Paradox, please remove 50% autonomy colonial cap from African/Native American states

[balmung60]

Surely we could just give a modifier to newly colonized provinces like "Sparsely Populated (could also be "recently settled" or "frontier" or something)- this Province has only recently become a city and will need more time to settle fully" giving something like 30 years of gradually declining LA floor. Sort of like a version of nationalism that instead of creating unrest, limits LA. Anyway. once the modifier has worn off, the province would be treated like any province that had been settled since the game was started.

 

[Kyoumen]

Is that really any worse than encouraging American Natives to found CNs on the other continent, and switch to the CN to get to actually use their land?

For the sake of argument, let's ignore the fact that I don't that will work very well for most players, for reasons I already laid out. Say I agree with you. How is replacing one flawed system that encourages an unrealistic gamey outcome with another flawed system that encourages an unrealistic gamey outcome a good solution?

 

[WeissRaben]

By doing that, you are making an optimal Qing one that moves their capital to the Spice Islands (since that's the richest same-continent colonies). That is probably not ideal.

Also, unless you leave ways for it to revert (which is more things for the game to keep track of), it will also be optimal to just move the capital around and integrate each colonial area in turn.

If LA degrades back because of distance when the capital is moved? Not really. You waste a ton of AMPs, AND you get vast periods of time when there is chaos around (the new capital hasn't had effect yet, but the old centralized provinces are already decaying).

 

[Kyoumen]

Surely we could just give a modifier to newly colonized provinces like "Sparsely Populated (could also be "recently settled" or "frontier" or something)- this Province has only recently become a city and will need more time to settle fully" giving something like 30 years of gradually declining LA floor. Sort of like a version of nationalism that instead of creating unrest, limits LA. Anyway. once the modifier has worn off, the province would be treated like any province that had been settled since the game was started.

That wouldn't solve the problem at all. Same-continent colonisation would still be vastly better than any other form of expansion, it would just have a 30-year lead time, which is really not much at all.

 

[Kyoumen]

If LA degrades back because of distance when the capital is moved? Not really. You waste a ton of AMPs, AND you get vast periods of time when there is chaos around (the new capital hasn't had effect yet, but the old centralized provinces are already decaying).

As I said, if you do it that way, you've added another new thing for the game to keep track of. And it still has the Java Ming problem.

 

[WeissRaben]

As I said, if you do it that way, you've added another new thing for the game to keep track of. And it still has the Java Ming problem.

It depends. If the distance floor applies to every province, not only the colonized ones (which is how I'd do it), Java Ming is an unmitigated disaster. Almost the whole of China is at very high autonomy and gives you almost nothing. On the keeping track point...I'm not sure, really. It would be recalculated only when the floor changes, which would be tech and capital move. Can't see it being such a drag on the system (but maybe it is. No idea).

 

[balmung60]

Okay, how about to remove the LA floor, you need to both be on the same continent AND have either a direct land connection or have your capital in the same colonial region (the latter condition existing so that CNs in the Caribbean aren't horribly gimped). If both conditions are met, no LA floor (provided you don't have one for a different reason). Also, under this system, colonial nations lose their magic immunity to LA floors, since the other American continent is no longer a freebie

Asians might get Siberia or a single Pacific Island as a freebie with gamey tactics, but neither will amount to that much, since the unsettled portions of the islands that can be utilized like this are relatively small and Sibiria has crap for base tax no matter what you do. About the best they could do is the Philippines, which would add a little bit of taxes and manpower - at a quite steep ADM cost for moving the capital.

In the mean time, those nations that are on the least settled continents (the Americas (Oceania doesn't count as there are no nations that start on that "continent")) aren't gimped to half of what the colonial nations and ex-colonial nations get, as said CNs and ex-CNs get the full benefit of the most optimal method of expansion. The Americas are the region that I'm most concerned about here because a.) moreso than any other region, same-continent colonization is the only means of expansion or close to it, as there are far more uncolonized provinces in the Americas than on any other continent and b.) the region is unique in that it contains both nations that get LA floors on colonized provinces and ones with an immunity to this floor. For this method of expansion to have literally twice the returns on the same investment for one group (anyone who had the fortune of arriving from any other continent - including the other America) as for another (anyone who had the misfortune of being a native of that continent) is unfair, inconsistent, and encourages people to look for gamey strategies to bypass it (such as colonizing South America from North America to get the CN LA floor immunity). Hopefully, the rules I proposed at the top of this post satisfy a means for giving natives and CNs the same rules while not making same-continent colonization too OP on other continents.

And as for Africa, so what that same continent colonization is extremely optimal? No really, so freaking what? African nations aren't exactly known for being powerhouses and most of the land there is extremely hard to settle (tropical), and to eliminate the LA floor on the non-tropical parts, you'll need to colonize through the tropical parts, which until you advance enough technologically, isn't just a large investment, but literally impossible.

