The US colonizing Africa

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Dinsdale
I think that anything should be able to happen, within reason. If the US colonizes strangely in some games fine, but if the game devolves into fantasy every game then something is wrong.

The other part of this is; where are Britain, Germany and France? Why no colonization from them?

Come to think about it...at least in that screenshot neither the Canadian nor British AI made much of an effort to fully colonize Canada...

I also predict France will be the Russia or Ottoman Empire of Vic...consistently not even coming close to its historical Empire in the hands of the AI.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by rafiki
FYI, California and Oregon start the 1836 GC respectively as Mexican provinces and as already colonized by the US and UK, as does the rest of the West. Either under someone's control or colonized by the US, by the UK, by Mexico or by Texas. Only area left to colonize are a couple of provinces in Alaska.

Rafiki

Hmmmm then why are they still tan in 1919 and not blue? By 1919 all 48 states on the continent had been granted statehood. Certainly shouldn't happen everytime but the territories already under US control in 1836 should be given statehood by 1919 I think...

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by John Poole
In that game the player was playing Texas...he just waited until after the turn of the century to finally attack Mexico and took all that realestate which the US had make no effort to take. It also doesn't explain the fact that Oklahoma, Colorado, Idaho, et al are not yet fully colonized and States by this point...which even if you dont get Oregon would surely have been if the US AI was even half-way competent.

According to the screenshot (& the situation at the start of the GC), those provinces are already colonized (i.e. have a colonial building in each province). In each of those regions (Oklahoma, Colorado, Idaho, etc.), the US does not start owning every colonial building in the region, so it cannot claim the region. If the Oregon Treaty events don't trigger, then the US would have to either buy the British colonial buildings or DOW the Brits & seize them.

The situation in the American West actually has nothing to do with the question of the US building colonial buildings in the Pacific in the 1850s. The US cannot build any colonial buildings in the West because each province already has one.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
According to the screenshot (& the situation at the start of the GC), those provinces are already colonized (i.e. have a colonial building in each province). In each of those regions (Oklahoma, Colorado, Idaho, etc.), the US does not start owning every colonial building in the region, so it cannot claim the region. If the Oregon Treaty events don't trigger, then the US would have to either buy the British colonial buildings or DOW the Brits & seize them.

The situation in the American West actually has nothing to do with the question of the US building colonial buildings in the Pacific in the 1850s. The US cannot build any colonial buildings in the West because each province already has one.

Wait I am confused. So...if I am playing America and want to gain more states in the west...what do I do if not colonise those areas?

Also doesn't it cost a ton of money to buy claims over islands in the pacific and pieces of land in Africa? Shouldn't that money be used at home defeating the Mexicans and getting Oregon?

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by John Poole
Wait I am confused. So...if I am playing America and want to gain more states in the west...what do I do if not colonise those areas?

There are two different processes at play here. The first step to gaining territory via colonization is to build colonial buildings in empty provinces. Once you have a colonial building in each province in a given region, you can then "claim" the region, which incorporates the region into your country as regular provinces (but as a colony). In the case of the American West, each province already has a colonial building in it, so the first step is completed. The problem for the US is that in each region, there is at least one colonial building belonging to another country. Thus, they cannot claim the region because they don't own all the colonial buildings in them. Hence, the US needs to acquire those colonial buildings that it does not own in the American West, either by war or by negotiations. Also, those colonial buildings that are owned by the Brits can be acquired by the Oregon Treaty events I mentioned earlier.

Also note that at the start of the Grand Campaign, California, Nevada, Arizona, & New Mexico (IIRC) start as part of Mexico (as opposed to regions with colonial buildings in them), so those territories need to be ceded in war or bought via negotiations (the latter likely being quite expensive).

Also doesn't it cost a ton of money to buy claims over islands in the pacific and pieces of land in Africa? Shouldn't that money be used at home defeating the Mexicans and getting Oregon?

In terms of islands in the Pacific or provinces in Africa, a player does not buy claims, but rather builds colonial buildings (as part of the first step). These buildings have a monetary & resource cost to them.

