Colonies: The new taint

[ABookshelf]

Now let's factor in the *time* it takes to do that. If there are really 2x as many provinces, it will take 2x as long, which means at any given point you have less income. That's a severe nerf. Also note that CNs don't suffer this penalty, who you have to compete with, and who will grow economically much faster than you. (And have potential help from powerful european overlords. I've seen France land 30k stacks of troops in the Americas).

There's no time in this equation, but if you really want to add time to the equation, that just puts greater weight on the provinces that you own from the beginning because they're contributing to your wealth the entire time. So that actually strengthens arguments in favor of this mechanic. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint that as a nerf when PI hasn't actually done anything to slow down colonization rate, you're still going to have however many provinces colonized after 100 years. There will just be even more provinces for you to continue colonizing if you so wish.

Like your argument is that if you gave Russia 3x as many provinces to colonize in Siberia, that would be a nerf to russia because it will take them 3x as long to colonize all of Siberia...it doesn't matter how long it takes, what matters is whats available to them.

 

[Novacat]

Defining it as tags is also a really bad way of doing it. It needs to be grounded in a sensible mechanic like say, government form, not just 'if this tag, magic powers'.

I have not read the thread, but how about enabling colonies on the same continent as the capital to reach 0% autonomy? That way, you no longer need special exceptions for colonial powers.

 

[Squirrelloid]

There's no time in this equation, but if you really want to add time to the equation, that just puts greater weight on the provinces that you own from the beginning because they're contributing to your wealth the entire time. So that actually strengthens arguments in favor of this mechanic. I'm not sure why you're trying to paint that as a nerf when PI hasn't actually done anything to slow down colonization rate, you're still going to have however many provinces colonized after 100 years. There will just be even more provinces for you to continue colonizing if you so wish.

Like your argument is that if you gave Russia 3x as many provinces to colonize in Siberia, that would be a nerf to russia because it will take them 3x as long to colonize all of Siberia...it doesn't matter how long it takes, what matters is whats available to them.

....

Total effective income available: same
Time to achieve: 2x as long

How is this not a nerf on rate of income growth? If you can't follow that logic, there's no point in trying to explain it further.

And those CNs don't have this problem. Their income grows faster (as does their manpower, which is a huge difference). (The nerf to CN colonization speed does not make this up. On the one hand, their overlord will be handing them *more* provinces, and they aren't nerfed in colonization speed. The bonus colonization the CN does itself is just that, a bonus).

So at any point in time, the growth in power of CNs is going to dominate that of native groups, even after the native group westernizes and catches up in technology. And every war the natives lose, they'll have to surrender more land, and any former colony provinces will magically get the penalties removed for the CN. Meanwhile, they can't hope to compete in a war, because their manpower pool is so much lower. And that's just assuming their overlord doesn't decide to drop a massive army from Europe on the native's head.

And yes, if you put 3x as many provinces in Siberia, and the effective income for each was 1/3rd present, it would be a nerf for Russia. Not a major or particularly relevant one, but it would be a nerf.

 

[Chieron]

Proposal: Autonomy floor for *all* provinces is based on raw distance to capital. 10 per 500km, max 75. Probably most convenient to round down (so 900km is still just a 10LA floor). That puts a 40LA floor on Paris ruling Moscow (~2400km), which is probably still generous. The LA floor should represent problems with governing directly in the age before telegraphs.

Tired of dealing with LA floors due to distance? Make client states or otherwise divide your kingdom. (Ie, pretty much the exact reason Charles V split the Habsburg empire into separate Austrian and Spanish domains).

Ideally, having a line of Roads from your capital should slightly reduce the autonomy floor in the areas around the road. (ie, all provinces on the roads plus all provinces adjacent reduce their autonomy floor by 5-10), and a line of post-offices should have a similar effect (relays of waiting horses set up to quickly convey messages). Coastal provinces with a dock should reduce LA floor by 5 (sea travel is faster), and should count as valid origination points for roads/post offices (so a post-office there reduces LA floor by 5, but a road does not - the dock replaces it). All of these are calculated before the cap is applied, so places that are far enough away still have 75 LA.

