Proposed Changes to Colonization

[MattyG]

Colonization is something we need to deal with. Currently in Vanilla, colonization is too much too fast. Not because the explorers and conquistadors have ahistorical quantities or lifespans, but because they can discover about 10 times that which they in reality found. Because discovering sea zones and provinces is so swift.

In Aberration the idea was to give more nations a colonial option, and to begin it earlier.

The first idea is excellent, the second is not. Europe is already on a colonial province and world trade hyper economy that fuels tech maxing by 1700. The notion that it should start earlier is not reasonable.

The first idea is good, but it doesn't work. Take for example the MP game I am playing in. By 1519 Eire has dicovered vistually all of North and South America and only the very northern provinces (those with low chances and little value) are yet to have cities in them. Not all of them are Irish, but about 60%. Crazy.

Here are the ideas I propose for re-balancing the colonial experience.


1. Eire still gets the earliest explorer, but just one, before everyone else gets a share.

2. The remainder of the exploring countries begin receiving explorers 30 years later than they currently do (1520s onwards).

3. Nations that have a stronger orientation to exploring get more total explorers, but not earlier, otherwise they paint the map and keep the others out.

4. Most significantly of all, explorers and conquistadors don't last very long. Their lifespans should be long enough to accomplish what a regular explorer did in the real world, ie discovering about 1-2 provinces in the 1400s, 2-3 in the 1500s, 4-6 in the 1600s and 6-8 in the 1700s (not including sea zones).

Matty

 

[Incompetent]

1. Eire's a bit boring without explorers. I suggest we give them more than one early explorer (though 1425 is too early - 1460 perhaps?), but keep Eire poor enough early on, and with no conquistadors, so that they can't actually paint that much land. This is how Portugal is kept somewhat under control in vanilla, anyway. We can also make Eire's initial DP settings a bit less colony-friendly (eg give them high Inno).

Having said that, I like the idea of Eire building up a vast colonial empire - then getting battered from without and within because it's so difficult to hold onto with such a small home country. Eire will be given the option to make many sacrifices in its rush for colonies, and may well come to regret them later.

2. Is that necessary? I think it would be OK if say Brittany got an explorer before 1520, and maybe Genoa or Sicily. Cordoba could just possibly get a conquistador before then as well, to get to work on Africa. But yes, the rush should start somewhat later.

3. Er, they're meant to try to keep others out; that's one of the essential dynamics in colonisation. In most cases the balance will come from the fact that the strong colonisers are weak militarily, and thus find it difficult to defend their acquisitions. Would it really be balanced to let Burgundy out to play in the Caribbean just as Brittany's getting there? Also, I think it's good to have some colonisers turn up late on the scene, especially those powers which are busy enough fighting wars in Europe.

4. Yes, this is a good way to reduce colonisation. Apparently the AI tends to use a given pioneer less efficiently the longer they're around, so it'll also help there. We could also give certain AI countries bonus explorers and conquistadors, so they can keep up with players.

After about 1700, though, it's going to be a free-for-all whatever we do. I don't think it's too much of a problem if later explorers are able to travel the world. The way these things go, even by 1600 anyone in a large MP game is only going to find a few scraps of land left for colonisation.



One thing we could do is reduce the bonuses each religion gets for colonising. This will drastically reduce the supply of colonists.


Another comment: options are good. I suggest we make it possible for some nations to get pioneers earlier than they otherwise would, but at a cost elsewhere, to the point where the choice is balanced. Eg Cordoba may focus on exploration early on, but if they do so they have to give up their ambition of conquering the rest of the peninsula. We could even have a bidding war as to who gets the services of some mercenary pioneer - that would be fun to watch in MP!

Finally, we need to consider ROTW powers. When are they allowed to colonise?

