Wiz: Please disable 'seize colony' if not within colonial range.

[kitemasaki]

I used westernization as an example of some of the cheese. Not the entire reasoning behind this design flaw. If a colony is out of your range, regardless of your beliefs in the mechanic itself, you should not be able to send settlers there by some hyper gate you establish thousands of miles away.

 

[Freudia]

I used westernization as an example of some of the cheese. Not the entire reasoning behind this design flaw. If a colony is out of your range, regardless of your beliefs in the mechanic itself, you should not be able to send settlers there by some hyper gate you establish thousands of miles away.

Alright, let me ask you this. What's the reasoning for disabling the button outright if it's outside your colonial range? Look at the following scenario:

'Sir, we've successfully occupied the enemy colony! What should we do?'
'Why, we take it for ourselves!'
'Sir, we can't do that! It's outside our colonial range!'
'...What? What do you mean we can't take it? We already occupied it, we're standing right here. Why can't we take it?'

A better solution is to be able to take the colonies but the colony won't grow normally until your range extends far enough to include it. Disabling the button outright results in very awkward scenarios where you've occupied a province but are unable to do anything with it except destroy it. Should we be allowed to destroy provinces outside our coring range if we can't core them? Should we only be allowed to take provinces inside our coring range?

Where do you draw the line with this?

 

[kitemasaki]

Alright, let me ask you this. What's the reasoning for disabling the button outright if it's outside your colonial range? Look at the following scenario:

'Sir, we've successfully occupied the enemy colony! What should we do?'
'Why, we take it for ourselves!'
'Sir, we can't do that! It's outside our colonial range!'
'...What? What do you mean we can't take it? We already occupied it, we're standing right here. Why can't we take it?'

A better solution is to be able to take the colonies but the colony won't grow normally until your range extends far enough to include it. Disabling the button outright results in very awkward scenarios where you've occupied a province but are unable to do anything with it except destroy it. Should we be allowed to destroy provinces outside our coring range if we can't core them? Should we only be allowed to take provinces inside our coring range?

Where do you draw the line with this?

Its a simple mechanics flaw, not a political campaign of civil right liberties. Burning and pillaging is nowhere near the same in logic as establishing logistics for settling the New World. Failure in your part to try and add reason through redundant questioning.

 

[Freudia]

Its a simple mechanics flaw, not a political campaign of civil right liberties. Burning and pillaging is nowhere near the same in logic as establishing logistics for settling the New World. Failure in your part to try and add reason through redundant questioning.

But it is not mechanically sound to be unable to take a colony if you can get there.

 

[kitemasaki]

But it is not mechanically sound to be unable to take a colony if you can get there.

Sigh. Wrong again. How many of you are still that ignorant to the real history of the time era? The New World was being explored long before it was ever colonized. "Going there" was much different than "Getting there". Being able to send a ship somewhere does not have any basis in being able to establish the logistics or technology to live there. It was akin to finding a new planet in this period. We have sent people to the moon but aren't able to settle it...yet.

 

[Freudia]

Sigh. Wrong again. How many of you are still that ignorant to the real history of the time era? The New World was being explored long before it was ever colonized. "Going there" was much different than "Getting there". Being able to send a ship somewhere does not have any basis in being able to establish the logistics or technology to live there. It was akin to finding a new planet in this period. We have sent people to the moon but aren't able to settle it...yet.

And as I said, the repercussions of taking a colony outside your colonial range should be that it doesn't grow, to simulate the fact that you lack the logistics to grow it. Not that you can't take it outright.

 

[Less]

And as I said, the repercussions of taking a colony outside your colonial range should be that it doesn't grow, to simulate the fact that you lack the logistics to grow it. Not that you can't take it outright.

In gameplay terms a colony that is supplied at 0% doesn't just not grow, it very quickly dies off. So it was be quite futile.

I'd love to see some exploit where someone kept at dip 3 and stole every coastal colony to permanently block off the entire new world though.

 

[Freudia]

In gameplay terms a colony that is supplied at 0% doesn't just not grow, it very quickly dies off. So it was be quite futile.

Does it? Do colonies lose settlers over time if a colony can't grow but is taken at like 60%? I've never actually researched this kind of stuff before.

I'd love to see some exploit where someone kept at dip 3 and stole every coastal colony to permanently block off the entire new world though.

The cost of such an exploit would be pretty ridiculous though; keep in mind the ducat cost per colony over your number of colonists is exponentially increasing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I used westernization as an example of some of the cheese. Not the entire reasoning behind this design flaw. If a colony is out of your range, regardless of your beliefs in the mechanic itself, you should not be able to send settlers there by some hyper gate you establish thousands of miles away.

The logic you're using is fundamentally flawed, a perfect example of selective realism Wiz talked about. What about the design flaw where you can sail and sustain an entire army somewhere you can't even support a colony?

Your request makes no sense in the context of other gameplay mechanics. Even removing the fleet rights extending range didn't make sense, if you want to play the realism card. If you can get there and back in cogs, there's no reason a colony shouldn't be sustainable. But if you can seize a colony, that means you can do exactly that, transport thousands or even tens of thousands of people to that spot.

No realism argument can save such a position. The gameplay justification for the current or proposed rules has been covered only minimally here, and yet it's the only discussion worth anything in the context of EU IV unless you want to apply history selectively.

Its a simple mechanics flaw, not a political campaign of civil right liberties. Burning and pillaging is nowhere near the same in logic as establishing logistics for settling the New World. Failure in your part to try and add reason through redundant questioning.

Speaking of failures, please give a good gameplay reasoning for altering this mechanic, rather than making colonial range sensible and doing something entirely different about westernization.

Sigh. Wrong again. How many of you are still that ignorant to the real history of the time era?

