Tuning colonies to states. Is there really a case for it?

Kayapo · Jun 15, 2011

This has been discussed before, but since we are now starting to talk about the new expansion we probably have a (very) small window of opportunity to make an impression upon the devs with things we would like to see changed in the game.

Is there really a case for letting countries turn colonies into states?

Not counting the US has any country in that time period turned colonies into full states?

Yes, it is moddable and it is easy enough to just set the number of bureaucrats so high that it makes it impossible for this to happen with the downside of making the US suffer a bit.

Seeing Africa/India/Asia heavy industrialized within 30 years of the game start doesn't really add to gameplay much. It makes the economies too big and even makes the game too easy.

Start with Belgium? No problem, grab Java from the dutch and you are set when you turn it into a state.

So what's my point:

The perfect for me would be for AH to introduce a more interesting colonial race. It could be a multi-step process slowly turning tradeposts to explotation centers to full colonies and eventually into dominions. This could be tied to tech progress, NF investment and national population present.

Each step could have it's own set of atributes. Anything before dominion wouldn't allow for factories at all and even dominions could be very restricted in numbers and types of factories.

The other option, much simpler would be to just give us the ability to make only the US (and maybe the CSA, Texas and Mexico too) capable of turning colonies into states.

Either way seeing the features announced for AH I must say I was a little disapointed to not see anything said about the colonization process. Which to me is the part of the game that needs the most attention being a bit too dull at the moment.

o

RedRalphWiggum · Jun 15, 2011

I would be all in favour of us not being able to do it, unless they are connected by land to the capital. Russia and the US could do it, others couldn't.

Kayapo · Jun 15, 2011

RedRalphWiggum said:
I would be all in favour of us not being able to do it, unless they are connected by land to the capital. Russia and the US could do it, others couldn't.

I forgot Russia. Yes, land connection would work very well.

Naselus · Jun 15, 2011

France turned the North Coast of Algeria into a state. And they only took about 18 years to do it IRL. Japan located heavy industry in it's colonial possessions; and that is problematic, since Japan isn't connected to anywhere else. And various British dominions, like South Africa and Canada, were given limited industry, which would make them need to be state-able.

Also, the states that the OE takes back from Egypt are gained as colonies (cos it's a civ taking turf from an unciv), but they should really be counted as States too - tho that would fall under the 'connection to capital' thing.

The land connection thing is a good idea, but we'd need more than that, I think. Maybe a tech-based thing, where you can't state-ify overseas provinces without N&I?

JimboOmega · Jun 15, 2011

Naselus said:
France turned the North Coast of Algeria into a state. And they only took about 18 years to do it IRL. Japan located heavy industry in it's colonial possessions; and that is problematic, since Japan isn't connected to anywhere else. And various British dominions, like South Africa and Canada, were given limited industry, which would make them need to be state-able.

Also, the states that the OE takes back from Egypt are gained as colonies (cos it's a civ taking turf from an unciv), but they should really be counted as States too - tho that would fall under the 'connection to capital' thing.

The land connection thing is a good idea, but we'd need more than that, I think. Maybe a tech-based thing, where you can't state-ify overseas provinces without N&I?

As with assimilation, I like the idea of it only being possible in non-overseas by the paradox definition of overseas. Algeria is close enough to France to (I hope?) not count as overseas, Manchuria is same continent, etc.

Really there is a contrast between "made full states" and "industrialized", and Korea and Manchuria for Japan are the best but not only examples.

I really dislike the idea of disabling this option entirely. I am an expansionist and that attempts to ruin the value of expansion take something away from the game. There is historical precedent for a new industrial power in Asia conquering and industrializing parts of its neighbors. (Although, as an aside, never making my conquests states did not really slow down my WC).

To be honest this part of the game could use some love such that it is more logical and the tradeoffs more clear. At present there is too much "hope some of my POPs move there so I can promote them to bureaucrats". Maybe NF bureaucrats could also attract bureaucrats to move from other parts of the nation?

Archam · Jun 15, 2011

Algeria was considered a state, but was not industrialized at all and was in fact still under some kind of colonial administration, it's not really an IRL example of what becoming a state is in Vicky 2.

