More sensible colonising patterns

[Korsan82]

I would like to see more than 1 coloniser per province... I don't like the idea of "send first and reserve the province". It doesn't work that way.. I'd prefer if one province can be claimed by more than 1 nation and the population is split in %. Some kind of civil war might be the outcome of such contested provinces where we are allowed to support the group acting in our favour.

 

[Brent15]

I would really like the ability to "claim" provinces without actually controlling them and slow down successful colonization considerably in the first two centuries.

 

[King]

So if Venice set up its own chains of bases towards the Atlantic then New World colonisation sounds feasible. Correct?

The trade routes are static

 

[Secret Master]

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.

This is what I was hoping. When I saw the trade routes in the video, I said to myself, "Why bother colonizing one lousy province in North America when the trade is going to be controlled by someone else."

This does raise a question, though. If trade routes are static, does that mean if I don't own the right provinces in Europe, a colony in the New World at location X won't benefit me, even if I can get the trade from location Y? Like say Spain owns Newfoundland or France grabs Chile.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

This is what I was hoping. When I saw the trade routes in the video, I said to myself, "Why bother colonizing one lousy province in North America when the trade is going to be controlled by someone else."

This does raise a question, though. If trade routes are static, does that mean if I don't own the right provinces in Europe, a colony in the New World at location X won't benefit me, even if I can get the trade from location Y? Like say Spain owns Newfoundland or France grabs Chile.

there are other benefits from colonies than trade income..

 

[bitmapmedivh]

there are other benefits from colonies than trade income..

Yeah, you get a nice place in the sun for your tanning sessions.

 

[ANO1453]

The trade routes are static

Does that mean that the number of CoTs is limited, or that trade routes are limited to CoTs?

aka, if Portugal discovers the maritime way to India, will trade flow to Lisbon?

 

[Cybvep]

Wait, does that mean that if Portugal colonises a region which was colonised by Spain IRL, trade routes will still go to Spain instead of Portugal? It wouldn't really be logical or intuitive, considering the geographical proximity of these countries.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

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.

that's be very cool

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.

So each potential colonial province will automatically trade with a predetermined European province?

The trade routes are static

I think he means if Venice were to own territories along that route

 

[Don_Quigleone]

How are routes generated then? Is there a text file that lists all potential routes and triggers for them to be created? Or is there some kind of other dynamic system in place?

 

[bitmapmedivh]

How are routes generated then? Is there a text file that lists all potential routes and triggers for them to be created? Or is there some kind of other dynamic system in place?

Perhaps more importantly, will trade routes be moddable?

 

[alvaro]

Perhaps more importantly, will trade routes be moddable?

i dont know how the system works but this about static routes is not looking good to me. if you think about it, a classical route from veracruz-habana-cadiz, if someone, UK, conquers habana the logical move would have been spain transferring the hub port in the caribean to puerto rico or Florida to avoid interruptions during wars. instead it looks to me for what I understand that the uk will grab a chunk of mexican trade even though foreigner trade was banned from spanish colonies but not the metropolitan one. just a real life example.

is there a way to ban countries from specific routes? is that simulated by controling the next peer in london or liverpool?

as I understand the concept now by controling a port in a route you control the added value in the next segment of the route, I reckon (?)

 

[Niptium]

i dont know how the system works but this about static routes is not looking good to me. if you think about it, a classical route from veracruz-habana-cadiz, if someone, UK, conquers habana the logical move would have been spain transferring the hub port in the caribean to puerto rico or Florida to avoid interruptions during wars. instead it looks to me for what I understand that the uk will grab a chunk of mexican trade even though foreigner trade was banned from spanish colonies but not the metropolitan one. just a real life example.

Yes, that would be totally illogical. I agree with alvaro. What was needed was to take ressources from point A to point C through point B. If point B ceases to belong to your nation, it doesn't mean A doesn't get to C.

 

[Me_]

The trade routes are static

Wait a minute - you respond to a colonisation question with a trade routes answer. So that means colonisation is along traderoutes, correct?

 

[WeissRaben]

So, make me understand...Mediterranean powers are FATED to stagnate? A Venetian nation that conquers (let's say) Malta-Tunis-Oran-Tangiers-Canarias-Natal will be cut out of American trade nevertheless?

 

[George LeS]

This is puzzling. It's unclear what "static" means here. Presumably new ones would open up, with the spread of discoveries. Or are they fixed, but latent, until POR (or someone) discovers a route to the East? Does that mean that you can get shafted every time intermediate cots fall into hostile hands? Or does your trade get diverted to another existing route (presumably less efficient)?

DOES the Balor post mean that other countries WILL get the trade value from your colonies, if you put them in the wrong place? Or is something else going on here, which we don't see? I certainly hope trade isn't weakened further. In the game, POR just doesn't get the immense, albeit temporary, boost in income from discovering the East.

I am confused.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

So, make me understand...Mediterranean powers are FATED to stagnate? A Venetian nation that conquers (let's say) Malta-Tunis-Oran-Tangiers-Canarias-Natal will be cut out of American trade nevertheless?

I agree, if Venice(or Genoa) can secure the straits of Gibraltar, it should be able to try to secure a part of the atlantic trade.

 

[Grubnessul]

And somewhere Johan cackles maniacally about all the debate he flared up with one little sentence...

 

[Secret Master]

there are other benefits from colonies than trade income..

Bah, trade income is the one income to rule them all!

Seriously, let's take a look at the cryptic remarks and see what we can come up with.

1) In EU3, colonies (distant overseas, actually) generate tariffs instead of tax/production income. Usually, it is vastly inferior to tax and production, but when you take the correct ideas, decisions, and policies, it is a serious amount of cash. I can't see this mechanic being scrapped, as it helps balance out colonial powers along Portuguese and Dutch lines where they lack substantial territory at home, but compensate with insane tariff income. This is probably still in to some degree.

2) In EU3, colonies can provide range for trade. Pretty sure this will still be in.

3) Colonies (overseas on another continent, actually) enable the use of colonial conquest via QFTNW. If you don't already own a colony in the neighborhood, you don't get to snag other colonies on the cheap. I am pretty sure this will be in given the success of CBs and war goals in other recent Paradox titles.

4) Colonies allow potential access to the bonus for a specific good if you produce enough of it. I don't know if this will be in.

5) Naval range from colonies. Pretty sure something like this will be in given the appearance of trade routes in the game that cover specific sea zones.

So, from this speculation, it seems like the benefits to colonies are still kind of there, even if you don't own either end of a trade route; however, the big colonizers benefit most from constructing empires. Colonial empires will probably benefit from geographic cohesion and economies of scale (i.e. having lots of colonies).

However, if trade routes are static, does that mean there is less benefit to controlling/owning them? In EU3, owning a COT is kind of a big deal for just about everyone because the income from ownership (not even counting the ability to embargo people) is substantial. It's even more important when the value of the COT is absurdly high. And your trade policy in EU3 tends to redirect trade; mercantilism has a big advantage in forcing your provinces to your COTs, where you at least have some advantages (even if free trade is probably better in the long run thanks to TE.)

In EU4, if I own a colony that trades with Spain, but I'm France and big into mercantilism, how does this work? I mean, it's the sort of issue that British colonial policy wrestled with for years before the American Revolution.

 

[Darkath]

Please, devs, don't drop statements like that unless you are prepared to give all the details, you need to avoid causing chaos and confusion among the ranks