So as any Mediterranean country colonization is even more pointless

[delpiero1234]

because you cannot steer from the WETN to Genoa or Venice or Constantinople.

The trade system really needs an overhaul..
Dynamic trade routes or bring back EU III trade centers!

 

[solidprice]

...or you have to eat all of france or all of spain/portugal/morocco! good luck though.

I admit, Colonial nations pretty much killed any interest to the Americas to me imo.its not mine! if there was a integrate Colonial nation feature then i might be interested....

and there's always africa to india/SE asia......

oh so fun as the ottomans.

 

[aitaituo]

You could never steer to Venice or Genoa from the Atlantic. You have to go Mexico>Japan>...>Venice and/or Panama>Phillipines>...>Venice.

Also, EU3 trade centers were horrible.

 

[Amosblanco]

This is historically true. Unfortunately. To steer the mass of colonial wealth to you pocket the only way is through conquest of Atlantic Coast for the New Continent or the Egypt for the East.

 

[Konair0s]

This is historically true. Unfortunately. To steer the mass of colonial wealth to you pocket the only way is through conquest of Atlantic Coast for the New Continent or the Egypt for the East.

"Historically true"?
When did in history Venice colonize something in NA and was unable to benefit from trade?
"Historical" arguments just simply can not be applied to situations which NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY. And if Venice would manage to colonize Caribbeans in history, wouldn't it create a new trade route to Venice? "historically" trade routes were not hard-coded, they have been created naturally.
Dynamic trade routes with dynamic trade regions would simply solve it. With more complex rules. Something like a hybrid of EUIII system and EUIV system.

 

[smellymummy]

If you go by the player stats thread where most people play the nations that benefit from the WETN then it makes perfect sense for the devs to go that way. So as a nation that can't benefit from the WETN, then you have to use the old style of colonies and go east. Which isn't that difficult if you put your mind to it. The ottomans have no problem from what I've seen, and thats crappy AI being #1

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Just load up on trade power at an uncontested node and collect there. It's not like you'll lose a lot with 300+ trade power when the competition has 50 or less. St. Lawrence after some power control in the Carribean is a good example.

 

[AltarofScience]

Meh, who cares about colonial trade when colonial nations ruined colonization anyways?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Meh, who cares about colonial trade when colonial nations ruined colonization anyways?

How so? The manpower and money potential are pretty high.

 

[Thund91]

It's a problem with the system unfortunately, since routes are static.

 

[diegosimeone]

You could never steer to Venice or Genoa from the Atlantic. You have to go Mexico>Japan>...>Venice and/or Panama>Phillipines>...>Venice.

Also, EU3 trade centers were horrible.

Trade centers were the best!

 

[Incompetent]

Steering trade from the Americas to Europe is annoying even for the likes of Spain, because colonial nations don't fully count as 'yours' for trade purposes, and even if you steer it away, you still need to compete with everyone else in the WETN vortex (which you could have done just as well without any colonies). I find tariffs (which include a cut of any trade your colonies collect) a much more straightforward way of making money out of colonial nations.

 

[wilcoxchar]

"Historically true"?
When did in history Venice colonize something in NA and was unable to benefit from trade?
"Historical" arguments just simply can not be applied to situations which NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY. And if Venice would manage to colonize Caribbeans in history, wouldn't it create a new trade route to Venice? "historically" trade routes were not hard-coded, they have been created naturally.
Dynamic trade routes with dynamic trade regions would simply solve it. With more complex rules. Something like a hybrid of EUIII system and EUIV system.

Sure, if Venice managed to colonize the Caribbean they could have tried to steer that trade to Venice... until whoever controlled the Strait of Gibraltar parked a fleet there and diverted the ships elsewhere. There was a reason Venice and Genoa never tried to colonize anywhere in the New World historically. The new trade routes do a lot better at modeling this than the centers of trade did.

 

[Yxklyx]

It seems that colonies are for making money off of Tariffs - at least for AI Spain it seems to work. By the end of my last game they were making 31% of its income from Tariffs. They also had a naval force limit of 424 which I assume mostly came from CNs which allowed them to support a fleet of 317 light ships (38% income from trade).

