• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Victoria 3 - Dev Diary #32 - Colonization

16_9.jpg

Good evening and welcome to this week’s dev diary! Today’s topic is colonization, which in Victoria 3 terms means the process of establishing and expanding colonial states in regions owned by Decentralized nations.

The pith helmet became popular among British forces following the Anglo-Sikh wars, being widely adopted in tropical regions. The helmet has become synonymous with 19th and 20th Century colonial conquests and expeditions.
DD32 1.png

To establish colonies, you must have researched the Colonization technology, a tier 1 technology common to many recognized powers at game start. This unlocks Colonization laws as well as the Colonial Affairs Institution, which affects how quickly your colonies will grow.

In 1884 the Berlin Conference initiated the Scramble for Africa. Hungry for new resources and global dominance, the great powers divided the continent between themselves and began a relentless campaign of conquest and colonization, establishing colonial governments to oversee their new domains.
DD32 2.png


You can establish colonies in strategic regions where you have declared an Interest, and within those strategic regions you can colonize a state region in which at least one state is controlled by a Decentralized nation. Once you’ve selected a location, one of the provinces in that state region will be the starting point for your colony. Having a colony in a state region does not give you a monopoly on it; other colonial powers can create competing colonies, resulting in split states and messy borders that are sure to generate diplomatic tensions in the future.

Colonial States are a special kind of state that is created by establishing a colony in a Decentralized nation or conquering territory from an Unrecognized power. A Colonial State that borders a non-colonial state belonging to the same country will lose its colonial status and become a regular unincorporated state. Colonial States have a bonus to migration attraction and are affected by certain modifiers from colonial laws and the Colonial Affairs institution. Since Colonial States cannot be incorporated, your institutions do not apply there, and pops living in these states cannot be taxed and will have very little political power to contribute to Interest Groups.

Now, why would you want a colony? Primarily, you’d want colonies to gain access to more natural resources that you may be lacking at home, especially goods required for more advanced manufacturing Production Methods like rubber and dye. Once your colony expands enough that it’s the largest State in its State Region, it will become part of your National Market, giving you direct access to the goods it produces assuming that you ensure market access. Many European powers have little opportunity for aggressive expansion in their homelands, as wars there could become very unpredictable and destructive. And of course, any territory you don’t colonize yourself may fall into the hands of your rivals!

A handy progress bar lets you know how soon your colony will expand, with the corresponding tooltip and nested tooltip breaking down in increasing detail exactly why it is growing (or not growing!) at the current rate.
DD33 3.png

DD33 4.png


The rate of Colonial Growth is determined by your incorporated population, and modified by your Colony Growth Generation Speed (primarily affected by your investment in Colonial Affairs) as well as by local conditions in the State Region.The more colonies you have growing at once, the less quickly each colony will develop, though you can selectively pause and resume Colonial Growth in a state. Once a colony grows, it will expand into neighboring provinces owned by a Decentralized nation within its state region.

Early in the game, the colonization of most regions will be a very long and painful process due to the prevalence of malaria and other hostile conditions. The technology of the time did not allow the European colonial powers to penetrate far into Africa, but with the development of quinine and malaria prevention techniques this would cease to be the obstacle it once was. In Victoria 3, you will need to develop your medical technology and invest in your institutions to overcome harsh penalties to colonial growth in the most inhospitable regions.

Now of course you can’t expect to claim and exploit vast swathes of land without some resistance from the people who live there. While a colony is growing, it has a chance to generate Tension with neighbouring Decentralized nations. If Tension rises too high, the Decentralized nation will begin a Native Uprising - a kind of Diplomatic Play - against you to retake their homeland and expel the invaders. Tension will slowly decay, but on average you can expect the factors advancing Tension to eventually outweigh its decay rate. Though it is very likely that the native inhabitants will be technologically outmatched by a colonial power, there are some factors that give them a fighting chance. Firstly, the colonial power needs to manage the logistics of transporting an army to the region while the Decentralized nation has the home advantage. Secondly, other nations with an Interest in the region can join the Diplomatic Play on either side. If France, for instance, has their own designs for dominance over West Africa they might decide to support Kaabu in their struggle against British encroachment.

