- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,305
Depends what colonization is suposed to represent, really. And there's an issue of game mechanics as well.
If you assume colonization to be only cities, then yes, it's much too quick. But then, there's nothing to represent the other ways in which the west established their control of areas - forts, missions, and large-scale trading posts. They should be separate mechanisms, but so long as there's only one colonization mechanism, then they absolutely should be considered part of that mechanism.
And in that light, I'm not sure colonization develops that much too quickly. The French network went from Montreal being the westmost extent around 1665 (and a threatened one at that) to trading posts at lake Nipigon and on the Mississippi by around 1700. Colonization certain starts too early, but once it gets started, it should not be THAT hard to extend your control over a sizeable area. Similarly the British trade/fort network underwent rapid expansion after the end of the wars with New France, going from Manitoba (where they had taken over various French outposts and settlements) all the way to British Columbia, along two separate routes (Saskatchewan river route, including the future Edmonton, and Athabasca/Peace river route, including the futures Fort Chipewyan and Fort St. John).
Now the way natives are treated, I agree that's completely shameful.
It is rather interesting that trade posts are one of the few items from EU2 that isn't present in EU3. I'm not sure quite what the decision behind that was.
Playing as muscovy, when fighting the golden horde, is it best to colonize a lot of provinces and wait for them to grow as the war drags on, or to grab them one at a time and build it up?
I'd also be inclined to grab them one at a time, unless someone else was also threatening to grab them. It'll get you new land quicker, and strain your economy less with upkeep, in addition to the benefits Mosher mentioned.