FelixMajor · Jun 15, 2011

Would removing the possibility of making states of overseas territories make playing smaller colonial countries (Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, and any of the other smaller states that we might create colonial powers of) much more difficult? As it stands there aren't many ways to get colonial populations to move back to the home territories without creating a state of a colony. I think that this should be addressed in some fashion, though it should be a significantly more likely for assimilated colonial pops than native population of the colony. Without such a mechanism I believe that the UK would suffer greatly (more than is necessary.) With such a mechanism I think we'd see the UK's industrial lead reach a more reasonable parity with a German Empire and the United States.

Perhaps I'm missing some key development that already makes this possible. I'm in favour of the principle of overseas colonies remaining colonies, I just want to see it done in a manner that would allow for industrial growth.

Naselus · Jun 15, 2011

Archam said:
Algeria was considered a state, but was not industrialized at all and was in fact still under some kind of colonial administration, it's not really an IRL example of what becoming a state is in Vicky 2.

That's why I stipulated the North Coast, which was both industrialized and organized into proper départements - which were basically France's equivilent of V2's statehood. The rest of the country was still basically a colony, however. This adds the complication that we wouldn't be able to judge state-ifying by 'overseas = no', and yet we also wouldn't be able to do it by 'any neighbouring province is a state' either.

I still think the idea of unlocking overseas ability to become states depanding on either tech, or maybe admin efficiency (which is practically moribund atm anyway) would be a good idea. Maybe using the colonial range function, and assigning distances via admin eff %? That way, a high-crat state could do it early, and high tech states could do it too. It'd also meean, just for example, that Britain could turn South Africa into a state long before it had the range to change any Indian areas.

Secret Master · Jun 15, 2011

What's missing from this discussion is something rather important: why didn't imperialistic nations in the Vic2 period spam the creation of states from colonies?

I point out the historical "why" question because the colonies were thought of and conceived of differently than other territories annexed. In Vic2, there are really so many benefits to granting statehood that there is no significant reason to keep them colonies. Apparently, our 19th Century colleagues who were running the actual empires of the era felt very differently about the issue.

Just to give an example: When Prussia/NGF annexed AL from France, they did not treat AL like a colony, while Germany's colonial possessions overseas were treated like colonies during the entire period until they were lost. What's the difference? Territories were annexed in both cases, so why not treat them the same? Was it the higher percentage of German POPs? Higher existing infrastructure? A willingness to treat French POPs better than colonial POPs? The presence of cores? The "Europeaness" of the provinces as opposed to colonial possessions?

I'm not the expert on history around here, but I'll venture some of the reasons have to do with the economy and politics. My suggestions.

1) There was an economic benefit to treating colonies like colonies. Whatever that historical benefit was, we don't see it in Vic2. Colonies sometimes grant access to resources you lack (rubber, fruit, timber, oil) but once you get mechanical production, there is no economic need for dedicated colonies to produce natural resources. You will never run the world out of 90% of the game's resources once most of the civilized world has mechanical production. Cotton from Egypt? Not necessary. Cotton from India? Not necessary. Coal and iron from Korea? Bah, just import what you need from the WM; furthermore, steel mills can only be built in states that have those resources, so granting statehood to Korea is important if you have no native iron and coal and want to make lots of steel anyway. Silk from China and Japan? Meh, it's still better to annex and grant statehood to those regions and industrialize them. You can also import additional labor if silk starts to get scarce.

The point is that the economic benefits to letting colonies be colonies don't seem to exist in Vic2. (Note: I am aware that there are smart historians that argue that colonies weren't profitable in the long run, but SOMEONE was benefiting financially from their colonial status to make it worthwhile, even if the empires as a whole did not get super wealthy.)

