Colonists.csv

[BiB]

It needs quite an overhaul IMO. It fails to take in account correctly religion and shipyards, often is at the wrong time or in wrong proportions. Colonisation is my fave part of the game and history.

This struck me when I noticed that in the period 1560-1617 when Spain did its most colonising it gets 5 settlers a year (shipyard, CR catholic for a while and 3 from dynamism). In that same period England which basically only started to get into colonising near the end of that span also gets 5 (shipyard (1520.inc), reformed (AI always goes there) and 2 dynamism). When assigning dynamism one should take in account religion and time period. At points England and Holland get 7 settlers a year while Spain at best gets 5 and that for a country that populated and colonised such vast tracts of lands.

Doesn't seem right to me. If ur playing England and u haven't complteley colonised the seaboard by 1607 (the first settlement there IIRC) and thus made it impossible for other countries to get to the rest u aren't doing too well. But in that time Spain should be doing its big bussiness, Portugal should alrdeay be fading and Holland and England should be starting near the end of that era. England (and Holland) get too many settlers and Spain gets too few IMO.

IMO all shipyards should go at the start. Let's face it they're there to give catholic countries that extra settler. That can be incorporated in dynamism.

Then deciding which countries get settlers. Do Turkey really need the ability to settle vast chunks of lands for example ?

Furthermore countries with a vast colonial empire should at least at all times get some colonial dynamism. IMO it makes no sense for Portugal to not get any settlers when it has vast tracts of lands overseas. At least 1 settler a year to send to Brazil for example. Seeing they mostly build TPs it's too easy for someone to let them run out of settlers, burn down Brazil and take it all seeing Portugal can't reclaim it. Just the odd settler for maintenance. 2 if they build a shipyard (quite expensive as Portugal)

Giving more settlers to a country (like Portugal and Spain) makes no difference for the AI, it'll only colonise its designated areas anyway. Giving less settlers to England and Holland also shouldn't bother then as more often than not they have 6 settlers stocked up anyway and no money to send them.

If a human player really wants settlers he can just convert Spain easily to reformed (yuk) anyway, I'm having the AI and historical players at heart here.

Another thing that is hugely easy as a human player is to get to India very early (tarde/steal maps), put soem cheap TPs near the edge and close of India for everyone. The AI is too stupid to force a breakthrough anyway.

Correlating with this maybe the AI files and so need soem tweaking.

So, any feedback ?

 

[Doomdark]

Sure, the colonists file is far from perfect; at least from the perspective of human controlled nations. However, the AI nations perform in a pretty historical fashion if left alone, and that is IMO what matters the most. The number of colonists available to an AI controlled nation does have a clear effect on their colonizing efforts and I suspect that lowering the number of for example English colonists even slightly would mean a lot fewer English colonies.

I am not adverse to experimentation, although I think that the IGC should still focus on providing a historical progression for AI nations rather than a well balanced human player experience (if mutually exclusive).

As for removing all of the ship yards, I am dead against it. Their presence reflects the historical ability to mass produce ships, not just the extra colonist.

 

[BiB]

But it also always comes with the extra settler. Spain and Lissabon and Venice have enough harbours as it is to mass produce ships twice the number it actually needs (the AI produces way too many anway still )

Venice for example starts with a big fleet already and hardly has the cash (or should be spending its cash) on building 40 extra ships. Not that it bothers me, I'll just keep happily walking over them on land ) Not that it really bothers me that Spain or Portugal have one. It's just that the Spanish one is too easily captured (not to mention Ragusa in the original GC, Turkish colonies galore over the world ). This is more a fortress question though perhaps.

England doesn't need one though and it has one in the 1520.inc. They start colonising too soon as it is already. And they have harbours enough to produce a fleet twice the size they actually need. Don't think most AI countries really have the financial means to mass produce ships early on anyway. When they get to tech level 16 and build one there's quite a bigger chance it'll get used for mass fleet building as they'll be bigger, established countries then. Firts thing I did as Portugal/Venice was disband half my fleet And with Spain I used Sevilla sometimes but not of the proportion I couln't easily handle without it.

But let's not focus on the shipbuilding here, it's about the colonisation that I'm on about. They can keep their shipyard for all I care (bar England )

More often than not the AI has 6 settlers in its account with 4 a year still to come but no money to send them out. Hell, even when I play those countries I have trouble using them all up Let alone the AI. I don't think for example lowering the rate from 7 settlers a year to 5 settlers a year would really hurt AI performance.
And as I said I don't wanna lower the amount of colonists England gets for example when they were effectively swarming the globe, just in the period they weren't. England should not be getting 5 settlers a year in 1560. The example of an English American seaboard in 1600 is true even for an AI played England. A basic example u get by comparing the colonisation alrdeay taken place in ur game by 1617 and then loading the 1617.inc. The difference is quite huge IMO.
Ccolonisation starts way too soon for countries like England and Holland (when it forms in 1550, then again they tend to form too soon)
On the adding of colonists : For example would Portugal, which does shyte, do any better with some extra colonists ? (it still doesn't have the money though ). It can't do much worse.

