Colonization starts too fast...

[Evie HJ]

Matchlock weapons were first used by the Mughals in 1519. NOT "firearms". Not the same thing. I haven't found statistics for things like handheld cannons, but given that the Indians sat square in the middle between the first two regions to have hand cannons (the Arabs and the Chinese, who had them long before the Europeans), I'm dubious of the claim the Indians had no firearms at all.

For matchlock weapons specifically, the distinction would be about 50-ish years (first significant introduction of matchlock weapons in Europe was the hungarian under Matthias Corvinus, around 1460-1490, so 30-60 years before they reached India. And of coursem, early firearms being what they were, they did not represent a particularly insurmountable advantage.

I'm not denying the existence of a certain degree of tech advantage early on (versus india, as I said China beat the Europeans to firearms by far); it may well have been there to some level. But it was not a decisive difference in technology. Firearms, especially early ones, were limited weapons, and by the time the Europeans had groped their way around tactics to use the things (Tercio, etc), they had pretty much reached India.

Later, as progress in military technology and thinking accelerated, that gap grew larger and more decisive.

 

[Hootieleece]

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.

The battles you use are from the time period of 1750 and after.(Opium Wars were in 1840's Vicky2 timeframe)In game European Powers(AI or Human) are conquering all of India in the 1550's. (sometimes earlier)This is unrealistic I think that some how tech rate should be the same for mulims/hindus until level 20 or so.That way European dominance would be delayed until nearer Historical time frame.

 

[Evie HJ]

Tech rate is only part of the problem. The bigger problem is neighbor bonuses - there are dozens of Western nations, including lots of small trading powers that provide a massive neighbor bonus. That's why the tech gap in the game is usually even bigger than respective tech rates would indicate. Even at equal tech rates, Asian nations would rapidly lag behind.

Another problem is that tech progress has so many levels that it's more a curve than stair-based. In-game, if you're 70 years behind once, you're ALWAYS far behind and unable to compete militarily.

In reality, because there were relatively few major breakthrough in terms of weapons during the era, it was quite possible to be 70 years late and still have similar weapons technology for most of the EU era: Europeans used matchlocks designs until 1720. So if India got matchlocks in 1519, that would mean both sides using the same fundamental technology (matchlock weapons) from 1519-1720.

Of course, the counter to that is tactics, but it'S not a very good counter, because evolution of tactics is NOT linear, and is tied a lot to what, exactly, you expect to be facing in terms of units. European firearms tactics evolved based on what was on the battlefields of Europe: thus, Tercio came to dominate the battlefield. But in the 1600s, the idea of deploying troops in a line three ranks deep that could maintain constant fire (one line fired while the others reloaded) came to the fore, and the Tercio eventually fell off. Meanwhile, Japan, who got their first firearms in 1543, never really came up with the tercio...but Oda Nobunaga began deploying his arquebusiers three line deeps to allow for constant fire years before the Europeans. Meaning Japan jumped from 90 years behind to a few decades ahead in the space of 30 years, if we follow EU tech progress.

 

[Emperor Hans]

Idea...
Remove colonists from religion and cots.
Make QFTNW give +1 colonist ( hell religion can still give a -0.5 for all I care ) and every cot give 10% more colonists ( so it still gives the 0.1 +!!!! )

Would ensure that countries who take QFTNW colonize and only those.

 

[Evie HJ]

Which is not 100% realistic in itself. Sweden, Kurland, Brandenburg, Denmark are all examples of Quest-free nations that *did* engage in colonization.

 

[brifbates]

Which is not 100% realistic in itself. Sweden, Kurland, Brandenburg, Denmark are all examples of Quest-free nations that *did* engage in colonization.

Which, in and of itself, isn't a big problem. The problem is the current state of the game where every christian nation with a seaport is colonizing by the mid 1500s (assuming default settings).

I can see some solutions to neutralize this to an extent.

1) Move more naval range away from being determined by naval tech-the ai nations research all techs in a pretty balanced fashion instead of a more focused approach. This plus the neighbor bonus issue in the latin group results in higher naval tech than reasonably would be expected for more land-focused nations.

for example: decrease tech based range to 50% of current, change QftNW to a +100% range, add +10% more to each naval step on the land/naval slider-this results in naval-focused, quest having, nations acting similar to the current state while others would slow dramatically

2) Require certain tech levels to colonize in certain less hospitable areas-this would eliminate the ahistoric colonization of Africa; since the mechanic already exists in Victoria I don't see it being too difficult to implement

3) Address the lack of naval attrition by enforcing a strict "operating range" on ai navies that limits how far they can transport troops at the very least. I understand the reasons for there being no naval attrition for the ai but something has to be done to limit the resulting adventurousness. I would suggest limiting loaded transports from going more than 40% of the current naval range from the nearest core port. This will delay the conquests of the American natives as well as the spread of Europeans into southern Asia which is also a problem. It also would help shore up the Ottomans in the early game against the ahistoric western attacks.