2) Political acceptability: One thing that granting statehood means is that the territory in question is treated politically equal to the rest of the country (within the religious and citizenship policies of the ruling party). It seems almost absurd that the British Parliament would create voting districts in India so that the people there could send MPs back to the homeland to vote on policies, even if those districts only allowed Englishmen to vote. This gets even more contentious if you consider that granting some measure of political equality to colonies looks really bad to revolutionaries at home if you don't have universal male suffrage already. Imagine how that conversation looks:

"Well, my lord Suffolk, under the Labor Party's full citizenship policy, we have granted the princes of India the right to participate in the House of Lords by granting most of India statehood today. Now you get to explain to proponents of wealth voting why a bunch of foreigners can now vote in Lords while native Englishmen are told to piss off. Maybe inventing Nationalism and Imperialism last year was a bad idea. Oh well. Have fun and make sure you shutter your windows at night when the proles come to burn your house down!"

Granting statehood looks even weirder when autocratic regimes do it. My current game as Russia under 1.4 saw an autocratic Russia with a reactionary party in power grant statehood to Manchuria and Korea. That conversation is even more ridiculous than the previous one, because it involves the boyars loving the idea of a bunch of non-Russian aristocrats acting all chummy with them.

Considering the political implications of granting statehood historically, it seems that in Vic2, there are not political considerations to worry about when granting statehood. If the game allowed for more nuanced colonial politics, we should instead see the process of granting statehood look something like this:

Step 1: Gain X% POPs of certain types and nationalities (like we have now).
Step 2: Check the UH. If the UH does not meet certain ideological criteria, statehood cannot be granted.
Step 3: Check ruling party. If the ruling party does not meet policy or ideology X, then you cannot grant statehood.

Note that even the USA has requirements for becoming a state that include the consent of Congress. The President couldn't just wake up one day and decide that Wyoming would make a great state. Note that the Congressional authority of granting statehood exceeds even the desires of the populace. Texas can ask for statehood all day, but if Congress wants to wait 9 years out of foreign policy considerations, it can do so. And this is in a country that in the period granted statehood numerous times, to say nothing of countries that never did it all!

I don't know how to model the economic side of colonial regions very well. Vic2's treatment of the WM, SOIs, and RGOs in colonies does not lend itself well to encouraging players and AI to let the territories remain colonies. The lure of IND is too great. Perhaps an old suggestion of mine can help a little: force colonial RGOs to employ colonial POPs no matter what the selling situation is. In other words, RGOs in states will fire workers when they don't sell enough product; colonies will not fire workers and will continue to overproduce. This should encourage industrialization at home AND keep the prices of goods produced in your colonies low. If you are getting huge amounts of grain from your colonies, this will make it beneficial to keep your colonies in the grain business while your states move further away from farming. Granting statehood would mean that those RGOs are going to fire people, causing a rise in prices. And that would make the impact more complicated.

JimboOmega · Jun 15, 2011

Secret Master said:
What's missing from this discussion is something rather important: why didn't imperialistic nations in the Vic2 period spam the creation of states from colonies?

I point out the historical "why" question because the colonies were thought of and conceived of differently than other territories annexed. In Vic2, there are really so many benefits to granting statehood that there is no significant reason to keep them colonies. Apparently, our 19th Century colleagues who were running the actual empires of the era felt very differently about the issue.

Just to give an example: When Prussia/NGF annexed AL from France, they did not treat AL like a colony, while Germany's colonial possessions overseas were treated like colonies during the entire period until they were lost. What's the difference? Territories were annexed in both cases, so why not treat them the same? Was it the higher percentage of German POPs? Higher existing infrastructure? A willingness to treat French POPs better than colonial POPs? The presence of cores? The "Europeaness" of the provinces as opposed to colonial possessions?

I'm not the expert on history around here, but I'll venture some of the reasons have to do with the economy and politics. My suggestions.

1) There was an economic benefit to treating colonies like colonies. Whatever that historical benefit was, we don't see it in Vic2. Colonies sometimes grant access to resources you lack (rubber, fruit, timber, oil) but once you get mechanical production, there is no economic need for dedicated colonies to produce natural resources. You will never run the world out of 90% of the game's resources once most of the civilized world has mechanical production. Cotton from Egypt? Not necessary. Cotton from India? Not necessary. Coal and iron from Korea? Bah, just import what you need from the WM; furthermore, steel mills can only be built in states that have those resources, so granting statehood to Korea is important if you have no native iron and coal and want to make lots of steel anyway. Silk from China and Japan? Meh, it's still better to annex and grant statehood to those regions and industrialize them. You can also import additional labor if silk starts to get scarce.

