Colonies: The new taint

[Squirrelloid]

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.

It was Ming, which is terribly ironic, because the colony nerf doesn't actually affect Ming at all. (They have a 50% LA floor anyway).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Migratory countries are a bit out of design constraints. Most of your other examples ARE ROTW, excepting possibly Morocco, which has more Africa to conquer and generally would prefer to pretend it's Iberian in some ways rather than bending over colonizing tropical garbage. Generally even as a sub-Saharan like Songhai in 1.7 I'd go Fernando Po + St. Helena, Cape, then start working new world + East India route. This will cut the value of the provinces, but aside from Cape they weren't very powerful. Morocco would behave similarly; conquer Africa + colonize non-tropical + create/fight into CNs.

MP is a different story of course, but I don't think anybody is going to try to make a serious case that Aztec was a major MP threat, while Morocco is most often left alone due to stacking + core cost.

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.

Ming? The nation that gets the same autonomy floor on ALL provinces ?

Korea could take the entire Philippines and still not be anything near what the Iberians do. I'm not seeing why this was such a high priority. The reason Korea goes exploration is to westernize, and despite the nerf to using vassals + core sale there are still ways to do it quite quickly.

If Korea began western, exploration would face stiff competition from influence, diplomatic, religious, and potentially administrative. But Korea isn't western, which is another reason nerfing primarily ROTW is...odd.

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.

It's not sensible to do that by making the option less viable, but only selectively to the nations which already endure a disadvantage. It would be more sensible to make the process itself more engaging. This change doesn't alter the decision process at all, it just nerfs mostly weak nations and one strong one.

 

[Arilou]

Korea could take the entire Philippines and still not be anything near what the Iberians do. I'm not seeing why this was such a high priority. The reason Korea goes exploration is to westernize, and despite the nerf to using vassals + core sale there are still ways to do it quite quickly.

I believe the issue is Korea taking Siberia, not The Philippines.

 

[Taterthomp2]

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.



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 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.

ANSWER THIS THEN.

I am playing Iroquois. I colonize the eastern seaboard area, specifically from about chesapeake to manhattan. (The Most Valuable.)

I get 50% on everything forever. BUT a european 'conquers' it and suddenly it's "fun" and they get less penalty? OR WHAT?


You are looking at it purely from a european perspective, and the POINT of the fact that it nerfs ROTW is that it nerfs ROTW.

AOW is lauded as being a boost to ROTW, and then i see this, and i feel like I might as well call it straight up Europa Genocidalis: Simulation of Slaughter.

Your points are all very fine and good, but IRRELEVANT.

Iroquois should get full benefit from colonies that are 1 province from their capital. If you don't agree, I'm sorry, but you clearly don't plan to play anyone but Europowers.

Well, friend. EUROPOWERS are the ones who need the NERFS.

-_- dont expand ROTW and make it more interesting simply to utterly void all point of doing so.

Also on that note, how does migration work with this autonomy system>???

For me, I'm worried this is a game breaker. I may wait on getting AoW ...oh wait right. It comes with patch.

Well I may not patch up, and stick to 1.7 afterall

 

[Squirrelloid]

I believe the issue is Korea taking Siberia, not The Philippines.

Which takes longer (arctic) and is worth less? Where's the issue, exactly?

 

[darkyouck]

Wiz, don't worry, there are people like me who think this change is a pretty good idea. Not everyone ( like this topic make it seems so ) is against it.

 

[Clownie]

I actually really like this change. I never was fond of colonists being completely obligatory for hordes and Korea and Japan. The only real problem is that it's called 'Local Autonomy', which isn't indicative of what I interpret it as at all — colonies were usually sparsely populated (with a few exceptions) in EU4's timeline, hence lower returns. So it's a bit inelegant. Also, I think CNs not getting the malus is absurd — as pointed out, CNs can conquer lands colonised by natives, and the same land will be worth more in the CNs' hands, even though the original population is unchanged. What the hell is that?

 

[Monphat]

im gonna mod this out the second it hits.

while it's on itself a decent mechanic, the fact that CN's don't suffer it makes them just roll over natives and do as they please. combined witht he increased amount of provinces and base tax they can get real scary now for natives(because naval AI will probaly gut them in europe)

Well, natives did not have a chance against CN historically. As far as this thread goes - let's try patch out and figure a more elegant solution to colonization problems

 

[Tirenedon]

Just so I understand this problem, if I play as a horde in Mongolia and colonise a province neighbouring my capital it will stay as 50% minimum autonomy until the end of time? And conquering my neighbours will allow their provinces to go to 0%? Same if I play as any other nation except a colonial nation?

