-
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.
Just ban trading posts if you want to prevent someone from hogging all the good colonial spots.
But if you reduce colonists too much, how on earth with nations like Portugal, Spain and England reach their historical levels of colonisation?
But if you reduce colonists too much, how on earth with nations like Portugal, Spain and England reach their historical levels of colonisation?
I think reducing the number of colonists, their chance of success and increasing their price is a good idea. This will fulfill all the effects wished for in the game whereas player spirit is, as experience shows, a very fickle thing.
A governor in the capital from start is a nice idea.
I really have too little experience with the mod (none) to express an opinion about the size of deflation events but I stand by my opinions for regular games.
A governor in the capital from start is a nice idea.
I really have too little experience with the mod (none) to express an opinion about the size of deflation events but I stand by my opinions for regular games.
juv95hrn said:
Reducing the number of colonists is possible. Increasing native aggression and thus making colonisation harder is possible as well.
But adjusting the price of colonists is, afaik, not possible to do softcoded...
Hive said:Reducing the number of colonists is possible. Increasing native aggression and thus making colonisation harder is possible as well.
But adjusting the price of colonists is, afaik, not possible to do softcoded...
10 000 angry inhabitance are very good for stopping colonization. You can even hardly kill them in LT18-LT26 without leader. Big attrition and your armies are annihilated quite often.
ForzaA said:
I don't agree about explorers and colonists, because they are important not only for colonisaation but also trade (COTs) and diplomacy.
But thank you for reminding me about other influencing factors on colonisation.
So, leave religion.csv as it is, IE leave NUMBER of colonists as it is (it is not high really).
But you can change parametters in province.csv instead:
- Difficulty for Colonization
- Native Combat Strength
- Ferocity
- Efficiency of Natives in combat
- Negotiation Value for Trading Posts
- Natives Tolerance value
Perhaps I missed something?
After thinking a bit about the game, here is my new list of preferred countries:
1) Venice
2) England
3) Denmark
1) Venice
2) England
3) Denmark
cheech said:
It looks like we will have enough players to have a few minors in additon to the traditional nations.
Hive said:Reducing the number of colonists is possible. Increasing native aggression and thus making colonisation harder is possible as well.
But adjusting the price of colonists is, afaik, not possible to do softcoded...
try changing the "Difficulty for Colonization" in Province.csv - you'll be surprised.
(Canary Islands, 1419, went from 20 ducats at 86% to 80 ducats at 50% by changing this from 0 to 9)
In other words, colonisation can be slowed a LOT
I will look in the colonial matter this weekend, but I am not going to decrease the amount of colonists. There are other values that might be changed though, I am mainly thinking about the natives.
ForzaA said:
Interesting. That gives possibilities to make key areas harder to colonise.
FAL said:
just bear in mind when judjing, that before 1500 there are penalty for early colonization, so percentage won`t be same before and after.
Increasing native strength sounds interesting and realistic. They are far too easy to wipe out. Also it would encourge people to concentrate on fewer colonies perhaps.
Any player for england yet btw?
Any player for england yet btw?
Could we make everyone stay at 5 land/naval? This would give the naval powers fewer colonists, solving that problem, and less TE i.e. less monetary advantage over land powers, and allow both land and naval powers to compete a lot more effectively in each others traditional domains.
King John said:
you'd probably have to edit quite a few historical events (if you don't kick them out alltogether) and set some penalty for moving the slider..
but it could be an idea.
Possibly, you could even have a change of THAT slider as a reward for good roleplaying/missions.
It would most probably indeed reduce the number of colonists, and it would even the trading field, HOWEVER, it's another slider that everyone will have the same, in that case. ( just like *almost* everyone has offensive and quality)
ForzaA said:
Which is the main reason I am not going to it. Some countries focused on colonisation, naval and trade more than others and I want to keep that.
I also don't want to have too many experimental things in a campaign, because the odds that something won't work increase with every step.
I actually like the idea. I think naval nations will still be best at sea. Holland, england etc but not be such a stupidly huge ammount. The game is too polarised due to this slider. However for the reason FAL mentions above i think we should leave it for now.
BTW i think its time to start assigning players to nations. This way we will be more clear on what we need. Im also rather curious
Last edited:
Oh, and what probably is the world's worst kept secret: I wouldn't actually mind playing Spain please
The Slarg is signing up as Sweden.
Of course, contingent on actually getting through my router. :wacko:
Can Sweden expect monetary aid from Spain if it defeats protestantism in Scandinavia and Northern Germany for the papist cause?
Of course, contingent on actually getting through my router. :wacko:
Can Sweden expect monetary aid from Spain if it defeats protestantism in Scandinavia and Northern Germany for the papist cause?