Apparently annexing natives in colonial wars generates the same infamy as annexing a normal country

[Question]

I was wondering how the UK ended up with 200+ infamy....turns out that you get infamy from annexing natives during colonial wars. The way it works is that as you colonise a region, the natives eventually get pissed and will start a diplomatic play with you which inevitably turns into a war (unless you back down, but nobody does that). The problem is that you get the same amount of infamy as annexing a normal country, and you rack up a huge amount of infamy this way.

The cause of this : the diplomatic play uses the war goal "annex_native", but the defines does not define a seperate infamy cost for this, there is no annex_native in the defines. It seems to use the same infamy cost as annex_country instead. End result : everytime you annex a small native country during a native uprising, the game hits you with the same amount of infamy as if you had annexed a recognized country instead.

Annexing these natives should generate minimal infamy, if any.

 

[SufrimientoCC]

I was wondering how the UK ended up with 200+ infamy....turns out that you get infamy from annexing natives during colonial wars. The way it works is that as you colonise a region, the natives eventually get pissed and will start a diplomatic play with you which inevitably turns into a war (unless you back down, but nobody does that). The problem is that you get the same amount of infamy as annexing a normal country, and you rack up a huge amount of infamy this way.

The cause of this : the diplomatic play uses the war goal "annex_native", but the defines does not define a seperate infamy cost for this, there is no annex_native in the defines. It seems to use the same infamy cost as annex_country instead. End result : everytime you annex a small native country during a native uprising, the game hits you with the same amount of infamy as if you had annexed a recognized country instead.

Annexing these natives should generate minimal infamy, if any.

There is apparently minimal difference in how native and colonial powers are coded.

 

[Question]

This shouldnt be happening

 

[sterrius]

Alao happens during civil wars.

Brazil get infamy from annexing the two rebel provinces.

I wonder if the same happens with the usa.

 

[Jimboy93]

That explains why everyone hates me

 

[lUndeadl]

This problem is fatal and it leads to a colonial power's infamy that can easily reach 100+.Colonies can choose to back down directly, so that the player is forced without even entering an actual battle increase the infamy

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

I am not convinced this is wrong.

Germany's bid for 'a place in the sun' was not exactly welcomed by Britain and France, who were also deeply suspicious of one another's colonial ventures. The Qing were also alarmed by the speed with which the Raj gobbled up Indian states in the early 19th century (there is a minority view that this was a major driver of the Opium Wars). The game should replicate these tensions, both for realism and to reduce snowballing.

If you think there should be little or no Infamy for colonizing or annexing Decentralised States ('natives'), then please explain why. OP and others have asserted this opinion without any justification.

 

[sterrius]

I am not convinced this is wrong.

Germany's bid for 'a place in the sun' was not exactly welcomed by Britain and France, who were also deeply suspicious of one another's colonial ventures. The Qing were also alarmed by the speed with which the Raj gobbled up Indian states in the early 19th century (there is a minority view that this was a major driver of the Opium Wars). The game should replicate these tensions, both for realism and to reduce snowballing.

If you think there should be little or no Infamy for colonizing or annexing Decentralised States ('natives'), then please explain why. OP and others have asserted this opinion without any justification.

The act of getting some infamy is not wrong.
The act of ireland caring about england placing a "i own this!" in the middle of africa to scare him like england took a chunk of france do seems strange at minimum.

Now this is different from 2 africa powers killing each other. Countrys will care if a regional power is starting to get big.
Countrys have power and importance and infamy you take should reflect the position of country X on the world stage.


Not saying the infamy should be too small so you don´t care about infamy from the action.
But its not the same as taking a state from a major power.

 

[Question]

I am not convinced this is wrong.

Germany's bid for 'a place in the sun' was not exactly welcomed by Britain and France, who were also deeply suspicious of one another's colonial ventures. The Qing were also alarmed by the speed with which the Raj gobbled up Indian states in the early 19th century (there is a minority view that this was a major driver of the Opium Wars). The game should replicate these tensions, both for realism and to reduce snowballing.

If you think there should be little or no Infamy for colonizing or annexing Decentralised States ('natives'), then please explain why. OP and others have asserted this opinion without any justification.

The thing is that in vic 3, infamy is on a global system. So the ENTIRE WORLD now treats the UK as a pariah because they colonized parts of Africa. This obviously did not happen IRL.

