What it says on the tin. I would like this change to be removed, but in lieu of that, at least explain what is going on. Did my colonists get jungle fever or something?
- 7
- 3
Upvote
0
-
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.
Yeap I would say that doing this should make it so the culture will be your then.
- 3
- 1
You only killed the few thousands of warriors that were agressive, you didn't commit genocide against the millions of people living there.
- 10
- 1
There are not "millions of people" in a province in 1450. Not to mention that if there was a sizable amount of people, more than 1000 odd warriors would surface to resist. And I want to genocide them, why am I not allowed to anymore?
Last edited:
Because 100% genocide is impossible, especially in the preindustrial era. You just kill few thousands of agressive warriors, not the entire population. Actually, you don't even kill them all because eu4 combat system, unlike TW series, has no 'surrendered soldiers' indicators and under 'lost soldiers' it puts KIA, MIA, surrendered, run away, wounded and all forms of 'unable to put resistance'. So, actually, when you defeat 7000 warriors on African coast you probably kill something like 20% of them (usual max percentage of deaths suffered in battles in eu4 era). If we assume 10% of a provincial population is mobilized for battle, this all means you have killed something like 1000-2000 people of 70 000 natives living here.
The only areas that have their original culture 'wiped out and replaced with european' in eu4 era were Americas, and that happened only because prior to European conquest, Eurasian germs caused epidemics wiping out over 90% of a population. Those are excluded from a restriction. (However even then Amerindian cultures didn't disappear and have significant impact on Latin America till today - currently there are +50 million Amerindians on both continents and few times more people with partial Amerindian blood so even there 100% genocide didn't happen)
The idea of European colonial cultures suddenly dominating the entire coast of Africa and Indonesia was completely and utterly absurd and I'm very glad it was removed in 1.16. European 'colonisation' of Africa before second half of 19th century looked like that:
>There is European trading fort, manned by few hundred white people, in the area of dozens of thousands indigenous people (and indeed, you would be unable to commit genocide precisely because of 'jungle diseases' which were completely massacring Europeans in Africa in eu4 era, making even small forces dramatically ineffective, not to even speaking about any serious army - in fact, significant part of forum users, including me, demand more brutal/realistic attrition & supply system)
>Europeans stick only to the trading fort, practically not going more than few miles to the interior
>They still however either die from tropical diseases pretty fast or marry local women, as almost all white people in trade company forts were (often alcoholic and bored) men
>Result: after few decades, it was not uncommon for Portuguese sailors to reach their trading posts across the Africa only to discover they are manned by almost entirely black population, speaking a mixture of Portuguese and local languages, believing in a mix of christian and local beliefs and claiming to be "Portuguese".
This is why after 400 years of European domination of African and Indonesian coasts, they are still completely dominated by indigenous cultures. 1.16 solution is much more realistic than previous one. Nigerian coast is inhabited by Igbo and Yoruba people, not English or Portuguese.
Last edited:
- 19
- 3
- 1
I was going to reply here but Krajzen said it well already 
You're not killing everyone living there as that wouldn't really be possible.
You're not killing everyone living there as that wouldn't really be possible.
- 12
- 2
I'm just going to convert the culture of these provinces anyway. With no indication of any other peoples than my own, I'm gonna say the natives were wiped out. And once again, slaughtering a couple thousand people would not permanently remove any chance of uprisings if there really was a big hidden population. And that amount of warriors would at least partially recover over time.
Last edited:
Hmm i think colonizing is now even less interesting.
Early colonizing takes something like 13 years, which results in costs of about 250 gold/province.
While you colonize you have native attacks and in addition a new rebell uprising.
When you finish youre colony you have an unaccepted culture as well as religion issues and high autonomy.
Resulting in a colony revenue of something like ~0.02 gold a month(dev 10).
Even if it would only cost 200 gold to colonize, it would take something like 800 years to be profitable, without any military losses and revolts.
Youre tools to make it more reasonable are, to make it a state, convert them and change culture. Thouse are high costs in addition and will take years to implement, as well as a commitment to the state area.
Changeing culture is at 100% costs, and there is no help in changeing religion either.
This needs some change to make it more reasonable.
Early colonizing takes something like 13 years, which results in costs of about 250 gold/province.
While you colonize you have native attacks and in addition a new rebell uprising.
When you finish youre colony you have an unaccepted culture as well as religion issues and high autonomy.
Resulting in a colony revenue of something like ~0.02 gold a month(dev 10).
Even if it would only cost 200 gold to colonize, it would take something like 800 years to be profitable, without any military losses and revolts.
Youre tools to make it more reasonable are, to make it a state, convert them and change culture. Thouse are high costs in addition and will take years to implement, as well as a commitment to the state area.
Changeing culture is at 100% costs, and there is no help in changeing religion either.
This needs some change to make it more reasonable.
Is this a MN feature or part of the free patch? Because, I don't have the DLC but I do have the latest patch. In my England game, Portugal just colonized Beafada and the province turned Portuguese and Catholic.
