Why I think the next DLC or Update needs to revisit European Majors

[Snake_Squeezins]

Many people including me get excited when there's something to do in PDX games other than just go to war. This thread is getting into one such area.

Some kind of peacetime trading/espionage minigame makes sense for Trade Company regions and even Colonial Nations. Netherlands, Portugal, etc shouldn't need to *fight* its way into Asia, they should also be able to *talk* or *bribe* their way in there. Euros and rich Africans/Asians should be able to compete for trading rights peacefully, and "host states" should be able to shop around for favorable deals with them. There would be a balance between A) peacefully profiting off the would-be colonizers (with Euros attaching trade posts to land owned by agreeable hosts, giving both a share of the synergistic profits), and B) hosts asking for too much money for access, refusing to allow access at all, refusing to dislodge a rival or open up a second trading post, or some other kind of outright exploitation or treachery that opens the door to bloodshed (invasion of the host to forcibly install a trading post or even outright claim the land, or eject a competitor).

In general, I think there should be a way for colonialists to profit just as much through peaceful exploitation/cooperation as through violent repression/colonization, and it would be a great way to bring to life TCs, CNs, and the colonial theater in general. Frankly such a system could easily adapt to Republics, as well - it's really just a more dynamic form of trading posts, and a commodification of a specific territory's or region's trading rights to fit into diplomatic pacts and warfare options.

 

[Incompetent]

With the implementation of "Institutions", the Far-East is too close to European technology in the late game. The situation in India is not as bad as it is in Monolith Ming, which often leads the words in Technology in the late game, but EU4 India is still too advanced in the late game.

The problem is that the institution setup is upside down: The first three institutions are very Eurocentric (under AI control anyway) and give Europe a big technological advantage over Asia in the 16th century especially, whereas the last three spread like wildfire and basically put the world in a single tech group by the late game. It should be the opposite, where early institutions are relatively easy to get and the later ones are harder, so that Asia mostly keeps up with Europe in the mid-game (at least in military tech) but fall dangerously behind towards the end.

Given the timeline of technological advantage, it's no surprise that European AIs struggle to conquer much in Asia. The 16th century is too early, due to Terra Incognita, lack of good CBs (especially since Expansion CB got rekt), lack of coring range and so on. By the 18th century, when the AI has the other means to conquer in Asia, the technological advantage has vanished and Asia is divided into a few super-blobs that aren't practical for European AI countries to invade.

 

[frolix42]

The problem is that the institution setup is upside down: The first three institutions are very Eurocentric (under AI control anyway) and give Europe a big technological advantage over Asia in the 16th century especially, whereas the last three spread like wildfire and basically put the world in a single tech group by the late game. It should be the opposite, where early institutions are relatively easy to get and the later ones are harder, so that Asia mostly keeps up with Europe in the mid-game (at least in military tech) but fall dangerously behind towards the end.

Given the timeline of technological advantage, it's no surprise that European AIs struggle to conquer much in Asia. The 16th century is too early, due to Terra Incognita, lack of good CBs (especially since Expansion CB got rekt), lack of coring range and so on. By the 18th century, when the AI has the other means to conquer in Asia, the technological advantage has vanished and Asia is divided into a few super-blobs that aren't practical for European AI countries to invade.

That's a good point, the part about the tech advantage being more pronounced at the end of the time period. But the West European naval/military tech advantage was historically being felt as soon as the start of the 16th century. In 1509 the Portuguese navy crushed the combined Mamluk and Gujarat Sultanates at the Battle of Diu, forcibly seized Goa and other trade centers, and consequently dominated Indian Ocean trade for the next century. That aspect of this eras history is totally absent from the game right now.

 

[Espadajusta]

What OP said, isn't in total historically correct. Ok, I know there's this Wiki map. But as others have mentioned, even far after 1550 european presence was nearly only coastal. And this is not only true for Africa and Asia, but for Americas, too.
The Spanish destroyed the great native nations, robbed and plundered them, then they went for gold and silver mines and some plantations and they had ports to transfer the stuff to Europe. They did not bring that much population to the New World, especially not when seen in comparison to the wide lands they claimed. Calim is a key word. many territories in the cited map were claimed, but not controlled, not to speak of being colonized. For many parts Spain and later Mexico held, it needed the USA to bring significant population there (Florida, Texas, New Mexico, California). The Portuguese did the same, but to a lesser extent than the Spanish. French were similar and started later, also were set back several times by war losses and stuff.
Only the British did do a significant colonisation, but this started in 17th century and was really going in the second half of it and in 18th century.
For Africa, there's nearly no significant colonisation, beside of the Dutch in South Africa. In Asia, there wasn't any.
What most people miss, also because popular history doesn't mention it, the Europeans needed much time to become big players in India and rest of Asia. In 16th and also for most of 17th century, most of the trade in Indian ocean was between the nations there. It isn't well known, because most historians are from european origin and study european sources to understand the history there. So you need to go to specialists for Indian history. Ten years ago I had 2 classes at university held by experts for Indian history. That's what I took out of it.
The european dominance in Asia started late 18th century with the British, others following in 19th century. So it's mostly not EUIV time frame, but Victorias. At that time, Europeans had lost most of their American colonies already. And how strong the control of Africa was, you can see by regarding the fact, that Inner African exploration (!) was finished in 19th century. What you haven't explored, you can't control.
So long story short, what EUIV colonisation represents at the moment, isn't so far from historical reality.