The point is that the economic benefits to letting colonies be colonies don't seem to exist in Vic2. (Note: I am aware that there are smart historians that argue that colonies weren't profitable in the long run, but SOMEONE was benefiting financially from their colonial status to make it worthwhile, even if the empires as a whole did not get super wealthy.)

2) Political acceptability: One thing that granting statehood means is that the territory in question is treated politically equal to the rest of the country (within the religious and citizenship policies of the ruling party). It seems almost absurd that the British Parliament would create voting districts in India so that the people there could send MPs back to the homeland to vote on policies, even if those districts only allowed Englishmen to vote. This gets even more contentious if you consider that granting some measure of political equality to colonies looks really bad to revolutionaries at home if you don't have universal male suffrage already. Imagine how that conversation looks:

"Well, my lord Suffolk, under the Labor Party's full citizenship policy, we have granted the princes of India the right to participate in the House of Lords by granting most of India statehood today. Now you get to explain to proponents of wealth voting why a bunch of foreigners can now vote in Lords while native Englishmen are told to piss off. Maybe inventing Nationalism and Imperialism last year was a bad idea. Oh well. Have fun and make sure you shutter your windows at night when the proles come to burn your house down!"

Granting statehood looks even weirder when autocratic regimes do it. My current game as Russia under 1.4 saw an autocratic Russia with a reactionary party in power grant statehood to Manchuria and Korea. That conversation is even more ridiculous than the previous one, because it involves the boyars loving the idea of a bunch of non-Russian aristocrats acting all chummy with them.

Considering the political implications of granting statehood historically, it seems that in Vic2, there are not political considerations to worry about when granting statehood. If the game allowed for more nuanced colonial politics, we should instead see the process of granting statehood look something like this:

Step 1: Gain X% POPs of certain types and nationalities (like we have now).
Step 2: Check the UH. If the UH does not meet certain ideological criteria, statehood cannot be granted.
Step 3: Check ruling party. If the ruling party does not meet policy or ideology X, then you cannot grant statehood.

Note that even the USA has requirements for becoming a state that include the consent of Congress. The President couldn't just wake up one day and decide that Wyoming would make a great state. Note that the Congressional authority of granting statehood exceeds even the desires of the populace. Texas can ask for statehood all day, but if Congress wants to wait 9 years out of foreign policy considerations, it can do so. And this is in a country that in the period granted statehood numerous times, to say nothing of countries that never did it all!

I don't know how to model the economic side of colonial regions very well. Vic2's treatment of the WM, SOIs, and RGOs in colonies does not lend itself well to encouraging players and AI to let the territories remain colonies. The lure of IND is too great. Perhaps an old suggestion of mine can help a little: force colonial RGOs to employ colonial POPs no matter what the selling situation is. In other words, RGOs in states will fire workers when they don't sell enough product; colonies will not fire workers and will continue to overproduce. This should encourage industrialization at home AND keep the prices of goods produced in your colonies low. If you are getting huge amounts of grain from your colonies, this will make it beneficial to keep your colonies in the grain business while your states move further away from farming. Granting statehood would mean that those RGOs are going to fire people, causing a rise in prices. And that would make the impact more complicated.

Well, of course, it's important to remember that besides a tiny handful of military goods at certain parts of the game, having a source of a good is meaningless. Most obviously if you corner a market, you can't embargo, but it's worse than that. Goods only run out for POPs when they are pretty far down the (prestige) food chain, again, with at least mechanical production in play.

Moreover, the current prestige system in the game sort of forces this to be true. Because there are a lot of nations pretty far down the food chain, and if you have a big shortage in tea or fish or whatever, they are going to be really upset. It's unreasonable to ask Sweden (or any other non-colonial mid-major) to control reliable sources of every good just so it doesn't get caught with perpetually upset POPs.

Now of course a related problem is the inelasticity of the market; that it hits a certain price and then it's just maxed out, and people are just screwed further down. This has to be the case, or else goods would never run out.

