-
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.
That is your impression. the HRE empreror has very real reason defending his vassals if they are attacked.
And It is logical that the attacker needs to be able to force the consession. i mean if some OPM goes colonising, it shouldn`t be hard for the big coloniser to knok down a consession.
If you can not force the consession, why should the defender give up colonies, like at all?
They hardly loose anything, since they do not get the colony anyway, but eventually you might become vulrnable to somebody else, and would have to give up on the conquered colony.
I really hope that there are no hordes in EU4 the way they work in DW.
Not really. The bigger they got the harder they were to control (in real life, not in the game).
Exactly, but that's not the case. And it is so because even OPM's laugh in the face of danger unless you actually take over their one province. Even when they are besieged by 100 thausand men in ther lvl 1 fort they refuse to make any concessions.
Because in real life the attacker would just put up a new government in the colony and the everyone would just go about their business accepting the loss of the colony. The original owner would of course maintain a claim on it. Kind of like the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Kings newer gave up their claims. In game the war would end with the KoJ getting their provinces back after 5 years as long as they managed to hold onto Cyprus. In real life the land that could not be defended just passed to whoever took it.
In fact in real life such a conflict would probably not even be considered a war but rather a border dispute.
Well, you kinda controll the colony don`t you? But you have to win the official consession.
Maybe there should be some way of claiming uncolonised land for countries with QFTNW (or whatever the equivalent will be), perhaps by spending prestige or something. This could give a core or maybe some kind of special colonial core so you could get them off other countries more easily and if the AI is advanced enough could dissuade smaller countries from colonising there.
And that is a reason to change the ease with which colonies change hand, not necessarily a reason to hard limit who gets to colonize.
This problem would easily be fixed by adopting CK2s warscore system. I.e. warscore rises with time while you control the contested territory, and once it reaches 100% you can force a surrender.
But wars in CK2 have outcomes fixed on their CB, which is not the case in EU. You should not be able to force a country to give you money, give up cores and break its alliances just because you held a colony you claim long enough to reach 100% warscore.
Peace didn`t worked like that in EU timeframe. Peace negotiations could result in quite different consessions, depending on the outcome.
MAking it into binary system of ck2 or V2 is not plausible.
Any AI who would benefit from colonizing should colonize. I don't like the idea of AIs tying their hands behind their backs because there's a script telling them not colonize on grounds that there is already half a dozen countries with colonies. Smart AIs are AIs that advance the best interest of their states no matter what. If a particular game evolves in such a way that it seems profitable for Genoa to colonize Mexico, then it should! Why wouldn't it, if it's profitable?
If you want fewer, major colonizers over lots of minor ones, then make the AI more aggressive when it comes to colonial wars. That way the little fish in the new world will be eaten by the bigger ones.
If you want fewer, major colonizers over lots of minor ones, then make the AI more aggressive when it comes to colonial wars. That way the little fish in the new world will be eaten by the bigger ones.
Last edited:
A hard limit on who can colonize would be insane, no one's advocating that.
The idea is that after X number of nations (whoever they may be) get strong colonies going, the others should begin to back off and look for new ways to make money.
I think that there should be some type of system where there could be claims on lands you don't actually have, like in Darkest Hour. It's not a core, but it would keep significantly weaker powers away.
Well, that might be OK, it'd need a lot of balancing. But predetermining who can and can't at setup would be ridiculous. I would hope that the AI will be reluctant if it doesn't have a province on the Atlantic with a land link to its capital.
One thing we had in EUII, but not in III, was the Treaty of Tordesillas. It did mean that you didn't get the huge Portuguese presence in N Am.
Now, that is probably too deterministic, even for me. But what if we could have area-treaties, with a similar effect? You could agree that X gets this region to himself (so far as you're concerned, not necessarily others), and you get this other region. Might work.
For the opposite vector, it really should be possible to have colonial-only wars, which are limited to certain overseas regions, with no impact in Europe (where you may be allies), or even in other regions. Britain, Netherlands, and Portugal did this a lot. Brits would poach on the other 2 in Asia, without going after them either in Europe or the Americas. NED and POR were, between one another, more committed enemies. But even then, there was no question of invading the homelands. As it is, you pretty much have to have a world war, to fight a colonial one.
Now, that is probably too deterministic, even for me. But what if we could have area-treaties, with a similar effect? You could agree that X gets this region to himself (so far as you're concerned, not necessarily others), and you get this other region. Might work.
For the opposite vector, it really should be possible to have colonial-only wars, which are limited to certain overseas regions, with no impact in Europe (where you may be allies), or even in other regions. Britain, Netherlands, and Portugal did this a lot. Brits would poach on the other 2 in Asia, without going after them either in Europe or the Americas. NED and POR were, between one another, more committed enemies. But even then, there was no question of invading the homelands. As it is, you pretty much have to have a world war, to fight a colonial one.
It might be possible to use a sphere of influence like process to 'reserve' colony areas. When some positive feedback loop is used it could be possible to limit the bulk of colonization (in specific areas) to a few parties.
Here's hoping that the new trade route system will encourage strategies along that line...
This is also a great idea. Maybe a gradual process where a nation first "claims" a province and/or area, making it still possible for rivals to colonize there but giving that nation a free CB on any rival colonies?
Claiming an area/province might be more expensive/taxing on a country, so only major powers could afford to claim more than a few strips of territory. Or tie it to National Ideas/policies/laws/whatever political model the game is going to use, to encourage early colonizers like Portugal but keep out small nations that didn't focus on colonization.
Yes something like that. You cannot stop people squatting on 'your' land when you don't have the on the ground presence, but have an easy way to get rid of them or influence them (eg capture their trade) once you do. The ability to claim could be coupled to a NI. Another option, that allows for the historical small diversity of the Europeans could be allowing more 'claim-points' to existing colonizers, the feed-back loop.
i like Seli´s idea.
Some customized Tordesillas treaty could also be worth considering
Some customized Tordesillas treaty could also be worth considering
Perhaps number of colonies could be linked to the population of the country, so that only large countries could have many colonies? That would prevent Navarra from blanket-colonising Americas.