Is it even possible to win a colonial war?

[unmerged(25129)]

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

Its virtually non-existant...so no... I cant (and my army is small)

But I have a fairly large force in my colonies (I *was* going to strike that uncivilized nation)....

The thing I worry about is, its just going to be a 30 year long colonial war with neither side getting anything which would in effect...ruin the game....

Im hesitant to do it....as im a big believer in going with the flow...I've never used it before.

But since I cant escilate the war....and neither side will end up with anything....

 

[Derek Pullem]

Well - wait a couple of years. Then try white peacing.

 

[Tel]

If the only reason for them in the game is to let civilized nations take over colonial claims why even have them in the game? Just make colonial war only declarable (is that a word?) on uncivilized nations, and regular wars on civilized nations.
Colonial claims could be open for conquest at any time. But any time you stole a claim from another power it would give you a big hit in relations and a possibility that the other nation could declare war on you (with little or no prestige hit). Hopefully the AI would not constantly be taking colonial claims because their armies that march through Africa do not stop long enough to take control of the province (If an army marches without stopping through a claim province the control does not switch.)

The problem with my solution is that there would have to be an alternate way for armies in the colonial provinces fight for control. Perhaps any time armies met in a province that one of the nations had a claim in they would fight a battle.

 

[Barkhauer]

I believe the distinction is as much for the AI's benefit as anything else. Colonial warfare was generally "low-intensity" and would be fought by the in-game equivelent of a few divisions on all sides. This is typically embodied by, say, France and Britain bickering over control of ports in China, and would not entail mobilizations on both sides resulting in massive depopulation, crippling war debt, etc, over some markets in Asia somewhere. Thus the distinction between colonial war and full scale total war.

Edit: 100 posts! Woohoo! Next goal, to outpost Rafiki.

 

[Dinsdale]

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

In all cases I had colonies. IIRC there have been AI V AI wars like this, but all the examples I gave were AI attacker V me. In all cases I had been to war with them and taken 1 or more provinces. I assume the Spain V UK was because of Gibraltar.

The wars usually have no combat happening, and after 6 months to a year, the AI offers WP (but doesn't accept my offers.) Prussia/France can have a nasty prestiege drop if the colonial war peace is still in effect when the Franco-Prussia war options result in a new war.

 

[Derek Pullem]

In all cases I had colonies. IIRC there have been AI V AI wars like this, but all the examples I gave were AI attacker V me. In all cases I had been to war with them and taken 1 or more provinces. I assume the Spain V UK was because of Gibraltar.

The wars usually have no combat happening, and after 6 months to a year, the AI offers WP (but doesn't accept my offers.) Prussia/France can have a nasty prestiege drop if the colonial war peace is still in effect when the Franco-Prussia war options result in a new war.

If no combat the AI should white peace out in 2 years.

 

[Darkrenown]

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

Yeah, in my current game the keep DoCW on Russia and white peacing. Five years later they do it again...

 

[unmerged(22409)]

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.

That colonies weren't taken from larger nations is because they would kick your little behind.

Thus such actions should be discouraged in the game by having your behind kicked, not by being placed in a limbo.
This is the problem, a problem that can't be fixed by saying it never happened in real life. Lots of things we do in vic didn't happen in history.

The solution is to fix the AI response, not arbitrary (or broken) mechanisms that only frustrate the players.

Give the invaded a casus beli against the agressor, if they don't escalate to a full war within a year then all colonies become owned by the occupier and peace ensues.

 

[Derek Pullem]

The solution is to fix the AI response, not arbitrary (or broken) mechanisms that only frustrate the players.

Give the invaded a casus beli against the agressor, if they don't escalate to a full war within a year then all colonies become owned by the occupier and peace ensues.

Completely disagree - if you are daft enough to put yourself into the situation by declaring colonial war on UK or Russia then tough. If they do it to you then wait it out and they will either stomp you or white peace. I will suggest to Johan that we try and reduce the small country declares colonial war on big country issues that others have noted from the AI.

