Colonization and tribal governments

[qazanbas]

Hello, everyone, it is my very post in this forum; so, sorry if it was already discussed, I did use forum search.

I played EU4 for some time, and while the game is fun, there is something which annoys me a bit - colonizable land. Currently, the game represents these provinces as terrae nullius. One argument for that representation is that people who lived there were tribes that had not government in the sense of centralized power and hierarchy. And that explanation would be fine if not the fact that there are already tribal nations in the game and knowing history, being a centralized society does not keep one safe from colonization efforts. Therefore, I would like to offer the following change:

1) Make all gray provinces one-province primitives. Give these tribes coring cost penalties to reflect their weakness in terms of holding conquered land.
2) Allow colonization of any land on the map given there is direct land or sea access to it. Make colonization speed modifiers tied with the nation's technology level as well as development levels and autonomy levels of the colonizer and target colonized provinces.
3) Give colonized nations casus belli against colonizers who target their land for colonization and great relationship malus.

Just to be sure that I don't offend anyone, here is a depersonalized example how it should work:

I am a feudal lord of some middle sized nation in some continent far away from trade routes, and therefore, technology. I am currently in a devastating war against another country. I border a major power which is stronger than I am, but still supports me against my enemies because of overlapping claims and religion. But here come news: people from that major power bordering my country start settling on my lands and building forts. Colonized territory in question is poor and underpopulated. Its population has some grudges against my rule, and therefore, I delegated some powers and autonomy to them to escape active revolt during this terrible war. Also, colonizer is paying me money because they hate my enemy's claims on my territory. Therefore, I have the choice to declare war on a major power for transgressing my borders and ruin my country by fighting in two directions or let them have that poor province for now and still receive some money from them. Naturally, I choose the second option.

From the standpoint of the colonizer, I send my citizens to distant fringes of the empire. I could do so effectively because my strict laws squeezed not-so-lucky citizens and religious, ethnic minorities from their homes to seek fortune in distant lands and technological advancements made population growth higher and improved their ability to defend themselves. Because colonized land is poorly administered and regional administration has very little support from its government, my pioneers have only local resistance and their ruler could not care less about them right now. Therefore, in a decade, that land is rather mine than theirs. However, if I attempted to do the same thing with some other country which has comparable technological level and population, I would only end up with little to no progress, lost money, greatly chilled relations and possible war.

I do hope that it will improve historicity of the game so that great colonizers can and will establish colonies around the globe, not only in Americas and Africa, like I've seen in all my playthroughs, and that every small tribe gets a small chance to grow into a regional power with diplomacy and luck.

Please, leave your comments and have a nice day

 

[ecrurudesby]

1) Make all gray provinces one-province primitives. Give these tribes coring cost penalties to reflect their weakness in terms of holding conquered land.

You're talking about increasing the number of playable nations by hundreds overnight. Each of those one province primitives needs its own tag, name, flag, and file in the countries folder in the game files. It's just not feasable. Nor is it worth the effort.

2) Allow colonization of any land on the map given there is direct land or sea access to it. Make colonization speed modifiers tied with the nation's technology level as well as development levels and autonomy levels of the colonizer and target colonized provinces.

I don't understand. Does this mean any country can colonise any other country providing there is access? That makes very little sense.

And that explanation would be fine if not the fact that there are already tribal nations in the game and knowing history, being a centralized society does not keep one safe from colonization efforts.

The counterargument to that might be that there were varying degrees of primitive.

 

[qazanbas]

You're talking about increasing the number of playable nations by hundreds overnight. Each of those one province primitives needs its own tag, name, flag, and file in the countries folder in the game files. It's just not feasable. Nor is it worth the effort.

Turning to the first point, I would argue that while I do understand that there exist limitations of the game engine, there can be some compromise... like these nations need not full representation. One does not have a flag and a standing army before owning a state. Before that, they should be like sub-Saharan nations in Crusader kings which can only rally warriors. So, they can expand through alliances with other tribes.

I don't understand. Does this mean any country can colonise any other country providing there is access? That makes very little sense.

Turning to the second point, majority of colonization of Siberia and Middle Asia by Russia was done that way. To my knowledge, there were couple wars with Khanate of Sibir and Kokand... but in majority of cases it was done by installing trade posts->forts->cities in the regions. And these regions did have their governments which were busy fighting for favours from Russia and Ming against each other, and these states are already represented in the game as nations even though historically they were both conquered and colonized rather than directly conquered. Finally, I still want to see Great Britain colonizing Indian subcontinent by the same principle when they install a trade post and balance diplomatically so that each maharajah hates another while you take them one by one without full-blown war, but rather economically.

The counterargument to that might be that there were varying degrees of primitive.