Colonial laws are typically supported by the Armed Forces due to their Jingoist ideology, which causes them to advocate for an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy. The Industrialists, ever seeking new sources of profit, especially favor Colonial Exploitation, while the Rural Folk fear for their livelihoods if their agricultural jobs are replaced by cheap colonial labor.
3neT-frlXmAX3kEB8sw7ABgULE-BnLWuFAiJ4PlEOQXwYJEpM2Dz-Xx0xjwkAXeMAQ2wpEOfcHLXdorUEE7hzlZsuPGnIhYvvRJW_KOpI9aLEybOWe5qo4BMrEhStkTUhTayZV4Q
DD33 5.png

One of the most important factors affecting Tension decay is your colonial policy. Colonial powers can choose between Colonial Resettlement, which encourages migration to colonies, and Colonial Exploitation, which improves building throughput in colonial states at the expense of reduced Tension decay and Standard of Living for pops in those states.

Let’s sum this up: once you have the appropriate technology and laws, you can start a colony in a Decentralized nation and it will slowly expand over time. The rate of growth is determined largely by your level of investment in Colonial Affairs and the population of your incorporated states. As your colonies grow, they generate Tension with nearby Decentralized nations which can eventually lead to a Native Uprising.

Next week I’ll be handing you over to Ofaloaf of Monthly Update video fame, who will talk in more detail about the Decentralized nations of Victoria 3’s world map.
 
  • 213Like
  • 43Love
  • 17
  • 9
  • 5
Reactions:
What about the political-ideological-nationalistic impetus, which was the actual reason for late colonisation era, at least in public opinion which always had a huge impact on politicians back then. The economic argument was part of the ideological argument, but it did not work out, since most colonies acquired in late 19th century were not rly beneficial. Also the only reason all countries freaked out was bec germany tried to expand in colonial regions. Also emigration into those acquired colonies was not rly a thing. consolidated states in america were way more interesting.
I totally share the sentiment and second the conclusions. The ingame reasons for having colonies should be (at least) as much political as economical, i.e. for international prestige and political capital, and it should make sense - in some circumstances at least - to keep financially unprofitable colonies for such reasons.

I am no expert, but it seems that economically driven colonialism was more of a thing in XV - XVIII centuries, due to huge benefits from free labour (slavery) used to generate large quantities of valuable (being rare or new) commodities such as silver, sugar, cotton etc. The benefits of rapid industrialization coupled with abolitionist movements in XIX c. changed this equation.

At the same time the idea started to spread throughout European societies (including educates circles) that having colonies is a sign of mature statehood, development or even a nation's 'civilizing' mission.
In fact, as late as in the 1930s, the then jingoistic government of 'reborn' Poland was seriously considering purchasing Madagascar or subjugating Liberia only to act like other European powers of the day, with no real economic or geopolitical rationale in mind. And it was a really popular idea with the people!
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1Like
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
In theory, if two colonizing nations chose the same state to colonize, and were friendly enough with each other not to contend the other's presence, they could end up with a condominium situation where they "share" the colony?

(Still separated by inter-state province borders though?)
You could have a split state where each colonizer has their own chunk of provinces, but I don't believe there can be multiple owners of the same bit of land.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Colonial States are a special kind of state that is created by establishing a colony in a Decentralized nation or conquering territory from an Unrecognized power. A Colonial State that borders a non-colonial state belonging to the same country will lose its colonial status and become a regular unincorporated state.
This seems a little awkward because there are a couple of historical cases where this wouldn't give an 'accurate' result:
1) Historically, Algeria was annexed directly into France rather than administered as a colony (although it'd probably be treated as an unincorporated territory gameplay wise). This status did not apply to the other French possessions in the region. Under the rules described here, however, doing this would result in all contiguous French possessions in Africa becoming unincorporated states.
2) Since the Ottomans are a recognized power at start, the Italian conquest of Libya would result in an unincorporated state rather than a colony (unless Ottoman Libya is a colony at start, which creates its own issues).
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I totally share the sentiment and second the conclusions. The ingame reasons for having colonies should be (at least) as much political as economical, i.e. for international prestige and political capital, and it should make sense - in some circumstances at least - to keep financially unprofitable colonies for such reasons.

