Megathread : Immigration In Victoria 2
- Thread starter Niptium
- Start date
-
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.
I have been playing Canada and I traded Tech to get all of Alaska from Russia.
Sitka had precious metal from the start and then Skagway and Ft Yukon quickly followed. Nice income boost for me.
I finally got enough plurality and a socialist government with max reforms so immigrants are streaming into my huge dominion.
All into Alaska! After a few short years I have more than 400,000 people in each of the 8 Alaskan provinces. Neighboring provinces like Dawson, Fort McPherson, (which has Precious Metal as well now), Atlin all have only 5,000. Nobody wants to go to Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. In fact, I think any Alaskan province has more population than all of Western Canada combined.
It seems that they hard coded Alaska to receive a massive amount of immigrants. I'd like to see that changed.
Sitka had precious metal from the start and then Skagway and Ft Yukon quickly followed. Nice income boost for me.
I finally got enough plurality and a socialist government with max reforms so immigrants are streaming into my huge dominion.
All into Alaska!
After a few short years I have more than 400,000 people in each of the 8 Alaskan provinces. Neighboring provinces like Dawson, Fort McPherson, (which has Precious Metal as well now), Atlin all have only 5,000. Nobody wants to go to Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. In fact, I think any Alaskan province has more population than all of Western Canada combined. It seems that they hard coded Alaska to receive a massive amount of immigrants. I'd like to see that changed.
Last edited:
Immigration was overpowered. Immigrant workers could work even 1000% more effectively than native workers, because they formed their own POP. Any small European country could become an industrial powerhouse with open-doors immigration policies while IRL such policies would have been a recipe for national disaster.
Ethnic diversity was a weakness rather than a strength as a rule in the 19th century. (See the example of Austria-Hungary) Almost monoethnic states like Germany and Japan achieved great success with industrialization. Even the US recognized that its national interest was to curb immigration and favour Protestant immigrants from Northern Europe who were close to the Anglo-Saxon national culture.
Ethnic diversity was a weakness rather than a strength as a rule in the 19th century. (See the example of Austria-Hungary) Almost monoethnic states like Germany and Japan achieved great success with industrialization. Even the US recognized that its national interest was to curb immigration and favour Protestant immigrants from Northern Europe who were close to the Anglo-Saxon national culture.
Huh? As a percent of migrants, a larger pecent of the immigration to the USA post-Civil War came from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe - Italy, Poland, Russia, Greece - not Germany, Britain and Scandinavia.
Immigration from those regions is not really limited until the passage of new immigration laws in the 1920s. It was only immigration from Asia that was shut off after the passage of various immigration bills in the period 1870-1910 because of the "Yellow Peril" hysteria in the Western USA.
Immigration and reality
Assuming the game is a game and not an attempt to recreate real history, immigration should have a random factor included. Immigration in the 1830-40's and early 50's due to Irish potatoe famine, political unrest and war fostered rapid growth in the US and the western hemisphere. IS this going to be a factor? Is it going to be possible even. Without it the US is a backwater and not worth having in the game. Without that escape valve for release of social pressure Europe would have been much more voltile, and don't forget Chinese immigration in the 50-70 period and the effect on the US West.
In the words of a Meat Loaf song" WHAT'S IT GONNA BE BOY(S)'"
Assuming the game is a game and not an attempt to recreate real history, immigration should have a random factor included. Immigration in the 1830-40's and early 50's due to Irish potatoe famine, political unrest and war fostered rapid growth in the US and the western hemisphere. IS this going to be a factor? Is it going to be possible even. Without it the US is a backwater and not worth having in the game. Without that escape valve for release of social pressure Europe would have been much more voltile, and don't forget Chinese immigration in the 50-70 period and the effect on the US West.
In the words of a Meat Loaf song" WHAT'S IT GONNA BE BOY(S)'"
Immigration misconception
"Even the US recognized that its national interest was to curb immigration and favour Protestant immigrants from Northern Europe who were close to the Anglo-Saxon national culture."
