, as well, so it wouldn't be able to resupply a fleet the way a province with a colony would. In fact, I always assumed that the trading post represented a "European presence" in a province. Obviously, if you are keeping other Europeans out thereby, it must include some military presence. In fact, early "Trading Posts" in the Americas were solitary merchants who spread out to trade with the locals and were based in a small fort. Small is the key word, here, though. I think if you look at trading posts as a small military presence (i.e., insignificant) that is just sufficient to deter other European powers from encroaching during peacetime. It isn't even enough to prevent the locals from destroying the trading posts. But a real fort, as heavily garrisoned as the forts in EU are, would require a significant local population to support it (and even then it would require regular shipments of supplies from the Old World, at least until the colony grew).

If, however, Paradox were to accept this fort idea, I would think that the maintenance costs for these forts should be quite high (to represent bring supplies to them) until a colony is established there. Also, trading posts or colonies would be required to gain any economic benefit. The fort would be a drain, and prevent other European powers from establishing a presence.

But this would raise the issue of what to do with provinces that only have TPs in them. Can more than one power have a TP there? This would require a significant overhaul of the game system (at least the graphics, if not more).

Still, I agree there are good historical examples of forts being used to monopolize trade in areas with few Europeans (Fort Duquesne is the best).

 

[Cakravarti]

maybe we could have it so that tps can be attacked without a declaration of war while colonies can only be attacked by a declaration of war. Also maybe colonies in a certain area could give a cb to neighbouring nations. For example, a colony in India could lead to the Indian nations getting a cb against the person with the colony. This would stop people from establishing cities all over the place until they can realistically fight of the native power.

 

[Carolus Rex]

Yes, but it should really be a certain type of TP DoW.
So that yo cannot exploit it over and over, thereby killing the AI's colonial abilties.

 

[unmerged(3627)]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex
It is pretty weird to control a whole province just cuz you got 10 traders there.

Once one European nation has claimed that land, any other European nation which goes to settle in it has declared war by so doing, and all Europe accepts the fact. (The natives are another matter entirely, which is why the natives can just attack and take over - or kill them all - if you haven't built it into a city yet.)

 

[unmerged(1302)]

Well, Calcutta didn't have only British in THAT province, but also French, Dutch and Danish. So, why by establishing a TP I refuse access to the province to anyone else? I don't really control the province. As for Europeans not being able to hold off natives, there is a good description of a Mughal campaign against the Portugese in Goa, which amounted to nothing for Mughals except huge casualties.

I think that the native population should always stay in the province and never can be slain, or join the city. This way we can avoid having those huge cities with 20000 natives who all somehow christened. In other words after establishing a colony (100 people) you should be allowed to build a fort and bring some troops to defend it. Colony becomes a city at 700, natives donot join. You can send a missionary who can convert some of the natives who might then join the city. The success rate should be inversely proportional to the natives hostility.

Instead of having a TP, why not establish a local trade center, where all the nations can trade, earning trade income. Any nation can establish a colony there, but the nation that opened the trade center should have a larger success rate in establishing a colony, so that noone can steal TP that easily.

I hope they will rework the whole trade scheme being dependent on religion, it's way too silly.