With the possibility of diplomatic technology occasionally reducing LA floor by 5, likely toward the later technologies (methods got better and/or faster).

Really liking this proposal in general.
The building part would be better if these gave just a flat minLA decrease (-5% for having a dock or roads, additional -5% for post office), without looking for province connections. Maybe even give all buildings an additional -1% minLA, as they do represent a stronger administration.

However, this proposal does not achieve to stop same-continent-colonizing being too strong, compared to conquest+coring or diploannexing.
The suggestion to allow reduction of the minLA level by paying some monarch points would solve that problem. Those costs should be slightly above the coring costs (like 4 ADM/basetax for 10% minLA decrease, for a maximum gain for 50% income for 20 ADM/basetax) for that province. That way, conquest is still likely to be worth more, without killing same-continent-colonization too much.

I also feel that all colonies should start with a high LA level (like 90%), to not be instantly useful.


Different matter concerning minLA : this does also nerf conquering Siberia, Indonesia or Africa for the locals, as the minLA level with stay at 50%, but coring costs won't adjust.

 

[Masquinongy]

Im still waiting to hear a negative to just adding a MP cost to converting colonies into provinces. Colonies everywhere in the world have 75% LA but lose that LA if converted to a province using MP (dip or adm).

Colonization is so good because you get land basically free (no wars and it only costs money which is basically useless in this game), so add a cost that matter to it. Every other land acquisition in the game costs MP except colonization...change that so it isn't so powerful.

NI and idea groups could reduce this cost for colony conversion to province.

 

[Squirrelloid]

This is ridiculous. It's not about "badwrongfun" and eliminating playstyles, it's about making sure the optimal playstyle is sensible and not buried in obscure mechanics. I have absolutely no problem with people who want to move their capital because Fun, but I have a big problem with having to use bizarre mechanics to force a capital move across an ocean in order to achieve optimal play. That sort of thing is clearly unintended and a result of a game design hole.

Okay, how about just answering some simple questions then:

Why does it matter that it's unintended?

Is it really any better that the optimal way to play an American native is to colonize *the other* american continent, release the CN and switch to it, and then conquer your homeland? (You're a CN, so no LA floor).

Is it really any better that, as a native, you now want to wait for other natives to migrate onto the high BT provinces before conquering them, so they're conquered and not 'colonies'?

How are these not buried in obscure mechanics and strange 'gamey' decisions? (At least abandoning Europe for a capital in the new world actually happened once historically.)

 

[Umbosch]

Let's do some quick and dirty math here. Thats better than blind speculation.

According to Dev Diary 9 (http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...9-Revolutions-1618-Bookmark-and-North-America) there used to be ~90 provinces east of the Mississippi. So originally this region had ~90 provinces worth of wealth we'll say (I use wealth to refer to anything provinces give...manpower, tax, force limit, whatever.)

Now this region is said to have 170 provinces. Nevermind that many of them are already inhabited and wouldn't suffer the colonization penalty, lets say you obtained all 170 provinces and that they ALL suffered the colonization penalty. So now thats 170 provinces providing ~85 provinces worth of wealth, which is roughly the same as before. Thats without considering provinces that are already inhabited (there are quite a few and they're usually the better ones) or provinces that you might conquer from a CN. Its already on the same level as before, without considering any of that. American civilizations will also be buffed by their new unique ideas, equal units across tech groups, and westernization being more accessible (with the minimum 5/5/5 monthly progress).

I have ask more as one time from where all the colonists, money, admin and diplopoints come to handle it. But i never become a answer. And now the province money was cut in a half. Nobody interested then the most play not a native.

 

[Giacomo1405]

Im still waiting to hear a negative to just adding a MP cost to converting colonies into provinces. Colonies everywhere in the world have 75% LA but lose that LA if converted to a province using MP (dip or adm).

