European colonialism in India is not happening as it should.

[hypertank]

Considering the number of European powers involved one way or another in India (Portugal, The Netherlands, France, England, etc.) the failure of the European AI to expand in India is pretty egregious. This is even more noteworthy since at least half of all games have the Ottomans expanding far into Russia (which historically is far more implausible than European expansion into India). Either India needs a nerf, or European powers need a serious buff.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

If I had to give a specific suggestion on how to improve the European side of this, it would be to implement a mechanic that would allow colonizers to seize CoTs in trade company regions.

@Incompetent mentioned an expansion of the Threaten War mechanic. It's a good stand-in for a deeper system that I wouldn't mind seeing, but I think that a unique mechanic is necessary to simulate the Portuguese conquests of cities from Mombasa to Muscat to Goa to Calicut to Malacca.

I'd suggest a mechanic where the colonizer can spend DIP, MIL, and/or manpower to seize CoTs from small nations located in Trade Company regions. This is effectively what happened to Goa, for example, as well as Malacca. Give the defender the option to escalate the conflict or accept the new status quo, possibly with the addition of a truce and maybe some trade bonus.

Or you could just use the Threaten War mechanic and flavor it like "Portugal has seized one of our trade ports and wants to keep it for themselves. If we accept this claim, we get a truce with them, but if we don't, it's time for war."

Again, it's essentially how Portugal built its trade empire across the Indian Ocean, and in the absence of a way to simulate limited war, a mechanic like this could be used.

I also think trade companies should work like colonial nations in that they're self-governing once they have more than five provinces, but that's another discussion, I think.

 

[cub298]

If I had to give a specific suggestion on how to improve the European side of this, it would be to implement a mechanic that would allow colonizers to seize CoTs in trade company regions.

@Incompetent mentioned an expansion of the Threaten War mechanic. It's a good stand-in for a deeper system that I wouldn't mind seeing, but I think that a unique mechanic is necessary to simulate the Portuguese conquests of cities from Mombasa to Muscat to Goa to Calicut to Malacca.

I'd suggest a mechanic where the colonizer can spend DIP, MIL, and/or manpower to seize CoTs from small nations located in Trade Company regions. This is effectively what happened to Goa, for example, as well as Malacca. Give the defender the option to escalate the conflict or accept the new status quo, possibly with the addition of a truce and maybe some trade bonus.

Or you could just use the Threaten War mechanic and flavor it like "Portugal has seized one of our trade ports and wants to keep it for themselves. If we accept this claim, we get a truce with them, but if we don't, it's time for war."

Again, it's essentially how Portugal built its trade empire across the Indian Ocean, and in the absence of a way to simulate limited war, a mechanic like this could be used.

I also think trade companies should work like colonial nations in that they're self-governing once they have more than five provinces, but that's another discussion, I think.

I like the idea of using manpower to siege it, because colonizers don't use that much anyways.

 

[Incompetent]

@Incompetent mentioned an expansion of the Threaten War mechanic. It's a good stand-in for a deeper system that I wouldn't mind seeing, but I think that a unique mechanic is necessary to simulate the Portuguese conquests of cities from Mombasa to Muscat to Goa to Calicut to Malacca.

I'd suggest a mechanic where the colonizer can spend DIP, MIL, and/or manpower to seize CoTs from small nations located in Trade Company regions. This is effectively what happened to Goa, for example, as well as Malacca. Give the defender the option to escalate the conflict or accept the new status quo, possibly with the addition of a truce and maybe some trade bonus.

Mechanically, what you're describing is pretty similar to Threaten War, apart from the question of what it costs the aggressor.

'Seizing COTs' maybe isn't quite right either. Sometimes the colonial powers seized major existing centres of trade (Malacca, for instance), but often, they set up small bases that later became centres of trade as a result of the European presence. Mumbai, Hong Kong and Singapore are all examples of major world cities today that were fairly minor settlements at the time the Europeans took them over. (It's also interesting that all three were built on minor archipelagos off the coast of the mainland, so that the Europeans' superiority in naval warfare and anti-ship artillery was sufficient to defend them if it came to a fight.) There ought to be some capacity for trade company powers to 'create' a COT in a trade region, like how Merchant Republics currently can. (A more dynamic system of which provinces get a 'centre of trade' bonus might be a good idea in general, come to think of it. Fixed 'natural' advantages such as estuaries are already modelled separately.)

