Unprofitable colonies

[rwds]

This is from the wikipedia page on the Belgian Congo:
"Britain was uneasy at French expansion and had a technical claim on the Congo via Lieutenant Cameron's 1873 expedition from Zanzibar to bring home Livingstone's body, but was reluctant to take on yet another expensive, unproductive colony."
This is an issue I've had with most if not all GSG. It's always more profitable to have a piece of land than to not have it while in reality, countries often decided against expanding for financial reasons. I believe there are many more examples of this such as the German empire being reluctant to establish colonies at first but decided to do it more for reasons of prestige rather than financial gain and I also believe the Portuguese colony of Ceuta was a financial drain which made the Portugal convinced that they needed to take Tangiers. There are probably many more examples of this but as far as I'm aware, this concept of an unprofitable colony is absent from all of the GSG's I've played.

How can a GSG successfully model this dynamic of a piece of land being unprofitable and give players incentive to be conscious of where to expand and where to not expand just like real life countries did?

 

[Amallric]

The question is, "profitable for whom"? As a matter of principle, a country is not a for-profit undertaking; a government typically pursues other goals such as strength, security, prestige etc. Therefore this question about "unprofitable" colonies doesn't make much sense honestly. Is the city you live in "profitable"?

However, colonial ventures could be very "profitable" for specific agents, companies, politicians, missionaries...a lot of categories of people could have a vested interest in colonial expansion. Hopefully the interest group system will allow to represent such pressure groups in the game.

 

[Nokori]

I think it's not that simple. Colonies might have had a net positive economic impact on the supressing colonial power. The colonial holder countrys might have payed more to keep controle of the lands than they got by direct taxes & terrifs but trading companys payed the taxes in the country where they were headquartered e.g. London in case of GB. I don't think this is accountable in its entirety. Plus it lets you have navel and military bases, opening routs for you and your allys, denying areas for your foes etc. The prestige out of feeling superior to other countrys might have boosted the moral and in effect the economy at home. It would be nice to simulate this but its realy complex.

 

[Nokori]

However, colonial ventures could be very "profitable" ..

I think thats what OP refers to. He dosn't ask for unprofitable colonies, afaik he ask for a mechanik you have to deal with to make a colony profitable. In EU4 or Vic 2 iirc there is hardly a way where you as a governement (and in Vic we impwersonat a governement to a certain extend) get net minus from a colony.

 

[Varren]

The question is, "profitable for whom"? As a matter of principle, a country is not a for-profit undertaking; a government typically pursues other goals such as strength, security, prestige etc. Therefore this question about "unprofitable" colonies doesn't make much sense honestly. Is the city you live in "profitable"?

I believe the OP is using "profit" in the broader sense, rather than the strictly financial sense ("For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"). So, if you've got a rubber-producing territory that's technically in the red, but your net expenditures are less than what it would have cost to import that rubber, then you could still consider it a profitable colony. And, of course, there are other benefits colonies can have that are harder to quantify.

Basically, the question is "If you have an easy opportunity for expansion, would you ever turn it down just because the territory would be more trouble than it's worth to hold?"

 

[SemirDahak]

This is from the wikipedia page on the Belgian Congo:
"Britain was uneasy at French expansion and had a technical claim on the Congo via Lieutenant Cameron's 1873 expedition from Zanzibar to bring home Livingstone's body, but was reluctant to take on yet another expensive, unproductive colony."
This is an issue I've had with most if not all GSG. It's always more profitable to have a piece of land than to not have it while in reality, countries often decided against expanding for financial reasons. I believe there are many more examples of this such as the German empire being reluctant to establish colonies at first but decided to do it more for reasons of prestige rather than financial gain and I also believe the Portuguese colony of Ceuta was a financial drain which made the Portugal convinced that they needed to take Tangiers. There are probably many more examples of this but as far as I'm aware, this concept of an unprofitable colony is absent from all of the GSG's I've played.

How can a GSG successfully model this dynamic of a piece of land being unprofitable and give players incentive to be conscious of where to expand and where to not expand just like real life countries did?

Tbh regarding EU4 I'm not sure whether conquest of some desert land with unaccepted culture and religion will ever pay off, taking into consideration cost of initial war and rebels
Or cost of colonizing

 

[rwds]

Therefore this question about "unprofitable" colonies doesn't make much sense honestly. Is the city you live in "profitable"?