Hopefully this explanation makes sense.

 

[John Poole]

Hmmmm...thats interesting information thank you. I will see when I get the game but it seems to me that the US is underperforming at home and going nuts abroad which strikes me as silly. Oh well just need to work it out in an AI mod.

 

[OriginalRafiki]

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
Also note that at the start of the Grand Campaign, California, Nevada, Arizona, & New Mexico (IIRC) start as part of Mexico (as opposed to regions with colonial buildings in them), so those territories need to be ceded in war or bought via negotiations (the latter likely being quite expensive).

Note that there are a few events that gives the US the possibility of buying (some of) this at a reduced price. Don't have the details about what triggers it and how much it covers, tho'

Rafiki

 

[unmerged(12603)]

I've seen where the USA colonized 60% of africa and all the pacific islands (except the ones already taken) that is just rediculous it would not have happened, i mean who woulda though and isolationist country would try and colonize the entire world.....

and this was from the 1836 scenario up, and no they didn't even get california or any of those other western usa places.

 

[Theodotus1]

Actual history could easily have been different in regard to the U.S. Vicky outcomes in which the U.S. is derailed from Manifest Destiny are not at all ahistorical.

Had there been no Mexican War for some reason, Mexico might still own California, etc. (And, frankly, it's not all that unlikely that there might not have been a Mexican War. Support for it wasn't universal in the U.S.) Had things gone differently with England, there might be no State of Oregon or State of Washington now.

What you're seeing here was completely historically possible. And, indeed, most interesting. (I doubt that people other than Americans are quite so put off by this. As an American, I know that the public school education I received taught me a somewhat deterministic view of history, which I later realized to be as much propaganda as anything else.)

 

[John Poole]

Sure its POSSIBLE...but totally ridiculous. How often does the USA in Victoria colonize 60% of Africa and the Pacific...I bet alot of the time from what I have seen here. It should be at least unlikely they take that route and not try to take the west.

And um...how exactly would the US colonize the Pacific without a port on the Pacific, bah ridiculous

 

[unmerged(18282)]

Agreed. America would never have gone after the rest of the world colonially, at least not before it stretched across North America and was controlling the rest of the hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine essentially spelled forth American hegemony, and so the US would never have allowed any other power to play in its back-yard.

It's possible, but highly unprobable.

 

[Theodotus1]

Originally posted by John Poole
Sure its POSSIBLE...but totally ridiculous. How often does the USA in Victoria colonize 60% of Africa and the Pacific...I bet alot of the time from what I have seen here. It should be at least unlikely they take that route and not try to take the west.

And um...how exactly would the US colonize the Pacific without a port on the Pacific, bah ridiculous

You're misunderstanding how the game works.

At the start of the GC, the US has already colonized all of the west. But they are blocked by other nations, Mexico and Britian, from incorporating those territories. It's not an issue of colonization. It's that diplomatically the U.S. doesn't always succeed in reaching the Pacific.

What you're advocating in favor of is a requirement that the U.S. seek it's current borders at all costs. Which is advocating for a determinist agenda that did not bind actual historical events. The actual course of history was as affected by happenstance as by anything else.

Now, if the U.S. rarely succeeds in achieving Manifest Destiny, that might indicate a problem with the AI. But it's perfectly believable to me that, if the U.S. had been blocked by circumstances from achieving Manifest Destiny, it would have sought to expand anywhere else it could get a foothold. And Africa would have been the place, since South America was already taken.

 

[Theodotus1]

Originally posted by Old Republican
Agreed. America would never have gone after the rest of the world colonially, at least not before it stretched across North America and was controlling the rest of the hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine essentially spelled forth American hegemony, and so the US would never have allowed any other power to play in its back-yard.

It's possible, but highly unprobable.

You should study more history.

I live in the Pacific North West, and have visited the sites of British colonial occupation in what is now the State of Washington. In actuality, Britian played quite freely in what you call the U.S. backyard, right up until the point at which the two countries sorted out the situation in order to avoid war. This event is in the game. Realize, however, that nothing required the actual result in which war was avoided and the U.S. got the territories south of what is now Canada. Some other course of events could easily have taken place. (In point of fact, from what I've learned at historical sites here, war was expected. And the U.S. might well have lost. Which would have meant Washington would be part of B.C. now.)

