Britain did very much intervene. They were protecting their loyal colonial administration from the revolutionary elements rising up against it.
- 6
- 3
- 1
AAR Thread
- Thread starter Hammrtime
- Start date
-
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.
It's worse, Britain intervened in favor of the slavers against an abolitionist revolt.
Then again it was "just" debt slavery and not chattel slavery with transnational trade, but still.
- 5
Hopefully this is a smallish problem to fix - the overlord should intervene on the side of the subject’s government by default but there should be situations where they side with the revolution instead. This should be one of them. If they had then the rest would be fine - in the unlikely event that NSW won they would become independent and be unable to use the Confederation mechanics (but they could still form Australia militarily, which is fine). Everything else was fine - the economy took a tailspin, people fled, and the country faced repeated revolutions until it finally collapsed. All of which is what I’d expect to happen if NSW decided to randomly institute slavery and miraculously won the independence war they’d certainly have to fight to do that.
- 14
Debt slaving seems to happen a bit too fast? I mean, there probably should be some cap for how fast you can enslave the population of a state, and how many slaves there can be in a state?
- 6
- 1
The main problem of the Australia AAR isn't who the UK supported in the diplomatic play (of course the britishs supported their colony against a revolt that would have established a fully independent nation), it's that New South Wales was able to enact debt slavery without first having it approved by the UK.
The fact that a colonial state can independently change its laws without its overlord having any say in the matter is strange to say the least and I hope the devs will do something about it because a colonial overlord should definitely have some control over the process.
The fact that a colonial state can independently change its laws without its overlord having any say in the matter is strange to say the least and I hope the devs will do something about it because a colonial overlord should definitely have some control over the process.
- 23
- 7
- 1
I see a few problems:
1) You can debt enslave 2/3 of your populace.
2) Your overlord doesn't care. In fact, there is no situation where your overlord fines you crazy and intervenes? Britain absolutely would've if this occurred historically.
3) Despite running a hellhole that would promptly enslave them, the other Australian states joined the Australian nation?
- 20
- 1
To be fair he intentionally went out of his way to impoverish everyone and get them in debt
- 18
It should also be that the overlord picks the government they want to support in case of subject's revolution. With the option of
Though in case of Player country being the subject, it can be frustrating like with Vic2 allies to know whether the overlord would support you or not, so either they should always support their subject if it's a Player or have an indicator in Revolution screen which faction they would support.
- Staying out of it - the subject has a revolution and either way remains a subject
- Support one side and win - they remain a subject
- Support one side and lose - they become independent
Though in case of Player country being the subject, it can be frustrating like with Vic2 allies to know whether the overlord would support you or not, so either they should always support their subject if it's a Player or have an indicator in Revolution screen which faction they would support.
- 20
- 2
Why not just use the existing sway system? You can see before what your overlord is more likely to support, but may change their mind for a price (like going for the less autonomy relationship)
- 9
- 1
Apologies in advance if what I ask is shocking, but : Why do people feel so surprised that Britain might support one of their colonies chosing slavery ? Of course, I totally get that this would cause some scandal in the British society, the British press, even turmoil possibly. But the British governement ? We're talking about one of the deadliest and most cynical colonial empires in History. They began thinking slavery was very bad when their slave colonies got upset and threw packets of tea into the Atlantic ocean, but in other parts of the world, slavery was no issue at all for them.
Now, they might believe this is afoolish move, and try to persuade New South Wales to back down, applying sanctions for example *if* they feel it would be in their interest (for example if British abolitionist IGs are pressuring), but personnaly I found Britain attitudein the AAR perfectly cromulent
Now, they might believe this is afoolish move, and try to persuade New South Wales to back down, applying sanctions for example *if* they feel it would be in their interest (for example if British abolitionist IGs are pressuring), but personnaly I found Britain attitudein the AAR perfectly cromulent
- 8
- 7
- 2
- 1
- 1
I can't help but feel like everyone is overestimating just how much the British government (or, more accurately, the British voters) actually cares about stuff that happens in the colonies. When a European nation grants some autonomy to their colonies, that comes with the expectation that the colony may not do everything precisely as the motherland would prefer them to. I'm not saying that Britain should have no control over what goes on in Australia, some sort of system where a subject has to get approval for law changes might be nice to have. But as long as the colony keeps sending goods and taxes back home, the prevailing attitude should be "who cares?"
