Should we end Colonial and trade company regions?

[Darth Samuri]

I have been thinking lately, and I think that the distinction between trade company regions and colonial nation regions should be abolished. i mean, there is no reason why i shouldn't be able to set up a colony in the indies or a trade company in brazil. Yes, in history it was generally the way it is in the game, but i am sure there were exceptions to this rule. What do you guys think? why or why not?

 

[PeterCorless]

I think a bigger issue is seeing Brazil and most of the other colonies declare independence in the latter half of the 16th Century.

 

[Korburss]

I have been thinking lately, and I think that the distinction between trade company regions and colonial nation regions should be abolished. i mean, there is no reason why i shouldn't be able to set up a colony in the indies or a trade company in brazil. Yes, in history it was generally the way it is in the game, but i am sure there were exceptions to this rule. What do you guys think? why or why not?

I'd love to make a colony instead of a trade company, that way if they really wanted that province they can go get it themselves. Also, I wouldn't mind them being able to defend themselves as it gets a little old seeing trade company land being ignored and sieged by whomever happens to have a troop or two in the area because it's just that unimportant to whatever is happening in Europe.

 

[Dustman]

I'd love to make a colony instead of a trade company, that way if they really wanted that province they can go get it themselves. Also, I wouldn't mind them being able to defend themselves as it gets a little old seeing trade company land being ignored and sieged by whomever happens to have a troop or two in the area because it's just that unimportant to whatever is happening in Europe.

You know, nobody forces you to add colonies to trade companies. Plus, you can remove any province in the region from the company.

And why colonies should be overly important for major powers? Nobody cared much for colonies most of the time. F.ex., in Napoleon's time whole Louisiana provided just a fraction of income of Haiti. If it doesn't affect country's economy much, why care?

 

[grumphie]

You know, nobody forces you to add colonies to trade companies. Plus, you can remove any province in the region from the company.

And why colonies should be overly important for major powers? Nobody cared much for colonies most of the time. F.ex., in Napoleon's time whole Louisiana provided just a fraction of income of Haiti. If it doesn't affect country's economy much, why care?

that;s one example. a lto of colonies were big money for everyone involved. think the spice isles, or controlling trade from india. that was a fairly large amount of money you could make. colonials always cared for colonies - there is a reason so many world superpowers emerged just from having a bunch of colonies. it's just that the french weren't a big-time colonial power, and louisiana was also a particularry worthless colony compared to other colonial regions.

 

[Dustman]

that;s one example. a lto of colonies were big money for everyone involved. think the spice isles, or controlling trade from india. that was a fairly large amount of money you could make. colonials always cared for colonies - there is a reason so many world superpowers emerged just from having a bunch of colonies. it's just that the french weren't a big-time colonial power, and louisiana was also a particularry worthless colony compared to other colonial regions.

Colonies had their uses, but main income from Eastern trade route was from trade underway, not from taking riches from one place and taking it home. Like spices from Ceylon sold in China and exchanged for silk and porcelain, which were exchanged in Japan for silver, that in turn was exchanged in China for gold and goods, etc. Portuguese created fortunes just on silver price differences in China and Japan.

Plus, colonial nations simply lost their colonies later on anyway, with sole exception of Russia and USofA

 

[grumphie]

excpet that they lost those colonies towards the end of the timeframe/after the timeframe. besides, owning important trading posts is exactly what allowed them to trade - if you dont have local bases, who is going to trade with you?

 

[Korburss]

You know, nobody forces you to add colonies to trade companies. Plus, you can remove any province in the region from the company.

I meant colony in the sense of a colonial nation, had a stupid there and called it a colony instead.

 

[Basileus777]

You know, nobody forces you to add colonies to trade companies. Plus, you can remove any province in the region from the company.

And why colonies should be overly important for major powers? Nobody cared much for colonies most of the time. F.ex., in Napoleon's time whole Louisiana provided just a fraction of income of Haiti. If it doesn't affect country's economy much, why care?

This is a bizarre example seeing as Haiti was a French colony, and it's a great example of how much income a colony could bring its owner. Louisiana being less valuable than another colony doesn't mean colonies weren't important!