 

[Frederick III]

I actually really like this change. I never was fond of colonists being completely obligatory for hordes and Korea and Japan. The only real problem is that it's called 'Local Autonomy', which isn't indicative of what I interpret it as at all — colonies were usually sparsely populated (with a few exceptions) in EU4's timeline, hence lower returns. So it's a bit inelegant. Also, I think CNs not getting the malus is absurd — as pointed out, CNs can conquer lands colonised by natives, and the same land will be worth more in the CNs' hands, even though the original population is unchanged. What the hell is that?

Well, the CNs when they conquer the territory will actually have territory with 75% autonomy, not 50%, because all conquered territory has 75% autonomy on conquest. Then they can reduce that autonomy over time, which should probably be understood (in the case of colonial nations) as colonial settlement.

 

[Payens]

Well, the CNs when they conquer the territory will actually have territory with 75% autonomy, not 50%, because all conquered territory has 75% autonomy on conquest. Then they can reduce that autonomy over time, which should probably be understood (in the case of colonial nations) as colonial settlement.

That's really comparing apples to oranges.
On the one hand you have a hard limit of 50%.
On the other hand you have a temporary value of 75%.
One can get better, the other never can.

 

[Frederick III]

That's really comparing apples to oranges.
On the one hand you have a hard limit of 50%.
On the other hand you have a temporary value of 75%.
One can get better, the other never can.

I'm not defending the design decision, just pointing out one way to interpret the way autonomy is working for CNs.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

Is there some way to make it so that CNs still have the 50% autonomy floor on colonized provinces while still paying the same amount of cash to their overlords as if they didn't? I can live with this mechanic so long as everyone has to deal with it no mater what.

 

[Payens]

I'm not defending the design decision, just pointing out one way to interpret the way autonomy is working for CNs.

You're right, sorry if my post was a bit brusque. You were obviously just stating how things are.

 

[celetorn]

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.

Wiz, but what about Africa and Asia that do not have CN? They will always have 50% autonomy no matter what, right? So it is a nerf to overseas colonization... Of course +provincies help, but you will spend the same amount of time for half benefit.

 

[Giacomo1405]

Wiz, but what about Africa and Asia that do not have CN? They will always have 50% autonomy no matter what, right? So it is a nerf to overseas colonization... Of course +provincies help, but you will spend the same amount of time for half benefit.

irrelevant since colonization oversea has a cap of 75%, so the 50% is null... (this cap substitutes the old oversea penalty, so no real change here)...
you're talking about things that make no sense.

The 50% cap affects "only" same-continent and land-connected colonization (the most relevant example is Russia getting 50% the value of Siberia, but Siberia will get more provinces, so no real change...)

actually every area affected by this cap will get more provices so there is no nerf, only an increase in the cost of free land-grabbing (which is what was intended)...

 

[lordelenath]

Wiz, but what about Africa and Asia that do not have CN? They will always have 50% autonomy no matter what, right? So it is a nerf to overseas colonization... Of course +provincies help, but you will spend the same amount of time for half benefit.

It's not. Overseas provinces have 75% autonomy cap anyway. It's basically like this:

a) Colonial nations and former colonial nations don't change
b) overseas provinces not part of a colonial nation have 75% autonomy cap
c) colonies on the same continent have a 50% autonomy cap

It's a strict nerf to same continent colonization which mostly targets the ROTW-Nations. The famous colonizers like Portugal and Spain will have 75% overseas modifier anyway, the 50% for "it's a colony!" won't matter.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

It's not. Overseas provinces have 75% autonomy cap anyway. It's basically like this:

a) Colonial nations and former colonial nations don't change
b) overseas provinces not part of a colonial nation have 75% autonomy cap
c) colonies on the same continent have a 50% autonomy cap

It's a strict nerf to same continent colonization which mostly targets the ROTW-Nations. The famous colonizers like Portugal and Spain will have 75% overseas modifier anyway, the 50% for "it's a colony!" won't matter.

Yeah, it basically means that the US, Canada, Mexico, ect. will be straight up better then all the local nations like the Mesos, Andes, Tribes, as well as any European nations that either relocate or are forced to relocate out of Europe.

 

[Giacomo1405]

Yeah, it basically means that the US, Canada, Mexico, ect. will be straight up better then all the local nations like the Mesos, Andes, Tribes, as well as any European nations that either relocate or are forced to relocate out of Europe.

well, in RL, the europeans did managed those land better and more efficiently then the natives...

for players who relocate out of europe: that's an exploit that always needed a nerf, so it's only good that you get a malus when you do that... (the huge power-boost that came with relocation, for OPM like the bretons, irish, etc... always made no sense, and it's still way too good)...

 

[Myrten]

Yeah, it basically means that the US, Canada, Mexico, ect. will be straight up better then all the local nations like the Mesos, Andes, Tribes, as well as any European nations that either relocate or are forced to relocate out of Europe.

Yeah, that's why I'm going to try France -> US game. Should be pretty OP