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

[Less]

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.

Yes, if you lower the slider to minimum colonies lose 100 settlers per year or something. You have to fund 50% for them to just break even in yearly growth rate (though the colonist % chance of improving a colony will still function).

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.

I was assuming that a colony not supplied would be a colony not costing money.

 

[unmerged(457435)]

sorry, couldn't resist

 

[BarrosRodrigues]

I think restricting player options is generally a poor choice in a game like this.

That has been the preferred course of action of the EU IV Dev’s because it is much easier to nerf the player (fun) than to teach the AI to play; for example a recent change was to stop vassals accepting to buy cores from the overlord if they don´t have the "colonial range" as if this made any sense whatsoever from a RL POV; so instead of teaching the AI they disabled it, I even agree that it does not make sense to teach the AI advanced gameplay when it still falls asleep and does not know the basics (dealing with naval and land attrition, minimal strategic analysis to prevent mindboggling dumb amphibious invasions, etc. etc.) so it is only "natural" that the Dev´s disable the “seize colony” if it isn’t within the colonial range. At this point I am convinced that the Dev’s are willing to sacrifice all intelligent play (or introduce any fantasy) to nerf the player instead of doing what needs to be done. What I don´t understand is how they could have introduced several mechanics that the AI can´t use (because no one programmed it to use) with the latest expansion? No wait, now that I think about it I know why they did it.

 

[MadDjinn]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afonso_de_Albuquerque

and well, the British had been in Bengal/India/Asia long before 1776.

 

[PiriReis]

Ha.

Personally, I find the ever decreasing amount of alternate strategies/delicious cheese rather sad. If Wiz is taking requests, I would therefore appreciate seeing a "Cheese" option added to turn such things back on.

This.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Reality is a bit more loose with the distinction between "colonization" and "people moved there" in cases like Africa and Asia anyway. The new world is a special snowflake due to the disease factor.

 

[LastSalian]

I predict they will "fix" this under the argument it's a bug.