Should Trade Companies and Colonial Nations switch mechanics?

[Ololorium]

I've been playing a colonial game as Britain and this thought crossed my mind. Why are settler colonies represented as basically your vassals, with their own army and everything, and the trade companies are represented like provinces with a lot of autonomy in local matters, but otherwise your soil? In real life, East Indian companies (at least, the most known ones, the British and Dutch) are known for being very autonomous, with their own army, fleet and expansion ambitions, and the American settler colonies less so (I mean, yes, they were autonomous to a high degree due to long communication gap between the capital and the colonies, but they were much more similar to the home country than African and Asian colonies).
So, I thought: what if the mechanics were swapped? If provinces in trade company regions turn into a separate "company" state after you own 5 or more of them:
1) We have an autonomous subject that can (to a degree) protect itself and expand on it's own far away from your capital, removing a lot of micro.
2) It just feels right because a lot of artificial rules or nonsensical mechanics can be thrown away. "Trade companies don't count towards religious unity" - duh, of course they don't, they are a different country! "-200% missionary strength in trade company provinces" - no need for that, colonial nations don't convert anyway lol. Colonial nations already give us their trade power and a trader, so these mechanics fit perfectly for trade companies. Inflation from "treasure fleets"? No need for that if we control the gold mines in America directly. Religious orders can now have a sensible mechanics: they can convert provinces in colonies for you instead of whatever nonsense they do now. So, we can have fully Catholic colonies for the Iberians and some heretics in colonies for everyone else because countries without religious orders probably need missionaries in Europe. Also, with colonists of the colonial nations gone, America will no longer be fully settled by the late XVII century.
Provinces in America (also, Australia and maybe South Africa) now can have the "colonial province" status similar to current "trade company" status, but with different modifiers (like, production ignores autonomy, bonus to missionary strength to offset the wrong culture and territory penalty etc.).
The only bad thing about this switch I can think of is that colonial nations can't rebel now. But it's not really that bad because: 1) it doesn't happen anyway, at least, not with a player and 2) they can still rebel based on special disaster or events.
So, what do you think? I'm not 100% sure about it, it's more like a funny idea I had than a serious suggestion for a rework. But is it a good funny idea?

 

[Dlin369]

I feel like they should be integrated together - maybe with divergent paths for whether or not you want to keep greater autonomy/homerule or if you want to centralize your empire

At the start though I feel like the meta should be for autonomous colony states like for the Americas or trade companies, but as things go on you have options to directly incorporate them into your empire

 

[Herr B.]

This idea is quite cool, I like it.

I think that the current mechanics are just due to the development of the game: colonial nations were introduced in 1.1, alongside Conquest of Paradise, while Trade Companies were introduced later with Wealth of Nations (I think?).

Initially the CN were supposed to become rebellious later on, but at least from what I've seen they hardly grow large enough in power and wealth to challange their overlords. These independence movements would be much better handeld by events IMHO.

On the other hand, TC were, as you rightfully wrote, more independend and often quite literally NOT considerd soil of the mother country, but just a stock company with a de-facto-state. The british EIC was for example only integrated into the UK in 1858 (after the Sapoy rebellion).

From a modern, neutral look of things, a swap of mechanics would provide a lot of logical benefits, as well as one real gameplay benefit: It would finally make the "go to india to get rich" strategy invalid.

 

[Battlex]

This idea is quite cool, I like it.

I think that the current mechanics are just due to the development of the game: colonial nations were introduced in 1.1, alongside Conquest of Paradise, while Trade Companies were introduced later with Wealth of Nations (I think?).

Initially the CN were supposed to become rebellious later on, but at least from what I've seen they hardly grow large enough in power and wealth to challange their overlords. These independence movements would be much better handeld by events IMHO.

On the other hand, TC were, as you rightfully wrote, more independend and often quite literally NOT considerd soil of the mother country, but just a stock company with a de-facto-state. The british EIC was for example only integrated into the UK in 1858 (after the Sapoy rebellion).

From a modern, neutral look of things, a swap of mechanics would provide a lot of logical benefits, as well as one real gameplay benefit: It would finally make the "go to india to get rich" strategy invalid.

Go to India to get rich is a valid strat. EIC territories were nationalised after the sepoy rebellion, but the trial of Warren Hastings and others shows the level of government intervention, the influence it held over gov policy means that it could very much be said to be part of the British state, especially when the Royal navy was deployed to safeguard the carnatic from the French and would be used in Clive's war

 

[Battlex]

I've been playing a colonial game as Britain and this thought crossed my mind. Why are settler colonies represented as basically your vassals, with their own army and everything, and the trade companies are represented like provinces with a lot of autonomy in local matters, but otherwise your soil? In real life, East Indian companies (at least, the most known ones, the British and Dutch) are known for being very autonomous, with their own army, fleet and expansion ambitions, and the American settler colonies less so (I mean, yes, they were autonomous to a high degree due to long communication gap between the capital and the colonies, but they were much more similar to the home country than African and Asian colonies).
So, I thought: what if the mechanics were swapped? If provinces in trade company regions turn into a separate "company" state after you own 5 or more of them:
1) We have an autonomous subject that can (to a degree) protect itself and expand on it's own far away from your capital, removing a lot of micro.
2) It just feels right because a lot of artificial rules or nonsensical mechanics can be thrown away. "Trade companies don't count towards religious unity" - duh, of course they don't, they are a different country! "-200% missionary strength in trade company provinces" - no need for that, colonial nations don't convert anyway lol. Colonial nations already give us their trade power and a trader, so these mechanics fit perfectly for trade companies. Inflation from "treasure fleets"? No need for that if we control the gold mines in America directly. Religious orders can now have a sensible mechanics: they can convert provinces in colonies for you instead of whatever nonsense they do now. So, we can have fully Catholic colonies for the Iberians and some heretics in colonies for everyone else because countries without religious orders probably need missionaries in Europe. Also, with colonists of the colonial nations gone, America will no longer be fully settled by the late XVII century.
Provinces in America (also, Australia and maybe South Africa) now can have the "colonial province" status similar to current "trade company" status, but with different modifiers (like, production ignores autonomy, bonus to missionary strength to offset the wrong culture and territory penalty etc.).
The only bad thing about this switch I can think of is that colonial nations can't rebel now. But it's not really that bad because: 1) it doesn't happen anyway, at least, not with a player and 2) they can still rebel based on special disaster or events.
So, what do you think? I'm not 100% sure about it, it's more like a funny idea I had than a serious suggestion for a rework. But is it a good funny idea?

