I think it's because with the late start, everyone has enough naval tech and money to reach the New World, even without QFTNW. I'm disappointed that Navarra didn't do more with its fifty year headstart, but pleased that other than Sweden, the colonizing countries are reasonable. It irritates me when Italian minors like the Papal States go on colonizing sprees and it happens fairly often.
-
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.
I think it's because with the late start, everyone has enough naval tech and money to reach the New World, even without QFTNW. I'm disappointed that Navarra didn't do more with its fifty year headstart, but pleased that other than Sweden, the colonizing countries are reasonable. It irritates me when Italian minors like the Papal States go on colonizing sprees and it happens fairly often.
If indeed there is one, I've always suspected if Great Britain hadn't thrown out the French, the American Revolution would have ended radically differently
I hope we see revolutions succeeding, with most of the New World independent by Victoria 2. A world of colonies is a bit boring.
Unfortunately, my experience with EU3 suggests that that's probably not what will happen. Even more unfortunate, Victoria 2 doesn't have much in the way of mechanisms for colonial independence movements.
...as is par for the course. And I see the revolutions succeed often enough. Usually its on of the revolter nations that gets cores on a mucked up part of the New World that a bunch of minors colonized that finally revolts and usually succeeds. Lasting is a whole 'nother issue, though. Whatever big power is nearby tends to gobble them up unless they secure an alliance with another relevant big power FAST.
And of course there are the one island revolts that no one seems to care about that often succeed.
And of course there are the one island revolts that no one seems to care about that often succeed.
That is one of hell of a Balkanized America.
I love it! A chaotic, messed-up American continent is more interesting (from an alt-history POV) than the relatively monolithic blocks that OTL handed us. I'm personally rooting for Denmark to establish more colonies but even if they get stuck in the Caribbean the current map is far more interesting than I expected.
I love it! A chaotic, messed-up American continent is more interesting (from an alt-history POV) than the relatively monolithic blocks that OTL handed us. I'm personally rooting for Denmark to establish more colonies but even if they get stuck in the Caribbean the current map is far more interesting than I expected.
lol, no I like Basque culture as well, and when they were Basqua I was cheering for them, but Navarra is Austrian now...
actually i was just making a bad pun, i have no affinity(nor hatred) for basque culture. Perhaps Austria can govern navarra better than navarra so people cheer for it as reaches its apex?
It's the underdog principle. The Basques got swamped pretty early on in medieval history and they never really recovered to become even a regional power. It's more fun to see an underdog who failed historically rise to power than to see a historically successful power maintain the status quo or grow even more powerful.
A pretty clear example of this (outside of Navarra) is how during the CK2 days, everyone was quite excited about the Byzantine renaissance, because historically the Byzantines never caught a break after Alexius I. But once the Byzantines became a superpower to rival the Mongols, sometime around the 1400s, people started to hate on them, because they were rapidly becoming a big purple blob, no matter how fresh they'd seemed originally.
I imagine that if Navarra had conquered Iberia early on and expanded into North Africa its colonial ventures in America would be perceived less favorably.
There are exceptions to the rule of course; I doubt very few people ever get really excited about England, despite the fact that it was kind of a minor power for most of its history prior to 18th century. That's because in OTL we know England succeeds, even if (taken objectively) it does kind of look like an underdog.
A pretty clear example of this (outside of Navarra) is how during the CK2 days, everyone was quite excited about the Byzantine renaissance, because historically the Byzantines never caught a break after Alexius I. But once the Byzantines became a superpower to rival the Mongols, sometime around the 1400s, people started to hate on them, because they were rapidly becoming a big purple blob, no matter how fresh they'd seemed originally.
I imagine that if Navarra had conquered Iberia early on and expanded into North Africa its colonial ventures in America would be perceived less favorably.
There are exceptions to the rule of course; I doubt very few people ever get really excited about England, despite the fact that it was kind of a minor power for most of its history prior to 18th century. That's because in OTL we know England succeeds, even if (taken objectively) it does kind of look like an underdog.
Thanks Amerigo, the New World is certainly much more interesting now. I'm imagining an Irish version of Cortez leading an expedition against the Aztecs.
Im hoping for a shattered america with many small colonial powers and not like 2-3 big