The problem with colonial nations and independence

[Simoleum]

Seeing Haiti breaking away in the mid 1600s due to Portugal getting stomped by its neighbours, whereafter it begins to later declare war on Kongo, conquer Central Africa, and colonize Madagascar, made me wish for some changes in the mechanics of colonial nations.

I have no problems with ahistorical outcomes, but I believe that colonial nations break free way too early in general. Historically, the writings of the Enlightenment, of which the ideas of Popular sovereignty are central, highly influenced desires of seperatism, often after longer periods of oppression and ill-treatment inwhich the idea got very popular among colonists who had lost ties to their country of origin.

In game, a colonial nation tends to desire to break free immediately after their overlord gets carpet occupied in a war, regardless of treatment and history, or regardless of periods inwhich influential literature can have spread. It seems strange that it sparks separatism, and not patriotism, in such an early stage of the game; seperatism should rather be impacted by prolonged problems irregardless of one disastrous war, or mainly by ill-treatment (direct actions like tariffs, and more indirect actions like desires for self-determination).

Most colonists wouldnt even think of indepedence until late in the 1700s, and rather desired increased political influence and integration. After the United States declared war, among other things due to the lack of this, the next country to strive for independence in the period of 1792-1802 was Haiti; here the story was different, as it was a black, enslaved majority that broke the shackles. This may perhaps also point to the need of a different colonizing mechanic, that seperates colonies based on settlement of colonists (obviously primairly whites) and settlements based on plantantions and slavery. (On a wider note, an addition of a "trade post" would also be welcome, to stop European nations digging into Africa, as they should have no interest in subjugating the entirety of inner Africa.)

I also don't like how the current system does not allow certain colonies to remain with the current overlord (as in the case of parts of what in the game is Colonial Eastern America, who did not secede, or islands like Bermuda, etc.) Perhaps one solution would be to remove the colonial nation of the Carribbean, to keep European presence there, and diversity, as virtually all major colonizing nations had bases there (but in game they tend to fall to one or two nations, as the region gets "claimed"). Also there should possibly be something to prevent colonial nations from colonizing areas on another continent, or overseas, and rather focus on colonizing its frontiers, or adjacent islands.

I apologize if I am mistaken, as I am no expert on the subject of the Americas and their seperatism, but I really wish that they add further modifiers to prevent, and accurately depict colonial nations and their relation to their overlord and "mother country". They should not be as reliant on opportunism as colonial nations tend to be now.

I hope for interesting comments!

TL;DR: Stop colonial nations breaking away so early.

 

[reivaj89]

I agree, especially regarding the Caribbean. I think it should be a trade company region (trade companies were very active there IRL), in order to promote coloniser diversity, with the Haitian Revolution being an event that fires in the late 18th-early 19th centuries if the owner of any province in the Hispaniola area* has its capital in Europe and hasn't abolished slavery.

Cuba and the Dominican Republic gained their independence way after the game's timeframe. The smaller islands became independent even later (mostly during the decolonisation wave after WWII), and some of them are not independent even today.

*BTW, Puerto Rico is part of the Hispaniola area in-game. I think it would be more accurate if it was part of the Greater Antilles area.

 

[Sunspawn]

I agree, especially regarding the Caribbean. I think it should be a trade company region (trade companies were very active there IRL), in order to promote coloniser diversity, with the Haitian Revolution being an event that fires in the late 18th-early 19th centuries if the owner of any province in the Hispaniola area* has its capital in Europe and hasn't abolished slavery.

A disaster, akin to the Cossacks/Dhimmi influence disasters, would be more suitable than a random event.

 

[reivaj89]

A disaster, akin to the Cossacks/Dhimmi influence disasters, would be more suitable than a random event.

Yeah, you're right.

 

[Simoleum]

I agree, especially regarding the Caribbean. I think it should be a trade company region (trade companies were very active there IRL), in order to promote coloniser diversity, with the Haitian Revolution being an event that fires in the late 18th-early 19th centuries if the owner of any province in the Hispaniola area* has its capital in Europe and hasn't abolished slavery.

Cuba and the Dominican Republic gained their independence way after the game's timeframe. The smaller islands became independent even later (mostly during the decolonisation wave after WWII), and some of them are not independent even today.

*BTW, Puerto Rico is part of the Hispaniola area in-game. I think it would be more accurate if it was part of the Greater Antilles area.

A disaster, akin to the Cossacks/Dhimmi influence disasters, would be more suitable than a random event.

I agree that a disaster could be a good way to depict to the formation of Haiti, by adding cores, and make it secede; this would remove the nation of Haiti from the hopefully gone colonial nation Carribbean. What ticks it, and conditions, etc. can obviously be discussed.