It's an aim to make colonisation more historical. As it is now it leaves a lot to be desired and that's where this experiment comes in I just wanted some feedback on possible changes before I go testing.

 

[ErrantOne]

Bib,

Would you mind posting info on changing colonist.csv.

Questions:

* the numbers for each nation. Does 100 = 1 colonist?
* Dynamism, if I just change my dynamism it does not seem to give me colonists. Is there a relation between dynamism and colonists.csv?
* Care to write up a how to for changing colonist.csv or added new counties to the list?


thanks,

ErrantOne

 

[BiB]

I have to admit I usually end up using ye ole proven method of trial and error. I tend to end up where I want in the end but a system I haven't found yet. Sometimes 100 is 2 a year, sometimes 5 is and so on ...

 

[ErrantOne]

wonder if there is a realationship beween the number in the colonist file and the dynamism number (dynamism * colonist.csv number)/100. Just a WAG (wild a$$ guess).

ErrantOne

 

[unmerged(2650)]

BiB

i'm with you on this.
Your colonization pace analysis is OK, IMHO. Spain and Portugal too weelk early, England and Holland too strong.
May be Portugal can be fixed lowering TP%, so that some colonies are established. As you said, sometimes during the mid game Basilian Tps are burnt and portuguese colonization is gone. BTW, 100% TP for Portugal is historical incorrect, Brazil was not a TP.

I'd add France to your list. In my games France has a marginal role in North America, an this souldn't be, while tend to colonize West Africa. I think it's a problem with both colonists.csv and france.ai.

I tried to modify the colonization pace altering colonists.csv too but was not so succesfull. The main reason is i cannot answer the first question ErranOne rised
If you manage to solve this problems please post your solution. Even a colonists.csv breaking would be really appreciated

 

[BiB]

It's very obvious Portugal and Holland are TP nations and Spain and England the colony ones. France hangsin between there.

Holland can survive the burning of all its TPs (still needs more colonies, after all together with the English in the Benghals they were the first to actually colonise in Indie, namely Ceylon) as it gets lots of settlers and TPs are dirt cheap. Portugal however, once they're burned, is useless (I know from my game with Flemish Brazil ). One of the reasons I like the 1520.inc is because Portugal gets a right boost. Goa and Malacca are under their control as cities alrdeay and Malacca nearly always gets a COT. Seeing they also got those they concentrate more on Brazil, TPs though, 2 cities at most so far (+ one captured from the French under ToT). Portugal should be building TPs in India (bar Goa and Malacca) which also makes it easier for the Dutch to take over most of it. Brazil needs more colonies. Sadly there's only one ai file for Portugal but a higher colony over TP rate should be doable.

France in my games usually ends up suffering from ToT (lots of Caribean action and Argentina for some reason) and the fact it doesn't get many colonists. Taking their tally from 1 to 2 a year or making their ai file more rigidly centered on Quebec may do the trick. I usually see them end up there in Quebec but just a few TPs while at least one city would be nice. In my current game whole Argentina is French for soem reason even though the ai file says nothing about that. Same goes for Holland really. Once they're formed and they have no knowledge yet of Indonesia and so, they will colonise everything they can get their hands on though they were near everywhere historically at some point They usually do ok in West Africa, which even though not the best colonies out there, are quite useful to have, so at least they get somewhere historically (though they never were the most succesfull colonisers ever). They tend to end up in India too after a while but lose out to the rabid colonists stream of England and Holland.

But before I go testing, I4d like some info on things I'm not too familiar with :

NUMBER OF COLONISTS PER YEAR DATABASE;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
PERIOD;MIN;NAT;ENG;SPA;FRA;HAB;HOL;VEN;PRU;BRA;POR;RUS;TUR;SWE;DAN;OMA;USA;END
1520 ;1 ;1 ;10 ;200;10 ;1 ;0 ;1 ;1 ;1 ;10 ;5 ;5 ;1 ;1 ;1 ;200;
1560 ;1 ;1 ;20 ;200;20 ;1 ;0 ;1 ;1 ;1 ;100;5 ;5 ;1 ;1 ;1 ;200;
1615 ;1 ;1 ;100;200;100;1 ;5 ;1 ;1 ;1 ;5 ;200;100;50 ;50 ;5 ;100;
1665 ;1 ;1 ;150;100;100;1 ;100;1 ;1 ;1 ;5 ;200;100;50 ;0 ;5 ;100;
1700 ;1 ;1 ;250;100;200;1 ;100;1 ;1 ;1 ;5 ;300;5 ;5 ;1 ;1 ;100;
1760 ;1 ;1 ;250;100;200;1 ;5 ;1 ;10 ;10 ;5 ;300;5 ;5 ;1 ;1 ;200;
1792 ;1 ;1 ;200;5 ;200;1 ;5 ;1 ;10 ;10 ;5 ;300;2 ;5 ;1 ;1 ;300;

