• Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning
Status
Not open for further replies.

unmerged(28)

Game Designer
Jan 21, 2000
3.461
0
I think this is rather accurate...:)

COLONIAL ATLAS FOR EUROPA UNIVERSALIS

Our thanks to : Matthew Wallhead and Heiko Brendel + all Beta testers.

South-East Asia: Status
Legend:
-cS = At the end of this date the province became a Spanish colony, as moderately large settlements within it had been established or taken over (similarly: cD = The Dutch, cE = England, cP = Portugal).
- tS = At the end of this date the province became a Spanish trading post, as trading posts or missions within it had been established or taken over. (similarly: tD = The Dutch, tE = England, tP = Portugal).
- No Settlement = The province had virtually no European settlement of any kind in 1792, despite rival claims.
Sumatra:
AJEH (ID #679) - 1509 tP, 1601 tD.
RIAU (ID #680) - 1641 tD.
JAMBI (ID #681) - 1659 tD.
PALEMBANG (ID #682) - 1512 tP, 1596 tD.
Java:
SUNDA (ID #701) - 1677 cD.
JAKARTA (ID #702) - 1619 cD.
BANDUNG (ID #703) - 1755 cD.
SURABAYA (ID #704) - 1743 cD.
Lesser Sunda Islands:
BALI (ID #705) - No Settlement.
SUMBAWA (ID #710) - 1669 tD.
FLORES (ID #711) - No Settlement.
TIMOR (ID #712) - 1521 cP.
Borneo:
SABAH (ID #695) - No Settlement.
BRUNEI (ID #696) - No Settlement.
SARAWAK (ID #697) - 1609 tD.
BANDJARMASIN (ID #698) - No Settlement.
SELATAN (ID #699) - 1617 tD.
KALIMANTAN (ID #700) - No Settlement.

Sulawesi:
MANADO (ID #706) - 1540 tP, 1657 tD.
SULAWESI (ID #707) - 1667 tD.
MAKASSAR (ID #708) - 1545 tP, 1607 cD.
SALABANKA (ID #709) -1617 tD.
Moluccas:
TINDORE (ID #713) - 1653 tD.
BURU (ID #714) - 1526 tP, 1622 tD.
CERAM (ID #715) - 1653 tD.

New Guinea:
SORONG (ID #716) - No Settlement.
KALEPAM (ID #717) - No Settlement.
WEWAK (ID #718) - No Settlement.
RABAUL (ID #719) - No Settlement.
Philippines:
LUZON (ID #690) - 1579 cS.
MINDORO (ID #691) - 1564 cS.
SAMAR (ID #692) - 1564 cS.
MINDANAO (ID #693) - 1596 cS.
PALAWAN (ID #694) - No Settlement.
Indochina peninsula:
MALACCA (ID #677) - 1511 cP, 1641 cD.
KUALA LUMPUR (ID #676) - 1520 tP, 1638 tD.
IRRAWADY (ID #673) - 1520 tP, 1635 tD.
SINGAPORE (ID #678) - 1603 tD.
All other provinces (IDs #662 to #672, #674 and #675) - No Settlement.
Australia:
WAGGA (ID #723) - 1788 cE. All other provinces (IDs #720 to #722 and #724 to #726 and #731) - No Settlement.
New Zealand:
All provinces (IDs #727 to #730) - No Settlement.
Oceania:
KAUAI (ID #812), OAHU(ID #813), TAHITI (ID #814), VITI LEVU (ID #815) - No Settlement.
Others:
TAIWAN (ID #689) - tD 1624, 1662 independent, 1683 Chinese.

