Chartered corporations

**Furious Mental** · 04-30-2008, 14:04

The British East India Company secured de facto total control over India in the mid 18th century. It didn't become a Crown possession until after the 1857 rebellion. The BEOC had been operating as a monopolistic trading company since the early 17th century and in its area of operations it was effectively a corporate state under the powers granted by King James II.

'they are ones in control'

Obviously these companies operated in the context of a close relationship with their respective governments, but they were not branches thereof. Like all private companies, they operated so as to maximise the profits of their members. They had their supporters in the legislature and government, but the relationship with the state was far more complex than the King pointing and clicking. Take the BEOC for example- in 1698 an Act of Parliament established another east Indian trading company backed by an indemnity. When they eventually merged, BEOC bought renewal of its trade monopoly from the Treasury, and later did so again. Similarly, later in the 18th century it was found that there was practically no government oversight of Company affairs, hence why the Regulating and India Acts were enacted.

'Lets say you take over India'

Well the point i was making above is that these companies were frequently the vanguard of colonialism. For instance, the Crown did not take over India and give it to the BEOC. The BEOC received a mandate from the Crown, it then (over a period of a few decades) took over India.

**RLucid** · 04-30-2008, 18:34

OK, but Britain was an evolving democracy. So why not have a simulated parliament, and force you to argue your case to enact policy, stand for election and other PITA things, rather than get to creatae & order armies about like a despot?

You're just choosing some details you like and ignoring others.

**rajpoot** · 04-30-2008, 19:53

Actually even thoguh it'll be wonderful to have it all, with the BEIC and all, but as far as I know, this was just one instance.......most of all other colonisation was done directly by the respective nations' armies.............and the more I think of it, the more I feel that there is no way this can be implemented well enough, and implementing it just in passing, inaccurately, just for the name of it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

**Matt_Lane** · 04-30-2008, 22:22

Originally Posted by asj_india

Actually even thoguh it'll be wonderful to have it all, with the BEIC and all, but as far as I know, this was just one instance.......most of all other colonisation was done directly by the respective nations' armies.............and the more I think of it, the more I feel that there is no way this can be implemented well enough, and implementing it just in passing, inaccurately, just for the name of it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

I think a similar system was used in North America with the Hudson Bay and London Virginia Trading Company's. The Netherlands, France and Sweden also had trading company's operating in Asia.

I think the Chartered corperation idea is an interesting one. Could it start up in a similar way to guilds, with the player being given the option to offer a charter to aid colonisation of a particular area. The AI could then run the region with it coming nominally under your area of influence. The AI would raise taxes and troops and pay a percentage of its profits to you in a similar way to a vassal but the player would control 'foreign policy' and could have the ability to reissue the charters every ten years or so.

The advantage for the player would be a guaranteed steady income from an area without the need to manage it. It could also have the added advantage of supplying troops locally in times of need.

**Furious Mental** · 05-01-2008, 04:42

The British East India Company was fairly unusual in how big its territorial possessions became, but bear in mind that before that most of southern India was under the control of the French East India Company and, of that, a substantial portion was directly administered by it. Take the Dutch East Indian Company in Indonesia as another example. Even in the late 19th century, when these companies had become more heavily regulated, they were still engaged in autonomous territorial conquest in Africa.

**RLucid** · 05-01-2008, 12:37

The problem is that realism reduces player control, and they want their decisions to matter, to have the excitement of responsibility for outcomes.

Say, the Governor of Cape Colony, goes off and decides to invade Zulu lands on a pretext, against the wishes of the Capitol government who are trying to diplomatically lower tensions and reduce commitments; despite their colonies views. Realistic, but where does it leave the gamer, who can't decide on policy nor control his empire?

And you know if you do introduce such a faction, someone is going to try to conquer everywhere with it, having it act totally autonomously, even (more than likely) invading the homeland to. There's going to be 50 something factions in the game, if you add in all the large trading corporations, who had hired guns at their trading outposts and tried to expand their trading areas, against the foreign competition, it's going to be even bigger, for a feature that will frustrate many players.

**Furious Mental** · 05-02-2008, 04:31

It's not the same as simply giving the player no control over the territory they conquer. The player makes a trade off- give the company a charter and it will, at its own expense, undertake trade and conquer territory for your expense. It may even pay for more privileges or for their renewal. So the player has a discretion what powers to give the company or to refuse it altogether. If there were no trade off in delegating functions and losing control it would be silly because you would get a whole lot of benefits for nothing.