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.
-100% native agression is really OP It really should give less assimilation or something.
- 5
This post wins the internets. Not because of the post it self, but because someone clicked disagree.
I guess neither of you realize that it does actually give less assimilation?
- 1
No? No it doesn't. Unless you mean "less Assimilation than one would have gotten if Native Trade Policy was working"?
Option 1: You get no trouble from natives. no other bonus.
Option 2: You get reduced native trouble and a non working bonus.
Option 3: You get improved assimilation.
The no native attack option 1, give less assimilation than option 3. That seems like the only way to do the math in this case.
- 1
Assimilation refers to the natives turning into goods produced when the colony is finished. Not to colonial growth.
- 1
Maybe we should stop using terribly non-specific words to describe clearly defined game mechanics and then arguing about what who meant what?
- 1
That's Global Settler Increase, got nothing to do with the issue.
Been sticking to the game terms all way long, so was Golladan.
The game specifically says this.
Settler Increase, Settler Chance and Assimilation are very different things...
Wait, I thought that assimilation did not come from Ruthless treatment, but the other options. Am I wrong? (Not at my gaming rig right now...)
EDIT: Are the assimilation events that add +100 settlers from natives assimilating supposed to factor into this as well?
EDIT: Are the assimilation events that add +100 settlers from natives assimilating supposed to factor into this as well?
Native assimilation is ONLY modified (once fixed) by the trading policy. Choosing to reduce uprisings or to increase growth does not impact assimilation in any way. Apparently some people not aware that they have a clearly defined term "assimilation" being used in the game and are trying to strangely apply it to things like population increase.
- 1
- 1
Co-Existence Policy removes the chance of Native Uprisings from Native Aggressiveness. There will be no uprisings no matter how many axes and bows the natives haves.
Trading Policy halves the chance of Native Uprisings from Native Aggressiveness, and would have added 50% to the amount of Goods Produced you get from Native Assimilation, but it is currently not working. Even so, Native Assimilation itself IS working, and gives 0.05 Goods Produced per 1.000 Natives that have been Assimilated.
Repression Policy does not affect Native Uprisings from Native Aggressiveness, but does add +20 Global Settler Increase. It prevents you from gaining Goods Produced from Assimilated Natives. (It is listed on mouse-over as +0.01 Goods Produced no matter what number of natives there used to be)
EDIT: Apparently, Repression keeps the Native Assimilation bonus, it just doesn't update immediately.
Last edited:
- 4
I think the main problem is that you could think that '50% to assimilation' means that this specific event with assimilating 100 natives directly to your number of settlers while building the colony will fire more often.
- 1
That's a fair point, and I get that, I hate the colonial game too (though fantasy RNW has me doing it again). That said, I do hope you realize that to someone like me when a person argues that native assimilation means something other than turning the natives into a production bonus it reads very similar to if you had say argued that war exhaustion means your troops travel slower because they're tired. Native assimilation IS a clearly defined game mechanic, and when discussing the goods produced bonus from natives and/or the trade policy, it's the operative term to use.
The policies have no effect on events. There doesn't appear to be any triggers for checking if a policy is selected.
The "Natives Encountering our Colonies", which was the one that had the 3 options that were turned into the policies, can no longer fire if the DLC is active. That event would give the country a flag, depending on the option taken, that allowed other events to fire. Raids (if ruthless), Introduction of new diseases (if ruthless), Increase control (if ruthless), Lucrative trade (if trading), Disease (if trading), Attempting to convert the natives (if peaceful), more disease (if peaceful). Those events
Natives Assimilated (settlers) and Native Accomodation (reduced ferocity) can still fire, as those never required you to select an option. However they do require at least 1 unit present in the province, so you will probably see them more often if you took the repression policy from the DLC.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
The policy buttons set the three flags for those events when the Cossacks DLC is active, i.e. Native Coexistence sets NF_peacenik.
Really? That is entirely unclear in the game tooltips.
So basically, if you are using option 3, you should wipe out the natives manually because they are going to do nothing but hurt you while they are around.
Thank you! I was not able to actually see what the policies did from work.
It seems like Trading would be really excellent for long-term growth, since it scales, but requires investing soldiers.
Repression seems good for early settling and getting important colonies off the ground.
Tough call!
No, not really. From what it sounds like if you go with option 3, you will need to have a military presence which will have the convenient side effect of giving you increased chances of events firing to give you free settlers on top of already faster settler growth.
Also, uprising chances were already low in provinces with low aggressiveness/ferocity.