Is it even possible to win a colonial war?

[DGuller]

Question?

When did a colonial war between European powers result in a trade of colonies in this period. Did a colonial war between great powers even occur in this period?

What's the point in that question? If you allow the European powers to fight in colonial wars, then make the colonial wars work right. Also, they suffer from the same problem regular wars do when one power is much larger than another. What was broken with EU2 way of calculating war score?

 

[Veilwalker]

The war with UK was over claims. The war with Russia was over a claimed colony. So I think I had it right in one and not so right in the other.

Thanks DR.

Has anyone else run into an across the board doubling of the cost of colonial buildings? One day all of the costs of my buildings literally doubled. For example, Trading Posts now cost me 10k, 6 leadership, 40 cement and 40 lumber (all of the other bldgs had a similar doubling). My guess is that some event happened that increased my costs for colonizing (I am playing the GC as the US v 1.03, it happened around late 1840 - early 1850).

 

[Derek Pullem]

What's the point in that question? If you allow the European powers to fight in colonial wars, then make the colonial wars work right. Also, they suffer from the same problem regular wars do when one power is much larger than another. What was broken with EU2 way of calculating war score?

Is it possible to win a colonial war. Yes if the losing power is realtively small.
Is it possible to enforce a victory in colonial war in Vicky - very unlikely. War exhaustion just won't get high enough

Is this unrealistic - in my opinion no. A colonial war is mainly there for what a colonial war was used for in real life - to occupy and annex uncivilised countries. Large civilised countries did not usually engage in colonial war in Vicky time against each other. Spanish American war is the only example I can think of and this is modelled as a "real" war in Vicky

If we make the colonial wars "work right" in your way then we sanction the stripping of colonies from European powers in limited colonial wars. Which did not happen in real life. I prefer the existing situation to this. The solution to taking colonies off a European power is to declare war.

What you can do in a colonial war is strip claims off the other side.

 

[unmerged(19361)]

Maybe they need to implement some way for us to simply claim a colony outside of the peace process if we occupy it for a while, maybe a year.

Like if Russia owns Madagascar, and they can't defend it, and the UK occupies it and holds it for a couple years, wouldn't it become the UK's colony even if Russia still didn't agree to give it to them?

It seems like taking someone's foreign colonies ought to be much easier than taking their states.

But as of right now it's almost impossible to take a colony from the UK or Russia. Even one that you could occupy and defend for the rest of the game with no problem. Instead of just rolling in with troops, taking the colony and defending it, you have to sail around the world occupying India and South Africa and shit, just to take a colony which is right next door to your.

If Mexico wanted to take Belieze, would they have to sail to South Africa, or would they just roll in with troops, capture and defend it?

Maybe you should be able to just take claimed colonies, similar to the way you can just take claims right now.

P.S. the whole concept of a colonial war against a civilized nation doesn't make much sense. If Mexico stole Belieze from the UK, the UK should have the ability to invade mainland Mexico.

The whole colonial war system kinda needs to make more sense.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Maybe they need to implement some way for us to simply claim a colony outside of the peace process if we occupy it for a while, maybe a year.

Like if Russia owns Madagascar, and they can't defend it, and the UK occupies it and holds it for a couple years, wouldn't it become the UK's colony even if Russia still didn't agree to give it to them?

It seems like taking someone's foreign colonies ought to be much easier than taking their states.

But as of right now it's almost impossible to take a colony from the UK or Russia. Even one that you could occupy and defend for the rest of the game with no problem. Instead of just rolling in with troops, taking the colony and defending it, you have to sail around the world occupying India and South Africa and shit, just to take a colony which is right next door to your.

If Mexico wanted to take Belieze, would they have to sail to South Africa, or would they just roll in with troops, capture and defend it?

Maybe you should be able to just take claimed colonies, similar to the way you can just take claims right now.

P.S. the whole concept of a colonial war against a civilized nation doesn't make much sense. If Mexico stole Belieze from the UK, the UK should have the ability to invade mainland Mexico.

The whole colonial war system kinda needs to make more sense.

Mexico couldn't declare colonial war unless it had colonies as well. Therefore UK could get Belize back and try to take Mexican colonies. There are circumstances where the colonial war system gets stuck in a stalemate.

The main reason why this causes problems is that players try to use the colonial war system to avoid fighting the main force of a major power. And then complain becuase when they have taken a minor colony the AI won't give up. Why should UK give up Belize just because Mexico is occupied. The UK waited 14 years to take back the Sudan from the Mahdi in real life because it couldn't be bothered to expend the troops to recapture it.

