Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Settlements in wasteland - a Colonization problem.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 82627 EUIV: Bug Reports 1256 EUIV: Suggestions 19355 EUIV: Technical Support 6864 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 241 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Lamartine said:
I suggest EU4 implement a "shepherd" policy of colonisation. Colonisation would be determined by:

1. The placing of player "markers" that determine whether or not an area will be colonised by them at all. Similar to a national focus, but a few more of them, costlier, and instead of progressing colonisation they merely permit it.
2. Push factors influenced by the overall state of the player's (and the AI's) realm. Stability, religious differences, economic conditions, war, etc. all "push" migrants out of their nation and into the colonies that the player (and the AI) designate with "markers".
3. Pull factors influenced by the area being colonised. Life rating, economic gain, distance, etc. make some places more appealling than others, and can impose a ceiling on how many migrants relocate there.
Click to expand...

That's the best proposition I've EVER read so far in my crusade to get rid of the present colonial system that dates back to EU3's release. Please powers that be, please hear him ! You could also influence the push factor by subsidizing the emigration of valid men or women like France did when they ''exported'' members of the female gender into the French West Indies and in New France starting in the late 1650s to the early 1670s. It could even be enabled by a National Idea.

That way, you could slow down the colonial process, make relationships with Amerindians a key feature of colonization, raise the cost of colonizing, make colonial wars a lot more important and also remove the micro management of constant clicking...
 
JoeIsGreat said:
What's wrong with the current system? Each province is thousands of square miles... five thousand Europeans (probably what most colonies will get to late game) spread out over that entire province isn't exactly far fetched.
Click to expand...
Some of the northern provinces have populations not much greater than that today. For example, IIRC the modern population of Labrador is 7,000. There is no way, NO WAY, that you should be able to raise regiments in provinces like Labrador or Ungava, or that you should be able to march armies around in those provinces(!!!) Google "Torngat Mountains", for example. It's amazing scenery, but how are you going to feed an army of several thousand men that you're marching over mountains with no local food except maybe the occasional polar bear?

But in EU3, if you can extract trade goods from a province you can also raise regiments in it and march armies around in it. It would be a better game if there was a type of province that you could gather resources from, but wouldn't have a tax base, you couldn't raise armies there, and you could only move armies to and from it by ship, etc.

The interior provinces of what is now southern Canada and the US are a different situation but still a problem. The way Europeans marched their armies around Europe in this period was based on there being farms everywhere and, in any event, the troops not going far from their country's cities. There were very few farms in what are now Kentucky and Ohio and Ontario in the EU3 period - these places are mostly wilderness. Stacking limits in them should be very low and skirmisher type troops (which the natives should have and the Europeans should not start with) should be very effective. This would that the natives would be very effective at holding their own land, despite being able to raise relatively few troops, but would not be able to retake established European colonies, where Europeans would be able to field large European-style armies. But in EU3 these provinces function exactly like European provinces. Worse, because of the rules for Pagans, these provinces are extremely easy to conquer, and with a single missionary they are converted in culture as well as religion - so by 1550 it is entirely possible to have provinces in places like Kentucky Christian, your (European) culture, and with pretty reasonable base taxes and hence supply limits, while if the Natives do survive, they will be like European nations, with European-size and style armies wandering around these places that were in fact roadless wilderness.
 
BritNavFan said:
no local food except maybe the occasional polar bear?
Click to expand...

Eating a polar bear = very bad idea. If you eat the liver you'll be sick and most probably die - especially in the Early modern era.
 
Lamartine said:
I suggest EU4 implement a "shepherd" policy of colonisation. Colonisation would be determined by:

1. The placing of player "markers" that determine whether or not an area will be colonised by them at all. Similar to a national focus, but a few more of them, costlier, and instead of progressing colonisation they merely permit it.
2. Push factors influenced by the overall state of the player's (and the AI's) realm. Stability, religious differences, economic conditions, war, etc. all "push" migrants out of their nation and into the colonies that the player (and the AI) designate with "markers".
3. Pull factors influenced by the area being colonised. Life rating, economic gain, distance, etc. make some places more appealling than others, and can impose a ceiling on how many migrants relocate there.
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit too much like Victoria II (Since your speaking about colonization in general, rather than in wastelands). Imo, Colonization should be a model that is both simple and player-driven (Rather than player-influenced but context-driven situation, which undoubtedly is a lot more realistic, but would be too gradual and ultimately out of the player's direct control, for this game's philosophy). I think the present colonization system is fine, but we should probably add more interaction with the natives of the colonizing lands (Rather just a exterminate natives button), as well as policies regarding which type of colonization that the country intends to implement (Exploitation, Settlement, Trade with natives, etc) akin to what Magna Mundi was going to implement.
 