 

[Thure]

I don't think Europeans should be able to move capital to the Americas. I think if you lose all your provinces you lost...game over. With the other examples you give, that to me is a separate issue about what is considered "overseas" and I agree those countries should be able to do that.

Ehem... It did happen historically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Portugal,_Brazil_and_the_Algarves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_the_Portuguese_Court_to_Brazil

It was exactly what happened. Portugal lose in Europe and moves his capital to Brazil.

 

[dvandyke]

Get rid off it, playing Africa is horrible with this pointless nerf.

 

[Krajzen]

Ehem... It did happen historically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Portugal,_Brazil_and_the_Algarves
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_the_Portuguese_Court_to_Brazil

It was exactly what happened. Portugal lose in Europe and moves his capital to Brazil.

+1

 

[Payens]

Just as a quick heads up for people that don't mind playing normal (as opposed to ironman):

There is a mod on the steam workshop called "Fix Colony Autonomy" which simply removes that 50% LA lock for same-continent colonies. So here you go, it's repaired for now.

 

[Kyoumen]

Okay, how about to remove the LA floor, you need to both be on the same continent AND have either a direct land connection or have your capital in the same colonial region (the latter condition existing so that CNs in the Caribbean aren't horribly gimped). If both conditions are met, no LA floor (provided you don't have one for a different reason). Also, under this system, colonial nations lose their magic immunity to LA floors, since the other American continent is no longer a freebie

Asians might get Siberia or a single Pacific Island as a freebie with gamey tactics, but neither will amount to that much, since the unsettled portions of the islands that can be utilized like this are relatively small and Sibiria has crap for base tax no matter what you do. About the best they could do is the Philippines, which would add a little bit of taxes and manpower - at a quite steep ADM cost for moving the capital.

In the mean time, those nations that are on the least settled continents (the Americas (Oceania doesn't count as there are no nations that start on that "continent")) aren't gimped to half of what the colonial nations and ex-colonial nations get, as said CNs and ex-CNs get the full benefit of the most optimal method of expansion. The Americas are the region that I'm most concerned about here because a.) moreso than any other region, same-continent colonization is the only means of expansion or close to it, as there are far more uncolonized provinces in the Americas than on any other continent and b.) the region is unique in that it contains both nations that get LA floors on colonized provinces and ones with an immunity to this floor. For this method of expansion to have literally twice the returns on the same investment for one group (anyone who had the fortune of arriving from any other continent - including the other America) as for another (anyone who had the misfortune of being a native of that continent) is unfair, inconsistent, and encourages people to look for gamey strategies to bypass it (such as colonizing South America from North America to get the CN LA floor immunity). Hopefully, the rules I proposed at the top of this post satisfy a means for giving natives and CNs the same rules while not making same-continent colonization too OP on other continents.

Something like that might work, yes. I think I'd personally prefer a "spend resources for developing colonies" system, provided it wasn't so expensive as to be stupid, since I'm tickled by certain gameplay possibilities it holds (developing the crap out of the Spice Islands, for example). Any good compromise that satisfies at least some people while not returning same-continent colonising to its overpowered glory of pre-1.8 should do, though.

And as for Africa, so what that same continent colonization is extremely optimal? No really, so freaking what? African nations aren't exactly known for being powerhouses and most of the land there is extremely hard to settle (tropical), and to eliminate the LA floor on the non-tropical parts, you'll need to colonize through the tropical parts, which until you advance enough technologically, isn't just a large investment, but literally impossible.

You're thinking in pre-1.8 terms, much like the people who seriously think you can't get powerful just by conquering in the Americas, which is only true for isolated tribes now (unified Inca is quite potent before they ever touch a colonist, which is good since it takes awhile to get one even with Cusco's initial set of excellent rulers).

There's a LOT more stuff in Africa now, and the Europeans can't get into it easily anymore. An ambitious player will indeed end up very powerful (and I suspect we'll see lots of picture of Air empires and such). It is a whole new ball game in South America and Africa (including the ability to finally go from West to East Africa), and while the jungle provinces and high native hostility will make it harder than the Americas in some ways, it also has the benefits of being more protected as well as quicker access to Westernisation.

Also, again, the problem with same-continent colonisation is that it's so much better than any and all alternatives, including other-continent colonisation (which costs the same amount). It still is, honestly, just less so.

 

[Galu]

First off, when it's an overseas province, the penalty is 75%, not 50%.
Secondly, I literally just posted Wiz's statement on the reasoning for the change and why Inca gets this penalty and why it is not going to be scrapped.

