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

[fyfaendeluxe]

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 is good stuff. Pay money and/or mana to establish a trade post in a foreign asian or african province(i'd limit it to owned provinces), you get all the trade power, province gets a large bonus to goods produced. Say, you need positive relations and completed expansion ideas to do it. Only one nation can have a trade post per province.

You can also add an upgrade chain to trade post, say rank 1 (default) extends trade and naval supply range, rank 2 extends colonial range, rank 3 allows you to build manufactory for the AI, fabricate claims and hire mercs, rank 4 would give you a permanent claim on the province and fire(or enable one with a reasonable MTTH) an event for the AI where they either cede the province or kick you out, giving you a good CB. Unlock the ranks with each age, pay money/mana to upgrade. Every rank also increases the trade power you get and the goods produced the ai gets.

I'd also love it if you actively had to use ships to setup and upgrade the trade posts.

 

[Espadajusta]

It can be done like Gibraltar, which is actually way too big compared to its real size.

Or,

A trading post can just be an icon in the province.

 

[zukodark]

It can be done like Gibraltar, which is actually way too big compared to its real size.

Or,

A trading post can just be an icon in the province.

I say an icon (the button to make them, greyed out and with your flag on it) in the province view, with an overveiw either being provided in the Trade Company mapmode and/or a new mapmode entirely.

One trade post per province seems adequate. While this is not true to IRL, it is an abstraction where we won't lose too much. Also make it somewhat more competetive, as the many of the IRL reasons for competition aren't a thing ingame. Be quick, get more trade power through centers and estuaries.

 

[Espadajusta]

I say an icon (the button to make them, greyed out and with your flag on it) in the province view, with an overveiw either being provided in the Trade Company mapmode and/or a new mapmode entirely.

One trade post per province seems adequate. While this is not true to IRL, it is an abstraction where we won't lose too much. Also make it somewhat more competetive, as the many of the IRL reasons for competition aren't a thing ingame. Be quick, get more trade power through centers and estuaries.

I'd say only 1 country can have a trading post in the same province. At least only 1 european country as the competitor should not be allowed.

Now the question is how you take a trading post from a rival? war? diplomacy?

 

[iShurik]

We need a proper replacement for former protectorates. I really miss this part of the imperial/trading gameplay...

 

[klingonadmiral]

In reality the British conquest of inland India began in earnest with the annexation of Bengal in 1758 and was irreversible with the total British victory over the Marathas in 1815. So by the end of EU4's timeframe the British had conquered most of India. Sindh held out until 1843. The Sikhs held out until 1846.

Consider though that the Conquest of Bengal only happened because the rapid decline of the Mughals left a power vacuum into which several powers expanded - the Sikh Empire in Punjab, the Marathas in southern India and the British in Bengal. As long as EU4 doesn't model rapid dissolution, it is correct for India to stay uncolonized ... there's no way any European nation can push through the sheer population advantage of an organized Indian society during EU4s timeframe.

 

[Espadajusta]

Consider though that the Conquest of Bengal only happened because the rapid decline of the Mughals left a power vacuum into which several powers expanded - the Sikh Empire in Punjab, the Marathas in southern India and the British in Bengal. As long as EU4 doesn't model rapid dissolution, it is correct for India to stay uncolonized ... there's no way any European nation can push through the sheer population advantage of an organized Indian society during EU4s timeframe.

During the period, Portuguese stablished trading post all along the coast of India and Bengal. They also controlled Ceylan. Also French set foot in India.

Dutch arrived later, mostly taking from the portuguese.

The English finally arrived also because of Portugal, as in a royal wedding agreement, portuguese ceded som of their territory in India to England. They later also took much of the dutch territories.

Then it is true that the british took advantage of the colapse of the Mughal empire, finally arriving to the total domination of India in the XIX century

 

[frolix42]

Consider though that the Conquest of Bengal only happened because the rapid decline of the Mughals left a power vacuum into which several powers expanded - the Sikh Empire in Punjab, the Marathas in southern India and the British in Bengal. As long as EU4 doesn't model rapid dissolution, it is correct for India to stay uncolonized ... there's no way any European nation can push through the sheer population advantage of an organized Indian society during EU4s timeframe.

You're anachronistically imagining that "Indian society" was historically "organized" as if it were a single state dedicated to the common defense of all of India like it is today. In reality the nation of India had never been totally united until the British Raj or arguably until 1947, when it was partitioned. The Portuguese control of Goa preceded the hegemony of the Mughals and even the Mughal Empire at it's height did not control the Deccan Maharajas. The Mughal invaders were often hated by the locals and they were not a centralized state like Ming or Qing. Into these gaps slipped the European colonizers. Empires in India had been rising and falling for thousands of years, and when the Mughal Empire inevitably declined, the rising power of the Marathas checked but eventually fell to the British.

