Talk:Colonies
From EU3 Wiki
Two remarks here. First, not everybody plays very hard like we do, would be nice to include info about the difficulty setting, AFAIR it makes colonization 10000 times easier. Second, colony would not become a core province after 25 years of the first colonization if it was destroyed by natives or seized by armies in the meantime. You need 25 years of continous colonists presence to get a core there.
One more thing. There is a bug in 1.1. Natives don't get added to the colony population if it reaches 1000 by natural growth. It works only when you go over a 1000 of inhabitants using a colonist. I would find a topic in the forums about that if there was a search function, i know i've seen at least one... --Delra 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- How do you mean about the difficulty setting? The only effect it has on colonization (according to static_modifiers.txt at least) is the cost - something that is already covered in the article. I'm not certain about the other things. Nordenadler 23:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- My mistake, thought it also improves the colonisation chance. Well, it certainly doesn't.--Delra 00:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good catch on the destroyed/siezed reset, Delra. I knew that, but just forgot to mention it; I'll add it in. :) JMorse 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Size vs. numbers
One of the thing that perplexes me is... Size vs Number. The manual suggests that I should develop 3-4 colonies max at the same time. However, I don't see why I would do that. (There's no cost difference or placement chance associated to # of colonies you have). I think it's better to send 1 colonist to each (rich) province, in order to prevent other countries taking that province. (provided that I am strong enough to defend that province). Any thoughts?
- You need cities to support and defend the colonies. Apart from that I agree that it makes sense to grab the richer provinces with a small colony first to develop later. I haven't really tested placement chance/cost related to number of colonies. Can you confirm that there si no difference based on tests? --Havard 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes I'm 100% positive on that one.
- If the country you are playing is at least of a medium size, it is far better to take the whole region you want to control in future and than raise all the colonies slowly. Small guys need colonial manpower quickly, for them it's better to get one or two colonies quickly than to cover whole Antilles (they can hardly afford taking those anyway). But if the country doesn't need the manpower it can go for quantity and thus gain cores on those provinces more quickly. This way you gain a significant "core area" early, can field huge fleets and armies there and also earn a lot from taxes. South America in one colour looks much better than in 20, too. If we are to advise something here i would tell little guys to get one colony, then second one and so on and big guys to cover huge area and then develop it slowly. Any counterarguments? --Delra 20:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- That makes sense Delra, I play a big country, yet it's still hard to cover all the colonization expenses with yearly income without minting. I can imagine it would be impossible to go "cover whole region with 1 colonist each" approach with a smaller nation.
- Natives play a huge role in your planning activities, too, regardless of whether you're large or small. If you're trying to colonize a region whose provinces are teeming with hostile natives, one good tactic is to blanket the area just to stake your claim, but focus on protecting and building just one into a city at the start. (Whenever you've got spare colonists and cash, you can go ahead and send them to the adjacent areas, as long as you keep a colonist in your pocket for when it's time to hit the province you're focusing on.) Nothing in this game hurts worse, I think, than seeing a colony of 700 get wiped out by natives; if you've only got 100 there, it's not nearly as painful. JMorse 08:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tiny Clarification
When folks say "colony level", they're talking about hundreds of colonists, right? e.g. 1-100 colonists is level 1, 101-200 is level 2, etc? This term is also used on the Reputation (BB) page. If someone could clarify this on the article page, then delete this section I just made, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! - RedKnight7 14:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know:
- 0-199 == 1
- 200-299 == 2
... Sneezinglion 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