It was ingrained Anglo-Saxon bigotery and fear of outsiders that ran immigration policy in many respects, and was not limited to Non-Anglo. Check Irish in America in the 1840-50's era. Those in power and position always oppose those trying to get a piece of the pie and once the new comers become part of the establishment, they usually adopt the same attitudes. Not an exclusive attitude in the Americas or among the Anglo-Saxons(of which I are one, and no apologies)
"Even the US recognized that its national interest was to curb immigration and favour Protestant immigrants from Northern Europe who were close to the Anglo-Saxon national culture."
It was ingrained Anglo-Saxon bigotery and fear of outsiders that ran immigration policy in many respects, and was not limited to Non-Anglo. Check Irish in America in the 1840-50's era. Those in power and position always oppose those trying to get a piece of the pie and once the new comers become part of the establishment, they usually adopt the same attitudes. Not an exclusive attitude in the Americas or among the Anglo-Saxons(of which I are one, and no apologies)
your view has faults.
first, america was already heavily ethnically diverse. it was even politically diverse in that various ethnicities practically shut their doors down, even entire states down to outsiders (even american) and lived as if they were totally independent. mormons are a picture lingering from that era.
national values, and the amount of liberty and economic situation defined the result in countries. in repressive countries with high ethnicity like russia, there was tension. in repressive countries which were highly traditional and monolithic like japan, there wasnt much dissent. in countries which lacked a clear and defined national value that brought everyone together, and also had bad economy and life standards, lik ein ottoman empire, ethnicity was a disaster.
The idea of open, uncontrolled immigration and emigration as existed in Vicky 1 isn't at all realistic or historical. The USA *did* tightly control immigration from many countries up until the 1960s based on what the US decided were desired ethnicities. Now they merely discriminate based on education level and wealth rather than ethnicity. Australia had its famous 'white australia' policy which was only ended in 1975. Australia and the US both had serious local reactions to the immigration of large numbers of Chinese for instance, resulting in an end to immigration from China for decades.
It would be great if there was a mechanic whereby people from different religions raised the militancy of existing populations when they immigrated to the region, though this number should be dependent upon consciousness of the local POPs, i.e. high consciousness POPs don't mind other religions while low consciousness POPs seriously do mind and it represents the feeling their 'way of life' is being threatened.
Perhaps there should be some kind of POP management screen where you can set certain laws for the movement of POPs into and out of your country, modeled as decisions. A country like Germany under a Fascist government might forbid Germans to emigrate, but on the other hand they might encourage ethnic or religious minorities to leave. A country like South Africa might strongly encourage immigration from the UK, but strongly discourage it from China or India.
There might also be decisions to create 'colonial societies' or something to that effect in a certain state or region. A colonial society would represent a concerted effort on the part of either a country or a group to colonize a certain region. The group being drawn would be dependent upon either an ethnicity, a religion or both. Thus South Africa might create a colonial society that encouraged the immigration of Protestants from any ethnicity, and thus could get people from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia. France could set up a colonial society in Algeria that encouraged specifically French to immigrate, while one in Tunisia might encourage simply Catholics to draw upon immigrants from Italy and Spain, as happened in real life. Ethnicities and religions which are actively being promoted to leave a region might be able to form their own colonial societies which would in effect be a 'free' colonial society and if you have a large empire with a place they're interested in, they might request you let them settle there. An analogue might be a Zionist colonial society forming in the mid-late 1800s and requesting the Ottomans give them the ability to settle in Palestine. If say, the Ottoman Empire is expelling Armenians... the Armenians might create a colonial society asking (randomly, or rather based on factors in the game) Argentina for the ability to settle there.
It would be great if there was a mechanic whereby people from different religions raised the militancy of existing populations when they immigrated to the region, though this number should be dependent upon consciousness of the local POPs, i.e. high consciousness POPs don't mind other religions while low consciousness POPs seriously do mind and it represents the feeling their 'way of life' is being threatened.