 

[Zoe1444]

I agree, especially regarding the Caribbean. I think it should be a trade company region (trade companies were very active there IRL), in order to promote coloniser diversity, with the Haitian Revolution being an event that fires in the late 18th-early 19th centuries if the owner of any province in the Hispaniola area* has its capital in Europe and hasn't abolished slavery.

Cuba and the Dominican Republic gained their independence way after the game's timeframe. The smaller islands became independent even later (mostly during the decolonisation wave after WWII), and some of them are not independent even today.

*BTW, Puerto Rico is part of the Hispaniola area in-game. I think it would be more accurate if it was part of the Greater Antilles area.

If they did this they might have to fix the American Dream DLC which most the pre-independence stuff was dependent on colonial nations not existing. English trade companies in the Caribbean would be very weird.

 

[Junuxx]

In game, a colonial nation tends to desire to break free immediately after their overlord gets carpet occupied in a war, regardless of treatment and history, or regardless of periods inwhich influential literature can have spread.

The real problem here might be that in game, major European countries get fully occupied in the first place.

I also don't like how the current system does not allow certain colonies to remain with the current overlord (as in the case of parts of what in the game is Colonial Eastern America, who did not secede, or islands like Bermuda, etc.)

I think Bermuda is an oversight. It makes no sense otherwise that Bermuda, which is a European overseas possession to this day, is part of a CN, but for example Galapagos and Easter Island, which are parts of South American nations IRL, are not.

 

[bbqftw]

AI also tends to horribly mismanage their colonies, I remember inheriting Spanish mexico after full annexing their overlord, and they had cranked up tariffs to 70%. It's like they wanted the CN to rebel.

 

[The-King]

Its a bad system considering how much you must invest per month for colonies compared to their slow growth. Considering how bad most of the provinces are as they're typically 1-1-1 provinces and you don't directly own those provinces. The return on investment is extremely low as you spend hundreds of ducats on these provinces and they typically provide the overlord like ~0.02 per month on average. Overlords don't get any building slots out of these provinces unlike Asian/African overseas provinces, and they can't force the CN's to create manufactories which is one of the only useful building to an overlord. But it gets worse because before your colonies can pay themselves back from your investment they're already unloyal if you want any reasonable income from them or if you're a tiny nation like Portugal and somehow let your CN get bigger than you.

The best colonial nations are the ones in mexico and peru because you don't need to spend much money colonising, you just need to pay for an army to conquer them. Carribean is pretty good too because those provinces aren't entirely garbage.

On a sidenote that is kinda related, I wish that overlords had the option of directly controlling american/australian lands. But also give the option of creating CN's for people who want to do that. This would mean that CNs would have to give some sort of benefit to entice overlords to create CNs, something along the lines of CNs developing the land a lot better, or maybe a unique line of buildings that only CNs can build. I think allowing something along the lines of this would create an interesting choice for players.

 

[darkfireslide]

I mean the primary reason that colonies break away is because the AI is stupid and raises tariffs to extreme levels. Or, in other words, doing exactly what England did that made the Thirteen Colonies rebel.

 

[Simoleum]

The real problem here might be that in game, major European countries get fully occupied in the first place..

Fair point.

I think Bermuda is an oversight. It makes no sense otherwise that Bermuda, which is a European overseas possession to this day, is part of a CN, but for example Galapagos and Easter Island, which are parts of South American nations IRL, are not.

I believe they need some more flexibility, as well as an ability to decide what goes to the colonial nation and what doesn't. Choices to retain provinces, take them from colonial nations, and grant provinces, at a minimum. Just think Newfoundland that remained British, versus a separate Canadian entity (although Canada as an entity didnt take form until after the game's timeperiod).

I dislike how there is no choice, or flexibility; once you have X provinces overseas they automatically group to a colonial nation. It should rather be related to some malus corresponding to amount of provinces in the New World NOT in colonial nations, which would make a transition to a colonial nation for administration purposes more desireable as the colony grows. This or unrest due to demands of increased sovereignty or control.

Still absurd how you as a colonial overlord and in total domination cannot take provinces, transfer colonies from one colonial nation to another, decide what goes to a colonial nation, or more. It's a lack of control I find unnatural.

 

[Simoleum]

Just thought that a relations modifier of +200, with a tick of 1-2 per year, could be given on relations between colonial nation and colonial overlord. This will simulate the very close ties decaying over time, and the higher independence desire over decades passing. A name for it could be as simple as "released colonial nation". Therefore if the UK creates the Thirteen Colonies in 1600, they will have lost this modifier by 1700-1800, which I find reasonable.

