Estimated reading time: 2 minutes (don't run away!)
I believe the roots of the issue lie in the limits of the current colonisation mechanic that should be reworked, I think by:
1) Differentiating CLAIMING colonial land and actually SETTLING them; land needs to be claimed in order to get properly colonised, settling takes a fair bit longer.
2) Setting a limit on how much a nation can claim, depending on its development, army/navy size, national ideas/idea groups, buildings...
3) Drastically slowing down the progress of the colonists. The settling process could possibly take development from the motherland.
4) Differentiating settlement colonies and exploitation colonies; the first one aims to attract people from the motherland to populate the colonies, the second one aims to extract as much wealth from it, usually not by settling but by exploiting an unwilling workforce.
5) Also, probably making exploration more difficult so that not every tile is known by the 1600's. Although I have no idea how to go about it.
First of; I agree not everything has to be railroaded just so the map can be painted "historically".
It is only fair that, by chance and by whatever the AI thinks is best for them, we get to sometimes see strange borders and... colourful... maps.
But on the other hand, we have seen EU4 offer more and more tools for various nations to replay history (by way of the mission trees), which is fine.
Except sometimes they can't, not because they don't try and follow one specific path, or try and fail to do so, but because the game does not account for them to try at all.
Such is the case with Castile VS Portugal.
The issue I see is two-fold.
It is only fair that, by chance and by whatever the AI thinks is best for them, we get to sometimes see strange borders and... colourful... maps.
But on the other hand, we have seen EU4 offer more and more tools for various nations to replay history (by way of the mission trees), which is fine.
Except sometimes they can't, not because they don't try and follow one specific path, or try and fail to do so, but because the game does not account for them to try at all.
Such is the case with Castile VS Portugal.
The issue I see is two-fold.
1. Inconsistency with the game "rules"
AI Castile will always push for the colonisation of the Americas, in accordance to its mission tree and national ideas. The game set this rule.
But, BY DESIGN, Portugal will ALWAYS beat Castile to a "race for the Caribbeans". And the AI will take advantage of this by pushing it further. After Portuguese Caribbeans come Portuguese Mexico, then Portuguese Colombia, Portuguese Louisiana, Portuguese California, Portuguese Alaska. And Castile? Off to Brazil, Tordesillas prevents it from going North until it has enough range to paint the Northeastern coast.
But who, according to the mission trees, is supposed to own Mexico and Colombia? Castile. Who is not supposed to own them, but to go to the opposite direction to India? Portugal.
What's the point of mission trees if the AI doesn't do anything to follow their own and does everything to neutralise the trees of others?
But, BY DESIGN, Portugal will ALWAYS beat Castile to a "race for the Caribbeans". And the AI will take advantage of this by pushing it further. After Portuguese Caribbeans come Portuguese Mexico, then Portuguese Colombia, Portuguese Louisiana, Portuguese California, Portuguese Alaska. And Castile? Off to Brazil, Tordesillas prevents it from going North until it has enough range to paint the Northeastern coast.
But who, according to the mission trees, is supposed to own Mexico and Colombia? Castile. Who is not supposed to own them, but to go to the opposite direction to India? Portugal.
What's the point of mission trees if the AI doesn't do anything to follow their own and does everything to neutralise the trees of others?
2. Implausibility
So now comes the chain reaction.
Because Portugal left nowhere for the later colonisers to settle, we've got the English jumping on West Africa and conquering Mali, the French conquering any mesoamerican empire Portugal did not dare declare war on (I've often seen French Peru), and Spain (with its crazy fast colonisation rate) getting everything else from Brazil to South Africa to Australia (by the early 1600's usually).
It also results in an implausible scenario where half of America speaks portuguese, even though:
A. Portugal should not have the means of settling all of America and beyond. We know Portugal at the height of its empire did not have the manpower to secure all of it, let alone populate it.
B. Portugal was (long before 1444) set to circumnavigate Africa and focus on the East, not the West. Abandoning that enterprise at that point would have been a huge waste of resources.
Because Portugal left nowhere for the later colonisers to settle, we've got the English jumping on West Africa and conquering Mali, the French conquering any mesoamerican empire Portugal did not dare declare war on (I've often seen French Peru), and Spain (with its crazy fast colonisation rate) getting everything else from Brazil to South Africa to Australia (by the early 1600's usually).
It also results in an implausible scenario where half of America speaks portuguese, even though:
A. Portugal should not have the means of settling all of America and beyond. We know Portugal at the height of its empire did not have the manpower to secure all of it, let alone populate it.
B. Portugal was (long before 1444) set to circumnavigate Africa and focus on the East, not the West. Abandoning that enterprise at that point would have been a huge waste of resources.
In conclusion
I don't mind a country doing whacky stuff and neutering another nation's mission tree. I don't really mind Portuguese Cuba and Spanish Canada. Occasionaly.
But I do mind it happening every single time. Especially since that kind of behaviour on the AI's part highlights how the lack of limitations to the colonisation process can lead to absurd situations, both in terms of gameplay and historical plausibility (which I believe to be the basis of EU4).
Just teach Portugal how to read its mission tree already!
But I do mind it happening every single time. Especially since that kind of behaviour on the AI's part highlights how the lack of limitations to the colonisation process can lead to absurd situations, both in terms of gameplay and historical plausibility (which I believe to be the basis of EU4).
Just teach Portugal how to read its mission tree already!
Sidenote
I believe the roots of the issue lie in the limits of the current colonisation mechanic that should be reworked, I think by:
1) Differentiating CLAIMING colonial land and actually SETTLING them; land needs to be claimed in order to get properly colonised, settling takes a fair bit longer.
2) Setting a limit on how much a nation can claim, depending on its development, army/navy size, national ideas/idea groups, buildings...
3) Drastically slowing down the progress of the colonists. The settling process could possibly take development from the motherland.
4) Differentiating settlement colonies and exploitation colonies; the first one aims to attract people from the motherland to populate the colonies, the second one aims to extract as much wealth from it, usually not by settling but by exploiting an unwilling workforce.
5) Also, probably making exploration more difficult so that not every tile is known by the 1600's. Although I have no idea how to go about it.
- 17
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