Perhaps there should be some kind of POP management screen where you can set certain laws for the movement of POPs into and out of your country, modeled as decisions. A country like Germany under a Fascist government might forbid Germans to emigrate, but on the other hand they might encourage ethnic or religious minorities to leave. A country like South Africa might strongly encourage immigration from the UK, but strongly discourage it from China or India.
There might also be decisions to create 'colonial societies' or something to that effect in a certain state or region. A colonial society would represent a concerted effort on the part of either a country or a group to colonize a certain region. The group being drawn would be dependent upon either an ethnicity, a religion or both. Thus South Africa might create a colonial society that encouraged the immigration of Protestants from any ethnicity, and thus could get people from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia. France could set up a colonial society in Algeria that encouraged specifically French to immigrate, while one in Tunisia might encourage simply Catholics to draw upon immigrants from Italy and Spain, as happened in real life. Ethnicities and religions which are actively being promoted to leave a region might be able to form their own colonial societies which would in effect be a 'free' colonial society and if you have a large empire with a place they're interested in, they might request you let them settle there. An analogue might be a Zionist colonial society forming in the mid-late 1800s and requesting the Ottomans give them the ability to settle in Palestine. If say, the Ottoman Empire is expelling Armenians... the Armenians might create a colonial society asking (randomly, or rather based on factors in the game) Argentina for the ability to settle there.
What is the reason to port regions from HoI3 ?
As far as i recall Vicky1 had regions too, but different from HoI3 which have an enourmous number of provinces so why is this your hope?
Some countries could be considered 'settler societies' which would have reduced costs for creating colonial societies. Brazil, Canada, USA, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, Cuba. But just because someone creates a colonial society *doesn't* mean that anyone will necessarily come. Afghanistan creating a colonial society encouraging people to move there would probably not be very successful. Some of the biggest things to consider in creating colonial societies would be..
1. How much money is given to the colonial society: This would be like a slider, you can raise or lower the amount of money given to a colonial society like anything else in your budget. Colonial societies could be very expensive. The cost would represent things like paying the passage of new people coming to your country, some basic education (literacy), the health costs of screening new people for disease and vaccinating them, giving them free land, farm tools, and all of the other myriad things that countries did for immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century as they encouraged people to move there. A successful colonial society might be very expensive, but it might be very successful in encouraging people to move to your country. For settler societies, a modifier might make maintaining colonial societies much cheaper.
2. How open the society is to immigrants in general: In the 19th century Russia was hellish for Jews, but other groups like Germans migrated there quite freely, especially religious groups like Lutherans and Mennonites. Crimean, Caucasian and Volga Germans moved to the Russian Empire in large numbers because they were given generous subsidies and encouraged to improve the land. When Russia took a turn for the worse in the mid-late 19th century, some of these Germans left for America. By encouraging one group of people to come to Russia, they were decreasing the power of other groups (the native Tatars and other ethnicities whose lands had recently been conquered) and hence increasing the relative power of the Russians who also moved to these places. A state with 300,000 Tatars and 200,000 Russians has the Russians at a disadvantage, but one with 150,000 Germans, 150,000 Tatars and 200,000 Russians has the Russians in the majority. But in general, a society with high consciousness, liberal reforms and generous social welfare should be seen as more encouraging of immigrants, but even a country like Russia could set up a colonial society for Germans in Crimea and get a substantial number of immigrants so long as the subsidies were right, while at the same time driving out Jews through antagonistic social policy.
One interesting thing is something like this...
Thus a political party with slavery as one of their platforms might have a limit on how much money you can devote to a colonial society, even in a settler country like the USA, a hard limit on what percentage of the slider you can fund like the hard limit on taxes in a socialist or anarcho-capitalist government in Vicky 1. There are many ways you could model different governments and how they could fund colonial societies. If a party based on a single ethnicity came to power in a nation, they might disband any settler society not based on their ethnicity for instance, or basically refuse funding (For instance if a Boer party took power in South Africa, they might think why should a Boer government in South Africa pay money to encourage more English people to come there?)
