Colonization starts too fast...

[ForzaA]

		province = {
			stability_cost = 20
			colonists = 0.1
			modifier = {
				factor = 0
				NOT = {
					AND = {
						owner = religion = THIS
						owner = primary_culture = THIS
					}
				}
			}
		}

Replacing the province block with something like this does not work, it changes all of the icons for the various religions down 1 after catholic and you always get the colonist for provinces of this religion. What am I doing wrong here?

Presumably;

1) "modifier" is not a recognised key word for "province"
2) even if it were, as you write it it's unclear what the modifier would be referring to in this case - there is no link between the colonist bonus and the modifier.

What MIGHT work is just give a bonus colonist for EVERY province (ie. your code without the modifier - assuming it's possible to gain colonists per province), and give a corresponding PENALTY for non-state-religion provinces.

 

[Caewil]

For that you should have to mod the game, which will close Achievements for you (perhaps you don´t mind). And I think colonies are not useless, but they take some time and investment to be profitable.

There's something like that in MEIOU. It uses triggered modifiers to give a varying number of yearly colonists when you take QftNW. The colonists increase in number with country size and with trade technology. So you get a trickle of colonists in the early years, then it increases to somethingh like 10/year later on. (which you need, as MEIOU has many more provinces).

Oh and there are events that turn over east asian ports to europeans who invest in them.

 

[GreyHuge]

Presumably;

1) "modifier" is not a recognised key word for "province"
2) even if it were, as you write it it's unclear what the modifier would be referring to in this case - there is no link between the colonist bonus and the modifier.

What MIGHT work is just give a bonus colonist for EVERY province (ie. your code without the modifier - assuming it's possible to gain colonists per province), and give a corresponding PENALTY for non-state-religion provinces.

Well yes, but it's not as elegant...

 

[unmerged(271387)]

I simply removed the bonus from religions and gave 0.5 to QFTNW and 1 for Colonial Ventures or how that idea is called

 

[Snapze]

I think the problem is that colonization starts too early, but then does not proceed quickly enough after time. I've never seen a colonial empire like the one Spain had 1600 in-game. Buffing colonial ventures and make it more likely that colonial powers choose the idea might help. Also, i agree that the bonus from religion should be mostly tranferred to QFTNW

 

[unmerged(271387)]

I am thinking of making a modifier if constantinople and alexandria are not owned by christians the europeans get a bonus in trade and naval tech researching(to show they wanted to go to the silk road through the west)

 

[Junuxx]

Colonization starts and CONTINUES too fast all along the game. If you let the default settings of land and sea spread provinces, by 1650 the whole world will be colonized. Fortunately, there is a very easy way to make colonization go slower without modding the game: change, before beginning a game, the “spread of land provinces” from 50 years to 75 (or even 100 years, if you want colonization to be even slower). Change also the “spread of sea provinces” from 25 years to 50 or 75 years. Of course, YOU (player) can still go to America and colonize it quickly (But that´s something you can control, so you can avoid it. AI won´t colonize as quickly because of spread of land and sea provinces will be far slower).

I always put both on 200 years.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

The problem isnt first and formost the AI colonizing too fast, but more how super fast a human can start, especially by changing the first national idea to QFTNW when getting trade tech 7. For Holland for instance this can be extremely early, and you can actually colonize the whole America before the AI starts up being any competitor. Perhaps it at least should require both trade 7 and government 9, or something arround there? I'm also for pushing it even further back, but I'd like Portugal to start abit earlier to sail around Africa.....

NB: I also always set sprea of sea and land provinces to 100 or more years, it of course helps abit, but not the problem with whole America being mine, when I play Holland or Portugal (guess even easier if I was England or Castille), before the AI can react at all.

 

[lucaluca]

if you turn the discover rate of sea and land provinces to 100 years, colonization will start at about the historical time and be done mostly by Spain and Portugal

 

[Lord Finnish]

Orthodox at least could use colonist bonus because of the Hordes.

 

[MilosM]

I decided to remove colonist gain from religions and CoT's, so that only countries with QFTNW or Colonial Ventures are able to gain colonists(and those that have border with hordes).The problem is that now that I added +1 colonist gain to QFTNW nobody wants it from some reason.It is the year 1634 and nobody except me(Cyprus) has that NI.
What could possibly be the reason for that?

EDIT: Maybe because now they never have any colonists they don't have reason to explore, I will do a quick test on this.

 

[unmerged(463186)]

I do have a problem with the colonization of West Africa though. Even at the very end of the EU3 timeframe West Africa was mostly uncolonised IRL, but in the game it's often one of the first places to be coated with European colonies. I'm not familiar enough with game mechanics to suggest a solution though.

The African nations need a serious buff. A minor European power can sneeze at a stable, militarily powerful Mali that has conquered all of west Africa, and Mali will crumble. It's insane, and unbelievably ahistoric. The Mali Empire was extraordinarily rich in its heyday, and a number of factors led to its decline. The two big ones, Morocco and Songhai, were not even European. I really hope that future expansions/Europa games address more of the issues with nations outside of Europe.

 

[Lama43]

The African nations need a serious buff. A minor European power can sneeze at a stable, militarily powerful Mali that has conquered all of west Africa, and Mali will crumble. It's insane, and unbelievably ahistoric. The Mali Empire was extraordinarily rich in its heyday, and a number of factors led to its decline. The two big ones, Morocco and Songhai, were not even European. I really hope that future expansions/Europa games address more of the issues with nations outside of Europe.