I do think that an escalation button from colonial to real war would be a very useful addition though.

 

[unmerged(24449)]

Chris 1959

Derek is absolutely right, Great Powers in the 19th century did not engage in "Colonial Wars"against each other.
Great Britain would not attempt to just sieze French North Africa for example in a limited strike, it would have resulted in an all out shooting match between the two countries. Any colonies taken would have been as a result of that peace.
In fact it would be fair to say that The Great Powers should not be allowed to declare Colonial War on another Great Power at all, doing so in reality would have triggered a Great War with the web of alliances that existed.
Declaring colonial war on a minor power is and should be different, Denmark would be unable to stop Britain taking her overseas colonies if she wished, the penalty for Britain would hopefully be a big prestige hit and badboy points in the eyes of the world for such bully boy tactics.
The Mexico Belize example is very good as well, if Mexico took Belize from Britain when she was other wise engaged then it could be several years before the hammer blow fell, but a decision to give up the colony would be purely Britain's as it is unlikely Mexico could hurt her more to force a successful peace.
I doubt it can be done under current programming but in the above case having someone occupy a colony should result in a steady lose of prestige as time goes on. In the eyes of the world you can't be much of a "Great Power" if Mexico goes around stealing colonies. In fact it would be a good idea if the prestige lost in "losing" to a lower power is doubled or trebled if you are a "Great Power". One of the reasons Britain entered the Entente with France and Russia was the way her performance in the Boer war was reflected in world opinion especially Germany.
Colonial war against an uncivilised "bunch of savages", was fine unless they were somone elses "savages", colonial war against a small guy without big friends OK but people won't like you, colonial war against a "Great Power" a complete no no, if you want Australian real estate you have to declare war on Britain and win it.

 

[SwordOfJustice]

On a practical note, as mentioned summon Lord Neville to your diplomacy table, sir! (use the cheat)


So then, with those posts about the history of the period, the whole modelling of colonial wars in Vic is not historically accurate. The trouble then is it is in the game historical or not.

I really don't think it's preferrable to have it modelled as turning into an interminable war that drags on for 10 years with millions of troops dying over it. I would much rather see the logic relating to colonial wars be reworked to something more playable and sensible within the game system as it stands.

How about this for a simple idea of how to improve the peace AI? The computer will pay less attention to it's nation's military strength as each year of war passes and more on war score.

This will mean that if you still maintain a high war score (i.e. you're doing better than the computer is) after years of war, the AI will become more inclined to make peace. Obviously if you are maintaining that better performance in battle you are obviously outclassing the AI which is obviously not successfully winning it's territory back.

If you are holding the computer off or it is a long stalemate, I would say it makes more sense for the AI to become more inclined to cut it's losses and opt out.

Overall the AI still seems to place too much emphasis on it's perceived military strength. Maybe it's the weighting of the calculation that still needs more adjustment. But adopting the idea I've outlined should help too. Maybe make the adjustment I mentioned every 6 months of war?

Even a monster like Russia should concede defeat in certain conditions.

And that *would* be historical. Larger states were humbled by supposedly weaker ones during the period.


Cheers,
Sword

 

[Derek Pullem]

The solution is easy. You want a great powers colonies - declare real war. You want his claims? Declare colonial war and white peace after a few battles / years.

 

[unmerged(4436)]

The solution is easy. You want a great powers colonies - declare real war. You want his claims? Declare colonial war and white peace after a few battles / years.

thats not really possible. I was uk and tried to get the US to have peace. I had +5% war score from occuping Maine and I even offered them 2 canadian colonies at 5% each, and they still refused peace. This is insane. How could the losing side refuse a peace that gives them so much free stuff?

 

[Derek Pullem]

thats not really possible. I was uk and tried to get the US to have peace. I had +5% war score from occuping Maine and I even offered them 2 canadian colonies at 5% each, and they still refused peace. This is insane. How could the losing side refuse a peace that gives them so much free stuff?

In this scenario I'd use the "neville" cheat. But if you go for a colonial war with the US again then drive down the west coast and convert their colonial claims. You will have to wait for them to exhaust themselves but they are quite small at the start and it will get there in the end (could be 5-7 years war though)

 

[Dinsdale]

Question?

When did a colonial war between European powers result in a trade of colonies in this period. Did a colonial war between great powers even occur in this period?

Then why bother with it in the game?

There was no Austro-Russian war of 1905 in history either, does that mean that it shouldn't happen in the game?

