Indeed, that's a bit sad paradox made a lot of new stuff for mesoamerican and andean country,but make them even hard to play with one single feature...
Paradox, please remove 50% autonomy colonial cap from African/Native American states
- Thread starter Krajzen
- 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.
So
Around the end of EU4 / start of Vicky, then?
But yeah the ability to reduce it after 100 years or so would be pretty good. Late-game Russia would be killer, as would any American native that survived + thrived... but any such native deserves it at that point.
So
Around the end of EU4 / start of Vicky, then?
But yeah the ability to reduce it after 100 years or so would be pretty good. Late-game Russia would be killer, as would any American native that survived + thrived... but any such native deserves it at that point.
100 years? Why should Powhattan have a harder time settling some land adjecent to them than english settlers, who lack manpower, knowledge of the land and have pressure from across the pond? It should be the other way around, actually. Natives shouldn't have a malus while CNs have one for 50 years.
I agree with that. I understand that you are speaking about the game balance (Russia strong, nerf Russia; Americans weak, buff Americans) However, logic suggests that Russians should have no penalty (rich country to fund expansion and centralised powerful state), while poorly developed Americans should have one because the government form was hardly scalable in European sense.
So
Around the end of EU4 / start of Vicky, then?
But yeah the ability to reduce it after 100 years or so would be pretty good. Late-game Russia would be killer, as would any American native that survived + thrived... but any such native deserves it at that point.
Russia was pretty much a killer late game historically (Austrians could not even defeat Hungarian rebels without Russian help). Russia deserves this as well.
If "moving your capital to another continent" is the reason for this LA floor, just forbid moving it without a land connection. It's gamey anyway. Did it ever happen in History? (Yes alternate history, I know, but for me it would be the better solution compared to this nonsense LA floor for all BUT NOT FOR COLONIAL NATIONS.) The steppe hordes get 25% LA floor for beeing hordes, Ming for beeing non western/government type, add a LA floor for tribes, as long as they are tribes. Makes sense and doesn't need magic.
Because European settlers have a constant influx of colonists that lets them grow cities without having to do it all the classical way, while the native populations were reeling from disease (conflicting historical accounts put this either after European arrival, or before and then worsened afterward; probably the latter) taking out somewhere around 90% of their entire populace. So letting the natives colonize as effectively as the Europeans would require ignoring this event.
Also the whole tariff thing.
You are comparing a few million natives to a few thousand initial settlers. Not to mention that the north american midwest wasn't influenced by the europeans for a very long time. So there were no diseases there. Why would the Blackfoot have a problem settling a province adjecent to their ancestral grounds?
I don't disagree completely, but it still doesn't make sense that you can colonize around you in NA and have an autonomy floor. If you colonize SA and form a CN for some reason your native settlers there have no minimum autonomy.
Interesting discussion. After a while I think this autonomy cap may remain to actually simulate low population/colonization possiblities of Native Americans - the concept of this simulating Eurasian Epidemies is brilliant - but it should be possible to lower in some way, unlike for Europeans who always should have this 50% cap as these are oversea colonies thousands of kilometres from home. (not to mistake with colonial nations who de facto 'govern themselves', they should have this greatly lowered).
It's not about overseas it's about provinces connected to your capital by land. Siberia also gets 50% LA floor when colonized by russia.
Maybe tie it to diplomatic tech level? like at some point mid-game you get -25% minimum Local Autonomy on non-overseas former colonies and you can start lowering it, then late game another -25% to the minimum cap.
I would also make dip tech more valuable since people say it's the least useful.
Maybe make it even lower overseas cap by half the amount too.
I would also make dip tech more valuable since people say it's the least useful.
Maybe make it even lower overseas cap by half the amount too.
