Colonization in Victoria

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by R.F.A
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?

Masters... u got the point...

 

[Niptium]

Man, I'm the one who posted this subject and I can't get an answer -_- . I think I'm good for hanging myself.

 

[Niptium]

Bump

 

[Tunch Khan]

Good, by boring Niptium to death we contributed to our Canadian case. Everyone who has taken part in the action posts their Swiss accounts for payment. Thank you.

 

[Niptium]

Originally posted by Tunch Khan
Good, by boring Niptium to death we contributed to our Canadian case. Everyone who has taken part in the action posts their Swiss accounts for payment. Thank you.

Errrr ! Call me dumb, call me whatever. I just don't understand the previous post.:wacko:

 

[Tunch Khan]

Originally posted by Niptium
Errrr ! Call me dumb, call me whatever. I just don't understand the previous post.:wacko:

I thought you were an independent Quebec supporter.. was just a simple jest..

 

[KINGBEN]

If for example the United States has a bloody civil war and is left in ruins and at the same time the British Colonies in Africa, Canada etc, have an economic boom, would millions flock to the British Colonies instead of America and some Americans leave the US.

 

[Gwalcmai]

Originally posted by Niptium
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.

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.

I don't think the two things were that different, to tell you the truth. It's just a question of how much incentive there is to relocate to new lands. If the colony is in a nice place, with mild climate and fertile lands it's probably a lot easier to get people to relocate there by providing some extra incentive than it will be if you trying to get them into some god forsaken malaria-ridden swamp. There's a reason why the "good" areas of Brasil were colonized early while the amazon basin is still lightly settled.

 

[Niptium]

Originally posted by Tunch Khan
I thought you were an independent Quebec supporter.. was just a simple jest..

I am, no doubt about it.

 

[unmerged(11253)]

Originally posted by Niptium
I am, no doubt about it.

Don't you mean "noo doot aboot it" ?

 

[Niptium]

Err ? Am I suposed to sound like a russian general trying to speak english ?

 

[unmerged(18477)]

May be i miss it? But, please, tell me are there empty provinces(noone have them) or all provinces already distributed (like in HoI)

 

[Niptium]

It's safe to say there is empty provinces. Otherwise, in the Diario del Mexico scenario, aprof wouln't have been able to colonize Nigeria. Although I have to say that there was natives already living there. But yes, it was uncolonized and it wasnt apart of a country.

 

[magicpiper97]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
Actualy alot earlier then that. My mistake.

So Hawaii should be a playable minor.

Yup, one of the 'new' Spanish screenshots has proof of the existence of Kingdom of Hawaii (at least in 1861).