I don't think anyone would be tired of your dev diary videos. It's way more entertaining going through them with your insight of historical events, etc. than reading them myself. So I just want to say: Thank you, it's highly appreciated.
You're forgetting about the control system in EU5. Here, you only have partial control even over your lands near the capital. And over lands on another continent, you'll have zero control. That's why colonial nations will make sense-they will at least provide some income from the colonized lands.
@@LudietHistoria How much are we betting that it will be literally IMPOSSIBLE to get over 1 percent control in a location an ocean away without certain buildings/advances that can't be unlocked until age of enlightenment or even revolutions? "Sure, you can keep central control over all of the new world. Just be aware that it'll be a net-negative on your treasury for the next 200 years, your choice." Have a colonial nation and reap some profits (maybe major ones like Spain did if you get it right), or don't and enjoy your black hole of a colony that will help you military but nothing else. I GUARANTEE you that will be the trade-off.
It's absolutely fair to consider Russia a colonial empire. Just because their colonies weren't separated by sea doesn't mean they weren't treated like colonies.
Maybe the reason to have a colonial nation is the "local autonomy" mechanic. The one where distance and access to your captial matters. And if you own the colony yourself they province is stuck at like 95% autonomy, but a colonial nation with a local capital will have 0 autonomy. I think I like that. That's a natural and historical reason to form colonial nations.
Power projection? This clearly proves this is a new franchise based on the modern day world, colonies is probably a code name for military bases or neo-colonialism. The map? That's clearly just showcasing a library feature in the game where you can view historical maps.
Power Projection was literally a thing in EU5. And no, it's not some "library feature" at all. They wouldn't put out all these Tinto Maps and put in all this effort making it perfect for the specific date if they weren't going to use that as their main starting date.
When you see the real historical extent of a culture that's been wiped out over the centuries and think it's "crazy" Infact I think the thumbnail shows Sweden colonizing them lmao
@@kopperbottom2803 I think EU4 colonisation is a ton of fun though it has flaws for sure. It's way too biased with the historical colonisers always getting 90%+ of the new world. If they reduce that bias (a lot please) then they could also make colonial nations stronger without breaking the game. To be fair, they would already be a lot stronger if the combat AI was better.
Kleptomanians???? I didn't see any romanians up there :P Again fun breakdown I only hope that it will be possible to form or play as Finland, one of my favorite tags in EU4 fun missions and unsigeable capitol if you move it to Viipuri
So no Tuscan Mexico? Unfair Tuscan Guyana nearly happened. It should remain as the eu4’s negative opinion thingy instead of being blocked off. The French still violated the treaty and were Catholic.
I think colonial nations will be worth it in very far away parts of the map, where establishing control otherwise would be very difficult due to distance to capital (e.g. in NA as the Brits or in SEA as the Dutch), even with heavy investments in infrastructure, whereas they won't be worth it in nearby regions (e.g. Karelia as Sweden). They will also make it easier to establish a presence faster due to colonising by themselves. At least that's what I think they should be balanced around. I think it is quite realistic to have to delegate power to others in order to control the whole world. World conquest through direct control should be very difficult in EU5.
I feel like it doesn't make sense for colonial nations to give you manpower. Maybe, once they get big enough they should help expand your population? I'm going to have to slap this on the forum
I don't think it does, to be honest. At least not for the biggest colonial empire in the timeline of the game (Spain). If anything, the colonies were always a drain on manpower for their continental wars, not the opposite.
@Agora0000 This. Colonies didn't start contributing to wars until AFTER the time period, during the time period you needed extra troops just to keep peace and order in the colonies instead which diverted resources away from the mainland
Irl colonial powers did use native mercenaries since they couldnt bring their own troops overseas, or they worked with native nobles and neighboring rulers to get troops
Another reason "why colonize?" aside from more map painting and new rescources is that pops might leave overcrowded (or "at capacity") province. I think i remember that pop-capacity (or food limitations) being mentioned in a earlier diary. Since they specifically mentioned the pops not "showing up out of nowhere" this seems highly relevant. So its a way to diversify and optimise your population a bit aswell ^^
"It's a dumb system that doesn't reap any rewards in the long run and by the end everybody in the new world rebels". I mean kinda? Just ask George III.
How do people not see that Russia (imperial name to clam dominion over a giant region where Rus people lived) There were multiple powers that had Rus ppl just that Russia claimed control and then forced them to surrender. Russia then went onto have whats practically colonial regions.
I wonder if Paradox is going to add a genocide mechanic. It'd be a bold move considering the goobers that would no doubt come out of the woodwork claiming all sorts of nefarious intent by the devs, but on the other hand it'd be hard to represent historical events without one
13:30 France did just that with their France Antarctique (Rio de Janeiro). King Francis I even said something like "I don't know what treaty is this which I wasn't invited". Based on that I hope you can break a treaty if you don't agree with it, creating casus belli or something.