 

[MattyG]

1. Eire's a bit boring without explorers. I suggest we give them more than one early explorer (though 1425 is too early - 1460 perhaps?), but keep Eire poor enough early on, and with no conquistadors, so that they can't actually paint that much land. This is how Portugal is kept somewhat under control in vanilla, anyway. We can also make Eire's initial DP settings a bit less colony-friendly (eg give them high Inno).

I like this approach. Boring is in the eye of the beholder. I think there is a lot of tension for them in MP (which remains the main focus of Aberration) about whether and how much to get involved in the British Isles, where there is usually a lot of conflict.

Having said that, I like the idea of Eire building up a vast colonial empire - then getting battered from without and within because it's so difficult to hold onto with such a small home country. Eire will be given the option to make many sacrifices in its rush for colonies, and may well come to regret them later.

Fine for SP, but it isn't a good recipe for MP. It's too obvious. They take everything and then don't have the MP to defend any of it. They are especially suceptible to same-culture same-religion countries like Brittany.

2. Is that necessary? I think it would be OK if say Brittany got an explorer before 1520, and maybe Genoa or Sicily. Cordoba could just possibly get a conquistador before then as well, to get to work on Africa. But yes, the rush should start somewhat later.

The New World is soooooo wealthy that whomever hets there first and grabs the quality provinces is waaay ahead. Because the larger city will eventually trigger the CoTs and these are cash cows. Currently Eire gets all the CoTs (unless ai played). There needs to be a more even playing field so there is more excitement, tension and balance. Africa is a different story and Cordoba can have an early explorer for there - but, will they send it to the New World???[/QUOTE]

Would it really be balanced to let Burgundy out to play in the Caribbean just as Brittany's getting there? Also, I think it's good to have some colonisers turn up late on the scene, especially those powers which are busy enough fighting wars in Europe.

Waaay more balanced than it currently is and I think it would be much better to have countries jossling for the choice terrain than to have someone come in and find its all sewn up already. The 'paint the map and have others come along' game already exists; its called vanilla and people are bored with it. We don't want Spain and Portugal replicas here.

4After about 1700, though, it's going to be a free-for-all whatever we do. I don't think it's too much of a problem if later explorers are able to travel the world. The way these things go, even by 1600 anyone in a large MP game is only going to find a few scraps of land left for colonisation.

Better than it happening in 1550, which is the current situation. I am all for stoushes in the last 100 years, but world wars in the 1550s because there's nothing left to do or to capture is a mockery.

We could even have a bidding war as to who gets the services of some mercenary pioneer - that would be fun to watch in MP!

Finally, we need to consider ROTW powers. When are they allowed to colonise?

Excellent idea. I like the event, but its tough to script. As for the ROTW, let's give that some thought once Europe has been reconfigured.

MattyG

 

[Incompetent]

Fine for SP, but it isn't a good recipe for MP. It's too obvious. They take everything and then don't have the MP to defend any of it. They are especially suceptible to same-culture same-religion countries like Brittany.

That's sort of the idea. If Ireland gets too greedy, they'll pay the price later, but if they're sensible and don't try to hold onto too much, they should do fine. Eire will be able to hold its own against Brittany (which is a similar size militarily) and Scotland (because Scotland's admirals won't be that great, most likely) individually, but it'll find itself in trouble if it provokes everyone into attacking at once; it will probably also have pretty good tech early on if it doesn't go mad with the colonies, as I plan on giving Eire high inno. In terms of getting attacked, though, Eire has the advantage of being unusually isolated in terms of the number of wars early on in which it's a protagonist. You say Eire often gets involved in fighting in England - do you mean it tries to take over England, or just tries to keep a balance of power? If the former, the Irish are asking for a pounding.

The New World is soooooo wealthy that whomever hets there first and grabs the quality provinces is waaay ahead. Because the larger city will eventually trigger the CoTs and these are cash cows. Currently Eire gets all the CoTs (unless ai played). There needs to be a more even playing field so there is more excitement, tension and balance. Africa is a different story and Cordoba can have an early explorer for there - but, will they send it to the New World???

Not if it's a conquistador they won't! A player will know what to do with a conquistador; an AI won't, so we give an AI-only explorer, coupled with an AI that's only interested in Africa.

The wealth of the New World is something that needs to be looked at, as I'm sure you're aware, and the Caribbean in particular is just crazy from a balance perspective. A lot will depend on the new stuff you're putting in the New World: how many new powers you'll create, how strong they'll be and how many COTs they'll have between them. If it helps, MP games can have a house rule of not conquering the Maya or Navaho before a certain date.

Waaay more balanced than it currently is and I think it would be much better to have countries jossling for the choice terrain than to have someone come in and find its all sewn up already. The 'paint the map and have others come along' game already exists; its called vanilla and people are bored with it. We don't want Spain and Portugal replicas here.

I'm not talking about anything as drastic as the Iberian advantage in vanilla; I just think it's OK if we give the less conquest-oriented powers a slight head-start. Colonies just don't come as naturally to, say, Hungary as they do to Brittany.

Better than it happening in 1550, which is the current situation. I am all for stoushes in the last 100 years, but world wars in the 1550s because there's nothing left to do or to capture is a mockery.

Agreed. Colonisation will be made significantly more difficult for player countries overall, and we have many tools to achieve this. Removing the Christian colonist bonuses will slow things down significantly by itself; a reduction in colonial tax values might not be a bad idea either (this would reduce success rate, as well as making colonies slightly less profitable, and would also counter the problem of colonies having huge recruitment potantial thanks to colonial cores). Finally, we can play with the difficulty factors on provinces.

 

[MattyG]

Agreed. Colonisation will be made significantly more difficult for player countries overall, and we have many tools to achieve this. Removing the Christian colonist bonuses will slow things down significantly by itself; a reduction in colonial tax values might not be a bad idea either (this would reduce success rate, as well as making colonies slightly less profitable, and would also counter the problem of colonies having huge recruitment potantial thanks to colonial cores). Finally, we can play with the difficulty factors on provinces.

OK, it looks like were are hitting a good balance. I wasn't aware that we can modify things like colonial incomes or how easy it is to colonise. Which files contain the values for this all to be adjusted?

 

[Incompetent]

OK, it looks like were are hitting a good balance. I wasn't aware that we can modify things like colonial incomes or how easy it is to colonise. Which files contain the values for this all to be adjusted?

I'm still learning this stuff myself, but it looks like there are a lot of different parameters in province.csv. Which ones can safely be modified is another matter, but I get the impression from what I've read on the forums that we can exert a lot of control here.

 

[Incompetent]

OK, here's a radical idea for pioneers (conquistadors and explorers).

In real history, some countries explored and others didn't. But why? It wasn't just the existence of a few navigational genuises which opened up the world for Portugal, but the fact that the King of Portugal and his ministers thought it was worth the money, while other rulers didn't. Whatever you say about Portuguese culture, the extent of its colonial empire was as improbable and as much a product of circumstances as Americans landing on the Moon.

So what does this translate to in-game? We make the player pay for their pioneers by event, with the option of turning them down. Yes, every single one of them - exploring was and is an expensive business, and players should at least be expected to pay for the bonus ships that explorers come with. Also, we attach strings on some of these pioneers. A narrow-minded country may dismiss the idea of crossing the Atlantic Ocean as absurd. A land-oriented country will be more interested in local conquests (and may get generals which it would have been deprived of if it had gone naval). A country which is unstable or at war may have other things on its mind.

I think we've got the wrong end of the stick if we impose really draconian restrictions on players' theoretical ability to colonise, but then make it so lucrative that countries are guaranteed to colonise as much as they possibly can. Instead, we should be saying: actually you could colonise quite a bit (not as much as vanilla, but still a fair amount). But you might not like the price tag...

 

[Imrryran]

It'll need to be very well-balanced.

