To kill the natives or not?
- Thread starter unmerged(170815)
- 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.
To an extent, but I hate having to leave troops that are going to get attacked often. The cost of reinforcing them can add up pretty quickly.
If anything the penalties for keeping the natives around should be stronger (particularly the large, hostile pops in african provinces), currently its really a no brainer to leave them and station 1-2 regiments there.
Hardly - If you station a 5 regiment army in any African province and keep the maintenance at a decent level, you're not going to be affected much in terms of manpower or ducats. Especially not when you consider how much faster the colonization can go if you get the integration events.
If you begin colonization early as spain, you still need a sizeable force at full maintenance in african colonies (as many as natives, which is 7-8k).
In 1550, you don't need as many and you will lose 200 mens to several thousands natives.
In 1550, you don't need as many and you will lose 200 mens to several thousands natives.
So you guys are talking specifically about the "Attack Natives" button on an army unit stack, right? Is that the only thing that lowers the permanent count of natives and therefore base tax?
With my colonies I always leave a small unit stack on it - usually around 3k troops - to stop the "native uprisings" that happen . I learnt that if I didn't do that, and left them undefended, I could easily lose the whole colony or at least 100s of people in it - I'd get the message "Natives have damaged your colony!" and sometimes that resulted in the whole colony disappearing, including the colonist, and I had to resend him and lost all progress. So whenever they rise up of their own accord, this stack kills them immediately. But I have never actually clicked the Attack Natives button. Am I therefore OK for permanent base tax? Base tax only goes down if you click the Attack Natives button specifically, not just leave a stack there to attack them when they appear?
With my colonies I always leave a small unit stack on it - usually around 3k troops - to stop the "native uprisings" that happen . I learnt that if I didn't do that, and left them undefended, I could easily lose the whole colony or at least 100s of people in it - I'd get the message "Natives have damaged your colony!" and sometimes that resulted in the whole colony disappearing, including the colonist, and I had to resend him and lost all progress. So whenever they rise up of their own accord, this stack kills them immediately. But I have never actually clicked the Attack Natives button. Am I therefore OK for permanent base tax? Base tax only goes down if you click the Attack Natives button specifically, not just leave a stack there to attack them when they appear?
The "Attack Natives" button is basically a "click this if you are a noob" button, so I'm not sure why it even exists.
The only scenario I can think of where you'd want to kill the natives is if you for some reason didn't have an army to manage them, in which case the button isn't even an option for you anyway.
The only scenario I can think of where you'd want to kill the natives is if you for some reason didn't have an army to manage them, in which case the button isn't even an option for you anyway.
Now that I've discovered this button, I can't really imagine using it much. But I can imagine one minor scenario - it's fairly early in the game, such that a super aggressive stack of African natives still requires a few thousand of my troops to deal with. So I've left a stack of maybe 6 or 7k there, just to be sure. Now suddenly it's major war, I'm broke and at FL, and I really need every troop I have. So I want to move that stack of 7k out of the colony and put it to use in Europe somewhere. So I can imagine clicking Kill Natives to wipe them out so I can safely move that stack elsewhere.
But this is a really occasional, niche usage - especially because after about 1550, I could probably wipe out 8000 African natives with just 2k toops, and I can't ever imagine being so desperate for troops that I couldn't leave 2 or 3k there (or rather, couldn't imagine being so desperate for troops, AND 2-3k actually making much difference to my fortunes.)
But hey, it's nice to have more options, and if it makes noobs feel safer then fine
I do think though that Attack Natives button tooltip should be updated to mention that killing natives reduces base tax permanently.
In the office MP where I played England, I protected every colony with armies until they were self sustaining. I never attacked the natives. Doesn't take too much army resources to have some guards.
Honestly, I've never had to put more than one regiment on 10% maintenance in a colony to keep it well protected. Maybe that's different in some African provinces, as I usually skip it for India/Indonesia.
Never really saw the point of exterminating the natives in the game.