Turning to the third point, primitive can change in much smaller spans of time. I do not want to offend anybody, but I think of House of Saud as a good example how a small tribe can conquer almost all Arabian Peninsula and make other countries economically dependent on them by oil, religion, and diplomacy. And the majority of game is about fun of doing that kind of stuff. From rags to riches... Or from riches to continental empires XD

 

[ecrurudesby]

Turning to the first point, I would argue that while I do understand that there exist limitations of the game engine, there can be some compromise... like these nations need not full representation. One does not have a flag and a standing army before owning a state. Before that, they should be like sub-Saharan nations in Crusader kings which can only rally warriors. So, they can expand through alliances with other tribes.

You're really confusing me. By creating these OPMs (one province minors) out of thin air, you are creating states. Every single state needs a flag, and a text file. That is like the minimum representation there is, in EU4, as far as I'm aware. And I don't play CK2 so you'll have to explain further what you mean.

Turning to the second point, majority of colonization of Siberia and Middle Asia by Russia was done that way. To my knowledge, there were couple wars with Khanate of Sibir and Kokand... but in majority of cases it was done by installing trade posts->forts->cities in the regions. And these regions did have their governments which were busy fighting for favours from Russia and Ming against each other, and these states are already represented in the game as nations even though historically they were both conquered and colonized rather than directly conquered.

Sibir and Kokkand are already in the game. They can be released from Nogai, Uzbek, Chagatai, and Timurids. They have their own tags (SIB and KOK) and text files in EU4 > common > countries. Russia has no problem conquering or colonising this part of the map.

Finally, I still want to see Great Britain colonizing Indian subcontinent by the same principle when they install a trade post and balance diplomatically so that each maharajah hates another while you take them one by one without full-blown war, but rather economically.

Probably the one thing we agree on, is the woeful lack of European powers in south-east Asia. Colonization and Trade could both do with a refit, but being able to colonize any country is not the answer. The AI would go bonkers. A player could go bonkers and colonise whatever province he or she liked.

Turning to the third point, primitive can change in much smaller spans of time. I do not want to offend anybody, but I think of House of Saud as a good example how a small tribe can conquer almost all Arabian Peninsula and make other countries economically dependent on them by oil, religion, and diplomacy. And the majority of game is about fun of doing that kind of stuff. From rags to riches... Or from riches to continental empires XD

So because the House of Saud's stretch of dirt was transformed into a gold mine by the discovery and exploitation of oil in the 20th century, we need every province of the New World, Africa, Siberia, and Australia to be owned by some made up country. Yeah nah

 

[qazanbas]

You're really confusing me. By creating these OPMs (one province minors) out of thin air, you are creating states. Every single state needs a flag, and a text file. That is like the minimum representation there is, in EU4, as far as I'm aware. And I don't play CK2 so you'll have to explain further what you mean.

They are not created out of thin air. Paradox has already done a lot of research. These empty provinces on the map were all named after local tribes which inhabit them as well as they have culture and religion which one can see during colonization. Each province which is seen in the game is usually settled between some geographical boundaries which usually form separate nations in real life. So they are not empty per-se, but they cannot be nation-formers just because somebody decided that some primitives are more advanced than others.

Sibir and Kokkand are already in the game. They can be released from Nogai, Uzbek, Chagatai, and Timurids. They have their own tags (SIB and KOK) and text files in EU4 > common > countries. Russia has no problem conquering or colonising this part of the map.

I mentioned them as an exception to the rule. Russia conquered these two countries, but majority of its expansion was done by building fortifications along the rivers in the region and claiming the land from relatively powerful khanates of Uzbek and Oirat which are already in the game as full-fledged nations. Russian trade posts were built on Oirat and Uzbek land, but neither wanted to go to war with Russia because that would be a suicide.

Probably the one thing we agree on, is the woeful lack of European powers in south-east Asia. Colonization and Trade could both do with a refit, but being able to colonize any country is not the answer. The AI would go bonkers. A player could go bonkers and colonise whatever province he or she liked.

But is not the idea of colonization bonkers at its very core? Sending some people from their home across the globe with few prospects for their survival? From the standpoint of an individual, I would never go to another continent unless they made my life miserable in my homeland. That glorious image of pioneers usually does not hold considering terrible conditions of their travel. Colonization, I think, just like war, existed because of its profitability to a nation as a whole, not to a singular individual; therefore, if any major power decides that it has power to grab some rich provinces somewhere across the globe, it will do that, and it did happen in real life. Mughals were not a tribe but their state was dissolved and its remnants were colonized without much of direct conquest. Now... I should be very careful here. Would Northern Ireland be considered and instance of colonization within Europe or is it conquest plus culture conversion? I just give these instances which in my opinion show that you can colonize any piece of land as long as you have enough power to subjugate local population and out-breed them XD

So because the House of Saud's stretch of dirt was transformed into a gold mine by the discovery and exploitation of oil in the 20th century, we need every province of the New World, Africa, Siberia, and Australia to be owned by some made up country. Yeah nah

Is not this game about making up countries? I love playing not only major powers like Austria or making Novgorod into democratic Russia, but also entertaining myself with playing Ethiopia, some Native American tribes and so on. It just feels strange that Paradox decided to make parts of Africa empty-land and other parts of it are teeming with small minors. India is in the same situation now. All I want, is historicity along with some equality to everyone.