The rights of the British east India company to make war and peace is much more comparable to a feudal marcher Lord than full independence. We now have sepoy mercs to show the local recruitment.
The British east India company as mentioned in my above post was far from independent at its height, the French company was similarly a state affair which may have had an impact on its desire for lands and taxation rights than mere trading posts.

 

[klingonadmiral]

The problem is that Trade Companies in Africa, limited to little more than small coastal outposts, operated very differently from the EIC and VOC.

 

[Herr B.]

The rights of the British east India company to make war and peace is much more comparable to a feudal marcher Lord than full independence. We now have sepoy mercs to show the local recruitment.

Feudal lords are represented in EU4 as Vassals (like in France). So, that would even more support my point.

The British east India company as mentioned in my above post was far from independent at its height, the French company was similarly a state affair which may have had an impact on its desire for lands and taxation rights than mere trading posts.

Yes, I never claimed that the EIC was independent. But I said, and I stand to this point, that the EIC acted somewhat independent and had its own goals and ambitions. Of course, much of the profits went into state coffers, so the british government took a role in the affairs as well. And looking at the French: You are right that the French company was even closer to the government, but the French company never got more than a few trading posts, so it would not be represented as a CN-vassal anyways.

The problem is that Trade Companies in Africa, limited to little more than small coastal outposts, operated very differently from the EIC and VOC.

That is very true, but CN only form after a certain threshold of provinces. Maybe this would need to be adjusted to more than 5, e.g. 7 or 10. However, an alternate history campain could see an African Company which would seek to conquer Africa proper like the EIC in our timeline with India.

 

[Me_]

Objectively: yes, subjectively: no, because then the game would be less appealing to the US market.

A solution would be to have both CN and TC act as subjects with different degrees of freedom in the actions they could take.

Also, there would need to be a mechanic to integrate TC if one reaches the borders of their TC via conquering through the Old World.

 

[EarlKonrad]

Why? Because in EU 3 colonies were treated as special provinces that didn't give you any tax nor trade but rather tarrifs. There wasn't such a thing as Trade Companies at that time.

With EU4's first expansion the Devs wanted to decrease the burden on the player (back in the day you would build a lot more buildings in each province as the system was different) and also create the chance of colonial nations breaking free and getting their independence, and so we got the CN system. You can read all about their reasoning behind it if you look for the Conquest of Paradise DDs.

Why are TCs different? For gameplay variety, really.

 

[Shoo]

Thought this myself and I agree, TCS and CNs should probably have their mechanics changed but they won't in eu4 or in eu5

 

[Battlex]

Thought this myself and I agree, TCS and CNs should probably have their mechanics changed but they won't in eu4 or in eu5

CK3 didn't change mechanics to allow for dual lieges, so I doubt we'll get a trade rework or colonisation rework in eu5

 

[grommile]

Why are settler colonies represented as basically your vassals, with their own army and everything, and the trade companies are represented like provinces with a lot of autonomy in local matters, but otherwise your soil?

Because the colonies revolted successfully, and the trade companies didn't.

(Also, at least some of the colonies had their own legislatures.)

 

[Esben_DRK]

Because the colonies revolted successfully, and the trade companies didn't.

(Also, at least some of the colonies had their own legislatures.)

The solution IMO would be to have both CNs and TCs represented as vassals, though with different mechanics. CNs would colonise (Though it ought to be slower than it currently is), develop own culture and at some point demand increased autonomy. TCs, because they are more often governed by a tiny elite from the mother country, ruling over already established cultures and religions, shouldn't gain much liberty desire, but instead risk native revolts, corruption and bankruptcy/investment failures. TCs competing with other TCs would also be a better way to simulate the constant undeclared war between several European powers in the Indian ocean from 1600 onward.

--

In general, I think it's a weakness that the colonial AI doesn't appear to develop their provinces. This means that expansion is the only real way to increase development, and with the different CNs, players can often just use colonial borders to ensure that non CN becomes too strong. I play with the Development Expanded mod, which gives CNs the chance to develop automatically if at peace (Though it's a bit too fast compared to historical development), and therefore become real threats to their mother countries. As GB I had real difficulty ruling the Thirteen Colonies because they had spent 200 years in peace to fully develop -- that would never happen in the unmodded game.
Letting you have an actual VOC or EIC exploiting the locals for fun and profit could also set up the (largely independent-minded) drive of some companies to expand despite geostrategic concerns at home. Splitting off the companies would also make their finances less integrated, and thus enable economic crises like the South Sea Bubble, scandals like the dissolution of the French East India Company or the various companies that went belly-up with economic malaise in the home countries as a result.
I tried out the Subjects Expanded mod, but I don't think it administered the HRE or trade company subjects particularly well, though I don't know if it has improved since.