I doubt taxation will be the only cause of rebellion. That would be way to easy to manage for a human player.
Conquest of Paradise Tax Increases Resulting in
- Thread starter Roflpotamus
- 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.
Events can be cause of rebellion.
Differences in religious views can be cause of rebellion.
Low stability can be cause of rebellion.
Especially considering Events there's a lot of things imaginable. Some disgruntled charismatic guy talking about nationalism - will you kill him, causing maybe an immediate small revolt, or let him spread his ideas which can ignite the whole colony?
Or maybe you get an envoy of local rulers, asking to 'temporarilly' decrease taxes (say, -5%) - will you take the money hit, or will the desire for liberty increase?
Differences in religious views can be cause of rebellion.
Low stability can be cause of rebellion.
Especially considering Events there's a lot of things imaginable. Some disgruntled charismatic guy talking about nationalism - will you kill him, causing maybe an immediate small revolt, or let him spread his ideas which can ignite the whole colony?
Or maybe you get an envoy of local rulers, asking to 'temporarilly' decrease taxes (say, -5%) - will you take the money hit, or will the desire for liberty increase?
You can't do that for Colonial Nations in the new world. If they go free then you annex them, they just because a Colonial Nation again. You can't ever own real, controlled land in the New World, and you can't Release a normal Vassal from the New World. So you'd gain nothing by the whole process of freeing them and conquering them again; you should just beat them when their Liberty Desire reaches the Independence point, that will lower it again (for a while.)
true the american rev was the first big independence , after that it took a while before , Mexico , brazil , Colombia ect gained independence
It isn't. Evil4Zerggin mentioned a tooltip saying that the size of the Colonial Nation's army, relative to Overlord, will increase Liberty Desire.
Also someone has stated that the longer they exist, the higher Liberty Desire will tend to grow.
Developer Besuchov indicated that "over time, Liberty Desire will tend to converge on Tariff %" but presumably there will be modifiers on that, like mentioned above.
In fact, the independence of one colony might increase the desire in other colonies: If they can do it, so can we? (i.e. the Arabian Spring of recent times)
Or immensely frustrating as you pick apart other nations only to have their resulting uprisings cause some of your own?
Actually, the optimal strategy might be to keep taxes as low as possible. Vassals are a horrible source of income to begin with and money tends to be plentiful overall with very little to spend it on.
You wont be able to diploannex since it will just turn into a colonial nation again. Vassalizing is also a bad idea since its a very good probability that colonial nations wont occupy any diplo relations slots.
You wont be able to diploannex since it will just turn into a colonial nation again. Vassalizing is also a bad idea since its a very good probability that colonial nations wont occupy any diplo relations slots.
Last edited:
Isn't that what happened in real life though? France helped the US get independent, then lost their own colonies due to various reasons. However, I think the fact that "USA could do it" didn't help in it.
Except that independence desire makes the colonial states stronger militarily, so it may be worth riling them up a bit in order to help them conquer other colonial states.
The Revolution was influenced by taxes but was not even half of the problem. The fact that they gave more rights to Canada, did not provide representation, a growing national identity, and a few good speech makers caused the revolt. But it isn't like super taxing a colony wouldn't make them revolt. And I am sure it is not the only way for revolt to occur.
I'm sure most, if not all, of these things could be covered in events.
I feel like a colony noticing it has higher tariffs than other colonies and gaining liberty desire could be an interesting mechanic.
Or an event where you get the choice to increase rights in one colony, which increases liberty desire in all other colonies, or not increase the rights, which increases liberty desire in the colony the event is about.
Except letting them keep more money will also let them field a larger army... since the only thing you can spend extra money on in this game is army.
The American Revolution had more than one enabling factor. British leaders had been concerned for decades prior because, in their view (and based on a close reading of ancient history concerning colonies of Greek city-states) all colonies would tend toward independence as they grew in size and population. Americans pre- and post-Civil War were insistent on the construction of a transcontinental railroad precisely because they feared Oregon and California would break away (or be taken away by another power) as they grew in wealth, size and population. Texas revolted from Mexico once it reached a critical population size (and because it was physically isolated from the rest of Mexico by deserts) and so forth.
Britain had her own problems (Civil War, Cromwell, Restoration, Glorious Revolution) and was not able to impose taxes or governance from London on the colonies. The colonies began to argue that only Parliament could write laws for them, unless Parliament did so, in which case they appealed to their Royal Charters, unless the King re-wrote them, in which case they appealed to Parliament - and so on back and forth. By playing one off against the other (and keeping royal governors poor and powerless) they were able to go their own way. Then came the Seven Years War and the British decision to take Canada. Some in the government argued that fear of the French was the only thing keeping American colonies in line and wanted to take some of the Caribbean sugar islands instead. Canada was taken, the Americans were taxed (to help pay for the military expenses of the war) and fought to keep from paying those taxes - they never had been made to before as the government would impose a law or a tax and then back down when confronted. Much the same way as a child learns defiance if it is permitted to play parents off one against the other and if it learns that a parent will talk tough but always back down. In the lead-up to the French Revolution you see the same thing: appointing ministers with unpopular but necessary policies and then firing them, government vacillating weakly until no-one believes they can or will retain power.