I think this would make the game a lot more interesting and turn immigration from something that is in Vicky 1 basically a completely random event that at best results in a bunch of people moving to your country and completely forgetting everything they used to be in the course of a year to become normal national POPs into something that is more of a tool, much as countries used the movement of population in the 19th and 20th centuries, to gain greater control of marginal and newly conquered areas, to promote their national culture, to fight their enemies and so on and so forth. It would also allow the creation of settler societies whose countries were mostly populated by Europeans during this era, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Argentines and Brazilians, the Dominicans, as well as some groups which never fully took hold in our timeline but which might well have if things had gone differently, the Pied-Noirs in Algeria, the Italian colonists in Libya (at one time more than 10% of the population there), the Jews in the Ottoman Empire (later to be much more successful lobbying the British).
It also opens the way for the odd occurrence that makes a sandbox type game fun, China decides that the high militancy of the Manchu people makes them undesirable and encourages them to emigrate, they form a free colonial society which approaches Mexico seeking to move to the sparse California wilderness. Due to California being much more heavily populated during this time, the USA never gains control though 50 years later you have a civil war in Mexico and eventually a Manchu-populated free nation of California is the result! It's definitely a counterfactual but it's also something that's not much stranger than a community of European Jews managing to move millions of people to what would become Israel over a century, completely changing the language and character of the area, nor if you think about it, that much more strange than a bunch of Europeans moving to California themselves.
1. How much money is given to the colonial society: This would be like a slider, you can raise or lower the amount of money given to a colonial society like anything else in your budget. Colonial societies could be very expensive. The cost would represent things like paying the passage of new people coming to your country, some basic education (literacy), the health costs of screening new people for disease and vaccinating them, giving them free land, farm tools, and all of the other myriad things that countries did for immigrants in the 19th and early 20th century as they encouraged people to move there. A successful colonial society might be very expensive, but it might be very successful in encouraging people to move to your country. For settler societies, a modifier might make maintaining colonial societies much cheaper.
2. How open the society is to immigrants in general: In the 19th century Russia was hellish for Jews, but other groups like Germans migrated there quite freely, especially religious groups like Lutherans and Mennonites. Crimean, Caucasian and Volga Germans moved to the Russian Empire in large numbers because they were given generous subsidies and encouraged to improve the land. When Russia took a turn for the worse in the mid-late 19th century, some of these Germans left for America. By encouraging one group of people to come to Russia, they were decreasing the power of other groups (the native Tatars and other ethnicities whose lands had recently been conquered) and hence increasing the relative power of the Russians who also moved to these places. A state with 300,000 Tatars and 200,000 Russians has the Russians at a disadvantage, but one with 150,000 Germans, 150,000 Tatars and 200,000 Russians has the Russians in the majority. But in general, a society with high consciousness, liberal reforms and generous social welfare should be seen as more encouraging of immigrants, but even a country like Russia could set up a colonial society for Germans in Crimea and get a substantial number of immigrants so long as the subsidies were right, while at the same time driving out Jews through antagonistic social policy.
One interesting thing is something like this...
Thus a political party with slavery as one of their platforms might have a limit on how much money you can devote to a colonial society, even in a settler country like the USA, a hard limit on what percentage of the slider you can fund like the hard limit on taxes in a socialist or anarcho-capitalist government in Vicky 1. There are many ways you could model different governments and how they could fund colonial societies. If a party based on a single ethnicity came to power in a nation, they might disband any settler society not based on their ethnicity for instance, or basically refuse funding (For instance if a Boer party took power in South Africa, they might think why should a Boer government in South Africa pay money to encourage more English people to come there?)
I think this would make the game a lot more interesting and turn immigration from something that is in Vicky 1 basically a completely random event that at best results in a bunch of people moving to your country and completely forgetting everything they used to be in the course of a year to become normal national POPs into something that is more of a tool, much as countries used the movement of population in the 19th and 20th centuries, to gain greater control of marginal and newly conquered areas, to promote their national culture, to fight their enemies and so on and so forth. It would also allow the creation of settler societies whose countries were mostly populated by Europeans during this era, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Argentines and Brazilians, the Dominicans, as well as some groups which never fully took hold in our timeline but which might well have if things had gone differently, the Pied-Noirs in Algeria, the Italian colonists in Libya (at one time more than 10% of the population there), the Jews in the Ottoman Empire (later to be much more successful lobbying the British).