Native uprisings generating the same amount of infamy as conquering a european power obviously isnt intended. If you look in the defines file, its obvious that they forgot to add annex_native there.

 

[SufrimientoCC]

I am not convinced this is wrong.

Germany's bid for 'a place in the sun' was not exactly welcomed by Britain and France, who were also deeply suspicious of one another's colonial ventures. The Qing were also alarmed by the speed with which the Raj gobbled up Indian states in the early 19th century (there is a minority view that this was a major driver of the Opium Wars). The game should replicate these tensions, both for realism and to reduce snowballing.

If you think there should be little or no Infamy for colonizing or annexing Decentralised States ('natives'), then please explain why. OP and others have asserted this opinion without any justification.

This game lacks containment, people hated Germany’s expansion because they had plans to expand in those areas. China was afraid of encroachment because the British and French were shipping in drugs, gaining trade control and were sniping former tributaries of the Qing.

 

[RodolfoA]

I think the worst problem here is that you have no chooice if you want the infamy or not. I entered in a loop of having infamy made the colonies goes to war and this wars made more infamy. If I could I would just back down from some to get my infamy less than 100, but the war starts with your war goal in place and you have already got the infamy.

 

[Rullino]

Alao happens during civil wars.

Brazil get infamy from annexing the two rebel provinces.

I wonder if the same happens with the usa.

True, maybe it could be like EU4 where you get little to no infamy considering they broke apart from the country, which would make it a reconquest, same for the USA during the civil war I hope, otherwise ti would be the same thing as the confederate supporters would say.

 

[Ato1]

The real problem is that in the native uprising the wargoal for the colonizer is to annex the decentralized state. It should be to "defend the colony" and winning would allow them to continue the normal colonization. Annexing makes the colonization happen too fast, malaria penalties mostly irrelevant (all the land gets grabbed anyway at the uprising, so the colonization speed doesn't really matter), and doesn't make much sense from the realism point either (there isn't any governing structure for the colonizer to annex). And if you are in a competition for the territory with another colonizer, the one without the uprising ends up in a weird position.

 

[Silens]

Infamy should primarily be generated towards nations that have an interest in the region.

There's not much logic in Moldavia being wary of me (Japan) for making Joseon a puppet. "Moldavia views Japan as a potential threat in geopolitical affairs." LOL, as if Moldavia was geopolitically active in any way beyond its own borders. Haiti even views me "as a threatening force"; I'm nowhere near their island, or their continent for that matter. Nor do I have any interest in that region.

The values also don't make much sense. Conquering the Malaria-ridden Western and Eastern New Guinea gives as much infamy as taking London or Paris.

And then there's the "Take back region xy", which requires a claim (historic or through event). But it doesn't matter, because it gives you the same amount of infamy as just conquering it. Not even reduced infamy for taking back something someone stole from you. It's as if you're a warmonger on a killing spree.

There's also a lack of meaningful ways to get rid of infamy. The event from obligations (gives -10 infamy) sometimes fires, sometimes it doesn't.

But you can game the system: don't conquer anything for 10 years, then do something crazy that brings you above 100 infamy, wait for the inevitable "Cut down to size" before you finish your crazy conquest, simply give in and voila, now all your infamy is gone and you can keep everything you conquer from the ongoing war. And you don't have to give anything back, because everything else is older than 10 years.

Now I'm ranting... anyway, infamy needs to change at some point, so it makes more sense.

 

[alanschu]

The real problem is that in the native uprising the wargoal for the colonizer is to annex the decentralized state. It should be to "defend the colony" and winning would allow them to continue the normal colonization. Annexing makes the colonization happen too fast, malaria penalties mostly irrelevant (all the land gets grabbed anyway at the uprising, so the colonization speed doesn't really), and doesn't make much sense from the realism point either (there isn't any governing structure for the colonizer to annex. And if you are in a competition for the territory with another colonizer, the one without the uprising ends up in a weird position.

This feels like a good solution. You continue the colonization rather than the annexation. Nice!

 

[toegut]

Infamy should primarily be generated towards nations that have an interest in the region.

There's not much logic in Moldavia being wary of me (Japan) for making Joseon a puppet. "Moldavia views Japan as a potential threat in geopolitical affairs." LOL, as if Moldavia was geopolitically active in any way beyond its own borders. Haiti even views me "as a threatening force"; I'm nowhere near their island, or their continent for that matter. Nor do I have any interest in that region.