Colonization is so good because you get land basically free (no wars and it only costs money which is basically useless in this game), so add a cost that matter to it. Every other land acquisition in the game costs MP except colonization...change that so it isn't so powerful.

NI and idea groups could reduce this cost for colony conversion to province.

if a cost in MP will ever be added it will be a coring cost... like it was in the start and removed when colonial nations came in, because paying to get 5 provinces that you'll lose soon after was bad...

 

[Deuterium Dawn]

Applying this penalty to CNs would nerf overseas colonization. Overseas colonization is not in need of a nerf.

So the iberians sprawling across the whole planet aren't in need of a nerf, but those pesky west africans and natives with their horrific tech penalties did? And let's not forgot those poor siberian provinces that needed to be even poorer. Not this will actually slow muscovy down much, they'll still just blob across the incredibly weak hordes. It might increase the chances of that hideous mix of green and yellow in siberia though.

 

[ABookshelf]

So the iberians sprawling across the whole planet aren't in need of a nerf

Considering they still get stomped by bad neighbor France anyway, nope.

 

[Myrten]

Because of this nerf I'm thinking about starting a France->USA game, 'MURICA should be OP now

 

[Squirrelloid]

Considering they still get stomped by bad neighbor France anyway, nope.

The only time I see Iberians getting stomped by France is with player intervention. Otherwise France and Spain are BFFs for life, or at least until Spain makes the mistake of conquering a province in India before France (which doesn't happen very often. Spain is usually more interested in getting to Indonesia, and only goes back to India later - the colonizable islands south of India aren't objectives in the mission that sets France to ballistic).

 

[Darsara]

Proposal: Autonomy floor for *all* provinces is based on raw distance to capital. 10 per 500km, max 75. Probably most convenient to round down (so 900km is still just a 10LA floor). That puts a 40LA floor on Paris ruling Moscow (~2400km), which is probably still generous. The LA floor should represent problems with governing directly in the age before telegraphs.

Tired of dealing with LA floors due to distance? Make client states or otherwise divide your kingdom. (Ie, pretty much the exact reason Charles V split the Habsburg empire into separate Austrian and Spanish domains).

Ideally, having a line of Roads from your capital should slightly reduce the autonomy floor in the areas around the road. (ie, all provinces on the roads plus all provinces adjacent reduce their autonomy floor by 5-10), and a line of post-offices should have a similar effect (relays of waiting horses set up to quickly convey messages). Coastal provinces with a dock should reduce LA floor by 5 (sea travel is faster), and should count as valid origination points for roads/post offices (so a post-office there reduces LA floor by 5, but a road does not - the dock replaces it). All of these are calculated before the cap is applied, so places that are far enough away still have 75 LA.

With the possibility of diplomatic technology occasionally reducing LA floor by 5, likely toward the later technologies (methods got better and/or faster).

A system like this would be an interesting overall adjustment to the game; basically every patch includes attempt to fix blobbing, and with things like client states this idea would help solve it.

 

[ABookshelf]

The only time I see Iberians getting stomped by France is with player intervention.

Then this explains why you can't see the potential OP-ness of doubling the province density of America with zero nerfs...you just haven't played enough games! Spain getting stomped by France without player intervention, even late into the game (ESPECIALLY late in the game when France has taken powerful Geman provinces) is fairly common and you should play more to experience this yourself if you don't believe.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That completely fails to achieve the goal of nerfing same continent colonization, instead nerfing overseas colonization into the ground. It's not a solution at all.

There's something else that was failed also. Namely, the answer to this:

1) Were any nation who could colonize same-continent provinces overpowered because of this?
2) What's the justification for land that is conquered being able to get lower autonomy than land that is colonized?
3) What's the justification for this being a permanent hard limit on colonized land?