 

[Ardryn]

Why not just add an extra "war = XXX" tab in the AI file for colonial wars?Like CWar = 0 which would mean the AI does not declare colonial war?

 

[Mattias]

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.

Wasn't that what happened in the famous Fashoda-crisis in the upper Nile area (1898) when the French tried to claim the area and Britain threathened to start an all-out war ripping every single colony from France. (They could do that because of their superior fleet remember...) This supports the suggestion of a "warn to escalate button" indeed (with the subsequent great war if the warning passes unnoticed). /Mattias

 

[GreenMarine]

Ah! Warn to escalate would kick ass. I had the Ottomans declare colonial war on my African holdings last night. The bastards had no hope of winning. I would have loved to have warned to escalate and then DoW'd them if they didn't stop. Eventually they realized they weren't making progress and accepted white peace...but I would have liked to take the war to them. Instead, have to wait 5 years.

 

[unmerged(24449)]

Chris1959

For a "civilised" country to declare colonial war on another goes against the grain of the period.
I do not want a slavish replay of history, if the Czar wants parts of the Sahara rather than pan-slavism great, if Franz Josef likes the idea of yellow and black on the map of Africa so be it. What is un-historical is that you can not cherry-pick colonies in a limited war with the big guys, unless a nation really could not be bothered with some real estate they would not make peace and even then they would not be willing to accept the loss of prestige.
In fact earlier colonial wars were only such in the sense that the fighting took place there, a good example being that between France and Britain in 1754-5 which became all out war in 1756 and would have done even if Prussia had not attacked Austria. Of course this raises the question of colonial administrations placing mother countries in a difficult position, Britain ended up at war with the Zulu and Boers not because of London but because local officers had precipetated war leaving the main govt. with little choice but to fight.
However I feel the best reflection of the period is that civilised nations cannot declare colonial war on each other, it would be nice if one could have a system of disputing claims or even siezing them in some terrible game of brinkmanship.
As i've said in other posts it would also be really nice to have stepped mobilisation, so Austria would only have to call out say 25% of her reservists to defend the "Austrian Congo" from the dasterdly Belgians.

 

[unmerged(24449)]

Chris1959

Mattias is right a clash in the Upper Nile almost resulted in all out war between Britain and France. Both goverments quickly realised how crazy this would have been and quickly settled disputes on colonial claims and set in motion a raproachment that directly led to th Entente Cordial of 1904, much to the chagrin of Imperial Germany.

 

[unmerged(22409)]

Completely disagree - if you are daft enough to put yourself into the situation by declaring colonial war on UK or Russia then tough. If they do it to you then wait it out and they will either stomp you or white peace. I will suggest to Johan that we try and reduce the small country declares colonial war on big country issues that others have noted from the AI.

Just becaue you completely disagree, does not make you right, and it definately does not give you the right to call someone daft because they want to attempt the seemingly impossible.

Once upon a time people thought it impossible that some upstart colonists could defeat the UK, yet here we are and the US of A is living proof that determination can pay off.

There is nothing wrong with the option of a colonial war to take a few provinces form a nation, what is wrong is that the AI refuses to do nothing and let you hang for decades. They should either give in as not important or they should fight back. Neither of which they do right now.

It's one thing to say that programming an AI to analyse the cost/benefit ratio's for such scenario's is very hard in a game as complex as vic, and it's another to say the square wheel works as intended.
The first I can accept. The second is slackness or a sign of poor programmers.
And I know that the second is not the case, Paradox has time and again provided us with good games of a complexity coming close to Chris Crawfords BOP, this is very admirable and very much appreciated in this world of shite games.

No-one complains about Sid's games putting playability over realism however...
It's about plausability. That colonial wars supposedly didn't happen in real life, does not mean they are not plausible. This fact should be seriously considered!

 

[Derek Pullem]

Just becaue you completely disagree, does not make you right, and it definately does not give you the right to call someone daft because they want to attempt the seemingly impossible.

Once upon a time people thought it impossible that some upstart colonists could defeat the UK, yet here we are and the US of A is living proof that determination can pay off.