Also, you could argue that Europeans should own relatively few entire provinces until the 18th century, but have scattered minor holdings that give them trade power and access, a port for their ships and claim fabrication access. (Portuguese Goa itself is substantial enough to count as one province in EU4 terms, but other Portuguese holdings in India, such as Portuguese Bombay, certainly weren't on that scale.) The CK2 model is perhaps better for this, especially the way Merchant Republics in CK2 build Trade Posts, but it should be possible to have some sort of extraterritorial naval/trade base in EU4 too, one that costs some resources to set up but doesn't require a full-scale war as long as the local powers aren't hostile.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Mechanically, what you're describing is pretty similar to Threaten War, apart from the question of what it costs the aggressor.

'Seizing COTs' maybe isn't quite right either. Sometimes the colonial powers seized major existing centres of trade (Malacca, for instance), but often, they set up small bases that later became centres of trade as a result of the European presence. Mumbai, Hong Kong and Singapore are all examples of major world cities today that were fairly minor settlements at the time the Europeans took them over. (It's also interesting that all three were built on minor archipelagos off the coast of the mainland, so that the Europeans' superiority in naval warfare and anti-ship artillery was sufficient to defend them if it came to a fight.) There ought to be some capacity for trade company powers to 'create' a COT in a trade region, like how Merchant Republics currently can. (A more dynamic system of which provinces get a 'centre of trade' bonus might be a good idea in general, come to think of it. Fixed 'natural' advantages such as estuaries are already modelled separately.)

Also, you could argue that Europeans should own relatively few entire provinces until the 18th century, but have scattered minor holdings that give them trade power and access, a port for their ships and claim fabrication access. (Portuguese Goa itself is substantial enough to count as one province in EU4 terms, but other Portuguese holdings in India, such as Portuguese Bombay, certainly weren't on that scale.) The CK2 model is perhaps better for this, especially the way Merchant Republics in CK2 build Trade Posts, but it should be possible to have some sort of extraterritorial naval/trade base in EU4 too, one that costs some resources to set up but doesn't require a full-scale war as long as the local powers aren't hostile.

I don't know how I feel about subdividing provinces like that. You can tell who owns a province at a glance, but it sounds like it would become a clickfest to see who has trade ports in what provinces.

You're right in that European trade provinces were often too small to justify wholesale ownership of a province, but at the same time, there isn't a smaller administrative unit to use. The intuitive, but not entirely accurate answer to that would be to just give colonizers the whole province.

I remember EU3 had a dynamic CoT system. It worked basically like what you described, but for some reason, they got rid of it when they made EU4. That was long enough ago that I don't remember the details, but it'd be nice to see something like this return. Veering off-topic a little, I'm also a fan of how M&T has CoT 'levels' that dynamically change as a CoT becomes more/less prominent.

 

[Canute VII]

I don't know how I feel about subdividing provinces like that. You can tell who owns a province at a glance, but it sounds like it would become a clickfest to see who has trade ports in what provinces.

I think if the trade port/trade post is simply represented on the trade map - like "important centers of trade" or "natural harbours" - then it would be sufficient for a first glance impression. On mouse over a tooltip could tell us that country xy established a trading post in the province.

You're right in that European trade provinces were often too small to justify wholesale ownership of a province, but at the same time, there isn't a smaller administrative unit to use. The intuitive, but not entirely accurate answer to that would be to just give colonizers the whole province.

Which is not a good representation.

I remember EU3 had a dynamic CoT system. It worked basically like what you described, but for some reason, they got rid of it when they made EU4. That was long enough ago that I don't remember the details, but it'd be nice to see something like this return. Veering off-topic a little, I'm also a fan of how M&T has CoT 'levels' that dynamically change as a CoT becomes more/less prominent.

That sounds pretty interesting and well worth exploring further / assessing if it would fit the vanilla game.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

That sounds pretty interesting and well worth exploring further / assessing if it would fit the vanilla game.