Starting from the "need for nerfing this" as an end point is flawed logic. There will always be an option that is stronger than alternative options. The ultimate function of this mechanic is to nerf the following nations:

1. Americas
2. Africa
3. Asia

For the remaining nations, it has no net effect. You yourself claim that overseas colonization didn't need a nerf. However, you failed to ever present evidence as to why same-continent colonization necessarily needed to be nerfed. Despite your claim otherwise, the real reason exploration was top tier 1st pick was a combination:

1. Not only is it necessary to colonize quickly.
2. It is also necessary to westernize quickly as possible.

A colony takes several years to finish and costs money until it does so. The ROI on a colonized province, even with 0 autonomy, isn't nearly as good as what can be conquered in the same timeframe. Therefore, ideas that let you conquer more faster than colonization can be achieved would overpower colonization ideas. Unfortunately, in the new world there is a lot more uncolonized space than owned provinces, so yes because there is no alternative colonization beats not using the land.

The only non-ROTW country hit by this change is Russia. Rather than nerfing Russia, would it not have been better to simply *stop* trashing hordes? I don't want to delve too much into that topic here since it was ducked there too, but certainly this change merits question.

I'm not going to go so far as to deem NA/SA unplayable. I know better than that. That does not, however, by itself lend credence to this change being for the better. Nations like Kochin, Ashanti, and Chimu are playable (and winnable) in 1.7.3. That doesn't mean that they're good nations or that nerfing them would make the game a better experience.

If you had brought up something along the lines of relatively large tax bases, reduced coring cost on permauto provinces, or gone into specifics as to how the changes were altering new world play in a negative way to merit the change, more people would buy in. Simply saying "The Americas are still playable, you should try it" does not actually justify the need to spend your resources on implementing the restriction in the first place, however. Why does this change make EU IV a better game?

 

[Squirrelloid]

Then this explains why you can't see the potential OP-ness of doubling the province density of America with zero nerfs...you just haven't played enough games! Spain getting stomped by France without player intervention, even late into the game (ESPECIALLY late in the game when France has taken powerful Geman provinces) is fairly common and you should play more to experience this yourself if you don't believe.

...

I have 53/80 pre-AoW achievements, and that's just the ironman games i've played (Venice -> Italy, Poland, Utrecht -> Netherlands, Portugal, Golden Horde, Cherokee, Castille - where France was my buddy forever). Most of those games I played to at least 1750, if not later. And I've played at least as many non-ironman games, including Brunei, Ottomans, Orissa -> Hindustan, Ming, France, and Timurids -> Mughals (and more I can't remember and deleted the saves for space), most of those till 1750 or later.

Spain and France is a love-fest unless you can get them into a war against each other. They have no desire to attack across the pyrenees unless they rival each other, and that just doesn't seem to happen. (Certainly not early). France would much rather beat up on Savoy / Genoa / Milan / HRE minors, and get mad at people with provinces in India (to which it may or may not ever send troops).

 

[Taterthomp2]

Even Russia and hordes get hit by this when colonizing Sibera, as do East Asian/Southeast Asian nations colonizing Indonesia, Australia, the South Pacific, the Maldives etc.

are you sure? I've not once seen them say this. Russia inside siberia counts as a colonial nation much the same way moving your capital to NA makes you lose the distant overseas thing. If that's not how it works, and it is indeed for everyone everywhere even if they colonize a province boardering their capital, then it will HAVE to be patched within DAYS or effective immediately the "boost" to ROTW (NA specifics) is GONE.

 

[Prom_STar]

It obviously makes no sense that a colony instantly becomes a fully developed province, that e.g. Manhattan is worth the same the moment it's colonized as in 1821. There's no population mechanic in EU4 and from a realism perspective, autonomy can do a serviceable job of making it so that colonizing new land isn't as beneficial as conquering developed land. It provides a limit on how valuable that province can be. Base tax is sort of the potential of the province and with autonomy figured in you get the reality. So I absolutely understand why colonized land should start with high autonomy, because just because you've put 1000 people into Manhattan, that shouldn't mean you get the full benefit of that land. But it also doesn't make sense that, over the course of the game's four century span, that province couldn't expand and grow and eventually become just as developed as some province in Europe.

