• 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:
You can only colonize on top of Decentralized Nations and they are not currently playable. The Devs want to make them playable, but they also want them to be distinct and not just a Centralized Nation with some arbitrary penalties so they're looking at it for expansion content
Good Idea for DLC firm agree
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Is there any rule that limits the scope of colonial wars.

If prussia is trying to create a colonial power in west africa and France suports the kaabu diplomatic play for native upsiring, if a war triggers it will be automaticly a franco prussia war in europe or could france and germany "agree" to fight only in africa
 
Last edited:
  • 6Like
Reactions:
I have to say... as half Gambian, (have never called myself that but now I have a reason)... and half Norwegian I do not support my British overlords...

But it looks good... also. is there a way to restore the Mali empire?
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will Haiti be better at colonizig since the people there are basically former Africans?
Given the relatively poor race relations within Liberia between Libero-Americans and natives due to cultural differences, would it really make sense for a similar situation of Haitian colonization to get bonuses to something (Afro-American colonization) that historically worked out poorly for all involved?
 
  • 12
  • 2
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Given the relatively poor race relations within Liberia between Libero-Americans and natives due to cultural differences, would it really make sense for a similar situation of Haitian colonization to get bonuses to something (Afro-American colonization) that historically worked out poorly for all involved?
while i don't think it merits a bonus to colonization per se, they, due to mechanics, will have an easier time integrating african states than many other countries, pricissely because they will be less diferent from the states they are integrating
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Will Haiti be better at colonizig since the people there are basically former Africans?
Skin color isn't a culture, and there is little in common between 19th century haitians and any random native subsaharan african population. To suggest Haiti should have an easier time colonizing Africa because they're former Africans is as ridiculous as suggesting Germany should have an easier time coring France because their populations are both white.
 
  • 18
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Skin color isn't a culture, and there is little in common between 19th century haitians and any random native subsaharan african population. To suggest Haiti should have an easier time colonizing Africa because they're former Africans is as ridiculous as suggesting Germany should have an easier time coring France because their populations are both white.
TBF Germany Would probably have an easier time coring France then say Vietnam not because there white tho.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Skin color isn't a culture, and there is little in common between 19th century haitians and any random native subsaharan african population. To suggest Haiti should have an easier time colonizing Africa because they're former Africans is as ridiculous as suggesting Germany should have an easier time coring France because their populations are both white.

I could be mistaken; I thought they were referring to resistance to malaria as a colonial advantage in African strategic regions?

Your point still stands with regards to culture.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
As I remember from history of Africa, some lands (like Uganda, Zambia, Botswana) were colonized peacefully, through treaties with the local rulers.
It should be noted much of this peaceful colonization was facilitated with the implicit threat of military action by other groups, which then incentivized rulers to agree to protectorate (or other) statuses, and usually stayed "peaceful" mostly as far as there weren't compelling resources to extract - so if you mean "is it possible for me to colonize peacefully, the answer is probably "yes, in the right circumstances if historical precedent is to be followed, but you'd probably have a lot of interest groups getting mad at you for not fully capitalizing off of useful colonies by... being less peaceful.
I would imagine they're just as capable of radicalizing as pops in your mainland if the circumstances are right.
I would hope, but the sentence that colonial pops do not count for much worries me.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Will Haiti be better at colonizig since the people there are basically former Africans?
I really don't mean to be harsh, but I've seen this idea a few times on this thread and I want to dispel it... I have no idea where people are getting this idea that "African" or "Black" peoples should have an easier time colonizing Africa based on some perceived cultural similarity. Colonization and conquest are colonization and conquest, and the seizing of land is often hard to justify to people. The cultural similarities described here were often non-existent or, if real, irrelevant in the eyes of those being colonized and doing the colonizing.

Opening Comments...
First of all, "former Africans" - what does this entail? Africa is the world's most diverse continent, West and Central Africa among its most diverse regions. What "Africans" are Haitians similar to, given they descend from a melange of multiple African (and European/American) ethnic groups? They are about as foreign to Africans as would be any other ethnic group against whom they already were going to war. Even if they weren't, then they'd still be a rival political faction seeking to assert authority over local Kings, Emperors, Aristocrats, Nobles, etc. And any survey of West Africa during this period should demonstrate that these figures were not willing to simply lie down and let that happen, because they ran states, kingdoms, empires (see: the many wars within the Yoruba Kingdoms and Empires, the Sokoto caliphate's expansion, the Asante wars to control the gold coast, and so on...). Generally, "peaceful" colonization was the result of African rulers, some of whose states were worn out by a particularly bloody century, tacitly recognizing European military superiority. I'll drive this point home with some examples where what is being described - "africans" colonizing "africans" - did happen...

Liberia
Americo-Liberians, "anglicized" to a large extent, saw themselves as superior to many of the muslim and "heathen" peoples around them; they maintained social, political, economic, and cultural dominance in the Liberian state to the detriment of the native populations they began to incorporate. Liberia's policies were despised by many of the groups it took over, prompting revolts including the large-scale Kru war in 1915 and 16, ostensibly over hut taxes but in reality over many of the same issues that were common among other powers' colonies. Liberia claimed massive swathes of West Africa, even entertaining pipe dreams of pushing as far as (if not farther than) Kumasi, yet struggled to actually maintain control over even its core territories on the coast, especially as more powerful European colonizers swept in, because it was militarily weak and lacked diplomatic clout.

Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone Krios were not too different from Americo-Liberians, which might strike some as ironic given they may have had greater "African" cultural affinities for a number of reasons (large "maroon" component, plus slave export history). Due to their participation in the British colonizing project, they were seen not as natural allies but as enemies by the native populations over whom the colony of Sierra Leone expanded.

Egypt
Egypt's efforts in Sudan may have represented a largely successful "African-on-African" colonization project, but even here one must note not only a major rebellion, but also that Egypt was probably only as successful as it was because it was a) significantly more powerful than most of the states it encountered on account of modern arms (which would fly in the face of this "cultural similarity" thing, anyhow) b) fighting against a decrepit state which didn't even resist (Sennar). The Ethiopian frontier was tumultuous, and attempts to conquer that Empire failed terribly. This brings us to...

Ethiopia
The Ethiopian Empire, which, finally, expanded from its core territories through a process that has been described as "imperial", "colonialist", "settler-colonialist", and "feudal-colonialist". This was a brutal project which saw perpetual warfare (in part since Ethiopia was not close to outclassing its opponents militarily in the same way most European armies did), and that was constantly threatened by European ambitions.

Concluding - Haiti
I'll go back to Haiti, now. One should note that, during this period, whatever cultural similarities the masses may have had with various African groups, the Haitian elites were, as far as I know, generally descended from freedmen (as in, freed before the revolution or descended from such free individuals) who had in varying ways assimilated into the culture of the colony. In an era before the emergence of Negritude in Haiti, they often styled themselves superior to the masses and believed in a mission to "raise them up" (I hope this sounds familiar). Why would they be any more inclined to sing and dance around a fireplace kumbaya style with African peoples than they were with their own subjects?

Addendum: Where This was "Done Right"?
Honestly, I think the best case for diaspora in Africa would be the back-migration of slaves, mostly Brazillian, to Ghana, Yorubaland and the the Niger delta. These migrants - such as the Tabom, Aguda, Saro, and Amaro - typically formed wealthy merchant classes... But here, we should note they largely assimilated into the local political order, concerned primarily with trade, instead of trying to establish colonies. I'd love to see some representation of these groups, as they reflect a not-well-known yet intriguing aspect of Atlantic history (and became quite prominent in Nigeria as arms dealers. which could aid a modernizing project), but at the end of the day they are kind of the exception that proves my rule.

TLDR
- Afro-descended diaspora groups tended to engage in the same colonial practices as their European peers, prompting many of the same kinds of resistance.
- Africans themselves were at war against eachother just like the polities of Europe and Asia.
- The colonies set up by "Black people" or "Africans" also tended to miss out on the entirety of Europe's military developments, and as such were weaker, at least compared to Europe's, meaning asserting control involved bloodier, more difficult campaigns of expansion.
Easier colonialism for Africans on Africans, or "Blacks" on Africans, is therefore a-historic.

Edits:
Some grammar.
TLDR.
Formatting for easier reading.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 3
  • 1Love
Reactions:
West Africans, Central Africans, East Africans, North Africans, Khoisan, and the Austronesian people of Madagascar all look significantly different from each other, and their languages have even less resemblance. Westerners tend to lump them together into a single category, but there wasn’t much in common.

That having been said, there should be a pathway for each playable African country to accomplish something that feels like a victory. Some posters have gone very sour on EUIV’s implementation of “unifier tags,” So by all means don’t present them as interchangeable “African Minor” culture that see each other as the same.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
[...] Since Colonial States cannot be incorporated, your institutions do not apply there, and pops living in these states cannot be taxed [...].
What a joke.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I would hope, but the sentence that colonial pops do not count for much worries me.
Doesnt seem a problem for me.
Politics is on the nation, in the metropolis so to speak...

What influence would ugandans, native Americans in Belize or kenyans have in the politics of London?
What influence guine bissauans have in Lisbon politics?
Namibians in Berlin politics?

I dare to say close to none.

They would have importance in local relations with colonial masters, i think the tension system native uprising represent that well
 
  • 4
Reactions:
What influence would ugandans, native Americans in Belize or kenyans have in the politics of London?
What influence guine bissauans have in Lisbon politics?
Namibians in Berlin politics?
"Sure, they [colonial pops] 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... "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?".
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Given the relatively poor race relations within Liberia between Libero-Americans and natives due to cultural differences, would it really make sense for a similar situation of Haitian colonization to get bonuses to something (Afro-American colonization) that historically worked out poorly for all involved?
It's all the irony of former slaves creating an Apartheid state, all the while championing abolition, decolonization and pan-africanism.
Economically Liberia was quite developed, but when the underlying contradictions finally exploded the downfall was spectacular (even more so than Yugoslavia).
 
