AHistorical Colonisation

[montgomeryjlion]

First, the game is awesome and I am thoroughly enjoying it.

However, the main problem that I see is that is just too damn easy to Colonize Africa right from the start. Historically, no one really tried, past what is already on the map, and a few minor changes, to do any real colonization until the 1880s. The enclaves that existed in 1850 were almost unchanged up until that point.
In every game I've played, and see others discuss, we are going crazy, especially the French Prussians and S-P (Haven't seen anybody really discuss a GB game, but I'd imagine they're worse, if anything) in our colonization.
By 1853 as France, I've got most of the African coast all around already penetrated with colonies beginning to form from the original nuclei. I expect by 1860 I'll have Africa pretty much a French sea of Blue.
Don't get me wrong, the colonization system in this game is FAR superior to Vicky I (never played II).

I do believe, however, that there should be almost no colonial decisions available until the 1880s and what is available should only be able to be played on existing areas of control or adjacent to them. The few exceptions (The British purchase of Accra, for example) could be handled by events.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear others comments on this...

As an African by birth, I'm kind of partial to the place and want to see it treated right
Thanks,

[caranorn]

First, the game is awesome and I am thoroughly enjoying it.

However, the main problem that I see is that is just too damn easy to Colonize Africa right from the start. Historically, no one really tried, past what is already on the map, and a few minor changes, to do any real colonization until the 1880s. The enclaves that existed in 1850 were almost unchanged up until that point.
In every game I've played, and see others discuss, we are going crazy, especially the French Prussians and S-P (Haven't seen anybody really discuss a GB game, but I'd imagine they're worse, if anything) in our colonization.
By 1853 as France, I've got most of the African coast all around already penetrated with colonies beginning to form from the original nuclei. I expect by 1860 I'll have Africa pretty much a French sea of Blue.
Don't get me wrong, the colonization system in this game is FAR superior to Vicky I (never played II).

I do believe, however, that there should be almost no colonial decisions available until the 1880s and what is available should only be able to be played on existing areas of control or adjacent to them. The few exceptions (The British purchase of Accra, for example) could be handled by events.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear others comments on this...

As an African by birth, I'm kind of partial to the place and want to see it treated right
Thanks,

I think I'll have to largely agree with you. I've played Belgium a bit under both open-beta versions and have been able to make much more progress than seems reasonable. Though I'm fully aware that Belgium at least won't be able to go beyond 35 CP (or so) in any area before the 1880's. Simply because the necessary buildings won't be unlocked before then. Even then I have good reasons as a player to try and invest in the Congo (much needed resources that are not to be found in Belgium, and of course Prestige). I expect at some point the game would actually become boring as exploration of Africa's interior is completed and most attractive SoI are up to that 35 CP. That is assuming nothing else would come up to make things interesting elsewhere...

Maybe colonial success should be lower, or risk of revolt higher (not that I'm aware of much risk in the Congo)? Or maybe costs higher?

Though I should note that the ai doesn't seem to be anywhere as active colonising (anywhere) than human players. So whatever is done to imrpove this aspect of the game might require an options box to give the ai a slight edge over human players...

[marcusjm]

As long as we don't see any Bhutanese Battleships .

[caranorn]

As long as we don't see any Bhutanese Battleships .

Why? If Bhutan manages to colonise Plymouth it should be allowed to build dreadnaughts whenever it wishes to do so!

:-D

[PhilThib]

Well, we could trim down a lot the colonial force pools, this is easy to do...so I suggest you give us a list of what you think is the optimum number of colonial decisions for each power in the game for 1850-1875 for example, then post 1875 (and I'll script the event)

For instance, we did that already for Prussia or Italy: there are quite a few decisions they don't start with, or in very limited numbers...

[montgomeryjlion]

Unfortunately, the Prussia games I've seen STILL have Prussia making massive colonial empires.

So, again, short of existing colonies, I would give EVERYBODY essentially 0 colonial decisions until 1875 or so.

Because there was no colonial activity going on in the world until about 1875 other than consolidating existing colonies.

