Migration

[unmerged(131989)]

One of the most frustrating things about the original Victoria (and one of the most questioned about things) was how to get migration to work in the way that you wanted it to. Now, for the EU3 expansion ("Heir to the Throne"), Johan/Balor mentioned that you will be able to:

• Set your National Focus in a province to enhance growth and strengthen your hold in the region.

This makes me wonder whether such a focus on certain provinces could be applied for the concept of migration in Victoria 2 (since they are both on the Clausewitz engine). Moreover, could a nation specify certain provinces or regions so as to encourage that area to be a centre for immigration?

I think there are a few things about the "Heir to the Throne" expansion which would be nice to cross-over with Victoria 2, and this is just one of them which I think would be nice to adapt in some way.

 

[JoeGiavani]

You'd have to be very careful with immigration. Since in Vicky, and presumably in Vicky 2, more people means a stronger industry as well as more troops, there are no downsides to it. Allowing a human player to control or influence immigration in a direct way could be completely over-powered.
Presumably immigration will be more scattered and even across the new world, allowing all the countries at least decent immigration levels without tying down the player to historical levels.

 

[unmerged(59077)]

It should be an option; but it should not be cheap.

And governments that are more autocratic should be able to do so more easily: note the Siberian population boom under the USSR for example.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

I'm thinking more along the lines that your national policies attract immigrants, but where they go in your country can be controlled better by yourself by allowing you (or indeed the AI) to target where you most want/need immigrants to go to work. This could be in the form of government incentives in that area, or whatever.

 

[ABosnian]

I agree with most of what has been stated so far.

Similarly, I'd like to be able to pass laws (via decisions) to ban or keep out certain groups (only European immigrants was the law in North America and probably Australia and NZ as well), whether that's within my own country or coming from another country. Also, you should be able to somewhat control which people emigrate.

 

[Barón Rojo]

Include penal colonies, please! That is a good way to force the migration to the colonies (Australia, for example ).

 

[unmerged(131989)]

Include penal colonies, please! That is a good way to force the migration to the colonies (Australia, for example ).

YES! It would also be good for Siberia too, and could tie into the laws, crime fighting, etc...

 

[unmerged(94521)]

IMO it would make most sense if countries (especially autocratic) ones were to some degree able to control emmigration/immigration within the country itself, from where to where and such, while no countries had any particular control over POPs that leave the nation alltogether.

 

[unmerged(84717)]

I'd like to see an option to concentrate immigration in certain provinces within a state - I mean, people are coming to BC for the gold in the Fraser Valley but for some reason they are being equally spread throughout the province - what? Why would someone go to Fort Saint John all the way up if the gold down there was what attracted him or her to come?

 

[rjf101]

I agree 100%. Immigrants should be attracted to a specific province, not to a state. And the thing that makes states with many provinces attract tons of immigrants, should definately be removed. It causes Alaska, California, Texas and California to get too many immigrants. Also, what causes Louisiana to get all those Eastern Europeans? That needs to be fixed. I agree with a post above that said that you should eb able to encourge immigration to a certain area. In the 19th century America gave land away for free out west, and millions moved there from Eerope. Another good idea above was that certain groups of people just be banend from immigrating to your nation. Chinese were not allowed in Canada or the USA (and I think Australia and New Zealand as well) for many years, and Eastern European immigration was greatly restricted. Overall more people should be immigrating, the numbers of migrating people in the game are not as high as historically they were. And, people should move to their nation's colonies, even if conditions in their homeland are great, because, for example, in real life many people moved from England to Aystralia and Canada, even if they had a decent life back home.

 

[Hardstuff]

In fairness, even Autocratic states required "pull" effects for migration.

In other words, why would anyone move to Siberia, for example? To do nothing? Obviously not, they had something to do there.

The 'push' effects were simply the autocratic government: Go where we tell you.

Ie. If you build factories in Siberia, and there are no factories elsewhere, and the government is autocratic, then maybe migration should be increased without any incentives?

While under a democratic, free regime, maybe if you (or capitalists, for some strange reason) build factories in Siberia, a tax incentive - or something similar, would be required to gain the same level of migration as in the above case?