We make the player pay for their pioneers by event, with the option of turning them down. Yes, every single one of them - exploring was and is an expensive business, and players should at least be expected to pay for the bonus ships that explorers come with.

That may be a big problem for small colonisers like Eire, whereas big rich countries like burgundy or bavaria will be able to "buy" as many explorers they want.

 

[unmerged(30761)]

It'll need to be very well-balanced.

That may be a big problem for small colonisers like Eire, whereas big rich countries like burgundy or bavaria will be able to "buy" as many explorers they want.

Adjust the price accordingly to the territory size

there are "peasant revolt" events with breakpoints at 8, 30, 80 territories that scale the extend of the revolt

the number of explorers could be adjusted in such a way that if brittany has 25 territories then the explores will come in a bit later

 

[MattyG]

Phew.

Thank you for breaking the ice on this one Incompetant. I was actually afraid to raise this subjedt thinking it would be too heretical.

In my opinion, every single explorer should be triggered by an event and each and every one (and the FREE ships they come with) should cost a whole lot of ducats.

I am totally and completely with you on this one Incompetent.

I will adjust the free explorer event accordingly as well.

What costs should we place on the equipping of expeditions? Assuming most are 18 month to 30 month voyages of discovery, should we set it at about 150 to 180 ducats?

 

[Imrryran]

Considering the new setup of america, it may reduce the reward for colonization compared to vanilla's one.

These events should be player only, cause the ai isn't already a good colonizer.

 

[Incompetent]

What costs should we place on the equipping of expeditions? Assuming most are 18 month to 30 month voyages of discovery, should we set it at about 150 to 180 ducats?

This is going to be very difficult to balance with uniform pricing. With varied pricing, though, we can achieve a lot. For instance, Eire is poor but is supposed to be a big coloniser, so we let them off fairly lightly. But the Hansa go into the colonial game when they have lots of money sloshing around, so we charge more. Having variation in the pricing of pioneers for a single country is also good for creating diminishing returns: players will be able to get a few pioneers cheaply, but the more pioneers they try to squeeze out, the more they'll pay for each one.

If you're looking for justification, some expeditions might attract more private investment than others, and some pioneers and countries were simply better at managing supplies and/or making them cheaply than others, eg the famous Portuguese tradition of 'desenrascanco' (a word which is difficult to translate - like muddling through, but without the negative connotations). The 3 ships represent a base cost, but even that depends on how naval/plutocratic the country is likely to be.

I was thinking the explorers would live more like 3+ years each, but cost more like 300d - really short-lived leaders just irritate me. But it's all a matter of taste really, and again we can have variety here. Conquistadors though do need to be very short-lived, or they'll go berserk.

Considering the new setup of america, it may reduce the reward for colonization compared to vanilla's one.

That's the plan

These events should be player only, cause the ai isn't already a good colonizer.

Yes, if that's not too fiddly. The AI will also be given extra pioneers to help it out, maybe as many again as are available to the player.

 

[Imrryran]

By reducing too much the reward you may prevent the player from going westward.

A 300d explorer is far too expensive. It's cheaper to steal or buy other countries map.

 

[MattyG]

That depends on the group you play with. Most are pretty strict on map trading before a certain date and attacking capitals to steal maps.

However, I think 300 would be over the top. The equipping of an expedition was essentially the cost of the ships and supplies. Three vessels comes to around 150 ducats, scaled for different countries.

The event scripting wouldn't be hard. The pioneers would all be dormant = no . Events would fire only for players on whether to equip the expedition. If they press "No Thanks" then the pioneer is slept. Otherwise he fires as normal. Ai nations would therefore get pioneers for free as is currently the case.

 

[unmerged(21937)]

It's better to have them dormant = yes and then wake them by events. You can't sleep a leader already appeared in game, you see.

 

[Imrryran]

That depends on the group you play with. Most are pretty strict on map trading before a certain date and attacking capitals to steal maps.

You can have "stolen rutters" when winning a naval battle, no need of attacking capitals or trading.