There were a few minor exceptions (British Asante wars, Spain annexing Spanish Sahara are two I can think of) but essentially nothing.

So, maybe just give decisions that are playable on areas with already existing CP BUT remove the stub CP already existing for countries (All the 5 CP places)
Leave the SOI, but remove the CP. So, France could play around in Algeria and a little bit in Senegal, the British in South Africa, etc. but just building up the colony, not expanding it, because they weren't expanded.

Make the whole African coast unexplored until then, with the exception of the colonies. Maybe create events giving "footholds" for countries.
But most colonies were expanded from previous stubs.

I am not a professional historian but I am a native African and I've studied African history extensively.

The bad part of this proposal is that it does detract from the "fun" part of the game prior to 1880. Most countries will have little to do for long periods.

I guess that's why we need the 1880 scenario ASAP

[hgilmer]

While the op is probably right about Africa, I'm finding it almost impossible to get the U.S. Western territories to the point of statehood.

I got lucky and Minnesota became a protectorate or something by an event.

Right now, I'm at war with the Cherokees by a declaration. I have taken every Cherokee region including their capital region. I've destroyed every unit they have. And yet, 5-6 turns now, my NM keeps going down, and they don't seem to want to surrender.

[ohms_law]

Whenever these things come up, my thinking is always the same: why didn't Belgium, Germany, S-P/Italy, etc... colonize anywhere until the 1880's?

If the reason for that was just that they had priorities elsewhere, then a player (or the AI) should be able to choose the "ahistorical" route and be able to colonize early. Otherwise, if there was a real factor in this, then that should be a component of the game (wasn't religion the real determinant, here? Protestant vs. Catholic, basically? Or some similar sociological factor...).

I'm not a supporter of using scripting, which I see as a crowbar approach (no one did this before YYYY date, so no one is allowed to in game until this script fires, or some such thing). That "solution" is so artificial, and it pulls the player(s) out of the game world, in my opinion (in the movie/television world, they call that "suspension of disbelief"). I'm all for as much historical accuracy as possible, but it should be natural to make the same decisions as were made historically where those decisions are obvious, and easy to make different choices then were made historically where possible.

As an example, I'd point to the USA. It should be possible for the US to colonize Africa. The reason that a player wouldn't would be that they need to finish colonizing the Western portion of North America. If they choose to try claiming Africa and colonizing it, that should lead to all sorts of problems. British interest in taking more of North America for Canada. Belgian and German hostility towards the US. French hostility, as well. It should be more expensive for the US to colonize Africa (why would Americans want to move to Africa when there's a all of that empty territory west of the Mississippi to get rich from?). There's a sort of calculus that shou;d be involved here, is all.

[montgomeryjlion]

I agree that you don't want to overscript things and want to give he players options. Otherwise, what's the point? Just let the AI play it out.
Now, wouldn't that be an exciting game

Having said that, I think it's false to say countries didn't colonize Africa until the 1880s because they chose not to. There were very good reasons why they did not, and good reasons to start when they did.

Again, my preference would just be to make it much more difficult, not impossible. If countries are willing to make the choice, go for it.

Also, I somebody on Paradox made the very good suggestion to give the option to allow colonization to be historical or ahistorical as is done with other options.

I think it would be great fun to have a multiplayer game with a race for Africa.

Part of the issue is that the AI is not trying at all to colonize as it is so there is basically no competition for a player.

[ohms_law]

Just to be clear, in reply to "I think it's false to say countries didn't colonize Africa until the 1880s because they chose not to." I wasn't trying to make any factual statements in my post above. I'm not sure what the reasons were that European nations didn't colonize Africa in the 1860's, but I'm fairly certain that there were good reasons.

my only point was that I'd rather see those reasons modeled in the game, rather then there simply being a rule saying that nobody can try colonizing Africa until the 1880's. Which seems to be a point that many people (yourself included) seem to agree with.

Oh, and I agree completely with the observation that the AI doesn't seem willing to colonize, and that it's an issue which should be addressed.

[marcusjm]

Well at least some constraints should be added. Remember that US rather seemed to support liberation rathet than colonization,

[ohms_law]

Constraints such as... what?

