Colonization

[Charles Louis]

I have two concerns with colonization that lead to unhistorical situations. One is the similar ease of colonizing inland and coastal places, the other is that the new colony is strictly the ethnicity of spawning colony. Both combined often make for some silly colonization developments for players concerned with maximizing manpower.

It would be nice if colonization were so much more practical on the coasts that no one would look inland for colonies until all the coasts in their half of the Med were already colonized. Technology might gradually make inland colonization more practical such that by mid-game, it was sensible. Rome colonizing strait north into Germany isn't very sensible.

One of the things that I really liked about Viki was the breakdown of population into ethnicity, religion, and ideology. Most of what matters in Rome is ethnicity and religion, although ideology can also mean political faction, so that one has a popular and an aristocratic faction. What I did not like about Viki was that each discreet unit of population was a block. We don't need to see each little group. Just a chart that tells us what the breakdown of ethnicity, religion, and faction are.

The governor will tend to preserve his preferences, so that the characteristics within the province will tend to grow closer to those of the governor (ethnicity, religion, and faction) in proportion to their charisma and finesse.

Overall there is an outflow of colonists from the center of society (with all the characteristics of the state (at least in terms of ethnicity and religion) and perhaps the faction of the king/consul. This outflow is not terribly robust. Low stability, events, civil wars, plagues, and other bad news prevents a general outmigration. A happy, well ordered domain will tend to see its proportion of people gradually grow.

So that Italy, with good governors of Roman ethnicity and Roman religion should gradually turn all the Italic ethnicities into Romans by mid-game. But even early on, exceptional governors should give perceptible results in a reasonable amount of time. Non-related ethnicities take longer.

In EU itself there is the category of the accepted culture. For this purpose, it could be a trade off. One the one hand, the accepted culture has good tax and manpower advantages, but on the other hand, doesn't convert to the dominant culture.

Second, in terms of flow, there is a flow of barbarians into the frontiers to take advantage of the benefits of civilization. Some of this is unavoidable and will happen no matter what you want. Some of this could be event driven. Accept the barbarians and hope to assimilate them before they cause too much chaos, or reject them and very likely they will be part of a marauding horde some time down the road. The events might include auxiliaries as well as population. Free troops of kinds you can't build might be tempting.

So that you have an outflow of colonists from the center to the whole empire. An inflow of barbarians to the frontier provinces. And your choice of governor tends to make people in the province more like him.

If the game had a real faction module, assigning generals and governors would mean more than just maximizing the right stats. Populist governors in populist provinces might make a popular uprising more likely during an aristocratic faction rule, and a populist governor will tend to make the province even more populist, so that it will always be unhappy with the aristocratic faction.

Currently the game tend to drive loyalty and popularity up. The way it actually works (currently and historically) is that over time loyalty and popularity falls and then a new faction takes over and starts again with high hopes and declining fortunes, rinse and repeat. So that in a representative state (oligarchy, republic, democracy) elected officials will tend to change factions regularly and keep order by having a regular turn-over of officials. You may get a clamoring of events asking for new governors when a new faction takes over. And it would be wise to proceed, because having guys of the opposite faction will reduce loyalty and popularity of your faction.

So now lets imagine a category of ambitious men. They hate to be out of office. They will clamor for offices no matter who is in power. Second, they don't want to sit in one office for too long. Need to get out there and network, win new fame, now I want to cash in by ruling a province, prestige here, and so on. So certain troublesome characters (and often with the best stats too) keep asking for assignments, even if they have one. What is the point of 100% popularity if you can't leverage it? The game already tracks money and popularity (as well as loyalty) but it would be nice to add prestige too.

Imagine an 8, 9, 11 character who asks to be a general now, and in five years wants to be a governor (unless you're at war, ambitious characters always want to be generals during war), and wants to be a technology officer for the prestige five years later, then afterward wants to be a general again. Always pursuing 100% popularity, more money, and more prestige. Ultimately these characters want to be rulers themselves. In republics its possible to groom the great men for consulship, in monarchies, they are dangerous. Great men tend to lead factions, so there can be more faction type events, and having two ambitious men as rivals in opposite factions will very likely cause trouble. Perhaps exile of one of them, or even civil war. And things seemed to be going so well.

I have read on the forum that there seems to be disaffection with the lack of much to do in peace time. Managing your political factions to keep them balanced might be just the ticket.

Some thoughts for mods, tweaks, or 2.0.