I see your rhethorical question about my city's profitability and raise you a rhethorical question about the Spanish Empire's South American colonial possessions' profitability.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

It would seem that Vicky has the mechanics to make this happen... though it will all depend on the balance.

A colony will produce income either directly (via goods that are sold or taxes), or indirectly (by supplying goods that then make the home nation's factories more efficient).
It will cost money either directly (the cost of building and staffing state infrastructure) or indirectly (the cost of maintaining a military presence for defence or rebel suppression).

This is in contrast to many strategy games where expansions costs are often modelled by some form of corruption or inefficiency mechanic applied as a global multiplier.

Unprofitable colonies can be created in Victoria just by ramping up direct cost of state administrators. To avoid making uncivilized nations all immediately unprofitable, this would probably need to be higher costs only for colonising administrators, reflecting the fact that supporting a colonizing class if much more expensive that supporting local administrators.

Of course, many colonies will still appear profitable as their real cost will be in providing a military to look after them... which will show up as a national level, rather than state level, cost.

 

[Vernichtere]

It has already been said here that the colonies were absolutely profitable, if not necessarily also for the state.

But the claim that the acquisition of land in strategy games is usually worthwhile is also not true. People often simply cannot calculate. The nice plus that pops up doesn't necessarily mean that the purchase was worth it. The investment may not be worth it for fifty years, if not a hundred. This is often the case with paradox games.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

Therefore this question about "unprofitable" colonies doesn't make much sense honestly. Is the city you live in "profitable"?

Eh? The OP's question makes perfect sense.

On the basic assumption that all nations run at break-even over time, then by definition half (by value) of their constitution parts (states/colonies in gamespeak) will be profitable, half (by value) will not. It is just more properly expressed as budget surplus/deficit than profitability.

You can, for example, see here the current 'profitability' for the UK

• London, the South East and the East of England all had net fiscal surpluses in the financial year ending (FYE) 2020, with all other countries and regions of the UK having net fiscal deficits.
• London had the highest net fiscal surplus per head at £4,030 while Northern Ireland had the highest net fiscal deficit per head at £5,440.
• London raised the most revenue per head (£18,660) in FYE 2020, while the regions with the least revenue raised per head were Wales and the North East (£9,850 and £9,940 respectively).
• Northern Ireland and Scotland incurred the highest expenditure per head in FYE 2020 at £15,910 and £15,070 respectively; the East of England and the East Midlands incurred the lowest expenditure per head at £11,870 and £12,010 respectively.

(So I'm afraid Scotland and Wales are currently an unprofitable colonies.....*ducks*)

 

[Lorehead]

I’ve seen historians seriously argue every position from, “Exploitation of the colonies was the only reason capitalism didn’t collapse,” to, “What folly not to realize that free trade was the true key to prosperity all along,” to, “How dare you suggest a system so morally wrong was economically productive, you monster!”

In terms of game design, I think colonial expansion works as something that you have to invest a lot in to ever pay off. Map painters would enjoy a game where they need to develop their domestic economy to support their war machine and colonial empire. Blobbing would give the economic sub-game goals that they find interesting: they need to maintain a standing army large enough to keep order in the colonies, while also being able to defend the Motherland and fight other wars of expansion. They also need a navy able to keep lines of supply and communication open, even in wartime. They need to focus their domestic industry on the goods they need for this imperialism, with whatever’s left over going to industries that use whatever their colonies produce.

Meanwhile, a player can focus more on building “tall” and satisfying the needs of their pops, and not be forced into imperial expansion by a Paradox of Security. At least, not everywhere.

If you’re playing as an unrecognized country in danger of being colonized, you should be able to strategize about who is and who isn’t laying the groundwork to conquer you, rather than constantly having to throw up your hands and say, “I guess any country in Europe could choose to conquer me at any time.” You should have mush more agency to court the Great Powers and strike a bargain that gives them access to your resources for far less cost and risk, buying you time to grow stronger.

 

[rwds]

It has already been said here that the colonies were absolutely profitable, if not necessarily also for the state.