 

[No idea]

Its a bad system considering how much you must invest per month for colonies compared to their slow growth. Considering how bad most of the provinces are as they're typically 1-1-1 provinces and you don't directly own those provinces. The return on investment is extremely low as you spend hundreds of ducats on these provinces and they typically provide the overlord like ~0.02 per month on average. Overlords don't get any building slots out of these provinces unlike Asian/African overseas provinces, and they can't force the CN's to create manufactories which is one of the only useful building to an overlord. But it gets worse because before your colonies can pay themselves back from your investment they're already unloyal if you want any reasonable income from them or if you're a tiny nation like Portugal and somehow let your CN get bigger than you.

The best colonial nations are the ones in mexico and peru because you don't need to spend much money colonising, you just need to pay for an army to conquer them. Carribean is pretty good too because those provinces aren't entirely garbage.

On a sidenote that is kinda related, I wish that overlords had the option of directly controlling american/australian lands. But also give the option of creating CN's for people who want to do that. This would mean that CNs would have to give some sort of benefit to entice overlords to create CNs, something along the lines of CNs developing the land a lot better, or maybe a unique line of buildings that only CNs can build. I think allowing something along the lines of this would create an interesting choice for players.

If you manage to get Mexico or Peru or Brazil (places with gold) you will quickly see how much money you get (although you also get inflation in the process). Really, in my current game as Spain I am making 300 gold a year just with treasure fleets.

Anyway, even if you dont have treasure fleets, the trade power you get from colonial nations allows you to steer the trade where you want, making lots of money. After all, by mid game most of your cash should come from trade.

Regarding the OP, I agree that CNs tend to break free too early, but I think that is WAI, to give players the chance to play (and to witness) CNs breaking from their overlord. If they did it when they historically did it (late XVIII/early XIX century) then the game would be finished just when CNs start to break away. Nobody likes a game to end when interesting things are happening.

What I find utter nonsense is the fact that, if you have several CNs, and one of them rebels while is allied with the other CNs (something that happens very often), the non rebel CNs which are allied with the rebel CN wage war against you, and, if they win, all of them get independence (EVEN when their libery desire was way below 50%). That shouldnt happen. It is like Jamaica (with very low Liberty desire) allying with the Thirteen colonies and then declaring war on the UK when the 13 colonies rebel.

It makes managing your liberty desire well a pointles thing, because, if just one CN goes above the libery desire limit while it is allied with other of your CNs (and you have no way of preventing this), everythign can go to hell. So, no matter how well, or bad you manage the libery desire, the end result is the same: you get many of your CNs rebelling, even when just one of them really wants independence.

 

[The-King]

If you manage to get Mexico or Peru or Brazil (places with gold) you will quickly see how much money you get (although you also get inflation in the process). Really, in my current game as Spain I am making 300 gold a year just with treasure fleets.

Anyway, even if you dont have treasure fleets, the trade power you get from colonial nations allows you to steer the trade where you want, making lots of money. After all, by mid game most of your cash should come from trade.

Regarding the OP, I agree that CNs tend to break free too early, but I think that is WAI, to give players the chance to play (and to witness) CNs breaking from their overlord. If they did it when they historically did it (late XVIII/early XIX century) then the game would be finished just when CNs start to break away. Nobody likes a game to end when interesting things are happening.

What I find utter nonsense is the fact that, if you have several CNs, and one of them rebels while is allied with the other CNs (something that happens very often), the non rebel CNs which are allied with the rebel CN wage war against you, and, if they win, all of them get independence (EVEN when their libery desire was way below 50%). That shouldnt happen. It is like Jamaica (with very low Liberty desire) allying with the Thirteen colonies and then declaring war on the UK when the 13 colonies rebel.

It makes managing your liberty desire well a pointles thing, because, if just one CN goes above the libery desire limit while it is allied with other of your CNs (and you have no way of preventing this), everythign can go to hell. So, no matter how well, or bad you manage the libery desire, the end result is the same: you get many of your CNs rebelling, even when just one of them really wants independence.

Mexico and Peru are good specifically because they don't need to be colonized and because they have a large amount of gold provinces. You're not spending hundreds of ducats colonizing 1-1-1 wool provinces when annexing all of them.

 

[Em Ay Ef]

A disaster, akin to the Cossacks/Dhimmi influence disasters, would be more suitable than a random event.

except it would make sense to reverse the mechanic. say that you play as a colonizer nation, and that colonizer nations are allowed to handle estates in colonial nations--but instead of regular estates, the estates in colonial nations would represent local (colonial) or metropolitan (overlord) control. by handing over provinces to the colonial estate you lower Liberty Desire, but if you grant provinces to the metropolitan estate, you increase your own income at the price of increased Liberty Desire.

this idea can be expanded upon to include some real colonial social classes, such as creoles or indigenous peoples.