I suspect that actually owning colonial provinces, especially in the Americas, would be somewhat difficult, like, historically speaking directly controlling those places was difficult due to technology and distances, and that is why they had some sort of autonomy. I'd imagine that there would be a hard barrier control-wise, to limit the amount of directly owned colonial provinces and somewhat force you to establish colonial nations, also I think there would be ways either through subject interactions, international organizations or so on to make the colonial nations provide more to their overlords.
I guess you forget the comments, because in the comments there was said that technically Yuan could colonize France! And thats gonna be an awesome dynamic, because if your power project is high enough you could start to colonize india than just conquer it
Yeah but that’s ahistorical irl india and China were taken threw war not Colonialism. The natives had armies on pair (and in India sometimes superior) to the European ones.
@@Boretheory Not exactly, south of Kalkutta the brits start with a colony and later they fought for the land, but often they slaughtered the People to start colonies The same thing was in Indonesia or in a easier way of course australia and north america
Your most important resources seems to be pops. In the beginning the strongest strategies will be about getting as much pops (with your culture and religion) as possible.
The 1000 pops with accepted culture and main religion requirement is awesome. It means that you can, for instance accept the native culture and convert them and send your pops and instantly after having 1000 of your religion you get the location. Castile's real life strategy was literally this, they said to many tribes to baptise and recognise the crown and Castile would defend them from their neighbours. They kept their languages, land and traditions for the most part but joined the realm. This can be huge in Africa and generally anywhere uncolonised in the Old World. Also, the Treaty of Tordesillas mechanic should just make Catholic pops unable to move into another countries charter, so you could only colonise by having the local pops be an accepted culture and converted to Catholic faith but your homeland pops wouldn't risk excomunication. If done by hard coding it in some way it would hinder local nations' ability to colonise their culture after converting to Catholicism, think of Kongo converting and being barred to compete with Portugal for Kongolese Catholic areas because Portugal called dibs.
@Ludi From what I get, the biggest benefit of colonies will be the goods? I can imagine being in control of the majority of all lets say tobacco, sugar and coffee imports to the old world will make you a LOT of money, since everyone in europe will want those and the supply will never meet the huge demand thus making you "hella stacks" as the cool kids say
I am praying to God that Resources are cooler in EUV and you get nationwide capital surplus bonuses for owning a bunch of a resource like in Imperator: Rome, or even locking some types of units behind those resources (elephants for elephant cav, camels for camelry, metals for cannons, etc). Resources in EUIV feel like they don't do anything except give you money right now, unless of course you own 25% of their production world-wide which is an INSANE demand for a minor bonus. it makes me sad, I want for my country and playstyle to be at least partially determined by the resources I own, that is the coolest and most realistic thing you can do, and adds a whole different layer to gameplay. Like why would you have access to cannons if you have ZERO Copper or Iron? you'd have to hire mercs for it, it just makes sense.
Since you can choose between governing the colony yourself or giving it away to a CN, I don't quite understand why they would make them non-annexable. The two options exist - but only at one point. Why not make the decision available throughout the game by offering an annexation option?
The fact that vassal states give gold to their overlord is weird. Vassal owned their lord military service, while their lord owed them protection. Money wasn't factored in these relations.
Talking about colonization I really wish Paradox looked into the Amazonian archeological discoveries. It seems there was really advanced tribes there when the europeans arrived but which collapsed under smallpox and was engulfed by the jungle before their colonizaiton.
Paradox should add a rebellion sytem. I dont like that nation only get fewer and fewer atleast for the early part like ck3 partition , rebellion will be not rare
Technically, it's not historically accurate to have a same religion requirement in colonization mechanics. There can be colonial provinces that you colonize but don't follow your religion or culture; such as exile, missionary or slave colonies.
I hope you can get a claim or modify treaties to be able to colonise yourself (per war or diplo). Would be cool if say Norway could negotiate with sweden to be able to colonise lappland also
It’s not historical at all. Colonial nations were historically their own countries. For example New Spain was quite literally a kingdom under the Spanish monarchy ruled by a viceroy.