 

[Nikolaj-11]

It wouldn't be too far fetched. Many nations primarily had trade companies especially in the Caribbean. The Dutch and the Danish for example had west indies trade companies with smaller holdings to link trade routes.

 

[Dnote]

I'd rather have Trade Companies than Colonial Nations, but I think for that to really make a difference, they'd have give trade in general a significant update. It's far too basic for Trade Companies to really mean anything more than trade power and annoying pop-ups at the moment.

 

[Imgran]

I have been thinking lately, and I think that the distinction between trade company regions and colonial nation regions should be abolished. i mean, there is no reason why i shouldn't be able to set up a colony in the indies or a trade company in brazil. Yes, in history it was generally the way it is in the game, but i am sure there were exceptions to this rule. What do you guys think? why or why not?

I'll give you three words in agreement.

Hudson's

Bay

Company.

The Hudson's Bay Company is a trade company licensed in the New World, and a very historically significant one to Canadian history. The HBC was the first English/British operation tasked with exploring the Canadian interior. it effectively ran a portion of British holdings in what's now Colonial Canada in game, and it was definitely 100% a trade company, not a colonial government, even though there were British colonists in its zone. There is no way in this game to emulate what the Hudson's Bay Company was. Personally I think that should change.

 

[heliostellar]

Colonial nations were a huge step forward in this franchise IMO. I've been playing since EU2 and the colonial game was always awkward and produced weird results that colonial nations helped to clean up. The idea of trade companies is essentially that your territories in Africa and Asia are either insular territory or you devolve your rule to a corporation. Trade companies and proprietary colonies existed in the Americas too, but settlement in the Americas and Australia were with the intention of permanent settlement rather than mere economics and trade.

The only change I would make would be to have a South African colonial nation and leave the current system as is.

 

[alpaca]

I'd rather have Trade Companies than Colonial Nations, but I think for that to really make a difference, they'd have give trade in general a significant update. It's far too basic for Trade Companies to really mean anything more than trade power and annoying pop-ups at the moment.

Two words: free merchants.

On topic: I think the game could use a much more generic colonisation and subject model, and unifying trade companies and colonial nations would be a good start. There is no reason why an advanced Asian nation should not be able to create colonies or trade companies in their European colonies, for example. Lack of trade companies gimps Asian nations pretty big time, Europeans have the potential to get several additional merchants over Asian or African without much trouble. Similar arguments can be made for American countries and CNs, which also provide merchants. In my opinion, the player should have the choice of whether to directly control a province, add it to a trade company, or delegate it to a CN. Considering that CNs colonize on their own and are essentially vassals without a diplo slot, there would be a significant incentive to create them. I would also like to be able to annex them again.

Independence revolts should be handled by a generic system that would also allow for independence wars in Eurasia and Africa (maybe along the lines of the Dutch revolt that is already in the game). This would have the added advantage of making the late game more challenging.

 

[WeissRaben]

I think a bigger issue is seeing Brazil and most of the other colonies declare independence in the latter half of the 16th Century.

Simply put, 1000-settlers colonies should remain as defacto colonies. The whole of Portuguese Brazil, in the latter half of the 16th Century, had a tenth of the inhabitants of Lisbon alone.

 

[Darth Samuri]

i think that we should leave the current colonisation system as it is, in operation, but allow you to form a colonial nation or trade company anywhere. @ Imgram gave a great example, and many people have mentioned that south africa was more of a Colonial Nation than trade company. I really don't think that this change would really unbalance the game in any way, and would be a simple way to add more choice and playability.

 

[Casus_Belli]

I'm not sure about colonies in trade regions, and I myself would prefer it if you couldn't colonise certain Asian areas, particularly the Spice Islands. However, I think there should be a choice in the Americas, especially in the West Indies.

 

[3ishop]

A colonial nation in South Africa would siphon off huge amounts of cash going round the cape, trade companies don't take half the cash.

 

[Korburss]

A colonial nation in South Africa would siphon off huge amounts of cash going round the cape, trade companies don't take half the cash.

I would pay that price in a heart beat if it meant having a semi-independent entity capable of self defense and minor offense to project my power in a region.

 

[3ishop]

If it's so vulnerable I'd just station an army there rather than hope the small force limit they'd be able to raise.