New Spain historically

[cetvrtak]

Is there any historical justification for New Spain not to include territories in North America and the Caribbean?

I started a game as France on 4th September 1783, right after the end of the American War of Independence. I noticed there was a colony of Spanish Louisiana, so that got me researching. Apparently, it was not a colony at all, but a province of Viceroyalty of New Spain. Going a bit further, it seems that California, Florida and Isla Juana (Caribbean) were nothing more that provinces themselves.

 

[Willem IV]

no historical justification, but only a gameplay one.
Otherwise the Mexico Colonial Region would become too big. (already the biggest in the game)

 

[holyvigil]

Is there any historical justification for New Spain not to include territories in North America and the Caribbean?

I started a game as France on 4th September 1783, right after the end of the American War of Independence. I noticed there was a colony of Spanish Louisiana, so that got me researching. Apparently, it was not a colony at all, but a province of Viceroyalty of New Spain. Going a bit further, it seems that California, Florida and Isla Juana (Caribbean) were nothing more that provinces themselves.

Early on it makes the most historical sense to have all colonies as a part of the nation as infrastructure and population increased distinctiveness of the colonies would grow.

 

[Battlex]

Is there any historical justification for New Spain not to include territories in North America and the Caribbean?

I started a game as France on 4th September 1783, right after the end of the American War of Independence. I noticed there was a colony of Spanish Louisiana, so that got me researching. Apparently, it was not a colony at all, but a province of Viceroyalty of New Spain. Going a bit further, it seems that California, Florida and Isla Juana (Caribbean) were nothing more that provinces themselves.

Because Spain wasn't the only coloniser. Limiting colonial nations to roughly their 18th century borders helps them breakup more easily

 

[cetvrtak]

Because Spain wasn't the only coloniser. Limiting colonial nations to roughly their 18th century borders helps them breakup more easily

Sure, but I was asking because I was interested if California, Florida, Isla Juana, Spanish Louisiana (and even Philippines) not being part of Viceroyalty of New Spain had any historical basis.

I figured out eventually why it was split along the colonial regions lines. Namely, everything in Americas belong directly to Spain, as defined in history files. So at the game start, the colonial nations are formed if there are 5+ provinces in that region.

Gameplay-wise, just like any finished colony transfers to the colonial nation in the corresponding colonial region, they could set it up so that any colony finished by Spain in North and Central America transfers directly to New Spain.

 

[Metz]

Colonies should be dynamic. One provice should be an outpost (to reflect the situation in Caribbean small islands). Anything more than two provinces in a state should become a colony automatically. Any colonies in the same region should be merged. This should allow Spain to have a Florida colony detached from Mexico (for gameplay purposes).

 

[Battlex]

Colonies should be dynamic. One provice should be an outpost (to reflect the situation in Caribbean small islands). Anything more than two provinces in a state should become a colony automatically. Any colonies in the same region should be merged. This should allow Spain to have a Florida colony detached from Mexico (for gameplay purposes).

As player you can always give them the province before the new colonial nation forms

 

[cetvrtak]

This should allow Spain to have a Florida colony detached from Mexico

That's the thing, historically Florida wasn't a colony in its own right, it was a province of New Spain (Mexico). Some sources claim it has been governed from Havana, though. I'm not sure if that is correct, so I was asking here.

 

[Willem IV]

That is correct, both Luisiana and Florida were part of the Capitanía General de Cuba, which was a subdivision of New Spain.
Even the Philippines were part of New Spain.

So Paradox has to split up that vast empire, into the subdivisions.
And I agree that maybe Florida should have been part of the Caribbean Region, but I guess that doesn't works gameplay wise.

 

[celethiel]

Colonial nations are... to put it nicely weird... when it comes to reflecting how they were in reality or how you'd have them. The Florida issue I'd rather be able to keep that land as part of Spain Proper rather than create a Colonial Nation in Florida, Especially when my goal is funneling trade to the Seville Node, which means ignoring most of the East Coast of the U.S. If there was a checkbox that allowed you to block creating or giving land to a colonial nation i'd be for that in a second.

With the bigger thing about California, Lousiana and Texas and such. We'll talk Louisiana for instance, While France claimed all the Louisiana territory, and that territory swung in ownership. Most all that territory wasn't colonized until the 1800's after selling it to the U.S. Most of what was colonized was Louisiana (the modern state) and the area around St. Louis. But you and the AI easily takes all that land well before then.
Similarly the Texas Part of New Spain (or Mexico) was sparcly Populated (same for La Florida where the Majority of people lived in and around the around 5 or so Forts (which can not be simulated by the game w/o creating a colonial nation) However the AI in New Spain (or Mexico) colonizes the Texas Region first, and it's usually heavily colonized by the 1800's. There were not that many people living in California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or even the Northern Mexican region until into the 1800s, mostly centralized in "urban" regions like San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and so on.

The English colonies on the East Coast were probably the most heavily populated regions outside of Mexico in North America, and in General besides Mexico and the Caribbean, and possibly Canada, really the only things considered True Colonial Holding until the 1800's on the entire continent.
But the way the Game works, it's kind of hard to simulate this.

 

[Battlex]

Colonial nations are... to put it nicely weird... when it comes to reflecting how they were in reality or how you'd have them. The Florida issue I'd rather be able to keep that land as part of Spain Proper rather than create a Colonial Nation in Florida, Especially when my goal is funneling trade to the Seville Node, which means ignoring most of the East Coast of the U.S. If there was a checkbox that allowed you to block creating or giving land to a colonial nation i'd be for that in a second.

