New Zealand 1840-1914

[unmerged(31018)]

In the 1914 Scenario, every part of NZ bar Wellington is 100% Maori and Wellington is 25% British and 75% Maori, but by this time white setters outnumbered Maori 4-1 through Musket Wars, the New Zealand wars and disease. As with most place's that had contact with europeans and were not protected from disease and many died. Also the resources in the province of the West Coast are wrong, because the West Coast is not know for wheat, maybe lumber or some gold. (all forests, valley's and mountains).

"By 1860, constant arrivals had increased the numbers of Pakeha to around 40,000 in the North Island, with 60,000 Maori, and there was a corresponding extension of Pakeha control over geographical areas." -www.zealand.org.nz

By 1890 Maori population had dwindled under contined pressure from colonists and wars. White outnumbered the Maori 4-1 so why it not shown in any of the scenario's?

Can someone change this? - or is it to be left as it is.

 

[unmerged(19817)]

It was purposefully designed that way to frustrate you. Is that the answer you seek?

 

[OriginalRafiki]

From http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120910:

This is a summary of the situation with regards to POP changes. It has been ok'd by Paradox.

Paradox are committed to improving Victoria and welcome comments on population distributions within the game. However, in a game as complex as Victoria and with so many conflicting sources and opinions over the population and culture of most of the provinces shown on the map, it is unrealistic to expect a detailed response / reply to each query.

Where an error or ommission has a significant impact on the game, in Paradox's opinion, POP changes will be made as a part of the normal patch process. Examples of this would be a total population twice as large as it should have been in real life or 2,000,000 aristocrats in a single province.

Smaller errors, for example incorrect state religions or obviously incorrect distributions (e.g. no catholics in Switzerland) may get fixed as time permits.

Errors that have little or no impact on gameplay e.g. the absence of a 5% minority or a 20% swing in the split between one minority and another are best left to user generated mods in the VIP forum. Paradox have a history of adopting player mods into the game (e.g. Mad King James' Flag Mod) and should a consensus be reached around a "better" POP mod or group of mods then this may be considered for inclusion in the official game.

It is hoped that everyone will understand the reasons for this policy. Paradox can add more value to the Victoria experience by concentrating on tangible improvements in gameplay rather than indulging in lengthy, albeit interesting, discussions on populations and ethnicity.

Hope this clears up any misunderstandings

In general, this means that you might want to put together statistics, with references to credible, unbiased sources and present them.

In your case, it would seem that the population distribution wil have an impact on gameplay (granting of statehood etc), so it should fit that requirement.

If the powers that be choose not to include any fixes you suggest, there's always VIP who I am sure would like any input you'd like to give

Rafiki

 

[unmerged(30740)]

It was purposefully designed that way to frustrate you. Is that the answer you seek?

Yeah I know! New Zealand is completly screwed up! I hate it when They "forget" to replace the native population with Europeans.

I'm surprised that New York isn't full of Iroquois! :rofl:

 

[unmerged(31018)]

From http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showthread.php?t=120910:

In general, this means that you might want to put together statistics, with references to credible, unbiased sources and present them.

In your case, it would seem that the population distribution wil have an impact on gameplay (granting of statehood etc), so it should fit that requirement.

If the powers that be choose not to include any fixes you suggest, there's always VIP who I am sure would like any input you'd like to give

Rafiki

There are numerous accounts and studies complied by various universities of New Zealand, compared to national population is this period of history. All have agreed to the facts and figures presented, because all of them are well documented from various tribes and regions. I all the studies i did at college were of great interest to me. After studying New Zealand History for 7 years i was very dissapointed to see New Zealand in 1914 to have pakeha only 25% of one province, where in the Boer War only 14-15 years ago, New Zealand Commited 10 Contingets on Volunteers with little miltary training, but perform with great courage as well as Australians and Scots.

During this time of New Zealand studies, there was a university professor who was tired of New Zealand history been unknown from New Zealanders themselves. Introduced amazing accounts from gravesites and national/ regional achives that as of yet been paritally looked at. Simple verision my father was taught at school, Britian won all 'land wars', the professor said 'no' the Maori fought them to a stand still, and was the first race to use trench warfare, they also used guerilla tactics (not the first to use it).

But as i said all is well documented even on website, all they need to do is look at a population chart of the time between 1840-1918 when pakeha were constantly on the rise.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

and was the first race to use trench warfare, they also used guerilla tactics (not the first to use it).

I doubt they were first to use trench warfare either. The concept of trenches to protect troops has been around as long as practical man-portable firearms. Moreover their 'guerrilla warfare' would really just be standard non-European low intensity warfare, rather than regular guerrilla warfare. Raids from the unoccupied interior, etc.

That's not to say that Maori tactics weren't effective- that would be false- but rather than they had little in common with developments in European-style warfare.

 

[unmerged(28992)]

Actually the Maori were using fortifications long before Europeans arrived. Being a very warlike culture they fought a number of very bloody conflicts among themselves before all those annoying little pale folk came ashore. Interestingly the scale of bloodletting in some of these conflicts led to a fairly substantial demographic decline among the Maori in some areas. Some of the wars between tribes led to a greater percentage of their 'nation' being killed than that suffered by any power involved in the Great War.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

Actually the Maori were using fortifications long before Europeans arrived.

There's a big difference between building wooden forts on hills and "trench warfare".

Being a very warlike culture they fought a number of very bloody conflicts among themselves before all those annoying little pale folk came ashore.

Yeah- moreover they subjugated and to a large extent exterminated the previous occupants of the island.