Last edited:
I really don't mean to be harsh, but I've seen this idea a few times on this thread and I want to dispel it... I have no idea where people are getting this idea that "African" or "Black" peoples should have an easier time colonizing Africa based on some perceived cultural similarity. Colonization and conquest are colonization and conquest, and the seizing of land is often hard to justify to people. The cultural similarities described here were often non-existent or, if real, irrelevant in the eyes of those being colonized and doing the colonizing.

Opening Comments...
First of all, "former Africans" - what does this entail? Africa is the world's most diverse continent, West and Central Africa among its most diverse regions. What "Africans" are Haitians similar to, given they descend from a melange of multiple African (and European/American) ethnic groups? They are about as foreign to Africans as would be any other ethnic group against whom they already were going to war. Even if they weren't, then they'd still be a rival political faction seeking to assert authority over local Kings, Emperors, Aristocrats, Nobles, etc. And any survey of West Africa during this period should demonstrate that these figures were not willing to simply lie down and let that happen, because they ran states, kingdoms, empires (see: the many wars within the Yoruba Kingdoms and Empires, the Sokoto caliphate's expansion, the Asante wars to control the gold coast, and so on...). Generally, "peaceful" colonization was the result of African rulers, some of whose states were worn out by a particularly bloody century, tacitly recognizing European military superiority. I'll drive this point home with some examples where what is being described - "africans" colonizing "africans" - did happen...

Liberia
Americo-Liberians, "anglicized" to a large extent, saw themselves as superior to many of the muslim and "heathen" peoples around them; they maintained social, political, economic, and cultural dominance in the Liberian state to the detriment of the native populations they began to incorporate. Liberia's policies were despised by many of the groups it took over, prompting revolts including the large-scale Kru war in 1915 and 16, ostensibly over hut taxes but in reality over many of the same issues that were common among other powers' colonies. Liberia claimed massive swathes of West Africa, even entertaining pipe dreams of pushing as far as (if not farther than) Kumasi, yet struggled to actually maintain control over even its core territories on the coast, especially as more powerful European colonizers swept in, because it was militarily weak and lacked diplomatic clout.

Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone Krios were not too different from Americo-Liberians, which might strike some as ironic given they may have had greater "African" cultural affinities for a number of reasons (large "maroon" component, plus slave export history). Due to their participation in the British colonizing project, they were seen not as natural allies but as enemies by the native populations over whom the colony of Sierra Leone expanded.

Egypt
Egypt's efforts in Sudan may have represented a largely successful "African-on-African" colonization project, but even here one must note not only a major rebellion, but also that Egypt was probably only as successful as it was because it was a) significantly more powerful than most of the states it encountered on account of modern arms (which would fly in the face of this "cultural similarity" thing, anyhow) b) fighting against a decrepit state which didn't even resist (Sennar). The Ethiopian frontier was tumultuous, and attempts to conquer that Empire failed terribly. This brings us to...

Ethiopia
The Ethiopian Empire, which, finally, expanded from its core territories through a process that has been described as "imperial", "colonialist", "settler-colonialist", and "feudal-colonialist". This was a brutal project which saw perpetual warfare (in part since Ethiopia was not close to outclassing its opponents militarily in the same way most European armies did), and that was constantly threatened by European ambitions.

Concluding - Haiti
I'll go back to Haiti, now. One should note that, during this period, whatever cultural similarities the masses may have had with various African groups, the Haitian elites were, as far as I know, generally descended from freedmen (as in, freed before the revolution or descended from such free individuals) who had in varying ways assimilated into the culture of the colony. In an era before the emergence of Negritude in Haiti, they often styled themselves superior to the masses and believed in a mission to "raise them up" (I hope this sounds familiar). Why would they be any more inclined to sing and dance around a fireplace kumbaya style with African peoples than they were with their own subjects?

Addendum: Where This was "Done Right"?
Honestly, I think the best case for diaspora in Africa would be the back-migration of slaves, mostly Brazillian, to Ghana, Yorubaland and the the Niger delta. These migrants - such as the Tabom, Aguda, Saro, and Amaro - typically formed wealthy merchant classes... But here, we should note they largely assimilated into the local political order, concerned primarily with trade, instead of trying to establish colonies. I'd love to see some representation of these groups, as they reflect a not-well-known yet intriguing aspect of Atlantic history (and became quite prominent in Nigeria as arms dealers. which could aid a modernizing project), but at the end of the day they are kind of the exception that proves my rule.

TLDR
- Afro-descended diaspora groups tended to engage in the same colonial practices as their European peers, prompting many of the same kinds of resistance.
- Africans themselves were at war against eachother just like the polities of Europe and Asia.
- The colonies set up by "Black people" or "Africans" also tended to miss out on the entirety of Europe's military developments, and as such were weaker, at least compared to Europe's, meaning asserting control involved bloodier, more difficult campaigns of expansion.
Easier colonialism for Africans on Africans, or "Blacks" on Africans, is therefore a-historic.

Edits:
Some grammar.
TLDR.
Formatting for easier reading.
Malaria and other tropical diseases. Same point stands for any carribean nation that gets free....
 
  • 2
Reactions: