Colonies: The new taint

[Squirrelloid]

What really blows my mind is that all the limitations on native colonization should apply (and more so) to CNs, because they have to sail people *across an ocean* to get to the Americas. And then they have this small settler population that somehow gets to fully use the territory as soon as it enters CN hands. Name one CN that had anywhere near 'full' (european level) population densities during the game's timeframe? Even the Thirteen Colonies don't approach those densities, and having real cities only occurred towards the very end of the game's timeframe, not in 1500 or 1600. The only populous 'colonies' were the ones that enslaved the natives.

Bare minimum, natives and CNs should use the same mechanics for colonizing. If that means no floor but high initial LA that has to bleed away, fine. But CNs being at an advantage in colonizing is just absurd.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

What really blows my mind is that all the limitations on native colonization should apply (and more so) to CNs, because they have to sail people *across an ocean* to get to the Americas. And then they have this small settler population that somehow gets to fully use the territory as soon as it enters CN hands. Name one CN that had anywhere near 'full' (european level) population densities during the game's timeframe? Even the Thirteen Colonies don't approach those densities, and having real cities only occurred towards the very end of the game's timeframe, not in 1500 or 1600. The only populous 'colonies' were the ones that enslaved the natives.

The problem is that if those limitations applied to CNs, then the overlord nation that created them in the first place would get basically no income from them. The overlord needs to get about what they'd get if they'd colonized somewhere else in the world, otherwise there is no reason to colonize.

So either the income from colonial vassals system needs to be changed such that they get ~50% of all the income their CN makes, or the CN needs to be able to go under 50% autonomy.

 

[Squirrelloid]

And which nations would those be, compared to which alternatives? Every single country with easy access to same-continent colonisation is trivial to outperform their real-life success with. Every single one, without exception. Be it American natives, be it African natives, be it Korea, be it Brunei. If you have easy access to same-continent colonisation, you then have easy access to something that makes you a major power if not a superpower by the time Europeans show up and literally nothing except some early game attacks by more powerful local rivals can or will stop you.

Not an argument. Every single country, colonization or no, is trivial to outperform their real history, with the sole exceptions of OPM nations that start as vassals (not trivial) or Albania (not trivial, because real Albania defended by Iskanderbeg lasted far longer than the game can model). Any other nation can trivially outperform history. So why should we kick some of the weakest nations in the game in the head? It certainly doesn't make them more fun to operate under magically different mechanics than their main competitors.

 

[Kyoumen]

What really blows my mind is that all the limitations on native colonization should apply (and more so) to CNs, because they have to sail people *across an ocean* to get to the Americas. And then they have this small settler population that somehow gets to fully use the territory as soon as it enters CN hands. Name one CN that had anywhere near 'full' (european level) population densities during the game's timeframe? Even the Thirteen Colonies don't approach those densities, and having real cities only occurred towards the very end of the game's timeframe, not in 1500 or 1600. The only populous 'colonies' were the ones that enslaved the natives.

Well before the end of the EUIV timeframe, the Thirteen Colonies had a much higher population than any remaining native states - and that advantage increased rapidly over time.

Having full European level population density is irrelevant, since you won't have that in most American provinces either (they're very low in manpower and that's unlikely to change in AOW).

Bare minimum, natives and CNs should use the same mechanics for colonizing. If that means no floor but high initial LA that has to bleed away, fine. But CNs being at an advantage in colonizing is just absurd.

If they had the same mechanics, CNs would be completely neutered and useless. As it is they have a 75% reduction in colonising speed that natives don't have. I guarantee it will still be far more viable to conquer either continent with a native rather than a CN.

 

[Andaries]

A lot of ideas being thrown around or comments about the logic of the notes when their is really only one question.

Is the game better if the fix was never done at all?

If no, then do the fix.

If yes, then why is their even a discussion about doing it?

 

[Squirrelloid]

The problem is that if those limitations applied to CNs, then the overlord nation that created them in the first place would get basically no income from them. The overlord needs to get about what they'd get if they'd colonized somewhere else in the world, otherwise there is no reason to colonize.

So either the income from colonial vassals system needs to be changed such that they get ~50% of all the income their CN makes, or the CN needs to be able to go under 50% autonomy.