For a historical example, just look at South Africa, which started implementing policies that would later become Apartheid almost from their founding, with working conditions little better than literal slavery. If South Africa can have not-quite-slaves on the basis of race, can't Australia have not-quite-slaves ("indentured servants" or something) on the basis of them being poor?
For a historical example, just look at South Africa, which started implementing policies that would later become Apartheid almost from their founding, with working conditions little better than literal slavery. If South Africa can have not-quite-slaves on the basis of race, can't Australia have not-quite-slaves ("indentured servants" or something) on the basis of them being poor?
- 18
- 3
- 2
The thing that feels very ahistorical isn't that they support a slavery based government but rather than they do a military intervention in favor of it. Especially without asking questions or even being able to consider that the revolution should be the legitimate government of the colony.
A revolution isn't like some random peasant uprising. It's an alternate government trying to gain control, and if the revolution isn't strictly opposed to british overlordship they should have a good chance to gain the support, or at least have the overlord stay neutral.
- 13
I think the problem isn't that they acted a certain way, but rather that they lacked choice. Via game mechanics GB had no say over laws of colony no matter what happened, and had to support them against revolution regardless of what it was about. Like I am fine with the AI deciding that they are gonna act pragmatic, but they should choose that, rather than be forced into it.
- 14
- 1
It's not slavery, it's a program to save the poor from the vagaries of the market by providing them with a secure job for their entire family as well as room and board. Of course, this does come with certain obligations on the part of those benefitting from this innovative program...
At least I imagine that's what the NSW representative said in his speech in front of parliament to justify the policy.
At least I imagine that's what the NSW representative said in his speech in front of parliament to justify the policy.
- 7
- 2
- 1
I think puppets and Dominions should have a loyalist IG that supports everything that the mother country has enacted
- 14
- 2
- 2
- 1
It's not slavery, it's a program to save the poor from the vagaries of the market by providing them with a secure job for their entire family as well as room and board. Of course, this does come with certain obligations on the part of those benefitting from this innovative program...
At least I imagine that's what the NSW representative said in his speech in front of parliament to justify the policy.
If it was actually the case it would be pretty good. When a subject changed its laws you could have a chain of events starting over the issue with the leader of the subject nation being summoned to the overlord's capital to explain himself. And the likeliness of success would be influenced by your leader traits. For example a charismatic guy would have more chance to convince its overlord's government with a speech, one coming from old nobility could try to use his family connexion to influence them and a corrupt one could try to bribe them. If you fail to convince your overlord you are left with the choice to proceed anyway, something that will anger your overlord greatly, or to give up on your reform project.
But it doesn't appear to be the case in the game, from what we saw, a subject is simply completely free to make any change to its laws without the overlord having any say on it.
- 3
I fully agree. I'd love to see something like that and I also think it should be harder to deviate so fundamentally from your overlords policies. Ever since council Republic Canada.
I was just having some fun with the idea.
There is one thing that intrigued me in the Brazil AAR regarding (random) characters taking over IGs periodically : the player gets to chose them (or more subtly he o she gets a "you know what you lose but you don't know what you get"decision) As the traits of theses characters apparently have great infleunce on the IGs attitude, espcially towards laws, I am guessing this strange mechanic is here to let the player game his or her way towards IGs approval, avoiding a possible frustrating stalemate regarding the eternal opposition of powerful IGs to what the player wants to achieve law-wise.
I was wondering to myself if I'd prefer to not have my say at all (and accept whatever leaders IGs pop out first to better represent these contingencies) or engage in that kind of gambling and hope for a messiah to sculpt my country exactly as I want it to be ?
I was wondering to myself if I'd prefer to not have my say at all (and accept whatever leaders IGs pop out first to better represent these contingencies) or engage in that kind of gambling and hope for a messiah to sculpt my country exactly as I want it to be ?
- 2