Easy to take via brush wars would be the best way to stop it without keeping it restrictive, make colonists drain province pop and have them grow slower too
-
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.
Easy to take via brush wars would be the best way to stop it without keeping it restrictive, make colonists drain province pop and have them grow slower too
That have might have been pointed out, but i'd like to see the colonizing process tied to manpower somehow.
When I see Venezia or the hanseatic league colonizing large chunks of the new world i know something is wrong. Because even though city states were able to send ships to the new world, how the hell would they find so much migrants to occupy those lands ?
When I see Venezia or the hanseatic league colonizing large chunks of the new world i know something is wrong. Because even though city states were able to send ships to the new world, how the hell would they find so much migrants to occupy those lands ?
Foreigners. And I can give you an example too:
Stuff like this happened a lot, and the US are a nice example too.
Anyway, I'd really like to see a "colonial war" system - countries would only be able to fight for colonies, not invade each others' mainland. I'd also prefer trading posts over full-blown colonies from the start, but that might be asking too much. It would be really more consistent with what happened in the time-frame in most of the world.
My question is, why should it be forbiden to invade mainland to convince the enemy that he better of giving up some colonies, or invading mainland to defend you colonies?
Countries that can not physically project their power over the mainland already can not do so, so futher limitations are useless.
There should be some kind of ability to resolve the colonial wars if the mainlands are safe, but that is about it, really.
Aside from the two powers and the Vatican. Nobody gave a crap about this treaty.
I wasn't so much thinking about the historical, as the EUII game effect. It meant you could march into a colony in your sphere, without a DOW, and take it. Granted, in the game it was mostly a "shaft France" mechanic, except for a few S Am provinces where both POR and SPA had claims.
But my point is that it did limit colonization by area, and that something like that might work here. I rather like Seli's post.
You miss the point. Colonial demi-wars were frequent in this period, and DID NOT entail the powers involved in a full war. England managed to be allied, at times, to both POR and NED, while still going after their outposts in Asia. That is what we're talking about.
Although making it easier to win a small victory would be good,in general. It shouldn't be necessary to conquer an entire country to get one province. But that's not the whole point here.
Last edited:
I'd like to see it related to the merchant system. Like what someone suggested in the other thread about placing merchants in wastelands.
So, you'd place a colonist, and he'd gradually increase your presence in the province and its neighbors area, but you'd need fleets and/or merchants to support him. And other nations colonists/fleets would interfere with yours. So if you're trying to colonize right next to an established colony with a big fleet, it will take a very long time.
So, you'd place a colonist, and he'd gradually increase your presence in the province and its neighbors area, but you'd need fleets and/or merchants to support him. And other nations colonists/fleets would interfere with yours. So if you're trying to colonize right next to an established colony with a big fleet, it will take a very long time.
I'd like to see various levels of warfare. Think the option to have colonial wars would be fitting... Could escalate Colonial > Border dispute > Etc > Total War. As you escalated conflicts, it would have stronger effects on your economy as a whole.
Think trade people. If the trade route from the Americas doesn't go to your country (I am thinking Venice here) then you are increasing the wealth of other countries, while not doing much for your own.
Am I?
Can you find what you call "colonial" war, in which the attacker or defender could really invade the enemy mainland, but they didn`t?
Or maybe the thing called "colonial" war, only happens when there is no ability to invade the mainland?
So, what am i missing?
Venice colonising SA and NA. In for more sencible colonising patterns.
I would like to see the national focus needed for colonizing. That would be awesome.
the war should really be between two government-backed colonial companies, not the governments themselves.
Colonial wars as in Victoria I wouldn't be a good thing at all IMHO.
Instead of "declared colonial wars", there should be a natural war status between European powers outside Europe, North Africa and the Near-East. Including outside European waters for navies! Remember the No Peace beyond the line policy. Colonial wars could be neutralised among allies (PU, alliances, being partner in the same war), having a "classical war" truce or among countries that signed a colonial/trading agreement.
This would not be considered as being at war, there would not be any "peace" signed, no war exhaustion. Armies that come to the same province would fight. Armies that go on other provinces would start a siege and eventually have the opportunity to seize or burn the colony.
It would end in 1650 (EU3 style) or with an edict of tolerance event (EU2 style).
Instead of "declared colonial wars", there should be a natural war status between European powers outside Europe, North Africa and the Near-East. Including outside European waters for navies! Remember the No Peace beyond the line policy. Colonial wars could be neutralised among allies (PU, alliances, being partner in the same war), having a "classical war" truce or among countries that signed a colonial/trading agreement.
This would not be considered as being at war, there would not be any "peace" signed, no war exhaustion. Armies that come to the same province would fight. Armies that go on other provinces would start a siege and eventually have the opportunity to seize or burn the colony.
It would end in 1650 (EU3 style) or with an edict of tolerance event (EU2 style).
Last edited:
About the war score scenario... EU3 already allows people to seize colonies.
Still, some colonial diplomacy would be nice
Still, some colonial diplomacy would be nice
If were going to have colonial wars ect. Then I think it needs to be more about battles as in HOI than occupying forts. For example Napoleon defeated the Austrians at Austerlitz but did not then spend the next 3 years listening to his Marshals telling him that the siege of some obscure romanian village took 114 days.
So if Venice set up its own chains of bases towards the Atlantic then New World colonisation sounds feasible. Correct?
I like that, though I worry what effect it would have on the game in general, especially how the AI would take it.
I agree except the end date. This sort of thing went on far longer than that, although it did ease off slowly. Rather than cutting it off, have the costs go up over time. Perhaps more BB (tied to relations); stuff like that.
Make the AI focus their colonization by Region, and have minor powers hesitant to colonize regions that are heavily colonized by somebody else. this should result in neater borders and fewer ridiculous patchwork colonies where Australia is divided up by four different powers, three of them being Italian minors. Newer releases of D&T focus colonization by Region but I'm not sure how they do it. All I know is that it looks wayyy nicer. I also think that the initial financial investment in a colony should be higher, and nations without an Atlantic coastline should be less likely to decide to colonize.