Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise Developer Diary 7: Colonial Diplomacy

  • 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.
What I'm curious about is modding issues. For instance, you say that the colonial nations will only occur in the Americas. How does the game know that a particular European colony is "in the Americas"? Is it a property of the region (set in \map\region.txt), the continent (set in \map\continent.txt), or does the game engine check whether the province is inside the "rectangle"* that the game uses for determining which part of the world will be randomized if the player uses that option at game start, or ??? 'Cause if it's in the region file that would be really awesome for modders.

I really hope the colonial mechanisms are bound to the colonial region map and that you can add colonial regions elsewhere through modding.
 
Nouvelle France can call their overlord into war, or France can intervene. But will the AI be clever enough for that action?

Perhaps calling an overlord into a war should greatly decrease desire for liberty. This way the AI likely won't be forcing the old world into massive wars every few years but it could still happen from time to time. It would also prevent players controlling colonial nations from gaming the system by forcing their mother country into a devastating war and then declaring independence from a greatly weakened overlord.
 
Something strange with that colonial diplomacy. For example, you are playing as Ireland and you have a colonial state in America. Than France starts colonizing the region too. You both have colonial countries there. And then New Ireland declares war on Nouvelle France and the second one calls France into war! You are now at war with mighty France just because of the stupid AI! What would you do in that case?

Is it really strange though? The setup *now* is that if you are remotely interested in those colonies, you have to go to war with France, no exception. Or, more likely, if France is interested in them, they'll declare war with you.

I guess the question is how often the overlord will intervene.
 
maybe you can release future DLCs exploring this sort of expansion and fleshing out the trade companies further?
I'm calling it now: next DLC will be 'East India Companies'. Hopefully also covering the East Indies (Java, the Moluccas, etc), not just India itself - though perhaps fleshing out the Indian subcontinental states as well as the European colonisers.
 
I'm calling it now: next DLC will be 'East India Companies'. Hopefully also covering the East Indies (Java, the Moluccas, etc), not just India itself - though perhaps fleshing out the Indian subcontinental states as well as the European colonisers.

That would be amazing. Especially if it's possible for a company to get crazy-powerful and actually rule a colony just like in British India, and then make it possible for the mother country to revoke their ownership if they get out of hand.
 
Something strange with that colonial diplomacy. For example, you are playing as Ireland and you have a colonial state in America. Than France starts colonizing the region too. You both have colonial countries there. And then New Ireland declares war on Nouvelle France and the second one calls France into war! You are now at war with mighty France just because of the stupid AI! What would you do in that case?

I think for this reason, it should be possible to 'veto' your colony's declaration of war. How many wars between colonies in the EU period (not counting small 'border incidents') happened with the explicit disapproval of the sovereign powers? Most of the colonial wars I can think of, the relevant mother countries, back in Europe were, if not actively at war with one another, at least had very poor relations. For instance, Great Britain was arguably dragged into war by its colonies in the 1750s, but they were no friends of France even before that, having recently fought each other in the War of the Austrian Succession.
 
I think for this reason, it should be possible to 'veto' your colony's declaration of war. How many wars between colonies in the EU period (not counting small 'border incidents') happened with the explicit disapproval of the sovereign powers? Most of the colonial wars I can think of, the relevant mother countries, back in Europe were, if not actively at war with one another, at least had very poor relations. For instance, Great Britain was arguably dragged into war by its colonies in the 1750s, but they were no friends of France even before that, having recently fought each other in the War of the Austrian Succession.

An option to veto would make the feature useless...
And on the up side this sounds like something that could prevent all colonial nations beeing best buddies in MP
 
I think for this reason, it should be possible to 'veto' your colony's declaration of war. How many wars between colonies in the EU period (not counting small 'border incidents') happened with the explicit disapproval of the sovereign powers? Most of the colonial wars I can think of, the relevant mother countries, back in Europe were, if not actively at war with one another, at least had very poor relations. For instance, Great Britain was arguably dragged into war by its colonies in the 1750s, but they were no friends of France even before that, having recently fought each other in the War of the Austrian Succession.

And I can´t recall many wars besides some skirmishes between future Argentina and Brazil in the South.

I think Paradox is going way to OTT with this feature. Already hating it. Colonial wars should, at the very least, VERY seldom escalate (in the sense of allies of the metropolis being called, through that can be mitigated by Distant War modifier)) or be very related to the relations between their overlords.