 

[Evie HJ]

The problem is the current state of the game where every christian nation with a seaport is colonizing by the mid 1500s (assuming default settings).

Definitely so (although the presence of the occasional random colonizer holding a small territory is not in itself a problem; it's the tiny nations colonizing vast stretches that's a problem).

My only point is that making QFTNW a requisite for colonization make things ahistorical the other way.

 

[brifbates]

Definitely so (although the presence of the occasional random colonizer holding a small territory is not in itself a problem; it's the tiny nations colonizing vast stretches that's a problem).

My only point is that making QFTNW a requisite for colonization make things ahistorical the other way.

True, which is why there needs to be some other metric in place to curb the mob without stopping the occasional exception.

 

[T.j. Arnold]

I feel bad in that I start colonizing parts of the world at least 50 years consistently before the AI does, I feel like I'm cheating.

I think the reason behind this is that the Player is far more liberal in using Explorers that the AI is. By the early 1500's, I've already mapped most of the world, whilst at the same time tag-switching to Portugal shows that they barely have parts of the West African coast.

 

[brifbates]

I feel bad in that I start colonizing parts of the world at least 50 years consistently before the AI does, I feel like I'm cheating.

I think the reason behind this is that the Player is far more liberal in using Explorers that the AI is. By the early 1500's, I've already mapped most of the world, whilst at the same time tag-switching to Portugal shows that they barely have parts of the West African coast.

The more likely reason is having QftNW much sooner than the ai. The ai doesn't tech focus in a single area or change NIs. Both of which a player can/will do to get a head start on exploration and colonization. Another thing is the ai won't send colonists while at war (or it at least cuts down significantly on the chance). Since the ai doesn't plan ahead it generally spends much more time at war than a player will (unless trying for a world conquest or something similar).

 

[T.j. Arnold]

Another thing I noticed is that the AI doesn't ask for Military Access to foreign nations when mapping out the world, thus greatly inhibiting their potential in using the Explorers.

 

[anubisfike]

Another thing I noticed is that the AI doesn't ask for Military Access to foreign nations when mapping out the world, thus greatly inhibiting their potential in using the Explorers.

They don't have naval attrition. They don't need it.

 

[Lama43]

Anyway, the reason why the Europeans didn't conquer massively the Far East was simple and plain logistics. Considering the amount of time needed to travel such distances, the supply lines needed to feed and reinforce the armies, technology didn't allow any conquest till the late 18th Century. As Chococookies pointed out, the amounts of actual European infantry was very small, they mostly relied on local mobs (sepoys). In EU3 it is perfectly possible to ship hundreds of thousands of troops on cogs, and conquer big swathes of territory as early as 1430 or so.

 

[safferli]

They don't have naval attrition. They don't need it.

Yep. This.

 

[Phase]

The Christians got the bonus, so they would colonise more then other religion groups (which is historic). Without it, colonisation would become nearly impossible without the QFTNW - 0.1 colonist a year for a CoT? Come on...

On the other hand now it is to fast, and in reality only a few countries colonised (Arguably, with something like QFTNW), and colonies did not grow so fast early on. I guess removing the +1 colonists would make the game more historic, but probably less fun.

Many countries colonised, it was just that the colonies were too small to be significant on EU3's scale.

 

[Trin Tragula]

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.

Firearms where not first used in India by the Mughals though. The Mughals didn't exist in India before 1519 so it'd be hard for them to use them there before that The attributing of firearms as the decisive factor at Panipat is far from unquestioned nowadays. It just doesn't quite add up.
Firearms had been there at least 100 years before. I don't know much about the period before that and therefore can't say if they existed there before that but they're clearly mentioned in the 15th century wherever one looks.

The examples given in these threads of Mughal defeats are correct. Though it should again be noted that it's the already collapsing Mughal empire the British are fighting. When the British tried to fight a strong and united Mughal empire in 1688 with odds that would make them win every time in the game they failed miserably and had to beg Aurangzeb to not remove their privileges (Josiah Childs war). Again it's no wonder you'll lose a war when you fight with just a few thousand men against an empire as big as that (so it's hardly an argument that they were on par with each other technologically) but in EU3 you'd win.