I am no expert, but it seems that economically driven colonialism was more of a thing in XV - XVIII centuries, due to huge benefits from free labour (slavery) used to generate large quantities of valuable (being rare or new) commodities such as silver, sugar, cotton etc. The benefits of rapid industrialization coupled with abolitionist movements in XIX c. changed this equation.

At the same time the idea started to spread throughout European societies (including educates circles) that having colonies is a sign of mature statehood, development or even a nation's 'civilizing' mission.
In fact, as late as in the 1930s, the then jingoistic government of 'reborn' Poland was seriously considering purchasing Madagascarn or subjugating Liberia only to act like other European powers of the day, with no real conomic or geopolitical rationale in mind. And it was a really popular idea with the people!
Indeed. It is rly hard i would say to simulate the "irrational aspects" of colony building or imperialism, which did not seem to be irrational at all at this time. Many nations followed trends for no other reason than "because everybody does it". The 19th Century was a time of copy cating without rly knowing what consequenses actions might could have just because they wanted to seem "developed" and "modern". This all was as ive said a political reaction to public opinions mediated via mass media and the intellectual groups behind it. The public was way more nationalistic and imperialistic than the politicians. But how can you simulate this in a game which tells you that politics decides everything.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
To establish colonies, you must have researched the Colonization technology, a tier 1 technology common to many recognized powers at game start. This unlocks Colonization laws as well as the Colonial Affairs Institution, which affects how quickly your colonies will grow.
Does Argentina and Chile start with the Colonization tech? Or will they have to sacrifice other early techs and pray that the big colonisers doesn't colonise Patagonia before them if they want to recreate their historical borders?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't really like how colonial states are just completely cut off from Institutions, and also how colonial policy is split into a dichotomy between settler colonies (which apparently cause less unrest?? I feel like it ought to be the other way around) and extractive colonies. I think there should be a third type of colony that's halfway between colony and incorporated state, that disallows the population from contributing to national politics but gives them access to Institutions, which would help simulate cases like Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Taiwan, treaty ports, etc.
 
  • 2
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Colonial Resettlement improves your tension decay compared to Colonial Exploitation. We also have some content for the EIC and Dutch East Indies inspired by historical attempts to do, with heavy quotation marks, "ethical colonialism", but that's not related to the mechanic of colonizing decentralized nations.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Settler colonialism results in more contact between colonists and the native population, generating a constant source of tension. Very rarely do settler colonies escape at least some form of conflict. Settler colonialism results in the displacement of peoples, often violently, which naturally obliges them to fight back. It would be very strange indeed for the United States to be able to colonize Lakota or Comanche territory without coming to blows with these peoples.
 
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
This seems a little awkward because there are a couple of historical cases where this wouldn't give an 'accurate' result:
1) Historically, Algeria was annexed directly into France rather than administered as a colony (although it'd probably be treated as an unincorporated territory gameplay wise). This status did not apply to the other French possessions in the region. Under the rules described here, however, doing this would result in all contiguous French possessions in Africa becoming unincorporated states.
2) Since the Ottomans are a recognized power at start, the Italian conquest of Libya would result in an unincorporated state rather than a colony (unless Ottoman Libya is a colony at start, which creates its own issues).

For #2 (& #1 too?), is there a loophole in here:

"You can establish colonies in strategic regions where you have declared an Interest, and within those strategic regions you can colonize a state region in which at least one state is controlled by a Decentralized nation."

So, for example, if you take Ottoman Libya as Italy, would setting up a colonial state become an option where the strategic region includes a decentralized nation (one of the Berber nations)?