The Americas : Status
Legend:
dS = At the end of this date the province or sea had been discovered for Spain (similarly: dD = The Dutch, dE = England, dF = France. dP = Portugal, dR = Russia, dSw = Sweden).
cS = At the end of this date the province became a Spanish colony, as moderately large settlements within it had been established or taken over (similarly: cD = The Dutch, cE = England, cF = France, cP = Portugal, cSw = Sweden).
tS = At the end of this date the province became a Spanish trading post, as trading posts or missions within it had been established or taken over. (similarly: tD = The Dutch, tE = England, tF = France, tP = Portugal, tR = Russian).
- No Settlement = The province had virtually no European settlement of any kind in 1792, despite rival claims.
- Unknown and no settlement = The province was ‘terra incognita’ and had virtually no European settlement of any kind in 1792, despite rival territorial claims.
- Uninhabitable = The province had virtually no European settlement of any kind in 1792, despite rival claims, and it should be made into ‘true’ terra incognita to reflect its inhospitable, impassable nature. Or at least MAKE ITS ATTRITION LEVEL 0, so you can pass through at your peril, and make settlement impossible.
- Inca = Part of the Inca Empire in 1492 (larger than presently depicted).
- Aztec = Part of the Aztec Empire in 1492.
---
‘ACAPULCO BAY’ [963] dS c.1526, dE 1578
‘ALEUTIAN ISLANDS’ [827] dR 1741, dE 1779
‘AREQUIPA BAY’ [1105] dS 1532, dE 1578
‘ARICA GULF’ [1104] dS 1553, dE 1578
‘ATACAMA COAST’ [1364] dS 1553, dE 1578
‘BAHIA BLANCA’ [1335] dS 1520, dE 1577, dD 1616, dP 1680, dF 1712
‘BAY OF BELEM’ [1107] dP 1499, dS 1499, dF 1560, dD 1587, dE 1595
‘BAY OF COSTA RICA’ [1038] dS 1526, dE 1578
‘BAY OF FUNDY’ [864] dE 1497, d Navarre 1500, dP 1501, dF 1524, dS 1524, dD 1620.
‘BELIZE BAY’ [964] dS 1505, dE 1567, dF 1575, dD 1600
‘CALIFORNIAN GULF’ [900] dS 1539, dE 1579
‘CAPE CANAVERAL’ [907] dS 1513, dF 1555, dE 1562, dP 1570, dD 1595
‘CAPE HATTERAS’ [909] dF 1524, dS 1524, dE 1584, dD 1620
‘CAPE HORN’ [1240] dD 1616
‘CARIBBEAN SEA’ [1044] dS 1499, dP 1499, dF 1553, dE 1567, dD 1599
‘CHEASAPEAKE BAY’ [862] dE 1509, dS 1524, dF 1524, dD 1620
‘COAST OF BRASIL’ [1110] dS 1500, dP 1501, dD 1587, dE 1595
‘COAST OF CALIFORNIA’ [899] dS 1542, dE 1579, dD 1620
‘COAST OF CAROLINA’ [908] dS 1524, dF 1562, dE 1564
‘COAST OF CHILE’ [1168] dS 1520, dE 1578
‘COAST OF COLUMBIA’ [861] dS 1774, dE 1779
‘COAST OF ECUADOR’ [1041] dS 1526, dE 1579
‘COAST OF OREGON’ [860] dS 1603, dE 1779
‘COAST OF PATAGONIA’ [1169] dS 1520, dE 1577, dD 1616, dP 1680, dF 1712
‘COAST OF PERNAMBUC’ [1113] dS 1500, dP 1500, dF 1530, dE 1530, dD 1587
‘COAST OF PERU’ [1101] dS 1532, dE 1579
‘COAST OF RECIFE’ [1112] dS 1500 dP 1500, dF 1530, dE 1530, dD 1587
‘FALKLAND ISLANDS’ [1243] dS 1712, dF1712, dE 1764
‘FLORIDA STRAITS’ [965] dS 1494, dP 1516, dF 1534, dE 1565, dD 1595
‘GREATER ANTILLAS’ [1375] dS 1493, dP 1499, dF 1533, dE 1562, dD 1595
‘GULF OF ALASKA’ [828] dR 1741, dE 1779
‘GULF OF AMAZON’ [1108] dP 1499, dS 1499, dF 1560, dD 1587, dE 1595
‘GULF OF DARIEN’ [1043] dS 1503, dF 1553, dE 1567, dD 1599
‘GULF OF GUAYAQUIL’ [1040] dS 1526
‘GULF OF MEXICO’ [904] dS 1506, dP 1525, dE 1567, dF 1575, dD 1615
‘GULF OF PANAMA’ [1039] dS 1524, dE 1579
‘GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE’ [833] dF 1534, dE 1629, dD 1673
‘GUYANA COAST’ [1106] dS 1499, dP 1499, dF 1560, dE 1595, dD 1600
‘HUDSON BAY’ [829] dE 1610
‘HUDSON STRAITS’ [830] dE 1610
‘JAMAICAN SEA’ [966] dS 1494, dP 1520, dF 1534, dE 1564, dD 1595
‘LEEWARD ISLANDS’ [1047] dS 1493, dP 1499, dF 1533, dE 1562, dD 1595
‘LESSER ANTILLAS’ [1378] dS 1493, dP 1499, dF 1533, dE 1562, dD 1595
‘MAGELLAN STRAIT’ [1239] dS 1520, dE 1578, dD 1616, dF 1712
‘MANZANILLO BAY’ [962] dS 1527, dE 1579
‘MASSACHUSSETTS BAY’ [863] dE 1509, dS 1524, dF 1524, dD 1620
‘MAZATLAN BAY’ [901] dS 1527, dE 1579
‘MISSISSIPI BAY’ [905] dS 1528, dE 1562, dF 1575, dP 1580, dD 1683
‘MOBILE BAY’ [906] dS 1528, dE 1562, dF 1575, dP 1580, dD 1683
‘MOSQUITOS COAST’ [1042] dS 1502, dE 1567, dP 1572, dF 1575, dD 1600
‘NEWFOUNDLANDS BANK’ [865] dE 1497, dP 1501, dF 1534, dD 1673
‘N. PACIFIC OCEAN’ (off SAN BERNARDINO) dS 1542, dE 1579
‘PATAGONIAN SEA’ [1241] dS 1520, dE 1577, dD 1616, dP 1680, dF 1712
‘RIO DE JANEIRO’ [1115] dP 1502, dS 1516, dF 1530, dE 1577, dD 1590
‘RIO DE LA PLATA’ [1173] dP 1502, dS 1516, dF 1530, dE 1577, dD 1590
‘SANTA CATALINA ISLANDS’ [897] dS 1543, dE 1579
‘SEA OF BAFFIN’ [831] dE 1578
‘SEA OF LABRADOR’ [834] dE 1497, dP 1500
‘SEA OF SARGASSOS’ [968] dS 1492, dP 1516, dF 1534, dE 1564, dD 1595
‘SOUTH CHILEAN COAST’ [1374] dS 1520, dE 1578
‘STRAIT OF LABRADOR’ [832] dE 1497, dP 1500
‘STRAITS OF PUERTO RICO’ [1046] dS 1493, dP 1499, dF 1533, dE 1562, dD 1595
‘TAMPA BAY’ [1373] dS 1513, dF 1555, dE 1562, dP 1575, dD 1600
‘TAMPICO BAY’ [902] dS 1506, dP 1525, dE 1567, dF 1575, dD 1683
‘THE BAHAMAS’ [967] dS 1492, dP 1516, dF 1534, dE 1564, dD 1595
‘TODOS SANTOS BAY’ [1114] dP 1502, dS 1516, dF 1530, dE 1577, dD 1590
‘TORTUGA ISLAND’ [969] dS 1492, dP 1516, dF 1534, dE 1562, dD 1595
‘VENEZUELAN SEA’ [1045] dS 1498, dP 1499, dF 1553, dE 1564, dD 1599
‘WINWARD ISLANDS’ [1048] dS 1493, dP 1499, dF 1533, dE 1562, dD 1595
‘YUCATAN SEA’ [903] dS 1506 dP 1525, dE 1567, dF 1575, dD 1600
---
ADIRONDAK [100] dF 1615, dE 1688, tE 1749 Ogdenburg (not Fort Henry), US 1782. The French colonynames file wrongly places ‘Fort Carillon’ here. Fort Carillion is another name for Ticonderoga - est.1755 in Ticonderoga province. It also states that FRA #100 should be called ‘Chouagen’, neither is true because there were no French settlements in Adirondak province.
AIRES [223] dS 1537, cS 1537 Buenos Aires (abandoned 1541), dP 1570, cS 1580 Buenos Aires
AISEN [177] - Uninhabitable
ALABAMA [55] dE 1673, cE 1775 Atlanta (not Augusta, which isn’t where EU ‘Alabama’ is), US 1782.
ALAGOAS [206] dP 1640, cP 1745 Vitoria de Conquista (not Sao Salve nor Aracaju)
ALEUTES [186] dR 1745, tR 1784 Pavlovsk Gavan (not Kiska). In 1784 Russia established her first trading post in Alaska: Three Saints Bay. It became the city of Pavlovsk Gavan in 1792 (if I knew the Russian for Three Saints Bay I’d name it that). I have assumed that this island represents Kikhtak, laterday Kodiak.
ALLEGHANY [61] dE 1673, cE 1750 Charlotte (not Camden), US 1782.
ALTAR [15] dS 1695, cS 1695 Tuscon (not Yuma)
AMAPA [183] dP 1640, cP 1745 Macapa
ANTICOSTI [123] dF 1534 – No Settlement.
ANTIGUA [147] dS 1494, dF 1535, dE 1580, dD 1595, cE 1632 Saint John City (this needs adding to the colonynames file under ENG 147).
APPALACHE [66] dE 1671, cE 1788 Fort Lee (not Charlotte), US 1782.
APURE [155] dS 1540 – No Settlement.
ARAXA [212] dP 1750 – No Settlement.
AREQUIPA [170] - Inca, dS 1535, cS 1540 Arequipa
ARICA [172] – Inca, dS 1537, cS 1540 Antofagasta (not Arica)
ARIZONA [18] dS 1540 – No Settlement.
ARKANSAS [51] dS 1542 – No Settlement. The French colonynames file places Fort Orléans here, but it should be in Missouri.
ARTIGAS [216] dS 1750 – No Settlement. If it were settled it would have been called Salto not Santa Fe.
ATACAMA [173] - Inca, dS 1536, cS 1536 Valparaiso
ATHABASKA [133] dF 1686, dE 1754 –No Settlement.
ATLIXCO [30] - Aztec, dS 1522, cS 1531 Acapulco (not Puebla)
ATTAWAPISKAT [131] dE 1668, tE 1668 Fort Rupert (not Fort Ruppert), dF 1686
AYACUCHO [167] - Inca, dS 1533, cS 1533 Ayacucho (not Santiago del Estero)
AZUAY [163] - Inca, dS 1534, cS 1534 Quito
BAJA [13] dS 1720, cS 1720 La Paz (not Santa Rosalia)
BANGOR [112] dF 1580, tF 1605 Fort des Pentagouets (destroyed by the Dutch 1674), dE 1625, dD 1674, US 1782. Though claimed by England this province was only ever settled by a French trading post 1605-74, after which it was virtually abandoned, i.e. it reverted to a neutral ‘native’ province. England’s interests in the province occurred later, the great timber port of Bangor started in 1791 and grew to fame in the next century. Though never colonised by the English, the colonynames ENG 112 entry should read ‘Bangor’ not ‘Portsmouth’ to allow for its potential premature development - whilst ‘Portsmouth’ is in Penobscot province not here.
BARAHONA [143] dS 1496, cS 1496 Santo Domingo, dE 1562.
BARBADOS [152] dS 1502, dF 1540, dE 1575, dD 1600, cE 1623 Bridgetown.
BAYOU [45] dS 1543 –No Settlement. The EU colonynames file claims that France had its trading post of Bâton Rouge here. This is wrong, Bâton Rouge was established in 1722 in Biloxi province.
BELLE ISLE [124] – Unknown and no settlement.
BILOXI [46] dS 1541, dF 1682, tF 1699, cF 1718 Nouvelle Orléans, dE 1763, cE 1763 New Orleans, cS 1783 Nuevo Orleans.
BOGOTA [160] dS 1537, cS 1538 Santa Fe de Bogota
CAJAMARCA [165] - Inca, dS 1532, cS 1532 Cajamarca (not Pimente)
CALI [162] - Inca, dS 1526, cS 1526 Esmeraldas