Strange. I've seen people say the complete opposite. I'm curious as to why a word such as "expensive" would even be used in any piece of text concerning the colonies of the United Kingdom if what you say is indeed true.

I know for a fact that no Vic 2 player playing as the UK would ever characterise any colony anywhere at any point in time and in no possible financial situation whatsoever as being "expensive".

 

[NaRen13AnnexYourself]

Eh? The OP's question makes perfect sense.

On the basic assumption that all nations run at break-even over time, then by definition half (by value) of their constitution parts (states/colonies in gamespeak) will be profitable, half (by value) will not. It is just more properly expressed as budget surplus/deficit than profitability.

You can, for example, see here the current 'profitability' for the UK

• London, the South East and the East of England all had net fiscal surpluses in the financial year ending (FYE) 2020, with all other countries and regions of the UK having net fiscal deficits.
• London had the highest net fiscal surplus per head at £4,030 while Northern Ireland had the highest net fiscal deficit per head at £5,440.
• London raised the most revenue per head (£18,660) in FYE 2020, while the regions with the least revenue raised per head were Wales and the North East (£9,850 and £9,940 respectively).
• Northern Ireland and Scotland incurred the highest expenditure per head in FYE 2020 at £15,910 and £15,070 respectively; the East of England and the East Midlands incurred the lowest expenditure per head at £11,870 and £12,010 respectively.

(So I'm afraid Scotland and Wales are currently an unprofitable colonies.....*ducks*)

The “unprofitable” parts of the nation usually supply the profitable part with population, soldiers, market, raw materials, this is not always true for colonies, in VIC 2 you can’t even build factories or raise colonial armies there.

 

[rwds]

The “unprofitable” parts of the nation usually supply the profitable part with population, soldiers, market, raw materials, this is not always true for colonies, in VIC 2 you can’t even build factories or raise colonial armies there.

You are correct about factories but you can in fact raise brigades in your colonies that have soldier pops. In fact I personally believe Vic2 is way too generous with how many brigades will instantly become available to you when you colonize a decent chunk of Africa.

 

[Vernichtere]

Strange. I've seen people say the complete opposite. I'm curious as to why a word such as "expensive" would even be used in any piece of text concerning the colonies of the United Kingdom if what you say is indeed true.

I know for a fact that no Vic 2 player playing as the UK would ever characterise any colony anywhere at any point in time and in no possible financial situation whatsoever as being "expensive".

It depends on how you calculate it. Conservative historians count in tax revenues for the state and only with this. Then you can come to such a result. For the decision-makers, it can still have been worth it. I am buying a colony and have to spend a lot of money on securing and building the infrastructure. I also need a fleet so that the colony won't be taken from me again. These are all orders for the arms industry that it would otherwise not have received. The project has already paid off at that level when representatives of the arms industry are connected to the government.

Then I have the tax receipts and customs duties myself. Of course, it might not be worth it if I don't levy taxes or duties. But again I don't raise any taxes or duties, because nice gentlemen should have their profit. The Kalssian scheme: privatize profits and socialize losses.


Then I win a backup strategy. When I have nice adventures abroad, I can burn up troublemakers who would otherwise have asked stupid questions about the eight-hour working day.

Then I consider the economy as such. How does one come to the conclusion that an independent India would not have levied tariffs on industrial products from England? A piece of land can already be worthwhile at the level that it serves to secure the profitable colonies.

 

[rwds]

It depends on how you calculate it. Conservative historians count in tax revenues for the state and only with this. Then you can come to such a result. For the decision-makers, it can still have been worth it. I am buying a colony and have to spend a lot of money on securing and building the infrastructure. I also need a fleet so that the colony won't be taken from me again. These are all orders for the arms industry that it would otherwise not have received. The project has already paid off at that level when representatives of the arms industry are connected to the government.

Then I have the tax receipts and customs duties myself. Of course, it might not be worth it if I don't levy taxes or duties. But again I don't raise any taxes or duties, because nice gentlemen should have their profit. The Kalssian scheme: privatize profits and socialize losses.


Then I win a backup strategy. When I have nice adventures abroad, I can burn up troublemakers who would otherwise have asked stupid questions about the eight-hour working day.

Then I consider the economy as such. How does one come to the conclusion that an independent India would not have levied tariffs on industrial products from England? A piece of land can already be worthwhile at the level that it serves to secure the profitable colonies.