I haven't played M&T in a long time, but the premise was something like:

There are three or four levels of CoT. An individual CoT's level depends on things like how wealthy that CoT is, its trade good, how well its owner is doing in that trade node, etc. There are some additional restrictions too like how there can only be one of the highest level of CoT per subcontinent and possibly some restrictions on the number of second highest level ones.

That said, I gave the 'Seize CoT' idea some more thought. It wouldn't be a bad idea if Europeans could 'share' provinces with locals in the respect that Europeans have a trade port while the locals have the rest of it. Both parties get a trade bonus. The province gets the color of the local owner but is outlined in the European's color.

I'm not actually sure how many provinces where wholesale owned by Europeans versus ones that were shared, but I don't see why both can't be worked into the game somehow, maybe pros and cons to both, and ideally, special interactions if you take a province belonging to a Chinese tributary (see: real life Malacca).

 

[bebrst]

I had an idea, which I'm not sure it could work, but maybe someone has some use for it:
There could be an Foreign Trader Estates, which appears either after threatening a war or after the trading nation pay to implement it. This estate would have a high influence and the country would have to assign territories to it. The money which is produced in those trade estate controlled provinces would 50% be transferred to the foreign nation, let's say Portugal. In addition Portugal would gain 50% of the trade power. Events should either increase or lower the influence of the Trading estate. If the estate doesn't get enough territory or has too much to change influence, the trading nation (e.g Portugal) would get a cause belli on the host country. This could help to simulate a somewhat peaceful and sometimes even beneficial coexistence, while it would also allow to be a starti g point for a further expansion.

As I said, it is only a rather broad idea which came to my mind while reading g through this thread. Would surely need a lot of work and I'm not sure if this system would be practical and could work. But maybe with some adjustments, it could have some potential to simulate how European took over control of trade without necessarily owning whole provinces.
Please feel very welcome to work on it, if you feel it has potential

 

[Canute VII]

India is mostly an alternate history. Sultanates keep going stronger instead of declining. No Mughals or Maratha. Missing tags like Sur Empire and no colonisers. I don't know how AI decides to prioritise colonisation but if in the present set up one is having a casual easy game as a colonising nation, investing time and money in Americas are more profitable than going to India unless one has sweep over Ivory Coast, Cape, Zanzibar & Aden. Till Zanzibar its manageable but getting highest power in Aden is crucial and can be resource consuming to get adequate benefit from trade companies in India and this doesn't feel very adequate return wise.

My proposition would be to make trade routes in the Indian Ocean more historical where Zanzibar or Cape can directly pull from Ceylon. Alternately create a separate trade region in Madagascar with at least two trade centres ideally one in Mauritius/Ile bourboun or both and let it pull from Ceylon feeding into Cape of Good Hope. Malacca too should feed into Ceylon.

Now the major problem remains a consolidated Sultanate or Vijay. That asks for a rework of Indian sub-continent and Devs are best to decide when though I can throw some light on the Medieval India from a point of view thats generally not talked about very much except in academics. This is with regards to the Zamindari system, rise of regional powers and the downfall of Mughal India.

Spoiler: Medieval India

The regional factors of disintegration were very strong in medieval India. One cannot understand medieval India without taking into consideration the emergence of a new ‘Zamindars’ class into the system and its role into making and breaking of empires.

By thirteenth century the Rai, Rana, and Raut, of the pre-Sultanate aristocracy appear to represent ‘bigger’ chiefs in the rural hierarchy. Barani (c. 1358) comments that they were all Hindus and ‘ride good horses, wear fine clothes, shoot arrows from Persian bows, fight with each other and go out for hunt, and in a good measure, chew betel leaves’. From 1350s onwards for almost six hundred years this emerging Zamindar class occupied the centre stage in rural aristocracy. They were the local rural magnates and ruling class.

Zamindars in Mughal India were socially a heterogeneous group. Their position, rights as well as obligations varied a great deal. There was a latent struggle for land, power and authority among them. Thus attempt of bigger Rajas to bring intermediary zamindars under their control was a continuous feature. The Mughals tried to utilise conflicts between various sections of the zamindars for their own purpose both in terms of hierarchy and caste composition.