If there is a deadline, I assume most players will find some things to do until they can steal or trade maps (instead of buying explorers).

I agree with you, 100-150d would be better. And even less for Eire and countries which otherwise won't be able to explore the seas at a high cost.

 

[MattyG]

You can have "stolen rutters" when winning a naval battle, no need of attacking capitals or trading.

If there is a deadline, I assume most players will find some things to do until they can steal or trade maps (instead of buying explorers).

I agree with you, 100-150d would be better. And even less for Eire and countries which otherwise won't be able to explore the seas at a high cost.

Stolen Rutters doesn't give you their maps. It gives you a number of the sea zones you didn't know before, but not all of those. I have won as little as a single sea area from the Stolen Rutters activity. Also, you only get it about one in every ten battles you win at sea.

The New World is too rich, people will still go for it. Where else can you MAKE a wealthy same-religion same-culture province?

 

[suo]

would also counter the problem of colonies having huge recruitment potantial thanks to colonial cores.

Did you change something in the way recruitment potential is calculated?
The colonies outside Europe do not give any manpower to European countries without a land connection. Only grain and traded grain still count.

To the colonizing Debate: I found colonizing a good way of developement for players more interested in the economic aspect of EU2 than in waging war. The more expensive you make colonizing the more every nation has to build up a strong european base to keep up.
Colonizing should still be an affordable option for small countries on the fringe of Europe. And they definitely need an advantage against their in military terms stronger neighbours. You can't defend mecklenburg against the bavarians with your navy.

 

[Incompetent]

By recruitment potential, I mean the number of troops you can train at once in the province, which can be a key factor in colonial wars.

Colonisation will still be worth it in many places. In vanilla, the best places have a payback time of about 10 years, which is pretty crazy. If it goes down to say 25 years, colonies would still be a very good investment. But in some places, I want to discourage players from building colonial cities altogether. Places like Hudson's Bay or the West African coast were not heavily settled by Europeans in the EU2 era, and it would be better if players put TPs there.

@MattyG: 300d cash might be bit much for an expedition. But hadn't we agreed to make military units that appear instantly and without using up a country's production capacity come at a premium? In any case, I want the cost to be enough for some players to think twice about the pioneers in some cases. Perhaps the cost in cash could be fairly small, so we don't burden players with too much inflation, but there could also be slight hit to land or infra investment, to indicate resources that have been diverted to colonisation. Say the player gets (on average) -200d cash, -50d to land tech, -50d to infra tech. Would that work?

 

[MattyG]

Incompetant,

I like the land tech and infra tech hits. They are a nice compliment. The other piece of the puzzle would be that maybe the first explorer for each nation would come with Innovative +1, although no -1 if the player rejects exploration (status quo ought not to be punished).

I actuallky never argued for free troops being at premium, just not being 'free'. Even with manufactories I suggested they go up to around 800 ducats for one from an event, still a bargain price. I don't think these vessels need cost more than normal. They player will still be paying maintenance on them, something the crown did not do for an (early) explorer's ships, so there's some balance there.

event = {
id = 456123
random = no
country = BRI
trigger = { ai = no }
name = "Poul Moulin Proposes an Adventure"
desc = "Poul Moulin is a merchant captain who has found the ear of our first minister and has been granted an audience. His audacious plan is to naviguate across the seas to discover new lands south of Vinland. He believes that south of that point the climate will be improved and the land suitable for crops. He has also heard tales of gold, and of a flower that provides eternal health. Shall we fund his scheme?"
date = { day = 12 month = april year = 1503 }

action_a = {
name = "We Assent, but Return with Good News"
command = { type = cash value = -160 }
command = { type = land value = -50 }
command = { type = infra value = -50 }
command = { type = domestic which = innovative value = 1 }
}
action_b = {
name = "A Fool and My Money? I think not...."
command = { type = sleepleader which = 23098 }
command = { type = vp value = -5 }
}
}