CAMPECHE [34] dS 1524, dE 1610, tE 1650, cE 1683 Belize
CANGUCU [214] dS 1542, dP 1640, cP 1745 Santa Maria
CANIAPISCAU [125] – Unknown and no settlement.
CANUMA [191] dS 1643, dP 1700 – No Settlement.
CANYON [16] dS 1540 – No Settlement.
CARACAS [197] dP 1613 – No Settlement.
CARIBE [178] dS 1540, cS 1540 Cumana (not Porto La Cruz), dE 1595, dD 1600
CAROLINA [62] dS 1566, cS 1566 Santa Elena , dE 1663, cE 1663 Charleston, US 1782.
CARTAGENA [158] dS 1532, cS 1533 Cartagena, dE 1586
CATAWBA [65] dE 1670, cE 1757 Lynchburg (not Hillsboro), US 1782.
CATSKILL [88] dE 1692, cE 1775 Unionville (not Albany), US 1782.
CHEASAPEAKE [68] dE 1607, cE 1607 Jamestown (not Richmond), dD 1638, US 1782.
CHICOUTIMI [121] dF 1600, tF 1600 Tadoussac, tE 1763
CHIHUAHUA [20] dS 1583, cS 1709 Chihuahua
CHIMO [134] dF 1686, dE 1745, tE 1774 Ontario.
CHISASIBI [130] – Unknown and no settlement. The EU colonynames file places a fictional ‘Fort Georges’ here, ‘Fort Prince George’ was in the Ohio valley. There was no such fort here.
CHUBUT [226] dS 1672 –No Settlement.
COAHUILHA [23] dS 1554, cS 1554 Delicias (not Monterey)
COLUMBIA [6] – Unknown and no settlement.
CONCHO [42] – Unknown and no settlement.
CONNECTICUT [102] dE 1609, dF 1624, dD 1630, cE 1637 New Haven, US 1782.
COPETONAS [224] dS 1672, cS 1779 Carmen de Patagones (not Bahia Blanca)
COQUIMBO [174] – Inca, dS 1552, cS 1552 Valdivia (not La Serena)
CORRIENTES [221] dS 1545, cS 1573, dP 1580 Cordoba
COSTA RICA [822] dS 1522, cS 1522 Granada (not San Jose)
CUPICA [161] dS 1531, cS 1531 Buenaventura (not Medellin)
CURACAO [153] dS 1499, dP 1499, cS 1513 Bonaire (no existing colonynames SPA #153 file), dD 1599, cD 1634 Curaçao
CURITIBA [213] dP 1542, dF 1549, cF 1549 (destroyed 1558, name unknown), cP 1566 Porto Alegre.
CUYUNI [179] dE 1595, dD 1600, cD 1602 Essequibo
CUZCO [169] - Inca, dS 1533, cS 1533 Cuzco
DELAWARE [86] dE 1608, dF 1615, dD 1638, dSw 1638, cSw 1638 Fort Cristina (Fästning Christina?), cD 1655, cE 1682 Philadelphia, US 1782.
DETROIT [82] dF 1685, dE 1686, tF 1686 Fort Pontchartrain (not Fort Detroit), tE 1763 (Detroit), US 1782. Though the first trading post here was Fort St. Joseph, Fort Pontchartrain was bigger. Though Fort Pontchartrain was also known as Fort Detroit that wasn’t until later.
DIAMENTINA [207] dP 1532, cP 1560 Itabuna (not Recife)
DOMINICA [148] dS 1493, dF 1540, dE 1570, dD 1600, cF 1635 Roseau, cE 1763
DULUTH [79] dF 1680, tF 1665 St.Esprit, Fort Chequamegon and Fort Ste. Croix (but not Fort La Reine), dE 1767, tE 1763, US 1782.
EL PASO [22] dS 1532, cS 1682 El Paso (not San Angelo)
EMPALME [17] dS 1540, cS 1700 Hermosillo
ENSENADA [12] dS 1766, tS 1775 Ensenada
ERIE [71] dE 1755 – No Settlement. US 1782. The French colonynames file places Fort Vincennes here. Fort Vincennes was in Miamis. This province was never settled in the EU era.
ESKIMALT [135] dE 1670, tE 1670 Fort Albany (not Fort York), dF 1686
EVERGLADES [50] dS 1565 – No Settlement.
FOX [73] dF 1680 – No Settlement. US 1782. The French colonynames file places Fort Crèvecoeur here. Fort Crèvecoeur (Peoria) was established in Milwaukee province (RL state of Illinois). This province was never settled in the EU era.
FUNDY [115] dF 1606, tF 1610 Fort Beauséjour, cF 1630, cE 1713 Fort Cumberland. The name ‘Fort Cumberland’ needs adding as an entry in the colonynames file under ENG 115.
GANDER [118] dF 1600, dE 1616 – No Settlement.
GASPÉSIE [114] dF 1606 – No Settlement. The French colonynames file erroneously places a settlement named Gaspé here but Gaspésie was never significantly settled in the EU era.
GOIAS [196] dS 1613 – No Settlement.
GUADELOUPE [149] dS 1502, dF 1540, dE 1570, dD 1600, cF 1635 Pointe à Pitre
GUANTANAMO [139] dS 1511, cS 1514 Santiago de Cuba, dF 1553
GUATEMALA [33] dS 1523, cS 1524 Santiago (not Guatemala)
GUAYAQUIL [164] - Inca, dS 1526, cS 1526 Guayaquil
GUYANA [180] dE 1595, dD 1650
HAVANA [137] dS 1511, cS 1514 Havana, dP 1516, dF 1534, dE 1562, dD 1595
HINDUA [72] dF 1680, tF 1680 Fort St. Josephe, dE 1760, tE 1763, US 1782.
HOCHELAGA [106] dF 1536, cF 1642 Montréal, dE 1645, cE 1763 Montreal.
HONDURAS [36] dS 1525, cS 1525 Trujillo (not Tegucigalpa)
HUANUCO [166] - Inca, dS 1533, cS 1535 Lima
HURON [98] dF 1610, dE 1645, tF 1673 Fort Frontenac, tE 1763
IGUATO [204] – Unknown and no settlement. The potential Portuguese settlement #204 (built after 1792 in RL) should be Juazeiro do Norte not Teresina.
ILLINOIS [59] dF 1673, tF 1698 Cahokia (not Saint Louis des Miamis), dE 1720, tE 1765, US 1782.
IOWA [75] dF 1673 - No settlement. The French colonynames file places Fort Bourbon here but this province was never really settled in the EU era. If a French colony name is needed for a potential colony in FRA 75 then ‘Dubuque’ would suffice, local colonists built sawmills and lead mines there around 1788 (after French political control had been lost and within 4 years of the end of the game).
IRONDEKOIT [83] dE 1746, dF 1754, tF 1754 Fort Duquesne, tE 1763 Fort Pitt (which became Pittsburgh after the EU era) , US 1782.
ISLE ROYALE [117] dP 1520, cP 1520 (vanished 1526, name unknown), dS 1524, dE 1524, dF 1524, cF 1650 Louisbourg, cE 1763
ISTHMUS [39] dS 1513, cS 1519 This should be named Nombre de Dios if this port is Caribbean, Panama if it’s Pacific dE 1572
ITAIMAS [210] dP 1532, cP 1532 Sao Paolo (not Vitoria)
JALISCO [24] dS 1535, cS 1554 Durango
JAMAICA [140] dS 1494, dE 1570, cE 1654 Kingston (this is listed as Spanish colony #140, which is wrong. It was never colonised, if it had been ‘Esquivel’ would be an appropriate name for the hypothetical colony because the natives were conquered by Juan de Esquivel in 1509.
JAPURA [190] dS 1542, dP 1700 – No Settlement.
JUJUY [220] dS 1544, dP 1585 – No Settlement. Despite being listed in the Spanish colonynames files it wasn’t settled. If it were its name would have been Santiago del Estero not Corriente.
KEBEC [110] dF 1536, tF 1608 Québec, dE 1629, cF 1663, cE 1763 Quebec.
KENTUCKY [67] dE 1674, cE 1774 Harrodsburg
KITIMAT [2] – Unknown and no settlement.
LAURENTIA [108] dF 1645 – No Settlement. The French colonynames files says there is a ‘Chicoutimi’ in Laurentia (despite of the use of the name for province #121) but there was no significant European settlement here in the EU era.
LES CAYES [141] dS 1495, dP 1499, dF 1530, cF 1660 Port au Prince. The colonynames file lists this a Spanish colony, which is wrong.
LIMA [168] – Inca, dS 1535, cS 1535 Camana (not San Juan)
MACACOS [189] dS 1542, dP 1700 – No Settlement.
MAGALLANES [228] -Uninhabitable
MANAUS [184] dS 1542, dP 1674, tP 1674 Manaus
MANHATTAN [87] dD 1613, tD 1613 Neuw Amsterdam, cD 1623, dE 1623, cE 1664 New York US 1782.
MANICOUAGAN [122] dF 1534 – No Settlement. The French colonynames file erroneously places a settlement named Sept Iles here but Manicouagan was never significantly settled in the EU era.
MARACAIBO [157] dS 1499, cS 1525 Maracaibo (actually Coro was first, but Maracaibo - est.1571 - was pre-eminent by 1669).
MARAJO [198] dS 1542, dP 1640, cP 1700 Ilha de Marajo (not Belem)
MARANHAO [201] – Unknown and no settlement. The potential Portuguese settlement #204 (built after 1792 in RL) should be Teresina not Crato.
MARONI [182] dF 1604, cF 1604 Cayenne
MARTINIQUE [150] dS 1502, dF 1540, dE 1570, cE 1570, dD 1600, cF 1635 Fort de France
MASSACHUSSETTS [103] dE 1620, cE 1620 Boston (actually Plymouth was established here at this date and Boston ten years later. But Boston was more significant in the long run so its name should dominate), dD 1630, US 1782.
MATA GROSSO [195] – Unknown and no settlement.
MATAGORDA [43] dS 1529, tS 1716 Nacogdoches, cS 1779
MAZATLAN [21] dS 1531, cS 1531 Mazatlan
MEGANTIC [105] dF 1607, dE 1633, tF 1740 St.-François (not Chambly), tE 1763 St.-Francis (not Concord).
MESABI [77] dF 1738 – No Settlement.
MIALTO [129] – Unknown and no settlement.
MIAMIS [60] dF 1679, tF 1702 Fort Vincennes, dE 1708, tE 1763, US 1782.
MICHILIMAKINAK [81] dE 1687, dF 1690 – No Settlement. US 1782. The French colonynames file places Fort Pontchartrain here but it’s in Detroit province (being the site of Detroit itself - no less).
MICHOAGAN [26] – Aztec, dS 1531, cS 1531 Guadalajara (not Guadalaraja)
MICMAC [113] dF 1555, tF 1604 Île Ste. Croix (not Saint Jean). Abandoned 1605, no settlement thereafter. EU places a fictional English settlement called ‘Penobscot’ here. Having two ‘Penobscots’ in the game (a province, and city in another province) is too confusing for words. No such colony every existed here. If a hypothetical English settlement had occurred here it would have been called ‘New Brunswick’.
MILWAUKEE [74] dF 1673, tF 1680 Crèvecoeur, tE 1763, US 1782.
MINAS GERAIS [208] dP 1640, cP 1730 Feira de Santana
MINNESOTA [76] dF 1743 – No Settlement.