The nature of the Mughal empire can also be seen as a highly centralised bureaucratic apparatus that extracted a large proportion of the peasant’s surplus through an elaborate system of revenue taxation. With the emergence of a unified monolithic administrative and economic structure under the Mughals the zamindars also slowly got assimilated into it and both were mutually dependent upon each other in its exploitation of the peasantry. But in the new system, the zamindar’s share was restricted not only by imperial rules and regulations, but there was left little with the peasants to be taken by anyone else. This unrestrained tendency of the Mughal fiscal system to appropriate greater and greater amounts of the peasants’ surplus sparked off a tripolar confrontation between the imperial ruling class, the hereditary land holding classes (the zamindars) and peasants. Since Zamindars also had caste / clan or historical associations with the peasants, where they joined with the cultivators to resist the rapacity of the state, a position of confrontation was created.

Despite this inherent weakness the zamindars as a class constituted a formidable element in medieval Indian society and polity. They were in control of tremendous territorial and revenue resources. According to BabarNama 1/6th of the revenue of Hindustan came from the territory of the zamindars. From the point of view of military resources they were a power to be reckoned with. Abul Fazl (Ain-e-Akbari) in 1595 records that the total strength of the zamindars’ retainers was 384,558 cavalry and 427,057 infantry and 1863 elephants, 4260 canon pieces and 4500 boats.

Though the Mughal army controlled a great amount of military hardware, as a collectivity the local magnates were always a serious military threat, especially considering their strategic location in the countryside. By the eighteenth century the terms of reference between the state and rural magnates, as far as military technology was concerned had equalised because of the concerted upsurge in the countryside. Stewart Gordon has shown how the Marathas were successful in tapping into a vast and heterogeneous military labour market, including the one being provided by Europeans, in the eighteenth century. While access to muskets, cannons and gunpowder strengthened the sinews of imperial power, these were simultaneously used by its more powerful subjects to arm themselves and to resist the intrusion of the state.

The Deccan crisis, and the sustained oppositional movements of the Jats and the Mewatis in the north India, and of the Sikhs in the Punjab and other places, like eastern India, there became greater difficulty into getting adequate tribute as zamindars had been able to use a slack revenue system to their advantage which accentuated the financial problems of the empire. We can infer from the evidence of the Mughal period that the struggle between the imperial administration and the zamindars, breaking out frequently into armed conflict, was an important feature of the political situation of the time. Manucci wrote around 1700 that Mughal governors are in a constant state of quarrel with the zamindars and that usually there is some rebellion of zamindars going on in the Mughal kingdom.

Decline of the Mughal empire was not a sudden collapse of the imperial administrative apparatus, nor an individual ruler could be held responsible for the crisis, but the crisis in imperial structure because of economic and political reasons resulted in a shift of political and military power from the centre to regions. Emergence of successor and other states in the 18th century was the indication of this declining trend of the imperial polity.

Political chaos in Mughal times caused by zamindar rebellions and the connivance of the Mughal officials in the acts of defiance by local magnates. Tensions between monarch, military or service noble (mansabdar), landholder (zamindar) and peasant which when maintained in equilibrium were creative of order and stability but which if allowed to pull free were creative of disorder and impotence. Such a free pull occurred when the Marathas as zamindars forcibly jerked against the bit of Mughal control and resisted domestication with the Mughal system. The efforts of the Mughals to muster the resources in revenue and men to overcome the Marathas led to strains within the nobility and insupportable pressures upon both zamindar and peasant who if they did not revolt actively at least resisted the Mughal revenue collector passively. A combination of over lavish appointments by the emperor and the military success of the Marathas created a shortage of assignments (jagirs) for the nobles. The resources to support the military contingents were rendered inadequate.

Mughals could not maintain the social balance which was the basis of the so called ‘Mughal stability’. The clash of interest between the zamindars and the state and between different sections of the zamindars could not be resolved. These conflicts led to frequent clashes, disturbed law and order and seriously weakened the administrative and military power of the state. After the death of Aurangzeb in 1707 the Mughal administration became too weak to maintain the social equilibrium. The Mughal empire was waning and it was the zamindars who were exerting themselves. Consequently the number and effectiveness of the Mughal forces fell off and the Mughal military machine (which was essentially an instrument for the internal military occupation of India) became progressively incapable of controlling the autochthonous military and rural aristocracy (the zamindars of various degrees) of the subcontinent’.

