Colonisation woth it?

[Fruchtkompot]

Is it worthj it? Because if I dont incormporate them they will always have a defecit right? So would it not be better to simply import the stuff I need instead of conquering?

[Zero, Dark Knight]

Incorporated territory gets the benefits (And costs.) of your government laws and policies, so they're not -always- better, for instance, if you have welfare laws, then the grain farm in the mainland will have a higher wage (less competitive grain price per grain made and pop employed.) than an unincorporated territories grain farm (better grain price per grain made and pop employed.)

also they don't pay taxes, which means they'll have more money to spend on standard of living goods .. but, no taxes for you.

- Colonisation is if you use the goods for exporting at a profit, or cheap goods to feed your market (kinda like how it happened in real life.)

[teron]

Thing with importing is the goods could always get cut off. Or demand of the goods you need could outstrip the supply.

[peterputer]

Colonization is op. It has zero downsides - just undeclare all of your starting interests as soon as you can colonize, then declare interests on all available colonial regions and colonize everything at once. The resources you get pay off soon - and you always can incorporate the colonies to get tax out of them.

[󠀡󠀡]

Colonies are good for cheap resources, if you dont incorporate them and use colonial exploitation you can get some very cheap labour in your colonies. Don't build manufactories in them, just exploit them for resources.

[shiggies713]

importing stuff makes other countries capitalist and aristocrats rich, why not make your own dudes rich and reap the benefits. Plus late game you really need to be producing as much as you can, with free trade those resources you were buying could have made you rich too.

[=(FGR)=Sentinel]

The true value of colonization depends mostly on what nation you're playing. If you're a nation with either a large internal market or access to a stable unified market of other nations (such as Britain) colonization is simply a way to establish or maintain global hegemony. If you're a small nation with more powerful neighbors or a nation that lacks access to one or more vital resources (see Greece with no coal unless they trade) colonization is vital to get ahold of resources you desperately need for your own survival, unless you can either get into a larger market or maintain profitable trade in other ways.

Hilariously enough, if you're a nation in Africa you're even more incentivized to colonize than the recognized and major/great powers simply because of the number of major expansion options you'd be ignoring. For instance, if you look at the Great Lakes states, you realize that unifying them gives one full state and about a third of another, along with zero sea access. They're locked into being a non-entity unless they somehow get sea access, which requires colonizing two states. On the other hand, if they can lock the major powers out of Kenya and push Portugal out of east Africa, they have a large portion of the continent to themselves.

So, functionally, the big three reasons to colonize are if it's your only expansion option, you desperately need coal or iron, or you're already a major player on the global stage and want to ensure nobody can challenge you.

[Trackstar]

it depends. goods like wood, iron, coal can easily be traded for. but other goods like rubber or oil are needed and the AI never builds enough for their own use, much less excess to be traded. but colonies are even good for cash crops to trade and make you some extra money off tariffs.
as others said, not incorporating means no taxes, but also no costs for gov programs either. theyre just there for resource extraction.