Never really saw the point of exterminating the natives in the game.
I always sang my "happy Columbus day to you" song, especially on Columbus day, but maybe now I'll plop a guy or two. Trouble is, I need my troops in stacks and leaving a whole stack in every colonized province is micromanagement. On islands I just take my chances anyway, and up by Alaska, but for most places it's just far simpler to clear the area in a sweep or two every 50 years and colonize when convenient. I even wonder whether the base tax wouldn't end up being just as high if you factor in the damage that natives to to un-protected colonies. The added time to reach 1000 wipes out any bonus from the natives if you're not stationing an army all the time.
Also, if you move the army away to stomp rebels or fight a war, doesn't moving them back often prompt an uprising?
Also, if you move the army away to stomp rebels or fight a war, doesn't moving them back often prompt an uprising?
Eh yes, if you don't have an army there. But if you do, it does finish more quickly with natives then without (thanks to events).
I mostly just leave them there in a war, and certainly don't need them to deal with rebels.
However, I do kill natives if I'm trying to colonize as a tiny country since I do need all my troops for wars then
So does hiting killing native button have any benefits?
I suspected the colony would become a state much faster. The only reason i would do it would be to accelerate the aquisition of the land. If the main reason for the colony there is a naval port and jump point to better land.
But from the comment's here it seems leaving the natives alone would actualy speed up the process. If you have a military presence. I still would leave a military presence after i wooped the natives...
In general i feel the colonize mechanic a bit missing. I don't think colonies should not go straight to "provinces".
I'm used to the Vicy2 aproach of colony->protectorate->state. I would like to see a similar thing but this is ot.
I suspected the colony would become a state much faster. The only reason i would do it would be to accelerate the aquisition of the land. If the main reason for the colony there is a naval port and jump point to better land.
But from the comment's here it seems leaving the natives alone would actualy speed up the process. If you have a military presence. I still would leave a military presence after i wooped the natives...
In general i feel the colonize mechanic a bit missing. I don't think colonies should not go straight to "provinces".
I'm used to the Vicy2 aproach of colony->protectorate->state. I would like to see a similar thing but this is ot.
I did it once on an arctic colony with high aggressiveness. The penalty for settlers was so high that it wasn't worth it to keep the natives. So I killed them, removed my settler and then went on to a different colony which wasn't arctic.
I usually kill the small number of natives in the Carribean to free up troops, but keep the natives in South and North America. Especially in Africa it makes a big difference to make them live, although you need 3-4 regiments to counter the 9000 natives which raid your colony.
Especially in the early colonizing game I tend to kill them while I let them live in the later stages.
Especially in the early colonizing game I tend to kill them while I let them live in the later stages.
Kill them. The small bonuses aren't worth the resources tied up to defend them against natives. It takes a long time to bring home the troops and in a war you can lose them on the way. Those five troops can make a difference, that's five less mercs you have to buy.
I see a lot of arguments concerning colonizing as a European power. However, if you play as someone in Asia - Malayan countries come to mind, as they have low force limits, bad tech, and a lot of natives - killing the natives might be a better alternative. With the limited economy in the early game, I find it's way better to just take the hit to base tax, rather than station 4k troops per colony (and even then, I have to have military maintenance send to max).
I find killing natives quite useful.
It costs a lot of money to have troops all over with maintenance . And colonial maintenance is wasted if the colony gets burned by natives.
It costs a lot of money to have troops all over with maintenance . And colonial maintenance is wasted if the colony gets burned by natives.
.png){kind=avatar}
Before around miltech 8, you need X*3 regiments and transports, where X is your number of colonists (so 1 colonist = 3 troops/transports). From 8-12 or so, you need X*2, then around tech 16 you only need one. For African colonies, double this. It's not very expensive, even 0.3 BT can make that back.
I think I need to mention that killing natives can be very expensive in terms of military monarch points. The cost can be over 50 military points if you are talking about those African colonies.