Maybe what you describe could be represented by a 4th estate for countries which are muslim and whose capital is in india (or if 2/3 of their territory is indian). Kind of like the Ottomans have the dhimmis and Russia the cossacks. This 4th estate would be the Zamindars, a pseydo-nobel estate with unique interactions. The zamindars would want provinces with hindu religion. If they become too influential their estate disaster would trigger. The outcome of the disaster would be the splitting off of an independent country (similar to the dhimmi or cossack's disaster, I guess). However, it could be that the off-splitting country fractures itself into multiple state-sized countries. The zamindars' loyalty could give tolerance of heathens and infantry combat ability, when disloyal, they obviously give the inverse effects. Local modifiers could be similar to the dhimmis without the -2 unrest at high loyalty, instead they give manpower. There could be events that pit the zamindars against the nobles (mansabdar).

 

[SantoshKashyap]

Can be worked around but zamindars were present in Hindu kingdoms as well. After 1600 zamindari land could also be sold to others and in late 18th century it could even be auctioned (and many a times a royal nobility or other zamindar would buy it) which means that a muslim zamindar was not a rarity. So lets better not club zamindari class and religion. In 17th-18th century we also find confederacy of zamindars (Hindu as well Muslim) actually ruling in Bengal & Doab. (Baisiraj & Chaubisiraj in Nepal are actually a confederacy of 22 zamindars and 24 zamindars respectively. Similarly Baro-Bhuyan in Bengal was one) So they are much more than estates. Some large ones eventually even became Princely states in British India.

Even if this is represented as 4th estate then it is difficult to consider what bonus they would provide. Historically they affected ruler production & tax collection directly and entirely. Zamindar-Mansabdar relation had always been strategic depending on the opportunities and most of time cordial for having two common enemies - peasantry and the king.

 

[Canute VII]

Can be worked around but zamindars were present in Hindu kingdoms as well. After 1600 zamindari land could also be sold to others and in late 18th century it could even be auctioned (and many a times a royal nobility or other zamindar would buy it) which means that a muslim zamindar was not a rarity. So lets better not club zamindari class and religion. In 17th-18th century we also find confederacy of zamindars (Hindu as well Muslim) actually ruling in Bengal & Doab. (Baisiraj & Chaubisiraj in Nepal are actually a confederacy of 22 zamindars and 24 zamindars respectively. Similarly Baro-Bhuyan in Bengal was one) So they are much more than estates. Some large ones eventually even became Princely states in British India.

Even if this is represented as 4th estate then it is difficult to consider what bonus they would provide. Historically they affected ruler production & tax collection directly and entirely. Zamindar-Mansabdar relation had always been strategic depending on the opportunities and most of time cordial for having two common enemies - peasantry and the king.

Yes, sure, the basic idea would need to be refined and in the end backed up by more research. Peasants would be represented by burghers in game terms? So have events that pit the various estates against each other?

We also should not forget that the outcome need not be 100% historical depending on player decisions, as long as the cause-effect relationship is plausible.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

What did you disagree with specifically, @Mingmung? Ideally, we can use this thread to brainstorm ideas and come up with something the devs would actually consider, but that’s not possible just disagree and leave.

 

[Mingmung]

What did you disagree with specifically, @Mingmung? Ideally, we can use this thread to brainstorm ideas and come up with something the devs would actually consider, but that’s not possible just disagree and leave.

No need to call me out on a disagree. Don't go down that road.

I just don't like your idea and the implementation of it. Partial occupation of provinces is not something I want to see in the game, there are clickable provinces for a reason. They're occupied by one party or they're not. Some have more autonomy than others or not. I know it was different in history, as states are a modern invention, but partial occupation would open a can of worms you want to stay closed.

I agree that European colonialism should indeed be a little bit different than how it's presented in-game now, but I personally think different casus belli's and maybe some other mechanics would 'fix' this better than the partial occupation you suggested.

That's all.