Well, the current alternative is absurd and ridiculous. Magical immunity to a game mechanic everyone else has to suffer is a terrible way to implement a game.

There is of course perfectly workable alternatives to the 50% floor, like just not having it, or requiring CNs or their masters to invest more in the colonies if they want large profits. As it is, the direct revenues from Tariffs are not the real source of wealth in the Americas, its the trade power the CNs give their overlord that lets them steer lucrative trade - something the 50% floor wouldn't hurt. The only full trade provinces in the colonies would be the starting native ones, which, since they aren't on top of any of the good trade nodes, still won't dominate trade power. (And if the Europeans have problems with natives stealing trade, they could always *actually declare war on them*, or protectorate them to get some of their trade power too). Basically, if the 50% floor applied to everyone equally, colonial masters could still get rich by dominating trade, and would still get the other benefits (increased FL, for example) of having CNs.

 

[Darsara]

Really, I think the LA minimum is probably to represent sparse population density in those territories...but that's just my interpretation. Most same continent colonizer candidates either didn't have the manpower, administrative capability, or willingness to rule larger chunks of land.

And then their population never increased (even the Tawantinsuyu with it's population of as much as 20million), and they never adapted to administer new land, while New France can import ample manpower to proper utilize the whole continent.

 

[Kyoumen]

Not an argument. Every single country, colonization or no, is trivial to outperform their real history, with the sole exceptions of OPM nations that start as vassals (not trivial) or Albania (not trivial, because real Albania defended by Iskanderbeg lasted far longer than the game can model). Any other nation can trivially outperform history. So why should we kick some of the weakest nations in the game in the head? It certainly doesn't make them more fun to operate under magically different mechanics than their main competitors.

You're being disingenuous (also, outperforming Spain's real-life empire is actually pretty tricky). It is risk-free and opposition-free to do so with any nation with easy access to same-continent colonisation; that isn't true of most other countries.

 

[Freudia]

A lot of ideas being thrown around or comments about the logic of the notes when their is really only one question.

Is the game better if the fix was never done at all?

If no, then do the fix.

If yes, then why is their even a discussion about doing it?

This question has different answers depending on who you play. If you're an American Native, Russia, a horde, an African state, or a Malaysian state (or maybe even Japan or Korea), then the answer is no, the game was better before this fix. If you play western Europe, then the answer is yes, the game is better.

 

[chrnno]

Personally I am waiting to actually play the game and see how all the changes interact before stating with absolute certainty X has broken the game. In a few months(little free time + shitty computer is a bad combination) I should have tested enough countries to get a true informed opinion.

In the meantime while I am sure there are people here who are honestly complaining about this change to be I feel like a lot just wanted to complain about something and jumped on this.

 

[Kyoumen]

This question has different answers depending on who you play. If you're an American Native, Russia, a horde, an African state, or a Malaysian state (or maybe even Japan or Korea), then the answer is no, the game was better before this fix. If you play western Europe, then the answer is yes, the game is better.

I'd say the game is likely to be better after the fix, since a) there are many new features in AOW that enhance gameplay for them, and b) "better" and "easier" are not synonymous.

Of course, none of us posting here except Wiz have actually played it yet.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem is that if those limitations applied to CNs, then the overlord nation that created them in the first place would get basically no income from them. The overlord needs to get about what they'd get if they'd colonized somewhere else in the world, otherwise there is no reason to colonize.

So either the income from colonial vassals system needs to be changed such that they get ~50% of all the income their CN makes, or the CN needs to be able to go under 50% autonomy.

The unfortunate conclusion of your defense here is that the strong nations can't be nerfed because it would make them too weak, but the weaker, less viable nations need to be nerfed because otherwise it's possible for them to become strong.

That's not a sound basis.

You're being disingenuous (also, outperforming Spain's real-life empire is actually pretty tricky). It is risk-free and opposition-free to do so with any nation with easy access to same-continent colonisation; that isn't true of most other countries.

As if human colonial powers don't have it risk free and opposition free to create CNs. If you assert that to be the case for natives, it's even more true for the nations that can actually create CNs and fight others on equal footing right away.

