Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Paradox, please remove 50% autonomy colonial cap from African/Native American states

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Europa Universalis IV 81895 EUIV: Bug Reports 447 EUIV: Suggestions 19148 EUIV: Technical Support 6720 EUIV: FAQ & Strategy Guides 235 EUIV: AAR's, Let's Plays, and Fan Fiction EU IV: Alternate History Short Story Contest Contr 29
Iche_Bins said:
You tell me
5r1BGPp.jpg

7No6bUH.jpg
Click to expand...

I've seen European empires being more powerful than that with a twentieth of the land area, and it is the absolute biggest you can reach in any way. And, if it was really so absurdly powerful, it would only show that a gigantic empire is too easy to maintain and too powerful for its size, regardless of its being the United States of All the Americas or the Holy Roman Empire of European Nations. Dismissed.
 
Hakuromatsu said:
The weirdest thing -- which I didn't realize until last night -- is that colonies not only start at 50 LA but can't go up. The autonomy floor makes even less sense now since it's also an autonomy ceiling.
Click to expand...

Okay, so more bizarre stuff. The 25% floor for Hordes isn't a ceiling and can go up, but the 50% floor for Ming and the 75% floor for overseas are, just like it is for colonies.

And, as has been mentioned, there's no colony flag for pre-owned provinces in later start dates that are uncolonized in 1444.

I'm not especially worried about balance or nerfing anymore, just the general weirdness of autonomy floors.
 
Pugman said:
I don't think Europeans should be able to move capital to the Americas. I think if you lose all your provinces you lost...game over. With the other examples you give, that to me is a separate issue about what is considered "overseas" and I agree those countries should be able to do that.
Click to expand...

Portugal in real life would like to have a chat with you.
 
Pugman said:
I think moving a European capital to the Americas is exploitative (in a gameplay sense). At that point you've removed all challenge and you're just painting the map. You may as well just put the game on easy difficulty and play France.
Click to expand...
What about Portugal moving it's capital to Brazil in 1808?
 
Ralepozozaxe said:
Remember that this isn't actually put in place to simulate anything, it's just there to stop things like Portugal moving it's capital to Brazil and being a really strong power from that. This would be fixed by making it so Europeans can't move their capitals to the new world.
Click to expand...

Umm, no it wasn't. Wiz specifically said it was to nerf same-continent colonisation and noted Asia when doing so.
 
IMO, implement something like nationalism, where LA has a higher limit for a number of years (which makes sense) THEN as it's established the empire can start tightening controls.

Even just make that apply to provinces in same continent, because this pretty much kills most NA / African starts.
 
Vordeo said:
IMO, implement something like nationalism, where LA has a higher limit for a number of years (which makes sense) THEN as it's established the empire can start tightening controls.

Even just make that apply to provinces in same continent, because this pretty much kills most NA / African starts.
Click to expand...

It really, really doesn't. I'm currently making more money and fielding a bigger army than France or Castille as Inca, and Cusco doesn't start very big.

Any country capable of conquering around it to get a tax base is fine, and same-colonisation at 50% autonomy is still probably the best way to expand in the game.

It does make isolated OPM tribes trickier, but they're supposed to be hard, and they're not undoable. I noted several such AI tribes had settled down in a decent tax-base province, built native buildings, and were keeping standing 14,000-man armies as an OPM. It should be reasonably simple for any player to do the same, and an army that large is more than enough to start conquering in the New World.
 
deezee said:
Yeah the diseases spread much faster than European settlers. For perspective, at the time that Pizarro first arrived in the Inca empire to conquer it, they had already lost between 30-50% of their population to diseases, probably smallpox, and the Incan Emperor Atahualpa had taken the throne after the succession crises that resulted due to the disease killing both the previous emperor and his heir.

That said, plagues don't make for fun gameplay, and neither do permenant nerfs. There are better ways to nerf the exploits (and Russia) that were previously overpowered without weakening native states as well.
Click to expand...

What's the idea behind nerfing Russia and not native Americans?
 
Kyoumen said:
It really, really doesn't. I'm currently making more money and fielding a bigger army than France or Castille as Inca, and Cusco doesn't start very big.

Any country capable of conquering around it to get a tax base is fine, and same-colonisation at 50% autonomy is still probably the best way to expand in the game.

It does make isolated OPM tribes trickier, but they're supposed to be hard, and they're not undoable. I noted several such AI tribes had settled down in a decent tax-base province, built native buildings, and were keeping standing 14,000-man armies as an OPM. It should be reasonably simple for any player to do the same, and an army that large is more than enough to start conquering in the New World.
Click to expand...

"I am making..." is not a solid argument. I've made more money and fielded a bigger army than France or Castille as Ulm, Frankfurt, Korea, Tuscany, Ceylon or the Mongol Khanate. It doesn't mean that they are overpowered - only that a human player WILL be stronger than any AI competition.
 
WeissRaben said:
"I am making..." is not a solid argument. I've made more money and fielded a bigger army than France or Castille as Ulm, Frankfurt, Korea, Tuscany, Ceylon or the Mongol Khanate. It doesn't mean that they are overpowered - only that a human player WILL be stronger than any AI competition.
Click to expand...

Yeah, by that logic, Ryukyu is overpowered because of DDRJake. ;)
 
nicechinos said:
What's the idea behind nerfing Russia and not native Americans?
Click to expand...
This nerf doesn't even nerf that much Russia because they have their own lands which are already rich as well as plenty of lands to conquer, Siberia is just a nice addition that even in the last patch didn't make you a ridiculous amount of money, and if you were lucky you got some gold.

Most of the Natives in the new world are OPMs who even after conquering a few neighbors can barely afford a colonist anyways.
 
Kyoumen said:
The diseases actually preceded the Europeans in many cases. Entire native civilisations collapsed and disappeared without ever even seeing a European. Since the effects of 90% of the population dying (and then more dying in subsequent waves) aren't in the game (and would be far worse than the 50% autonomy floor), it's not entirely unfair to represent some sort of barrier to large-scale native colonisation. CNs didn't have the same problem, and historically the population in the 13 colonies exploded while native populations continued a steady decline.

Though, really, this was aimed at all same-continent colonisers, not just the native Americans. The real problem is that same-continent colonisation is very easy and very powerful.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind the game displays natives *as they were found by Europeans*. The major die-offs had already happened before this in a lot of cases. For example, at game start, there really should be a large Mississippian nation (see Mississippian mound-building culture) - the Muskogee are probably the remnants of this civilization after smallpox collapsed it.

Inca and even Aztecs have far less base tax than they should as well. Even after smallpox-related die offs, they still had large native populations (that were promptly enslaved by the Spanish to labor for them).
 
WeissRaben said:
"I am making..." is not a solid argument. I've made more money and fielded a bigger army than France or Castille as Ulm, Frankfurt, Korea, Tuscany, Ceylon or the Mongol Khanate. It doesn't mean that they are overpowered - only that a human player WILL be stronger than any AI competition.
Click to expand...

The post I responded to was:

"Even just make that apply to provinces in same continent, because this pretty much kills most NA / African starts."

My example was actually wrong, I realised upon rereading, because Inca is of course SA, not NA (however, one could easily make the same accomplishments with any Mesoamerican state or non-OPM native state, both from NA).

It isn't wrong because of whatever you're going on about, though. I am not DDRJake. If I can easily dominate the continent, then the start is not "killed".
 
WeissRaben said:
"I am making..." is not a solid argument. I've made more money and fielded a bigger army than France or Castille as Ulm, Frankfurt, Korea, Tuscany, Ceylon or the Mongol Khanate. It doesn't mean that they are overpowered - only that a human player WILL be stronger than any AI competition.
Click to expand...
The point is that he's doing it with colonized American land as a native, not by going overseas and grabbing rich, non-colonized territory elsewhere. No suggestion of using exploits or advanced techniques either. In other words, the 50% autonomy isn't crippling native capabilities.

Yes, the AI will still lose to European colonizers. They probably should.
 
I understand that but keeping no LA for natives and LA for Russia is highly inconsistent, illogical and not valid from historical perspective. It balances the game but doesn't outweigh internal inconsistency for me.
 
Squirrelloid said:
Keep in mind the game displays natives *as they were found by Europeans*. The major die-offs had already happened before this in a lot of cases. For example, at game start, there really should be a large Mississippian nation (see Mississippian mound-building culture) - the Muskogee are probably the remnants of this civilization after smallpox collapsed it.

Inca and even Aztecs have far less base tax than they should as well. Even after smallpox-related die offs, they still had large native populations (that were promptly enslaved by the Spanish to labor for them).
Click to expand...

While that is true to an extent... it is only true to an extent. The fact is, epidemics were far more disruptive than simply reducing a manpower pool and base tax level.

Your kings don't drop dead at a much higher rate than anyone else. Your standing armies don't melt away. You don't have provinces simply fall out of your empire because everyone's either dead or fled. Etc, etc.
 
nicechinos said:
I understand that but keeping no LA for natives and LA for Russia is highly inconsistent, illogical and not valid from historical perspective. It balances the game but doesn't outweigh internal inconsistency for me.
Click to expand...
I agree, that's why it should just go down on it's own over time for everyone, including colonial nations.
 
I agree it makes no sene at all, for the people coming form accros the ocean it makes sense though they nullify it by creating Colonial Nations and Trade Companies. Really no need to nerf the natives this hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back