National borders and distance are no issue, so what does it matter who controls a resource? If we went on a fully price-flexible market, then it truly wouldn't.

So rather than having lots of POPs spending most of the game missing resources, and also rather than having goods always available (perhaps at an inordinate price), we have a system which basically insures that POPs will almost always get fed, again, once they cross a basic wealth threshold achieved pretty early in the game. Otherwise nations would get trapped in rebel cycles (if goods were more scarce) or else sphere and goods control wouldn't matter at all (if we let prices fluctuate freely).

So we have a worst of both worlds, where economy doesn't REALLY matter, but goods still run out enough to be annoying but not affect strategy very much (especially after those turbulent first decades before factories catch up).

Of course, who can forget that industrializing does nothing to help you militarily - the ability to have that industrial power to produce weapons is meaningless. Buy them off the WM, you and your POPs have enough money! So maybe that makes the whole thing moot (who cares if you industrialize, in the strategic sense of things - unlike in WW1 and WW2, it doesn't really matter - what matters is the POPs you have)?

Can you imagine playing HOI with basically infinite IC, and with manpower your only limit? That's the kind of game that has been created, especially in the second half. You might wind up creating a fleet of 200 BBs - and low and behold, in Vicky that's what happens.

So the ultimate value of the colonies, strategically speaking?

Their soldiers.

Kayapo · Jun 15, 2011

We are quickly going to fall into a discussion about the shortcomings of the economic system in V2.

Secret Master brings up valid points about why it didn't happen historicaly but we are back to start of the problem.

We need to focus on the particular aspect of this gameplay feature. Does it make any sense to let us turn colonies into state in the game? Does it add to gameplay?

I'm willing to bet that almost everyone would agree that a more complex system for colonization would be ideal, but what if it isn't in the plans for the expansion. It is one thing for them to give us a slightly changed system where you can only form states if connected by land, redesigning the whole thing is another story.

Right now, turning colonies into state is a major gameplay feature. It is almost as they didn't think colonies were very appealing and wanted to make them something worth of your trouble. Right now they literaly make or break the game. If you want to beat UK and France you are going to have to get some huge population colonies to industrialize and/or get rid of their own huge industrialized colonies.

Which brings in another question, if we all can agree that every nation turning Africa/India into Manchester is not really cool, would there be any point in going after them in the game? Would they be viable without changing the economic system to make more sense from a mercantilistic point of view?

I doubt we are going to see any major changes to the economic system in the expansion. It just seems like too big of a fish to fry. So the compromise for me, if we can't have a whole new colonization system, would be to let only land connected provinces be turned into states AND find ways to make colonies more appealing for gameplay since they wouldn't be shooting us up to the industrial revolution.

Secret Master · Jun 15, 2011

Well, if Paradox isn't going to overhaul the economy (and I don't think they should; despite the shortcomings of the system, I think it's pretty good all things considered), then we need more of a trade-off when it comes to granting statehood. That's what is missing right now. While there are some disadvantages to granting statehood, there are so many advantages that the decision to do so is a no-brainer. I would like that to change.

Making the decision to grant statehood a political one that involves the UH and ruling party is a step in that direction.

Allowing POPs at home to express dissatisfaction at the decision to grant statehood when they don't have certain political rights is another step in that direction.

Right now, letting players just automatically grant statehood whenever the POPs are set up correctly just makes colonies a race to statehood. I don't think that's a game design choice that works well for replayability or the cost-benefits decision making that Vic2 tends to encourage.

JimboOmega · Jun 15, 2011

Kayapo said:
We are quickly going to fall into a discussion about the shortcomings of the economic system in V2.

Secret Master brings up valid points about why it didn't happen historicaly but we are back to start of the problem.

We need to focus on the particular aspect of this gameplay feature. Does it make any sense to let us turn colonies into state in the game? Does it add to gameplay?

I'm willing to bet that almost everyone would agree that a more complex system for colonization would be ideal, but what if it isn't in the plans for the expansion. It is one thing for them to give us a slightly changed system where you can only form states if connected by land, redesigning the whole thing is another story.

