Megathread : Immigration In Victoria 2

[unmerged(158456)]

I think that an imigration should depend from Climate... for example Crimea had much more imigrants than North provinces (like Tomsk). And additionally should depend from amount of money in provinces.

...
Then i played for Russia, i've occupy China with a lot of unemployed people... for 50 years they just emigrate in Tomsk, Ural, and Carolina XD (i had some provinces in North America after war with CSA)...

 

[Plushie]

I think it should all be based on various modifiers to life ratings, and make life ratings the main determinants of immigration. Each province should have a 'base' life rating, dependent on real world environmental factors, and that life rating should be modified based on several factors:

1. Population density. Low population densities should lead to higher life ratings. Or, rather, it should follow a bell curve: Very low population densities modify the life rating downwards somewhat but after it reaches a certain point it should go up very high until it reaches another certain point at which time it starts to drop off. Perhaps have it based also on job availability in local RGOs.

2. Capital density. If there's a lot of factories in a province (and thus a lot of available jobs) then the life rating should increase. This should off-set life rating decreases from high population density.

3. Population militancy. An area that's highly militant and rebellious should have a decreased life rating so it doesn't attract any new immigrants.

Importantly, users should be able to mod in new modifiers and triggers so the system is flexible.

There you go, simple, dirt cheap resource wise (no creating complex new systems that aren't already part of the Vicky canon), and highly moddable.

 

[Admiral_Nelson]

I always found it odd that I could get 25 million immigrants to Victoria, and 1.2 million to the Great Sandy Desert, but could only attract 10,000 to Sydney, and random 100 strong Serbian soldier pops to Brisbane.

 

[Aragos]

IMHO, at least for the US, there should be a way to replicate the Homestead Act(s) that gave free land to immigrants, etc. That is why you end up with Swedes and Norwegians in Minnesota

Some way should exist for players to better encourage POPs to move internally--if 50% of your population is in Alaska, there is something wrong.

My guess is that it should be 1) based on climate (people go where they can survive) 2) open resources and factories 3) others of the same POP category (irish, german, etc. tend to settle together) and 4) based on infrastructure (you can get there easily). Colonies, before statehood, should be able to encourage immigration via legal/social moves--this I think would be a good balance with the inability to build industry in colonies, etc.

 

[wulfhund]

I think that provincial infrastructure should be the major draw to immigrants, the areas near railroads were historically populated first and more quickly than other areas. But I also think areas with access to waterways such as the great lakes or major rivers should get a bonus too, as many fur trade hubs in North America became urbanized throughout the 19th century.

This would help spread the wealth as it were. Also, I think that more stable resources such as agriculture should have a better long term bonus, precious metals should initially have a high bonus then wane and even depopulate over time as the easy cash is mined out. The Northwest is littered with mining ghost towns.

 

[unmerged(48800)]

EXELLENT IDEAS!

The fact that people go to places where they fellow countrymen are settled is true.

*But what happen with assimilattion? If some Italian go to Buenos Aires, argentina and then they became Platinean, they won´t attract anymore? I think place and assimilattion should be a major factor to inmigrants, like that Italian converted to platinean keep a ¨Italian ancestry¨ that attracts italians there, this ¨ancestry¨ still apllies to countries with major inmigration waves, like USA, ARG, BRA, AUS(tralia).

In Argentina Turk people (really most armenians and sirian-libaneses) went to Cuyo region because that place where like they homeplace and already turkish community was settled.(as an example)

* Economic migration must be reworked, not just because a product like iron is more expensive than wheat or cattle people will go there, why?
- Working in a mine was´t really good for almost all XIX century
- Most mines belonged to landowners or corporations, giving little money to they workers.
- Many farmers migrate, they knew and preffer farming.

Also OWNERSHIP or CONTRACTS about the land farming and such (for RGO) is a major factor for inmigrants to go. A farmer will preffer to migrate to a good land with good wather where he can own or rent a land rather than to work for a landowner.

-Also liberties of all kinds and democracy should give a bonus.
-Infraestructure should give a small bonus
-Life rating a lot more.

PLUS THE IDEAS OF Plushie and Aragos (see above)

 

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Comparatively. They moved to America, and settled there.

Much of the British population in South Africa was temporary. Many would then either move back to the UK or move on to Australia or New Zealand.

Why would the British have to adjust to move to S. Africa, Australia or New Zealand?

The Irish in america adjusted at about the same pace as the Italians and Asians.

 

[GanguGengu]

Depression and structural change should be modelled somehow, since those were major reasons for emmigration.

 

[Waffen9999]

I think Maxxi sort of hinted on it but it deals with assimilation. Using Italians as an example, if they move to Argentina and assimilate, they should perhaps maintain Italian as their ancestry as was stated. And perhaps in the event it was ever conquered by Italy, the Italians should have better than the 50% production bonus, maybe 70% of it or something. To reflect that they have some cultural similarities still. Worth a thought.