The diseases actually preceded the Europeans in many cases. Entire native civilisations collapsed and disappeared without ever even seeing a European. Since the effects of 90% of the population dying (and then more dying in subsequent waves) aren't in the game (and would be far worse than the 50% autonomy floor), it's not entirely unfair to represent some sort of barrier to large-scale native colonisation. CNs didn't have the same problem, and historically the population in the 13 colonies exploded while native populations continued a steady decline.
Though, really, this was aimed at all same-continent colonisers, not just the native Americans. The real problem is that same-continent colonisation is very easy and very powerful.
Remember that this isn't actually put in place to simulate anything, it's just there to stop things like Portugal moving it's capital to Brazil and being a really strong power from that. This would be fixed by making it so Europeans can't move their capitals to the new world.
Portugal actually did do that historically towards the end of the game.
Personally I think that the min autonomy modifier should start around 75%-90% when a colony finishes, and then slowly decrease over time without the player being able to directly influence it (at a rate of maybe 1% every year). At the same time, the province unrest has a big reduction to it. CNs get an instant decrease of ~25% when a province transfers to their control to make them a bit more valuable.
Also, make sure to reduce the overall value of most new world provinces so that late game CNs aren't quite so brutally overpowered. Instead maybe have a few events that slowly increase the value of colonized provinces 150-300 years after they're colonized.
The weirdest thing -- which I didn't realize until last night -- is that colonies not only start at 50 LA but can't go up. The autonomy floor makes even less sense now since it's also an autonomy ceiling.
Devs, I would love for colonies to start at 100 LA; it makes perfect sense for colonies to have higher autonomy and Wiz's balance statements do make some sense (especially for South America and Mesoamerica, where the 5x increase in the base tax of 1444 pre-owned provinces makes conquest more viable and counterbalances the higher autonomy of colonies). Starting at 100 LA would almost be as much of a nerf as setting a 50 LA limit, even if the 100 LA can be reduced to 0 LA eventually. You could even throw in a +0.09% monthy autonomy increase to make it drop 10x slower at peace.
The autonomy limit is just...bizarre. Like it was shoehorned in at the last moment.
Devs, I would love for colonies to start at 100 LA; it makes perfect sense for colonies to have higher autonomy and Wiz's balance statements do make some sense (especially for South America and Mesoamerica, where the 5x increase in the base tax of 1444 pre-owned provinces makes conquest more viable and counterbalances the higher autonomy of colonies). Starting at 100 LA would almost be as much of a nerf as setting a 50 LA limit, even if the 100 LA can be reduced to 0 LA eventually. You could even throw in a +0.09% monthy autonomy increase to make it drop 10x slower at peace.
The autonomy limit is just...bizarre. Like it was shoehorned in at the last moment.
Remember that Portugal can release a CN and play as them and do exactly what you're saying they're trying to prevent.
To add insult to injury, if they have enough DIP you can sell them the homeland provinces before switching and take a single province off your former OPM overlord with no allies.
This is much more a nerf to natives than Europeans.
I completely disagree with a permanent reduction of the gains from colonial provinces with 50% just because somebody actually colonised them, especially considering the difficult position of non-European states surrounded by that. Whether in North/South America, Siberia or Africa. Maybe penalise moving capitals outside of your own continent for 100 years or something if that was actually the problem (Personally I still think one should be allowed to move capitals but this is just a clumsy blanket "fix").
Yeah the diseases spread much faster than European settlers. For perspective, at the time that Pizarro first arrived in the Inca empire to conquer it, they had already lost between 30-50% of their population to diseases, probably smallpox, and the Incan Emperor Atahualpa had taken the throne after the succession crises that resulted due to the disease killing both the previous emperor and his heir.
That said, plagues don't make for fun gameplay, and neither do permenant nerfs. There are better ways to nerf the exploits (and Russia) that were previously overpowered without weakening native states as well.
To add to this, in general I'm finding some weird quirks in the initial autonomy of provinces. We're making a big fuss about autonomy limits, but there's room for improvement in just what the autonomy starts as.