There is nothing wrong with the option of a colonial war to take a few provinces form a nation, what is wrong is that the AI refuses to do nothing and let you hang for decades. They should either give in as not important or they should fight back. Neither of which they do right now.

It's one thing to say that programming an AI to analyse the cost/benefit ratio's for such scenario's is very hard in a game as complex as vic, and it's another to say the square wheel works as intended.
The first I can accept. The second is slackness or a sign of poor programmers.
And I know that the second is not the case, Paradox has time and again provided us with good games of a complexity coming close to Chris Crawfords BOP, this is very admirable and very much appreciated in this world of shite games.

No-one complains about Sid's games putting playability over realism however...
It's about plausability. That colonial wars supposedly didn't happen in real life, does not mean they are not plausible. This fact should be seriously considered!

1. Where did I say that because I disagreeI'm right. You will allow me to express my opinions
2. Where did I call someone daft. I said tough on them if they get stuck in a war they can't get out of.
3. Your "upstart colonials" needed the backing of most of Europe to bring UK to the peace table
4. Why is it because you say that there is "nothing wrong" with taking a few colonies off a major power that makes it right. perhaps you could give examples of a succesful colonial war against a major power in this period (Spain was not a major power IMHO)
5. The nations will make peace eventually - you just have to wait. perhaps you have a save game with a colonial war that was been going on for decades in 1.03.

 

[Sikker]

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?

I don't understand your argument. You want colonial war removed from the game as you consider it unrealistic?
Or you think that the poster should just accept that colonial wars drag on forever as long as he has the audacity to actually demand any land?

 

[Derek Pullem]

I don't understand your argument. You want colonial war removed from the game as you consider it unrealistic?

No - I just want players to understand that declaring colonial war on superpowers and expecting them to give up colonies just because a player has occupied them is unrealistic. You can do this for middle ranking powers as the war exhaustion will eventually force them to the negotiating table. But if you want colonies off UK you declare war on them! Real war!

 

[unmerged(22409)]

1. Where did I say that because I disagreeI'm right. You will allow me to express my opinions
2. Where did I call someone daft. I said tough on them if they get stuck in a war they can't get out of.
3. Your "upstart colonials" needed the backing of most of Europe to bring UK to the peace table
4. Why is it because you say that there is "nothing wrong" with taking a few colonies off a major power that makes it right. perhaps you could give examples of a succesful colonial war against a major power in this period (Spain was not a major power IMHO)
5. The nations will make peace eventually - you just have to wait. perhaps you have a save game with a colonial war that was been going on for decades in 1.03.

1) I made that assumption because you were going to propose to Johan it should be changed to X.

2) A war one can't (edit) get out of for plausible (there's that word again) reasons is one thing, a war one can't get out of because the AI is obstinate because there are no drawbacks for them is artificial in any circumstance.
Historically speaking there would be public outrage at home for such an insult, and if the government didn't respond there'd be hell to pay.
If you want to stretch your mind just think of the vietnam war as an example.

3) backing of europe indicates an escalation to a degree.

4) I didn't say right, I said plausible. Spain was once a great nation, then a wee country like Holland sank their Armada. (among other things) But geez, no-one expected such a small nation to give the spaniards a beating.
Ok this was pre victoria, but still another example of tall trees being cut down by small lumberjacks...

5) No in truth I havn't for 1.03, but problems with Ai peace settlement have been discussed for quite sometime now...

 

[unmerged(22409)]

No - I just want players to understand that declaring colonial war on superpowers and expecting them to give up colonies just because a player has occupied them is unrealistic. You can do this for middle ranking powers as the war exhaustion will eventually force them to the negotiating table. But if you want colonies off UK you declare war on them! Real war!

Lets put this logic into a modern perspective...

Using your arguments, the cuban missile crisis would never have happened because russia should have just nuked the USA right off the bat?!

The USA should never have bothered with trade embargoes in the middle east, they should have just gone right on in with the troops?


One of the fun things (not to mention skill) about BOP (Balance of Power) was to see how far you could push things before the other side went to defcon 5.