Megathread : Immigration In Victoria 2

[SønnavDanmark]

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.

+1

External and Internal Migration MUST be tied to population size and population densities, and I do think that certain provinces must have a hard-coded, set "optimum" population size. Having an optimum population size, after which the life rating drops off dramatically, triggering internal migration, is a necessity in order to properly model colonization and settlement. On one point I would disagree: these optima must be hardcoded. Greenland and Montana will never be able to support a population the size of Southern California or Ohio. A player's ability to change that optimum should be almost non-existant compared to the parameters established by Mother Nature.

 

[Plushie]

+1

External and Internal Migration MUST be tied to population size and population densities, and I do think that certain provinces must have a hard-coded, set "optimum" population size. Having an optimum population size, after which the life rating drops off dramatically, triggering internal migration, is a necessity in order to properly model colonization and settlement. On one point I would disagree: these optima must be hardcoded. Greenland and Montana will never be able to support a population the size of Southern California or Ohio. A player's ability to change that optimum should be almost non-existant compared to the parameters established by Mother Nature.

There should be a significant amount of elasticity in some places, though. The ability of Long Island to support human life differed a great deal in 1836 from 1636, and that's almost entirely because of infrastructural development (well, for a very loose definition of 'infrastructure', anyway). Some places should have hard-coded limits which the player can't really effect (although, theoretically, you could probably make Greenland pretty habitable with enough investment -- it'd just be pointless and very expensive), but many shouldn't.

One variable should be, for instance, terrain type or climate type.

 

[SønnavDanmark]

There should be a significant amount of elasticity in some places, though. The ability of Long Island to support human life differed a great deal in 1836 from 1636, and that's almost entirely because of infrastructural development (well, for a very loose definition of 'infrastructure', anyway). Some places should have hard-coded limits which the player can't really effect (although, theoretically, you could probably make Greenland pretty habitable with enough investment -- it'd just be pointless and very expensive), but many shouldn't.

One variable should be, for instance, terrain type or climate type.

Absolutely. The climate and the terrain should be the main determinants as far as "life capacity" goes. I would agree with a fair amount of elasticity with population size, given certain parameters. This is where historical hindsight comes into play. With major centres like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia already in place, it should instead be a focus to figure out what made places like Minneapolis, St. Louis, Seattle, etc, become major population centres. Try as I might, I was never able to recreate any of those cities, while Monterey, CA had about 10 million living there.

We know how Metropolises developed during this time period, and they did so in a more or less organic and uncontrolled way, along major trade networks, ie near the coast, along rivers, or along major rail lines. One could certainly argue for elasticity here, given the geopolitical situation, but in some ways they are "hard-coded" and naturally determined, by things like the topography of the city/port itself, or the topography of the surrounding area which in some cases can mandate a certain route for railroads. The difficulty is deciding between what tends to be predetermined and what is seemingly random. I would rather err on the side of being constrained by historical example than by having an Alaska or California with a population of 50 million by 1910. In most cases, I think providing for a "natural" upper bound will do the trick. After that it's just tweaking to find the right bound.

 

[Plushie]

Absolutely. The climate and the terrain should be the main determinants as far as "life capacity" goes. I would agree with a fair amount of elasticity with population size, given certain parameters. This is where historical hindsight comes into play. With major centres like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia already in place, it should instead be a focus to figure out what made places like Minneapolis, St. Louis, Seattle, etc, become major population centres. Try as I might, I was never able to recreate any of those cities, while Monterey, CA had about 10 million living there.

We know how Metropolises developed during this time period, and they did so in a more or less organic and uncontrolled way, along major trade networks, ie near the coast, along rivers, or along major rail lines. One could certainly argue for elasticity here, given the geopolitical situation, but in some ways they are "hard-coded" and naturally determined, by things like the topography of the city/port itself, or the topography of the surrounding area which in some cases can mandate a certain route for railroads. The difficulty is deciding between what tends to be predetermined and what is seemingly random. I would rather err on the side of being constrained by historical example than by having an Alaska or California with a population of 50 million by 1910. In most cases, I think providing for a "natural" upper bound will do the trick. After that it's just tweaking to find the right bound.

I think we're both essentially sitting very close together on, albeit on opposite sides of, a balance here. We basically agree but there are details that we differ on. Good thing, because that level of detail isn't really up to us

Anyway, while I agree that certain areas are pre-disposed to the planting of major metropolitan areas (St Louis, as you mention, is always going to be a big city, because it sits at a major river confluence), the scale should be somewhat under the control of the player. Why, for instance, did New York become so much larger than New Orleans? They both sit on top of waterway entrances to the wider, very large hinter-land (New York on the Erie Canal, New Orleans on the Mississippi), they're both in direct contact with very prosperous agricultural areas, and they're both established commercial cities at the beginning of the game's time period.

Well, the difference ended up being their separate state government policies. New York State followed something I can't help but call a kind of mercantilism, while the Louisiana state government spent a lot more time in the hands of the upriver plantation owners. This ability for different regions of the same country to pursue different policies should be reflect in the game, that is, I should be able to work through the infrastructure/decisions of a state/province to attract more immigrants and bolster industrial development. After all, while the 19th century was (at least in the pop culture understanding of it) the time of laissez faire, that didn't mean governments did nothing to encourage industrialization and commercialization in certain areas.

 

[JoeGiavani]

Well, the difference ended up being their separate state government policies. New York State followed something I can't help but call a kind of mercantilism, while the Louisiana state government spent a lot more time in the hands of the upriver plantation owners. This ability for different regions of the same country to pursue different policies should be reflect in the game, that is, I should be able to work through the infrastructure/decisions of a state/province to attract more immigrants and bolster industrial development. After all, while the 19th century was (at least in the pop culture understanding of it) the time of laissez faire, that didn't mean governments did nothing to encourage industrialization and commercialization in certain areas.

The fact that New York was several thousand miles closer to Europe (and therefore the rest of the developed world, as well as nearly all migrants) can't have done them any harm.

 

[Plushie]

The fact that New York was several thousand miles closer to Europe (and therefore the rest of the developed world, as well as nearly all migrants) can't have done them any harm.

The primary destination of manufactured goods from New York was not Europe, but the American interior. Both Louisiana and New York State participated in major primary trade with Europe, cotton from Louisiana and grain from New York.

Believe me, while facing may have had a little to do with it, it definitely wasn't the major determining factor.

 

[Pius IX]

I didn't read all the posts so I don't know if it's been mentioned, but assimilation should be a little different. In Victoria I if the U.S. got immigrants to Louisiana they would assimilate and become Yankee pops, when it would make much more sense for them to become Dixie pops. Pops should assimilate to whatever the primary nationality is in that province, assuming there is already a pop with a state-accepted culture in the province. So immigrants to the U.S. should become Yankee, Dixie, or Texan depending on where they settle.

 

[SønnavDanmark]

I think we're both essentially sitting very close together on, albeit on opposite sides of, a balance here. We basically agree but there are details that we differ on. Good thing, because that level of detail isn't really up to us

Anyway, while I agree that certain areas are pre-disposed to the planting of major metropolitan areas (St Louis, as you mention, is always going to be a big city, because it sits at a major river confluence), the scale should be somewhat under the control of the player. Why, for instance, did New York become so much larger than New Orleans? They both sit on top of waterway entrances to the wider, very large hinter-land (New York on the Erie Canal, New Orleans on the Mississippi), they're both in direct contact with very prosperous agricultural areas, and they're both established commercial cities at the beginning of the game's time period.

Well, the difference ended up being their separate state government policies. New York State followed something I can't help but call a kind of mercantilism, while the Louisiana state government spent a lot more time in the hands of the upriver plantation owners. This ability for different regions of the same country to pursue different policies should be reflect in the game, that is, I should be able to work through the infrastructure/decisions of a state/province to attract more immigrants and bolster industrial development. After all, while the 19th century was (at least in the pop culture understanding of it) the time of laissez faire, that didn't mean governments did nothing to encourage industrialization and commercialization in certain areas.

I would agree with most of your points. It's mostly just a juggling act between making a model which is self-standing and one which delivers the desired result. I think it's fair to say that Paradox has been shifting towards the former, focusing less and less on the latter. But with this instalment, given the proper inputs that we've discussed, I think a reasonable model could stand to deliver even "better" results than in V1. For my part, as you've said, I would prefer to risk on the side of constraint and somewhat realistic results, than on the side of model functionality and dynamicism, and really odd results. But whatever we get, it will be enjoyable.