It also opens the way for the odd occurrence that makes a sandbox type game fun, China decides that the high militancy of the Manchu people makes them undesirable and encourages them to emigrate, they form a free colonial society which approaches Mexico seeking to move to the sparse California wilderness. Due to California being much more heavily populated during this time, the USA never gains control though 50 years later you have a civil war in Mexico and eventually a Manchu-populated free nation of California is the result! It's definitely a counterfactual but it's also something that's not much stranger than a community of European Jews managing to move millions of people to what would become Israel over a century, completely changing the language and character of the area, nor if you think about it, that much more strange than a bunch of Europeans moving to California themselves.
Greece?!? Russia!?!
Unless... I see... if you are going on a geographical basis and trying to allude to the number of Germans and Jews from Russia... but still... Greece!?!?
Last edited:
Greece?!? Russia!?!
Unless... I see... if you are going on a geographical basis and trying to allude to the number of Germans and Jews from Russia... but still... Greece!?!?
520,000 Greeks immigrated to the US between 1890 and 1924, and one in 200 Americans is part- or full-blooded Greek. Between 1881 and 1914 3,200,000 immigrants arrived from Russia and only half were Jewish. Why is this idea so outlandish to you?
Will there be any effect of Soldier's demob emigration within the Empire?
Or indeed active duty, many British soldiers married indian girls and so stayed in India after they retired and also tracks of land in new zealand and canada were set aside and given to retiring soldiers. And heres the thing they didnt emigrate as soldiers, in Victoria soldiers might move and they stayed soldiers, what id like to see is soldiers leave england to become farmers in the colonies.
Im assuming that the all in one state mass immigration was a bug in Victoria and so will not appear in the second.
Or indeed active duty, many British soldiers married indian girls and so stayed in India after they retired and also tracks of land in new zealand and canada were set aside and given to retiring soldiers. And heres the thing they didnt emigrate as soldiers, in Victoria soldiers might move and they stayed soldiers, what id like to see is soldiers leave england to become farmers in the colonies.
Im assuming that the all in one state mass immigration was a bug in Victoria and so will not appear in the second.
So did also 500.000 norwegians, but i dont know between which dates. I think it was the emigration from Norway in total.
I dont know the history for all countries and the reasons to all emigration, but in Norway's case it had a lot to do with increase in birth rates, social conditions and the agrarian system. There would be other factors as well, but lets not get bogged down a sea of complexity.
The economy in Norway was almost entirely resource based with no or little industry, and things such as this could be reflected in a game as well because its part of a population mechanics used in the game. The growth rate per POP could for simplicty be similar to neighbours. And is something that increase alot thoughout the game.
For example: A norwegian farm or fish RGO could let's say hold max 5 POPs while a danish could hold 20 POPs, meaning that under an extensive growth in the population with no or little creation of workspaces (eg. industries) a lot of people would be unemployed, and if there is no other RGO nearby to work for them they should just move overseas as this would be historical.
Still people can reproduce in numbers but as RGOs shouldnt be expandable in Norway (it has poor farm lands and thus a "cap" in population) so they will move off if no industialisation takes place. Theorists would argue that this Malthusian "pop cap" would be removed due to industrialization changes in the agrarian system. Also that can be simulated in the game with automatic POP-promotion. That is much what happened in many countries and that would be kinda realistic. However there could be options to expand an RGO as you could in the original game, but IMO that should be thru discovering techs for example a mechanization of agriculture would allow a country to feed a great number of people. Some event like a thresher or better fishing boats to allow expansion of these areas hmmm. Perhaps this is a bad idea? i dont know
Last edited:
i think the major issue is that provinces lack size.
