Playing as Portugal, I've orchastrated brutal native repression and, in some cases, genocide - particularly on the African continent. Not the tactic I would have preferred, but one I was cornered into by the game's programming. For example, Portugal starts with some minor (and relatively worthless) trading posts on the Western Coast of Africa. At some point, unless preemptive steps are taken, the natives in those TPs will rise and kill-off your traders. The cost isn't unbearable, until the same thing happens in some of your native-inhabited colonies. Wanting to expand to Asia, I set up a colony in Kenya, which was inhabited by moderately aggressive natives. Within five years of establishing this vital colony (and its port), the natives slaughtered the citizenry.
Would it have been preferrable to colonize an uninhabitted territory? Should I have pre-emptively slaughtered the natives? Or do I have to keep troops in all colonized territories until they become cities? If troops prevent uprizings, what proportion to the natives should my "occupational forces" be? Will 2000 troops prevent an uprising in a territory with 10000 natives?
Perhaps in the next version, the programmers can have an native tolerance slide, or something similar, to reflect your countries policies toward colonized natives.
Would it have been preferrable to colonize an uninhabitted territory? Should I have pre-emptively slaughtered the natives? Or do I have to keep troops in all colonized territories until they become cities? If troops prevent uprizings, what proportion to the natives should my "occupational forces" be? Will 2000 troops prevent an uprising in a territory with 10000 natives?
Perhaps in the next version, the programmers can have an native tolerance slide, or something similar, to reflect your countries policies toward colonized natives.