I feel like some advances should not be “age” dependent… like if i have an unusually early colony in the new world i should still be able to have access to colony support mechanics Also colonies not being annex-able is very restrictive. They could make it possible but considerable more costly at least…
The current system they have that colonial control relies on pops of an accepted ethnicity, and importantly, of the state religion, is one I don't think is accurate at all. The 13 colonies north of Virginia were pretty much all various forms of Protestant predominantly (Puritan -> Congregational, Quaker, Presbyterian, even some Catholics in Maryland, etc.), especially at their colonial inception, not Anglican. To reject the idea that these were valid colonies (particularly in Southern New England where the % of Anglican was the lowest) is actually kinda ludicrous - they were undoubtedly governed by the crown and the game should allow for a scenario like this where a religious minority at home is the majority in a colony. As a caveat, we don't know what the % requirement for adherents of the state religion is still since it fluctuates and we weren't really given a range, so maybe it'll be really low for the British in NA and the 13 colonies can have this religious dynamic respected, but my game intuition tells me it probably won't be below 5%.
as long as i can make a bunch of colonial nations in the sameish spot, im not complaining(map painting, amiright) and if there is a way to see colonial claims ON the map that would be quite neat(similar to how eu4 tribal land looks on the map, obviously changed a bit)
Why not partly link size of navy to power projection? Or even a more interesting idea: have “influence nation” diplomatic action (like eu4) where you use money to influence a nation, and that gives a small power projection boost. Influencing only one nation doest give much, but if you are rich then it can become much more worthwhile? I feel like at least *some* actions the player takes should also affect it
I (in my opinion) see it more anounce at the Gamescom a "European Video Game conférence", i can't see bein annouced at The Game Awards for exemple, and those are the only 2 "main event" where it can be annouced (this year / before the end of the year), unless they do a stream or video on their youtube but you miss so much "projection" without an event... . If its not one of those, then it will be annouced next year... for a launch the same year or 2026...
It should also have the locals initially suffer penalties but give them ton of buffs to pop growth and economy later. To better simulate the colonial struggle and the following rewards
Colonial nations no longer forced by arbitrary regions, some being much larger (hello American East Coast that goes all the way to the Mississippi) making them very unstable in the late game due to how liberty desire is tied to development ? Hurrah !
I wonder if being able to accept other cultures will create some silly things. Like the swedeish colony here, if they accept finnish culture will a large swath of finland suddenly flip to them?
mate is there some way to get paradox do make a distinction between de jure land and actual owned land? so sweden and novgorod can both lay claim to northern scandinavia despite neither actually controlling it directly since it wasn't settled by them
@@LudietHistoriathe Spanish colonies give u gold shipments which is great. Plus after a while they start to do their own wars without your help it should be something like independence desire being low untill one colonial nation stays independent for a while and then every colony under a master gets more independence desire like irl because they see it is possible
This shit sounds like it’s going to be patched in 1.5 or after that because it’s either OP or plain shit Also: genocide in the Carpathian region goes *brrrrr*
Colonizing Treaty of Tordesillas provinces in EU4 nukes your +Opinion with The Papal States and the country who was given the claim, not just a -20 / -25? to Settlers. To be fair, that isn't much of a problem to the player, but it is a little annoying if you're trying to maintain very specific alliances or use the Curia mechanics, since they'll hate you and break alliance or obliterate your Papal Influence income because the % bonus for the Pope liking you is gone. Like I said, its not a super big deal, but there are more consequences than just a Settlers decrease.
I’m assuming Paradox, a Swedish company, is trying not to downplay Sami history, and how Norway, Sweden, Finland (under Swedish or Russian management for most of this time), and Russia, effectively colonized and commited genocide against them. Keep in mind that Paradox is a company based in Stockholm, which is far enough removed from historical Sami territory to not personally affect us, and cosmopolitan enough for us to be willing to admit to our historical sins. Generally, I don’t think most Swedes living down South really mind admitting to our historical crimes. However, there’s a whole issue where the left wing parties, that would normally be in favour of ignoring nationalist sentiment in favour of reconciling with minorities, have a lot of support up north, meaning they can’t really afford to bring up Sami issues too loudly, lest they lose some of that support. That’s more of a political quagmire though, and not something a company located in Stockholm would be affected by. As a Swede, I’m glad that people abroad are talking about this, because it means we’ll have more pressure in favour of preserving this unique and endangered culture and language that exists within our borders.
Not a huge fan that we're sticking with the whole state-run model of colonies. It's very... Spanish? Many colonies (although a minority to be sure) were made by just some folks. Many more were companies that had a crop in mind and basically asked permission (Virginia, Carolina, etc. Why do you think they have these names? It was because company heads thought that the crown would be impressed if they named an area after the ruler...). So I think actually your estates should play a big role in colonies. Peasant-folk and merchant-class being the primary colonial expanders.
I question about administration and army,will it have like a full personnalisation of the type of government and army with different unit based on regions with ligjt,heavy cavalry infantry for france,italia ,iberia,russia,byzance... All different
Why should you be able to annex colonial nations? Doesn't make sense at all to found an independent nation very far from your home nation, and just be able to annex it. You are forgetting this game is played before the telegraph. Directly governing a whole country across the ocean is extremely unrealistic and moves EU towards a medieval arcade game, rather than a medieval grand strategy game.