 

[klingonadmiral]

You're anachronistically imagining that "Indian society" was historically "organized" as if it were a single state dedicated to the common defense of all of India like it is today. In reality the nation of India had never been totally united until the British Raj or arguably until 1947, when it was partitioned. The Portuguese control of Goa preceded the hegemony of the Mughals and even the Mughal Empire at it's height did not control the Deccan Maharajas. The Mughal invaders were often hated by the locals and they were not a centralized state like Ming or Qing. Into these gaps slipped the European colonizers. Empires in India had been rising and falling for thousands of years, and when the Mughal Empire inevitably declined, the rising power of the Marathas checked but eventually fell to the British.

Yes. But EU4 invariably ends up with most of India being dominated by Bahmanis, Vijawhatshername or much more rarely one of the Gangetic tags or Gujarat. Those tags have been consolidating their power since 1444, so Europe has no realistic chance to make inroads into India. India would probably end up similar to OTL China (but without the Opium) under such circumstances.

 

[frolix42]

Yes. But EU4 invariably ends up with most of India being dominated by Bahmanis, Vijawhatshername or much more rarely one of the Gangetic tags or Gujarat. Those tags have been consolidating their power since 1444, so Europe has no realistic chance to make inroads into India. India would probably end up similar to OTL China (but without the Opium) under such circumstances.

A better AI would make an alliance with the Bahmanis in order to divide Gujarat. Or take advantage of an inter-Indian war to grab territory. Pick on the weakest Indian tiger to get a foothold, then expand. That is what happened IRL. The player is smart enough to do this, so should the AI.

The Marathas controlled a massive amount of India in the 18th century, yet the British were able to crush them by 1815. It's should absolutely be within the realm of possibility for the European AI to at least attempt to do the same. As it stands now, Euro AI doesn't have a chance to get the tiniest of footholds.

 

[Tufto]

You're anachronistically imagining that "Indian society" was historically "organized" as if it were a single state dedicated to the common defense of all of India like it is today. In reality the nation of India had never been totally united until the British Raj or arguably until 1947, when it was partitioned. The Portuguese control of Goa preceded the hegemony of the Mughals and even the Mughal Empire at it's height did not control the Deccan Maharajas. The Mughal invaders were often hated by the locals and they were not a centralized state like Ming or Qing. Into these gaps slipped the European colonizers. Empires in India had been rising and falling for thousands of years, and when the Mughal Empire inevitably declined, the rising power of the Marathas checked but eventually fell to the British.

The Europeans in no way could have taken on the Mughals at their height, and it's ludicrous to suggest they could have. The Mughals being "often hated by the locals" is kinda anachronistic before the late 17th century, unless you mean a general resentment of an exploitative power which wasn't really relevant when it came to European attempts at gaining inroads into the country.

The OP's map is wrong [EDIT: actually, the OP's map is for 1754 so I have no idea why they were saying it was for 1550. Still wildly overestimating European reach in India at that point, though, both in India and in Africa], as it shows European control over the whole of coastal India. This is incorrect. The Europeans held a very small number of coastal holdings, with Goa being the only major city they physically owned prior to the 18th century. These cities were gained before the rise of Mughal power, and even prior to this the Europeans were not able to gain any control over the interior. They lacked the capabilities.

The British were able to conquer India because the large imperial power which had formerly dominated the continent had collapsed, and using divide-and-conquer tactics combined with a certain level of technological superiority (in the late 18th century, something which they lacked in any meaningful way before) they were able to gain a foothold and then dominance. Arguing that they still would have been able to do so when faced with said large imperial power is ridiculous.

 

[frolix42]

The Europeans in no way could have taken on the Mughals at their height, and it's ludicrous to suggest they could have. The Mughals being "often hated by the locals" is kinda anachronistic before the late 17th century, unless you mean a general resentment of an exploitative power which wasn't really relevant when it came to European attempts at gaining inroads into the country.

The OP's map is wrong [EDIT: actually, the OP's map is for 1754 so I have no idea why they were saying it was for 1550. Still wildly overestimating European reach in India at that point, though, both in India and in Africa], as it shows European control over the whole of coastal India. This is incorrect. The Europeans held a very small number of coastal holdings, with Goa being the only major city they physically owned prior to the 18th century. These cities were gained before the rise of Mughal power, and even prior to this the Europeans were not able to gain any control over the interior. They lacked the capabilities.

The British were able to conquer India because the large imperial power which had formerly dominated the continent had collapsed, and using divide-and-conquer tactics combined with a certain level of technological superiority (in the late 18th century, something which they lacked in any meaningful way before) they were able to gain a foothold and then dominance. Arguing that they still would have been able to do so when faced with said large imperial power is ridiculous.

No one is saying that the British could have conquered the Mughals in the early 17th century, this is your strawman. As if your avatar wasn't enough indication where your loyalties lie European influence in India grew slowly, over three centuries, as various Indian states waxed and waned in power. The fact is that in patch 1.22 Euros have little to no effect on India while in reality their impact was immense, especially by the time the British crushed the Marathas.

 

[Tufto]

No one is saying that the British could have conquered the Mughals in the early 17th century, this is your strawman. As if your avatar wasn't enough indication where your loyalties lie European influence in India grew slowly, over three centuries, as various Indian states waxed and waned in power. The fact is that in patch 1.22 Euros have little to no effect on India while in reality their impact was immense, especially by the time the British crushed the Marathas.