With a King solidly on the throne and Parliament solidly in control of most of the government, Britain took steps to bring the colonies under firm control. Unfortunately the colonies had been effectively ungoverned for all of their history... as the saying goes, it is not repression that causes revolution but the grant and then revocation of a privilege.
Americans were represented exactly the same as any citizen of the British Isles - ie, indirectly and abstractly - save for not having specific seats in Parliament, which would have required painful political reform (as eventually happened and is still on-going). Independence can be blamed pretty fairly on George Germain and the other members of the royal government for vacillation, stupidity and stubbornness; the colonists (aside from a few hotheads) did not take up independence until they thought they would either have to fight or hang. One reason (in my opinion) that American territories didn't grow up into independent states was because there was a codified procedure for those territories (colonies) to become states and enter equally into the Union. So it can be argued that someone with vision could have negotiated a way for the colonies to become a de-facto part of the Kingdom, but there was no-one in Britain with both that vision and sufficient political power.
Taxation (or resource extraction) didn't do as much to cause the Central and South American revolutions as the distraction and weakening of the Spanish government during the Napoleonic Wars, or so I think. Certainly it caused a lot of death, misery and poverty, but for rebellion to grow into an independence war you need a weak, hesitant and distant overlord; harsh and somewhat random repression helps the anger grow.
All that aside, I am eager to see how the new mechanisms work. Even if I doubt the premise (high taxes cause revolt) I am in favor of seeing large colonial empires tend toward dissolution and breakup over time. I'd like to see really large contiguous empires tend toward devolution into their component parts also, but perhaps we can get that later.
Britain had her own problems (Civil War, Cromwell, Restoration, Glorious Revolution) and was not able to impose taxes or governance from London on the colonies. The colonies began to argue that only Parliament could write laws for them, unless Parliament did so, in which case they appealed to their Royal Charters, unless the King re-wrote them, in which case they appealed to Parliament - and so on back and forth. By playing one off against the other (and keeping royal governors poor and powerless) they were able to go their own way. Then came the Seven Years War and the British decision to take Canada. Some in the government argued that fear of the French was the only thing keeping American colonies in line and wanted to take some of the Caribbean sugar islands instead. Canada was taken, the Americans were taxed (to help pay for the military expenses of the war) and fought to keep from paying those taxes - they never had been made to before as the government would impose a law or a tax and then back down when confronted. Much the same way as a child learns defiance if it is permitted to play parents off one against the other and if it learns that a parent will talk tough but always back down. In the lead-up to the French Revolution you see the same thing: appointing ministers with unpopular but necessary policies and then firing them, government vacillating weakly until no-one believes they can or will retain power.
With a King solidly on the throne and Parliament solidly in control of most of the government, Britain took steps to bring the colonies under firm control. Unfortunately the colonies had been effectively ungoverned for all of their history... as the saying goes, it is not repression that causes revolution but the grant and then revocation of a privilege.
Americans were represented exactly the same as any citizen of the British Isles - ie, indirectly and abstractly - save for not having specific seats in Parliament, which would have required painful political reform (as eventually happened and is still on-going). Independence can be blamed pretty fairly on George Germain and the other members of the royal government for vacillation, stupidity and stubbornness; the colonists (aside from a few hotheads) did not take up independence until they thought they would either have to fight or hang. One reason (in my opinion) that American territories didn't grow up into independent states was because there was a codified procedure for those territories (colonies) to become states and enter equally into the Union. So it can be argued that someone with vision could have negotiated a way for the colonies to become a de-facto part of the Kingdom, but there was no-one in Britain with both that vision and sufficient political power.
Taxation (or resource extraction) didn't do as much to cause the Central and South American revolutions as the distraction and weakening of the Spanish government during the Napoleonic Wars, or so I think. Certainly it caused a lot of death, misery and poverty, but for rebellion to grow into an independence war you need a weak, hesitant and distant overlord; harsh and somewhat random repression helps the anger grow.
All that aside, I am eager to see how the new mechanisms work. Even if I doubt the premise (high taxes cause revolt) I am in favor of seeing large colonial empires tend toward dissolution and breakup over time. I'd like to see really large contiguous empires tend toward devolution into their component parts also, but perhaps we can get that later.
And that's EU4 problem overall. Player have way too few possibilities to actually affect his domain. Hell- in EU4 I can't even set taxes, so it seems like I'll have more control over colonies than my own countries. It's real shame, as there's plenty to do in terms of between realm interaction, but almost nothing to do in terms of internal (or semi-internal in this case) affairs
