Distant overseas is one of my least favorite modifiers. Not because it's negative, but because it relies too much on arbitrary continent divisions instead of anything that makes sense.
A couple of examples:
I suggest two changes to the mechanic: make it based on a more granular measure of distance than continent, and make the penalty incremental instead of binary.
A rough example would be to use trade nodes adjacency as the measure for distance, since they already model the ease of travel to some extent. The trade nodes at most two arrows away from the capital could be governed without minimum autonomy, with each arrow beyond that increasing minimum autonomy by 25% (capped at 75%).
The problem with this system would be that especially in RoTW some trade nodes are surprisingly far away from each other, while the West African Coast and Americas being only one node from Europe may feel too short.
A couple of examples:
Case A: Genoa controls the distant trade colonies in Crimea (not overseas). They bolster their trade by taking the center of trade Tunis, which is distant overseas to them. The distance to Tunis is probably less than a quarter of the distance to Azov, but it's still distant overseas because it's in Africa (Azov is in Europe). 75% autonomy, bam! And if Genoa conquers Northern Italy, the Balkans, Greece, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt and North Africa the penalty disappears, because a land caravan down that route makes it feel very close compared to the Mediterranean cruise from Liguria (I guess sailing isn't too easy for Genoans?)
Case B: Pasai in modern-day Indonesia colonizes Australia to the Southeast. It's distant overseas to them (different continent). As a Muslim nation, they want to claim Jerusalem for the prestige bonus. Jerusalem is far (esp. before the Suez canal, as one couldn't sail through the Red sea). Yet, once their conquest succeeds, they rule it as well as if it was next door - it's on the same continent after all. Never mind thousands of kilometers away and virtually unreachable by ship unless you go around Africa and through the Mediterranean.
Case B: Pasai in modern-day Indonesia colonizes Australia to the Southeast. It's distant overseas to them (different continent). As a Muslim nation, they want to claim Jerusalem for the prestige bonus. Jerusalem is far (esp. before the Suez canal, as one couldn't sail through the Red sea). Yet, once their conquest succeeds, they rule it as well as if it was next door - it's on the same continent after all. Never mind thousands of kilometers away and virtually unreachable by ship unless you go around Africa and through the Mediterranean.
I suggest two changes to the mechanic: make it based on a more granular measure of distance than continent, and make the penalty incremental instead of binary.
A rough example would be to use trade nodes adjacency as the measure for distance, since they already model the ease of travel to some extent. The trade nodes at most two arrows away from the capital could be governed without minimum autonomy, with each arrow beyond that increasing minimum autonomy by 25% (capped at 75%).
The problem with this system would be that especially in RoTW some trade nodes are surprisingly far away from each other, while the West African Coast and Americas being only one node from Europe may feel too short.
- 1
Upvote
0
