Colonization in Victoria

[Niptium]

Damn ! I love the colonizing system in Victoria. It's so realistic ! Thanks for the update on the FAQ, Patric and Johan. I was wondering wich are the areas that are up for grabs ? Australia, New-Zeeland, and the many Pacific islands for sure. Africa, but where ? Is there any place left to colonize in America ? Asia [Hong-Kong, Macao] ?

And I was wondering if Fantasia like scenarios were going to be available. Like in EU 2 I could wipe every Nation in the Americas and make that land available to colonization, maybe do a 1492 scenario. Colonization is available in that form [european settlers] right ?

 

[unmerged(20171)]

Probably the innerparts of Africe and the innerparts of America.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

parts of australia maybe and new zeeland as well as other parts of asia and pacific.

 

[Tunch Khan]

Don't look far, it's just within your reach...
Free grabs, take your own share, hurry up before it's all gone.

African territories of Ottoman Empire;

Algeria, Tunis for France to colonize,
Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea for British and
Libya for Italy.

Asian territories of Ottoman Empire;
Syria, Lebanon, Adana, Alexandria and Cilicia (Lower Armenia) for France,
Palestine, Jordan, Mesopotamia, Kuwait, Kurdistan and Cyprus for British,
Antalya and Konya for Italy,
Kars, Ardahan, Batumi for Russia.

and the Big Apple, The City of Men's Desire, The Straits to; British French, Italian joint forces.

If you are a Balkan State, get anything as far as your army or your big brothers money stretches. After all, it's all yours historically, Turks should go back to.. umm, where did they come from?

If you are a moslem state, oops, were there left any uncolonized?

 

[Grosshaus]

There's a difference between an area uncolonized and an area occupied by a weak, undeveloped nation. I think the first ones are what Niptium was looking for.

 

[unmerged(10416)]

In 1836, most of Africa was actually still unclaimed. The European powers had only grabbed the coasts and the lower portions of large streams. (Like the mouth of the Sambesi - Mocambique) Basically just the areas where Europeans can survive without the medicine that would only be invented in the second half of the 19th century. (Strichnin, Malaria medicines, Yellow Fever medicines...)

However the footholds that the major powers had already established along the coasts would makeit difficult for late comers to actually push inland. The Brits had already conquered the coasts of Sierra Leone, Gambia and (I think) Nigeria, while the French had already acquired the Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire), the moutzh of the Senegal, Konakry on the coast of what wouldlater be French-Guinea, and in1849 they would build the port of Libreville in Gabun. The Portuguese had already established themselves along the coasts of Angola, Mocambique and Portuguese-Guinea (Guinea-Bissau).

Essentially, if you're looking for a colony in Africa and you don't already hold a port, you'd have to look for a nice spot south of the Equator, or anywhere along the eastern African coast.

Since the game log released by Patric mentions a wholw lot of SE-Asian nations I'd guess that you would need towage war or bribe your way to get into that part of the world, and the colonial model doesn't apply there.

Oh and a whole batch of islands in the Pacific were still unclaimed. Basically anything not yet owned by the Spanish... Polynesia, New Guinea (where Patric established a Swedish coaling station, as it seems ) the New Hebrides, Caledonia, the Solomons, Fiji, Tonga...

And of course Hawaii
If I ever play a Euro minor I'll make a beeline for Hawaii.

 

[unmerged(15665)]

These colonial outposts consist of missions, coaling stations, trading posts and forts. Only one building of each type may exist in a single province.

So a one province island like say, Tahiti (assuming its still one province) could build either a mission, coaling station, trade post, or fort, and not all of the above ? If so, I like that, it prevents a colonial nation from creating a mini-Europe out in Indonesia or somewhere, complete with shipyards and recruitment centers, and facilitates easier transition of colonies from one power to another. What do missions do in game terms ? And forts, whats the point of fortifying a province that only contains a fort in it ?

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by Grosshaus
There's a difference between an area uncolonized and an area occupied by a weak, undeveloped nation. I think the first ones are what Niptium was looking for.