I honestly understand the reason why they want to make colonial nations un-annexable since it would be unrealistic to enter the age of reformation, have said nations starting developping independantist stances and just clicking the "integrate" button to stop them from seeking independance (or at least weaken them) There are personnaly 2 things I would like Paradox to adress tho : - First, outside of pure gameplay (like low province control), will there be incentives or even quasi-obligations to form colonial nations in parts of the world where it would be the most logical, especially in areas far from homeland regrouping a buttload of colonized provinces (for example I wouldn't like Spain to be able to avoid forming its various american viceroyalties which was a necessary step to assert dominance over the continent) - Second, how exactly would the "british-style" colonies work ? Because unlike Spain and France, Britain had a somewhat more liberal view for its colonies, with for example each of the 13 colonies being an independant polity from the others and each having an individual "constitution" (some colonies even being considered to be fully democratic due to this) up until the establishment of the continental congress to oppose the british authority
Tired of EU5 dev diaries? Take a break while watching me colonize africa as belgium ua-cam.com/video/QSYaWSIqTno/v-deo.html
I don't think anyone would be tired of your dev diary videos. It's way more entertaining going through them with your insight of historical events, etc. than reading them myself. So I just want to say: Thank you, it's highly appreciated.
EU is dead, long live Projektus Ceasar!
I hope that cultural acceptance would more look like a ck3 system than an eu4 or Vicky III
I read them myself but then also watch your videos for your insight and knowledge. Not boring at all!
😅❤c1
1.oq❤21❤0@@umbra5873
You're forgetting about the control system in EU5. Here, you only have partial control even over your lands near the capital. And over lands on another continent, you'll have zero control. That's why colonial nations will make sense-they will at least provide some income from the colonized lands.
did I not mention you can get control from buildings in the video?
even then, we dont know how much control ... could be +2,5 controll from buildings and - 50 from distance ;)
@@LudietHistoria How much are we betting that it will be literally IMPOSSIBLE to get over 1 percent control in a location an ocean away without certain buildings/advances that can't be unlocked until age of enlightenment or even revolutions? "Sure, you can keep central control over all of the new world. Just be aware that it'll be a net-negative on your treasury for the next 200 years, your choice." Have a colonial nation and reap some profits (maybe major ones like Spain did if you get it right), or don't and enjoy your black hole of a colony that will help you military but nothing else. I GUARANTEE you that will be the trade-off.
But there should be a possibility of annexing them in later ages, with a possibility of war and additional costs but still
he literally addressed this argument in the video
It's absolutely fair to consider Russia a colonial empire. Just because their colonies weren't separated by sea doesn't mean they weren't treated like colonies.
It wasnt.
Nah
Russia did colonize Alaska, but sold it to the US.
@@magnusnilsson9792 No they did not kill the natives there like the Angloid Sûbhūmæñš so it was Not colonialization.
@@mohammedabdul4832 You trolling or what? The Russians displaced and murdered natives wherever they went. Ever heard of the Circassians?
Ooo lets go racism simulator
its not racism if i colonize EVERYONE!
me and the boys deporting minorities for "colonial stuff" reasons
Nobody can blame you, if you wipe out evidences of your warcrimes
@@QasqaZholno one can speak up if there’s no one to speak up
Can’t wait to make Africa a good place
Maybe the reason to have a colonial nation is the "local autonomy" mechanic. The one where distance and access to your captial matters. And if you own the colony yourself they province is stuck at like 95% autonomy, but a colonial nation with a local capital will have 0 autonomy.
I think I like that. That's a natural and historical reason to form colonial nations.
did you not watch the whole video?
He did not @@nevesbird7880
Power projection? This clearly proves this is a new franchise based on the modern day world, colonies is probably a code name for military bases or neo-colonialism.
The map? That's clearly just showcasing a library feature in the game where you can view historical maps.
Could be March of the Eagles II as well
Nah, the example used with Sweden colonizing parts of Finland is 100% historical
Hearts of Iron XI: Cold War Hot
Power Projection was literally a thing in EU5. And no, it's not some "library feature" at all. They wouldn't put out all these Tinto Maps and put in all this effort making it perfect for the specific date if they weren't going to use that as their main starting date.
One thing I really like about "Hearts of Iron 5" is that we are going to get the entire medieval experience
Austrian painter : (does his own things)
Genghis Khan & Tamerlane : "amateur"
14:12 Actually, that culture is situated in Romania
As part Sapmi, that thumbnail is crazy
When you see the real historical extent of a culture that's been wiped out over the centuries and think it's "crazy"
Infact I think the thumbnail shows Sweden colonizing them lmao
@jackdaniels4975 thats why i said its crazy, cus my people getting "genoci**d" is in the thumbnail. But I still se the humorous part about it.
