Settlements in wasteland - a Colonization problem.

[Niptium]

EU1, EU2 & EU3 were very bad at modelling wastelands I thought. Especially land that, in reality, no European power would colonize in real life. I'm talking about Northern Russia and mostly Northern parts of North America (Northern shores of Newfoundland, Labrador, Ungava (Québec), Hudson Bay, Nunavut, Yukon, Alaska). European powers would easily send colonists in these regions, which meant very populous cities and thriving colonies in the 16th Century on tundra and arctic frozen deserts by the dozens. VERY unrealistic. It is a problem.

Yes, the Hudson Bay was important for trading furs after the second half of the 17th Century. But trade there required nearly no personnel and didn't encourage permanent colonization. With a wooden pallisade, 5 guys and some gunpowder along with pots, bells and whistles to trade with the Natives you were good to go. There were no settlements north of Saguenay river in Québec and along the coast of Ungava or the Hudson Bay until well into the 19th century or even the 20th Century. Ships had to leave before october if they didn't want to get stuck in perma frost until May of the following year. Natives were counted in hundreds and not thousands. North of Saguenay river and along the Hudson Bay and the Northern part of Newfoundland, it IS STILL pretty much wasteland today. No wonder why Jacques Cartier called these territories ''the land where God exiled Cain after he murdered his brother Abel''.

No power should be able to colonize as in permanently settle people there. Only small trading posts could work : 10-20 people, not much more.

Anything north of that blue dots line in fact should only be able to support small trading posts for non permanent settlements. Anyhow, it would be great to slow down colonization because its way too fast right now. In fact, the whole colonial system is actually, with trade, the weakest feature currently in EU3. It needs to be rethought. Colonization should be slow, expensive, frustrating.

 

[aenariel]

I second this motion.

 

[Happy_Lonely]

I do, too.

One way to slow down would be to remove colonists, and use national focus to colonize, like in Victoria 2. The larger and more advanced your state is, the more national foci you would have. A national focus would affect a whole region, where colonies would then be established automatically on single provinces. Multiple states would be allowed to have their national focus on a single region simultaneously, leading to moderate patchworking in rich areas (such as the Caribbean), while still giving an incentive to go somewhere, where there is still no other states present.

Also, we had trading posts still in EU2. I think their biggest problem was that they too used colonists to establish, while being much worse as an investment. What if we used merchants to establish trading posts instead? Maybe you could even have those on provinces that are already owned by someone, such as Chinese or Japanese ports?

 

[DrLulz]

What if we used merchants to establish trading posts instead? Maybe you could even have those on provinces that are already owned by someone, such as Chinese or Japanese ports?

This seems like a very good suggestion, which the new trade system makes realistic. Use merchants to tap into the fur trade of arctic North America instead of unhistorically colonizing there.

 

[CaptRobau]

I do, too.

One way to slow down would be to remove colonists, and use national focus to colonize, like in Victoria 2. The larger and more advanced your state is, the more national foci you would have. A national focus would affect a whole region, where colonies would then be established automatically on single provinces. Multiple states would be allowed to have their national focus on a single region simultaneously, leading to moderate patchworking in rich areas (such as the Caribbean), while still giving an incentive to go somewhere, where there is still no other states present.

Also, we had trading posts still in EU2. I think their biggest problem was that they too used colonists to establish, while being much worse as an investment. What if we used merchants to establish trading posts instead? Maybe you could even have those on provinces that are already owned by someone, such as Chinese or Japanese ports?

Using NFs would do almost nothing to slow down colonization. What we need is not something like V2's NFs but something like V2's liferatings. Those were the things that regulated colonization (by making certain places only colonizable after a certain tech had been researched). If colonization chance is linked to tech levels in EUIV (ie. barely anything has colonization chances over 10% in the 1400s, but in the 1500s there's more of a chance) than you can regulate colonization speed.

 

[Variton]

Seconded. At least the pop limits on arctic areas should be very low (if trading posts are not an available feature)

On a more general note, PoN style slow process of colonization would be more realistic and fun. But would require quite an overhaul of the current system.

 

[Colombo]

What if growth of colonies would be governed by supply limit? And colonies would be finished with any number of colonist? (with possibility to build forts etc.) In wastelands, there could be than fortified "colonies" with barely any people serving as trade outposts.

 

[Te. Kenzo]

Agree

 

[Jokurr]

I think a system similar to Vicky II's life rating system would work, where areas north of the blue line would have a life rating lower than even end game techs can support. Same would go for large parts of Africa, and northern Russia. Perhaps trading posts could be a separate option to colonies, and they could be built on lands with a much lower life rating than colonies, for any given tech level?

 

[Happy_Lonely]

Using NFs would do almost nothing to slow down colonization.

This is entirely dependent on how NF's would be implemented. Currently in EUIII, you have a single NF with 50 years between relocating. Also, there are other things you could use the NF for, such as enacting the "standardization of weights, etc." decision. Of course, if each state are given increasing amount of NF's, and shorter time between changing focus, this would have less to no effect.

What we need is not something like V2's NFs but something like V2's liferatings. Those were the things that regulated colonization (by making certain places only colonizable after a certain tech had been researched). If colonization chance is linked to tech levels in EUIV (ie. barely anything has colonization chances over 10% in the 1400s, but in the 1500s there's more of a chance) than you can regulate colonization speed.

