The Return of Trading Posts?

[Ashantai]

One thing I liked about EU1 (I never played EU2 but I know it had them too) was that you could set up trading posts as well as colonies in unoccupied provinces. Will EU4 see a return of an alternate method of occupying provinces, especially considering the new trade system?

 

[Phelan]

This would be interesting. The colonization in EU 2 & 3 is very strange. Spain and Portugal mainly established small outpost in the wilderness and did not occupy a whole province until very late. To see Spain having the complete south america colonized by 1550 is rather weird. So some kind of Trading (out-)post would be really a good thing to have. It depends on the plans of the developers for the colonization feature in EU4. I hope the new trade system will also change the colonization in EU4.

 

[yourworstnightm]

Yes, Trade Posts would be great, basically this was what the European built in West Africa at the time. There should be a difference between Trade Outposts and Settler Colonies.

 

[Evie HJ]

Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaase.

The lack of trading posts made colonization highly unrealistic.

 

[Ashantai]

Also, you get the Europeans in eastern Siberia by 1700....

I think trading posts are a good way of doing things.

 

[Alerias]

Yes. Signed.

Trading posts make perfect sense, and IMO, colonization should be a process that must generally start with trading outposts, at least early in the game. Perhaps monarchs ought to have to spend an ADM point to build a real colony but trading posts only cost a little gold? Anyhow, mechanics should make us favor trading posts most of the time early on...

 

[Tornadoli]

Yes. Signed.

Trading posts make perfect sense, and IMO, colonization should be a process that must generally start with trading outposts, at least early in the game. Perhaps monarchs ought to have to spend an ADM point to build a real colony but trading posts only cost a little gold? Anyhow, mechanics should make us favor trading posts most of the time early on...

Make settler colonies stupidly expensive, so you can only afford them in the later game.

 

[ANO1453]

Make settler colonies stupidly expensive, so you can only afford them in the later game.

And then we get delays in the New World colonisation.

Africa was colonised by trading posts. America by settlers. But since of Africa only coastal provinces are colonisable (they basically consist of a strip of land) I don't see what is the point in adding trading posts.

 

[Jolt]

And then we get delays in the New World colonisation.

Africa was colonised by trading posts. America by settlers. But since of Africa only coastal provinces are colonisable (they basically consist of a strip of land) I don't see what is the point in adding trading posts.

Because Portugal aside, trading posts were only restricted to the coastal provinces in Africa.

 

[Jaol]

Um, what about Canada? The fur trade is something else that would be perfectly represented by trading posts.

And, for that matter, most of the Portuguese/Dutch forts in Indonesia would probably be better represented as some sort of trade post rather than colonies.

 

[Stratagyfan101]

I think trad posts would be a fairly good idea. Were there any example at this time of permanent European settlements within Africa?

It would also be nice if could possibly slow down Colonization in America. As I understand most of the Caribbean colonies began with simple forts and subjugation of natives.

One thing I hope to see is North America be relatively difficult to actually colonize. Other than Spanish Florida (which is essentially the Caribbean) the first settlement was Jamestown in 1607. I am not saying it should be impossible to colonize earlier but the mean time of colonization should be between 1580-1620 when most early attempts began. I am a bit tired of seeing colonies in Newfoundland and other harsh and poor regions in 1530.

 

[Ashantai]

The only permanent settlements in Africa in this period was South America, I believe

 

[Stratagyfan101]

The only permanent settlements in Africa in this period was South America, I believe

Really? I was unaware South America broke away from Africa in the last 500 years, though it explains Portuguese colonization patterns.

P.S. I kid.

 

[Evie HJ]

And then we get delays in the New World colonisation.

Africa was colonised by trading posts. America by settlers. But since of Africa only coastal provinces are colonisable (they basically consist of a strip of land) I don't see what is the point in adding trading posts.

America wasn't colonised by settlers. By and large, the overwhelming majority of North America was trading posts (or Missions, which is another type of settlement that should be represented separately) that evolved into settlement. The only exceptions were the English coastal colonies that started as English. Everything else outside Alaska started with French, Dutch or Swedish trading posts (and one Russian one), or French and Spanish missions that grew into settlements.

 

[Ashantai]

Sorry, meant South Africa, Cape Province etc.

Got distracted, apologies.

 

[unmerged(250188)]

Yes, when playing Eu2 I found TP were actually much better than the EU3 mechanic.

 

[CaptRobau]

Ideally there would be three ways to colonize a province:

1. A trading post, which will cost you a merchant. This type of colony would net you trade income and would only slowly grow into a (colonial) province
2. A mission station, which will cost you a missionary. This type of colony would result in the conversion of the province and would grow faster than trading posts but slower than plantations
3. A plantation, which will cost you a colonist. This type of colony would result in the culture become your own and it would grow the fastest of all

Even more ideally, multiple countries would be able to colonize the same province at the same time. The one that gets to the magic number first, gets to own the province and half of the others' settlers (many Dutch stayed in New Amsterdam after it was sold to the British). There'd be ways to reduce the others' settlements (attack it or buy it up, etc.)

The province would then become a colonial province and unless it's on the same continent will never become a regular province (Russia is an example of same continent). Colonial provinces would behave differently from normal provinces (in EU3 there was no difference between a colonized Maine and London).

 

[Von Paulous]

I miss them too

Yes trading post add flavour to the game... I dont remeber thought... you spend a colonist or a merchant to build them?

I really hated thought that you had to expand them to lvl 10 to get the full amount of trade.... as castile I rather buil colonies instead....

There are some things to discuss thought before implementing them... should they have unkeep like colonies? or should make the colonial unkeep cheaper?

Should they have lvls like colonies? what should be the bonus for max lvl trading post? (apart from turning them into colonies easier?)

Should you use merchants? Or colonists to establish them? My merchants as almost useless once I establish monopolies....

In my humble opinion trading posts should count towards your sealine efficiency as colonies.... perhaps they should give a bonus instead???

 

[unmerged(250188)]

Ideally there would be three ways to colonize a province:

1. A trading post, which will cost you a merchant. This type of colony would net you trade income and would only slowly grow into a (colonial) province
2. A mission station, which will cost you a missionary. This type of colony would result in the conversion of the province and would grow faster than trading posts but slower than plantations
3. A plantation, which will cost you a colonist. This type of colony would result in the culture become your own and it would grow the fastest of all

Even more ideally, multiple countries would be able to colonize the same province at the same time. The one that gets to the magic number first, gets to own the province and half of the others' settlers (many Dutch stayed in New Amsterdam after it was sold to the British). There'd be ways to reduce the others' settlements (attack it or buy it up, etc.)

The province would then become a colonial province and unless it's on the same continent will never become a regular province (Russia is an example of same continent). Colonial provinces would behave differently from normal provinces (in EU3 there was no difference between a colonized Maine and London).

The Missionary one could also convert neibouring provinces, giving a CB to the country that owns the province that was converted.

 

[Don_Quigleone]

I'd like to be able to establish trade posts of a kind in the territory of non-european countries. EG I reach India and have favourable relations with Vijyanagar, they allow me to set up a trade post in one of their provinces (they still own the province!), and we each get various benefits from the relationship.

Likewise, Holland could get a trade post in Nagasaki, to get access to Japanese markets, etc etc