Also, it's somewhat disingenuous to cite Spain's IRL performance, which depended on events that are quite lucky in-game in terms of European holdings, and wide spread disease + timing in the new world.

In the meantime while I am sure there are people here who are honestly complaining about this change to be I feel like a lot just wanted to complain about something and jumped on this.

Changes like this stick out sorely because they can't be rationally defended, evidenced quite profoundly here. A majority percentage of patch changes can be rationally defended in their current implementation. Much of the frustration, patch to patch, comes with the developers leaving in features with nonsense defense or no defense against protest of the community that said changes don't make sense for either gameplay or historical reasons (or in the worst cases, such as the truce timer, both).

Here, we have an example of one western nation receiving full potential benefit from colonization, despite being foreign to the land, while other western nations still can't ever get more than 50% utility out of it. The benefactors of the 1.7 and before full benefit are none other than the strongest western colonizing superpowers in the game, while other nations eat a nerf. Since even the developers don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to debating why colonial nations are inherently superior at administering native land than a westernized native who spent its entire existence adjacent to the same land, they instead fall back on "the ROI for weak nations was too good, even though they were still weak nations".

That rings hollow, and as typical this kind of change comes to light just before the game launch. Since people can't actually debate against this, they don't. They use logical fallacies instead. I'd love to be shown wrong there though so we can have a real debate as to why it is that weaker nations needed to be made relatively weaker.

 

[Giacomo1405]

This question has different answers depending on who you play. If you're an American Native, Russia, a horde, an African state, or a Malaysian state (or maybe even Japan or Korea), then the answer is no, the game was better before this fix. If you play western Europe, then the answer is yes, the game is better.

better doesn't mean easier... i believe it's better after the fix even if you play Russia (the country most affected by this change) that same-continent colonization is less OP then before (still being very OP in comparison to any other means of expansion)...

 

[Squirrelloid]

Well before the end of the EUIV timeframe, the Thirteen Colonies had a much higher population than any remaining native states - and that advantage increased rapidly over time.

Having full European level population density is irrelevant, since you won't have that in most American provinces either (they're very low in manpower and that's unlikely to change in AOW)

That's an argument for being able to slowly decrease LA towards zero for all same-continent colonies. There's no reason to believe a successful native tribe which westernizes and doesn't get wiped out wouldn't be able to similarly invest in colonial growth. We're talking about CNs being at 0% LA in the mid-1500s, not after 1750, which is absurd.

If they had the same mechanics, CNs would be completely neutered and useless. As it is they have a 75% reduction in colonising speed that natives don't have. I guarantee it will still be far more viable to conquer either continent with a native rather than a CN.

The colonial master still can colonize for them. CNs don't do most of their own colonizing - they're too slow. Anyone who is depending on CNs to do their own colonization will be waiting a long time and will lose territory to rival colonial powers. Meanwhile, the master nation is not penalized on colonization speed, and is the nation the natives have to compete with on colonization.

The CNs also don't have to westernize, which is risky and expensive, and will start with a large technology speed. Conquering with a CN will be trivially easier than conquering as a native, especially if the master nation assists. (And in 1.73 they do. France lands 20-30k stacks in the Americas, even when its not fighting a war. French troops with French NIs and lucky generals is a lot of pain for a native nation)

Seriously, who thinks the CN's own colonists is even an argument for this? That's just bonus *extra* colonization the CNs get in addition to their colonial master. So yes, CNs do potentially colonize faster, because they can get all the master's colonists plus their own gimpy colonist who holds a territory and eventually integrates it. (And the AI rarely, if ever, gets attacked by natives. I think I see it happen maybe once per game, and only ever in the absolute worst aggressive territories.)

Finally, former CNs are no longer penalized on colonization speed.

 

[Freudia]

better doesn't mean easier... i believe it's better after the fix even if you play Russia (the country most affected by this change) that same-continent colonization is less OP then before (still being very OP in comparison to any other means of expansion)...

I did not say that better meant easier. For nations who colonize land right next door to them, this 'fix' is unarguably worse because the land that is right next door to them, even if it's right next to their capital, will never be integrated as well as land they establish a land bridge to halfway across the world and then take through conquest. And that's absolutely bogus and unrealistic regardless of how you look at it. The only nations who come out on top with this change are western European colonizers and CNs/former CNs themselves, as they're the only ones not hit by this change.