Buying, selling and exchanging land, on the other hand, could be made easier.
 
Last edited:
I think what people are suggesting is that if you conquer 5? provinces in India/Southeast Asia?/Indonesia?, having them use the "colonial nation" mechanism (call it the "British East India Company" for example) would be a better approximation of what happened than having those provinces count as national provinces of Britain (but 80% cheaper to convert to English culture than Welsh/Scottish/Irish provinces - why is it easy for the Brits to convert provinces in India to European culture??). Just like, I'm guessing, if you conquer the Incas you get a colonial nation where they were (even without using any colonists).

One of the basic issues with "apply x mechanic to somewhere other than NA" is that it will then interfere with a) future DLC focussing on that region, and b) any improvements in the base game in that region.
 
An option to veto would make the feature useless...
And on the up side this sounds like something that could prevent all colonial nations beeing best buddies in MP

No it wouldn't. Allowing your colony to wage war is not the same as starting the war yourself, and colonial powers might find it useful to condone this kind of proxy war without risking a European conflict. For practical reasons, governors had a great deal of autonomy, but they were not daimyo with their own personal army. They were appointed by the Crown (usually the Crown picked nobles who were born in the mother country, to ensure loyalty), served at the pleasure of the mother country, and could be replaced if they misbehaved or underperformed. In fact, even when these colonies declared independence, usually it involved overthrowing the governor, who stayed loyal to the Crown.
 
And I can´t recall many wars besides some skirmishes between future Argentina and Brazil in the South.

I think Paradox is going way to OTT with this feature. Already hating it. Colonial wars should, at the very least, VERY seldom escalate (in the sense of allies of the metropolis being called, through that can be mitigated by Distant War modifier)) or be very related to the relations between their overlords.

Buying, selling and exchanging land, on the other hand, could be made easier.

What? No, just no.
Brazil wouldn't even half of its modern day size if not for colonial conflicts and repeated invasions of the spanish colonies in violation of the Tordesillas treaty. It was probably one of the regions that experienced the highest amount of colonial warfare in the Americas. There were expeditions back and forth all the time from both sides to take and retake colonies. Most of that led by the colonial authorities.
 
And I can´t recall many wars besides some skirmishes between future Argentina and Brazil in the South.

I think Paradox is going way to OTT with this feature. Already hating it. Colonial wars should, at the very least, VERY seldom escalate (in the sense of allies of the metropolis being called, through that can be mitigated by Distant War modifier)) or be very related to the relations between their overlords.

Buying, selling and exchanging land, on the other hand, could be made easier.

If I recall correctly, the Seven Years war started in America because the inhabitants of New England wanted the control of the Ohio valley. Then they dragged their metropolis and merged two wars.

I think it is realistic that there were wars between colonies, skirmishes that could be stopped by the metropolis. This would be of little importance as long as the colonies aren't really strong. Plus, it would favorize things like the story of New York : founded as New Amsterdam and then seized by English, which had a stronger country to back them.
 
What? No, just no.
Brazil wouldn't even half of its modern day size if not for colonial conflicts and repeated invasions of the spanish colonies in violation of the Tordesillas treaty. It was probably one of the regions that experienced the highest amount of colonial warfare in the Americas. There were expeditions back and forth all the time from both sides to take and retake colonies. Most of that led by the colonial authorities.

That´s why I said SKIRMISHES. Not tree-hugging, bunny-loving.

Not all out war specially with battles on Europe. The problem isn´t having colonial wars per se, but stopping them from escalate.
 
As an Empire why would colonial nations benefit the player over full control? It do not see any.

You gain no Tariffs and such. In other words, they are almost useless provinces now.
Colonizing nations in RL would have also preferred direct control but that wasn't so easy to achieve.
 
You gain no Tariffs and such. In other words, they are almost useless provinces now.
Colonizing nations in RL would have also preferred direct control but that wasn't so easy to achieve.

I don't understand why all the complaints about the new system. Instead of getting a small fraction of tax, you'd get 50% of this (but probably less from tarrifs as of now). The good part though, is that the colonial nation gets the other 50%, and deals with local concerns by itself, spending cash and precious monarch points on its own. In the end, I believe one would, overall, get more income from it.
 
1.can i keep a colonial nation happy forever, if i dont drain them they wont revolt right?

2.if say as great britain i colonize 5 regions the thirteen colonies form up i decide to switch and play as them

a.is it possible in ironmode?
b.how long will it take for the form USA decission to appear?