Should all those countries get dynamism (if they do at all in the first place) ? Just asking cuz it always feels weird to see Turkey at the Cape but I have no info on that though nor have I ever played them. Do they get 2 a year ? Ain't that a bit much in a time where Spain gets 1 and France gets 1 (I believe) ? I believe Oman had a little thing going at Eastern African coast. There are a few countries in there who don't get any but still are in there (Austria) for a reason. Maybe also change the dates that trigger the dynamism. And so on ... Holland gets 2 a year from 560 onwards, Spain gets 2 a year in 1492. It says 5 for Holland and 200 for Spain and so on

Before I go messing about with these numbers, anyone who has more insight in the exact working of those, do let me know

 

[BiB]

Maybe also get a column for people to put in their own nation (like when u play Poland and get to Siberia first, take over Russia's settlers). Ah well, maybe it'll stop people converting to reformed religion when playing Spain.

 

[kerloic]

and which values do you think I should use for my roman scenario ?

 

[BiB]

Roman era colonisation I know jack shit about, I'm afraid

 

[Doomdark]

AFAIK, 100 in colonists.csv means 1 bonus colonist per year. I.e. it is a percentage of the chance to get colonists. E.g. 110 would mean 1 colonist per year plus a 10% chance of a second one. The "dynamism" field in the .inc files is probably only AI related.

I do agree with you on the early English and Dutch colonization, and will look into it for the next IGC release.

 

[BiB]

Holland's lines go sommink like 0,0,5,100,100,5,5 though and they get 2 when that 5 is in effect, 4 when they have that 100 and so on ? And Spain has 200 for the period to 1560 which is +2 in the game. Spain also has 200 for the period after 1560. Then they get 3 a year then though. It feels a bit weird

 

[Doomdark]

Hmmm, that is strange. I haven't really done very extensive testing of this, but as far as I could determine it seemed to work as I outlined.

 

[unmerged(2650)]

I haven't done extensive testing too but colonists.csv values don't seem to be percentage colonies at year. There are a lot of exception at least.

 

[BiB]

Well, thru trial and error I also can get the results I want in the end but the system behind it (is there one ?? ) I so far failed to grasp

Maybe time period, country, religion and whatever more plays a role

 

[Demetrios]

Speaking of modifying the colonists.csv file, I have recently done so to simulate the advance of the Moghul Empire in India. I gave them a value of 300 from 1520 to 1560 and 100 from 1560 to whatever the next year is, and nothing elsewhere. I also gave the Cambay as a costal province so that they could send out colonists. After one try, I also removed thier knowledge of the costal provinces from Cambay to Santal, as they immediately went and colonized those areas. After that, they went ahead and colonized the areas immediately to their east and west, simulating the advance of the Moguls during the 16th century. Unfortunately, they later diploannexed Hyderabad, giving them knowledge of the costal provinces again, but luckily many costal provinces had already been colonized by Europeans by that point. But beyond that, it appears that by doing this I've managed to simulate history. I would guess that we would have to destablize the Moghul Empire after Aurangzeb's death in 1707 (successive waves of obscurism once per decade maybe?) to simulate the weakness of the empire in the 18th century.

I'll be posting again once I run another hands-off game, but unfortunately for play-testing science, wacky events in Europe during this hands-off have distracted me and caused me to watch that area, fascinated, instead. See my "Protestant Holy Roman Emperor" thread in the General Forum for more details of this odd game.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

I have to say it here also
Colonist and trading posts should be completly different things
It makes no sense that you can built populous colony or lv6 TP

 

[BiB]

Hardly something the IGC can't fix anyway though.

 

[BiB]

How does this sound ?

Spain : 2,3,4,3,2,1,0
England : 0,0,1,2,3,4,4
Portugal : 3,2,1,1,0,0,0
Holland : 0,0,1,3,4,1,0
France : 0,0,1,2,2,3,4

Bearing in mind that Spain will have a shipyard from the start and will be CRC at one point (1560-1600) and that England will go Lutheran and then reformed and will build a shipyard eventually.

Portugal would go a bit like Spain only less and dying out slower. Holland would be like England, only not so strong near the end.

France sommink in between.

Added some ideas.

Should I test with these?