 

[Plushie]

I would agree with most of your points. It's mostly just a juggling act between making a model which is self-standing and one which delivers the desired result. I think it's fair to say that Paradox has been shifting towards the former, focusing less and less on the latter. But with this instalment, given the proper inputs that we've discussed, I think a reasonable model could stand to deliver even "better" results than in V1. For my part, as you've said, I would prefer to risk on the side of constraint and somewhat realistic results, than on the side of model functionality and dynamicism, and really odd results. But whatever we get, it will be enjoyable.

Of course. If Vicky 2 is even half as moddable as EU3 or HoI3, I'm sure that both of the models we've been talking about will find their way into the game, one way or another.

That is, if PDox even uses the Life-Rating Model as a way of handling immigration in the first place. Here's to hoping they do

 

[unmerged(63310)]

That is, if PDox even uses the Life-Rating Model as a way of handling immigration in the first place. Here's to hoping they do

Hard to imagine migration without some type of life rating. I just hope it is dynamic enough there can be some variation and restrained enough there is not a repeat of millions moving to Sardinia or Alaska in a massive gold rush that last 50 years.

 

[unmerged(66785)]

As others have hinted at, I think the addition of ancestry would be good.

 

[Quintarka]

Capitalist should be able to hire craftsmen and clerks for factories in a laizze faire enviroment this may help the situation. or have a expertise ratings so if pops are long on the job you get bonuses. while newly converted craftsmen get zero

 

[Elecwaves]

I'm wondering if a certain nationalism will be implemented. Like people moving to colonies for the country, but not elsewhere? Also weak nationalism would implore people to be more likely to move rather than revolt when the country's going to shit, while strong nationalism would have them remain, and revolt to get their say on how the gov't can bring their nation back to it's former glory?

 

[Cinéad IV]

I didn't read all the posts so I don't know if it's been mentioned, but assimilation should be a little different. In Victoria I if the U.S. got immigrants to Louisiana they would assimilate and become Yankee pops, when it would make much more sense for them to become Dixie pops. Pops should assimilate to whatever the primary nationality is in that province, assuming there is already a pop with a state-accepted culture in the province. So immigrants to the U.S. should become Yankee, Dixie, or Texan depending on where they settle.

This.

Also, it would be quite good if you could get some small movement of colonial POPs to the motherland in Europe. It didn't happen on a large scale (certainly not on the scale we're used to today), but it did happen in the Victorian timeframe.

 

[Valentin the II]

I'm wondering if a certain nationalism will be implemented. Like people moving to colonies for the country, but not elsewhere? Also weak nationalism would implore people to be more likely to move rather than revolt when the country's going to shit, while strong nationalism would have them remain, and revolt to get their say on how the gov't can bring their nation back to it's former glory?

^ Totaly agreed. But I think you mean patriotism.

 

[unmerged(88665)]

I absolutely agree on the idea of state-sponsored migration. Why should your pops flee to USA, when you have colonies all over the world, where they would be treated definitely better than in the U.S.

And I know that this has already been written, but some states did forcibly move their pops around (prisoners in UK&France, "undesirable individuals" in Russia and later USSR, national minorities...)

Furthermore, it should be tied to the economical model. In a country with laissez faire economics the capitalists automatically build factories where it is mostly suitable (enough free labour, low inputs and huge outputs, etc.), but when a state with planned economics or central planing builds a factory somewhere far away from civilization, it should be able to move at least some workers there.

 

[von Rypp]

I was missing the Government-controlled migration from Vicky. As a monarch why I'm not allowed to tell the serfs or other lower classes where to go? I mean there should be an option with very high monetary/militancy cost to force-migrate your citizens. It was the age of the early nationalism/patriotism after all, when the nations wanted to spread out their culture/national citizens around the world.

 

[Sarmatia1871]

I'm wondering if a certain nationalism will be implemented. Like people moving to colonies for the country, but not elsewhere?

The problem is that didn't really happen. As an example, there were incredibly strenuous attempts by nationalist German civil society organizations to promote migration to German colonies in Africa, but Germans still overwhelmingly preferred to go to America and British colonies of settlement - which led to lots of associated blahblah about the strength of the nation being drained away.

The only way these sorts of movements really worked was by governments offering incentives or coercing people, and even then any success would be dependent on the "life-rating" of the region in question.