MIRIM [188] dS 1542 – No Settlement.
MISSISSIPPI [57] - Unknown and no settlement.
MISSOURI [58] dF 1718, tF 1718 Fort Orléans (not Fort de Chartres), dS 1763, tS 1763
MOBILE [47] dS 1541, dE 1674, dF 1702, tF 1702 Mobile, tE 1763, tS 1782.
MOHAWK [90] dF 1651, dE 1744 – No Settlement. US 1782.
MONTEREY [9] dS 1769, tS 1770, cS 1776 San Francisco (not Santa Monica)
MOQUEGA [171] – Inca, dS 1536, cS 1536 Iquique
MORON [138] dS 1511, cS 1515 Matanzas (not Cienfuegos)
MOSQUITOS [38] dS 1522, cS 1550 Limon
NAIN [126] – Unknown and no settlement.
NANAIMO [4] – Unknown and no settlement.
NEEMBUCU [218] dS 1526, dP 1536, cS 1536 Asunción (not Ascuncion)
NEHALEM [7] – Unknown and no settlement.
NIAGARA [92] dF 1615, tF 1679 Fort Niagara (not Fort aux Bœufs), dE 1686, tE 1763
NICARAGUA [37] dS 1545, cS 1575 Nicaragua (not Managua).
NIPIGON [95] dF 1641, tF 1730 Fort Michipicton, tE 1763
NIPISSING [96] dF 1634, dE 1660 – No Settlement.
NITEROI [211] dP 1640, cP 1740 Florianopolis (not Rio de Janeiro)
NOVA SCOTIA [116] dP 1520, dF 1524, dE 1524, cF 1605 Port Royale (not Port Royal), cE 1713 Halifax. Actually Halifax was built later but the name will suffice - being a more important port in the long term than Annapolis Royal was.
NUELTIN [136] dE 1582, tE 1582 Fort Churchill (not Fort Nelson), dF 1686
OLYMPIA [5] – Unknown and no settlement.
ONANDAGA [91] dF 1651, dE 1685 – No Settlement. US 1782. The French colonynames file places Fort Niagara here, fort Niagara was in Niagara and French power did not extend to here (though they destroyed the native town of Onandaga in 1696 no-one settled this region - so, in game terms the Iroquois were never territorially defeated but became ‘vassals’ of the French.
OSHAWA [97] dF 1612, dE 1650, tF 1749 Fort Rouillé, tE 1763
OSKOSH [80] dF 1634, tF 1634 Baie d’Eau (if that means ‘Green Bay’ in French, I’m not sure?), dE 1761, tE 1761 Green Bay, US 1782.
OSWEGO [89] dF 1651, dE 1685, tE 1722 Oswego, US 1782.
OTTAWA [107] dF 1645, dE 1670 – No Settlement. The French colonynames files says there is a Saint Jérome in Ottawa but there was no significant European settlement here in the EU era.
PARA [199] dP 1600, cP 1630 Belem (not Sao Luis)
PARANA [217] dS 1526, dP 1555, cP 1683 Colonia do Sacramento (must be added to the Portugal colonynames list), cS 1705 Colonia do Sacramento (not just Colonia), cP 1715, cS 1750, cP 1762, cS 1777 Colonia de Sacramento
PARNAIBA [202] dP 1600, dD 1600, cD 1630 Forteleza (must be added to HOL #202), cP 1654
PASTAZA [187] dS 1541 – No Settlement.
PECOS [40] dS 1531 – No Settlement.
PENOBSCOT [104] dE 1620, cE 1622 Maine (not Plymouth), US 1782.
PERNAMBUC [205] dP 1532, dD 1532, cP 1549 Bahia (not Olinda), cD 1630 , cP 1654
PINALERO [19] dS 1540, cS 1610 (Santa Fe, destroyed 1680), cS 1706 Albuquerque
PLACENTIA [119] dF 1600, dE 1616, cF 1616 Plaisance, cE 1713
POTOSI [194] - Inca, dS 1535, cS 1545 Potosi
POWHATAN [69] dE 1608, cE 1736, US 1782. The colony name could be Sheperdstown (est.1762) or Harrisburg (est.1785) but not Virginia.
PUERTO RICO [144] dS 1493, cS 1511 Porto Rico
RECIFE [203] dP 1530, dD 1530, cP 1593 Natal, cD 1630 Natal (not Pernambuc), cP 1654 Natal.
RIMOUSKI [111] dF 1606 – Not Settled. The French colonynames file erroneously places a settlement named Rivière du Loup here but Rimouski was never significantly settled in the EU era.
RIO GRANDE [41] dS 1530, cS 1697 San Antonio (actually Loreto came first, San Antonio in 1718 - but San Antonio is more famous).
ROANOKE [64] dE 1585, cE 1565 Virginia (not Roanoke) abandoned 1590, re-established 1682, dD 1690, US 1782. Using the name ‘Roanoke’ is repetitive and Virginia is more accurate, if the colony must be a city name, then call it Norfolk.
ROSARIO [222] dS 1545, dP 1570, cS 1600 Rosario
SACRAMENTO [8] – Unknown and not settled. The colonyname file lists SPA #8 at San Francisco. This wrongly misplaces San Francisco (which is in from province #9 Monterey). If the province had been colonised by Spain in the EU era it would have been called Sacramento. The towns of Sacramento (est.1836), Santa Rosa (1854), Yuba City (1854) and Chico (1860) were all founded after the EU era.
SALTILLO [25] dS 1579, cS 1579 Monterrey (not Torreon). Note: the Monterrey in Mexico has two ‘r’s, the Monterey in the U.S.A. has only one.
SALTON [14] dS 1540, tS 1692 Arizona
SALVADOR [209] dP 1532, cP 1565 Rio de Janeiro (not Salvador de Bahia)
SAN BERNARDINO [11] dS 1766, tS 1769 San Diego
SAN MATIAS [225] dS 1672 – No Settlement.
SANTA CRUZ [227] dS 1672 – No Settlement
SANTEE [63] dE 1701, cE 1730 Wilmington, US 1782.
SAULT [93] dF 1618, tF 1668 Sainte Marie, dE 1760, tE 1763, US 1782.
SAVANNAH [54] dS 1540, dE 1695, cE 1733 Savannah (two ‘n’s not one), US 1782.
SEBAGO [101] dE 1635, cE 1775 Fort Albany (not Harford), US 1782. Yes there were two Fort Albany’s - one on Hudson’s bay (ESKIMALT), the other here.
SEMINOLE [49] dS 1530, dF 1562, cF 1562 Fort Caroline, dE 1563, cE 1563 (name unknown), cF 1564, cS 1565 San Augustino, cE 1763, cS 1782
SHAWINIGAN [109] dF 1536, tF 1634 Trois-Rivières, cF 1730, cE 1763
SHENANDOAH [70] dE 1693, cE 1762 Morgantown (not Pittsburg), US 1782. The colony name should not be ‘Pittsburg’ because Pittsburgh was created after 1792 in Irondekoit province around Fort Pitt. Before 1758 Fort Pitt was Fort Duquesne, so both the English and French colonyname files are wrong with regard to Shenandoah province.
SIERRA MADRE [10] dS 1766, tS 1771, cS 1781 Los Angeles
SITKA [3] - Unknown and no settlement. The Russian trading post of Sitka named in the colonynames file RUS #3 doesn’t belong here unless the Russians establish it early (it was established after 1792).
SOLOMOES [185] dS 1542, dP 1700 – No Settlement.
ST. MARTIN [146] dS 1500, dE 1580, dD 1595, cD 1632 St. Marten (HOL #146 not #145)
ST. THOMAS [145] dS 1500, dE 1580, dD 1595, cD 1657 St Thomas (not St Marten, a confusion has arisen between HOL #145 and #146), cE 1666 Saint Thomas, Danish 1672, ‘open port’ of Charlotte Amalie 1674 onward.
SUPERIOR [94] dF 1670, tF 1670 Fort Kaministiquia (not Duluth), tE 1763
SURINAM [181] dD 1600, cD 1602 Paramaribo
SUSQUEHANA [85] dF 1615, dE 1692, cE 1752 Allentown (not Trenton), US 1782.
TALAHASSEE [48] dS 1540, dE 1685, tS 1696 Pensacola, tE 1763, tS 1783
TALCA [176] -Unknown and no settlement.
TAMPICO [28] dS 1532, cS 1532 Tampico
TAQARI [192] dS 1686, dP 1700 – No Settlement.
TEHUACAN [32] dS 1534, cS 1534 Villahermosa
TEHUANTEPEC [31] dS 1525, cS 1525 Oaxaca
TENNESSEE [56] dE 1674, cE 1780 Nashville, US 1782.
THE FALKLANDS [230] dF 1712, dS 1712, dE 1764, cF 1763 Isles Nouvelles, cE 1765 Port Stanley, cS 1770 Islas Malvinas. Colonised by settlers from Argentina, England and France, the Falklands first appeared on the maps of Amédée-François Frézier in 1712, who was working for Spain. Evidence of their discovery in the 16th century is too dubious to credit. Commodore John Byron claimed them for Britain in 1765. They were Spanish from 1770 until 1833 when Britain’s claim was internationally recognised.
TICONDEROGA [99] dF 1607, dE 1700, tF 1642 Fort Carillion, tE 1763
TIERRA DEL FUEGO [229] - Uninhabitable
TIRACAMBU [200] dP 1595, cP 1612 Maranhao (not Sobral), dD 1612, cD 1630, cP 1654
TITICACA [193] – Inca, dS 1534, cS 1548 La Paz
TOBAGO [151] dS 1498, dE 1575, cS 1593 Port of Spain (not Trinidad), dD 1606, Kurlandian 1654, cE 1700 Port of Spain (not St Georges).
TOCUVO [156] dS 1530, cS 1530 Baraquisimeto
TORNGAT [127] – Unknown and not settled.
TORTUGA [142] dS 1492, cS 1493 Isabella, dP 1516, dF 1534, dE 1562, dD 1595
TUCUMAN [219] – Inca, dS 1537, cS 1537 San Miguel de Tucumán (not San Salvador)
TUSCALOOSA [53] dS 1540, dE 1674 – No Settlement. US 1782. The French colonynames file states that Fort Maurepas was here, but Fort Maurepas was the fort protecting Biloxi, in Biloxi province. The French sent no explorers or settlers here, and no-one else settled it in the EU era.
TUSCARORA [84] dE 1692, cE 1769 Altoona (not Harrisburg), US 1782.
TUXPAN [29] – Aztec, dS 1519, cS 1520 Vera Cruz
UNGAVA [128] – Uninhabitable.
URUGUAY [215] dS 1516, dP 1590, cS 1726 Montevideo
VALPARAISO [175] dS 1581, cS 1763 San Carlos de Ancud (not Valparaiso)
WABANA [120] dF 1600, dE 1616, cE 1624 Ferryland (not Saint John), dD 1673
WICHITA [44] – Unknown and no settlement.
WINISK [132] dE 1671, tE 1671 Moose Factory, dF 1686
WISCONSIN [78] dF 1736 - No Settlement. US 1782.
YARAGUAY [154] dS 1536, cS 1567 Caracas. The colonynames file places the Dutch colony of Guyana here, which is wrong it was in Guyana (province #180 not #154).
YARUMAL [159] dS 1536 – No Settlement.
YAZOO [52] dF 1674, tF 1682 Fort Prudhomme, tE 1763 US 1782.
YUCATAN [35] dS 1517, cS 1540 Merida
YUKON [1] – Unknown and no settlement.
ZACATECAS [27] – Aztec, dS 1519, cS 1521 Ciudad de Mexico (not Mexico)