It's not even about 'easier' or 'harder'; it's about logic. Why is the land right next door to my capital unable to be integrated beyond 50%?

 

[josh127]

This question has different answers depending on who you play. If you're an American Native, Russia, a horde, an African state, or a Malaysian state (or maybe even Japan or Korea), then the answer is no, the game was better before this fix. If you play western Europe, then the answer is yes, the game is better.

I don't think the game is better if you play western Europe. It's easier if you play western Europe, but easier isn't the same as better.

There's really no direct change for them, there's no same continent provinces for them. The indirect change is their eventual enemies will be that much weaker and that much easier to subjugate. To me, making the world more of a pushover hurts the game, it doesn't help the game become more entertaining. So, no, it doesn't make the game better. If you're going to fix something, do it right or don't do it at all.

better doesn't mean easier... i believe it's better after the fix even if you play Russia (the country most affected by this change) that same-continent colonization is less OP then before (still being very OP in comparison to any other means of expansion)...

In 1.6 they nerfed the economy so it wasn't as OP. That did not make the game better. The fix went overboard and made the game far less entertaining along with creating multiple bugs, some of which still aren't ironed out.

 

[Squirrelloid]

You're being disingenuous (also, outperforming Spain's real-life empire is actually pretty tricky). It is risk-free and opposition-free to do so with any nation with easy access to same-continent colonisation; that isn't true of most other countries.

Not being disingenious at all. The player will do better than history. Period. (Yes, even Spain. Outperforming Spain historically is not that hard. You might have less in the new world, but you'll have vastly more of Europe - which is more worthwhile than CNs. Even AI Spain outdoes history much of the time - they often get most of Algiers in addition to ridiculous colonial empires that at least rival historical size, even if not in the right places).

 

[Squirrelloid]

I'd say the game is likely to be better after the fix, since a) there are many new features in AOW that enhance gameplay for them, and b) "better" and "easier" are not synonymous.

Of course, none of us posting here except Wiz have actually played it yet.

Want to bet Wiz hasn't actually played an American tribe, subsaharan African nation, or Malaysian nation at all? Actually, I'd lay good odds that no one has playtested any of these nations. The design team isn't that large, and they probably spent most of their playtesting effort on Europe (and much of it on the 30 years war specifically).

 

[Kyoumen]

As if human colonial powers don't have it risk free and opposition free to create CNs. If you assert that to be the case for natives, it's even more true for the nations that can actually create CNs and fight others on equal footing right away.

So? They're supposed to be stronger. They were in real life, due to factors that nothing could actually change. You are failing to make any coherent point why making it less easy to dominate a continent as an American native (of colonising all of East Asia as Korea) is actually a bad thing. You are also not making any point as to why a powerful CN shouldn't end up with higher basetax and more manpower than surviving native states despite the fact this is precisely what actually happened in real life and the primary reason why no native American states (including large coalitions) remained fully independent.

It will still be very possible to become and remain a powerful, independent native state. It will just be harder.

Also, it's somewhat disingenuous to cite Spain's IRL performance, which depended on events that are quite lucky in-game in terms of European holdings, and wide spread disease + timing in the new world.

You're the one that said it; I was simply giving a counterpoint. I do agree Spain was very lucky during the first half of EUIV's timeframe.

 

[Incompetent]

This question has different answers depending on who you play. If you're an American Native, Russia, a horde, an African state, or a Malaysian state (or maybe even Japan or Korea), then the answer is no, the game was better before this fix. If you play western Europe, then the answer is yes, the game is better.

Russia may have been 'nerfed', but it sounds like in single player at least, playing as Russia will be a much more rewarding experience. Asia will feel a lot bigger than it used to (with correspondingly larger rewards for dominating the non-Siberian part of it), and most Asian countries (except hordes) will be more resilient. Even AI Ming will probably be a bit stronger than it used to be, now that it will no longer be crippled by its inability to manage factions. AI Qing is also more likely to emerge, and is much less likely to roll over if you only send a token army across.