You are totally right, if we understand that colonization means to bring your own people to fill an empty land or replace the indigenous people.

Spain, Portugal and France did mostly conquest and evangelization. Specially Spainsh and Portuguese converted the native nations to european culture and ended mixed with the local population. At least in America, not in Africa.

British did eliminated indigenous populations in large areas and replaced with colones, which explain why almost no natives from east north america or south east Australia survived.

Dutch mostly took the territories from the portuguese, but then lost many of them to the english.

 

[Robert de Bruce]

I already had the feeling several people here use colonization in another way than I do. So some of the discussions were just based on the term we used. I think, it's more clear to use colonization in my sense and speaking of trade, trade companies etc. when referring to British East India Company etc. Merging both just confuses everybody.

 

[otaats]

This is almost irrelevant (possibly), but Portuguese should likely get an event to snatch Macau for a certain amount of cash. As far as i understand, they bribed local administration that granted them land. Nowadays the only way to get Macau as Portugal is through war, and everyone here agrees that it's kind of impossible if you're playing approximately as historic Portugal. Events such as these surrounding China would help European colonizers and weaken Chinese mandate.

 

[Espadajusta]

This is almost irrelevant (possibly), but Portuguese should likely get an event to snatch Macau for a certain amount of cash. As far as i understand, they bribed local administration that granted them land. Nowadays the only way to get Macau as Portugal is through war, and everyone here agrees that it's kind of impossible if you're playing approximately as historic Portugal. Events such as these surrounding China would help European colonizers and weaken Chinese mandate.

I already proposed to introduce the "trading post concession" possibility, but not only for Portugal, but any country that wants to play that way.

 

[Kadanz]

It should be part of a major overhaul of naval mechanics.

To colonise you need navy tradition and a strong navy. How can people move to the colonies if there isn't safe shipping to get them there? How can colonies thrive without trading routes and trading ships? Tradition should allow you to map and explore.

You need lots of sailors to do this too.

So much this. I don't know how many times I see OPM holland colonize half the of brazil when it only has 3 heavies and 7 light ships.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

I'm strongly in favor of rebalancing Europe/ROTW in the late game. A big part of this era was, like it or not, was European colonization. And not just European colonization of the Americas.

I think a modelling in just Europe will not be enough without doing it in Asia as well, particularly in India where Sultanates remain strong and centralised.

Regards the pasted extract some observation is necessary for its more of a literature than critical study...Even Babur in his Baburnama, has mentioned that Indians were extracting meals like Zinc since 12th century but they didn't know how to make candles or glass lamp. They had glass bangles and jar but no glass mirrors. Mirrors were mostly of metal alloys made to reflect.

Goods horses were difficult to breed in India and had to be imported and were mostly used in warfare after the Muslims arrived in India, before that Elephants were used instead owing of availability. So oxen/bullock were mostly used as transport and good horses remained very costly.

It is true about glass, India a very poor glass know-how. Telescopes were unknown. Eyeglass had to be imported. But they were soon famous.

European clocks were not accepted in the Indian society because they were not compatible with the Indian time system which has system of 8 praharas: four praharas for the day, and four for the night with the more precise traditional system of muhurtas, which is based on precise astronomical calculations. They were not accepted till the British took over. Even today, traditional Indian calendars and festivals are based on muhurta system of 8 Prahar & 24 ghati.

Navy remained poor because going in the deep water was considered a taboo in Indian society. So any early modern Hindu Indian visiting a foreign land across water had to first purify himself through rituals before being accepted in his family. After 12th century none Indian rulers have shown interest in naval field including Mughals, not until Marathas.

By mid 17th century, Europeans should have absolute superiority against the age old agrarian societies of India & China. And making changes only in Europe without any in India or China will not achieve much.