Yes, in order to derive value from colonies you have to have natives who gather the resources for you. Either you negotiate with them, enslave them, or bring in new occupants.

If you could get players actually enacting slavery, it might make for a chilling experience, and help them understand why it was done at the time.
 
Lamartine said:
I suggest EU4 implement a "shepherd" policy of colonisation. Colonisation would be determined by:

1. The placing of player "markers" that determine whether or not an area will be colonised by them at all. Similar to a national focus, but a few more of them, costlier, and instead of progressing colonisation they merely permit it.
2. Push factors influenced by the overall state of the player's (and the AI's) realm. Stability, religious differences, economic conditions, war, etc. all "push" migrants out of their nation and into the colonies that the player (and the AI) designate with "markers".
3. Pull factors influenced by the area being colonised. Life rating, economic gain, distance, etc. make some places more appealling than others, and can impose a ceiling on how many migrants relocate there.
Click to expand...

A geography student, I presume?

In other news, this is a brilliant idea.
 
Featauril said:
The problem is that your solution is just as bad as Paradox's!

For instance, it totally fails to represent the trade that operated in uncolonizable places like the hudson bay or inner Canada, or the American interior prior to the Conquest of Canada.

If your suggestion would go through, in the seven years war there would be New Orleans, Quebec, Montreal, and Nova Scotia colonized and some area around the thirteen colonies with vaste wastelands dividing them. You very well know that fighting occured all over the country.

I think that the solution is to model trade posts, religious missions, native alliances, etc... in "non-colonizable places" somehow, and have them colored your own color without being real colonies. It would be another reason to use missionaries, diplomats, merchants, etc...
Click to expand...
Trade posts, religious missions and forts should be modelled in all provinces, not just empty ones.

Think about how terribly bad the American Indians were modelled in EU3. They were modeled as regular states with weak tech, so when the Europeans swooped in they immediately conquered them and Spain always ruled everything along the Mississippi by 1550. Many mods removed the Amerindian states altogether because it's such a terrible system that has all of North American history totally out of whack.

You can never have a French & Indian war (Seven Years War) in North America the way it happened in real history, because there is no way you can have "only" forts and not colonies in those provinces. Britain and France can only have one of two possible things in these provinces: (1) A full blown colony with fort, city and everything; (2) Nothing.

The whole model of "province ownership" should ideally be redesigned for EU4. So that you can build certain stuff in a province, even if it is empty, or onwed by another nation. This way, France and Britain could have trade posts and forts in the North American provinces, without owning them directly.

I.e. they would not have such things like manpower, tax or revolt risk in these provinces. The provinces would still be uncolonized, or belong to the Amerindian nation, despite the presence of European forts and trade posts.

This way you could have REAL colonization, and REAL interaction with the Amerindians (same with the states in India, or the natives of Africa)
 
Simple and smart, Lamartine, I like it. +1.

Separate thought: I like the trading post idea too. The French North American holdings stretched from Louisiana to Quebec City, creating a massive crescent around the few British colonies on the eastern seaboard. About 50,000 French-Americans manned this settlement, compared to the 10,000 British settlers (at the time of the Conquest). I think at some point in the game French blue should create this massive crescent; but that doesn't mean colonies all along the Mississippi and St. Lawrence. It means significantly smaller-populated settlements, numbering in a few dozens, with a European flag flying. It should have a low supply limit, but not as low as uncolonized land. Furthermore it should cost significantly less, but provide only slightly less, income (as an example, consider a province with base tax 10 could cost 100 to colonize, and provide 10 tax, while a trading post could cost 20 to colonize, and provide 7 tax).

Last thought: Typology of colonies in general! In addition to trading posts (Western and Northern Canada), and colonies (Brazil, USA), we also need missionary colonies (Early French Canada, parts of South America, Congo), and integrated societies (Christian Congo, Company-India, etc.)
 
Niptium said:
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.
Click to expand...

While you do present a good solution to an existing problem in your post, this is the best part of it. Colonization needs to be completely removed and redone. If that isn't done I support this, otherwise the new system might not have the same problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back