(Maybe Libya is an unrecognized nation in the Ottoman market/vassalage?)

For the French Algeria scenario, will the colony mergers occur across strategic region borders as well (if not, then maybe France could have their unincorporated/incorporated state in Algeria neighboring their Malian colony in the strategic region next door)?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I don't really like how colonial states are just completely cut off from Institutions, and also how colonial policy is split into a dichotomy between settler colonies (which apparently cause less unrest?? I feel like it ought to be the other way around) and extractive colonies. I think there should be a third type of colony that's halfway between colony and incorporated state, that disallows the population from contributing to national politics but gives them access to Institutions, which would help simulate cases like Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Taiwan, treaty ports, etc.

Maybe releasing a colony as a vassal (such as the EIC?) then allows for the fostering of local institutions?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So could anyone with the technology start a colony right away anywhere they have access to? Such as could Prussia establish early bases in africa during the early to mid game?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will there be any way to make colonial states incorporated? There were unimplemented ideas floated around during the time period of making certain colonies full fledged provinces of the home nation and granting the constituents full fledged rights and the ability to vote.

Also, the whole bordering a non colonial state making the state not a colony anymore seems very easily exploitable given the Ottomans' proximity to Africa. Like since they wouldn't be an unrecognised power, any land taken would presumably become an unincorporated state so if France takes Tripolitania do all of their North African possessions suddenly stop being colonies?
 
That sounds true, though I hope it's not.
Well, IIRC at some point they said they wanted to make them playable at some point, but they wanted to focus on their specific dynamics first and that won't be possible at release.

Don't take my word for it though, I don't remember what my source is so it could just be my memory playing tricks on me.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I would like some more explanation on "Decentralized Nations." They are a completely new category of nation since dev diary #19 refused to go into any detail on them and they are crucial to these mechanics yet this dev diary skipped over explaining them at all.

What options to Decentralized Nations have under the AI? What options to other players have to interact with them outside of colonization? Do they still exist/have influence in the territory under colonial control? Can you cheese a Decentralized Nation by taking the only province it occupies and thus not have to worry about Native Uprisings? Is it possible for a decentralized nation to become a minor one, or are they hardcoded to simply be road bumps for colonial powers?
 
Indeed. It is rly hard i would say to simulate the "irrational aspects" of colony building or imperialism, which did not seem to be irrational at all at this time. Many nations followed trends for no other reason than "because everybody does it". The 19th Century was a time of copy cating without rly knowing what consequenses actions might could have just because they wanted to seem "developed" and "modern". This all was as ive said a political reaction to public opinions mediated via mass media and the intellectual groups behind it. The public was way more nationalistic and imperialistic than the politicians. But how can you simulate this in a game which tells you that politics decides everything.

To be fair, just giving it a prestige bonus (and possibly a prestige malus if you are a major power without colonies) as well as making the AI think it's a good idea, is probably enough - The players have a natural propensity for map-painting even if it isn't economically beneficial (Is there anyone who does calculations in EU4 about the relative cost of acquiring a province against its profitability?)
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm not sure I agree with this. Settler colonialism results in more contact between colonists and the native population, generating a constant source of tension. Very rarely do settler colonies escape at least some form of conflict. Settler colonialism results in the displacement of peoples, often violently, which naturally obliges them to fight back. It would be very strange indeed for the United States to be able to colonize Lakota or Comanche territory without coming to blows with these peoples.
while what yuo say is true, I think yuo are ignoring the fact that it is compared to exploitative colonialism, whose operations depending on the country in question, included slave raids, "Pacification campaigns", and just brutality all round, when compared to settler colonialism, who at least theoretically offers compensation for the land, there is more room for dialogue.

also I would like to point out that the relevant image, show that settler colonialism has an abscence of a penalty, not a specific boost.
 
First, let me preface this by saying I'm very excited for this system, and admire the extent to which it attempts to simulate historical accuracy- how colonization actually tended to occur. There will be no rose tinted "helping natives" here, and that's appreciated. That said, I have a few questions, and/or points of contention.

