![Sute]{h](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/styles/paradox/owneditems/avatars/Stellaris_pre_order/s/stellaris_avatars_fungoid_12_special.png){kind=avatar}
This might not be a problem in singleplayer, but in multiplayer it most certainly can be. Also while there will always be exploits this one is so blantant it hurts.
Colonial divisions
- Thread starter HelmuthM
- 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.
however 99% of those men had fighting experience from colonial wars prior to WW1, and were most likely part of some colonial division. If not, then they relied on the military training provided by colonial war experience, so...
Regarding colonial/native troops: I think upkeep should be between half and three quarters that of a regular division, with associated penalties to the units fighting abilities. One tenth the cost of regulars is way, way too low.
On the other hand, colonial troops had important parts to play in maintaining Europe's colonial empires, and even fighting wars away from their homes. I think you should be able to move them wherever you want, they just shouldn't be so ludicrously cheap compared to regulars.
On the other hand, colonial troops had important parts to play in maintaining Europe's colonial empires, and even fighting wars away from their homes. I think you should be able to move them wherever you want, they just shouldn't be so ludicrously cheap compared to regulars.
Agreed. Indian troops were at the Somme, Algerians and Senegalese at Verdun. It was the experience of colonial troops in WWI that would give a kickstart to nationalist movements post-1918 when the colonial masters decided Wilson's point on Self-Determination would not apply to colonial peoples, making 1919 a year of nationalist agitation across the colonial world, from Jamaica to Senegal, Gold Coast to India, Vietnam to Korea, often led or heavily supported by recently demobilized soldiers who had served in Europe.
+1I 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
Sute]{h;10485256 said:
Are they too cheap, marginally, but the main issue, brought up time and time again in this thread, is that the player can do this, the player can do that to save money, win the war etc etc etc...
There. is. nothing. Paradox. can. do. to. fix. the. player. Period.
If you find out you can save a bunch of money by building a ton of colonials and shipping them up to Europe to fight in a major war you might has well hit pause, hit F12, type "money" or "cash" or whatever it was to get money and then hit enter + up until you have roughly a billion pounds. Exploits are not P'dox's problem. As long as the AI doesn't do it, it is a non-issue.
If you are in multiplayer and one of your buddies is exploiting, stop inviting him to multiplayer games. Exploiting is cheating, pure and simple. And not to say I don't cheat, trust me, but the colonial divisions were something useful and interesting for those of us who:
a) Had colonies
b) Played faithfully
c) Weren't playing as a civilised country
Where ELSE would they get combat experience from? The last big one was the Boer War, and I doubt you had many vets from the Crimea still around in the field by 1914.
Am I the only one who plays on normal / hard?
Because using native troops in enemy territory will cause them to melt like butter, and unless your cheating and spamming leadership in the console, don't tell me you have enough reliability generals to make it viable.
The only real exploit would be creating a super colonial stack (12 divisions of natives w/ artillery) and getting a legendary +5 reliability and -10 attrition to command the unit.
Because using native troops in enemy territory will cause them to melt like butter, and unless your cheating and spamming leadership in the console, don't tell me you have enough reliability generals to make it viable.
The only real exploit would be creating a super colonial stack (12 divisions of natives w/ artillery) and getting a legendary +5 reliability and -10 attrition to command the unit.
Colonials are National Cultures in Colonies as troops right?
As opposed to Natives, which are just the locals whom once had a country but now fight for you.
Besides Grading Regulars over colonials over Natives.
Natives might get a penalty for being in a different contenent that the one that is home.
As opposed to Natives, which are just the locals whom once had a country but now fight for you.
Besides Grading Regulars over colonials over Natives.
Natives might get a penalty for being in a different contenent that the one that is home.
Traits that lower reliability were really common with the randomly generated generals. That was for me a reason to not use to many native divisions as Russia... even when I had, like, 40 generals unassigned, most would have some reliability malus, making them unsuitable for leading native divisions.