Sibiria: Status
Legend:
-cR = At the end of this date the province became a Russian colony, as moderately large settlements within it had been established or taken over.
- tR = At the end of this date the province became a Russian trading post, as trading posts or missions within it had been established or taken over.
- No Settlement = The province had virtually no European settlement of any kind in 1792, despite rival claims.
Central Asia:
All provinces (IDs #515 to 524) - No Settlement.
Siberia (west to east):
ICHIM (ID #578) - tR 1581.
KARAGANDA (ID #579) - No Settlement.
OMSK (ID #580) - tR 1716.
TCHANY (ID #581) - tR 1594.
SEMIPALATINSK (ID #582) - tR 1718.
IRTYCH (ID #583) - tR 1586.
NOVOSIBIRSK (ID #584) - No Settlement.
ALTAI (ID #585) - tR 1738.
DEMIANKA (ID #586) - tR 1594.
BARABINSK (ID #587) - tR 1619.
OB (ID #588) - tR 1596.
TOMSK (ID #589) - tR 1604, c1700 cR.
ANGARA (ID #590) - tR 1619.
KRASNOJARSK (ID #591) - tR 1628, c1750 cR.
BALAKHTA (ID #592) - tR 1647.
TCHUMA (ID #593) - No Settlement.
BRATSK (ID #594) - tR 1630.
OKA (ID #595) - tR 1631.
TOUVA (ID #596) - No Settlement.
SAIAN (ID #597) - 1648 tR.
ZIMA (ID #598) - 1647 tR.
TANNU OLA (ID #599) - No Settlement.
IRKUTSK (ID #600) - tR 1652, c1700 cR.
CHATGA (ID #601) - No Settlement.
SELENGA (ID #602) - tR 1642.
ULAN UDE (ID #603) - tR 1647.
BURIAT (ID #604) - tR 1648.
TCHITA (ID #605) - tR 1653.
KALAKAN (ID #606) - No Settlement.
SRETENSK (ID #607) - tR 1648.
KALAR (ID #608) - No Settlement.
MOGOTCHA (ID #609) - tR 1654.
DJAGDI (ID #610) - tR 1650.
STANOVOE (ID #612) - tR 1648.
BALADOK (ID #613) - No Settlement.
DJUGDJUR (ID #614) - tR 1679.
ENKAN (ID #615) - No Settlement.
OKHOTSK (ID #616) - tR 1649, cR c1700.
MAGADAN (ID #617) - No Settlement.
KOLYMA (ID #618) - No Settlement.
CHELEKOV (ID #619) - No Settlement.
KAMENKOIE (ID #620) - tR 1679.
KORFA (ID #621) - tR 1649.
PALANA (ID #622) - tR 1703.
TCHUMKAN (ID #623) - 1655 tR, cR c1750.
Amur-province:
CHILKA (ID #611) - No Settlement.
NERCHIINSK (ID #632) - tR 1651, 1689 abandoned (part of China, but not Chinese colonized).
EKIMCAN (ID #631) - No Settlement.
NORSK (ID #633) - tR 1654, 1689 abandoned (part of China, but not Chinese colonized).
BOUREIA (ID #630) - No Settlement.
TCHEKUNDA (ID #629) - No Settlement.
BIROBIDJAN (ID #634) - No Settlement.
AMOUR (ID #628) - No Settlement.
SOFIISK (ID #627) - No Settlement.
AMGOUN (ID #624) - tR 1655, 1689 abandoned (part of China, but not Chinese colonized).
NAGORJE (ID #1467) - No Settlement.
KHRETSET (ID #1468) - No Settlement.
Coastal province:
All provinces (IDs #625, #626, #636 to #640) - No Settlement.
Manchuria:
HEIONGJANG (ID #635) - Part of China.
KIRIN (ID #644) - Part of China.
Manchuria wasn't part of China, but part of the Manchu-State. But there isn't any Manchu-State in EU, and the territory wasn't empty, so the two Manchurian provinces should be part of China.