 

[Being Earnest]

Just a small idea.
Maybe POPs that changed hands through conquest or immigration, or minority POPs should be harder to assimilate if their source nation had nationalism researched when they were part of said nation.

 

[Hertog Jan]

I really like the ideas that have been forwarded until now, especially the idea of big ports being an entry point for immigrants and the idea that people migrate to place where others of their ethnicity have already settled. I'll add a couple of observations and ideas of my own.

In my view immigration must be influenced by the following factors:

• Economic prosperity: Obviously this is the main reason for people to migrate. The Industrial Revolution in Europe made economic growth there possible, but it inaugurated an era of intense competition between labour and capital and amongst workers themselves. At the same time, the old class system in Europe impeded vertical social mobility and added to this atmosphere of competition. The newly independent nations in the Americas faced manpower shortages and wanted to colonise enormous tracts of unused land which they wished to claim for their own nation (often facing competition from other nations, e.g. Chile and Argentina's race to colonise Patagonia). The (relatively) classless societies of the American nations and the opportunity to prove one's abilities and rise quickly in society certainly attracted a lot of immigrants. Although urban environments and infrastructure should attract a lot of immigrants, let's not forget that many farmers migrated to the Americas because there was much more available and arable land than in Europe. Therefore the idea mentioned before that farmer POPs will migrate to rural areas and craftsmen/clerks to urban areas is IMHO a good one.
• Climate: Most European emigrants headed to places placed in a temperate climate zone, because of the favourable conditions for agriculture and hard physical labour and possibly because they closely resembled the conditions they knew from Europe itself. Even though I don't believe that immigration should be restricted to temperate climate zone's I believe provinces located there should receive a bonus vis-a-vis polar and tropical regions.
• Ethnicity and religion:As said before POPs should be motivated to migrate to regions where others of their ethnicity and religion have gone before. I am Dutch and I know most Dutch migrants to the US settled in Iowa and especially in Michigan. Most of these were Protestant. Most Dutch Catholic migrants, however, settled in the Fox River valley of Wisconsin near Little Chute. So Dutch won't just settle near other Dutch, but Catholic Dutch would also settle near other Catholic Dutch. However brilliant this idea is one drawback has been noted before. If an ethnic group (say Italians) aren't present in a country (say Argentina) then this model won't attract Italian immigrants. But I may have a solution for that. POPs shouldn't only migrate to areas where there own ethnicity lives, but also where related ethnicities live. For example Argentina, with its Platinean ethnicity, would attract other ethnicities of Romance extraction (Spanish, Italians and French) whereas the United States, with its Yankee ethnicity, would attract other ethnicities of mainly Germanic and Celtic extraction (English, Scots, Irish, Germans and Swedes among others). This shouldn't be set in stone however since the United States has a very distinct Italian-American cultural scene and Argentina and Brazil also welcomed German immigrants. Religion can partly solve this as well. Italians should preferably attract other Italians, but Irish Catholics may, on their turn, attract Italian Catholics. And Catholic migrants may also prefer Catholic Argentina over Protestant USA (e.g. Catholic Germans migrating to Argentina instead of the USA). Economic prosperity should still be the main determining factor for where people will settle.
• Relative freedom: Not all immigrants did migrate because of economic reasons, some of them (most notably the Forty-Eighters from Germany) did so out of political reasons. Unlike in Vicky 1 countries ruled by Liberals shouldn't have an advantage, but rather countries with freedom of assembly and freedom of the press should regardless of ruling ideology. Political immigrants need not all be anarcho-liberals either. Suppose an anarcho-capitalist, anti-clerical European government restricts freedom of religion (and perhaps also freedom of the press and assembly) then most of the political migrants originating from this country might very well be reactionaries and conservatives.

Finally I hope that Paradox will be able to model emigration of top bureaucrats to colonies to exploit their resources (Indonesia didn't attract massive Dutch immigration, but plantation owners ('capitalists') and civil servants ('bureaucrats'/'clerks') from the Netherlands did live there)

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Another little thing Id like to see, to echo the post above-

Greater migration of POPs to colonies, even if said colonies are unhistorical, eg often playing as CSA I take over Philippines...Id really like to see some Dixie POPs move there to represent investment in the colony/adminstration/etc etc.

Id also like to see useless colonial POPs move more- to labour the Philippines point somewhat. That area in vicly had large clerk POPs- which were almost never used as the Philippines remains a colony...wouldnt it make sense for these POPs to move?

 

[minority]

Whatever factors used in immigration, I hope that there would be a value that represents how desirable or how likely a location is in getting immigrants come in and the like, just to make it clearer to players.

 

[unmerged(162506)]

Maybe a bit gamey, but perhaps the player could designate areas preferable to immigrants and migrants? Not only would this prevent the exodus to Alaska in favor of New York, Boston, and Chicago, but also it could provide for British colonists to South Africa, eastward settlement of Germans if they take land from Russia, Japanese to Korea & Taiwan, etc.