You would lose on average one division per month in a massive war. However for smaller nations they usually had one or two +reliability generals and they could exploit the native divisions as soon as they took some provinces in Africa. Which is something that Vic2 should address, by for example converting conquered unciv soldier POPs into farmers.
I never built colonial troops. Had better things to do than burn away the few national-culture POPs that I had in the colonies...
Yeah, because only people with previous combat experience where allowed to fight in the first world war, gotcha.
This argument is really weak because it essentially says this feature (colonial quality divisions) is useless. Why have this option when using it is called an exploit? That the AI doesn't use it mainly means the AI sucks.
The point is that strange benefits are attributed to units without any mali indicating a limited use for them.
There is really no reason why colonial troops would be fundamentally cheaper to maintain than national ones. Opposed to native divisions they consist of your national pops!! There simply should be no reason why units without any significant difference in fighting capability should have different maintencance costs. Wages may be differing but the guns, equipment, ammo, food etc. would be necessary for both. And in that time and age I would figure supplies would be the money burner of modern field armies.
Imo Colonial type divisions should have same maintenance costs as national ones because I don't see any use or justification for this distinction and fundamental checks implemented for Native divisions so they are not very keen to fight or die in your war (making them maybe good against rebels and holding territory but not so much for ww1 western front)
It was too easy in Vicky to inflate your army size when in reality the issue was that essentially only very specific parts of your population could be rallied to a war and oppressed native populations or disgruntled colonials angry about your colonial policies were not among them resulting e.g. in a British Empire of hundreds of millions of people being numerically inferior to Russia, France and Germany in European wars.
This exploit should go mainly because it is the result of a rather bad feature (the very abritrary distinctive unit types and their wonky costs vs. benefits)
I don't think the millions of malnourished factory workers had any war experience whatsoever.
Somebody correctly identified another problem: the fact that nobody, but nobody is ever going to build colonial divisions (in the Vicky 1 sense of the word) instead of natives. Why burn your state cultured, colonial manpower when you can burn away natives instead?
This could be resolved by abolishing the regular/colonial distinction altogether and simply having regulars and natives as the two distinguishing unit types. Units recruited in a state, or of your national culture in a colony would be regulars, while units recruited in a colony from native peoples are natives. I honestly can't think of ever building a "colonial" division.
Your native divisions should be a *bit* cheaper than your regular divisions, but not by too much. They would also be significantly less reliable, have lower firepower (more outdated weapons), lower morale and lower organisation. Essentially, the reduction in costs is offset by the reduction in quality. Everything should be proportionate. Half price, half quality, half the military value. As I say, the problem isn't the idea of native divisions being used in foreign wars, it's the fact that the they're insanely cheap in Vicky 1.
If someone playing a European power takes over a Chinese province and decides to build a stack of ten Chinese artillery divisions with a brilliant general then that's fine by me: but that native cultured artillery should be proportionately just as expensive as a regular, European cultured division.
If a player wanted to use that stack in a European war, then why not? if you have the colonial manpower to do it, you should be able to do it. Players should simply be aware that what they're fielding is quantity over quality.
This could be resolved by abolishing the regular/colonial distinction altogether and simply having regulars and natives as the two distinguishing unit types. Units recruited in a state, or of your national culture in a colony would be regulars, while units recruited in a colony from native peoples are natives. I honestly can't think of ever building a "colonial" division.
Your native divisions should be a *bit* cheaper than your regular divisions, but not by too much. They would also be significantly less reliable, have lower firepower (more outdated weapons), lower morale and lower organisation. Essentially, the reduction in costs is offset by the reduction in quality. Everything should be proportionate. Half price, half quality, half the military value. As I say, the problem isn't the idea of native divisions being used in foreign wars, it's the fact that the they're insanely cheap in Vicky 1.
If someone playing a European power takes over a Chinese province and decides to build a stack of ten Chinese artillery divisions with a brilliant general then that's fine by me: but that native cultured artillery should be proportionately just as expensive as a regular, European cultured division.
If a player wanted to use that stack in a European war, then why not? if you have the colonial manpower to do it, you should be able to do it. Players should simply be aware that what they're fielding is quantity over quality.