Arabia: Status
Legend:
-cT = At the end of this date the province became a Turkish colony, as moderately large settlements within it had been established or taken over (similarly: cP = Portugal, cPe = Persia).
- tT = At the end of this date the province became a Turkish trading post, as trading posts or missions within it had been established or taken over. (similarly: tP = Portugal, tPe = Persia).
- No Settlement = The province had virtually no European settlement of any kind in 1792, despite rival claims.
JORDAN (ID #495) - Part of The Hedjaz.
ARABIA (ID #496) - Part of The Hedjaz.
TABUK (ID #497) - Part of The Hedjaz.
MEKKAH (ID #498) - Part of The Hedjaz.
YEMEN (ID #499) - Part of Aden, 1538 part of Turkey, c1640 part of Aden.
ADEN (ID #500) - Part of Aden, 1538 part of Turkey, c1640 part of Aden.
HADRAMUT (ID #501) - No Settlement.
DOFHAR (ID #502) - No Settlement.
MASIRAH (ID #503) - Part of Oman.
MASCATE (ID #504) - Part of Oman.
AL KHARAM (ID #505) - Part of Oman.
QUATAR (ID #506) - c1520 cT, c1630 cP, c1770 independent.
DAMMAN (ID #507) - c1520 cT
BASRAH (ID #508) - Part of Iraq, 1508 part of Persia, 1534 part of Turkey, 1623 part of Persia, 1638 part of Turkey.
BAHREIN (ID #509) - 1507 tP, 1602 tPe.
Arabian minors:
Iraq was Persian annexed from 1508 to 1534, then Turkish annexed, then Persian annexed from 1623 to 1638, then Turkish annexed again
The Hedjaz was a vassal of Turkey from 1517 to 1792.
Aden was Turkish annexed from 1538 to c1640, then independent again.
Oman was a vassal of Persia from 1650 to 1741.
The coast between Aden and Mascate was neither part of Aden nor Oman.
Northern Africa Arabian minors:
Morocco was independent all the time.
Algiers was a vassal of Turkey from 1519 to 1792
Tunis was a vassal of Turkey from 1531 to 1792.
Tripoli was a vassal of Turkey from 1551 to 1792.
Cyrenaica was a vassal of Turkey from 1521 to 1792.

