But if you have a land connection with an uncolonised province, then you are a frontier nation, by definition.
-
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.
- Status
Yes, but with the other phrasing you would also be able to send the colonists to areas which you lack a land connection with...
It should not influence colonization a bit. Right now we have Spain colonizing Martinique and island around there like mad so to make other competition here impossible.
1500 is still reachable, 5000 is only reachable for CoTs and for intensive colonization. Maybe 3000 would be a good compromise for starters?
I haven't gotten 1.07 yet, but in it (or one of the betas, there have been so many coming out so quickly that I havent kept good track of them) isn't the a limit on how many colonies you can have (below 700 population) that's tied to your monarch's administration rating? That should slow down colonization a good bit right there. I think we should see how this change actually plays before we do anything else to slow down colonization. Some of the other suggestions seem too extreme to me. Doing multiple thing at once to cut down on ahistorical early colony building may end up have to large an impact.
Tried and tested and it made little difference. The Eastern seaboard of america still gets colonised by 1530.
Such is the lure of colonisation that a more radical solution is now required.
Well 5 cents
Sacking capitals should not give any maps at all. Where does this idea come from that sacking a capital automatically gives maps? Most likely they would never even find maps nor have the idea to look for them in the first place.
Maybe just for game sake, give it 10% chance in sacking a capital, nothing more.
That also makes a good navy better, as that would be the only way to steal maps. I would love this working.
Well of course I know why its there, is so that when at war you can conquered the entire enemy. Well that is not really the problem of the enemy is it? If you cant conquer more then 50%, because you don’t know anymore - well to bad for you !
How can you expect to be able to conquer a nation you don’t even know about????
For those nation that does not have a chance at navies, introduce the option of buying maps, or trading maps for provinces, armies, money, prestige (relation), vassals, alliances and even explores!. Not entirely historical, but a good fun spectrum for the game.
Colonization itself is already fully solvable via the ai files, and introduction of hardcoded ‘blocks’ degrades the very purpose of the ai files themselves. That is not only counter productive, that is too silly.
Sacking capitals should not give any maps at all. Where does this idea come from that sacking a capital automatically gives maps? Most likely they would never even find maps nor have the idea to look for them in the first place.
Maybe just for game sake, give it 10% chance in sacking a capital, nothing more.
That also makes a good navy better, as that would be the only way to steal maps. I would love this working.
Well of course I know why its there, is so that when at war you can conquered the entire enemy. Well that is not really the problem of the enemy is it? If you cant conquer more then 50%, because you don’t know anymore - well to bad for you !
How can you expect to be able to conquer a nation you don’t even know about????
For those nation that does not have a chance at navies, introduce the option of buying maps, or trading maps for provinces, armies, money, prestige (relation), vassals, alliances and even explores!. Not entirely historical, but a good fun spectrum for the game.
Colonization itself is already fully solvable via the ai files, and introduction of hardcoded ‘blocks’ degrades the very purpose of the ai files themselves. That is not only counter productive, that is too silly.
Well, that is the reason why this change was only meant to be for Americas and few other areas which historically changed culture. In Europe and most of Asia, if not all of it, you could even add colonists to 700 pop province and it wouldn't change anything (except population, obviously)
Preferably, in Asia, even colonizing empty province would not change culture. Its silly enough to have anglosaxon Sri Lanka or Iberian Goa already...
I also think that the fact 5000 is such a high number is good-colonial wars would be waged at last, since it is so hard to achieve 5000 pop.
if coupled with less quickly rising income from colonies, it would made them less fire-and-forget things, hopefully.
Last edited:
Maybe this is a bit off base, but what about, in colonies, when you send a missionary it not only changes religion but also culture. At first it sounds a bit silly, but when you think about it the process of conversion wasn't merely religion, it was indoctrination of language, art, cultural mores and attitudes, etc. so it isnt completely unreasonable. More importantly, I think it would work well within the game engine: narrowminded intolerant nations would be more able to change large areas than tolerant, innovative ones. Also changing culture would be A) slow and B) expensive but very doable if one wanted, especially with smaller colonies. This would make it alot more desirable to take that CoT from someone knowing that even if it will cost you 1000D you can convert it to your culture and religion... Anyways maybe its not a good idea but I dont think sending 100 people to a 4000 person colony to change culture is a better one.
Originally posted by TheArchduke
It should not influence colonization a bit. Right now we have Spain colonizing Martinique and island around there like mad so to make other competition here impossible.
1500 is still reachable, 5000 is only reachable for CoTs and for intensive colonization. Maybe 3000 would be a good compromise for starters?
you are completely forgetting provinces with native population to start with, allready putting it at 3000 or over, provinces that in reality did change culture, or atleast become dominated by other culture.
Yes there are issues with say ireland, but couldn't one say that for example northern ireland is not gaelic all the way anymore(there are many english settlers)? I do agree though that if somehow this could be limited to colonial areas it would be great(excluding europe or something).
yes I agree it would be the best solution if you were able to convert any previously pagan or uncolonized province with a missionary to your culture even after it has been previously converted, or colonized.
Also plundering capital should give you a number of ducats from the opponents treasury maybe? that would be a good idea I think, maybe somehow reduce the map gain but give some other bonus so its actually worth it still to plunder it, like it was in reality
But as I said before, I don't think changing maps from plunder is a good idea unless you at the same time make taking colonies from other nations in the future easier, because otherwise it deadlocks the game and destroys any chance other nations have for colonization if the leading nations decide they want it all now since none can do anything about it.
I also though about missionaries changing culture, but i see two problems:
1)you only can send missionary to non-state religion province. Thus, catholic France can't change culture of Iberian catholic colonies. A big issue, IMHO.
2)Too costly. Coupled with low percentage from non-state culture missionary, and higher cost for non-linked provinces, its way too costly to change culture in small colonies.
Check my first post in the thread it. We are not forgetting it:
1)Native provinces already can change culture by missionaries, and now also by colonists
2)I also proposed reworking native populations a bit, primairly lowering them so they won't pass 5000 mark too early. (can't see a reason why 5000 is too high. The ability to change colonial cultures is good thing, IMHO)
(apart from Aztecs&stuff, it seems, which would still have to be governed by missionaries. Although i would prefer to see either their population cut down to 700 or so in every American city, including Tenochtitlan, or some implementation of European diseases cutting down city populations of Native states)
Ireland we already explained, as it would be limited to colonial areas. And Irish city population is underrepresented, too, afaik, so it could be avoided by raising it.
I disagree. I think when you reached over 5000 culture should be permanent.
And Maur don´t triple post.
Yes in order for it to work you would have to be able to 'convert' the same religion provs. I was going to mention that but had to get back to work here and just sent off the message as it was. As for being too expensive....a 700 population prov would be what maybe 175D? even at a 30% conversion rate that would be ~550 D to on average to convert. Thats about the price of building up your own colony from scratch so not unreasonable imo. And this way ANY colony could conceivably be converted: even that 10,000 pop CoT that you stole from the dutch could be converted for 2-3k ducats or such...
Originally posted by TheArchduke
I disagree. I think when you reached over 5000 culture should be permanent.
And Maur don´t triple post.
I don't see why colonial provinces should be permanent, they were often not regarded as so integral as continental posessions in europe. And many new colonists would of arrived from the new owner anyway, and people from other culture would either assimilate or leave.
- Status