It is hard to make arguments based on any form of realism(which this is) when there is a complete lack of consistency. I somehow can not genocide natives in the gold coast but strangely when I move one province inland the natives are no longer a problem and my Castilian Catholics settlers dominate the province. Do not even get me started on the Americas or Australia.I was going to reply here but Krajzen said it well already
You're not killing everyone living there as that wouldn't really be possible.
If you want to make a system that makes colonizing, lets say Africa, more realistic, then do that using a logical and universal system. Do not base the system on something completely irrelevant to the actual topic(Trade company region) because all you are doing is poking holes in your own argument.
What I am trying to say is, don't try to feed me shit and call it cake. I am not an idiot(well I think so anyway) and I know what shit looks like and this is most definitely shit.
It is tied to trade company regions so it may be linked to the WoN DLC. Do you have WoN?
Last edited:
I was going to reply here but Krajzen said it well already
You're not killing everyone living there as that wouldn't really be possible.
Besides what AhoyDeerrr said, there's another inconsistency in that argument.
There are provinces which start with 0 natives already, provinces that (as far as I know) historically had literally no people living on them (Cape Verde being the most obvious example). In such a case, they absolutely should change to the colonist's culture and religion. If anything, 0 natives should let the colonist change the province and killing off natives should stop at 500 natives (so this would become consistent).
It also gets terrible when you colonize the "noreligion" provinces. There's one to the east of Madagascar (I think it's Reunion) with has "madagascan" (yeah, just like that, you guys forgot to change the history files of the Mascarenes area islands
) and noreligion. And it's in a trade company region. I mean, what. How.Really, if you guys tied the colonist change mechanic to the number of natives (more than 1000 or 2000), it would work a lot better and look better. It would make sense to people that the colonial regions and Siberia get converted because of the overall absence of natives, while Africa and East Asia stay aboriginal.
No religion and no culture actually still converts to your own culture and religion even in a trade company region
Unfortunately some province history files weren't updated though but that should be taken care of with the next patch (now an empty province *should* have noreligion and noculture). I also removed natives from some islands that shouldn't have them for this reason while going over that.
As for gameplay/realism. I believe what the OP actually asked for wasn't a gameplay explanation "did my colonists get jungle fever". I can only reply about stuff that's my department, and flavorwise wiping out entire populations is not really realistic in most trade company regions. Gameplay wise as to why this applies to trade company regions and not others isn't something I'd be the right person to answer. I agree it's not very convinient for countries that can't actually have trade companies as I'm mostly a ROTW player myself.
Unfortunately some province history files weren't updated though but that should be taken care of with the next patch (now an empty province *should* have noreligion and noculture). I also removed natives from some islands that shouldn't have them for this reason while going over that.
As for gameplay/realism. I believe what the OP actually asked for wasn't a gameplay explanation "did my colonists get jungle fever". I can only reply about stuff that's my department, and flavorwise wiping out entire populations is not really realistic in most trade company regions. Gameplay wise as to why this applies to trade company regions and not others isn't something I'd be the right person to answer. I agree it's not very convinient for countries that can't actually have trade companies as I'm mostly a ROTW player myself.
Last edited:
- 5
- 3
No religion and no culture actually still converts to your own culture and religion even in a trade company region
Unfortunately some province history files weren't updated though but that should be taken care of with the next patch (now an empty province *should* have noreligion and noculture). I also removed natives from some islands that shouldn't have them for this reason while going over that.
As for gameplay/realism. I believe what the OP actually asked for wasn't a gameplay explanation "did my colonists get jungle fever". I can only reply about stuff that's my department, and flavorwise wiping out entire populations is not really realistic in most trade company regions. Gameplay wise as to why this applies to trade company regions and not others isn't something I'd be the right person to answer. I agree it's not very convinient for countries that can't actually have trade companies as I'm mostly a ROTW player myself.
Fair enough. It just that it looks weird when you colonize the coast and don't change culture but then get inside and gets to change it.
I'd also expand that to everywhere if I could (at least if there is CNs, they'd love to convert some anyway)
Maybe with the possibility to convert'em for lower cost later
Maybe with the possibility to convert'em for lower cost later
Last edited:
Perhaps inland areas of Africa should also belong to trade company regions. If Europeans had somehow conquered far inland, I imagine they'd have set up regimes similar to the East India Company rule of India. Maybe they'd have been nastier than the British in India, but they certainly wouldn't have imported a large white population to tropical Africa.
Certainly, having the new colonisable parts of Central Africa automatically turn European culture is an absurdity. Even the horrific regime of King Leopold didn't actually exterminate the entire local population, much less try to replace them with Belgian settlers.
On the other hand the Cape region is a trade company region, but historically a significant part of this region came to be inhabited by Afrikaans-speaking White and Coloured people, who we could say are more European than African in cultural origin.
Certainly, having the new colonisable parts of Central Africa automatically turn European culture is an absurdity. Even the horrific regime of King Leopold didn't actually exterminate the entire local population, much less try to replace them with Belgian settlers.
On the other hand the Cape region is a trade company region, but historically a significant part of this region came to be inhabited by Afrikaans-speaking White and Coloured people, who we could say are more European than African in cultural origin.
Last edited:
- 1