1) "Since Colonial States cannot be incorporated, your institutions do not apply there" - Not sure how I feel about this, since many colonial powers tried to do exactly that: see France's efforts in Algeria, or Portugal's efforts in Mozambique. Of course, one could counter that these were unsuccessful experiments, but what of the US? Hawaii and Alaska aside (which, fair enough, were fully incorporated after the game-end date), one could argue the entire Westward expansion involved decentralized colonization, and official incorporation, of new lands.

2) "If Tension rises too high, the [neighboring] Decentralized nation will begin a Native Uprising" - Conceptually, this is awesome, and sounds like a great way to simulate situations like those faced by the French in the Western Sudan. That said, while I'd like to wait for more information on "decentralized nations" before forming an opinion, I'd be lying if I said I weren't worried/curious about a few things:
- expelling colonizers from territories sounds somewhat vague. How far would insurgents push if successful in their efforts? If they take over colonized areas, do they seize control of any developments in them? What of insurgents from "centralized", yet "unrecognized" states? Do they take over the colony and resume administration?
- Does "tension" relate to more than colonial expansion?
- if it does not, then what systems, if any, facilitate revolts in already-colonized regions?
All of these lead to my third point...

3) Colonial administration: Assuming one follows a familiar historical timeline, about a third of most play throughs (~1900-1936) will involve almost pure colonial administration with few colonial projects that don't involve conquering already-colonized territories (though, of course, this would vary depending on who one chooses to start as). The "tension" system, as currently described, seems unequipped to facilitate anti-colonial revolts, as were common in history. One of the easiest ways to create the circumstances that facilitated such revolts would be to allow taxes, since they were often a major source of discontent between colonial powers and the peoples of their colonies ("Hut taxes" alone prompted or helped prompt: the Basuto Gun War (1880-1881) ; the Second Matabele War (1896-1897) ; the Bambatha Rebellion (1906) ; The Kru Coast Revolt (1915-1916) ; and of course the Hut Tax War of 1898 (1898)), yet these are not allowed. What would substitute that role, if anything?

4) "If France, for instance, has their own designs for dominance over West Africa they might decide to support Kaabu in their struggle against British encroachment" How involved will European powers be willing to get in such colonial affairs? I don't recall them getting that intimate in our own timeline, since that was a real flirtation with war. This could be very interesting...

5) Other Colony Types: Will there be any systems in-game to replicate the colony-types aside from "extraction" and "settler"? For example, "Protectorate" colonies, though often eventually further integrated, were sometimes left relatively untouched. When this occurred, it let power to safely claim land without actually having to go about establishing dominance over it. Put differently, colonizers expressed their control over territories differently depending on a number of factors, and I feel this system is overly reliant on two particular dynamics whilst ignoring the diversity of other ones. British administration in Anglo-Egypt, Lesotho, eSwatini, Botswana, or British Somaliland varied wildly from British affairs in Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ghana, Italian affairs in Italian Somaliland, Belgian affairs in the Congo, or French affairs in Madagascar. Not just because some of these were settler colonies while others were extraction colonies, but also because, again, they were administered in fundamentally different ways.

6) Colonial Pops: I'm not sure how I feel about colony pops having little influence in national politics. Sure, they may not have always been very audible to those in the "core" territory, but if I am to be representing the totality of the nation, surely that would mean some concern for the populations in the colonies, on whom I am dependent for the economic advantages colonialism is supposed to provide? Further, I feel like this might conflict with the migratory system, as I understand it: if colonial pops count for nothing, then will colonial elites in settler colonies be capable of forming independence, secessionist, or nationalist movements (think: Brazil)? What of the use of colonial subjects in armies? And perhaps least importantly, their occasional migration to Europe?

7) In our own timeline, Colonial wars of expansion were often bloody, brutal affairs that damaged or outright destroyed much local infrastructure (See the colonisation of Northern Nigeria and Ghana for examples). Will this be carried over into the game?
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions: