AHD DD6 – China

[podcat]

Sounds like great changes!

One question on colonization: is it just a binary troops present/no troops present or does it scale with the amount of troops or anything else?
And is it still possible to fight the other colonizers troops in the still neutral but contested territory without being at war with him? I'm not exactly sure if podcat wanted to say it's out by this:

no fighting. the ideas is the troops are there and create lots of tension which leads to you being able to push through a CB and attack if you want, or if you lost the colony race to take back the land. Random fighting outside actual wars creates lots of problems and I'm not convinced it adds that much to the game. I like this tension increase much better as a solution.

its a flat bonus, so it doesnt matter how many troops you have

 

[pacja]

A bit OT, but since we're speaking about colonizing: is there anything you could do to make more likely for Prussia/Germany/German Empire to conquer/colonize its historical regions in Africa (namibia, tanzania, etc.)? The new boost to CB regarding colonization could be even more juicy if the struggle involves more GPs.

 

[Dorevai]

Yea, the naval range thing doesn't really induce plausible behavior. Germany owned Togo, Cameroon, Namibia, Tanzania, Qingdao, part of New Guinea, and many pacific islands. But in-game, they'll more likely to get west morocco and the sahara desert if they get anything at all. That's pretty silly.

 

[Darkrenown]

Germany didn't have a burning desire to colonise those areas though, they just picked them up because they were late to the game, they felt they needed some colonies to show they were a Great Power, and no one else wanted them.

 

[safferli]

Germany didn't have a burning desire to colonise those areas though, they just picked them up because they were late to the game, they felt they needed some colonies to show they were a Great Power, and no one else wanted them.

Exactly. By all counts other than "square miles of land", the German colonies were an utter failure.

 

[RedRalphWiggum]

Exactly. By all counts other than "square miles of land", the German colonies were an utter failure.

And a nightmare for some of the locals (Germany was hardly alone in that respect though). I think the naval distance mechanic is fine, sure it isn't perfect but it does the job.

 

[pacja]

I know why they got those land, but it isn't the real point. I wasn't asking for the love of history, but for a more exciting gameplay when it comes to colonial wars: putting Germany on the path of UK while the british crown tries to create a sort of "Cape to Cairo line" would bring one more big player to the party. In most of my games, i have Spain in NW Africa, a bit of Russia in Somalia and the rest is for the greater part french or british, except some austrian colonies from time to time. Another mighty country would add variety to the strategic outcomes, since one of the three big guys could exploit wars between the other two.
Well, it was just a proposal, didn't mean to raise a debate over the naval distance system, which i don't criticize at all.

 

[Hibernian]

Speaking about Colonial tensions, etc, what about bringing back the Colonial Wars feature from VIC1? (That is, where two Imperial powers could be at war, but could only fight within colonies, not core provinces).

 

[Weijun]

Speaking about Colonial tensions, etc, what about bringing back the Colonial Wars feature from VIC1? (That is, where two Imperial powers could be at war, but could only fight within colonies, not core provinces).

Please don't. Colonial wars belong in the early modern period, not the 19th century. Can you think of a single 19th war where the Great Powers fought a limited war over colonial territory? In the original Victoria, colonial wars meant civ vs unciv, with the added advantage that the unciv could not invade the civilized country's home territories. Uncivs do not need further nerfing.

 

[Hibernian]

Please don't. Colonial wars belong in the early modern period, not the 19th century.

Hmm, and can you remind me of what time period VIC2 occurs in? Yes I think it's 1836 to 1936, does that not cover the "early modern period"? I think you'll find it does.

Can you think of a single 19th war where the Great Powers fought a limited war over colonial territory?

Yes, the Spanish-American War is a good example. The war was fought in many distant colonies and at sea, but neither side ever had any intention of invading the other's homeland.

The Italo-Turkish War is another example. Other colonial wars could easily have broken out on several occasions like the Fashoda Incident.

In the original Victoria, colonial wars meant civ vs unciv, with the added advantage that the unciv could not invade the civilized country's home territories. Uncivs do not need further nerfing.

Well I agree that Uncivs not being able to attack Civ wouldn't be desirable, but I think there is definitely a case for having limited colonial wars in the game.

 

[s1234567890m]

Hmm, and can you remind me of what time period VIC2 occurs in? Yes I think it's 1836 to 1936, does that not cover the "early modern period"? I think you'll find it does.



Yes, the Spanish-American War is a good example. The war was fought in many distant colonies and at sea, but neither side ever had any intention of invading the other's homeland.

The Italo-Turkish War is another example. Other colonial wars could easily have broken out on several occasions like the Fashoda Incident.



Well I agree that Uncivs not being able to attack Civ wouldn't be desirable, but I think there is definitely a case for having limited colonial wars in the game.

The spanish america is already represented ingame with cores in cuba
The italian otto war was over libya, and dividing up a weak ottoman empire (would be good in game) not really a war over colonisation
The Fashoda Incident seems to reflect what the devs mentioned with occupying the same province enabling better causibelli creation....

 

[Hibernian]

The spanish america is already represented ingame with cores in cuba

Eh, no that doesn't make the slightest sense, there's an early event for the USA allowing it to get cores on Cuba and turn it into a slave state (see Golden Circle, etc.), but that obviously doesn't make sense after the Civil War (assuming the North wins). And besides annexing Cuba to the USA was not what the Spanish-American war was about, Cuba became independent (nominally), but under heavy US influence (SOI in game terms), the US didn't try to annex it. And even if the US has a core on Cuba and that causes them to go to war with one another, the result will be nothing at all like the actual war, with the US capturing the Philippines, etc.

The Spanish-American war cannot be simulated very well by the game at the moment, since the AI will most likely just try to send a massive force straight to their enemy's capital and ignore the colonial possessions that was what the war was actually about. Hence you would need a system that prevents Total War between two powers, but still allows them to engage in hostilities for high stakes.

The italian otto war was over libya, and dividing up a weak ottoman empire (would be good in game) not really a war over colonisation

Libya was effectively an Ottoman Colony and the Ottomans were certainly a "Civilized Nation" (probably a Secondary Power as well) in game terms, so it would definitely count as a Colonial War under the VIC1 system.

The Fashoda Incident seems to reflect what the devs mentioned with occupying the same province enabling better causibelli creation....

Yeah, but what if something like that actually leads to war, what kind of war would it be? I would argue that it would be a war limited to the Colonies and the High Seas and that neither side would attempt to invade the other's home territory.

 

[s1234567890m]

Eh, no that doesn't make the slightest sense, there's an early event for the USA allowing it to get cores on Cuba and turn it into a slave state (see Golden Circle, etc.), but that obviously doesn't make sense after the Civil War (assuming the North wins). And besides annexing Cuba to the USA was not what the Spanish-American war was about, Cuba became independent (nominally), but under heavy US influence (SOI in game terms), the US didn't try to annex it. And even if the US has a core on Cuba and that causes them to go to war with one another, the result will be nothing at all like the actual war, with the US capturing the Philippines, etc.

The Spanish-American war cannot be simulated very well by the game at the moment, since the AI will most likely just try to send a massive force straight to their enemy's capital and ignore the colonial possessions that was what the war was actually about. Hence you would need a system that prevents Total War between two powers, but still allows them to engage in hostilities for high stakes.



Libya was effectively an Ottoman Colony and the Ottomans were certainly a "Civilized Nation" (probably a Secondary Power as well) in game terms, so it would definitely count as a Colonial War under the VIC1 system.



Yeah, but what if something like that actually leads to war, what kind of war would it be? I would argue that it would be a war limited to the Colonies and the High Seas and that neither side would attempt to invade the other's home territory.

That might work but the AI nearly always gets the colonies to states very quickly

 

[Hibernian]

That might work but the AI nearly always gets the colonies to states very quickly

Only in the crappy Vanilla version, most mods fix that problem.

 

[Felicity]

Speaking about Colonial tensions, etc, what about bringing back the Colonial Wars feature from VIC1? (That is, where two Imperial powers could be at war, but could only fight within colonies, not core provinces).

Little unrelated but in my Germany game I had just this happen, even without the mechanics for it to happen. CSA was in Egypt, and I wanted the Suez Canal. I controlled most of Arabia. It was a war completely kept to those colonial areas- we didn't touch Germany or the South. It was an interesting setup, I think. It only worked because our wargoals were only in that area.

 

[Andrelvis]

Exactly. By all counts other than "square miles of land", the German colonies were an utter failure.

Except for Tanganyika, which did reasonably well.

 

[brycef]

Yea, the naval range thing doesn't really induce plausible behavior. Germany owned Togo, Cameroon, Namibia, Tanzania, Qingdao, part of New Guinea, and many pacific islands. But in-game, they'll more likely to get west morocco and the sahara desert if they get anything at all. That's pretty silly.

Actually from what I have read the British helped Germany get some colonies because it a) was felt they could civilize these areas and b) the British felt that Germany would be a better neighbor in Europe if they had some colonies of their own. So in game mechanics, perhaps if you allowed nations to colonize based not on just their own naval base range, but that of allies/military access ports it would be more plausible.

 

[Claudius]

Actually from what I have read the British helped Germany get some colonies because it a) was felt they could civilize these areas and b) the British felt that Germany would be a better neighbor in Europe if they had some colonies of their own. So in game mechanics, perhaps if you allowed nations to colonize based not on just their own naval base range, but that of allies/military access ports it would be more plausible.

In this case I'd rather see a second form of access for colonial purposes, indicating a wish to help that nation colonize. As GB, for example, I may want to give Hannover military access without seeing Hannoverisches Ethiopien or something equally silly pop up.

 

[newtype0083]

Instead of making the substates different colors, why not have thicker national border lines, with dotted or thinner lines as the substate boundaries? Might make the map less ugly while still being able to see where one substate ends and another begins.

 

[Lanassa]

Hmm, and can you remind me of what time period VIC2 occurs in? Yes I think it's 1836 to 1936, does that not cover the "early modern period"? I think you'll find it does.

The "early modern period" is like, the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries. V2 happens after it, not before.

I'm not terribly happy with the notion of Great Power wars over colonies in AHD on the grounds that it basically never happened historically, and the one major potential counterexample - Fashoda - was an unholy mixture of basically everything that could possibly be calculated to get the French and British presses riled at each other and the governments still avoided fighting. Why? Because the European Mission was too important to jeopardize with war; the Great Powers intelligently decided that fighting each other over colonies was outrageously stupid.