Conquest of Paradise Tax Increases Resulting in

[GamingHUD]

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.)

You can. You just can't own real, controlled land if it is 5 or more contiguous colonies. Of course, if you have the DLC enabled, it seems rather pointless do so and that gives me hope that the AI will seek to colonise in a more contiguous pattern as opposed to now where say Spain drops colonies here and there along the east coast of the Americas before filling it out (ergo, hopefully no more Spanish Canada in most cases).

 

[grisamentum]

You can. You just can't own real, controlled land if it is 5 or more contiguous colonies. Of course, if you have the DLC enabled, it seems rather pointless do so and that gives me hope that the AI will seek to colonise in a more contiguous pattern as opposed to now where say Spain drops colonies here and there along the east coast of the Americas before filling it out (ergo, hopefully no more Spanish Canada in most cases).

I don't think it's "contiguous" but rather 5 in the same geographic area (eg "Canada" or "the Thirteen Colonies").

 

[SpikeyMarshmall]

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.

From what I've read (albeit mainly the internet, so reliability is an issue). The US war of independence had many different contributing factors.

1) They were only allowed to import tea from Great Britain, which had a heavy tax imposed on it.
2) In order to prevent rebellions and riots in Canada, the French already lived there, were allowed to keep all legal / court matters in French and basically weren't made to integrate. Which annoyed the thirteen colonies.
3) Representation? As much as I read about representation as a contributing factor, it feels heavily like an excuse for the war in my own opinion. (Then again, I'm British)

Also, from what I've read, the colonies were eventually offered representation which was rejected mid-war. So.. I have a feeling that it wasn't really "representation" they wanted. Now I could go on and on.. but I'm heavily biased towards the British

Anyways, game-wise:
If tax is the only contributing factor then I guess it's a way to simplify the mechanics so that it's not overly complicated micro-management. It wouldn't be too bad if there was a bunch of events which basically also helped regular the liberty value but in a more role playing kind of way. These events would also not have to effect you too much as the colonies are pretty independent anyways.

 

[GamingHUD]

I don't think it's "contiguous" but rather 5 in the same geographic area (eg "Canada" or "the Thirteen Colonies").

Hmm, yes, my bad. They do state only 5 colonies in a single colonial region, as opposed to also needing to be contiguous.

 

[Tempestra]

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.

Are you talking about Haiti?

 

[Roflpotamus]

@Director

Exceptionally written piece. Thanks for the input!

 

[ArchimedesBird]

@Director: I wouldn't really call the Glorious revolution a problem, but point taken. About railways and such, maybe that could be a mechanic? E.G. The more contact (through trade, military service, etc.) the colonies have with the motherland, the less likely they are to feel alienated and try for independence?

I have heard theories about the Boston tea party that state that the British government was planning to sell the huge surplus of tea that they had on the ships, tax-free, to the colonists. The local tea merchants were outraged at being undercut and their market flooded, so they dressed up as indians, removed the problem, and the rest is history. So not quite as heroic as some believe. I'm trying to find the source right now, but I believe it was 1493 by Charles Mann.

 

[ssuperflash1]

Well it would be a mistake to blame the whole Revolution on the Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party (initially referred to by John Adams as "the Destruction of the Tea in Boston"[2]) was a political protest by the Sons of Liberty in Boston, on December 16, 1773. Disguised as American Indians, the demonstrators hurt no one but destroyed the entire supply of tea sent by the East India Company in defiance of the American boycott of tea carrying a tax the Americans had not authorized. They boarded the ships and threw the chests of tea into Boston Harbor, ruining the tea. The British government responded harshly and the episode escalated into the American Revolution. The Tea Party became an iconic event of American history, and other political protests such as the Tea Party movement after 2010 explicitly refer to it.

Now that's from Wikipedia but looking at it from that perpective it looks pretty heroic to me.