 

[Dinsdale]

It would be nice if colonization were so much more practical on the coasts that no one would look inland for colonies until all the coasts in their half of the Med were already colonized. Technology might gradually make inland colonization more practical such that by mid-game, it was sensible. Rome colonizing strait north into Germany isn't very sensible.

I agree that something needs to be done, but with the adjacent rule, there would be only a few nations who could colonize at all.

IMHO, Germany wasn't colonized because it was impossible to secure, not because of any technological issue. Remnants of Roman towns across the Rhine have been discovered; so an attempt was made but failed due to resistance. There need to be similar mechanisms in place in-game.

Additionally, there needs to be a cost associated with colonization to prevent crazy expansion. If there was a financial risk, plus military cost empires would have to think twice about expansion.

 

[Charles Louis]

I think the largest limiting factor on colonization and expansion was climate. The Romans, for example, started in a Mediterranean climate of hot summers and mild winters, and outdoor society, food crops and faming practices ideal for that climate, and so on. Nearly all of the Mediterranean climate area was occupied before expansion into the Maritime climate area took place. Germany has a Continental climate, with different soils, crops, and practices, plus much colder winters.

Climate types might also make colonization and expansion easier and more efficient in similar types of climate. Not only might this influence taxes and manpower, but also one's ability to convert people to your ethnicity and religion.

Turning Germans into Romans (or Egyptians!) would be quite difficult if they could not adopt the life ways, diet, holidays, and such of the imperial people.

 

[Wdll]

I can't remember, but, how much real colonization was done at the period the game is?

Not because I have complains about colonization in this game, I don't, but just curious.

 

[kristoff]

Colonization, as it is now, is a complete mess.

Take "barbarian" tribe that lived for dozens decades more or less in the same place. One day some lost "civilized" army, maybe retreating after a battle, walks over a mentioned barbarian land, provoking horde to rise. Then horde starts its march towards high-civ region, leaving their homeland completely. As soon as it forms and barbarian power drops to 1 - bum! - the nearest faction starts colonizing. As soon as the colonists arrive - bum! - culture & religion of the whole province changes. What is it if not an absurd? Smart idea of barbarians & colonization mechanics was dumbed to a level when it became ridiculous.

 

[Charles Louis]

I can't remember, but, how much real colonization was done at the period the game is?

Not because I have complains about colonization in this game, I don't, but just curious.

There were a lot of colonies of different types before and during the game period. Greek settlement is spread across the game map (Pontus, Massilia, Magnae Gracea) because of prior colonization. Roman colonies, colonia, were generally formed by settling retired soldiers on a beginning city and giving them land outside the city. All of the Roman cities that were founded (or re-founded) are in effect colonies intended to Romanize a place.

 

[Charles Louis]

Then horde starts its march ... leaving their homeland completely. As soon as it forms and barbarian power drops to 1 - bum! - the nearest faction starts colonizing.

This is pretty much how things work where barbarians are semi-nomadic and prone to migrations. At the start of the Gallic War, the Helvetii burned everything they could not take with them and started to march to the west hoping to settle in better lands. Certainly that would produce a depopulated province and the opportunity for some new faction to settle the place and make it their own, with their own ethnicity and religion.

The Germans remained totally in this vein, semi-nomadic, moving about, so that the location of tribes changes over time. The Gauls, however, had begun to civilize and build towns. Tempted by the civilizing influence of the Greeks in Massilia (Greek trade up the Rhone river shows Athenian pottery and implies that the contents of the pots were traveling from Athens -and other Greek places- to the Gauls for hundreds of years before the game starts) the Gauls were much more prone to stay in one place. Hence the Gauls are much more single province factions.

 

[Wdll]

There were a lot of colonies of different types before and during the game period. Greek settlement is spread across the game map (Pontus, Massilia, Magnae Gracea) because of prior colonization. Roman colonies, colonia, were generally formed by settling retired soldiers on a beginning city and giving them land outside the city. All of the Roman cities that were founded (or re-founded) are in effect colonies intended to Romanize a place.

Yes, I know there were a lot of greek and others' colonies around, I am asking if any new colonies were created at this time period. The romans created something like colonies, but that was more like expansion and then, why not settle here kind of thing.

 

[Gwalcmai]

IMHO, Germany wasn't colonized because it was impossible to secure, not because of any technological issue. Remnants of Roman towns across the Rhine have been discovered; so an attempt was made but failed due to resistance. There need to be similar mechanisms in place in-game.