The entire idea of discovery of another route to India was to by-pass Aden-Alexandria-Constantinople trade route monopoly. As such Malacca-Ceylon-Zanzibar-Cape were favoured instead of Aden-Egypt. This is not well reflected. To have AI actual trade profit from India, they must have high trade power in Aden, Zanzibar, Cape & Ivory Coast; even Zanzibar is manageable but in most of the game Aden remains out of their hand because of strong Ottoman's presence diminishing much of their Indian Trade Company profit. The coloniser AI must get fair return for colonising into India. Thats why a separate Madagascar trade node is needed to pull directly from Ceylon and Malacca or alternately make Zanzibar pull from directly from Ceylon as well in that case as least two centre of trade in uncolonised Madagascar region, may be Mauritius one of them.

In the current system, printing press is discovered in Germany, the entire world comes to know of it the very next day. I think the age or era should not start or end in all the world simultaneously. Suppose England got colonialism in 1505, let it unlock in Western Europe immediately but let it unlock in Russia by 1508 or 1510, similarly in Persia by 1512, India by 1515 Ming by 1518-20 likewise, (just hypothetical years for example). This delay in unlocking can keep India & China a bit more backward technologically in the mid game. Tech penalty may begin for all nations the day it unlocks anywhere but put a tab on its growth by slowing them in Asia & Africa, New World. (Pardon my bad English)

 

[JKiller96]

There are huge differences between colonies, protectorates, land 'controlled' through trading posts and claimed areas.
Colonies in Asia did not happen as often as in the New World. Colonies in Asia would be Australia and to a lesser extent the Philippines (But with less colonization and more assimilation)
Protectorates could mean anything from completely not controlled land to a colony. Protectorates in Africa and Southeast Asia were not very meaningful in terms of control til the mid-1800's.

In reality, the Portuguese and Dutch did not control hardly any sizable amount of land until the 19th century with ventures inland in Indonesia and Africa.
What was prevalent in the EU4 era, were small trading posts and sometimes forts (Such as those in Muscat or the West African coast) but they often had little control over land in the country, even outside of the fort/trading post area most of the times.

 

[Espadajusta]

There are huge differences between colonies, protectorates, land 'controlled' through trading posts and claimed areas.
Colonies in Asia did not happen as often as in the New World. Colonies in Asia would be Australia and to a lesser extent the Philippines (But with less colonization and more assimilation)
Protectorates could mean anything from completely not controlled land to a colony. Protectorates in Africa and Southeast Asia were not very meaningful in terms of control til the mid-1800's.

In reality, the Portuguese and Dutch did not control hardly any sizable amount of land until the 19th century with ventures inland in Indonesia and Africa.
What was prevalent in the EU4 era, were small trading posts and sometimes forts (Such as those in Muscat or the West African coast) but they often had little control over land in the country, even outside of the fort/trading post area most of the times.

You are totally right,

I think that to apply something like this in the game, first the warfare system should be completely reworked.

We are discussing in another thread some changes needed to make wars less total, so to make the system more reasonable, specially making moving around big stacks of armies impractical in most cases. This could be easily implemented introducing an increasing cost for moving armies and supply lines and limits. This way, most wars will be decided by small local armies. With this system, it will be more likely that small expeditionary force could seize an small territory or stablish a trading post or fort even in India or China.

 

[TheDungen]

Basically nothing outside of the new world was colonized (Australia and south Africa as notable exceptions) it was made into protectorates. And even in the americas only the dutch and the english really colonized the way we think about it, the Spanish conquered and the Portuguese and french traded.
And someone mentioned india, no india was not part of the british realm before the reign of victoria, before that it was held under the sway of the british east india company as a number of protectorates.

Sure the imperialist game needs to be rebalanced but in a manner which fits with what actually happened.

 

[Espadajusta]

Basically nothing outside of the new world was colonized (Australia and south Africa as notable exceptions) it was made into protectorates. And even in the americas only the dutch and the english really colonized the way we think about it, the Spanish conquered and the Portuguese and french traded.
And someone mentioned india, no india was not part of the british realm before the reign of victoria, before that it was held under the sway of the british east india company as a number of protectorates.

Sure the imperialist game needs to be rebalanced but in a manner which fits with what actually happened.

I have proposed in another thread a simple but more reasonable colonization system in steps.

First level you create an small (military) outpost that can supply an small land force and your increase naval range and the possiblitiy to build a trading post if in a TC region. This should be quite fast and cheap to create, but you don't actually control that province. It will allow to create only a few buildings like a fort, market, or church (this should be necessary in order to convert to your religion).

The second step is creating a full colony (a city) that will give total control of that province and its resources. Only then you can make it a core. This will take years and be a long slow process.

 

[TheDungen]

I have proposed in another thread a simple but more reasonable colonization system in steps.

First level you create an small (military) outpost that can supply an small land force and your increase naval range and the possiblitiy to build a trading post if in a TC region. This should be quite fast and cheap to create, but you don't actually control that province. It will allow to create only a few buildings like a fort, market, or church (this should be necessary in order to convert to your religion).