They are both grabbing territory that doesn't belong to them.
One, belongs to natives who are not tecnichally advanced enough to resist. Once you sweep them away, you move your settlers.
The other, belongs to natives who are not tecnichally advanced enough to resist. Once you sweep them away, you move your settlers.
Oh, were they same? sorry. Pied noirs in Algeria and Tunis were not settlers? Wasn't Algeria a territory of France until 1962 just like Touluse was?

If Syria was closer to France and sparser in population, it could have been settled as well.

Iraq under Britsh, were no different than Iraq under USA today. They appoint a British Governor, a random person who happens to be son of their allies who betrayed Turks in war is also appointed as King of Iraq. They seize the oil, like they did and continue to do in a rather different way in Kuwait and so forth...

It's just a free land... do as you wish... I tell you, if slavery was still legal, or at least tolerated at that time, they could have all enslaved them. Forced them to work in their plantations and factories. Oh, sorry, was that the case in British occupied Egypt? Only the slavers were local collaborator bourgois instead of Her Majesty's Government.

Those poor peoples fates were only a little better than native Americans because Great Powers lost about 100 years until they decided who takes what. The only reason Ottomans survived until 1920, is because neither side wanted the other to grab the lion's share.

When the British frustrated Italians by allowing Greeks to land on territories already promised to Italians, what did Italians do? Did they give their arms to Turks? Did they leave their artilleries, ammunitions, airplanes to Turkey? Yes.

When the British frustrated French after their joint invasion of Istanbul, by actually being the only power in charge, while the French forces were three times larger than British, what did French do? Did they just leave all their occupied lands in Anatolia and sign a treaty with Ankara government instead? thus recognizing it officially? Yes. Did French support Turkey? Yes.

These are just a few examples of the clashes between powers on the "sick man". The entire Victoria era is based on this struggle. The Ottoman foreign policy was also based on this principal. "Don't let the Russians grow too strong" etc...

My point is, if there hadn't been a balance of power in the Vicky era, and if the Ottomans were not in such a strategically important geography, so that it could be sacrifised in return for another piece of land; it would have been history long before 1835.
Russians were at the gates of Istanbul twice, and so was the Egyptian army of Mehmed Ali.

And if that happened, the locals of the new acquired provinces would have been swept away, massacred, forced to distant "reserve" lands. Making these lands free to settle.
(Some of them still tried it though)

 

[Grosshaus]

But as said above colonization in Vic is about building coaling stations, missionaries, trade posts etc. it is something Europeans did in places like most of Africa and Indonesia where there was little indigenious central power. But what happened in former Ottoman territory was more or less conquest by force. Naturally these both ways blended and co-existed, but still a different approach.

 

[Tunch Khan]

The ideology was the same, but yes, technically it was slightly different.

Oh well, i so hate the West European colonizers. They prevent us from colonizing. It is so unjust the way they behave native americans. They should have taken the Ottoman example in the Balkans.
...speaking of, if Ottomans were to colonize North America, can you believe the Balkanization of the whole continent???
With at least 100 different nations, all hating each other and also hating Ottomans, all having CB on eachother just because they want to create Greater Navajo or Greater Iroqois or Greater 'whatever the other 98' nation is?
I'm glad we were busy in the Balkans and were forced to stay out of the colonization game.

 

[unmerged(4396)]

There was alot of open space still all the way to the 1880's when the 'scramble' took place. Morocco nearly caused a war between the French and Germans. Tunis nearly started war between the French and Italians. Egypt between the British and French. Sudan, the Horn of Africa, Aden, Madagascar, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda all were open. Namibia, the Congo (though not for long), Nigeria. In Asia, Burma, Afghanistan. The Thais remained independent somehow. Taiwan. Many places to go...

 

[unmerged(20927)]

One question about Morocco and colonialism:

Morocco were a country during some parts of the 19th century, do you have to declare war upon them, or can you colonize them like any other area?

 

[Niptium]

Yeah well... the North American conquest by the europeans wasn't that bloody... I mean, France didn't kill any nation in building and colonizing the Nouvelle-France. In fact, they had a pretty good relation with North America's amerindians. I'd say most of the amerindians died of sickness due to their body inferior defensive system against european's sickness. There was those frequent wars with the Iroquois but that could be blamed mostly on the Iroquois themselves since the Iroquois were slautering the Hurons and Algonquins [the 2 local amerindian population in Québec and allies of France] and then the French population in Montréal and in Trois-Rivières. So I gotta tell you, here, in 2003, all over Québec, there is no shame in talking about colonization. We are pretty proud of our French inheritance, our French culture, and if you ask me, French colonization in Canada was great and marvelous. Until 1760, that is.