 

[Hertog Jan]

Maybe a bit gamey, but perhaps the player could designate areas preferable to immigrants and migrants? Not only would this prevent the exodus to Alaska in favor of New York, Boston, and Chicago, but also it could provide for British colonists to South Africa, eastward settlement of Germans if they take land from Russia, Japanese to Korea & Taiwan, etc.

It should be possible for the player to exert some control over where immigrants would settle but it should be fairly limited though. Immigration was and still is a decision made by individual people. If you want immigrants to settle in a specific place all that the player (the national government) can do, is develop this place economically, so that it becomes a place of opportunity. However, earlier on in this thread, government sponsored immigration was mentioned by creating immigration companies to attract immigrants from specific nations. I also think that Paradox should include a screen where players can set immigration policy, like targeting immigrant groups, giving monetary incentives and creating propaganda (many areas were actually depicted as being much more prosperous and attractive than they were in reality). For Northern American and Latin American nations this of course has the most advantages, but European nations with colonies can also set a policy for migration to the colonies (this also concludes the possibility to sponsor major European colonisation to any colony, even though the factors I listed in my previous post should predominate. So colonising a tropical colony should be much harder than a temperate one).

Not only should it be possible to set an immigration policy, players should also be able to set an emigration policy, even though it will be mostly European countries that will benefit from this option. Britain and France established penal colonies in their overseas territories such as Australia (sorry Aussies, I know that this issue is sensitive) and French Guyana. European countries could establish penal colonies to get rid of criminals (adds a new dimension to crime fighting) and (mainly authoritarian) governments can force dissidents to migrate to the colonies. And authoritarian regimes can exile people (and the rate of self-exile goes up of course). The expulsion of dissidents can carry benefits in the form of reduced militancy. Criminals and the vast majority of dissidents are forced to migrate to colonies of the mother country, whereas (self-)exiles go abroad. Last but not least, countries that are economically struggling should be able to sign treaties with immigrant nations like Argentina and the USA to supply unemployed labour. The Netherlands, during the Prime Ministership of Abraham Kuyper (1901-1905) and in the 1950s, actively encouraged emigration to alleviate the burden of their own economy. This should all be possible.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

The only way to 'force migration' woul be ala the USA and offer cheap land. The only way I can think of doing this would via some sort of event where it cost you (the player) £X...to represent subsidies or something, then the life rating for said place rises-hopefully stimulating migration.

However it works, there should be some sort of burden, financial or otherwise, if a player wants to try and force migration...

 

[noddysseus]

Immigration should largely be influenced by available jobs.

Thus, if a country's economy is offering the opportunity for people to find jobs, there should be a greater chance of immigration taking place.

A 'standard of living' aspect could also be added perhaps, so that it could be possible to distinguish between places for immigration purposes.

Furthermore, I believe there should be some form of constraints placed upon a province's RGO, and in other words, there should NOT be limitless ability for a player to populate a province's RGO. It is not feasible to keep expanding a farming province so that you can keep populating it and gaining greater production. There has to be a limit, defined partly by the land available in a province, its crop yield and also the current technologies.
The immigration system would work better under such circumstances, AND also if farmers/labourers were willing to migrate to somewhere, where even only industrial jobs were available - therefore not confining them to simply migrate where there are RGO jobs available.

Just my two cents, from having played a lot of Victoria and Victoria multiplayer, where the immigration system was truly tested.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

It should be possible for the player to exert some control over where immigrants would settle but it should be fairly limited though. ....
This should all be possible.

All good ideas. Players should only have "soft" control over migration, but that's better then the current form with practically none. I think a more general option of giving each "state" (if they're still using the province>state>nation model) an immigration subsidy that adds to the various factors outlined in previous posts, as well as an option to bar migration to a state. These options would be effected by ruling party policy.

Also, I don't think many Australians at all consider our convict history a sensitive issue, but thanks for noticing.

 

[Steel Beagle]

Alternative Approach to "soft" control

I suggest an 'immigration centre" be a possible building - it would represent the local policies to support immigration. The mechanics would be to have the local factors have a partial role and this 'policy' building a partial role.

As a western Canadian, I know how far this country went to advertise and support immigrants into the prairies circa 1900. It was a concerted effort. Modelling this would give some control to the player and reduce some of the frustrations around immigrants not moving further than the sea coasts. It could also let players concerned about historical realism model it more closely, and potentially reduce the overly high numbers in Alaska (eg) unless you really want to make it a immigrant fisherman magnet.

 

[th3freakie]

Well, whatever system you chose, make sure it's adaptable to new circunstances. I have sad memories of (the lack of) migration in my Brazil game, where one of the most free and open societies on Earth never got to see a single migrant in it's history - except one event for a couple thousand italins, once.