With the bigger thing about California, Lousiana and Texas and such. We'll talk Louisiana for instance, While France claimed all the Louisiana territory, and that territory swung in ownership. Most all that territory wasn't colonized until the 1800's after selling it to the U.S. Most of what was colonized was Louisiana (the modern state) and the area around St. Louis. But you and the AI easily takes all that land well before then.
Similarly the Texas Part of New Spain (or Mexico) was sparcly Populated (same for La Florida where the Majority of people lived in and around the around 5 or so Forts (which can not be simulated by the game w/o creating a colonial nation) However the AI in New Spain (or Mexico) colonizes the Texas Region first, and it's usually heavily colonized by the 1800's. There were not that many people living in California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico or even the Northern Mexican region until into the 1800s, mostly centralized in "urban" regions like San Antonio, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, and so on.

The English colonies on the East Coast were probably the most heavily populated regions outside of Mexico in North America, and in General besides Mexico and the Caribbean, and possibly Canada, really the only things considered True Colonial Holding until the 1800's on the entire continent.
But the way the Game works, it's kind of hard to simulate this.

If you don't state the land it can't become a colonial nation

That is correct, both Luisiana and Florida were part of the Capitanía General de Cuba, which was a subdivision of New Spain.
Even the Philippines were part of New Spain.

So Paradox has to split up that vast empire, into the subdivisions.
And I agree that maybe Florida should have been part of the Caribbean Region, but I guess that doesn't works gameplay wise.

Florida is in the carribean trade node, or used to be at least

 

[cetvrtak]

If you don't state the land it can't become a colonial nation

Assuming that the country's capital is outside the colonial regions, then if said country colonizes and cores five overseas provinces in the same colonial region, (regardless of whether they are part of a state or territory) a colonial nation will form.

Has something changed recently? I'm pretty sure that finishing colony gave a territorial core, thus finishing the 5th in the same colonial region always formed a CN there.

Florida is in the carribean trade node, or used to be at least

Yes, Northern part of Venezuela as well, the part that historically was under New Spain (at some point at least). This discrepancy opened a gamey way into directly controlling most of the Caribbean node.

 

[Battlex]

Has something changed recently? I'm pretty sure that finishing colony gave a territorial core, thus finishing the 5th in the same colonial region always formed a CN there.

Yes, Northern part of Venezuela as well, the part that historically was under New Spain (at some point at least). This discrepancy opened a gamey way into directly controlling most of the Caribbean node.

You got territorial cores but need full cores for it to flip

How was it gamey to own most of carribean node with the trade centres?

 

[LukasYork]

you don't need full cores, territorial cores are enough to form CN

 

[Manwe_Sulimo]

Yeah the only way to avoid forming a CN is to conquer provinces from natives before a CN has formed and leave them uncored. Not really a strategy.
IMO I find it strange one wants to avoid the CN forming. It's a very obedient subject that provides you with trade income, expands on its own (especially in 1.30 were CN are very active at colonizing and you don't even need to subsidize them anymore most of the time) and does not cost diplo relations or governing capacity.
From an immersion point the indirect government seems logical as well.

 

[Cancerofthehead]

Yeah the only way to avoid forming a CN is to conquer provinces from natives before a CN has formed and leave them uncored. Not really a strategy.
IMO I find it strange one wants to avoid the CN forming. It's a very obedient subject that provides you with trade income, expands on its own (especially in 1.30 were CN are very active at colonizing and you don't even need to subsidize them anymore most of the time) and does not cost diplo relations or governing capacity.
From an immersion point the indirect government seems logical as well.

The reason you would want to avoid colonial nations, especially in the Caribbean is that you only get 50% of their trade power. That can lead to a lot of money being taken by them that you could use more effectively.

Of course by the point where new world trade is significant I probably already have so much money coming from other sources that it doesn’t matter.

 

[cetvrtak]

You got territorial cores but need full cores for it to flip

How was it gamey to own most of carribean node with the trade centres?

As already mentioned, territorrial cores are enough, so not stating doesn't prevent CNs from forming. What does prevent them, however, is not going beyond 4 provinces per colonial region. The gamey part is that since Caribbean node has provinces in 3 regions, you can keep the best one for yourself and let other two form CNs.

I find it strange one wants to avoid the CN forming.

Historicity, as implied by thread title.

The reason you would want to avoid colonial nations, especially in the Caribbean is that you only get 50% of their trade power. That can lead to a lot of money being taken by them that you could use more effectively.

And this.

 

[Vaximillian]

If you don't state the land it can't become a colonial nation

Don’t speak when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[cetvrtak]

Don’t speak when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

You got it wrong. The saying goes:

 

[Battlex]

Don’t speak when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Deffo remember sometimes this patch or not forming until stated

As already mentioned, territorrial cores are enough, so not stating doesn't prevent CNs from forming. What does prevent them, however, is not going beyond 4 provinces per colonial region. The gamey part is that since Caribbean node has provinces in 3 regions, you can keep the best one for yourself and let other two form CNs.

Historicity, as implied by thread title.

And this.

Historicity is solved by granting the land to the Mexican colonial nation before a colonial nation can form
A merchant Republic can siphon 100% of trade, but everyone else is limited to 50%, so 50% of all carribean provinces is better than 4 centres of trade that you can't put lv3 without it affecting the number of lv3 you can have elsewhere