Is there a particular reason I play as Songhai and provinces that have direct land connection with my capital count as "colonies"? I understand that this was supposed to replace distant overseas, but you never had distant overseas for provinces that had land connection with your capital.
Colony 50% autonomy...
- Thread starter Zones
- 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.
It seems to be one of those oversights on the development team's part but I don't think we've seen any comments regarding this issue by one as of yet.
- 4
Overseas provinces will be stuck on 75% autonomy. I've noticed that if you conquer a colonized province though, the button for raising autonomy is clickable. Only thing i can think of, is trying to move your capital into it, i've noticed that capitals remain at 0% autnomy, even if you manualy raise it.
But it's still relevant because people still think it's a problem. But in the interest of keeping things neat you'll probably want to keep your Colony Autonomy Complaints to this thread: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?810952-Colonies-The-new-taint
It's not an oversight, it's an intended nerf to same continent colonization.
this is a direct nerf to Aztec and Russia. Paradox did it because like everything they do: it's an arbitraty and pointless attempt to make the game historically accurate at the cost of reason and playability. Deal with it.
Its not a problem its an improvement. Colonization was too easy and in a way, overpowered, for expansion. If you want fully developed land that has infrastructure and population, which allows full usage of a provinces resources, then colonizing isn't the way to go, conquest is. It makes even less sense to argue that an overseas colony would operate as efficiently as one on the homeland. I'm glad it was instituted and it was one of the good WAD elements.
Same continent colonization gave you full provinces for very little cost. It was very strong.
The weak gets weaker while colonization is still keept or now even more overpowerred then Europeans do it.
If they think colonization is to strong make it take alot longer for it to pay of, put autonomy at 100% then the colony finish, make it impossible to decrease for the first few decades, make colony themself cost alot more money to found, make you have to core the colony instead of getting it for free.
Such changes would probably be more instead appreciated of having a permanent large penalty that nearly only hurts the weak.
If they think colonization is to strong make it take alot longer for it to pay of, put autonomy at 100% then the colony finish, make it impossible to decrease for the first few decades, make colony themself cost alot more money to found, make you have to core the colony instead of getting it for free.
Such changes would probably be more instead appreciated of having a permanent large penalty that nearly only hurts the weak.
None of those ideas, unfortunately, are better than the current system. Having to 'core' dozens upon dozens of new colonies, which will turn into Colonial Nations or Trade Companies, would make the system even less lucrative. Colonization is a more peaceful way of expanding your nation. It should not be of equal value as taking a fully developed province through conquest.
The difference is that it would actually make colonization for Europeans noticable less Overpowered then it is know, not to say they ignore the current penalty anyway.
For natives who may not have much choice in the way they can expand the difference is they would be weaker early but thier late game would be noticable better.
For natives who may not have much choice in the way they can expand the difference is they would be weaker early but thier late game would be noticable better.
Just to note, USA gets to colonize the Americas with 0 LA. I would assume the other nations (Canada, Mexico, etc) are similar.
Well i personaly dont mind the 50% autonomy IF it goes away with time say in 25-100 years you can get them to 0%. exeptions should be if the province you colonize is in your culture group then you should get 25% or 0% when colony is finished if its 25% it should be ticking down..
That's okay, there's a 28+ thread on the topic where others (including the developers) also found it difficult to place merit in the decision. All we got was something along the lines of this "argument":
Of course, demonstrating no quantitative analysis as to how the investment in exploration compared against alternative idea groups absent the westernization factor, no true comparison in the cost of colonies fronted or the opportunity cost, and no demonstration of nations that actually suffer the nerf (Americas, Africa, Siberia) actually needing the nerf. Meanwhile, the strongest nations in the game get more tax for their CNs because by the same "obvious" logic, overseas expansion didn't need to be nerfed.
Your statement is not consistent with a need for a 50% LA floor. You could start colonies with 75% autonomy and leave them as normal for example, and colonization with the up-front costs and delay would take a long time to become useful, nowhere near what you could possibly do with alternative means of expansion.
This is, of course, ignoring the reality that conquest as anything other than a native (which runs out of targets) can gather base tax and value much faster than colonies possibly can do so.
but now its terrible
what if some ideas in adminstration, exploration or expansion would remove (some of) this penalty?
6th idea exploration could give
+1 Colonist
-20% Colony Autonomy
instead of just +1 colonist
There should be give some events or a policies with expansion/ aristocratie/ administrative/ influence! Dont know which combination has the best logic. Or a capital bonus how in EU III: depression LA when in neighborhood of capitol.