 

[Powder hound]

Is it me, or does it seem that 5 colonies is rather small to form a Colonial Nation ? 5 Colonies to fire Treaty of Tordissilas OK but an actual nation should be more. Gives the player more time to invest in the infrastructure etc.
How about 13 before the CN triggers.
Always do find that strange that England gets the Thirteen Colonies when still eight short.

 

[kakatua]

Most colonists wouldnt even think of indepedence until late in the 1700s, and rather desired increased political influence and integration. After the United States declared war, among other things due to the lack of this, the next country to strive for independence in the period of 1792-1802 was Haiti; here the story was different, as it was a black, enslaved majority that broke the shackles. This may perhaps also point to the need of a different colonizing mechanic, that seperates colonies based on settlement of colonists (obviously primairly whites) and settlements based on plantantions and slavery.

Just to point out a error, the Haiti shitstorm wasnt about Independence. First was about bad treatment, then slaves leaders wanted to be the new slaves masters(via deal with the crown), then slave masters doing some kind of socialist isolacionist economy(Cuba with no URSS to subside), then fighting for the king vs republicans, then independence. The Great Colombia and Brazil had true independent movements, some earlier than US ones.

 

[Simoleum]

Regarding the OP, I agree that CNs tend to break free too early, but I think that is WAI, to give players the chance to play (and to witness) CNs breaking from their overlord. If they did it when they historically did it (late XVIII/early XIX century) then the game would be finished just when CNs start to break away. Nobody likes a game to end when interesting things are happening.

What I find utter nonsense is the fact that, if you have several CNs, and one of them rebels while is allied with the other CNs (something that happens very often), the non rebel CNs which are allied with the rebel CN wage war against you, and, if they win, all of them get independence (EVEN when their libery desire was way below 50%). That shouldnt happen. It is like Jamaica (with very low Liberty desire) allying with the Thirteen colonies and then declaring war on the UK when the 13 colonies rebel.

In this case, if what you say is true, the immersion aspect outweighs the desire to play and experience colonial independent nations; hell most people will spend a lot more time in Europe and Asia than the New World. It would nonetheless be possible to see independent colonies, just later than now, which balances realism and gameplay better. Forcing them to break free earlier to experience them is like allowing the crusades to go on for longer, just to allow us to play them more, or pushing the revolution to 1620 just to have more time with it in game.

As for the inter-allying, I totally agree. Take Canada and the USA in real life, for example. In game Canada would just immidiately ally the US.

Is it me, or does it seem that 5 colonies is rather small to form a Colonial Nation ? 5 Colonies to fire Treaty of Tordissilas OK but an actual nation should be more. Gives the player more time to invest in the infrastructure etc.
How about 13 before the CN triggers.
Always do find that strange that England gets the Thirteen Colonies when still eight short.

This is a very good point also. But as I said, I would like more choices regarding colonial nations (as in what provinces go to the colonial nation, taking and granting provinces, and more). If I wan't I should be able to have many colonies in the US directly under my control, but the game should make it so that that wouldnt be the most rewarding way of dealing with them. Just thinking of how you can't even decide too keep the historical amount of Caribbean islands, or even keep Bermuda when Eastern American colonial nation forms under you, is idiotic.

Just to point out a error, the Haiti shitstorm wasnt about Independence. First was about bad treatment, then slaves leaders wanted to be the new slaves masters(via deal with the crown), then slave masters doing some kind of socialist isolacionist economy(Cuba with no URSS to subside), then fighting for the king vs republicans, then independence. The Great Colombia and Brazil had true independent movements, some earlier than US ones.

Thanks for the correction! I believe most points I've made stand even with that correction, fortunately.

 

[mario1789]

Well, in games starting at the default date, colonial nations tend to be much more powerful than they were historically. Look at the 1623 or 1650 starts dates for the British colonials. We could slow down initial colonial development a lot but is that fun? So if you have ahistorically powerful colonial nations, early breaking free makes more sense.

 

[Martian Gamer]

On a sidenote that is kinda related, I wish that overlords had the option of directly controlling american/australian lands. But also give the option of creating CN's for people who want to do that. This would mean that CNs would have to give some sort of benefit to entice overlords to create CNs, something along the lines of CNs developing the land a lot better, or maybe a unique line of buildings that only CNs can build. I think allowing something along the lines of this would create an interesting choice for players.

May I recommend the mod Complete Colonial Control, the mod does exactly that. After the first core is gained in a trade node (everything is filed under a trade company region, and thus trade nodes) an event fires giving the coloniser the option to form a colonial nation or keep it as a trade company or crown colony.