I agree here, liferatings in EUIV should be more harsh, and even more areas should be out of bounds for colonization. There are lots of areas that are available for colonization in EUIII, but not at the beginning of V2!

Having a V2-like liferating that is slowly overcome by tech would have an additional problem, though. The player (at least in SP) would probably have no problem staying ahead of AI in the said techs throughout the game, meaning there are at each time less provinces to colonize, meaning the player has more time to colonize everything he wants before the AI reaches that same tech level.

 

[jo1998sh]

I totally agree with what your saying, but one of the things I didn't like about the EU3 map was that there was big patches of grey wasteland in the middle of your empire. So I would like paradox to incorporate the trading post idea without having huge blank grey areas on the map.

 

[the_legion]

Trade posts where in EU2, so I see a slight chance that they'll return in EU4 ^.^

 

[Evie HJ]

IF they do this, there need to be trading posts. Without implementing trading post, it's better to open these areas to full colonization than to not have them at all, at least for the Hudson Bay territory. That area was important enough to need to be represented with available tools.

Also worth noting is that trading posts may only have a handful of traders operatives, but they very often drew in a large number of natives (and, later, metis) who settled around the trading post for eacy access to European goods. And some of the larger trading posts did develop into full-fledged cities, of course, though that was a very slow process (and mostly later in the era)

 

[suplanter]

I totally agree with what your saying, but one of the things I didn't like about the EU3 map was that there was big patches of grey wasteland in the middle of your empire. So I would like paradox to incorporate the trading post idea without having huge blank grey areas on the map.

this is my biggest complaint with the wasteland system. i dont really care if the land is usable or profitable i just want it to be able to claim it so all that empty gray goes away.

 

[Niptium]

IF they do this, there need to be trading posts. Without implementing trading post, it's better to open these areas to full colonization than to not have them at all, at least for the Hudson Bay territory. That area was important enough to need to be represented with available tools.

Also worth noting is that trading posts may only have a handful of traders operatives, but they very often drew in a large number of natives (and, later, metis) who settled around the trading post for eacy access to European goods. And some of the larger trading posts did develop into full-fledged cities, of course, though that was a very slow process (and mostly later in the era)

Large amounts of Amerindians ? Nowadays Québec territory had, from rhe latest estimates between 2 000 and 4 000 Natives roaming. We have to take into account that Amerindian populations in nowaday Canada's territories were quite small by all account. After all, the hunting gathering lifestyles could not support much more. Only the Hurons on the Ontarian peninsula had villages and agriculture and a few thousand individuals (less than 6000 actually)

 

[Niptium]

this is my biggest complaint with the wasteland system. i dont really care if the land is usable or profitable i just want it to be able to claim it so all that empty gray goes away.

This is basking into fantasy land.

 

[Slaxl]

I think that land should be claimable without colonists. Look at what happened when the Spaniards and the Portuguese carved up the new world. They claimed it all as their own, they got quite miffed when the English started settling in North America. If you run EU3 and on the date/nation selection screen you can see PI pretty much put in Spain's claiming of lands rather than colonising, South America goes Yellow faster than it ever could possibly in the game if you were playing and goes to lands Spain claimed but didn't settle.

You can claim all the land you want, and you get a CB on anyone that actually sends colonists there, but if you don't defend it, or lose the war, then your claims are gone like your prestige, so don't claim everything because you'll never defend it all and just end up in constant wars that bankrupt you. Might need to make war more expensive.

Also I think the world map should be provinceless. If you want to claim a great swathe of northern Canada then just draw your claim out. If you want to send colonists somewhere then click where you want them to found their little colony. Just don't make it silly sizes like a Civilisation world map where a city on the earth map would take up several thousand miles. Provinces hinder the game because there can't possibly be enough without having billions. Make it a life size world map, yeah that'll do, like Google Earth, we zoom in and out to wherever we want... Then implement this in CK2 so if we want to build a new castle we can either put it in a valley, a top a hill, or in the middle of a field, wherever we want, and give us bonuses or penalties based on the location we chose.

Of course that's all about as likely to happen as I am to win the lottery, at which point I'll give PI all the money so they can make it that way. Just a shame I don't play the lottery.

 

[Tijean]

I agree and they should also rework all the native north american system. I think it just dumb to see them totaly kick away from the map by the portugese every game.

 

[Phainx]

I know this sounds a little far fetched but looking at how Britain was able to colonize India through the use of merchants and cash.
You should be able to send merchants to individual provinces, once a certain number of merchants have reached, a trading post is set up.
This will add penalties (and maybe some advantages) to the nation that harbors the trading post and the nation of the merchants gain advantages.
However the nation that harbors the trading post can choose to either close it down or keep it running.


This will in turn give the nation who sent the merchants a causus belli to invade the nation .
As you guessed you need to have the correct cash requirement and the correct trade level.
This way it's much more believable way to colonize India.

 

[BritNavFan]

Ships had to leave before october if they didn't want to get stuck in perma frost until May of the following year.

I generally agree with what you say and would really like to see a trading post system, but the words you're looking for there are "pack ice" not "permafrost"!