I think Co-existence is the best policy for Castile/Spain. The bonuses they get from their ideas, plus the bonuses they can get from the estates more than makes up for the slightly slower growth. Plus no native uprisings.
Native Policies - Which one is the most effective?
- Thread starter Subai
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yeah, when you're at 100 settlers already, an extra 20 isn't all that, but for that initial push to lock in some areas? Think I'd have to run Repression then.
But it's kinda odd, the new set makes me want to run a French Colonial game, which would be a first for me.
Co-existence was a lifesaver when locking down Africa though. Being able to plop a colony on the Ivory Coast and keeping my troops at home? Fantastic! I just wish the swap wasn't a Stability, and I'd especially like being able to set the policy for at least each continent.
- 1
lol I'm the one who wrote that article...anyways trade policy or repression are best since one gives enough money long term to make huge profits and will offset any maintenance that a garrison would cost while repression means insane growth rates though that lands will just end up as part of a colonial nation sooo....coexistence is best for smaller nations such as Norway
But... how do you know? I've tested everything I can think to test, and see no difference anywhere. I still get 0.05 Goods Produced per 1.000 natives, no matter how assimilate-y I am. And I can't see any trigger in the assimilation events about it either.
What it looks like, is that co-existence removes all uprisings (and that fits with what I experienced running it), then the trading policy EITHER halves the number of uprisings or limits what type of native will rise up to the most aggressive ones AND also does something else that it looks as though the French Idea set also does, and then Repression does neither of those two, but increases the settlers. And of those, ONLY the last one isn't annoyingly opaque
To me this is no brainer. If you want optimal rather than convenience it is Repression policy. As mentioned before, early +20 is very important especially now since settler % growth was nerfed. Second, to have free 100 pop events you need units stationed in colonies. But if you still have to have units there why not choose repression anyway?
- 1
Each month there is an x% chance to get an uprising in a colony, where x is 1% per native aggressiveness (number of axes). Coexistence reduces this to 0%. Trading cuts this in half (the UI rounds up, but not sure if it's just the UI being the UI).What it looks like, is that co-existence removes all uprisings (and that fits with what I experienced running it), then the trading policy EITHER halves the number of uprisings or limits what type of native will rise up to the most aggressive ones AND also does something else that it looks as though the French Idea set also does, and then Repression does neither of those two, but increases the settlers. And of those, ONLY the last one isn't annoyingly opaque
The... native assimilation part of Trading/French ideas apparently isn't working? How this got to live is beyond me.
- 2
AH! Excellent, can see it there now, plain enough, thanks
Has there been any official word on it not working? OR extrapolating?
Just based on what I can see. 0.05 goods produced per 1000 natives. No change in that number with or without the policy, or with both the policy and french ideas. I know the old version of french ideas used to work fine. (note that the goods produced from natives doesn't take effect until the end of the month the colony finishes).
.png){kind=avatar}
I think it should be noted, that the clergy estate has an interaction for reduced revolt risk and more goods from natives. If you can keep that one up, you get very little rebellions even with the Trade policy. I only use coexistance policy in Africa for this reason. Everywhere else I use Trade policy.
Yeah, notice any effect of the Assimilation part of that? (Theoretically, we should be able to net 0.1125 Goods per 1.000 natives as France, if the Assimilation bonus is intended to work that way at least. That'd be fantastic in Indonesia!)
Repression. 20 additional settlers is amazing in the 15th century, good in the 16th century, and passable in the 17th century (though by the time you get that last +25 settlers from tech it's basically irrelevant -- there probably aren't many colonies left unless you've hamstrung the colonial powers). The downside of Repression is that it's more expensive. Every infantry regiment you park on that colony increases the cost of the colony by ~0.25 ducats per month (base cost for one colony is about 2 ducats with costs increasing as you have more colonies going). The Repression bonus is basically betting that the costs incurred by garrisoning those troops (and replenishing the casualties they incur) will be offset by faster colony growth. And, in the case of most of North America, that's absolutely the case.
So let's break it down.
Repression is the "I have the spare men and money to get this done more quickly" option. Trade is the "I'm France and have great synergy with my NIs or I'm otherwise directly connected to these colonies and will benefit enormously from the added production" (I'm looking at you, Muscovy). Coexistence is the "I don't feel like micromanaging the colonial game so I'm going to accept slower colonial growth and less valuable colonies in return for not having to shuffle garrisons around every few years" option.
Each of those options are perfectly valid and offer pretty solid benefits. I prefer Repression, though. I like its value early on and Repression is basically how I've been playing colonies since EU4's launch. Habit, I guess.
So let's break it down.
Repression is the "I have the spare men and money to get this done more quickly" option. Trade is the "I'm France and have great synergy with my NIs or I'm otherwise directly connected to these colonies and will benefit enormously from the added production" (I'm looking at you, Muscovy). Coexistence is the "I don't feel like micromanaging the colonial game so I'm going to accept slower colonial growth and less valuable colonies in return for not having to shuffle garrisons around every few years" option.
Each of those options are perfectly valid and offer pretty solid benefits. I prefer Repression, though. I like its value early on and Repression is basically how I've been playing colonies since EU4's launch. Habit, I guess.
- 4
I've played England , Castille and Portugal games ( all ruined by the desktop crash that screws the ironman save) but tested the 3 and how / when etc to use them. As Portugal with both expansion and exploration but lower manpower the -50% on both seemed better since castille was my meat shield i could still commit some troops over-seas. As Castille the bonus to settlers was easy as I could manage any amount of extra over seas troops. and as a prot England using the extra settlers bonus with expansion / explore I went -100% aggression as I had to keep all of my troops in Europe and was colonizing Canada, Carab, NE America and Africa ( 4th colonist from parliment mission) and NEVER, even in Africa, had a revolt.
In those games I never noticed any thing differant in the pop-ups that gave 100 population or -1 ferocity etc . They all got them. Nor was there any differance in which missions I could chose to colonize for the settler increase bonus. So I'd say which on is the best is going to depend on your country size, how many areas you're trying to colonize and how many troops you can commit over-seas to baby sit those.
In those games I never noticed any thing differant in the pop-ups that gave 100 population or -1 ferocity etc . They all got them. Nor was there any differance in which missions I could chose to colonize for the settler increase bonus. So I'd say which on is the best is going to depend on your country size, how many areas you're trying to colonize and how many troops you can commit over-seas to baby sit those.
- 2
Anyone made a bug report? This effectively means the middle policy is the worst option in all cases.
- May 6, 2015
- 2.278
- 3.160
When I played France I loves the co-existance thing, mainly because of 0 revolts and double native bonuses.
Coexistence is really good for smaller nations that can't afford to pay both for troops and colonists, especially in Africa and Indonesia.
And we're correct in how it is SUPPOSED to work? As a modifier to the Goods Produced bonus?We're aware of the issue, yes, thank you
- 1
Native attacks?
That is actually gone with Cossacks for me, except if I colonize far away from my home land. For a while I thought it was a bug, until I did a colonization in a far away province and it resulted in native attacks. (It's not an "overseas" thing, since it was a new world province I finally triggered native attacks in.)
I'm not sure what the range is, since my game was as a new world country, so as I expanded everything in the new world was eventually at a range where natives didn't attack.
That is actually gone with Cossacks for me, except if I colonize far away from my home land. For a while I thought it was a bug, until I did a colonization in a far away province and it resulted in native attacks. (It's not an "overseas" thing, since it was a new world province I finally triggered native attacks in.)
I'm not sure what the range is, since my game was as a new world country, so as I expanded everything in the new world was eventually at a range where natives didn't attack.