Jason2 wrote:Oh you get no argument from me on the stupidity of Darien. I know the English are usually seen as the main reason it failed but honestly, when you're basically squatting in the territory of one of the greatest powers, why provoke them by attacking one of their outposts, esp when they can crush your pitiful outpost like a fly. Given the history of Scottish colonial failures, Scotland was a terrible coloniser but after the Union Scots became great colonists.
Yes - I have never really understood why they chose that location. I know strategically Panama is important, but if their original intention was to build the canal, they couldn't have picked a worse spot to start. Squatting didn't help, but then only Spain and Portugal accepted that America was theirs, so I can't criticise them for trying to find a new spot for a colony which according to them was available.
The Scots weren't alone in making mistakes in picking unsuitable colonial sites. England didn't do much better to start with in her North American colonies with several failing despite more promising locations. Neither did France - French Guiana was wiped out a few times by disease and even after it was established as a slave colony, mortality was so horrendously high that in the end they used it as a penal colony (Devil's Island) where prisoners were sent in the expectation they would never return. Both France and England were able to overcome these early setbacks because they didn't put all their efforts into one location, but tried others and were prepared to cut their losses and concentrate on their successes. Thus colonisation was seen more positively in England and France than Scotland where it was associated with failure.
Jason2 wrote:
You're right on the potential for Scotland and it is now easier to develop as the latest rules seem to say you don't need 1,000 recruits to create a new industry/develop a new trade area.
That's new - must have missed that one. I still thought that investment in new trade areas or new products required at least a few token recruits to get it started, then money (without recruits) could be invested.
Jason2 wrote:Interestingly you touched on what is a big issue for Scotland when you talked about canals. Infrastructure costs are relatively high compared to other nations. I've played, over the years, a number of similar sized nations (Scotland, Portugal, Hanover, Persia, Denmark, Moldavia) and not only is Scotland the most expensive for infrastructure construction in terms of actual money, it also has the greatest price difference between roads and canals. Scottish roads are between two and five times more expensive than any of those other nations; also for the other nations canals were between three and five times the cost of roads whereas canals in Scotland are just over ten times the cost of roads.
The figures also show the difference when you compare cost to population. So for canals, you have one subject for every pound you need to construct a level of canals; for Moldavia is was eight subjects to the pound; Hanover it was 10 to the pound. Historically accurate as canals in Scotland were expensive so I'm not complaining, just one of the things that adds to the realism of the game
but you might have picked up from your own control of Scotland that it is cheaper to build canals for England and Wales than Scotland (which surprised me when I first played Scotland and still had old turn papers from when I once played England).
I haven't actually done the calculation in terms of £/head, just looked at the relative cost and realised it made sense geographically. Canals in the lowland areas, particularly the central belt should be good economically and strategically (hence my reference to the Forth-Clyde canal). Just out of interest did you ever get a quote for the Forth-Clyde Canal - it is something I intend to do at some point? Canals worked because they joined rivers and allowed goods to move between otherwise unconnected towns, but in Scotland most of the towns are on or near rivers which ultimately led to the sea and it was always going to be quicker to send goods down the rivers for onward shipment by sea than through hundreds of locks. Another factor is that Scottish towns tend to be much smaller - inland towns (except Glasgow and Edinburgh) rarely have populations above 5,000, whereas ports can be twice that. I imagine in Portugal, Hanover and Denmark inland towns have a higher population so the benefit of canals should be greater relative to the cost.
If the cost of roads is artificially low compared to England then this could be to compensate for the prohibitively high cost of canals, but it could also be a reflection of how few roads there are over huge areas of the Highlands. As you know, the roads don't tend to go over the mountains, but round them, a bit like in Wales where if you miss a turn you can have a 30 mile detour. I haven't asked for a separate quote for Welsh canals, but suspect Wales would be even more extreme than Scotland in terms of the differential.
Size of towns also makes Scotland very hard to defend. Economically the ports are key, but given the small number of recruits Scotland has it simply isn't viable to defend everywhere with FC. Certain key roads will help movement, but it doesn't necessarily make it easier to pin down an invading army. There are a few strategic crossroads based on the Scottish road network, possession of which should help interrupt enemy lines of communication, but trying to drive enemy armies into valleys where they can be more easily eliminated is still hard work.
Home
Portal
Search
Latest images
Register
Log in
Never occurred to me could be a propaganda thing. Though the Brotherhood (inc sisters) does seem to be claiming to be going after a lot of non-French...Stuart are you feeling a bit picked up? 