Moving capital to the New World simply shouldn't be possible

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

shaldon

Colonel
31 Badges
May 12, 2004
924
32
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 3 Sign Up
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
So, in my Luck of the Irish game I moved my capital to an 8 tax New World province from 4 tax Leinster. Within 10 years I'm getting 10x my previous income. Within 50 years I have colonised and/or invaded 20-30 more high tax provinces in the New World, and soon am closing in on the number 1 score slot, on course to take it from a superpower France by later in the game. At one point I am colonising 7 places at once with 3 colonists and still turning a profit.

How am I supposed to suspend my disbelief? Where are my colonists coming from? I only had a single 4 tax capital province! Sure I was soon able to conquer Ireland and move on to the rest of Britain, but only once I had a rich empire in the New World to support the troops. There are thousands and thousands of Irish colonists swarming all over the New World, overrunning everything in their path like leprechauns on acid. Once I had reconquered all of the British Isles both England and Scotland decamped to their colonies.

I can't help but feel that something needs to be tightened up here. It's just plain silly :). Although I confess, quite fun.

If a nation is fully conquered but has colonial possessions (like England and Scotland in this case) I would at least expect the original nation to disappear and the colonial possessions to declare themselves independent nations - rather than have 'England' now based in Antigua.

I would also suggest something like a settler growth modifier kicking in if you have more colonies than European provinces. So the first colony for a OPM would be the same as for anyone else, but having more colonial provinces - including colonial nation subjects - than European provinces should hit a nation with a severe settler growth penalty (e.g. -25, which is enough to close the loophole, since early colonisation would not be fast enough to compete with the larger nations). Or the comparison could be on base tax, since population is supposed to be loosely linked to that I believe.

Anyway, just my observations. I seek immersion.

[edit] I should probably change the title as I developed the argument into a colonial growth penalty for nations with more colonial provinces than base continent provinces. But I can't see how to do that
[another edit] nah, just disallow it
 
Immigrating to the Americas has always seemed very, very cheesy to me. Especially before 1.3 when it was clear you were expected to have distant overseas penalties on everything over there.

That said, it shouldn't be removed because there are already two solutions:

1) Don't do it in your SP games.
2) Don't play with people who do it in MP games.
 
In addition to what ssuperflash1 said (and I was gonna say), this:
I can't help but feel that something needs to be tightened up here. It's just plain silly :). Although I confess, quite fun.
overrides most any complaint about "realism" or "immersion". Things that add fun to a game are good, taking away things that add fun to a game is bad.
 
In addition to what ssuperflash1 said (and I was gonna say), this:

overrides most any complaint about "realism" or "immersion". Things that add fun to a game are good, taking away things that add fun to a game is bad.

Well how about if it's fun for one game but then you put the game away because you feel somehow dirty when playing it...
 
In name? They moved their entire court over there LOL.

So...you read that post but not the first one? Portugal's case really has as much to do with this thread as Elizabeth II has to do with the Anarchy.
 
Immigrating to the Americas has always seemed very, very cheesy to me. Especially before 1.3 when it was clear you were expected to have distant overseas penalties on everything over there.

That said, it shouldn't be removed because there are already two solutions:

1) Don't do it in your SP games.
2) Don't play with people who do it in MP games.
The AI does it which I find very annoying.
 
In name, sure, and for less than a decade? Be serious.

It would have lasted longer if not for the Brazilian declaration of independence (after the Napoleonic wars, Lisbon and Rio de Janeiro were officially of equal status as capitals). As it was, the move to Rio played a key role in how an independent Brazil came about, with a schism in the royal family that resulted in an 'Empire of Brazil' with a member of the Portuguese royal family on the throne. The whole dynastic mess led to a civil war in Portugal, which also involved the Emperor of Brazil (he abdicated the Brazilian throne in order to go back to Portugal and press his daughter's claim to the throne, but the Brazilian monarchy didn't end with him). Overall, it's fair to say that the relationship between Portugal and Brazil in the early 19th century was no longer 'motherland' and 'colony', but two equal countries that were branching off from a common dynastic and political origin.

I don't think it's unrealistic that independent European-origin states could have appeared in the New World due to their homeland being conquered, and that the original rulers could have fled to the New World and remained in power there. (I think the whole 'force-annex -> you get all the victim's CNs' is a little dodgy.) What's unrealistic is how quick and easy it is to colonise in the 15th-17th centuries. In reality, a 'refugee state' like this would have been poor and desperately short of manpower, and would probably be dependent on good relations with local Native Americans for survival. Even if it achieved self-sufficiency, it would have quickly been overwhelmed by later European arrivals.
 