EDIT: Sorry to have missed that you mentioned Childs war We obviously make different assessments of it though. Sure it was a logistical disaster but in the game the result would've been different with the same application of force. I've conquered the subcontinent with 5000 men in vanilla (was back in IN though) in the 16th century and I'm not a very good EU3 player.

Besides all that there was definitively a tech difference by the 18th century though. Indian armies never relied on drilled musketeers before the British and French arrived (they tended to employ firearms for sharpshooters with the role to try to pick of important targets instead which was clearly an inferior way to use them considering the technical state of firearms at that time). This is hardly hundreds of years of technological difference though, but it is a fundamental difference in doctrine by the 18-th century.
Once the French and later the British started to drill Indian troops the local states did start to do the same though. Mysore for instance managed to win battles and arguably even wars against Europeans.
With a strong Mughal empire controlling just about half of the subcontinent (and the fact that it's administrative system in many ways relied on an aristocracy that had to supply it with set numbers of cavalry) it's no wonder tactics didn't evolve like they did in Europe (and again I agree that this is a technological gap, but perhaps just about 100 years rather than 200 or even 400 years).


About colonist colonization of empty provinces:

If one removes the many bonuses to colonists then only the right countries will colonize. But the problem is that if a country doesn't start out with ways to gain colonists the AI will be entirely uninterested in colonization. When I removed all colonist gain from religion in my mod the quest for the new world idea became almost unused by AI countries and colonization would often hardly occur at all until the very last part of the game (and even then in smaller scale than was historical).

 

[unmerged(474097)]

Though I'm new to this game and only play the 1.3 version, one thing comes into my mind.

A(nother) way to slow down the speed of colonisation could be to increase the time it took for a ship to be repaired. Now it takes only 3-9 months before you can send out your explorers again even if you colony only has 100 colonists. Let is be reduces to say 1% each month for each 100 colonists as long as it is a colony and a year or less to repair a "still sailing wreck" (with 10% each month as it is now) when your colony has become a fullgrown provice.

A human (well most of them) knows how the worldmap actually is and they don't have to try many games before they find out, that most of the small islands (Cap Verde, Sct Helena, Bourbon and many more) almost all are without any or only a few real hostile natives. Colonization of those are therefore very easy. And when you have those "key-islands", it's not really a problem to colonize the most of the world before the AI wakes up (at least if you keep your nose away from the most hostile natives). Only problem then is actually to keep those islands if/when you get a serious european AI-enemy.


***

I'm (still) playing as Denmark now at "round 4".

I waged war against Sweden and won. Inherited Norway. Made war against Hamburg and Bremen and won those also. Got the QtfNW and started going overseas, pushing forward towards all the small key-islands which I got early in the game.

Now at 1650 I own whole of Scandinavia, a large part of northern coastal Germany provices and a few inland provices too. A Scotsh province (they continued to DoW me and well, there I had to cheat because I was not that familiar with the fightings and Scotland called out France every time against me), most of North and Southamerica, Southafrica and Australia. Plus 4 indonesian spicy-islands.

The effect when being attacked by equal or stonger nations did surprise me, as the enemy stroke against me anywhere I have a navy/colony.... anything. I wasn't used to that from other civ-games when playing against an AI, not even in the turnbased games the AI was that aggressive and relative smart.............. But I have learned "something" after all.

I'll soon start on "round 5". This time without cheating when being attacked. I have by now learned how to use the pause-fuction when issuing orders to my armies and navies and how to get as much information from the map as possible before starting the time again. I have also learned a little about holding focus on a single or two sciences for a longer time instead of spreading the invested money.

 

[T.j. Arnold]

They don't have naval attrition. They don't need it.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. They're also psychic.

I hate it when the AI has, basically, cheats against the player, kind of used as a crutch to create artificial "difficulty".

 

[marat271]

Also
India has always been there. Trade relations with Europe (Greece, Mesopotemia and others), Africa ( Egypt and others), Asia( Tibet, China etc.) have existed since ancient times. So, no one discovered India - though a man named Vasco De Gama discovered the seaways to India in 1498. Again, I never see a seaway to India in 1498.

Maybe it's just in my games, and according to my own opinion that colonization is to late

Well mostly we have to discover it ourselves, just take an explorer and board a ship with him, then travel to India.

 

[Nunn45]

Id just like to see more colonial options for Non-European nations, atleast at a local level. Its annoying as hell being an African, American and to a lesser extent an Asian nation surrounded by empty provinces and no or a limited ability to expand into them....if Christian religions get Colonist bonuses so should other religions even if its at a much lower rate (Death and taxes does this well).