Overextension

[Lord636]

I had a quick look around, and I couldn't notice any topics (probably missed one, since almost every feature has been mentioned since the release of the demo) but I think overextension needs some changes. While initially, I was quite happy with the demo, and despite it's kinks, I wasn't one to really be concerned over historic borders or names or odd systems that make things too easy/hard, but overextension has been irritating me heavily.

Now before you go, "But this replaces the infamy system, it's realistic cause nations who go beyond their means and annex lots of territories should be viewed as an expansionist empire with evil intentions and suffer inner stability problems." I agree with that. But when I am Portugal, and I sail across the seas to the Americas, and find myself mass conquering the native Indians, why would this frustrate those at home? As at this time, war with the natives were largely justified and native Americas were largely seen as lessers by the Europeans during the colonial era, undoubtedly if the news reported in Portugal that recently native Indians had been conquered in the Americas by the Portugese army, the Portugese would say, "Well done, 5/5." Instead, due to overextension increasing Portugal's NATIONAL revolt risk, every single rebel in Portugal becomes uppity due to my actions in America. From Protestants to angry nobles, all rebelled quickly. While obviously, rebels from nationalists in the Americas is going to happen, I have no problem with that. But in Portugal?

Another thing that frustrated me a bit is that when annexing the natives, European nations nearby Portugal were given negative relations due to my overextension. Since these very nations, such as France and England, were doing exactly the same as I was doing, why would they get angered at my expansionism over the natives? Only reason I can think of is jealousy, but I don't think that should be a factor included in the overextension. I suggest that instead of overextension being something that modifies the nation directly, maybe have it vary from continent to continent? Europeans wouldn't care if anyone annexes anything in the Americas, unless it's their colonies. If overextension was kept local, it would make colonialism make more sense and to not have such a high impact on things at home. It's so frustrating when you're trying to expand and you find rebels keep popping up, even if you're at +3 stability and have had stability for years.

 

[xcrissxcrossx]

I think overextension makes sense. Like you said, overextention refers to having to manage a larger swath of land than you comfortably can manage. The people are unhappy that you are spending so many resources developing your colonies overseas when they feel they aren't getting the resources they need at home.

 

[Lord636]

But why would they make the assumption I'm not? They live perfectly fine as far as stability goes. Only problem is overextension.

 

[ParadogsGamer]

It's nice to see that the sleaze of annexing new-world countries has finally been fixed

 

[Lord636]

It's nice to see that the sleaze of annexing new-world countries has finally been fixed

Can you reason why nobles would be up-in-arms in a home nation over annexations of natives? As I said, I am not against having issues with revolts IN the Americas, but not at home.

 

[Danfish77]

Can you reason why nobles would be up-in-arms in a home nation over annexations of natives? As I said, I am not against having issues with revolts IN the Americas, but not at home.

It might not be a concept that's entirely suited to each and every situation of every country in the game's timeframe, but it serves the purpose of limiting expansion.

If you want to try to rationalize it, it's because countries of the time didn't have organized bureaucracies, so if you have half of your empire in the Caribbean, with a few Conquistadores trying to manage ten bajillion Caribs and keep them from eating each other long enough to produce some tobacco for export, you'll end up with a lot of paperwork (mostly formal complaints from the Conquistadores, I'd imagine), then that means some magistrate is dealing with those instead of dealing with letters from nobles requesting time to lick the king's fancy pantaloons. And when nobles can't get enough tongue time with the tyrant's trousers, they start revolting.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Can you reason why nobles would be up-in-arms in a home nation over annexations of natives? As I said, I am not against having issues with revolts IN the Americas, but not at home.

Perhaps not directly because of it, but indirectly because of some butterfly effects; YES! It's not like a noble uprising is a clear consequence of expansion in game either, but it can be.

And by the way; it's called a game mechanism. If it was changed it would have to be replaced with some other punishment/balancing.

 

[Lord636]

It might not be a concept that's entirely suited to each and every situation of every country in the game's timeframe, but it serves the purpose of limiting expansion.

If you want to try to rationalize it, it's because countries of the time didn't have organized bureaucracies, so if you have half of your empire in the Caribbean, with a few Conquistadores trying to manage ten bajillion Caribs and keep them from eating each other long enough to produce some tobacco for export, you'll end up with a lot of paperwork (mostly formal complaints from the Conquistadores, I'd imagine), then that means some magistrate is dealing with those instead of dealing with letters from nobles requesting time to lick the king's fancy pantaloons. And when nobles can't get enough tongue time with the tyrant's trousers, they start revolting.