It's everywhere like that. The Mughals were fairly advanced in firearms technology. The only reason they got conquered by the English was internal instability and the Maratha Confederacy, Qing China had pretty much the same fate. The problem is that although easterners were not advanced in other branches, they were at least comparable in land tech.

 

[Choccookies]

It's everywhere like that. The Mughals were fairly advanced in firearms technology. The only reason they got conquered by the English was internal instability and the Maratha Confederacy, Qing China had pretty much the same fate. The problem is that although easterners were not advanced in other branches, they were at least comparable in land tech.

This just isn't true. The difference in quality between the British (Often East India Company) and Mughal armies is quite clearly shown in the early battles between them as the company was being established and strengthening its control of Bengal. At Buxar 7052 men (857 British, 30 cannons) defeated an army of 40,000 Mughals (140 cannons), at the siege of Arcot 500 British defeated over 7000 Mughals. The most signifiant example is the Battle of Plassey / Palashi where an army of ~3000 with 8 cannons (~800 Europeans) defeated an army of 53000 with 59 cannons (six of them French). Whilst it is undeniable that the internal trouble did significantly weaken the Mughals I don't know how you could represent this sort of battlefield advantage in any way other than better land tech. The figures for the Opium Wars are similar in how disproportinate the size of the armies and casualties inflicted were.

 

[Sinroth]

How about if you didn't start getting any colonists until you had discovered uncolonised provinces? It kind of annoys me that you can stockpile 5 colonists and then, soon as you get knowledge of the New World, you can send 5 out and get 5 colonies going instantly. I think that would help, because from my experiences it tends to be that colonisation progresses at a nice pace about half-way through the game, but it goes way too fast at the start.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

The African nations need a serious buff. A minor European power can sneeze at a stable, militarily powerful Mali that has conquered all of west Africa, and Mali will crumble. It's insane, and unbelievably ahistoric. The Mali Empire was extraordinarily rich in its heyday, and a number of factors led to its decline. The two big ones, Morocco and Songhai, were not even European. I really hope that future expansions/Europa games address more of the issues with nations outside of Europe.

In my mod I created an extra "Sahelian" tech which allows Ethiopia, Funj and Adal as well as most of the West Africans to build cavalry - historically they had loads of cavalry - and added some extra African troop types. I also forced hard strategy onto AI portugal to make them sail round the Cape and game N American provinces a negative modifier to colonise before 1600 as well as editing out the easily annexed Cherokee, Shawnee and Creek. In my last game (pretty much hands off as I was Muscowy) I saw North America colonised very slowly until 1600 and Europeans starting to mess with India in the late 16th and 17th Centuries.

 

[Evie HJ]

The flip side of that, Choccookies, is that all of those battles happened in the last 50-60 years of the Europa Universalis era.

In the game, western tech superiority, and especially western military superiority, over everyone else is in full swing by 1500, 1600 at the latest, instead of 1750.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

It's everywhere like that. The Mughals were fairly advanced in firearms technology. The only reason they got conquered by the English was internal instability and the Maratha Confederacy, Qing China had pretty much the same fate. The problem is that although easterners were not advanced in other branches, they were at least comparable in land tech.

As Chocolate Cookies said, that's completely untrue. The Qings were SO FAR BEHIND in tech that Westerners simply laughed at their primitive weaponry. The Chinese had lost the arms race decisively during early Qing and a British envoy to Qianlong emperor even wrote that China was at least 400 years behind in military technology and that it was a fragile ship in danger of collapse at any time.

 

[Evie HJ]

The first British envoy to China was in 1792, the last 30 years of the game.

As I said: major technological advantage by 1750, yes. But not by 1500 or 1600 as the game usually feed us.

"400 years behind" is hyperbole at best; that would be 1392 European military technology. The idea that Chinese has no better than medieval knights and crossbows/longbows by 1792 is demonstrably false. Very, very, very demonstrably false.

 

[Choccookies]

The first British envoy to China was in 1792, the last 30 years of the game.

As I said: major technological advantage by 1750, yes. But not by 1500 or 1600 as the game usually feed us.

"400 years behind" is hyperbole at best; that would be 1392 European military technology. The idea that Chinese has no better than medieval knights and crossbows/longbows by 1792 is demonstrably false. Very, very, very demonstrably false.

Yes that would definately be hyperbole, however at the battle of Chusan (China,1840) the Qing are described as having arrows, spears and guns. Whilst certainly true that this would not be 400 years behind the Europeans, the use of spears and arrows in mid-19th century warfare definitely demonstrates a lack of military technology. I accept that this is outside of the game's time-range but it still shows the relative development of military capacity. It is worth noting that not a single British soldier was killed in the battle despite being outnumbered 4-1. At the battle of Chinhai in the following year once again outnumbered 4-1 there were 3 British fatalities (16 Injured) in defeating a Chinese army of ~8500.

I cannot give any examples of engagements between European and Indian armies prior to the 18th Century as militarstic European expansion in India did not exist prior to this so any comparison between armies is purely theoretical and can only be based on engagements that did actually occur, even if outside of the time period. The only military action I can find prior to 1700 is Child's war (1686-90) which was an utter logistical disaster - the initial army comprised 400 men (to be reinforced with 600 more) many of which didn't actually make it to their destination, and over half the army was killed by disease before the war started. The war was ultimately ended by naval blockade without any actual land engagements of note having occurred.

Edit: Firearms were first used by the Mughals in 1519, the first recorded use of hand held gunpowder weapons in Europe pre-dates this by 200 years, by the Hussite wars in the 1420's the use of firearms in Europe was fairly widespread and common. So a 400 year technologoical advantage, no - but 100-200 years as a minimum.