Regarding the Pacific and Australia...

[Jolt]

there aren't any, cos of the antarctica treaty. britain at least was interested in antarctica

But they then obviously thought "Why the hell are we gonna colonize a frozen barren area of no economical importance? What can we get out of that land? What profits come from that? What costs come in maintaining a colony there?"

If you think for two seconds you'll realize the british did right. It's realy kinda stupid, people say their interested in an island which isn't in livable standards of human settling.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Make them both PTI. Nyer.

 

[George LeS]

Whether Australia or NZ are colonizable at all is not a big deal to me. I would suggest that they not be so profitable as they are in EUII, & in the mods I've played.

Assuming that, just off the top of my head, perhaps it would help if no colonies had access to one another, that is, if there were PTI, or some other impassible terrain, between them all. That would prevent the Australian megalopolis I used to construct by 1650.

 

[unmerged(52192)]

But they then obviously thought "Why the hell are we gonna colonize a frozen barren area of no economical importance? What can we get out of that land? What profits come from that? What costs come in maintaining a colony there?"

If you think for two seconds you'll realize the british did right. It's realy kinda stupid, people say their interested in an island which isn't in livable standards of human settling.

i'm not saying they didn't, i'm not saying i'm interested in it. i'm just saying the british did in 1906 register and interest in antarctica. i don't know what they could have gained. i didn't write the history books.

 

[curtis]

The Sandwich Islands should most definately be present.

 

[Okawoa]

Whether Australia or NZ are colonizable at all is not a big deal to me. I would suggest that they not be so profitable as they are in EUII, & in the mods I've played.

Assuming that, just off the top of my head, perhaps it would help if no colonies had access to one another, that is, if there were PTI, or some other impassible terrain, between them all. That would prevent the Australian megalopolis I used to construct by 1650.

agreed, however maybe just a rivision of the colonial system is needed, colonies and cities less then say... 6000, 10,000 shouldn't give that much tax and give out more of their base product (which in Austrialias case should be wool... unless the player gets to choose... :wacko: ), then perhaps Austrilia would seem less attractive...

 

[unmerged(26464)]

The map of Australia needs a good revision. Most of the eastern provinces should be forest not plains during this timescale and they should not go so far inland, only about 100 km at the most. Also Australia and NZ are further from the south pole then south america and so should be completely represented.

 

[Old Joe]

just i think all lands on map should be accessable, the game is historical right until 1419, after that anyone, even ai, with all those cabots da gamas and whatever random explorers, may decide to discover and colonize australia, or anything, by few centuries earlier... thats not a question to hold exploration in historical manners or gamebalance, anyway human explore and colonise how he wants and not how it happens irl, and ai if colonise for somehow is already achievement, for ai colonise areas preferences is more than enough to place it under some historism

 

[Yakman]

There was quite a bit of valuable stuff in new zealand it was simply to far away (and little) to colonise before australia was

Like bloodthirsty Maoris who gave the 19th century British a run for their money?

Nope, nothing there that interests me THAT much.

Australia should be one province, New Zealand all terra incognita.

 

[unmerged(17563)]

Regarding AUstralia in this time period, while it is certainly true that it was colonised right at the end of this period in rl, it is also true that other European nations arrived in Australia well before the british. Would it not be best to develop the map for Australia as it could well have been a colony roughly a hundred years before it actually was?

Hell even the chinese may have landed somewhere near Darwin in the 15th century....

 

[Sir Humphrey]

Australia should be one province, New Zealand all terra incognita.

See, thats just the kind of thinking that needs change.

 

[Yakman]

Change is always a bad thing.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

There should be no PTI whatsoever. So what if an area wasn't historically discovered in 1750? What if a player wants to play ahistorically?

Why release an unfinished map?

See, thats just the kind of thinking that needs change.

Agreed.

 

[unmerged(2456)]

Regarding AUstralia in this time period, while it is certainly true that it was colonised right at the end of this period in rl, it is also true that other European nations arrived in Australia well before the british. Would it not be best to develop the map for Australia as it could well have been a colony roughly a hundred years before it actually was?

Hell even the chinese may have landed somewhere near Darwin in the 15th century....

Not if we still have the 5k + means you can ignore all province limits on attrition....plus not if it can actually become a 5k colony easily.

Any such provinces should be large (so there aren't many of them like most other places), poor, and have poor or no province goods.

 

[unmerged(20077)]

Given that there's going to be any PTI, I think Australia and NZ should both be it. To be frank, what part do they play in EU2 anyway? They're just "bloat" in the program. The AI ignores both - wisely. Both produce mainly wool and grain and NZ has ultra-ferocious natives to deal with. Given a limited number of colonists, are you going to grab the gold and spices in Indonesia and Papua or waste your time setting up sheep farms?

 

[tonythetiger]

i think that because mods of eu3 will be easier that there sould be no PTI. if you want to mod the game to 1820 or even 1920 then leaving every teritory in the world open and no PTI is advisable, regardless of historical acuracy.​

 

[Registered]

i think that because mods of eu3 will be easier that there sould be no PTI. if you want to mod the game to 1820 or even 1920 then leaving every teritory in the world open and no PTI is advisable, regardless of historical acuracy.​

Ah, but if the map is also moddable PTI is not an issue.​

 

[Yakman]

Ah, but if the map is also moddable PTI is not an issue.

The map will almost certainly NOT be moddable.

 

[curtis]

The map will almost certainly NOT be moddable.

Maybe after 4 years of constaint clamoring, it will be.

 

[Havard]

The map will almost certainly NOT be moddable.

Seeing how you have no clue whatsoever on this, how can you say anything "almost certainly"?