You may post it, but not all of us have time to read all of 90+ posts... It`s not the best thing but sometimes you have to live your life not only read the forum ;-) but in the same time you want to add your voice to discussion ;-)

 

[Krajzen]

Lol after reading Wiz statements, this thread and thinking a bit I accepted the autonomy cap. Although some way for natives to reduce autonomy with time would be still nice

Still, I guess this thread would have appeared anyway. At least I started the discussion with only minor (!!!) instead of (Paradox what the hell omg aow sucks) thus this discussion remains quite intelligent

 

[balmung60]

Something like that might work, yes. I think I'd personally prefer a "spend resources for developing colonies" system, provided it wasn't so expensive as to be stupid, since I'm tickled by certain gameplay possibilities it holds (developing the crap out of the Spice Islands, for example). Any good compromise that satisfies at least some people while not returning same-continent colonising to its overpowered glory of pre-1.8 should do, though.

I'd rather not make more MP sinks than we already have, and the current system is already "spend resources for developing colonies" (see: thousands of MPs into idea groups and policies (both direct and opportunity cost), lots of ducats sunk into colonizing, troops to defend the colonies or wipe out the natives, ducats and MPs to actually build up the province, etc.).

My idea was mostly about creating a system that was internally consistent, reduced the power of same-continent colonization, and did not inherently favor one type of nation over another, especially in a way that encourages massive cheese. As a bonus, it also nerfs holding both North and South America directly.

You're thinking in pre-1.8 terms, much like the people who seriously think you can't get powerful just by conquering in the Americas, which is only true for isolated tribes now (unified Inca is quite potent before they ever touch a colonist, which is good since it takes awhile to get one even with Cusco's initial set of excellent rulers).

There's a LOT more stuff in Africa now, and the Europeans can't get into it easily anymore. An ambitious player will indeed end up very powerful (and I suspect we'll see lots of picture of Air empires and such). It is a whole new ball game in South America and Africa (including the ability to finally go from West to East Africa), and while the jungle provinces and high native hostility will make it harder than the Americas in some ways, it also has the benefits of being more protected as well as quicker access to Westernisation.

I actually made my initial statement on the assumption that the west coast of south Africa was still colonizable. Without that, the gain most natives would get from un-floored colonization of same-continent provinces with a direct land connection to their capital is even less than I thought, especially since they'll have to develop enough tech to colonize the tropical provinces and conquer a whole lot to unite east and west Africa. And most of that "LOT more stuff" in Africa is already settled, so there's no loss either way, since land that's settled when you start the game doesn't have an LA floor. Colonizing Africa is hard and the easy parts will be limited until you can get the hard parts, and even then, much of it's not even very valuable (such as that mess of BT1 desert provinces that are worth more if you wait for Funj to appear out of nowhere).

And again, so what that a united Inca is quite powerful? The issue isn't that the Inca or whatever is weak, it's that, if I may change nations for the sake of argument, for the same effort, Iroquois (chosen due to being conveniently about the size of a starting CN) will always be poorer than a colonial nation or former colonial nation. Even if Iroquois reforms its government, westernizes, and Christianizes, it will never get as much out of any province that it colonizes as a colonial nation or former colonial nation, no matter who created that colonial nation.

Also, again, the problem with same-continent colonisation is that it's so much better than any and all alternatives, including other-continent colonisation (which costs the same amount). It still is, honestly, just less so.

In the current situation, it really isn't that much better than colonizing another continent. Get a CN and raise tarrifs past 25%. You are now getting more than you would if you held it yourself. Now raise them past 50%. You are now earning more than if you had colonized that much base tax of land on your own continent. Colonizing the Americas from another continent is now more valuable than doing so from the Americas. Unless you're a product of someone else's colonization of the Americas, in which case, go wild because you're in pretty much the best position in the game.

 

[OuanLynch]

Thanks a million Payens. I have been playing AOW for the first time today and I have been wondering what I have been doing wrong to have my three next door prov colonies at 50% autonomy for over a hundred years. They are only two provinces next door to my capital and it has been driving me nuts. They lie right on present day Ethiopia's Sudan and Somalian borders respectfully and I had no idea why they were still colonies after they are built. I will try out the workshop fix until the devs at PI fix the issue in some way. Or I can release them and reconquer them as some have suggested. If I hadn't found this forum thread I might have had to give up my game as I recently had to do with CKII until they make vassals less BS and growth capping.

 

[terminatordk]

does anyone even play natives?

 

[Akaki]

Another suggested solution, similar to colored wastelands. Once all adjacent provinces are owned by the same state (or owned by anyone, dunno) the 50% cap is removed.

 

[HeilLoki]

I really don't get it. In my Ethiopia-game I get the 50 % penalty even in bordering african provinces. Why? That doesn't make sense at all.

 

[Arag]

I really don't get it. In my Ethiopia-game I get the 50 % penalty even in bordering african provinces. Why? That doesn't make sense at all.

In my AoW Ethiopian game I just used a mod to get rid of it.