You are apparently in the mood to add another. Yourself. The game lets you ship the entire standing army of China to the new world in 1500 if you want to do it, and that army can make and enforce vassals...but you can't support a colony next to 20000 soldiers which you somehow can support?. Like hell we're talking about "real history" here, or even a reasonable approximation.

Feet to the fire. You have no leg to stand on from a historical perspective, because you've already evidenced wanting to use it only when it applies to your position, but not to that of others. Give a sound gameplay reason, independent from history, if you can do so.

 

[ahyangyi]

The logic you're using is fundamentally flawed, a perfect example of selective realism Wiz talked about. What about the design flaw where you can sail and sustain an entire army somewhere you can't even support a colony?

Your request makes no sense in the context of other gameplay mechanics. Even removing the fleet rights extending range didn't make sense, if you want to play the realism card. If you can get there and back in cogs, there's no reason a colony shouldn't be sustainable. But if you can seize a colony, that means you can do exactly that, transport thousands or even tens of thousands of people to that spot.

No realism argument can save such a position. The gameplay justification for the current or proposed rules has been covered only minimally here, and yet it's the only discussion worth anything in the context of EU IV unless you want to apply history selectively.



Speaking of failures, please give a good gameplay reasoning for altering this mechanic, rather than making colonial range sensible and doing something entirely different about westernization.



You are apparently in the mood to add another. Yourself. The game lets you ship the entire standing army of China to the new world in 1500 if you want to do it, and that army can make and enforce vassals...but you can't support a colony next to 20000 soldiers which you somehow can support?. Like hell we're talking about "real history" here, or even a reasonable approximation.

Feet to the fire. You have no leg to stand on from a historical perspective, because you've already evidenced wanting to use it only when it applies to your position, but not to that of others. Give a sound gameplay reason, independent from history, if you can do so.

Wait, isn't an army supporting itself by... pillaging and looting?

 

[oblio-]

Wait, isn't an army supporting itself by... pillaging and looting?

In the middle of a jungle where you have 2 huts as a "colony"? I doubt it. More likely through supplies and trade...

 

[Bragi]

Wait, isn't an army supporting itself by... pillaging and looting?

Not far away what settlers often did.

 

[kitemasaki]

The logic you're using is fundamentally flawed, a perfect example of selective realism Wiz talked about. What about the design flaw where you can sail and sustain an entire army somewhere you can't even support a colony?

Your request makes no sense in the context of other gameplay mechanics. Even removing the fleet rights extending range didn't make sense, if you want to play the realism card. If you can get there and back in cogs, there's no reason a colony shouldn't be sustainable. But if you can seize a colony, that means you can do exactly that, transport thousands or even tens of thousands of people to that spot.

No realism argument can save such a position. The gameplay justification for the current or proposed rules has been covered only minimally here, and yet it's the only discussion worth anything in the context of EU IV unless you want to apply history selectively.



Speaking of failures, please give a good gameplay reasoning for altering this mechanic, rather than making colonial range sensible and doing something entirely different about westernization.



You are apparently in the mood to add another. Yourself. The game lets you ship the entire standing army of China to the new world in 1500 if you want to do it, and that army can make and enforce vassals...but you can't support a colony next to 20000 soldiers which you somehow can support?. Like hell we're talking about "real history" here, or even a reasonable approximation.

Feet to the fire. You have no leg to stand on from a historical perspective, because you've already evidenced wanting to use it only when it applies to your position, but not to that of others. Give a sound gameplay reason, independent from history, if you can do so.

Wrong TMIT, you are putting words into my mouth by reading into statements further than the intention or the response. This is a habit of yours and one that doesn't really work. Good try though. Next.

 

[counteryou]

It will only make RotW life harder.
If you don't play RotW, why ruin other's fun?

 

[oblio-]

It will only make RotW life harder.
If you don't play RotW, why ruin other's fun?

1. To spite "hipsters" playing in ROTW (rarely admitted though).
2. "Historical accuracy".
3. "Because Europe dominated the period and ROTW should be hard".
Pick your poison.

To be frank, I'm actually kind of glad this is happening since Paradox is getting hammered by these requests and slowly, slowly, life is improving in the ROTW.

 

[kitemasaki]

It will only make RotW life harder.
If you don't play RotW, why ruin other's fun?

Actually Ming is my main. Nerfing this actually hampers my early strategies, but I still think it is wrong.

 

[counteryou]

Actually Ming is my main. Nerfing this actually hampers my early strategies, but I still think it is wrong.

Just don't do it if you think it is wrong.
Not likely you are the only one playing Ming.

 

[usednickname]

Half the fun of EU4 are the exploits

 

[atwix]

so let me get this straight. Seizing a colony without you having a colonist and the colony lying outside your coring range is unrealistic? You only say that for westernization nerf purposes, right?

If you can't seize colonies because you don't have colonial national idea groups, now *that* would be unrealistic.

captain: "Look there men! It looks like a Fresh spanish colony. They even have a shipyard! We can repair our proud ship there if we invade them. The won't know what hit them!"

First Officer: "Sorry sir, we can't do that, our glorious nation lacks the colonial ideas to allow that."

captain: "what are we supposed to do then? Our damaged ship can't reach our homeland without a main mast!"

First officer: "I suppose we could disguise ourselves as Spaniards and just dock.. Our espionage ideas allow that."

 

[G_Morgan]

However, colonial range might be a bit weird in its implementation since you can settle the New World before Africa or Asia (completely unhistorical)

Where did you learn history from? The new world was colonised before Asia and Africa. The first British Empire is seen to have ended with the American War of Independence. Spain were the worlds greatest power in the 16th century based upon their new world wealth. The expansion into India from Britain happened as a response to the loss of America. Africa wasn't seriously colonised until the 1800s.