Then if that's the case, then why don't issues occur when you colonise masses of land that doesn't include native nations? By that reasoning, the same would apply regardless of whether it's a native nation or a colony.

And @Andy_Dandy, the punishment is persistent rebellions in native America until you get overextension under control. This game doesn't play much in the essence of balancing though. If they wanted that, every single European, native nation and Asian country would start at the same tech level and the same resource base. This game is purposefully unbalanced to either present a challenge for those who want to take the traditionally disadvantaged nations and bring them to a new level or to more historically represent the situations of the dominating nations for those players who want to play that route. While it's a balance against mass blobbing, I think overextension effects that are incurred from native Indian annexation should be, at the best, far more limited.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

And @Andy_Dandy, the punishment is persistent rebellions in native America until you get overextension under control. This game doesn't play much in the essence of balancing though. If they wanted that, every single European, native nation and Asian country would start at the same tech level and the same resource base. This game is purposefully unbalanced to either present a challenge for those who want to take the traditionally disadvantaged nations and bring them to a new level or to more historically represent the situations of the dominating nations for those players who want to play that route.

It's not that kind of balance I'm talking about. I'm talking in balance of strategies. Balance that in some cases will make you better of if you wait taking that province for instance and invest your nation strength otherwise. Balance that don't make one strategy; expansion in this case, a non-brainer always no mather what.

 

[knul]

You can also see it this way: your rebellious nobles/peasant/chickens back home are not upset, they see an opportunity. As you have overextended yourself accros the ocean, they see that the state is weaker and less able to oppose them. The increase in revolt risk reprents that the rebels have become more bold instead of more upset.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

You can also see it this way: your rebellious nobles/peasant/chickens back home are not upset, they see an opportunity. As you have overextended yourself accros the ocean, they see that the state is weaker and less able to oppose them. The increase in revolt risk reprents that the rebels have become more bold instead of more upset.

Yep!

 

[Maria Theresa]

I personally like the overextension system. And as others have said it's impossible to create limitations to annexing everyone that would make perfect sense in every imaginable situation. This system, imho, makes more sense than the flat badboy system did. Some pre-historic tribes in the amazon probably have no idea about your expansionist actions towards Scotland in Europe and that shouldn't upset them.

 

[Lord636]

You can also see it this way: your rebellious nobles/peasant/chickens back home are not upset, they see an opportunity. As you have overextended yourself accros the ocean, they see that the state is weaker and less able to oppose them. The increase in revolt risk reprents that the rebels have become more bold instead of more upset.

Hmm that makes more sense to me. I wonder if that's what Paradox actually thought though. Anyway, that eases the incompleteness I felt towards the system.

 

[Lord Canterbury]

You can also see it this way: your rebellious nobles/peasant/chickens back home are not upset, they see an opportunity. As you have overextended yourself accros the ocean, they see that the state is weaker and less able to oppose them. The increase in revolt risk reprents that the rebels have become more bold instead of more upset.

Even more than this... its not just that they see you as overextended. You are overextended. It represents you having to divert resources into subjugating the americans, meaning your foot is less firmly on the protestants and peasants necks, so they are freer to make more trouble.

Honestly though, the single most important reason is gameplay. If you go on a conquest spree, overextension is the main downside... without it the game would be the same as any other rts where once you have a certain amount of power you just roll over everyone.

 

[Enewald]

Well, Spain should collapse after eating Incas and Aztecs. (actually that is probably where their historical downfall begun )

Maybe it is time implant Viceroys into the game and Trading Companies as state vassals.
Spain ought to have gained vassal states in Mexico, which were then over the next century integrated into the Viceroyalty of Mexico.

Meanwhile Pizarro more or less usurped the Incan throne for himself, while ruling in personal union under Spain?

While Eu4 looks a bit weird, this overextension is at least a fresh change compared to the last 10 years of badboying/unlimitedconquests in Paradox games.

 

[Lord636]

Dynamic viceroys and trading companies would be a pretty awesome addition actually. Since they've pretty much achieved it in Victoria 2 (sure it's sort of iffy, but it's still something) I'm sure they could do it with EU4, which has a far superior engine in comparison to Vicky 2.