i think the amount of people a province can support should be linked to technology. provinces below a certain population density can be considered "wilderness", then "frontier", then "rural", then "suburban", then "urban".
the ability to support increased population without drastic decreases in life rating should be linked to infrastructure. this, in turn, can be linked to technology.
highly urbanised provinces should be expected to have a large panoply of civic infrastructure, such as sewage, health, mass transit, housing etc. if they want to support their teeming masses. if a state lacks the monies, technology or ideological inclination to invest in such infrastructure, it should be expected that natural population increase will largely be negated by an exodus of the populace. linking the provision of amenities to militancy would have the desired effect of making people crowded together with few amenities very unhappy, and likely either to leave or to riot.
indeed, one can picture a highly populated province with little infrastructure as a hellish landscape of shantytowns and slums where the inhabitants gaze unhappily at the expensively guarded islands of extreme wealth in their midst. from such provinces would come the migrants to the less densely settled provinces of the empires and settler societies.
of course, transportation, indentured servitude (as happened in the case of the indian immigrants to south africa and the caribbean), land sales, veteran land grants and other incentive schemes can be implemented to induce migrants to settle certain areas. as the provincial population density increases and tends toward urbanisation, the cycle can repeat itself.
of course, the types of inducement/incentives available to deport/import migrants should depend on the type of government. a democratic russia may be able to mirror the american settlement of the west, whereas an autocratic american despotate may have to establish internal exile in its western states.
i think the amount of people a province can support should be linked to technology. provinces below a certain population density can be considered "wilderness", then "frontier", then "rural", then "suburban", then "urban".
the ability to support increased population without drastic decreases in life rating should be linked to infrastructure. this, in turn, can be linked to technology.
highly urbanised provinces should be expected to have a large panoply of civic infrastructure, such as sewage, health, mass transit, housing etc. if they want to support their teeming masses. if a state lacks the monies, technology or ideological inclination to invest in such infrastructure, it should be expected that natural population increase will largely be negated by an exodus of the populace. linking the provision of amenities to militancy would have the desired effect of making people crowded together with few amenities very unhappy, and likely either to leave or to riot.
indeed, one can picture a highly populated province with little infrastructure as a hellish landscape of shantytowns and slums where the inhabitants gaze unhappily at the expensively guarded islands of extreme wealth in their midst. from such provinces would come the migrants to the less densely settled provinces of the empires and settler societies.
of course, transportation, indentured servitude (as happened in the case of the indian immigrants to south africa and the caribbean), land sales, veteran land grants and other incentive schemes can be implemented to induce migrants to settle certain areas. as the provincial population density increases and tends toward urbanisation, the cycle can repeat itself.
of course, the types of inducement/incentives available to deport/import migrants should depend on the type of government. a democratic russia may be able to mirror the american settlement of the west, whereas an autocratic american despotate may have to establish internal exile in its western states.
"Howdy, pardnerski. You one o' them rootin' tootin' cossack boys from down Astrakhan way?"
"I'll have a slug o' vodka, barkeep."
"Better get this stagecoach movin'! Them Uzbeks is almost on us!"
It works better if you imagine the above in a John Wayne voice.
Reality triumphs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4zVYEZdDcY&feature=related#t=0m5sAlthough Russia did historically try this anyway, and Siberia, Central Asia, and the Caucasus frequently did have a frontier "Wild East" vibe about them. Peasants in frontier territories were given additional privileges, and there were many attempts to grant land and rights to immigrants from Germany in particular. The main problems had to do with climate and lack of infrastructure making the areas relatively unattractive compared to the United States.
Diminishing returns on RGOs would help hugely. IE- Alaska initially would attract some POPs due to income from nice timber/precious metals etc RGO but then the lower the life rating the faster diminishing returns sets in. This would also help interior migration patterns as RGO on east coast fill up even with high life ratings eventually income would fall so low POPs want to move to interior. Of course player could have some effect here by concentrating industry in initial area which attracted migrants but... with heavy immigration factories wouldn't be able to keep up and POPs would spread out nicely.