Maybe colonial possessions will be useful the way they are in Vic 3: Access to goods that grow your economy and are taxable.
Also control of the markets through owning important harbors.
the thumbnail 💀
Samibros... im scared
Lüdi .. not everything in Eu4 is bad... let them copy the good stuff ;)
Thank you! I was about to say there not that bad the old colonies, plus other then the speed of their growth its pretty realistic idk
@@kopperbottom2803 I think EU4 colonisation is a ton of fun though it has flaws for sure. It's way too biased with the historical colonisers always getting 90%+ of the new world. If they reduce that bias (a lot please) then they could also make colonial nations stronger without breaking the game. To be fair, they would already be a lot stronger if the combat AI was better.
@@cinaralin that’s very true
It's be funny as heck if the community would just call it PC Game (Project Caesar Game) after release
Johan says that you can't colonize other tags land if they are that tag's religion is in the same religion group as yours(rip Lithuania)
Kleptomanians???? I didn't see any romanians up there :P
Again fun breakdown I only hope that it will be possible to form or play as Finland, one of my favorite tags in EU4 fun missions and unsigeable capitol if you move it to Viipuri
So no Tuscan Mexico? Unfair Tuscan Guyana nearly happened. It should remain as the eu4’s negative opinion thingy instead of being blocked off. The French still violated the treaty and were Catholic.
I think colonial nations will be worth it in very far away parts of the map, where establishing control otherwise would be very difficult due to distance to capital (e.g. in NA as the Brits or in SEA as the Dutch), even with heavy investments in infrastructure, whereas they won't be worth it in nearby regions (e.g. Karelia as Sweden). They will also make it easier to establish a presence faster due to colonising by themselves. At least that's what I think they should be balanced around.
I think it is quite realistic to have to delegate power to others in order to control the whole world. World conquest through direct control should be very difficult in EU5.
I feel like it doesn't make sense for colonial nations to give you manpower. Maybe, once they get big enough they should help expand your population? I'm going to have to slap this on the forum
I don't think it does, to be honest. At least not for the biggest colonial empire in the timeline of the game (Spain). If anything, the colonies were always a drain on manpower for their continental wars, not the opposite.
@Agora0000 This.
Colonies didn't start contributing to wars until AFTER the time period, during the time period you needed extra troops just to keep peace and order in the colonies instead which diverted resources away from the mainland
@@sephikong8323Meanwhile the kids working the mines of Potosi:
Yeah Britain fielding 500k armies due to colonial manpower makes no sense at any point before the 1850s.
Irl colonial powers did use native mercenaries since they couldnt bring their own troops overseas, or they worked with native nobles and neighboring rulers to get troops
Another reason "why colonize?" aside from more map painting and new rescources is that pops might leave overcrowded (or "at capacity") province.
I think i remember that pop-capacity (or food limitations) being mentioned in a earlier diary. Since they specifically mentioned the pops not "showing up out of nowhere" this seems highly relevant. So its a way to diversify and optimise your population a bit aswell ^^
"It's a dumb system that doesn't reap any rewards in the long run and by the end everybody in the new world rebels". I mean kinda? Just ask George III.
Or Ferdinand VII, who literally lost 95% of the Spanish Empire during his reign
not tryna be that guy, but tinto talks are the best birthday present a guy could ask for
Same we must be Birthday comrades
How do people not see that Russia (imperial name to clam dominion over a giant region where Rus people lived)
There were multiple powers that had Rus ppl just that Russia claimed control and then forced them to surrender.
Russia then went onto have whats practically colonial regions.
I wonder if Paradox is going to add a genocide mechanic. It'd be a bold move considering the goobers that would no doubt come out of the woodwork claiming all sorts of nefarious intent by the devs, but on the other hand it'd be hard to represent historical events without one
Eu4 let you do it
Ludi you need to link the goddamn dev diaries😢
MOTHERFUCKER CHECK THE DESCRIPTION. WTF, I KEEP LINKING IT AND GETTING THESE COMMENTS REEE IM BANNING YOU SONS OF KURWAS.
@@LudietHistoria Lubi I am blind pls be tolerant
@@miguelpadeiro762 YOU'RE DEAD TO ME. *puts shades on*
Love you!!!
I weren't really sold on the game until now, but gеn0сidе mechanics definitely make the deal. Count me in, Paradox.
13:30
France did just that with their France Antarctique (Rio de Janeiro). King Francis I even said something like "I don't know what treaty is this which I wasn't invited". Based on that I hope you can break a treaty if you don't agree with it, creating casus belli or something.
