N.A. Natives and Colonization

[unmerged(1764)]

Here's something I noticed in my game as England in the GC. I failed several times to initially colonize some provinces in North America (notoriously Connecticut, Massachutsetts and Appalache), despite 70% or better chance of success. They did have resident natives, all low or very low aggressiveness. So, of course, I didn't want to kill them off. However, I discovered that, after frustration mounted, killing off the natives increased initial colonization to the 85% range. Other NA provinces didn't seem to have this situation.

I wonder if there's hard-coding to make colonization more difficult (or ban) than the % given in some provinces until the natives are eliminated. Not complaining, mind you, just wondering.

 

[hjarg]

Yes, natives decereace chances of success. The bigger the number of the natives is or the more aggressive they are, the smaller is your chance of success.

It's not wise to wipe them off the Earth though: when your population reaches ca 600, they will join colony, sometimes making it a city of more then 5000 people. By eliminating them, you will only get city of 700.

So it's not a bug, it's a feature

 

[unmerged(2289)]

It's all a roll of the dice. I failed 4 straight times in California [not sure of the province] even with an 82% success rate.
And I love how easily the natives are incorporated as England. Instant city of usuable population.
And Manhatten was problematic for me as well. Not sure why.

 

[unmerged(2073)]

Just the luck of the dice but it happens frequently because there are so many colonists around. Let's say you send 3 colonist to a region with a 50% chance of success. In one out of every eight of these, none of these attempts will be successful and you have a slightly better chance than 50% of two successful attempts.

Still 4 failures in a provinces with 82% success chance is VERY unlucky. Unless the game is feeding you false information, I reckon you should still keep trying and if it gives you another 4 failures you can complain that the game is clearly cheating.

But think. Did Walter Raleigh complain when his Jamestown colony failed? Probably or maybe he was dead by then.

 

[unmerged(1764)]

England and NA Colonization

Hey, I'm willing to buy the random argument, but I wondered if Paradox was sneaking some historical variables in. Those sneaky guys The New England Puritans did seem to prefer slaughtering their Indian neighbors (interferes with their City on a Hill), whilst future Canadians (French and English) tended to get along more cooperatively with nearby Indians.

I noticed in a General Discussion thread that some folks think that the chances to colonize a location might depend on your historical country (England good in NA, bad in SA; Russia good in Siberia, bad in India). Any one else noticed this?

 

[unmerged(2134)]

Re: England and NA Colonization

Originally posted by jlrogers
I noticed in a General Discussion thread that some folks think that the chances to colonize a location might depend on your historical country (England good in NA, bad in SA; Russia good in Siberia, bad in India). Any one else noticed this?

Yeah, I've kind of noticed this. Playing as England, it was very easy to colonize Australia/New Zealand. Much much higher fail rate in traditional Dutch SE Asia. Easier to colonize NA than SA. On the other hand, the Siberian provinces from Vladivostok on was relatively easy to colonize - very low aggressiveness natives. I should probably try to play as another country to test this out.

 

[unmerged(2289)]

I'm almost positive this is the case and if so I must give Paradox a huge thumbs up for coding it like that. Nice work.

 

[SideshowBob]

Discoveries

Again I'm not sure that this is the case but I've also noticed that explorers tend to find coastal provinces based on country. For example if I sail round the bottom of Africa with an English explorer I normally find Table on the 1st pass but as the Portuguese I had to sail up and down repeatedly to reveal it.

Anyone else noticed this?

 

[hjarg]

IIRC, you get 5% success bonus as France when the province has natives...

And SideshowBob, it's not like that. I remember that as Portugal i have had no trouble finding Table. It was just your bad luck.

 

[BiB]

Countries get colonisation bonuses for regions they colonised historically as I proved in one of my posts way back, so take advantage of that.

 

[SideshowBob]

Tested

Ok this is not very scientific and i have not tested enough but i started 5 games as Portugal took my 1st explorer Corte Real G and all the navy (to avoid attrition problems)and sailed round Africa just once. I put the speed upto max and did nothing else. Portugal failed to find Table in any of the 5 attempts.

I started 5 games as England, waited till 1497 when J.Cabot comes along and again sailed round Africa, England found table 4 out of the 5 times.

Now I know this doesn't prove anything but like i said i have noticed that during the games I have played certain countries tend to discover certain provences more.

 

[unmerged(2819)]

I don't understand this part. Why does your explorer not find all it can the first time through an area? Will they keep spotting land the more I pass them through an area or is there really a limit to what they can spot from the sea?

 

[unmerged(548)]

Originally posted by Pack Rat
I don't understand this part. Why does your explorer not find all it can the first time through an area? Will they keep spotting land the more I pass them through an area or is there really a limit to what they can spot from the sea?

There is a % chance for an explorer to uncover inland TI when he enters a coastal seaarea.
It's probably affected by the M value of the explorer and at a ceratin Naval tech level I think it becomes automatic.

 

[unmerged(2819)]

Thanks, that changes the flavor of the Kool-Aid