Overhaul to 'colonization' of Africa and Asia needed?

[Dutchman251]

As the title says, I think that the current system of ‘colonization’ of Asia (Spice Islands and Philippines) and Africa is ahistorical and wrong. This is basically the case, because there was no colonization in these areas.

Colonization actually means that you send settlers to go a certain place and to live there. This also implies that this land must be empty, or that the natives are driven from their possessions. This is the case of the Americas, to which millions of Europeans moved. In Africa, there are also several examples of this, for instance Rhodesia or French Algiers, but they are mainly outside of the EU4 timeframe. The only example within the timeframe is the Kaapkolonie of the Dutch East Indian Company. What the European nations actually did in Africa and Asia within the timeframe, was subjugating the lords of the local people, and forcing them to deliver trade goods. This needs a different representation in-game.

First of all, the African coast and the Spice Islands and the Philippines should be owned by some nations, if possible. This can easily be done in Asia, because there are many nations in the Spice islands that appear later than 1444, which could be set either to 1) appear by event (like Sulu) or 2) made available in 1444.
But what about the remaining empty provinces? Because there seem to be serious objections against new tags, I propose that there is made a difference between uninhabited islands and inhabited places. The uninhabited islands should still be colonized.
But the Trade Company regions should be owned differently. I think that you should use a merchant to own a province. In real life, they only built fortresses and manned them to protect their trade and keep the locals subjugated, and did no further colonization. Halfway the 19th century this changed, but that is irrelevant for EU4.

This merchant should be set in the trade node, and can create a fortress without funding in 10 years, and at full funding in one year (I don’t know how expensive it should be. Maybe comparable to a colonist or even cheaper) In contrast with a colonist, this should NOT change religion and culture of the province.
To allow dynamics and simulate the situation of the Kaap, is must be possible to also use a colonist for these regions. That should be 3 times more expensive, though.
What do you think of these ideas?

 

[Chilitoke]

Some Mods do support ForeignTradepost, with hostile takeover of goverment just like the brithish like it.

 

[Sweawm]

I think this might also be true of a few regions in the New World as well. Instead of devising a whole new system, Colonies that don't have their natives eliminated should remain as their current culture instead of receiving their colonizer's culture. Then make keeping the natives alive far, far more profitable and then you have a far better system to represent the difference between eliminating the natives altogether and replacing them with colonists such as in North America, and the majority of colonies built purely to work the native population.

 

[Dnote]

Would love to see an expansion on the Europeans in Africa/Asia, along with an overhaul to the protectorate system.

 

[riadach]

I always thought it interesting that Paradox didn't represent trade factories in EUIV. Your idea seems to approximate well to it.

 

[zbyrne]

I was actually wondering about the whole issue of colonisation. A combo of needing a 1000 people, only having 1/2 colonists, the crushing expense of having multiple colonies at the same time, and now with the new fort system meaning a native attack will destroy your colony, within a month - meaning every colony needs military protection, is the process of colonisation not waaay too slow? Considering the Wiki actually says the words; "First of all one has to know that it's almost totally impossible" in relation to recreating the historical Spanish Empire within a similar timeframe (of 50-60 years) I would argue yes.

I'd argue that perhaps a system of building a fort, gains you claim to a province would allow for faster gains over a region, and growth of population would come later, along with the displacement/genocide of the natives. It'd also up the importance of trade with natives at first, which is what happened.

For trade nations / Africa, there should only be Forts and Trade posts, but not followed by settlement of people. In that we agree I think. But I'd argue that Fort construction should play a greater role in New World settlement as well. Jamestown Virginia (first English settlement) for example, the Fort was founded in 1607, but the town not until 1619

I might even argue for special mechanics for Spain, who conquered more than settled (at least at first), but their empire collapsed as well too. (many South American countries were discovered, settled, and then became independent all within EU4's timeline for instance: all the following south american countries (not to speak of others) became independent of Spain before 1821: Argentina, Columbia, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Venezuela. In fact the only south american Spanish country to not declare independence in this period was Bolivia, and that did so in 1825)