- Location
- United States, EST
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Has Paradox finally fixed how Victoria III handles colonies?
I've played exactly one game of Victoria III, unfinished, but fairly long-running. At first, it was really satsifying to play a grand strategy game where I could measure success in something other than "amount of territory conquered".
I played as Haiti, and I managed to both get out of the downward spiral the place is in at the game's start, as well as to eventually achieve a quality of life for my people at least equal to, if not superior to that enjoyed by most European populations.
And then I realized, that the same was true of the British African colonies... and the French... and actually just about any place in the world colonized by a European power. Under the Victoria III economic system, the White Man's Burden ideology is objectively correct. Getting colonized really is the best thing that can happen to an undeveloped nation. Quality of life will almost inevitably skyrocket as a result of becoming part of the colonizer's economic sphere.
Realizing that sucked all the fun right out of the game for me.
If I play as an undeveloped nation and manage to develop it to be on par or better than the established powers, I want it to be an hard-fought achievement. And if I play as an established power with colonies, and I genuinely invest in and develop those colonies rather than suppressing and exploiting them, I want it to be a major strategic sacrifice with a long-term payoff to match. Sadly, Victoria 3 did not deliver when it comes to that, instead delivering unintentional colonialist propaganda.
I seem to remember it being said that such was not intended behavior, but I can't find evidence of that now. In any case, looking at my own current game while the standard of living in the existing colonies is occasionally oddly high there does seem to be an evidential bias in where that prosperity goes looking at the population breakdowns of the states. The farmers might be generally prosperous in Great Britain's African colonies, but the ones that have converted to Protestantism are doing generally better than the animists, and the converts aren't doing as well as the Englishmen and Scots - and the largest part of the natives are filtered into the laborers, who aren't doing quite so good. So I would hesitate to call it "fixed," necessarily, but I might suggest it's better than before. I'm also not sure how the calculations for the standard of living are done or anything, but the game generally seems to prefer to grab the colonizer's culture for top-level representation of the standard of living over the natives, for what that's worth.
Oh, and the less-direct colonies are definitely rebalanced, the direct holdings in Africa may be Middling to even the rare Secure but the Crown Colonies of India et al have absolutely bottom-level standard of living.