Colonial divisions

[HelmuthM]

In Vic1 the best military strategy is to recruit hundreds of colonial divisions and ship them to Europe. They are so cheap (90% lower cost) and powerful enough that they guarantee a victory in any war.

Any plans to address the ridiculous military inbalance? 99% of men who fought in WWI were Europeans or other Westerners, so I don't think colonial divisions should be even added to the game.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

Does anyone acctualy tell you to recruit them? I never do it.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

In Vic1 the best military strategy is to recruit hundreds of colonial divisions and ship them to Europe. They are so cheap (90% lower cost) and powerful enough that they guarantee a victory in any war.

Any plans to address the ridiculous military inbalance? 99% of men who fought in WWI were Europeans or other Westerners, so I don't think colonial divisions should be even added to the game.

I believe they should be added, because then on the flip side most troops used to garrison colonies were native troops. Maybe colonial troops, instead, should be tied to the colony that generated them. And then to represent the use of colonial divisions at home, a unit attachment called "colonials" with the requirement that one had colonies, would lower the cost, upkeep and stats of the unit (instead of raising them) if attached to a division.

Does anyone acctualy tell you to recruit them? I never do it.

This is also true, exploits are just that... one must exploit them for it to be an issue.

 

[HelmuthM]

This is also true, exploits are just that... one must exploit them for it to be an issue.

It wasn't "an exploit". As I got colonies, the game calculated that I had manpower for hundreds of colonial divisions... and the upkeep cost is intentionally small.

 

[GanguGengu]

In Vic1 the best military strategy is to recruit hundreds of colonial divisions and ship them to Europe. They are so cheap (90% lower cost) and powerful enough that they guarantee a victory in any war.

Any plans to address the ridiculous military inbalance? 99% of men who fought in WWI were Europeans or other Westerners, so I don't think colonial divisions should be even added to the game.

1. This isn't WW1 game.
2. Although they weren't used in Europe, they were important factor in colonies.

 

[byzantium43]

In Vic1 the best military strategy is to recruit hundreds of colonial divisions and ship them to Europe. They are so cheap (90% lower cost) and powerful enough that they guarantee a victory in any war.

Any plans to address the ridiculous military inbalance? 99% of men who fought in WWI were Europeans or other Westerners, so I don't think colonial divisions should be even added to the game.

A large portion of the British troops were from India and commonwealth and there were lots of African units involved too, so I wouldn't say 99% of the men were Europeans and westerners, but I do agree that it is an imbalance that needs to be readjusted.

 

[Flooper X]

In Rev you couldn't convert native pops to soldiers in the colonies, which means that you couldn't recruit all that many divisions from the colonies (maximum of 99 per culture, if you had a large enough stock of weapons and food, due to the ability to go above the div-cap if all divisions are recruited at once. The cap however is rarely over 20 even for the most common cultures, and usually below 10)

If they keep this system and in addition make it impossible to breach the division cap per culture even if you recruit all divisions at the same time, the problem won't exist.

 

[unmerged(75409)]

Vic Revolutions did away with the infinite colonial troop spam so I see no need to invent something new for Vic2.

 

[HelmuthM]

In Rev you couldn't convert native pops to soldiers in the colonies, which means that you couldn't recruit all that many divisions from the colonies (maximum of 99 per culture, if you had a large enough stock of weapons and food, due to the ability to go above the div-cap if all divisions are recruited at once. The cap however is rarely over 20 even for the most common cultures, and usually below 10)

If they keep this system and in addition make it impossible to breach the division cap per culture even if you recruit all divisions at the same time, the problem won't exist.

It's very easy to grab China and the cap allows to raise hundreds of Chinese divisions.

 

[ashandresash]

In Vic1 the best military strategy is to recruit hundreds of colonial divisions and ship them to Europe. They are so cheap (90% lower cost) and powerful enough that they guarantee a victory in any war.