I don't follow the comment (fragment?) about the US either. Did you press the post button when you intended to press the preview/go advanced button, perhaps?

[montgomeryjlion]

We could get into a historians spiff here but...
Just to clarify, I don't believe the US had any interest in "Liberation".
Liberia was a way to get rid of some free blacks. They established their own oligarchy that was supported, slightly, but US business interests.
I can see what-if scenarios where the US would colonize Africa in the 1880s-1890s. I would consider it very doubtful but, hey, isn't that what gaming is all about, playing with what-if scenarios?

It would probably have come down to a Pacific/Atlantic issue with, for example, the British grabbing Hawaii, the Russians not selling Alaska (Or selling it to the British) so the Americans look elsewhere....

[marcusjm]

Constraints such as... what?

I don't follow the comment (fragment?) about the US either. Did you press the post button when you intended to press the preview/go advanced button, perhaps?

I mean that colonization would be against the ideas of the Republic.

[caranorn]

I mean that colonization would be against the ideas of the Republic.

Certainly not against the practical application of that Republic. Manifest Destiny, Liberia, Hawaii, Samoa, Cuba, Porto Rico, Philippines and I'm sure I missed some that belong to that list...

[marcusjm]

We could get into a historians spiff here but...
Just to clarify, I don't believe the US had any interest in "Liberation".
Liberia was a way to get rid of some free blacks. They established their own oligarchy that was supported, slightly, but US business interests.
I can see what-if scenarios where the US would colonize Africa in the 1880s-1890s. I would consider it very doubtful but, hey, isn't that what gaming is all about, playing with what-if scenarios?

It would probably have come down to a Pacific/Atlantic issue with, for example, the British grabbing Hawaii, the Russians not selling Alaska (Or selling it to the British) so the Americans look elsewhere....

If the American Revolutions wasn't about revolution what else wad it about?

I see Hawai as more about strategic importance rather than colonial ambitions. It is after all considered a core US state now.

[marcusjm]

Certainly not against the practical application of that Republic. Manifest Destiny, Liberia, Hawaii, Samoa, Cuba, Porto Rico, Philippines and I'm sure I missed some that belong to that list...

Yes but those were about sphere of influence rather than colonial exploitation.

[marcusjm]

I get the idea of going for what if scenarios though.

Maybe Acs could be given more say over these matters!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramble_for_Africa

[caranorn]

Yes but those were about sphere of influence rather than colonial exploitation.

I don't quite get the difference (or what you meant by your post about revolutions). There were many different motivations (sometimes conficting) for colonisation. Among others the US were motivated economically (resources and markets) to do so, but also as cheap living space and indeed also strategic delimitations (American Northwest to secure the road to California). But all in all those at least started out as US colonies (not the original colonies of course ;-) )...

Whether any colonised territories later became parts of the colonising power's national territory shouldn't be an issue here. Else we'd have to consider places like Guadeloupe not to have been colonised, after all it is today an integral part of France...

[vaalen]

Well, we could trim down a lot the colonial force pools, this is easy to do...so I suggest you give us a list of what you think is the optimum number of colonial decisions for each power in the game for 1850-1875 for example, then post 1875 (and I'll script the event)

For instance, we did that already for Prussia or Italy: there are quite a few decisions they don't start with, or in very limited numbers...

I suggest a more historical way to do it. The real reason that it took so long to colonize most of Africa was disease. Europeans had no resistance to many germs, especially yellow fever, and died like flies. The few areas that did not have high disease problems(like south africa), were colonized fairly early.

This could be simulated in the game by giving a very high failure rate to colonial actions in Africa until certain sanitary and medical technologies are discovered, in the late 1870's. There even could be events for depopulation in disease ridden areas prior to the discovery of these techs.

Since this is what actually happened, I suggest following history in this regard.

[marcusjm]

I refered to the principles of American Revolution, you know the detail about freedom .

My short answer is that African colonisation shouldn't really happen earlier tha 75 or so. The scramble should happen roughly when it did so historically, witj some what if.