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Another good idea above was that certain groups of people just be banend from immigrating to your nation. Chinese were not allowed in Canada or the USA (and I think Australia and New Zealand as well) for many years, and Eastern European immigration was greatly restricted.

I like this idea, but as the game works now there's no reason to actually do so, what with perfect assimilation and all non-accepted cultures being equally alien in game terms.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

... the thing that makes states with many provinces attract tons of immigrants, should definately be removed. It causes Alaska, California, Texas and California to get too many immigrants.

From what I am aware, the larger states are not more attractive. Since POPs migrate to a state, and what with the long-ranged/short-ranged distinction, it just means certain provinces are more accessible when at least one of the provinces is within range (since they migrate over a state, and part of that state is close enough). I think this is where some of the confusion comes from.

Those are my observations, anyway, and I do not recall it being mentioned anywhere that the number of provinces makes any difference.


Anyway, I also agree that a nation should be allowed to focus on attracting immigrants from certain countries it wants. Perhaps there would be assimilation bonuses for POPs of a certain grouping to another (i.e. Anglophone POPs assimilate more easily into Anglophone countries)?

 

[unmerged(148761)]

Immigration pulls should be life rating of a provence, job opertunities, govt type and policy, religious tolerance.

Immigration pushes should be war, oppression, poverty.

Immigration pulls should NOT be state size, continental location.

 

[Nietzsche]

Include penal colonies, please! That is a good way to force the migration to the colonies (Australia, for example ).

Lebensraum Awaits!

 

[JoeGiavani]

Lebensraum Awaits!

Penal colonies won't be in the game for exactly that reason.

 

[Nietzsche]

Penal colonies won't be in the game for exactly that reason.

Well that's mildly disappointing. Fill up newly conquered lands with criminals who speak your nations' tongue, and within a few generations you'll have atleast a sizable minority. Or, give incentives to the nobles to build estates in those lands. It certainly isn't unheard of in our world.

 

[jamhaw]

You'd have to be very careful with immigration. Since in Vicky, and presumably in Vicky 2, more people means a stronger industry as well as more troops, there are no downsides to it. Allowing a human player to control or influence immigration in a direct way could be completely over-powered.
Presumably immigration will be more scattered and even across the new world, allowing all the countries at least decent immigration levels without tying down the player to historical levels.

That should be amended.

But personally what I would like the most is if it were possible to move your own POP's around your empire. Like the British did with Australia or the Russians with Siberia.

 

[Jolt]

Penal colonies won't be in the game for exactly that reason.

The idea of a Germanic people without sufficient space dates back to long before Adolf Hitler brought it to prominence. The term Lebensraum in this sense was coined by Friedrich Ratzel in 1897, and was used as a slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, based on the English and French models. Ratzel believed that the development of a people was primarily influenced by their geographical situation and that a people that successfully adapted to one location would proceed naturally to another. These thoughts can be seen in his studies of zoology and the study of adaptation[1]. This expansion to fill available space, he claimed, was a natural and necessary feature of any healthy species.

I don't see how deporting criminals to populate colonies is more controversial than killing native people like in EU 2 and 3.

 

[Nietzsche]

The idea of a Germanic people without sufficient space dates back to long before Adolf Hitler brought it to prominence. The term Lebensraum in this sense was coined by Friedrich Ratzel in 1897, and was used as a slogan in Germany referring to the unification of the country and the acquisition of colonies, based on the English and French models. Ratzel believed that the development of a people was primarily influenced by their geographical situation and that a people that successfully adapted to one location would proceed naturally to another. These thoughts can be seen in his studies of zoology and the study of adaptation[1]. This expansion to fill available space, he claimed, was a natural and necessary feature of any healthy species.

I don't see how deporting criminals to populate colonies is more controversial than killing native people like in EU 2 and 3.

This. It has nothing to do with "Rawr, Jerries are better than Poles/Russians/Franco-Canadians!" but with "...well, I've just taken this large swath of land populated by people who can't spell my last name. How do I amend the issue?". I'd also like to be able to convert non-national pops into soldiers. It wasn't unheard of, even preferred.