Immigrating to the Americas has always seemed very, very cheesy to me. Especially before 1.3 when it was clear you were expected to have distant overseas penalties on everything over there.

That said, it shouldn't be removed because there are already two solutions:

1) Don't do it in your SP games.
2) Don't play with people who do it in MP games.

It's a stupid rule in MP too. If someone does that, you either choose to let them or you slaughter their sorry butt the instant they try to pull it off. Only OPMs can migrate anyway, without deliberately losing all home holdings. From a gameplay standpoint, this is only marginally more powerful than creating a CN and then simply release + playing as it. If you do so as an OPM, it's trivial to wtfown your former overlord instantly, and if you don't you couldn't have moved your capitol anyway.
 
Think of it as immigration from other European nations if it helps, you are jsut starting the process a few hundred years earlier.

USA 1776 declaration of independence 4 million people
USA 2014 300million+

Your Ireland in exile game you are rich no? Seems that would attract immigrants from Europe who after a generation or so become Irish. PLenty of land and resources, Catholic faith= easy to have kids. Throw in the addition of native Americans to your lands as you expand you have your explanation;).
 
In addition to what ssuperflash1 said (and I was gonna say), this:

overrides most any complaint about "realism" or "immersion". Things that add fun to a game are good, taking away things that add fun to a game is bad.
This is really what's important. The AI does not do this on purpose, it only happens if they get forced into it. I forced Portugal into the New World and they basically turned into Canada. Changing to what you want will only limit the player because of a thing they can do if they really want to, and that's a crappy thing to ask for. In single player you can either exercise restraint and not do it, or if you want to have fun you can do it and go hog wild. Multiplayer groups have house rules, if you don't want to deal with it then set it as a rule.
 
This is really what's important. The AI does not do this on purpose, it only happens if they get forced into it. I forced Portugal into the New World and they basically turned into Canada. Changing to what you want will only limit the player because of a thing they can do if they really want to, and that's a crappy thing to ask for. In single player you can either exercise restraint and not do it, or if you want to have fun you can do it and go hog wild. Multiplayer groups have house rules, if you don't want to deal with it then set it as a rule.

Multiplayer game I had I think it is part of the bargaining process between Castile and Portugal. Castile want the Sevile trade node, Portugal relocates to the Americas.
 
What's unrealistic is how quick and easy it is to colonise in the 15th-17th centuries. In reality, a 'refugee state' like this would have been poor and desperately short of manpower, and would probably be dependent on good relations with local Native Americans for survival. Even if it achieved self-sufficiency, it would have quickly been overwhelmed by later European arrivals.

100% this. The speed of colonization is insane.
 
So you basically want that the state is renamed once you move your capital? That's what your post can be reduced to.
French becomes French Guyana once you move your capital.

Let's imagine a threatened state in Europe, one that has started colonizing. What would happen in case of a serious war/invasion?
It's highly likely, especially against a very aggressive invader, that many of its citizens would become refugees. Those refugees would probably flee to:
a) neighboring countries
b) other territories
I think it's quite reasonable that many people would prefer to flee to a colony, where their status as citizens would be respected and they would be among people of the same culture and language, than become refugees in some unknown land.

This has actually happened throughout history:
- Protestants fleeing the Church of England (state persecution can be as bad as a foreign invader, if not worse)
- Protestants fleeing from Catholic France (see above)
- Exiles from Carthage (I know it's a legend but it seems credible sans the flashy aspects such as "princess")
- Basically any migration in Medieval Europe

The requirements for moving your capital are quite severe: your capital has to be the last province on that continent. Practically this means you are an OPM.
An OPM is by definition a threatened state, it seems quite reasonable that its citizens would want to flee.
And since it is a mass migration to a rich region, what's stopping them from increasing their population? That's unheard of in history! (sarcasm)
 
In addition to what ssuperflash1 said (and I was gonna say), this:
I can't help but feel that something needs to be tightened up here. It's just plain silly . Although I confess, quite fun.
overrides most any complaint about "realism" or "immersion". Things that add fun to a game are good, taking away things that add fun to a game is bad.

This.

Why restrict the player? It's a cheesy tactic that opens up an alternative route of play.
In Singleplayer, it shouldn't bother anyone because Singleplayer.
In multiplayer, if it really feels balancebreaking to you, just put up a houserule that forbids it.

But don't go ahead and give Paradox ideas about further removing player flexibility.