Some of the wars between tribes led to a greater percentage of their 'nation' being killed than that suffered by any power involved in the Great War.

Are you sure about this? Primitive wars that happen today involve virtually no losses at all- see Papua New Guinea in particular. What's the basis for this assertion?

 

[unmerged(31018)]

There's a big difference between building wooden forts on hills and "trench warfare".

No but they built a 'pa', a wooden fort but the difference with this is that it had fire ports but above the wood or through but under the walls, and when the British and colonists attacked and lossed heavy number the Maori would move back into the next set of trench, so its 'bite and hold tactics' then? And when the british overran the 'pa' the maroi escaped out of tunnels



Yeah- moreover they subjugated and to a large extent exterminated the previous occupants of the island.

-yes the Mori Mori but they eat and destroyed most of them due to there culture at the time, requiring 'mana' or status.



Are you sure about this? Primitive wars that happen today involve virtually no losses at all- see Papua New Guinea in particular. What's the basis for this assertion?

Because with New Zealand whalers and sealers were there before any colonist, they traded muskets and tools for Maori flax, women, anything they could get, then starts the musket wars.

go here http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm is desribes the tribes and their leaders, it show's who got the more muskets asserted more rule, and to this extent many many Maori where killed.

 

[Golden_Deliciou]

Because with New Zealand whalers and sealers were there before any colonist, they traded muskets and tools for Maori flax, women, anything they could get, then starts the musket wars.

go here http://www.zealand.org.nz/history.htm is desribes the tribes and their leaders, it show's who got the more muskets asserted more rule, and to this extent many many Maori where killed.

Certainly an interesting resource. The arrival of firearms changes warfare dramatically.

Thing is, Maori victories were dependent on the inability of the whites to project much power to New Zealand at all, and especially not into the interior. Once the whites were able to bring a significant force against the Maoris, the latter's unfamiliarity with the technology of modern war made victory impossible in pitched battle.

 

[unmerged(31018)]

Certainly an interesting resource. The arrival of firearms changes warfare dramatically.

Thing is, Maori victories were dependent on the inability of the whites to project much power to New Zealand at all, and especially not into the interior. Once the whites were able to bring a significant force against the Maoris, the latter's unfamiliarity with the technology of modern war made victory impossible in pitched battle.

Thats why the Maori never fought a major pitched battle, as many would know you would lose against the Imperial British Forces (as Indian and other natives did). But if you read the text on Musket wars, this is my point Paradox of the population growth and english/french colonist wrong, as Arokoa near Christchurch was settled by French (%maybe for christchurch to have french as well?).

 

[unmerged(22834)]

australia suffers the exact same problem. no migration, no decrease in the native pops. its like the designers wanted aus and nz to stay homogenous or something.

ideally, aus and nz need some kind of hardcoded immigration like the usa. the idea of playing from 1836 to 1920 with zero population change is absurd.

even if events were creating which caused the polynese or aborgin pops to revolt, it would just empty the countries.

 

[unmerged(30740)]

At least in the 1914 scenario Australia is more correct. But it would be better if there was some European immigration in earlier scenarios. It seems New Zealand is doomed to not have any immigration.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

I suggested something be done about the 1914 population of NZ about a month after Vicky was released. However back then there were more posts and mine was moved to an obscure POP subforum in the Scenarios forum.

New Zealand is seriously underpopulated. By the 1914 scenario, I think there were at lest 1 million people. In the WW1 scenario, there are about 1/10th of that. There were about 3 to 1 europeans to maoris. I'm not sure exactly how many people there were, but I think I read in the newspaper that we reached our first million people in 1901, and I checked Statistics New Zealand, and the 1926 census showed about 1.4 million people, so I think that would be about right. ATM New Zealand isn't playable, there's just not enough population. I think when I tried it (in 1.01 even) I was making 1.6 pounds a day.

 

[unmerged(26989)]

I've noticed while trying to play a game as New Zealand that when I started the 1881 scenerio and released New Zealand from England, they had 175,000 people, which definitly seems to small. Well then I tried starting them from the 1914 scenerio, and they only had 99,000 people! Now aside from the fact each starting date has wrong populations, the 1914 scenerio has 76,000 people less!

 

[unmerged(31018)]

It all stuffed!!

I'm actually quite peeved off about this, because its not right, Australia/New Zealand/ USA had the highest immgration rate per square mile from 1860-1904 so whats the deal?

I can't even play as NZ because i have no money and only 1 inf div that is half strenght... thats the point?

 

[unmerged(26989)]

I've been playing New Zealand for about 15 years now, and not 1 single immigrant.

 

[Memnon]

It all stuffed!!

I'm actually quite peeved off about this, because its not right, Australia/New Zealand/ USA had the highest immgration rate per square mile from 1860-1904 so whats the deal?

I can't even play as NZ because i have no money and only 1 inf div that is half strenght... thats the point?

What's the deal? It's a game. It's made by human beings. It isn't perfect. New Zealand gets no immigrants. Australia gets no immigrants. Texas gets no immigrants. Does it suck, yeah, it does, but can you do anything about it? No, other than beg for them to change it, and considering how few Victoria games actually hit these snags, they're unlikey to leap to your command.

 

[unmerged(31018)]

Yes i know they won't jump. I just wish there was a way to fix it is all.

Hmmmm *ponders for a while*

Is there going to be a victoria 2 or another patch to fix things?

 

[unmerged(26989)]

What about in VIP, I don't have it installed so I don't know, but were populations fixed for Australia and New Zealand in VIP? Or is that still being worked on?