It wasn't just a question of America's will to conquer the west. Actual events also depended on the actions of other countries.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Theodotus1
You're misunderstanding how the game works.

At the start of the GC, the US has already colonized all of the west. But they are blocked by other nations, Mexico and Britian, from incorporating those territories. It's not an issue of colonization. It's that diplomatically the U.S. doesn't always succeed in reaching the Pacific.

What you're advocating in favor of is a requirement that the U.S. seek it's current borders at all costs. Which is advocating for a determinist agenda that did not bind actual historical events. The actual course of history was as affected by happenstance as by anything else.

Now, if the U.S. rarely succeeds in achieving Manifest Destiny, that might indicate a problem with the AI. But it's perfectly believable to me that, if the U.S. had been blocked by circumstances from achieving Manifest Destiny, it would have sought to expand anywhere else it could get a foothold. And Africa would have been the place, since South America was already taken.

I dont want determinisim per se. Maybe once in awhile a radically imperialist president gets elected or Mexico manages to hold off the US or Russia/Britain end up with Oregon. Thats all fine and dandy. But having the US take more than 50% of Africa and the Pacific on a consistent basis is way out of bounds. On one hand the Euros should do a better job at IMperialism...on the other it seems counter to the general geo-political strategy of the US during this period.

I am reminded of HoI where the Axis wins almost everytime all things being equal. Alternative history is fine...but the USA taking over half of Africa should be an oddity not something that is common.

 

[unmerged(12680)]

Someone mentioned a screenshot from 1881, where was that posted? In any case, here is my contribution. The screens are from 1858, in the first I have marked out the areas which the USA dominates yet has yet to claim, in the other I have painted all US African possetions, claimed and unclaimed, to give you a view of how Africa will soon look.

I don't know about you, but I don't like this...

 

[Theodotus1]

Is someone saying the U.S. consistently fails to achieve Manifest Destiny? I've seen that it happens sometimes. How often does it happen?

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by Theodotus1
Is someone saying the U.S. consistently fails to achieve Manifest Destiny? I've seen that it happens sometimes. How often does it happen?

The AARs I have read show the USA coming up way short in challenging Mexico and reaching the sea. I have yet to get the game myself but I suspect this is going to be a problem. I will soon be able to check it out for sure.

 

[John Poole]

Originally posted by anti_strunt

I don't know about you, but I don't like this...

HOLY &^%! By 1858?!! I have a sinking feeling I know what North America looks like too :wacko:

If the UK had gotten that much in Africa by 1858 I would think that was nuts but this is crazy. Poor Rhodes...by the time he comes along all of Africa will alreay be colonized

 

[unmerged(1047)]

You know, in EU2 it's possible to code the AI to prefer colonizing certain areas over others. Is this not possible in Victoria?

Historically, considering the political and social factors involved (treatment and opinions of African-Americans, mainly), the USA would probably have tried to conquer existing European colonies in the Americas, instead of going into Africa. And despite the Census Bureau saying so, the frontier was not fully settled by 1890.

What the Census Bureau had done previously was to draw a line on the map where the population dropped below a certain number of people per square mile. The number was so low (less than 5 as I recall) that even the quarter-square-mile farms given out under the Homestead Act of 1862 were enough to exceed it. Thus, in the 1890 census results, the Census Bureau stated that they could no longer define a distinct 'frontier of settlement' as they had done in the previous ten censuses.

At that time, three of the 48 continental state were not yet states, and there were still large tracts of land in other Western states that had barely been settled at all - eastern and southern Nevada, western Oklahoma, and northwestern Texas, for example. And back that date up to 1885 and most of Southern California could be lumped in too.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Is it possible to have explorers + tech that doesnt allow the exploration of inner africa until a certain time period/event AND the coding of France/UK to colonize their historical colonies ?