I suspect that actually owning colonial provinces, especially in the Americas, would be somewhat difficult, like, historically speaking directly controlling those places was difficult due to technology and distances, and that is why they had some sort of autonomy. I'd imagine that there would be a hard barrier control-wise, to limit the amount of directly owned colonial provinces and somewhat force you to establish colonial nations, also I think there would be ways either through subject interactions, international organizations or so on to make the colonial nations provide more to their overlords.
Historically it was more the lack of manpower than the distance since there were ports in nearly every island from Europe to America and Africa.
I guess you forget the comments, because in the comments there was said that technically Yuan could colonize France! And thats gonna be an awesome dynamic, because if your power project is high enough you could start to colonize india than just conquer it
Yeah but that’s ahistorical irl india and China were taken threw war not Colonialism. The natives had armies on pair (and in India sometimes superior) to the European ones.
@@Boretheory
Not exactly, south of Kalkutta the brits start with a colony and later they fought for the land, but often they slaughtered the People to start colonies
The same thing was in Indonesia or in a easier way of course australia and north america
Your most important resources seems to be pops. In the beginning the strongest strategies will be about getting as much pops (with your culture and religion) as possible.
Hey Ludi, good to see that you're alive, haven't seen you on Parabellum though
Eu teached us exploiting natives is good
Interesting approach to the Stellaris prequel
Ah yes, long live the glorious SAMI Empire
imagine instead of horse cavalry they have reindeer/moose cavalry
The 1000 pops with accepted culture and main religion requirement is awesome. It means that you can, for instance accept the native culture and convert them and send your pops and instantly after having 1000 of your religion you get the location.
Castile's real life strategy was literally this, they said to many tribes to baptise and recognise the crown and Castile would defend them from their neighbours. They kept their languages, land and traditions for the most part but joined the realm.
This can be huge in Africa and generally anywhere uncolonised in the Old World.
Also, the Treaty of Tordesillas mechanic should just make Catholic pops unable to move into another countries charter, so you could only colonise by having the local pops be an accepted culture and converted to Catholic faith but your homeland pops wouldn't risk excomunication. If done by hard coding it in some way it would hinder local nations' ability to colonise their culture after converting to Catholicism, think of Kongo converting and being barred to compete with Portugal for Kongolese Catholic areas because Portugal called dibs.
Cant wait to see what it looks like a few weeks after launch. Will definitely be cautious with it as a launch product.
@Ludi From what I get, the biggest benefit of colonies will be the goods? I can imagine being in control of the majority of all lets say tobacco, sugar and coffee imports to the old world will make you a LOT of money, since everyone in europe will want those and the supply will never meet the huge demand thus making you "hella stacks" as the cool kids say
I was expecting Ludi to go on break this week too as we all know he secretly works for Paradox and has a winter home in Sweden.
Colonizing was one of my favorite thing to do in eu4, so I hope they don't fuck this up
I like the new thumbnail lol
I am praying to God that Resources are cooler in EUV and you get nationwide capital surplus bonuses for owning a bunch of a resource like in Imperator: Rome, or even locking some types of units behind those resources (elephants for elephant cav, camels for camelry, metals for cannons, etc). Resources in EUIV feel like they don't do anything except give you money right now, unless of course you own 25% of their production world-wide which is an INSANE demand for a minor bonus. it makes me sad, I want for my country and playstyle to be at least partially determined by the resources I own, that is the coolest and most realistic thing you can do, and adds a whole different layer to gameplay.
Like why would you have access to cannons if you have ZERO Copper or Iron? you'd have to hire mercs for it, it just makes sense.
Since you can choose between governing the colony yourself or giving it away to a CN, I don't quite understand why they would make them non-annexable. The two options exist - but only at one point. Why not make the decision available throughout the game by offering an annexation option?
The fact that vassal states give gold to their overlord is weird. Vassal owned their lord military service, while their lord owed them protection. Money wasn't factored in these relations.
Talking about colonization I really wish Paradox looked into the Amazonian archeological discoveries. It seems there was really advanced tribes there when the europeans arrived but which collapsed under smallpox and was engulfed by the jungle before their colonizaiton.
Paradox should add a rebellion sytem. I dont like that nation only get fewer and fewer atleast for the early part like ck3 partition , rebellion will be not rare
Colonial growth is heavily affected by distance, colonial nations will likely provide local colonial growth bonuses but much remains to be seen
Technically, it's not historically accurate to have a same religion requirement in colonization mechanics. There can be colonial provinces that you colonize but don't follow your religion or culture; such as exile, missionary or slave colonies.