 

[Bearjuden]

Late to the conversation but didn't trade companies mostly grow by playing the princes of India off of each other, and buying them off where they couldn't? That would mean that either once a European power acquires a territory one of two things has to happen:

1. The trade company (which in this scenario is probably a subject, akin to a colonial nation, with ideas and everything) has a lot of princes for them to ally with (should be a subject so that it doesn't suck up your personal diplomatic relations slots as well as being more historical), allowing them to find security more or less independently of their home nation on the continent. This requires tags to either break up more or for a better balance of power to be found that prevents any one tag from growing too strong. It would also require them not to have liberty desire, since subjects allying with independent powers would skyrocket it...but as a company, liberty desire wouldn't make much sense anyway, so I see no real issue.
2. The trade company (which in this case really can be as is or a subject, though I still prefer the latter option) interacts with nearby powers, and in particular their nobility (the princes inside a kingdom). They buy territory from them, in particular CoT, and if they grow powerful enough and find a lone kingdom can conquer them of course, but for the most part they play the nobility estate of the Indian kingdoms against the kingdom itself. This would require estates in general, and the nobility in particular, to be massively fleshed out compared to where they are.
3. Of course, some combination of the two.

Also I saw earlier a suggestion for succession wars, which I think is a great idea - civil wars should be a thing for all countries, and be far more catastrophic than the disaster they are now. They can also link into trade companies and their routes to expansion and security as was mentioned.

I like neither the foreign trader estate nor the partial province control idea, though. The former is an awkward way to implement it and isn't really accurate - they were powerful influences, but estates are domestic influences, not foreign ones. Plus, it would require a niche mechanic where you can initiate the purchase of a CoT, which is...look, it's a personal bias, but I hate niche mechanics, they feel like band-aids. I'd much rather adjust the current ones to work, or else make a much broader mechanic that covers the whole range of things it should. As to the latter, it's just too complicated. I think accuracy is great, but it is possible to sacrifice too much gameplay to achieve perfect accuracy.

 

[Stepkick]

For now I'd just settle for a DLC that has anything to do with India. India has been ignored since the release. We have had China patch, Craddle of Civilization, Purple Pheonix, Rule Britannia, Prussia, Hungary, Japan, Russia, even the Phillippines and Kuba, Luba. Nothing to show for India and mechanics. and over 1000s of hours in game and never seen the Mughals form even once.

 

[Zohtun]

For now I'd just settle for a DLC that has anything to do with India. India has been ignored since the release. We have had China patch, Craddle of Civilization, Purple Pheonix, Rule Britannia, Prussia, Hungary, Japan, Russia, even the Phillippines and Kuba, Luba. Nothing to show for India and mechanics. and over 1000s of hours in game and never seen the Mughals form even once.

I have!

I was them. Probably doesn't count.

 

[FantasticFwoosh]

I cannot really visualize on part of lack of broad experience with trade companies (a few playthroughs with semi-moderate success, not very trade centred mostly production) them getting more power since its still a directly controlled province, you've still jumped from South Africa (or more controversially the other direction through South America and Oceania) to India with a connected network of core provinces which may be too challenging for the AI to aim for like a dedicated player, they'll probably not run the fiscal and political risks of focusing their attention like a player would.

Some cross-referencing here, since thematically it's very fitting and would allow Europeans a nice way into the indian trade.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stepwise-colonization.1060589/

Even the Goa event could be adapted then to give an "outpost/trade post" or "enclave" (instead of the whole province... ).

I do think this is the way to go however, kingdom's and empire rank nations should create vassal enclave states outside of coring range in held territories for a portion of prestige to encourage AI to sow a 'British India' state through the new mission systems giving some claims on the land for the AI to pursue with then new mission trees. Reconnect the range and diplomatically annex to suck them back into your nation if they don't declare independence first for Old world expansionist colonialism.

Some generic missions like this for all western nations and some formable/pre-existing (like the Monastic order of 'The Knights' and CK2 converters) enclaves. Ill probably expand this into a idea thread later/shortly to more easily explain as it comes to me.

 

[Chief of Staff]

yes please we need Indian trade company as something more than just a passive entity. anything better but what we have right now. the trade company as is represented in the game is so far flat and uninteresting to me, personally, I'm sorry to say.