Any plans to address the ridiculous military inbalance? 99% of men who fought in WWI were Europeans or other Westerners, so I don't think colonial divisions should be even added to the game.

+1

Maybe better than restrictions, some balance (like increasing revolt risk, or reducing morale in greater measure than it was in Vicky) would be useful. Maybe the best way to do it would be creating somewhat like 'militia': cheap and useful in colonies, but too weak against regular divisions.

 

[Sute]{h]

I have a solution to this issue.

Upkeep should scale with distance. So if you build a unit in Bombay it will be fairly cheap as long as it remains in India. If you transport it to Europe the upkeep costs would be far greater.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

It wasn't "an exploit". As I got colonies, the game calculated that I had manpower for hundreds of colonial divisions... and the upkeep cost is intentionally small.

But if you choose to make a bunch of them and then choose to send them all to Europe to fight in wars you are exploiting a game feature beyond its purpose. They have low upkeep because colonial divisions historically often fell out of the realm of interest for militaries around the world. They were often underpaid and exploited, especially if they were made of natives.

The game keeps track of all populations... the manpower generated by each culture. If you chose to make more divisions of a culture than you can, you do that. But for those of us who used them to guard colonies and not fight major wars, it was a good feature and a must for uncivilized nations.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

For a second I thought this thread was about dividing colonial lands into adminstrative areas and I was about to say how that would have a huge impact on any Australian state that emerged, but it was not to be.

 

[unmerged(56465)]

Just make them increasingly unreliable the further they are from their home province or something.

 

[Mammut]

I have a solution to this issue.

Upkeep should scale with distance. So if you build a unit in Bombay it will be fairly cheap as long as it remains in India. If you transport it to Europe the upkeep costs would be far greater.

Just make them increasingly unreliable the further they are from their home province or something.

2 very good suggestions in my opinion. +1 for both of them.

 

[Variton]

Just make them increasingly unreliable the further they are from their home province or something.

+1 to this solution. Low morale and the lower it gets the further away from "home".

 

[Orinsul]

As a colonial id like to throw rocks at the poster of the first post.
Rather than scrapping Colonial Troops just make them so they work. Have them tied to their province as suggested above but maybe with the exception of during Great Wars, but for African Troops not to take Life-rating attrition in the african deserts and indian troops not in the jungles would be a great step forward in my mind.

 

[truth is life]

In Rev you couldn't convert native pops to soldiers in the colonies, which means that you couldn't recruit all that many divisions from the colonies (maximum of 99 per culture, if you had a large enough stock of weapons and food, due to the ability to go above the div-cap if all divisions are recruited at once. The cap however is rarely over 20 even for the most common cultures, and usually below 10)

If they keep this system and in addition make it impossible to breach the division cap per culture even if you recruit all divisions at the same time, the problem won't exist.

I never had any problem with it in Rev. The native states would convert large parts of their population to soldiers, and then you'd end up with tons of native culture POPs with your better population growth. Britain had it particularly easy as a large part of their manpower was in India and was part of only a few cultures.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

I think you are trying to solve non-existing problem.

Yes, if you make 100 colonial division and ship them to Europe to save some money it would be an exploit.
But the bottom line is that AI didn't do it. So, who could use an exploit? Player. Who is player? You are. Do you have to? No, you don't.

Seriously, I never understood people who are looking for flaws in game mechanic to use them for their advantage and then complain that game allowed them to.

If you have a problem with unit upkeep and you are trying to go around by producing just native divisions you could as well just edit save game file and add yourself £1,000,000. Easier, without a hassle. It is the same kind of cheating. Now, are you going to ask Paradox to disguise in save game file how much money you have?

Simply use the colonial divisions in colonies, as their purpose is - problem solved

 

[unmerged(135578)]

Wouldn't easiest solution would be add militancy of people when they see colonials stampeding their homeland? Or have colonials get dangerous ideas after the unit has been disbanded?