The values also don't make much sense. Conquering the Malaria-ridden Western and Eastern New Guinea gives as much infamy as taking London or Paris.

And then there's the "Take back region xy", which requires a claim (historic or through event). But it doesn't matter, because it gives you the same amount of infamy as just conquering it. Not even reduced infamy for taking back something someone stole from you. It's as if you're a warmonger on a killing spree.

There's also a lack of meaningful ways to get rid of infamy. The event from obligations (gives -10 infamy) sometimes fires, sometimes it doesn't.

But you can game the system: don't conquer anything for 10 years, then do something crazy that brings you above 100 infamy, wait for the inevitable "Cut down to size" before you finish your crazy conquest, simply give in and voila, now all your infamy is gone and you can keep everything you conquer from the ongoing war. And you don't have to give anything back, because everything else is older than 10 years.

Now I'm ranting... anyway, infamy needs to change at some point, so it makes more sense.

isn't there a limit to how much you can conquer in one war? I think it's your maneuvers number. I could only take four states from Austria for example before I ran out of maneuvers.

 

[Silens]

isn't there a limit to how much you can conquer in one war? I think it's your maneuvers number. I could only take four states from Austria for example before I ran out of maneuvers.

Yes, but if your limit is like 120, you can take three or four pop dense regions for 35 infamy each, in addition to the one you went for first. 4 or 5 of them will land you at ~150 infamy, and it takes 30 years to clear that normally.

Or you take the CB to make Japan a puppet (that alone gives you ~110 infamy), and if anyone powerful (like GB) helps them, you just throw in another conquests worth 100 infamy. Like "transfer subject" and then East India Company for 120 infamy, because why not?

Usually it's hard to come back from over 200 infamy, but then you just don't progress the war until someone hits you with "Cut down to size", you give in the moment you can, and then you get to keep massive gains at 0 infamy.

 

[Korashy]

Infamy makes little sense regardless. Sometimes the game will give me 7.8 infamy to conquer a tiny slice of a state (literally 2 "provinces" of colonization) with 29k people living there.

Othertimes the game will be like, oh you wanna puppet Denmark? no worries just pay 37 infamy

 

[Cosmonaut15]

Infamy should primarily be generated towards nations that have an interest in the region.

There's not much logic in Moldavia being wary of me (Japan) for making Joseon a puppet. "Moldavia views Japan as a potential threat in geopolitical affairs." LOL, as if Moldavia was geopolitically active in any way beyond its own borders. Haiti even views me "as a threatening force"; I'm nowhere near their island, or their continent for that matter. Nor do I have any interest in that region.

The values also don't make much sense. Conquering the Malaria-ridden Western and Eastern New Guinea gives as much infamy as taking London or Paris.

And then there's the "Take back region xy", which requires a claim (historic or through event). But it doesn't matter, because it gives you the same amount of infamy as just conquering it. Not even reduced infamy for taking back something someone stole from you. It's as if you're a warmonger on a killing spree.

There's also a lack of meaningful ways to get rid of infamy. The event from obligations (gives -10 infamy) sometimes fires, sometimes it doesn't.

But you can game the system: don't conquer anything for 10 years, then do something crazy that brings you above 100 infamy, wait for the inevitable "Cut down to size" before you finish your crazy conquest, simply give in and voila, now all your infamy is gone and you can keep everything you conquer from the ongoing war. And you don't have to give anything back, because everything else is older than 10 years.

Now I'm ranting... anyway, infamy needs to change at some point, so it makes more sense.

I’d prefer getting rid of the infamy altogether and just stick to the “relationship” system like EU4 did. Now it just seem redundant. The relationship impact could be local like EU4.
Another option is to activate the infamy only for major or great power as an additional mechanics to represent tensions between them vying for power. This new infamy could only affected major and great power interaction. Something like this.

 

[SufrimientoCC]

I’d prefer getting rid of the infamy altogether and just stick to the “relationship” system like EU4 did. Now it just seem redundant. The relationship impact could be local like EU4.
Another option is to activate the infamy only for major or great power as an additional mechanics to represent tensions between them vying for power. This new infamy could only affected major and great power interaction. Something like this.

Infamy works if there are important peace conferences and foreign interventions in capitulation, it doesn’t work in normal circumstances because the game doesn’t factor in the racism of imperial powers.