This new stellaris 3 looks really good
Nah, its time to call it quits on the DLC business model. They purposefully hold back on making a complete game to abuse its customer base.
I agree, we need a full release with added stuff after. But on launch the game MUST have all eu4 stuff
I hope you can get a claim or modify treaties to be able to colonise yourself (per war or diplo). Would be cool if say Norway could negotiate with sweden to be able to colonise lappland also
The lack of abilitiy to annex colonial nations is very unfortunate
It’s not historical at all. Colonial nations were historically their own countries. For example New Spain was quite literally a kingdom under the Spanish monarchy ruled by a viceroy.
@@digiorno1142i was thinking more about Brazil and Portugal
@@Boretheory That is literally one case
this new march of the eagles is looking good
I feel like some advances should not be “age” dependent… like if i have an unusually early colony in the new world i should still be able to have access to colony support mechanics
Also colonies not being annex-able is very restrictive. They could make it possible but considerable more costly at least…
The current system they have that colonial control relies on pops of an accepted ethnicity, and importantly, of the state religion, is one I don't think is accurate at all. The 13 colonies north of Virginia were pretty much all various forms of Protestant predominantly (Puritan -> Congregational, Quaker, Presbyterian, even some Catholics in Maryland, etc.), especially at their colonial inception, not Anglican. To reject the idea that these were valid colonies (particularly in Southern New England where the % of Anglican was the lowest) is actually kinda ludicrous - they were undoubtedly governed by the crown and the game should allow for a scenario like this where a religious minority at home is the majority in a colony.
As a caveat, we don't know what the % requirement for adherents of the state religion is still since it fluctuates and we weren't really given a range, so maybe it'll be really low for the British in NA and the 13 colonies can have this religious dynamic respected, but my game intuition tells me it probably won't be below 5%.
one could almost say Yuan could pass... The Finnishline ;)
eu5 sounds like crusader kings 3 had a kid with eu4
as long as i can make a bunch of colonial nations in the sameish spot, im not complaining(map painting, amiright)
and if there is a way to see colonial claims ON the map that would be quite neat(similar to how eu4 tribal land looks on the map, obviously changed a bit)
Hope they allow you to choose the trade good you will actually have on colonies.
Why not partly link size of navy to power projection? Or even a more interesting idea: have “influence nation” diplomatic action (like eu4) where you use money to influence a nation, and that gives a small power projection boost. Influencing only one nation doest give much, but if you are rich then it can become much more worthwhile?
I feel like at least *some* actions the player takes should also affect it
I (in my opinion) see it more anounce at the Gamescom a "European Video Game conférence", i can't see bein annouced at The Game Awards for exemple, and those are the only 2 "main event" where it can be annouced (this year / before the end of the year), unless they do a stream or video on their youtube but you miss so much "projection" without an event... .
If its not one of those, then it will be annouced next year... for a launch the same year or 2026...
Thumb up if you figured out all of that is the primitive gameplay in Stellaris 2.
The fact that a colony requires 1000 pops means there will be sooo many pops. I hope the problem with that in Stellaris doesn't pop up here.
It should also have the locals initially suffer penalties but give them ton of buffs to pop growth and economy later. To better simulate the colonial struggle and the following rewards
This will become the most played game in the balkans
Colonial nations no longer forced by arbitrary regions, some being much larger (hello American East Coast that goes all the way to the Mississippi) making them very unstable in the late game due to how liberty desire is tied to development ? Hurrah !
The game isn't going to be called EU5 it is going to be called Ludi's Bizarre Adventures.
Will there be any new (yet another last) dlcs for eu4 until eu5 comes ? If yes, I hope colonial nations will be touched
Well, think about it, Colonial Nation Vassal Swarm.
I wonder if being able to accept other cultures will create some silly things.
Like the swedeish colony here, if they accept finnish culture will a large swath of finland suddenly flip to them?
mate is there some way to get paradox do make a distinction between de jure land and actual owned land? so sweden and novgorod can both lay claim to northern scandinavia despite neither actually controlling it directly since it wasn't settled by them
Ming had a chance to colonize Europeans
Isn't it yuan tho in eu5
@@Alex.af.Nordheim Yes, it was Yuan
10:20 colonial nations were the best thing in eu4. 13k income by 1650 from tariffs, hell yea.
aint no way, send me a screenshot on discord, I gotta see this
@@LudietHistoriathe Spanish colonies give u gold shipments which is great. Plus after a while they start to do their own wars without your help it should be something like independence desire being low untill one colonial nation stays independent for a while and then every colony under a master gets more independence desire like irl because they see it is possible
This shit sounds like it’s going to be patched in 1.5 or after that because it’s either OP or plain shit
Also: genocide in the Carpathian region goes *brrrrr*
Plot twist: this is actually Victoria 2.5
Boys and girls I’m scared of what history might bring,
Power Projection? It's clearly Stellaris 2 then, just much earlier start.
