(EU2) Colonies vs. Trading Posts

[Sandman]

Economically speaking, colonies make more money... but they cost about 500 each, not including any improvements. That's a lot of money, considering a manufactory will net you about 80 gold a turn, plus loads of other benefits. Colonies also raise your stability costs, and may need protection as well.

You can improve your colonising efficiency by keeping an explorer or conquistador (or both) in the province when you send the colonist - this lowers the cost and improves the chances. They don't have to stay there while the colonist is moving there, either.

I hope Paradox gives the colony system a change in EU3. Reducing the number of colonists by 90%, but increasing their population value to 1000 would cut back on micro-management,whilst also being more historical. Failures would be handled by inflicting losses on sent colonists; i.e. only 261 of your 1000 colonists managed to survive the journey. Having colonists of different culture and religion would be nice as well.

[Agathon]

Trading Posts never revolt and if you control the COT they can be extremely profitable. In my current game most of N America is covered in my trading posts. The only colonies I have are the gold bearing provinces.

[ravagon]

They mightn't revolt per se but they can still defect in a civil war.

What I really dislike about TP's is the fact that they're just so easy to burn down and that they take up nearly as many colonists to get them up to a reasonable level as you'd need to found a colony (Or at least they used to before the 1000 pop tweak).
They're fine if you're cash-strapped and narrow-minded but if you're a rich, innovative nation then you'd usually want to go for colonies...

[Dinner]

You don't get any taxes or manpower from trading posts plus they are easily destroyed so it's much better to colonize in the long run.

[Qilue]

Depending on nation and date, there's a limit to how many TPs you can place before incuring a penalty to placing more.

From traders.csv

[size=2]
NUMBER OF TRADERS PER YEAR DATABASE;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
PERIOD ;MIN ;NAT ;ENG ;SPA ;FRA ;HAB ;HOL ;VEN ;PRU ;POR ;RUS ;TUR ;SWE ;OMA ;DAN ;USA ;END
1520   ;1   ;1   ;10  ;1   ;20  ;1   ;1   ;5   ;1   ;200 ;5   ;5   ;1   ;10  ;1   ;1;
1560   ;1   ;1   ;25  ;1   ;50  ;1   ;1   ;5   ;1   ;200 ;5   ;100 ;14  ;10  ;5   ;1;
1615   ;1   ;1   ;100 ;100 ;50  ;1   ;200 ;5   ;1   ;150 ;100 ;100 ;10  ;10  ;10  ;1;
1665   ;1   ;1   ;100 ;5   ;50  ;1   ;300 ;5   ;1   ;20  ;100 ;100 ;10  ;10  ;20  ;1;
1700   ;1   ;1   ;200 ;5   ;100 ;1   ;200 ;5   ;5   ;5   ;100 ;10  ;10  ;10  ;20  ;1;
1760   ;1   ;1   ;200 ;5   ;100 ;5   ;100 ;5   ;5   ;5   ;100 ;5   ;100 ;10  ;30  ;10;
1792   ;1   ;1   ;300 ;5   ;100 ;40  ;100 ;5   ;5   ;5   ;100 ;5   ;10  ;10  ;30  ;40;
[/size]

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oerdin
You don't get any taxes or manpower from trading posts plus they are easily destroyed so it's much better to colonize in the long run.

When you live on an island with a massive navy, you don't need no stinking manpower.

[Qilue]

Originally posted by Agathon

When you live on an island with a massive navy, you don't need no stinking manpower.

So true.

One game as England, I went on a colonization binge and by 1819, my monthly income was about 1500d per month and I had over 1000 warships.

Curiously for that game, in the last year, a newly conquered province revolted, it's name was Phuket (say phonetically).

[Dinner]

Phuket is a nice place or was before the Sunami.

[chequita guevara]

A tp can be built on the coast or next to a colony, but not simply next to another tp. The only exception to this is Russia, because of the vast Siberian corridor.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Qilue


So true.

One game as England, I went on a colonization binge and by 1819, my monthly income was about 1500d per month and I had over 1000 warships.

That sounds like my Sweden game I just finished.

Curiously for that game, in the last year, a newly conquered province revolted, it's name was Phuket (say phonetically).

[Agathon]

Man... I've just moved all my games over to the new machine. I might finally get around to actually learning how to play Victoria now.

[Heresson]

I never use trading posts. Not worth the loss of settlers.
Colonists, that is.
I love colonising.
In my game as Portugal, when I decided to stick to my 3 European provinces, my entire game was about colonisation - asn it still was fun!

[Jonny]

TPs are worth it if a territory has a good trade good but a bad base tax value and a harsh location penalty to growth (for example, some of the ivory and slaves provinces in Africa). Otherwise, I just go with colonists.