 

[ArchimedesBird]

Well, "blame" is one word .
There are always many ways to look at an issue, and multiple of them are sometimes right. There may have been a mix of threatened businessmen and genuine freedom fighters, and there may have been some people who got drunk and thought vandalizing some tea would be totes cool. It's almost never one explanation.

 

[Paddymorrow@blu]

Check out the first part of a historian discussing the American Revolution, its on Youtube; just search for "Howard Zinn - Myth Of The Good Wars (Three 'Holy' Wars)". As an American he offers a different perspective on war.

 

[Me_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZHyVdVrcUI

It appears that colonies will rebel if they are overtaxed. As far as I'm aware the US was hardly taxed at all yet a sense of nationalism was developing regardless.

I cannot speak for the other colonies and their rebellions. Did overtaxation lead to their rebellion or did that play little to no role as in the case of the US?


I realize that the "tea tax" was considered the spark for the US Revolutionary War but considering how little the US was getting taxed it doesn't really follow.


It would be great if most colonies tended towards rebellions and ended in independence as historically happened.

You need to make sure to use a proper frame of reference when considering taxes across history.
Most historical tax rates were considerably lowered than modern ones. An income tax of 20% - pretty low by modern standards - would be considered high, even outrageously so, by most human societies across history.
I remembered reading that the main tax rate in Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth was initially around 7% and only degraded over time (as the main tax rate was per land area, not based on income from said land, which increased over time) and yet the country had seen its fair share of criticism of the royal taxes. Other nations were not much different. It's the principle of the thing that mattered, not necessarily the actual tax rate.

 

[ssuperflash1]

While Howard Zinn was right about some things we can't blindly follow what he says. Like all historians he had his biases as well.

 

[Paddymorrow@blu]

Absolutely agree, but sometimes it takes a different viewpoint for us to realise that the "perceived history" that we were taught at school and at home is not as black and white as some would like us to believe.

 

[Juggernaught]

No taxation without representation.. right. How will colonies be represented? Was there even a representation mechanic in Eu? This mechanic would suit well for Victoria 3 but it is not for eu 4 imo.. unless they revamp population from EU3.

 

[ashbery76]

Really it should be a opportunism based mechanic.The whole tax stuff was bullshit that seems to stick.

 

[ArchimedesBird]

They really need to just add more mechanics for peace. I know it's not CK, but a governor/viceroy system with portraits and a few traits would really add flavor and necessitate more strategizing. Taxes and similar things by province would as well.

 

[ssuperflash1]

Right right and I'm not saying Americans are "always" right they obviously had their problems as well but when looking for an alternate viewpoint we can't completely diregard the orignal one. I'm not saying you did that but it's always a danger. Like for taxes for example it can't be denied that taxes were part of colonial rebellions but perhaps there were other issues as well.

 

[grisamentum]

Right right and I'm not saying Americans are "always" right they obviously had their problems as well but when looking for an alternate viewpoint we can't completely diregard the orignal one. I'm not saying you did that but it's always a danger. Like for taxes for example it can't be denied that taxes were part of colonial rebellions but perhaps there were other issues as well.

It wasn't so much the taxes in and of themselves, but the fact that there was no real imperial policy in the 17th century regarding the colonies. Even in the early/mid 18th century, the Navigation Acts weren't strictly enforced. Enforcement of the various acts, like the Molasses Act, didn't start until the 1750s.

 

[ssuperflash1]

Yeah I actually agree. Unlike most colonies around the world the Thriteen Colonies were given decent automnomy in internal manners. They felt that they were full Englishmen, not just distant colonists. and that they deserved self-government. After the Seven Years War that started to go away and so many colonists started doing things like of course throwing tea in Boston Harbor, people got shot and things go bad. At first most Americans didn't support a breaking away from Britain but when it came to blows most colonists would rather support the Congress right there in Philadelphia, that you know, actually repsented each colony, rather than a government located 1000s of miles away in London.

And it didn't really help that French Canadians were given autonomy at the same time many English spekaing Americans felt like the British honestly didn't care about them.