Stellaris has Power Projection.
It's Stellaris 2.
Invest into your colonies or vassals on the release? Nahh, that feature will be added in a year or 2 after that)) *Victoria 3 vibes*
Big changes since for some reason there were no natives in EU 4 at all xD
At least this gane does not force you to make colonial nations
colonial nations give less gold than a vassal? thats stupid
Colonizing Treaty of Tordesillas provinces in EU4 nukes your +Opinion with The Papal States and the country who was given the claim, not just a -20 / -25? to Settlers. To be fair, that isn't much of a problem to the player, but it is a little annoying if you're trying to maintain very specific alliances or use the Curia mechanics, since they'll hate you and break alliance or obliterate your Papal Influence income because the % bonus for the Pope liking you is gone. Like I said, its not a super big deal, but there are more consequences than just a Settlers decrease.
Exactly I feel like it shouldn’t prohibit Catholics from colonising
I’m assuming Paradox, a Swedish company, is trying not to downplay Sami history, and how Norway, Sweden, Finland (under Swedish or Russian management for most of this time), and Russia, effectively colonized and commited genocide against them.
Keep in mind that Paradox is a company based in Stockholm, which is far enough removed from historical Sami territory to not personally affect us, and cosmopolitan enough for us to be willing to admit to our historical sins.
Generally, I don’t think most Swedes living down South really mind admitting to our historical crimes.
However, there’s a whole issue where the left wing parties, that would normally be in favour of ignoring nationalist sentiment in favour of reconciling with minorities, have a lot of support up north, meaning they can’t really afford to bring up Sami issues too loudly, lest they lose some of that support.
That’s more of a political quagmire though, and not something a company located in Stockholm would be affected by.
As a Swede, I’m glad that people abroad are talking about this, because it means we’ll have more pressure in favour of preserving this unique and endangered culture and language that exists within our borders.
Russia never genocided them lol
@@mohammedabdul4832 Yes they did mohammed
@@dusk6159 No they didnt
@@dusk6159 your father propably rpd you to much
@@mohammedabdul4832 You're an expert of that Mohammed?
FINNALY ITS ABOUT TO BE DEMON TIME 😈😈😈😈😈
Not a huge fan that we're sticking with the whole state-run model of colonies. It's very... Spanish? Many colonies (although a minority to be sure) were made by just some folks. Many more were companies that had a crop in mind and basically asked permission (Virginia, Carolina, etc. Why do you think they have these names? It was because company heads thought that the crown would be impressed if they named an area after the ruler...). So I think actually your estates should play a big role in colonies. Peasant-folk and merchant-class being the primary colonial expanders.
I question about administration and army,will it have like a full personnalisation of the type of government and army with different unit based on regions with ligjt,heavy cavalry infantry for france,italia ,iberia,russia,byzance... All different
never this early. Love the content.
14:11 "Kleptomanians" you mean Romanians?
Why should you be able to annex colonial nations? Doesn't make sense at all to found an independent nation very far from your home nation, and just be able to annex it. You are forgetting this game is played before the telegraph. Directly governing a whole country across the ocean is extremely unrealistic and moves EU towards a medieval arcade game, rather than a medieval grand strategy game.
I am going to try to reach the new world as china
I wonder if we could play as a colonial nation?
Finally I can free the French from the french
time to fix Anatolia lads!
Sounds like fun!
Why not call locations settlements?
With how small they are, not every location is actually inhabited.
I want Project Caesar now though not EU5
We do a little trolling
I honestly understand the reason why they want to make colonial nations un-annexable since it would be unrealistic to enter the age of reformation, have said nations starting developping independantist stances and just clicking the "integrate" button to stop them from seeking independance (or at least weaken them)
There are personnaly 2 things I would like Paradox to adress tho :
- First, outside of pure gameplay (like low province control), will there be incentives or even quasi-obligations to form colonial nations in parts of the world where it would be the most logical, especially in areas far from homeland regrouping a buttload of colonized provinces (for example I wouldn't like Spain to be able to avoid forming its various american viceroyalties which was a necessary step to assert dominance over the continent)
- Second, how exactly would the "british-style" colonies work ? Because unlike Spain and France, Britain had a somewhat more liberal view for its colonies, with for example each of the 13 colonies being an independant polity from the others and each having an individual "constitution" (some colonies even being considered to be fully democratic due to this) up until the establishment of the continental congress to oppose the british authority
yup
7:11 that's only true for colonizers,not sure why you're talking about Ottomans and Byzantium
New EU youtube channel is a push to try have a cheap advertising tool