Native Uprising Logic is incredibly frustrating...

[OnceSetCannotBeChanged]

I'm playing a game as Algeria. I have been colonizing different Sahara Desert states for decades. For decades, the tension has been at 100, yet there had not been a Native Uprising.

The British start colonizing and within a year there are multiple Native Uprisings against them. They of course win, and now I can no longer colonize these states.

How does that make any sense at all? As I understand the population of the colonizer impacts Native Uprisings, but it's a very opaque mechanism. And why despite DECADES of high tension would an Uprising not break out?

Is there a mod that deals with Native Uprisings?

 

[Question]

It used to be very common but they nerfed it.

 

[DukeLeto42]

From what I can tell from a very surface appraisal, Native Uprisings run much like Secessions - once tension hits 100, there's a chance to spawn an uprising.

Maximum colonization speed (2/100 per day) means more time spent at max tension, and tension is also spread to Decentralized Nations near the one that a colony expanded into, so high-population nations can not only run a colony at max speed but further spike tension with multiple nearby colonies.

However, to bring it back to the Secession comparison, once at 100 tension (or over 50% turmoil for Secessions), the odds of an actual Uprising (or Secession) are very low. In the end, anyone colonizing in the same region ends up with 100 tension in all their colonies, and it's just a matter of luck whether you get the Uprising, they get it, or it never fires at all.

 

[Camara]

I agree this is way too RNG. Like you said you can spend years colonising with the max tech possible and then suddenly one country gets there and is allowed to annex most of the territory just because.

 

[Arbus]

1. Yes it’s random might have just been bad luck.

2. Winning a war against a native uprising should NEVER be rewarded with the annexation of the entire state. Triggering a native uprising should not be a good/desirable outcome. Colonization of a territory in the game means occupying it with your own people, settling the land, developing basic infrastructures, having local bureaucracts and law enforcers etc. You shouldn’t get all of those things instantly and for free just for winning a war against a massively weaker opponent.

3. The infamy you get from annexing those lands is extremely high, but infamy as a whole is unbalanced.

 

[durbal]

I'm playing a game as Algeria. I have been colonizing different Sahara Desert states for decades. For decades, the tension has been at 100, yet there had not been a Native Uprising.

The British start colonizing and within a year there are multiple Native Uprisings against them. They of course win, and now I can no longer colonize these states.

How does that make any sense at all? As I understand the population of the colonizer impacts Native Uprisings, but it's a very opaque mechanism. And why despite DECADES of high tension would an Uprising not break out?

Is there a mod that deals with Native Uprisings?

If you have Colonial Resettlement you will never have a native uprising from what I can tell. Tension basically doesn't matter unless you have Colonial Exploitation.

And native uprisings causing natives to be annexed is as dumb as it sounds and they seriously need to fix it because it destroys colonial gameplay.

 

[Meneye]

If you have Colonial Resettlement you will never have a native uprising from what I can tell. Tension basically doesn't matter unless you have Colonial Exploitation.

And native uprisings causing natives to be annexed is as dumb as it sounds and they seriously need to fix it because it destroys colonial gameplay.

Colonial resettlement does it too, just look at how the Russians trigger a Kazakh uprising every other game.

Also, fully agree with you that annexing natives after an uprising shouldn't be a thing in this game.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Yes, Uprisings should not be a positive - they should be interruptions to colonization that could result in the loss of colonies.

 

[MatthewP]

Yes, Uprisings should not be a positive - they should be interruptions to colonization that could result in the loss of colonies.

This is an interesting one. The way it so now isn’t good. But honestly I like it better than the obvious alternatives:

1) there are no native uprisings. Now colonization is completely flavorless, predictable and boring.

2) Native uprisings do basically nothing. They delay you (and probably other colonizers for game mechanics and logical reasons) for the duration of the war, then go away. Then it basically becomes a “*sigh*, not this again” mechanic, where you’re just mildly annoyed to get it because of the disruption and busywork without it actually making any difference.

tl:dr, yes it should be fixed, but the obvious fixes seem like steps backwards. Anybody have an option 4?

 

[DukeLeto42]

This is an interesting one. The way it so now isn’t good. But honestly I like it better than the obvious alternatives:

1) there are no native uprisings. Now colonization is completely flavorless, predictable and boring.

2) Native uprisings do basically nothing. They delay you (and probably other colonizers for game mechanics and logical reasons) for the duration of the war, then go away. Then it basically becomes a “*sigh*, not this again” mechanic, where you’re just mildly annoyed to get it because of the disruption and busywork without it actually making any difference.

tl:dr, yes it should be fixed, but the obvious fixes seem like steps backwards. Anybody have an option 4?

For one, I'd make poor handling of an uprising a real threat. For instance, what if every province they took off their enemy was rapidly de-colonized?

I'd also make it less of a guessing game if an uprising is going to happen - if you hit 100 tension, you should be on a countdown to an uprising.

 

[MatthewP]

For one, I'd make poor handling of an uprising a real threat. For instance, what if every province they took off their enemy was rapidly de-colonized?

I don’t love the idea of adding really annoying consequences to losing a single battle given the role battles have in the game. My preference for accomplishing this goal would be to improve the logistics/supply story so sending a large army to this type of war is incredibly costly. Then actually losing or being stalemated becomes a possibility, as it was historically (especially in the first half of the period). Along with this the player should be able to do things to improve the supply situation at a cost. Or alternatively get far enough ahead in tech that even a small army would be enough.

I'd also make it less of a guessing game if an uprising is going to happen - if you hit 100 tension, you should be on a countdown to an uprising.

Yeah, and again maybe with some options, like conceding a bit of territory or making a large payout to reduce tension. These wouldn’t make sense now because the war is beneficial but if that changes they would.

 

[Camara]

Maybe when a native uprising happens colonisation only continues as normal if you put an army there to battle the natives.
So colonisation continues slowly as usual (if you put an army there) or doesn't advance / starts going backward (if you let the natives unchecked).

This way it prevents countries from turbo annexing the natives but it also makes native uprisings a negative thing that costs money instead of an immediate win mechanic that happens mostly rngy.

 

[thedarkendstar]

could just make it where you annex the territory but it receives major debuffs for years called quelling natives or something.