As Charles Louis pointed out, climate played into it, too. Germany is not too suited to the living standards of the Romans. Wine and olives would've made a poor showing in Germany (that would've probably been even truer with Roman farming techniques than it is today), and those were pretty much the staples of Roman society. The Romans would've settled across the Rhine if the area was peaceful (the initial, more peaceful period of Roman/Germanic relations prompted the Romans to start the attempt), but when the Germans started fighting back, it was simply not worth the bother. It was simply easier to set up a defensive line on the Rhine and leave the Barbarians outside the gates.

 

[kristoff]

This is pretty much how things work where barbarians are semi-nomadic and prone to migrations. At the start of the Gallic War, the Helvetii burned everything they could not take with them and started to march to the west hoping to settle in better lands. Certainly that would produce a depopulated province and the opportunity for some new faction to settle the place and make it their own, with their own ethnicity and religion.

The Germans remained totally in this vein, semi-nomadic, moving about, so that the location of tribes changes over time. The Gauls, however, had begun to civilize and build towns. Tempted by the civilizing influence of the Greeks in Massilia (Greek trade up the Rhone river shows Athenian pottery and implies that the contents of the pots were traveling from Athens -and other Greek places- to the Gauls for hundreds of years before the game starts) the Gauls were much more prone to stay in one place. Hence the Gauls are much more single province factions.

Of course, know this. What I mean is that very trivial happenings (like entrance of pathetic 1000 men strong army beaten in a battle) trigger serious strings of events in this game. Hordes rise so frequently that vast areas became depopulated with no good reason behind and immediately colonist start to flood. Once it's done it's over - culture & religion of a given area changes for good and - despite possibility of it being conquered by someone else later - colony just stays there and grow forever. There is basically no way for it to fail (ias it happened often i.e. to Roman colonies behind Rhine). Note also that most important barbarian migrations back then meant that one tribal group was pushed further west or south by another tribal group coming from east. Rarely there was vacuum. In EU:Rome there is no logic implemented which would set natural boundaries to colonization from Mediterranean. In game's terms it's almost the same to colonize i.e. Liguria or Suebi. There is nothing to make you stop and ask why would you want to go further and if it would be possible and profitable at all.

 

[unmerged(101079)]

hmmm... a way to limit colonization then is to make the province lose population whenever taken over by barbarians... they'd come, loot, and massacre a portion of the population. When the colonies fall below a certain population, say less than 2, they get disbanded, or turn into a barbarian state. That way, you'd have to build stockades and have a strong military presence in your colonies.

 

[whosthebestcop]

hmmm... a way to limit colonization then is to make the province lose population whenever taken over by barbarians... they'd come, loot, and massacre a portion of the population. When the colonies fall below a certain population, say less than 2, they get disbanded, or turn into a barbarian state. That way, you'd have to build stockades and have a strong military presence in your colonies.

if barbarians take over 1 of your provinces that province looses CIV points which limits colonization since you need over 50% to colonize.

 

[Dinsdale]

As Charles Louis pointed out, climate played into it, too.

True, but...

it was simply not worth the bother. It was simply easier to set up a defensive line on the Rhine and leave the Barbarians outside the gates.

That's the real limiting factor: ROI. Had there been gold, jewels and rivers of Ambrosia, the Romans would have found a way to live without local olive oil.

ROI is uncontrolled in Rome as it's essentially free.

 

[unmerged(85598)]

Replying to the original post...

Well, I'm working on it, at least ^_~ . I've not as many factional types as I'd like (in part, because I'm trying to keep them somewhat generic, so they apply to all nations, while making sense if history goes completely wobbly, and in part because I don't want to seem to much a fool if I've thoroughly misunderstood an issue ), though I'm adding additional flavour by introducing cultural preferences in version .11 and prefered action styles in version .15.

As regards colonization, I'm planning on replacing it all with event-driven colonization - wise? Questionable, but I can always introduce a version of my mod with the option removed . Certainly, it'll be easier to enforce rationality that way, and base the fastest expansion on individual characters seeking wealth in the wild lands.

Hm... Glory hounds... I could base a few event chains around characters with that flag ^_^ . It'll take a while, though, while I finish working out the framework and balancing for the rest of it.

 

[TheLand]

Some thoughts for mods, tweaks, or 2.0.

Very interesting, and actually just the kinds of thing some of us ware working on ;-)

Do check out the modding forum.