 

[unmerged(10416)]

Originally posted by Tunch Khan
The ideology was the same, but yes, technically it was slightly different.

Oh well, i so hate the West European colonizers. They prevent us from colonizing. It is so unjust the way they behave native americans. They should have taken the Ottoman example in the Balkans.
...speaking of, if Ottomans were to colonize North America, can you believe the Balkanization of the whole continent???
With at least 100 different nations, all hating each other and also hating Ottomans, all having CB on eachother just because they want to create Greater Navajo or Greater Iroqois or Greater 'whatever the other 98' nation is?
I'm glad we were busy in the Balkans and were forced to stay out of the colonization game.

LOL :rofl:

Well, at least you have more space in north America, so the Greater Navajo Kingdom and Great-Apachia won't collide as quickly as Bulgaria and Serbia.

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by Tunch Khan
If Syria was closer to France and sparser in population, it could have been settled as well.

Iraq under Britsh, were no different than Iraq under USA today. They appoint a British Governor, a random person who happens to be son of their allies who betrayed Turks in war is also appointed as King of Iraq. They seize the oil, like they did and continue to do in a rather different way in Kuwait and so forth...

It's just a free land... do as you wish... I tell you, if slavery was still legal, or at least tolerated at that time, they could have all enslaved them. Forced them to work in their plantations and factories. Oh, sorry, was that the case in British occupied Egypt? Only the slavers were local collaborator bourgois instead of Her Majesty's Government.

Keep your tone calm and keep current political topics - Iraq - out of this forum.

 

[Niptium]

Fantasia

Well what about a future 1492 scenario. In theory could it be made ?

 

[Spruce]

Originally posted by Sytass
Keep your tone calm and keep current political topics - Iraq - out of this forum.

sorry, but I understand the deeper layer of his post. I saw a documentary about post WWI Iraq were Churchill was proud to announce his new method of keeping the tribes under firm Britisch control =

planes and chemical bombs! Really disgusting...

history remains history,

but I also agree wit Sytass that Tuch Khan should bring it with a different approach...

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by Sytass
Keep your tone calm and keep current political topics - Iraq - out of this forum.

I am sorry about the USA - Iraq comparison, since it has nothing to do with the Victoria period.
As for my tone, i was just saying what i thought were the facts. I never said Ottomans were any better. It's just that colonial powers had no respect for local cultures, and considered them barbarians that needed taming.

(French colonization of North America was totaly handled different than French colonization in North Africa)

 

[Niptium]

Ok I think that post diverted from its original purpose.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Originally posted by MrOuija
So a one province island like say, Tahiti (assuming its still one province) could build either a mission, coaling station, trade post, or fort, and not all of the above ? If so, I like that, it prevents a colonial nation from creating a mini-Europe out in Indonesia or somewhere, complete with shipyards and recruitment centers, and facilitates easier transition of colonies from one power to another. What do missions do in game terms ? And forts, whats the point of fortifying a province that only contains a fort in it ?

As the quote was "only one of each type", I'd guess it means exactly that. I.e., you can build a fort, a coaling station, a trade post and a mission in Tahiti. But you can't stuff Tahiti with missions, trying to convert the natives faster (is that what missions do?)

As for the whole "evil colonizers" thing, I guess colonization before 1800 was generally a lot more civilized than the situation in the 19c. For an example, read the letter of the "finding of Brasil" by Pero Vaz de Caminha. It's disgusting to see how friendly everyone was... In fact, in most areas, you'll find the initial contacts were positive (except the Spanish, who are bastards Kidding) Except in those areas where the locals were civilized enough to understand the motives of the newcomers and felt inclined to resist them (and, unfortunately, most of the areas in which that happened were muslim, which helped fuel an antagonism that needed no such help)

OTOH, when you start reading about the scramble for Africa, everyone is clearing the path with Maxims and Mausers.