I think it ought to work like this. All colonial provinces begin with high autonomy. Over time, this autonomy ticks down, slower than autonomy ticks down on non-colonial land. To represent the flood of European settlers to their colonies, give colonial nations and former colonial nations a bonus to the rate autonomy decreases and perhaps have them start with lower autonomy. But by 1821, there's no reason Thirteen Colonies/USA should be able to get the full use out of Manhattan but Iroquois can't. The value of the land should depend on how long it's been inhabited, not which flavor of tag currently controls it.

 

[yerm]

The only non-ROTW country hit by this change is Russia. Rather than nerfing Russia, would it not have been better to simply *stop* trashing hordes? I don't want to delve too much into that topic here since it was ducked there too, but certainly this change merits question.

Actually, it really nails OPMs such as Ireland who migrate the new world and balloon. Anyone who does that strat, really. It nerfs Morocco. It nerfs Asian countries from ming down to daimyos who would grab Siberia or pacific islands. Russia is the one people immediately notice because the AI does it. The opm migration is probably the most powerful one, though, but only humans do it.

I believe wiz specifically mentioned Ming or Korea (forget which) and Morocco as examples of nations where going exploration is too powerful relative to other options early game.

I'm not going to go so far as to deem NA/SA unplayable. I know better than that. That does not, however, by itself lend credence to this change being for the better. Nations like Kochin, Ashanti, and Chimu are playable (and winnable) in 1.7.3. That doesn't mean that they're good nations or that nerfing them would make the game a better experience.

Ironically, a 50% floor on colonies is only 10% worse than the 40% floor short-term on conquest, so relative to other methods of expansion I don't know that this necessarily floors these countries as much as people think. In fact, I would suspect that rather than hurting the ability of these very minor countries that must colonize early, it hurts these kinds of countries LATE in the game, unless they're able to turn that colonizing into a vehicle for conquest, because the penalty never goes away. It's a late-game nerf!

Why does this change make EU IV a better game?

It attempts to make the more interesting means of growth, conquest and/or diplomacy, closer in value to going colonizer. I personally think it won't actually do that (hence my post suggesting an even MORE powerful nerf to local colonizing early), but, I think that was the attempt. Making the arguably most "boring" mechanic (colonies) closer to the "fun" method (war) is an attempt at least to make a better game.

 

[Deuterium Dawn]

Then this explains why you can't see the potential OP-ness of doubling the province density of America with zero nerfs...you just haven't played enough games! Spain getting stomped by France without player intervention, even late into the game (ESPECIALLY late in the game when France has taken powerful Geman provinces) is fairly common and you should play more to experience this yourself if you don't believe.

Your games are not every game. Don't assume other people just don't know what they're talking about because they don't agree with you. A Franco-Spanish alliance is fairly common as well, and even when they do end up rivaling one another I rarely see them trade more than a couple of provinces. France tends to expand more into the HRE and Burgundy if the inheritance doesn't fire. Even when Spain does get stomped by France it doesn't stop their utter domination of colonization, so I don't really see what it even has to do with this. It pointlessly nerfs people who didn't need nerfing while leaving Europeans(except for muscovy) untouched.

Ironically, a 50% floor on colonies is only 10% worse than the 40% floor short-term on conquest, so relative to other methods of expansion I don't know that this necessarily floors these countries as much as people think. In fact, I would suspect that rather than hurting the ability of these very minor countries that must colonize early, it hurts these kinds of countries LATE in the game, unless they're able to turn that colonizing into a vehicle for conquest, because the penalty never goes away. It's a late-game nerf!

It's hardly a late-game only nerf, considering you can get rid of most of the short term autonomy immediately if you can handle the unrest, and it ticks down constantly while at peace.