If a game mechanism does not work, then it doesn't work, nothing to do with history.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Colonial war does work for what it is intended. Annexation of non-civilised countries at low war exhaustion.

It was not intended for a gamey exploit for players to fight a war versus a major without fear of getting tonked.

 

[Chris8b]

Then why bother with it in the game?

There was no Austro-Russian war of 1905 in history either, does that mean that it shouldn't happen in the game?

If a game mechanism does not work, then it doesn't work, nothing to do with history.

Surely you have noticed that Paradox games attempt to provide a game engine that simulates the historical conditions and paradigms of specific time periods?

Your analogy to a specific war is irrelevant. You're talking about a single instance of an event.

The issue of colonial wars between great powers is a whole class of events. If these types of wars did not occur during the time period they should not be part of a game engine based on this time period unless there is a very good reason.

By your suggestion that the workability of a game mechanism is important while the historicity of it is not, we might as well consider adding missile combat to Victoria.

-C

 

[Dinsdale]

Colonial war does work for what it is intended. Annexation of non-civilised countries at low war exhaustion.

It was not intended for a gamey exploit for players to fight a war versus a major without fear of getting tonked.

The AI exploits this rule continously. If it really does not work as intended then why is it not removed? Is it really too difficult to do a civilization check before allowing the DOW to take place?

If this really does not belong in the game the why is it still there after three patches?

 

[Dinsdale]

Surely you have noticed that Paradox games attempt to provide a game engine that simulates the historical conditions and paradigms of specific time periods?

Your analogy to a specific war is irrelevant. You're talking about a single instance of an event.


The issue of colonial wars between great powers is a whole class of events. If these types of wars did not occur during the time period they should not be part of a game engine based on this time period unless there is a very good reason.

Irrelevant or not, there was no major, prolonged European war for most of this era. It's quite possible to drag Europe into a replay of the Napoleonic struggles, or an early WW1, so why not a return to a more aggressive series of colonial disputes?

To repeat, if this is not supposed to be in the game then why are we only hearing about it now, and why is the AI programmed to use it against civilized nations?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Irrelevant or not, there was no major, prolonged European war for most of this era. It's quite possible to drag Europe into a replay of the Napoleonic struggles, or an early WW1, so why not a return to a more aggressive series of colonial disputes?

To repeat, if this is not supposed to be in the game then why are we only hearing about it now, and why is the AI programmed to use it against civilized nations?

Don't see AI declaring many colonial wars vs civilised nations. US vs Mexico early on - but thats ok. Which examples are you thinking of??

 

[Dinsdale]

Don't see AI declaring many colonial wars vs civilised nations. US vs Mexico early on - but thats ok. Which examples are you thinking of??

I get a lot from my smaller neighbours if I have taken a province from them. Specifically; Denmark V Prussia, Belgium/Holland V France and Prussia V France, Serbia V Austria. I've also had Spain V UK but only once.

The only way I found to prevent them from repeating every 5 years was to DOW them first and satellite them, or take provinces and release to make sure we no longer share a border. Prussia V France can be solved if they are beaten during the Franco-Prussian war, it usually shuts them up until the end of the game.

 

[Derek Pullem]

I get a lot from my smaller neighbours if I have taken a province from them. Specifically; Denmark V Prussia, Belgium/Holland V France and Prussia V France, Serbia V Austria. I've also had Spain V UK but only once.

The only way I found to prevent them from repeating every 5 years was to DOW them first and satellite them, or take provinces and release to make sure we no longer share a border. Prussia V France can be solved if they are beaten during the Franco-Prussian war, it usually shuts them up until the end of the game.

Denmark vs Prussia? Does Prussia have colonies? If it doesn't that was a 1.01 bug?

Have seen Holland declaring colonial war a couple of times. They white peace out after a few years as they aren't big enough.

Prussia vs France sounds wrong and Serbia vs Austria is def. wrong. Never seen them but sounds like the AI could be trained to be less prone to declaring colonial war (was reduced going from 1.00 to 1.01 so could be reduced again)

 

[unmerged(25129)]

Ok, what should I do

Playing as Austria I have a little colonial empire on the African bend (its 2 states), RUssia just declared Colonial War against me.....

Im tempted to just hit "neville" since I cant beat them (nor would they declare colonial war for some odd African provinces) and just forcing a WP....

Is this cheap though?

 

[Derek Pullem]

Well - can't you take his colonies and then wait? How bigs your navy - sink his and you're virtually invulnerable.