-Gwalcmai
The first paragraph of your post was obviously referring to mine, but what about the second. I didn't say anything about evil colonizers...
-
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.
-Gwalcmai
The first paragraph of your post was obviously referring to mine, but what about the second. I didn't say anything about evil colonizers...
Originally posted by Gwalcmai
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
OTOH, when you start reading about the scramble for Africa, everyone is clearing the path with Maxims and Mausers.
hmm what about the spanish who enslaved entire south america?
Can somebody help me understand the colonization system? I read through the FAQ couple of times, but I don't understand it completely. So, let's imagine the Arabian peninsula was one colony (equivalent to a state/region?), consisting of 7 provinces. Now, I have to get 4 of them under my control and build one of the four colonization building types in each of them, so every of the four provinces has one building, right? Or I could also build the same building in all four provs? And then the remaining 3 provinces will also fall under my control and I will actually become the owner of these 7 provs i.e. colony? Damn complicated. This does only happen if there is no other army in any of the 7 provs and ther must not be any other power's colonial bulding in any of the 7 provs.
I hope that you understand what I mean, because I don't If anyone could supply a better example to explain colonization, it would be welcome.
I hope that you understand what I mean, because I don't
If anyone could supply a better example to explain colonization, it would be welcome.
A coaling station is a place where steam ships can take on more coal. Sort of important if you don't want to drift around aimlessly in the ocean after running out.
Originally posted by Karl Martell
And of course Hawaii
If I ever play a Euro minor I'll make a beeline for Hawaii.
then you'll have to conquer it as Hawaii was a nation and wasn't actually colonised by any nation (though there were immigrants from many). It got conquered by the US in the 1890s.
I don't think the first part is right. My take on the FAQ is that if you don't build one of each type of the 4 buildings, you'll have to build a (any of the 4) building in each province. So in your example you'd have to build 7 buildings of the same (or I assume any) type to claim the colony. Which I assume would be a state and you can start to make factories and the like.
My gripe is how is European immigration to these colonies modeled ? There has to be a major economic enticing from the mother country to get to these far-off lands populated with settlers. New-France had many advantages over the old one. From 1608 (date of the first permanently fixed settler in New-France, near Québec city) to the last few years of the French regime (1740-1750), there was no per capita tax at all.
Same things goes for the United States, but it was on a more religious side that decisions were taken to have greater liberties.
Is this kind of nation building colonization present in Victoria ? I want to differentiate the colonization in Africa from the one done in America. I think they were two different systems. One based on building new kingdoms similar two the Europeans ones and the other is based on the exploitation of the natural and human resources without having a great number of European settlers coming in to build a new nation.
Same things goes for the United States, but it was on a more religious side that decisions were taken to have greater liberties.
Is this kind of nation building colonization present in Victoria ? I want to differentiate the colonization in Africa from the one done in America. I think they were two different systems. One based on building new kingdoms similar two the Europeans ones and the other is based on the exploitation of the natural and human resources without having a great number of European settlers coming in to build a new nation.
maybe the native inhabitants, climate or geography of a region will have an incentive or repulsive role on the suitability for sending settlers.
Maybe having a claim on a state is different from making it part of your nation (ie colouring it on the political map & being able to develop industries), as you may trade claims. I assume sthg has to be done between the "claim" level and the "annexation" one ?
Like "the Grand Principality of Lieschteinburg (30 m sq), after twenty years of unopposed claim, solemnly announces the incorporation of Western Australia in its mighty Empire (+30 prestige, - 5,000 £). All hail to Prinz Karl Alexander Gustaf von Pappenhaustauffenmarkt !"
so you build a colonial building in each province but you need at least one of each type?
No. There are 2 possibilities:
You build a colonial building in each province of the region.
OR
You build at least one of each 4 types in the region.
I agree, but just as a little side kick, you do know that the Living standard in Africa was bigger when the Europeans where the masters down there?
Sorry, I was answering several points on the same post, and I probably didn't make it clear enough when I changed from your post to the other discussion.
Notice the sentence "Except for the Spanish, who are bastards". I was joking on the bastards part, but acknowledging the issue of spanish colonization being pretty rough. But they didn't enslave entire south America, because they didn't own it all
and because, IIRC, catholics shouldn't be slaves. Probably the reason for the successful conversion of so many south americans... As a matter of fact, I think it wasn't so much the spanish colonization (Caribbean, Venezuela) but the spanish conquests. The building of colonies went roughly along the same lines as everyone else's, the colonizers established themselves and tension with the locals grew. The spanish just happen to be more obnoxious than other people, and the natives attacked sooner. The contacts with the Incas et al were different, because they weren't sponsored by the spanish crown in any way. Cortéz, Pizarro and friends were freelancers. It's kind of like the piracy thing. The privateers are the responsability of the king, who granted the letters of marque. The pirates are working for themselves, and whatever attrocities they commit are their own responsability.OR, you could just say the Spanish found natives who understood the motives and fought back. They just weren't muslim.