India: Status
Legend:
- cS = At the end of this date the province became a Spanish colony, as moderately large settlements within it had been established or taken over (similarly: cD = The Dutch, cE = England, cF = France, cP = Portugal, cF = France).
- tS = At the end of this date the province became a Spanish trading post, as trading posts or missions within it had been established or taken over. (similarly: tD = The Dutch, tE = England, tP = Portugal, tF = France).
- No Settlement = The province had virtually no European settlement of any kind in 1792, despite rival claims.
India, coastal provinces (west to east); the most important, European controlled trading city of the province in brackets:
HORMOUZ (ID #535) - 1492 part of Persia, c1750 part of Afghanistan
MEKRAN (ID #536) - 1492 part of Persia, c1750 part of Afghanistan
BALUCHISTAN (ID #537) - 1492 part of Persia, c1750 part of Afghanistan
KALAT (ID #538) - 1492 part of Persia, c1750 part of Afghanistan
INDUS (ID #539) - c1600 part of Persia, c1700 abandoned, c1750 part of Afghanistan
KUTCH (ID #541) - 1509 tP (Diu)
CAMBAY (ID #547) - 1540 tP, 1618 tE (Surat)
BOMBAY (ID #548) - 1530 tP, 1661 tE, c1700 cE (Bombay)
GOA (ID #549) - 1505 cP (Goa)
MANGALORE (ID #568) - 1560 tP, 1638 tE (Bhatkal)
KERALA (ID #569) - 1565 tP (Mangalore)
COCHIN (ID #573) - 1513 tP, 1525 abandoned, 1663 tD, c1700 cD (Calicut)
TRIVANDRUM (ID #574) - 1503 tP, 1634 tE, 1663 tD (Cochin)
MADURAI (ID #575) - 1540 tP, 1658 tD (Tuticorin)
PONDICHERRY (ID #572) - 1674 tF, 1693 tD, 1699 cF, 1761 cE, 1765 cF, 1778 cE, 1785 cF (Pondicherry)
MADRAS (ID #571) - 1639 tE, c1700 cE (Madras)
YANAM (ID #565) - 1570 tP, 1605 tD, 1751 tF, 1760 tE (Masulipatam)
PARLAKIMEDI (ID #564) - c1650 tE (Vishakhapatnam)
BERHAMPUR (ID #561)- 1760 cE
CUTTACK (ID #560) - No Settlement.
HOWRAH (ID #558) - 1690 cE (Calcutta)
GANGES (ID #557) - 1765 cE (Dacca)
SANTAL (ID #556) - c1550 tP, 1760 tE (Chittagong)
CHIN (ID #671) (non-coastal) - No Settlement.
TARAKAN (ID #672) - No Settlement.
India, land locked provinces (west to east, north to south):
THAR (ID #540) - c1590 part of Moghul Empire
JAIPUR (ID #542) - 1526 part of Moghul Empire
DELHI (ID #543) - 1492 part of the Sultanate of Delhi, 1526 part of Moghul Empire
AGRA (ID #544) - 1492 part of the Sultanate of Delhi, 1539 part of Moghul Empire
ALLAHABAD (ID #554) - 1492 part of the Sultanate of Delhi, 1539 part of Moghul Empire
PATNA (ID #555) - c1575 part of Moghul Empire, 1765 cE
AURANGABAD (ID #546) - c1568 part of Moghul Empire
MADHYA (ID #546) - 1492 part of the Sultanate of Delhi, 1526 part of Moghul Empire
BILASPUR (ID #553) - 1492 part of the Sultanate of Delhi, 1539 part of Moghul Empire
JAMSHEDPUR (ID #559) - 1492 part of the Sultanate of Delhi, 1539 part of Moghul Empire, 1765 cE
MANIRA (ID #552) - c1595 part of Moghul Empire
SAMBALPUR (ID #562) - c1685 part of Moghul Empire
NAGPUR (ID #551) - c1685 part of Moghul Empire, 18th century Hyderabad
MADYA PRADESH (ID #563) - c1685 part of Moghul Empire, 18th century Hyderabad
DECCAN (ID #550)- c1685 part of Moghul Empire, 18th century Hyderabad
HYDERABAD (ID #566) - c1685 part of Moghul Empire, 18th century Hyderabad
BANGALORE (ID #567) - c1690 part of Moghul Empire, 18th century Mysore
MYSORE (ID #570)- c1690 part of Moghul Empire, 18th century Mysore
Indian Ocean:
JAFFNA (ID #577) - 1658 cD
COLOMBO (ID #576) - 1518 tP, 1656 cD
MAHÉ (ID #811) - 1768 cF
RÉUNION (ID #809) - 1662 cF
BOURBON (ID #810) - 1598 tD, 1715 cF
 