So why then turn down free land as the UK? I know a Vic 2 UK will never say no to free land but the real life one will. Surely it's not about needing to expand its navy size at this point in history.

 

[Vernichtere]

So why then turn down free land as the UK? I know a Vic 2 UK will never say no to free land but the real life one will. Surely it's not about needing to expand its navy size at this point in history.

Different level of development of a society. Democracy and colonies do not get along very well. A key feature of the colonies was that they did not have the same legal system. It was getting harder and harder to justify that. I can just shoot into the crowd maybe in the nineteenth century. If I do it in Vietnam War, it will be more difficult. I also somehow have to explain why I spend more on schools etc. on my island than in the colonies. I have to explain why the inhabitants of the overseas provinces are not represented in parliament. In addition, the egg-born defend themselves at some point with modern weapons: see Portugal's attempt to hold the colonies.

The scheme of socializing losses does not work so well in a democracy. At some point the workers in London are no longer so enthusiastic that the gentlemen's profits are not taxed. In this respect, it is also more advantageous for the gentlemen to have formal independence. Local gentlemen are then given guns to fire into the crowd. Direct intervention is carried out as soon as the situation slips completely away. The US approach in Latin America is more modern and more propagandistically advantageous from a certain point in time. As soon as economic interests are disrupted, a nice pinochet is supported or you try to land in the Bay of Pigs in the name of freedom.

 

[rwds]

Different level of development of a society. Democracy and colonies do not get along very well. A key feature of the colonies was that they did not have the same legal system. It was getting harder and harder to justify that. I can just shoot into the crowd maybe in the nineteenth century. If I do it in Vietnam War, it will be more difficult. I also somehow have to explain why I spend more on schools etc. on my island than in the colonies. I have to explain why the inhabitants of the overseas provinces are not represented in parliament. In addition, the egg-born defend themselves at some point with modern weapons: see Portugal's attempt to hold the colonies.

The scheme of socializing losses does not work so well in a democracy. At some point the workers in London are no longer so enthusiastic that the gentlemen's profits are not taxed. In this respect, it is also more advantageous for the gentlemen to have formal independence. Local gentlemen are then given guns to fire into the crowd. Direct intervention is carried out as soon as the situation slips completely away. The US approach in Latin America is more modern and more propagandistically advantageous from a certain point in time. As soon as economic interests are disrupted, a nice pinochet is supported or you try to land in the Bay of Pigs in the name of freedom.

Huh? Are we still talking about 1880s UK here? I feel like topics such as justifying lack of colonial representation in parliament was of secondary concern (to put it mildly) during the height of the scramble for Africa.

 

[Vernichtere]

Huh? Are we still talking about 1880s UK here? I feel like topics such as justifying lack of colonial representation in parliament was of secondary concern (to put it mildly) during the height of the scramble for Africa.

At what point did the British say no to new colonies? You just have to come to an agreement with other powers and have the appropriate local power. Otherwise everything was fetched that was possible.

I also don't understand the issues related to the game. In terms of the state, some provinces are not particularly worthwhile in Pradox games. I often have to keep troops on site that cost more than the province brings in. This will also be the case with Vicky 3.

In Imperator Rome I conquered Britain with the Romans. The invasion alone cost me a lot of gold. Then I also had to build buildings that would prevent rebellions. The bottom line is that the province would have paid me the cost of conquering it again in about 50 years.

 

[Helmic____]

If we talk about the government most colonies established in the 19th century were unprofitable. The costs of garrisons, infrastructure and administration weren’t outweighed by tax-income. This was the case for all German colonies except for one guano mine, most subsharan colonies except for South Africa, most pacific colonies without guano and probably more. With the player being in charge of mostly the government these colonies should be a net drain on the budget, regardless of what you think about it helping unemployment.

With infrastructure costs some of the gap can be bridged. However I fear that the system will be similar to Vicky 2 where immediately after colonising the jungles of central Africa their entire population will be integrated into your economy. This wasn’t at all the case in most places as most people didn’t take part in the formal economy and wasn’t taxable at all. The system was also worthless at modelling the differences of colonies in the relatively developed Asia compared to Africa.