Nation size and colonization?

[Cormac]

Apologies in advance if I've missed this already, but how does the population of a nation influence its ability to GROW its colonies? Does manpower have any impact, or does number of colonists alone determine how fast a nation's overseas possessions grow in size?

 

[Xia]

Colonists and ideas are the only things that effect colonial growth

EDIT: Well okay, and modifiers such as tropical, but those are static and province bound

 

[Cormac]

Colonists and ideas are the only things that effect colonial growth

EDIT: Well okay, and modifiers such as tropical, but those are static and province bound

So how is the greater population of, say, France or England represented in the growth of colonies versus someone like Denmark or Courland? Will Spain have more "colonists" than Sweden in the game?

 

[Xia]

So how is the greater population of, say, France or England represented in the growth of colonies versus someone like Denmark or Courland? Will Spain have more "colonists" than Sweden in the game?

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't represented at all. Colonies are financially awkward however, when I get up to two or three colonies my country starts to struggle - so a larger empire would more easily colonise a larger area faster in that respect.

 

[Lordrac]

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't represented at all. Colonies are financially awkward however, when I get up to two or three colonies my country starts to struggle - so a larger empire would more easily colonise a larger area faster in that respect.

Makes sense. Deters little nations from colonising when it can be crippling to the economy and military.

 

[Cormac]

To the best of my knowledge, it isn't represented at all. Colonies are financially awkward however, when I get up to two or three colonies my country starts to struggle - so a larger empire would more easily colonise a larger area faster in that respect.

My concern is that a nation like Portugal could replicate an English-style empire in the game, which would have been impossible in history (in my opinion). Portugal created an overseas empire through conquest and settlement of isolated factories and fortified trading ports; they never attempted anything like what the English did in New England or Virginia, something that Britain's much larger population (and, admittedly, religious strife) made possible. New England and Virginia were settled extensively by families intent on turning the soil. Portugal, however, without nearly the same population, created a trading empire only--a vast network of soldiers, sailors, conquerors, and bureaucrats (very few women!) who funneled the cash back to Lisbon. They never attempted to really colonize (Brazil being the lone exception), because they simply didn't have the excess population. Even in Brazil, the labor came mainly from African slaves.

So, in the game, the capacity for a player like England to funnel whole families overseas should be represented. I notice that Portugal has a 10 percent colonization national idea in the game, which simply makes no sense to me. Portugal's empire was about trade and military control, not *settlement*--without native populations, many of its overseas possessions wouldn't have had much of a population at all.

 

[unmerged(416135)]

As mentioned - a lot of small countries had colonies.
Kurland (see Jakob Kettler biography) had plans to colonize Australia but his fleet and colonies were all destroyed / taken by Sweden.


Technically speaking the biggest expense in colonialism wasn't sticking your flag into the ground, but making sure the other white guys don't steal your new possession. As you probably know, British North America wasn't really British since they took lands from the Dutch, the French, et cetera.

 

[Cormac]

In many ways, this is why I thought the original colonization model from EUII made sense. It may have been irritating to constantly click on your settlers to send them where you needed them, but at least they were influenced by population (I think). In other words, I got more settlers to send to their fate if I was playing France than I did when I played Portugal, who had to rely more on military control of crucial maritime chokepoints to get the spices home.

 

[Cynical Dreamer]

My concern is that a nation like Portugal could replicate an English-style empire in the game, which would have been impossible in history (in my opinion). Portugal created an overseas empire through conquest and settlement of isolated factories and fortified trading ports; they never attempted anything like what the English did in New England or Virginia, something that Britain's much larger population (and, admittedly, religious strife) made possible. New England and Virginia were settled extensively by families intent on turning the soil. Portugal, however, without nearly the same population, created a trading empire only--a vast network of soldiers, sailors, conquerors, and bureaucrats (very few women!) who funneled the cash back to Lisbon. They never attempted to really colonize (Brazil being the lone exception), because they simply didn't have the excess population. Even in Brazil, the labor came mainly from African slaves.

So, in the game, the capacity for a player like England to funnel whole families overseas should be represented. I notice that Portugal has a 10 percent colonization national idea in the game, which simply makes no sense to me. Portugal's empire was about trade and military control, not *settlement*--without native populations, many of its overseas possessions wouldn't have had much of a population at all.

Hello,

I share your concerns. I would hope colonization gets a DLC that takes into account if not the population (I'm quite pissed off about PI ditching in entirely), at least manpower. As you say, England could "afford" to send colonists, for it was more populated, and could rely on Scotland, Ireland and some influx from Germans to populate them. Portugal on the other hand had a population below one million for much of the period. Having them colonize more than what historically happened is okay. But it would not seem appropriate that they would be able to go toe to toe with a nation with a far larger population in terms of number of colonists.

 

[Cormac]

As mentioned - a lot of small countries had colonies.
Kurland (see Jakob Kettler biography) had plans to colonize Australia but his fleet and colonies were all destroyed / taken by Sweden.


Technically speaking the biggest expense in colonialism wasn't sticking your flag into the ground, but making sure the other white guys don't steal your new possession. As you probably know, British North America wasn't really British since they took lands from the Dutch, the French, et cetera.

All true. But neither Kurland nor Portugal could ever have produced something like New England. Where would Kurland have found the women willing to accompany men overseas to produce a new generation in the New World? Surely, they would have found some. But not NEARLY as many as England did.

Not all colonies, or the impulses that created them, were the same during the period. As far as I can tell, this is not reflected in the game.

 

[Cormac]

Hello,

I share your concerns. I would hope colonization gets a DLC that takes into account if not the population (I'm quite pissed off about PI ditching in entirely), at least manpower. As you say, England could "afford" to send colonists, for it was more populated, and could rely on Scotland, Ireland and some influx from Germans to populate them. Portugal on the other hand had a population below one million for much of the period. Having them colonize more than what historically happened is okay. But it would not seem appropriate that they would be able to go toe to toe with a nation with a far larger population in terms of number of colonists.

Precisely. It's a matter of simple scale, just like military manpower and naval limits, both of which are already represented in the game. As Denmark, I can't possibly build as big an army as France or Spain. I just don't have the men. So how can I possibly grow an overseas empire as fast as them? Am I cloning families? I think the idea of linking colonists to the founding of colonies makes sense; but when it comes to how fast they GROW, bigger populations should be able to support greater growth rates.

I can't think of a single exception to this in history. If anyone else can, please let me know.

 

[knul]

Portugal's population wouldn't matter that much for colonists: immigrants from other parts of Europe could flock to the Portugese colonies. A large part of settlers of the English colonies were Germans, for example.

In real life, the Spanish and especially the Portugese were very strict in allowing only Catholic settlers enter their colonies. If that policy was removed, it could very well be that their colonies would have attracted settlers from other nations.