Native coexistence too powerful?

[Cymsdale]

Do you need cossacks for these policies?

yes

 

[Chimerae]

I don't think so it all. Is it so hard to position some troops on the colonies? I'm working on that 'First come, first serve' achievement, which requires to colonize all of America. Since 1600's I've been spamming around 8~10 colonies at the same time. You only need to put one single unit on it. Natives are so weak that even without any maintenance they get stackwiped in a few days. Maybe very early game in Africa it might be a little bit annoying.
Aside from that, I am now letting AI nations colonize for me, then I conquer it off of them. Saves so much time!

I kind of find it hard to attack Canada one day. I can't imagine how many times I will have to say sorry to them to make it up with them!

 

[Shaaaq]

The problem is that troops will generally not be able to defeat natives if they are at min maintenance. If you have 4 colonies at 3 troops each, financed at 75%, this will cost you 1.8 ducats a month plus 50% premium on your normal peace-time army cost and bind 12 of your troops that cannot be used for anything else (not to mention the micro hassle of having to ferry these troops between old and new colonies). Not a huge deal, perhaps, but compared to the gains for the other native approaches, it's pretty big (ok, +20 settlers isn't bad).

Then pay those extra ducats.
You otherwise lose out on quite a bit of income from having slower colonization which is more than enough to compensate the initial loss.
+20 settlers is pretty huge for a few ducats.

 

[TheDungen]

I've seen people claim that each of the three policies is obviously the best and totally overpowered. I think that's a pretty good sign of a balanced feature.

Really there are people who think the trading one is powerful? Because the native assimilation is a joke these days.
I'd say a mix is the most powerful, you start with the coexistance one so you donät need transports and then once you have a beachhead and can start producing troops locally you change to the one with the increased settlers.

 

[yerm]

What are you paying to NOT use coexistence? Is it really worth it?

If you're at peace, it means the army slider needs to be ticked on at least part way. Not just for the colonies - armies cannot be mothballed, so you are paying higher maintenance for ALL of your army, plus any reinforcement costs of an uprising. If you have a reasonably large army you may actually pay more in army maintenance to fund these native police than you would by having coexistence on, maintenance off, and just dropping an extra colony!

If you are at war, it means that a portion of your army is completely cut off from the European battlefield and unable to contribute to your expansion at home because they are policing natives. You are effectively lowering your land FL by however much that garrison amount is. For a smaller colonizer this can be totally debilitating - if your land FL is 20 and you drop 6 regiments on native police duty, that is a staggering loss of ability to wage war at home!

This leaves the situations to me where it is a no-brainer to put your policy on bonus settlers (and perhaps assimilation once fixed) and that is when you are at peace but searching for 7 cities OR at war but it's either your ally's war and you don't care or you are manipulating an ally to do all the work for you. Basically, situations where having police in colonies isn't a burden. I myself like the +20 settler growth early on but inevitably switch to coexistence. It can be a handy game of coexistence + armies at home = conquer up some land, followed by repression + police colonies = ae has time to burn off for a few years.

 

[TheKingofWinter]

i fail to see, how making it possible for the player to never experience native attacks is overpowered when thats something the ai has had benefit of from the start.

 

[Nassau]

I've seen people claim that each of the three policies is obviously the best and totally overpowered. I think that's a pretty good sign of a balanced feature.

As it allows rooms for strategy/tactics and roleplaying the answer is yes. However, wasn't it historically so that certain regions had certain policies regarding colonisation?

 

[ThePatriotOfDreumel]

I don't think so it all. Is it so hard to position some troops on the colonies? I'm working on that 'First come, first serve' achievement, which requires to colonize all of America. Since 1600's I've been spamming around 8~10 colonies at the same time. You only need to put one single unit on it. Natives are so weak that even without any maintenance they get stackwiped in a few days. Maybe very early game in Africa it might be a little bit annoying.
Aside from that, I am now letting AI nations colonize for me, then I conquer it off of them. Saves so much time!

I kind of find it hard to attack Canada one day. I can't imagine how many times I will have to say sorry to them to make it up with them!

But it's so much work.

 

[Chimerae]

But it's so much work.

Select unit, click move, done. Not even 5 seconds

 

[Frozen Yakman]

The problem is that troops will generally not be able to defeat natives if they are at min maintenance. If you have 4 colonies at 3 troops each, financed at 75%, this will cost you 1.8 ducats a month plus 50% premium on your normal peace-time army cost and bind 12 of your troops that cannot be used for anything else (not to mention the micro hassle of having to ferry these troops between old and new colonies). Not a huge deal, perhaps, but compared to the gains for the other native approaches, it's pretty big (ok, +20 settlers isn't bad).

Peace-time?

I don't understand this word.

 

[evilcat]

At 1st glance coexistance is best option, but then... it is not as hard to spare 3k troops for colonizing duty. If we are waging wars or dealing with rebels, there is anyway no time for minimal maintainence. With some policies and ideas even trading could be 0%.
+20settler for cost of some manpower... that is also good if we are portugal or other camping nation. Even before i used 5k stack to cover new world, and now i get extra settlers for that. cool.

In many ways it is good to have option "i want colonize but not mikro it much".

The only complain may be that trading/harsh path does not gives enough goodies (but they do).

 

[alpaca]

I've seen people claim that each of the three policies is obviously the best and totally overpowered. I think that's a pretty good sign of a balanced feature.

Fair enough. I can see the point of the +20 settlers policy, but with native assimilation so weak (bug notwithstanding), I still don't see how trading is supposed to be balanced.

 

[Dagda]

Well, this won't actually do much because the assimilation bonus of the middle policy supposedly doesn't work.

Seems to be working for me unless I'm missing something.

 

[JoeSteel]

They seem pretty balanced to me. I personally prefer the trading one as a happy medium myself. Coexistance slows expansion time, which makes it harder to compete with guys like spain, portugal, and GB/england who spit out completed colonies every other year.

 

[Cymsdale]

Coexist and trade have the same expansion time. The benefit of trade over coexist is an assimilation bonus that doesn't work. (Unless latest hot fix fixed it, have not checked.)

 

[Isaios]

Seems to be working for me unless I'm missing something.

You are, it correctly halves the chance of Native Uprisings, but it does NOT add the +50% bonus to the Native Assimilation bonus to Goods Produced. That is, you SHOULD be getting 1.5 Goods Produced from every 20.000 Natives when using the Trade Policy, but you're at the moment only getting the standard 1 Goods Produced per 20.000 Natives. Which means that, at present, Trade is just objectively worse than Co-existence.

 

[gronak]

I like the co-existence because I could not be bothered defending the provinces from natives. Needless to say, Portugal colonised the huge continent beside me before I was finished :')

 

[Less]

It's worth noting that now Natives don't immediately destroy your colony, they actually spawn a regiment on the map which has to occupy the province. Directly garrisoning every colony isn't needed, all that's needed is to have troops in the general area who can reach the colony before an occupation finishes. If all your colonies are in the same region in the Americas then 3 regiments at a fairly low maintenance can protect 5+ colonies.

 

[Isaios]

garrisoning every colony isn't needed,

But then you lose out on the +100 Settlers event, which is most of the point of having troops there in the first place, no?