Right now, turning colonies into state is a major gameplay feature. It is almost as they didn't think colonies were very appealing and wanted to make them something worth of your trouble. Right now they literaly make or break the game. If you want to beat UK and France you are going to have to get some huge population colonies to industrialize and/or get rid of their own huge industrialized colonies.

Which brings in another question, if we all can agree that every nation turning Africa/India into Manchester is not really cool, would there be any point in going after them in the game? Would they be viable without changing the economic system to make more sense from a mercantilistic point of view?

I doubt we are going to see any major changes to the economic system in the expansion. It just seems like too big of a fish to fry. So the compromise for me, if we can't have a whole new colonization system, would be to let only land connected provinces be turned into states AND find ways to make colonies more appealing for gameplay since they wouldn't be shooting us up to the industrial revolution.

Colonies do give you prestige, let's not forget. I also do not see why it has to be land connection and not Paradox definition of overseas.

I'll be honest, my biggest complaint about a potential system where making states is either impossible or much harder is that playing as an Asian country, you never get to expand your industrial base. From a game play point of view, this is what matters. Taking away my ability to (as Dai Nam) turn neighboring Chinese or Japanese provinces into states ruins the game for me. There needs to be that potential, that if I fiddle around enough and get enough bureaucrats, I can make these states into something useful. It's a big blow to my fun if that is taken from me - it's a challenge, a path for growth, that would be cut off.

I'm all for fun first, realism second.

Land connection is perfectly acceptable but annoying (because of the Japan/Asia thing). Paradox Overseas works ideally for me.

Though I do wonder about Canada, Australia, and New Zealand - do any of these provinces start as colonies that historically got industrialized? (I'm not going to sweat it too much, either way).

Edit: Just to clarify, I still think that industrializing doesn't really matter. I got until about 1900 as Dai Nam, with only two new states (both conquered before I civilized). I have an army that is feared the world around (so much so that I can cruise at 700+ infamy, and have stomped France and UK in recent wars). But still, never being able to industrialize, as little as it does matter... still makes me sad. I put a lot of effort educating chinese so that one day they might join my empire - in the form of not only NFs but prioritizing education techs, etc.

PanzerWilly · Jun 15, 2011

JimboOmega said:
Colonies do give you prestige, let's not forget. I also do not see why it has to be land connection and not Paradox definition of overseas.

I'll be honest, my biggest complaint about a potential system where making states is either impossible or much harder is that playing as an Asian country, you never get to expand your industrial base. From a game play point of view, this is what matters. Taking away my ability to (as Dai Nam) turn neighboring Chinese or Japanese provinces into states ruins the game for me. There needs to be that potential, that if I fiddle around enough and get enough bureaucrats, I can make these states into something useful. It's a big blow to my fun if that is taken from me - it's a challenge, a path for growth, that would be cut off.

I'm all for fun first, realism second.

Land connection is perfectly acceptable but annoying (because of the Japan/Asia thing). Paradox Overseas works ideally for me.

Though I do wonder about Canada, Australia, and New Zealand - do any of these provinces start as colonies that historically got industrialized? (I'm not going to sweat it too much, either way).

Edit: Just to clarify, I still think that industrializing doesn't really matter. I got until about 1900 as Dai Nam, with only two new states (both conquered before I civilized). I have an army that is feared the world around (so much so that I can cruise at 700+ infamy, and have stomped France and UK in recent wars). But still, never being able to industrialize, as little as it does matter... still makes me sad. I put a lot of effort educating chinese so that one day they might join my empire - in the form of not only NFs but prioritizing education techs, etc.

Allowing statehood on your 'home' continent would help Japan although it would need to be tweaked somehow for Ottoman Empire or Eqypt.

Also, I think there should be a primary culture or accepted culture requirement. Such as 25% of the population be of a primary culture (Residency Policy) or 25% be of a primary or accepted culture (Limited or Full Citizenship Policy).