I agree 100 % with vaalen but I also think my point was lost. I offered some explanations I have heard from history students but it was not my main point.

You should be able to divert from historical paths but there should be the same constraints that existed in real life, whatever they may have been. Diverting should cost you, that is wha I meant.

[StephenT]

1850 was pretty much the date at which exploration of inner Africa became possible, thanks to the discovery of quinine. Livingstone was able to make extended journeys into the interior during the 50s.

The thing is, the colonisation of Africa never did make much sense from an economic or political point of view. It was a craze, like Dutch tulip mania; suddenly the one thing you needed for prestige and to be recognised as a Great Power was to occupy a slice of Africa. I'm not sure there's anything special about the 1880s that made the Scramble happen then rather than any other time - you could even blame it all on Leopold II's ambition and egotism. On the Paradox forum I suggested reducing the prestige gain from colonial holdings in Central Africa down to -10, then having a 'Scramble for Africa' event at some point that would restore the current prestige bonuses.

I refered to the principles of American Revolution, you know the detail about freedom

Yeah, right.

Take up the white man's burden-
Ye dare not stoop to less-
Nor call too loud on Freedom
to cloak your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your Gods and you.

('The United States and the Philippine Islands' by Rudyard Kipling, 1899)

[marcusjm]

I was partly thinking how US often ended up supporting democratic movements in contrast to the European nations.

Like this example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Shuster

This was actually exactly what I meant with my references to the principles of the Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

The reactions to the Boer wars could be worth checking out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_expansion_of_the_United_States

It would be interesting to hear what the general opinion about American exceptionalism is, how does history lessons in school treat the subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

At any rate I believe that any attempt at replicating the British Empire woukd have been met with vocal opposition.

[vaalen]

I was partly thinking how US often ended up supporting democratic movements in contrast to the European nations.

Like this example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan_Shuster

This was actually exactly what I meant with my references to the principles of the Revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Imperialist_League

The reactions to the Boer wars could be worth checking out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_expansion_of_the_United_States

It would be interesting to hear what the general opinion about American exceptionalism is, how does history lessons in school treat the subject?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism

At any rate I believe that any attempt at replicating the British Empire woukd have been met with vocal opposition.

I agree. And People ignore the Monroe Doctrine, which protected the freedom of most of Latin America from the European powers. If not for the protection of the US during this period, it is quite possible that most if not all Latin American countries would have been invaded by colonial powers.

The US actually forced the French to give up their invasion of Mexico, by massing troops on the border after the Civil War and making it clear that the US would go to war to free Mexico, if necessary. The French left. That was done for freedom. The US did not take over Mexico after the French left.

[TheDoctorKing]

While the op is probably right about Africa, I'm finding it almost impossible to get the U.S. Western territories to the point of statehood.

I got lucky and Minnesota became a protectorate or something by an event.

Right now, I'm at war with the Cherokees by a declaration. I have taken every Cherokee region including their capital region. I've destroyed every unit they have. And yet, 5-6 turns now, my NM keeps going down, and they don't seem to want to surrender.

Don't declare war on them. I made that mistake in the PBEM game. The actual preferred method is just to beat them up and gain control of their capital region. Then, you build up your CP in their capital to the point that you can declare them a formal colony, and they become your friends.

Rinse and repeat with the other Indians.

As the USA, you have to have many colonial decisions in order to be able to bring the West into the country as happened historically. I haven't played long enough to judge if the number in the force pool currently is correct but I think it must be close. I hope to be able to push a game up to the 1890s this summer and see.

The USA gets "de jure region" status in some areas around the Caribbean basin, giving it a causus belli against any foreign power that tries to grab anything in that area - thus the intervention or threatened intervention against the French and Maximilian in the Mexican Wars of the Reforma and also threatened intervention in Venezuela against Britain and Germany.

The historical SOI rules keep the USA from developing any colonies in Africa and should also hinder the Italians, Austrians, etc. from doing much of anything at least early on. If you use the option to open the SOI then a player USA might try to have African colonies but the AI will still stick to the more historical areas.