So colonial ai is programmed to not leave the Americas. Do they get factored into relative strength of alliances in the peace menu? If they do, what the hell for. Spain had some suspicious numbers in peace deals sometimes...
Colonial Nations and Relative Strength of Alliances
- Thread starter StatikShocker
- 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.
I think they do. I'm playing as Spain and colonized about 80% of the New World and my colonial subjects have some decent armies.
Most of the time even if a large portion of my European armies have been lost I still get the bonus for relative strength. Also if you open the war menu so you can see the number of soldiers on each side I always have a HUGE advantage even if most of those soldier will never fight except for some minor battles against their colonies.
Most of the time even if a large portion of my European armies have been lost I still get the bonus for relative strength. Also if you open the war menu so you can see the number of soldiers on each side I always have a HUGE advantage even if most of those soldier will never fight except for some minor battles against their colonies.
I'd have to hope this is an oversight that they would fix if they noticed. It makes no sense and isn't fair.
It's not a good modifier in the first place, but I'm not sure colonial nations need a nerf.
Hmm I think it would make sense if you were fighting against other nations having colonial subjects but otherwise yeah its wonky. Maybe file a bug report?
EDIT : Colonial nations don't need a nerf per se but rather they should not be counted in a war where they will not contribute. Makes sense no?
EDIT : Colonial nations don't need a nerf per se but rather they should not be counted in a war where they will not contribute. Makes sense no?
Seems good.
But, as mentioned above, the modifier isn't very good so it's not really a problem. But still a little annoying.
My point is that this is technically a little piece of what they add to the table, at the moment. They currently give you naval and army force limits + money, but no significant manpower. This makes them directly weaker than, say, colonizing Siberia with Muscovy. In nerfing their contribution to the bargaining table, you *are* nerfing them a small amount. I wouldn't mind if they got something in return, but they probably wouldn't.
I've had rather interesting situations like FL of near 100 and manpower barely in the 15-20k range when maxed. Colonial overlords are mercenary masters I guess...though of course the navies you can build don't give one **** about manpower and just need a decent #provinces to build up, and can be utterly devastating. The army, however, will be tough to fill out to FL until pretty late...not that the Hansa really needs 90 + soldiers while in the Empire and allied to France, but still.
I wouldn't mind the modifier removed in its entirety. Relative strength of alliances is only relevant insofar as it's applied. Why do paper armies that can't reach the actual combat count as anything meaningful, for ANYBODY? Even in the case of say "Russia has 300 units", if your war goal is their ally's island, they have 0 naval units left, and you hold the island as Great Britain...why is that relevant again?
Yes relative strength of alliances is redundant and often falsely represented.
If spain's alliance is really stronger than France's, then they should have more war score. If they are losing a war with -60 war score and all armies that can reach combat have reached it, keeping that modifier on the peace table is plain dumb.
If spain's alliance is really stronger than France's, then they should have more war score. If they are losing a war with -60 war score and all armies that can reach combat have reached it, keeping that modifier on the peace table is plain dumb.
There are always unintended consequences if you remove them completely because there will always be scenarios where they matter. For instance, in my current ironman as Aztec, those colonial nations matter a lot in my fight against Castille/Portugal, and that works both ways (my CNs and my enemies' CNs). Sure, the scenario that I'm facing does not happen a lot but it does happen and it is unfair in those scenarios if they are not included.
Besides, CN is already a massive nerf to those heavy colonizers.
nerf?
this a standard Spain, with new world colonies. Look not only at their obscene force limits, but how high above them they can go. And you want to factor in their redundant colonial armies? Its silly.
You are not addressing my first part about scenarios when it matters and so it's unfair to remove them.nerf?
this a standard Spain, with new world colonies. Look not only at their obscene force limits, but how high above them they can go. And you want to factor in their redundant colonial armies? Its silly.
And so I can do the same too: You sure their colonial armies even matter in the relative strength of alliances in those screenshots? Spain outnumbers you 7:1 in armies and 5:1 in navies. And you should also post a picture of the world.
As TMIT pointed out, even without CN, there are already scenarios where the armies doesn't matter but does get factor into relative strength of alliances. As it is now, I think the modifier works fine and PI could better use its resources elsewhere than figuring out all the scenarios when armies/navies matter or don't
I addressed in a post above that relative strength of alliances should be completely removed as it is redundant. I beat Spain about 15 times in that game there, despite a constant -20 relative strength of alliances making peace deals harder to work in my favor. You said that colonial nations are a nerf, but because they still give forcelimits I am saying that are not a nerf but a huge boost as far as armies go.
Actually, it wouldn't take much in the way of resources to remove "relative strength" outright. Relative strength is irrelevant and redundant. If one's strength is so much higher, prove it by USING said strength to actually pick up war score. There are far too many situations in this game where a nation doing nothing whatsoever or even losing can profoundly impact the winning side in a negative way.
The modifier shouldn't exist at all. It's utterly bogus.
The modifier shouldn't exist at all. It's utterly bogus.
my point is that if the armies are in a position to fight they will, and they will be accounted for by warscore from battles. that way you won't get a modifier for armies that can never participate. aztecs for armies stuck in iberia or phillipines. or france for colonial armies. or Russia vs ottomans. whatever the scenario it doesn't make sense for this redundant modifier to exist at all.
If it's removing colonial nations from counting in relative strength of alliance I don't agree (which is what is implied by the title of the thread), but if it's removal of relative strength totally, then I agree.