JimboOmega · Jun 15, 2011

Secret Master said:
Well, if Paradox isn't going to overhaul the economy (and I don't think they should; despite the shortcomings of the system, I think it's pretty good all things considered), then we need more of a trade-off when it comes to granting statehood. That's what is missing right now. While there are some disadvantages to granting statehood, there are so many advantages that the decision to do so is a no-brainer. I would like that to change.

Making the decision to grant statehood a political one that involves the UH and ruling party is a step in that direction.

Allowing POPs at home to express dissatisfaction at the decision to grant statehood when they don't have certain political rights is another step in that direction.

Right now, letting players just automatically grant statehood whenever the POPs are set up correctly just makes colonies a race to statehood. I don't think that's a game design choice that works well for replayability or the cost-benefits decision making that Vic2 tends to encourage.

I'd accept something that costs you resources (money, militancy, consciousness) in exchange for making colonies into states. That's fair.

Except that militancy is generally a good thing... er. But the idea is in the right place.

icedt729 · Jun 16, 2011

Personally, I think Liferating, population and literacy should be the biggest things going into statehood. So industrialization of places like West Africa should be exceedingly difficult due to low population and poor conditions, it should be moderately tough in places like India or China, where the population density is there but development is low, and it should be fairly easy in, say, American frontier colonies that are settled by large numbers of educated, accepted-culture pops. Having it be by land connection is unrealistic and arbitrary (British Canada can never build industry? Really?). I do like the idea of your citizenship policy affecting it, since it makes no sense for a Residency government to grant statehood to a region that's 95% non-accepted, though for a Universal government it's less of a stretch.

Secret Master · Jun 16, 2011

JimboOmega said:
Except that militancy is generally a good thing... er. But the idea is in the right place.

I misspoke. Perhaps a flat increase to CON and a flat increase to the number of POPs that current support political reform would be better.

The idea is to make it so that granting statehood when you lack political reforms causes you problems, not helps you solve them. A flat increase to MIL would be an even bigger reason to grant statehood. :wacko:

Naselus · Jun 16, 2011

The problem with decisions that have a cost to them is that the AI isn't very good at judging whether it should take them or not - so it'll still spam states and then end up collapsing from whatever malus you might attach. It should be very difficult to stateify somewhere, but it shouldn't actively penalize you unless we want to kneecap all the AI countries.

JimboOmega · Jun 16, 2011

Secret Master said:
I misspoke. Perhaps a flat increase to CON and a flat increase to the number of POPs that current support political reform would be better.

The idea is to make it so that granting statehood when you lack political reforms causes you problems, not helps you solve them. A flat increase to MIL would be an even bigger reason to grant statehood. :wacko:

I was being somewhat facetious - MIL really should not be as good as it is now. With the reforms thing in the new expansion, that might change. No longer will losing wars let you pass health care (I hope).

I was thinking it should be tied into citizenship policies in a way similar to how jingoism is tied to adding wargoals, but that's really hard to balance right, because of the relative speed which you convert colonies to states (which is far slower). Also there'd need to be some mechanism to tie it somewhat to how many off-culture POPs there are in the state.

Secret Master · Jun 16, 2011

JimboOmega said:
I was being somewhat facetious - MIL really should not be as good as it is now. With the reforms thing in the new expansion, that might change. No longer will losing wars let you pass health care (I hope).

I was thinking it should be tied into citizenship policies in a way similar to how jingoism is tied to adding wargoals, but that's really hard to balance right, because of the relative speed which you convert colonies to states (which is far slower). Also there'd need to be some mechanism to tie it somewhat to how many off-culture POPs there are in the state.

Now there's an interesting idea. You can't grant statehood unless X% of POPs support full citizenship (or something like that). If you grant statehood, it would shift the support for full citizenship down, just like adding wargoals.

I like that idea.

Tuning colonies to states. Is there really a case for it?

Join date April 2002

Field Marshal

Join date April 2002

PDM's Benevolent Dictator for Life

General

Waiting for Belt and Road Project to give me a job

Colonel

PDM's Benevolent Dictator for Life

Covert Mastermind

General

Join date April 2002

Covert Mastermind

General

The Sleeping God

General

前任士官

Covert Mastermind

PDM's Benevolent Dictator for Life

General

Covert Mastermind