The second step is creating a full colony (a city) that will give total control of that province and its resources. Only then you can make it a core. This will take years and be a long slow process.

Except directly holding power was never really a good return on investment. The reason it happened in the americas was because the land was pretty much depopulated by disease so setting up protectorates wasn't really viable.

Even much later after the scramble for Africa far from all colonies ran a profit.

 

[zukodark]

I think the most viable solution, one that is not a rework of several core systems of the game (which seems unlikely at this point), is the addition of trade posts in foreign provinces. A country can, though an expansion idea group perk, in any other-continent trade company region, establish a trade post in a foreign or uncolonized province. It would additionally have to be within colonial range (trade range?). This would cost some combination of diplomatic power and cash. This would essentially give the trade power to the trading country, probably with positive modifiers. The province I could see Portugal having a large boost to trade posts efficiency in their ideas. The owner would get a boost to goods produced to compensate. Simple as that.

I'd additionally suggest showing trade posts to count as part of a trade company, potentially giving you merchants. It would also give colonial range and trade range, allowing you to go far without actually owning any provinces. You'd also gain a cb on the owner country.

While not strong enough to be the basis for your strategy, it could make up for this in its ease of use. If implemented properly, it could work. With some alterations and additions of course. The ideal would be for it to require a decently strong navy (at least to have more than a few posts), while also ensuring you can't go entirely wild with them. I think this could be extended to work for merchant republics, though then also at the home continent. These new trading posts would have a better name to avoid confusing them with the old ones for the merchant republics.

There'd also have to a possibility for war when the owner refuses the Europeans. This would be a new casus belli, where the "defender" (owner of the posts) would have the wargoal to blockade or occupy coastal provinces. (I think this existed before?). In addition, there would be a diplomatic action similar to "demand province", just without the aggressive expansion.

 

[Espadajusta]

Except directly holding power was never really a good return on investment. The reason it happened in the americas was because the land was pretty much depopulated by disease so setting up protectorates wasn't really viable.

Even much later after the scramble for Africa far from all colonies ran a profit.

That's why I propose the 2 levels. In many cases you just need an outpost to increase your naval range or as a beachead for further incursions to the interior, but to make it a full colony or a city would be illogical. This is specially true for places like Diego Garcia, or St. Helena islands, that had just an strategic value for the navy range but why would people would want to move there and build a city?

 

[Espadajusta]

I think the most viable solution, one that is not a rework of several core systems of the game (which seems unlikely at this point), is the addition of trade posts in foreign provinces. A country can, though an expansion idea group perk, in any other-continent trade company region, establish a trade post in a foreign or uncolonized province. It would additionally have to be within colonial range (trade range?). This would cost some combination of diplomatic power and cash. This would essentially give the trade power to the trading country, probably with positive modifiers. The province I could see Portugal having a large boost to trade posts efficiency in their ideas. The owner would get a boost to goods produced to compensate. Simple as that.

I'd additionally suggest showing trade posts to count as part of a trade company, potentially giving you merchants. It would also give colonial range and trade range, allowing you to go far without actually owning any provinces. You'd also gain a cb on the owner country.

While not strong enough to be the basis for your strategy, it could make up for this in its ease of use. If implemented properly, it could work. With some alterations and additions of course. The ideal would be for it to require a decently strong navy (at least to have more than a few posts), while also ensuring you can't go entirely wild with them. I think this could be extended to work for merchant republics, though then also at the home continent. These new trading posts would have a better name to avoid confusing them with the old ones for the merchant republics.

There'd also have to a possibility for war when the owner refuses the Europeans. This would be a new casus belli, where the "defender" (owner of the posts) would have the wargoal to blockade or occupy coastal provinces. (I think this existed before?). In addition, there would be a diplomatic action similar to "demand province", just without the aggressive expansion.

This I also proposed in a thread, the possibiliy to negotiate trading post concessions.

 

[Snowcrisp]

I personally would love if the ai great powers would use border wars as proxy wars against their rivals and use condottieri to weaken each other in these skirmishes rather than full blown out war with each other when it might leave them vulnerable elsewhere.

 

[Espadajusta]

I personally would love if the ai great powers would use border wars as proxy wars against their rivals and use condottieri to weaken each other in these skirmishes rather than full blown out war with each other when it might leave them vulnerable elsewhere.

There is a thread in EU4 suggestions about ideas in this direction, to make wars less total.

 

[SantoshKashyap]

This I also proposed in a thread, the possibiliy to negotiate trading post concessions.

I really don't know if the present game engine can handle this, A coastal province might have multiple trading posts which may belong to multiple colonisers respectively with its own trade network, navy, army respectively. It is some kind of provinces within a province or districts within a province set up.

Alternately making separate small trading post points in the coastal region would make it so tiny that they will be difficult to click. I may be wrong though.