Yeah I did misread what you were saying a bit, sorry about that but I disagree about the slow growth of European influence; it was never very important until the late 17th/18th centuries, when it definitely did explode somewhat. I agree that Europe should have a late-game tech boost and should have a much stronger influence towards the end, though only in the absence of strong Indian powers.

As if your avatar wasn't enough indication where your loyalties lie

With Persia? .

 

[Fishman786]

Consider though that the Conquest of Bengal only happened because the rapid decline of the Mughals left a power vacuum into which several powers expanded - the Sikh Empire in Punjab, the Marathas in southern India and the British in Bengal. As long as EU4 doesn't model rapid dissolution, it is correct for India to stay uncolonized ... there's no way any European nation can push through the sheer population advantage of an organized Indian society during EU4s timeframe.

This. The British colonisation of the Indian interior was the product of the failure of the Mughal Empire after the death of Aurangzeb and the defeat of the Marathas by the Afghans at Panipat. Although actually it was the Persians and the Afghans who filled the Mughal vacuum in the northwest rather than primarily the Sikhs. The Mughals actually succeeded in wiping out most Sikh resistance in the early 18th century by crushing Banda Singh Bahadur's kingdom, and Sikhs didn't become a territorial state again until after the Afghans conquered the region.

 

[Fishman786]

No one is saying that the British could have conquered the Mughals in the early 17th century, this is your strawman. As if your avatar wasn't enough indication where your loyalties lie European influence in India grew slowly, over three centuries, as various Indian states waxed and waned in power. The fact is that in patch 1.22 Euros have little to no effect on India while in reality their impact was immense, especially by the time the British crushed the Marathas.

Even up to the 19th century Europeans generally didn't overrun strong Indian states. The EIC generally waited until after a civil war or collapse of authority gave them the excuse necessary to intervene. The problem with India in EUIV is that the Hindu states are these massive, monolithic centralised powers that can utilise all the resources in their territory rather than being decentralised, 'feudal' amalgamations of many different competing families, tribes, castes and ethnic groups. Note that I specifically mean the Hindus, because the Muslim empires all get eaten by the Hindus and Sikhism rarely takes off.

 

[frolix42]

Yeah I did misread what you were saying a bit, sorry about that but I disagree about the slow growth of European influence; it was never very important until the late 17th/18th centuries, when it definitely did explode somewhat. I agree that Europe should have a late-game tech boost and should have a much stronger influence towards the end, though only in the absence of strong Indian powers.

I agree with you, European influence in India grew exponentially. The harvest reaped in the 19th century grew from seeds planted in the 16th century

With Persia? .

I thought it was Mughal green.

Even up to the 19th century Europeans generally didn't overrun strong Indian states. The EIC generally waited until after a civil war or collapse of authority gave them the excuse necessary to intervene. The problem with India in EUIV is that the Hindu states are these massive, monolithic centralised powers that can utilise all the resources in their territory rather than being decentralised, 'feudal' amalgamations of many different competing families, tribes, castes and ethnic groups. Note that I specifically mean the Hindus, because the Muslim empires all get eaten by the Hindus and Sikhism rarely takes off.

I definitely consider Bengal a "strong Indian state", but maybe this is an exception to a rule. Europeans, British in particular, were focused on gradual and cautious expansion of already existing territory, which EU4 doesn't do well. Also I'm with you in that EU4 doesn't do a good job depicting waxing and waning power.

 

[Fishman786]

I definitely consider Bengal a "strong Indian state", but maybe this is an exception to a rule. Europeans, British in particular, were focused on gradual and cautious expansion of already existing territory, which EU4 doesn't do well. Also I'm with you in that EU4 doesn't do a good job depicting waxing and waning power.depicting waxing and waning power.

Bengal at the time of the battle of Plassey was not an independent state but a sub-unit of the embattled Mughal Empire. As was usually the case in India, the British won at Plassey by using divide-and-conquer tactics against the enemy army, quietly encouraging treachery in their ranks. Indian states were weak in terms of political institutions and lacked the coherence that European states usually had, which is one of the factors that EUIV does not try to simulate at all. It's impossible in EUIV to persuade part of the enemy army to stay out of combat or win over the loyalty of enemy generals in exchange for land grants or titles.

Edit:

To add to your new point, I would say that the British were at the very opposite end of the spectrum to cautious. For most of the EUIV timeline colonial expansion in south Asia was limited to acquiring trade posts and fighting off other colonial powers, but once Britain took Bengal the EIC expanded incredibly aggressively and quickly established dominance over most of the rest of the subcontinent. This rapid expansion was facilitated by the power vacuums created by the decline of the Mughal Empire and by the third battle of Panipat which broke the back of the Marathas, and the British actively asserted their strength in any situation in which chaos appeared to be breaking out, rather like the conquests of the Roman Republic. The EIC even notoriously expanded at the expense of their own client states using justifications like the Doctrine of Lapse, which granted the British the right to annex any princely state that didn't have a clear male heir.