More sensible colonising patterns

[RedRalphWiggum]

I have to say I always thought the Americas were colonised in too patchwork of a manner in EU3. I wouldn't want things to be overly restrictive, but what would the rest of ye think of some mechanics to make it so there were 4 or 5 major colonisers, instead of 20 smaller ones?

 

[Tornadoli]

20? I rarely see that many colonizers...

 

[1alexey]

I guess the best way to do so is to make AI with strong fleet attack those weal colonisers and seize their colonies.

Right?

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I guess the best way to do so is to make AI with strong fleet attack those weal colonisers and seize their colonies.

Right?

Yeah, something along those lines. If your colonies are indefensible than for one reason or another they should usually pass over to a country that can actually hold them.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

Yeah, something along those lines. If your colonies are indefensible than for one reason or another they should usually pass over to a country that can actually hold them.

Yes, make the AI fairly aggressive, and make colonies easy to change hands compared to mainland europe.

 

[Me_]

I think there should also be an option for small nations to sell their colonies to bigger nations if they go into debt. They should never sell them to human players (to avoid exploits).

 

[1alexey]

I think that there still also needs to be the limiting factors of agression, since IRL it was Spain, Holland, Portugal, England, France that were colonising, not just 1 or 2.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

I think geography should play a bigger part. It's no coincidence that all the major colonisers of the Americas had Atlantic coasts.

 

[Me_]

And one more thing: make it so that the Emperor would not protect HRE members from colonial wars. This is just silly and makes it very hard to take African coast from Savoy/Genoa/Milan unless you can defeat Austria/Bohemia on the continent.

 

[1alexey]

And one more thing: make it so that the Emperor would not protect HRE members from colonial wars. This is just silly and makes it very hard to take African coast from Savoy/Genoa/Milan unless you can defeat Austria/Bohemia on the continent.

What is wrong about that? if your mainland is vulrnable to their allies, why on earth would you even think about grabbing their colonies?

 

[Seli]

I think that there still also needs to be the limiting factors of agression, since IRL it was Spain, Holland, Portugal, England, France that were colonising, not just 1 or 2.

And Sweden, and Scotland, and Denmark, and even Courland for a short while. (and that is only in the americas)

 

[Me_]

What is wrong about that? if your mainland is vulrnable to their allies, why on earth would you even think about grabbing their colonies?

Not Allies. The Emperor. And it's not about your land being vulnerable. It's about being unable to gather enough warscore for a peace because 30 thousand Austrians are standing in Milano. So Milan thinks it should take nothing less than 100 ducats from you rather than giving up land it cannot defend anyway.

It's also about the fact that as Emperor you get called into wars that do not even concern Imperial territory. And then you cannot get peace with England because it won't accept anything less than all of Milan's colonies.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

And Sweden, and Scotland, and Denmark, and even Courland for a short while. (and that is only in the americas)

Yeah but look how that worked out. they weren't sustainable on the scale the major ones were.

 

[Me_]

Yeah but look how that worked out. they weren't sustainable on the scale the major ones were.

Denmark still has most of it's colonies.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Denmark still has most of it's colonies.

OK, granted, but there's no one in them.

 

[1alexey]

Not Allies. The Emperor. And it's not about your land being vulnerable. It's about being unable to gather enough warscore for a peace because 30 thousand Austrians are standing in Milano. So Milan thinks it should take nothing less than 100 ducats from you rather than giving up land it cannot defend anyway.

It's also about the fact that as Emperor you get called into wars that do not even concern Imperial territory. And then you cannot get peace with England because it won't accept anything less than all of Milan's colonies.

They are part of the empire, so imperor is their ally.

I mean, seriously, can you imagine Holland attacking France to grab some colonies?

Afain, if you can not force them to give those up, why attack?

Denmark still has most of it's colonies.

Yeah, because those have so little population, it is quite useless to be independent.

 

[Antiscamp]

Why did Venice send colonists to Hudson Bay in my ongoing game of EU3? What would Venice IRL ever have gained by colonizing that area? Why did Russia send colonists to South Africa?

In real history, it's true that countries like Sweden and Denmark formed colonies in America and Africa, but these colonies were of limited importance economically and Sweden did not shed many tears when the Dutch took over "New Sweden" at the Delaware River and the British later incorporated it into The Thirteen Colonies.

But yes! The colonization of the world needs to be more logical and historical. In my game, there's absolutely no reason for Russia to colonize South Africa. The Dutch did it in real history to protect the route between the Indian Ocean and Africa because of their rich and flourishing colonies in what is nowadays Indonesia.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

Denmark still has most of it's colonies.

The Faroes and Greenland? I hardly would put those beside the likes of New France, New Spain or New England.

 

[Eh up me duck]

I think we need a return to Colonial Wars...

 

[Me_]

They are part of the empire, so imperor is their ally.

That's the thing - he shouldn't be. Imperial laws applied to Imperial territory not to anyone that happend to be a vassal of the Emperor. Margraves of Branderburg would get no help from the Emperor if someone attacked Prussia only if Branderburg itself were contested would the Emperor have right to intervene.

I mean, seriously, can you imagine Holland attacking France to grab some colonies?

What that has to do with what? Neither Holland nor France were members of HRE.

Afain, if you can not force them to give those up, why attack?

Again - the thing is you should be able to take that land. Emperors had no interest nor right to defend trritory that did not belong to HRE (unless of course they had an actuall alliace with its owner).
And the problem works both ways not just for human player - AI that just wants some colonies is unable to take them so it ends up in a stalemate.

Why did Venice send colonists to Hudson Bay in my ongoing game of EU3? What would Venice IRL ever have gained by colonizing that area? Why did Russia send colonists to South Africa?

In real history, it's true that countries like Sweden and Denmark formed colonies in America and Africa, but these colonies were of limited importance economically and Sweden did not shed many tears when the Dutch took over "New Sweden" at the Delaware River and the British later incorporated it into The Thirteen Colonies.

But yes! The colonization of the world needs to be more logical and historical. In my game, there's absolutely no reason for Russia to colonize South Africa. The Dutch did it in real history to protect the route between the Indian Ocean and Africa because of their rich and flourishing colonies in what is nowadays Indonesia.

There's the matter of prestige - all the cool kids are colonising so Russia/Venice should as well. Although in real life it would choose something sensible rather than Africa. Siberia perhaps. Or Grece.