Last edited:

Doomdark

Design Director
Super Moderator
1 Badges
Apr 3, 2000
5.434
11.317
  • Paradox Order
Very interesting. Very comprehensive. Looks accurate too. I will be sure to study this for future IGCs. :)
 

Rex Francorum

General
46 Badges
Jan 29, 2001
1.703
2
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome Gold
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • March of the Eagles
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Fury
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • Cities: Skylines - Campus
  • Crusader Kings III
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Cities: Skylines
Interesting information.

It was mentionned:
"OSKOSH [80] dF 1634, tF 1634 Baie d’Eau (if that means ‘Green Bay’ in French, I’m not sure?), dE 1761, tE 1761 Green Bay, US 1782."

Baie d'Eau means literraly "Water Bay"
Eau=water

Green Bay means "Baie Verte"
Vert(e)=green

R.F.
 

Savant

Victoria's boyfriend
5 Badges
Jan 4, 2001
1.848
4
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
Patric

you are very cool.

:cool:
 

Savant

Victoria's boyfriend
5 Badges
Jan 4, 2001
1.848
4
Visit site
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
Yeah... I see that.

OK, so Patric is now not as cool as Greven. :D

But Patric is still pretty cool
 

State Machine

MOS FET
5 Badges
Feb 8, 2001
6.616
20
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II
Very cool!

I have been thinking of ways to limit some unhistorical colonization. Many areas that are not terra incognita in real life are colonized quite early, even though only discovered quite late in the period. I think there is merit in reducing attrition values and base tax income values for such provinces. This atlas provides some definition of what provinces to go after.

The obvious examples are the western coast of Canada, north western coast of the USA, and Pacific islands.
 

unmerged(4273)

Colonel
Jun 6, 2001
918
0
Visit site
Re: Very cool!

Originally posted by State Machine
I have been thinking of ways to limit some unhistorical colonization. Many areas that are not terra incognita in real life are colonized quite early, even though only discovered quite late in the period. I think there is merit in reducing attrition values and base tax income values for such provinces. This atlas provides some definition of what provinces to go after.

The obvious examples are the western coast of Canada, north western coast of the USA, and Pacific islands.
I guess that I think that attrition values should be kept as a measure of the ability of the land to support soldiery, etc. Rather than as a measure of how unlikely it was to have been colonized during this period.

I do agree with you that there is often what amounts to a somewhat compressed version of the colonization of the RotW in this game, but I think that game balance also should be considered...

For instance, it seems to me that in the game, a nation like Portugal needs her colonies to boost her income and economy... so any changes to any provinces' base tax values should be evaluated to see who they are most likely to affect. (Certainly, this undertaking could be quite difficult, but it seems to me at least desireable from the standpoint of game balance for those nations who concentrate more in the Pacific for colonies).
 

unmerged(3021)

Voortrekker
Apr 15, 2001
338
0
www.usgovsim.com
"ALABAMA [55] dE 1673, cE 1775 Atlanta (not Augusta, which isn’t where EU ‘Alabama’ is), US 1782."

Nope. You are correct that it certainly is not Augusta, but it is not Atlanta either. Atlanta is in Georgia, and is too far east to be in Alabama on the map. Montgomery or Birmingham are also pretty old cities, those might be more appropriate in that case.
 

ErrantOne

Captain
May 8, 2001
425
0
Visit site
Greven,

This post is a godsend. thanks :)


:cool:
ErrantOne
 

Deaghaidh

High King
65 Badges
May 1, 2001
5.037
905
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • 500k Club
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
On thing, you state that Erie was not settled in the EU era, yet the city I live in now (cleveland) was settled, I belive, just before 1790. Granted a small point (and just barely before the end-of-game) but one to include, as it's always irked me not to be able to found my hometown :D
 

unmerged(28)

Game Designer
Jan 21, 2000
3.461
0
Ohh a small note could perhaps do it.

As Deaghaidh's post show there might be some small errors in it and there will is a big problem that the EU map is disorted in comparison to a True map and finally that the EU provinces only correspond approximately to the 'real' provinces.:)

/Greven
 

Deaghaidh

High King
65 Badges
May 1, 2001
5.037
905
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Cities: Skylines Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • 500k Club
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Crusader Kings II: Monks and Mystics
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Surviving Mars
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Crusader Kings II: Jade Dragon
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Deus Vult
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria 2
  • Rome: Vae Victis
actually its fine Cleveland was settled in 1798 not 1789 like I thought.
 

ErrantOne

Captain
May 8, 2001
425
0
Visit site
The Mission is a great movie!! Own it, watch it.

Call it EU research :)


ErrantOne

PS the soundtrack is awesome.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.