 

[emilsson]

Sure, if Venice managed to colonize the Caribbean they could have tried to steer that trade to Venice... until whoever controlled the Strait of Gibraltar parked a fleet there and diverted the ships elsewhere. There was a reason Venice and Genoa never tried to colonize anywhere in the New World historically. The new trade routes do a lot better at modeling this than the centers of trade did.

Exactly. I cannot picture a trade route from the New World to the Mediterranean without someone taking a big bite out of it. And the Mediterranean nations have other great options to steer trade from the east.

Agreed that Venice will probably not make an interesting colonial power, but why does it have to be?

 

[Porsenna]

There was a reason Venice and Genoa never tried to colonize anywhere in the New World historically. The new trade routes do a lot better at modeling this than the centers of trade did.

Yeah, and that reason has nothing to due with proximity to the Atlantic, and more to do with the fact that Genoa was vaguely in the Spanish/ Hapsburg Empire already, and Venice had to deal with the other side of the Hapsburg realms, Austira - and the ever growling presence of the Turks.

 

[emilsson]

Yeah, and that reason has nothing to due with proximity to the Atlantic, and more to do with the fact that Genoa was vaguely in the Spanish/ Hapsburg Empire already, and Venice had to deal with the other side of the Hapsburg realms, Austira - and the ever growling presence of the Turks.

That explanation raises more questions than it answers. What about the other Mediterranean nations? Why did any nation colonize, since the colonial powers usually had at least one rival European nation they "had to deal with"?

 

[pingouin2ter]

If you are a trading nation in the Mediterranean sea, I agree forget about colonization.

It is much more interesting and rewarding to secure Alexandria and Aden Trade Center and then you own all the trade coming from China and India to your Trade Node! Negating all the steering around Africa going to Sevilla and Bordeaux.

Let the Spain, Portugal and France fight to death over pile of dirt! You have spices, chinaware and protectorate for you!

 

[Konair0s]

Sure, if Venice managed to colonize the Caribbean they could have tried to steer that trade to Venice... until whoever controlled the Strait of Gibraltar parked a fleet there and diverted the ships elsewhere.

Soo? And what if Venice has much stronger fleet than the blocker? Or just has great relations with the Gibraltar controller?

Historically, Venice was a Mediterranean trade power. It was focused on this region and could not just reorient their course to colonizing NA and competing with such strong competitors as Great Britain, Spain or France, which is insanity.

But what if as in-game Venice you have a fleet stronger than British fleet? What if (as Venice) you colonized a biggest chunk of land in the New World, more than any other nation? You still should not be able to steer trade from the New World to Venice?
This is why "historical" arguments are invalid. They do not take environment into consideration, they are only about facts which happened.

 

[Porsenna]

That explanation raises more questions than it answers. What about the other Mediterranean nations? Why did any nation colonize, since the colonial powers usually had at least one rival European nation they "had to deal with"?

Well, I to does raise question - but not those questions. For one, the traditional (major) colonizers were doing out of mutual competition with each other in a real where expansion, gold, and glory wouldn't necessarily entail fighting each other - and gains could be had for staggeringly less investment of resources than attempting conquests in the mainland. Which is exactly what most of these nations were really using their new world exploits to do - get a big, quick return on investment.

The traditional colonizers colonized in the way they did because it really the only option open to them - when Spain and France attempted conquests in Italy, it lead to a huge expensive debacles that ended up being more or less pointless beyond the prestige gains of controlling European soil due to the Ottomans ultimately controlling trade from the East anyway.

The second point would be What other Mediterranean nations? the majority of the Christian Med Sea coast was locked up either directly by Spain and France, and the remainder by Venice or Austria. Sure you had an exception in Tuscany, but Tuscany was busy directing its efforts into being the cultural capital of Europe, and attempting to maintain itself as independent (or as Independent as possible) -and the Papacy seemed happy with conquest by proxy by any Catholic power. The remainder was Islamic - and over time largely falling under the dominion of the Ottomans whom probably could have set off voyages if they wanted to, but they had every reason to keep looking east for the source of their trade wealth, even more so than the Italians.

It's not like Italian weren't interested in the new world - so many navigators and explorers of it under the service of Spain and England (and i would assume France, though I dont know for sure) were Italians - so they had the technical capabilities, and people interested in doing it - they just had to operate through the main power dominating the peninsula at the time, Spain - or flock to it's arch nemesis, England.