wtf is up with the stupid colonial system?!

[joshuagaming69]

Im genuinly pissed rn i spent hours trying to get some stupid ass american colony and then the aztecs just invade my colonies?! Without even asking me if i want to join? Then i have to get a stupid ass no CB war that is impossible to win for some stupid BS. I already had to save my self with cheats because my colonies got in defensive wars with some random ass native country in a area i didnt even unlock, so i couldnt even force peace i literally had to do debug mode and stright up annex it. This is COMPLETELY stupid. How does a game as old and used as this have this bad of a colonial system?! And BTW, when the aztecs invaded my colony, they literally annexed EVERYTING. So i had to get the debug ♥♥♥♥ to annex it back and now my colonies are all ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up looking right now because there is like 4 differant colony states to land connected territory. Thanks paradox. These are the same people who had the hoi4 peace treaty cancer cant expect much

[k100]

enforce peace, also make sure to pump your colony with money so they can get established with a proper army

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Magnetola:

skill issue

This. I'll never understand players who come raging to the forums when something doesn't work the way they think it should. A much better approach in a game as complex as EU4 is for them to ask themselves "What did I do wrong? What do I not understand?" That's how you really learn the game.

If that doesn't work, come to the forums and ask for the help of more experienced players. If they agree there's a problem, then go post about it on the official Paradox boards.

[grotaclas]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Originally posted by Magnetola:

skill issue

This. I'll never understand players who come raging to the forums when something doesn't work the way they think it should. A much better approach in a game as complex as EU4 is for them to ask themselves "What did I do wrong? What do I not understand?" That's how you really learn the game.

If that doesn't work, come to the forums and ask for the help of more experienced players. If they agree there's a problem, then go post about it on the official Paradox boards.

I agree

[Sharpie The Dragon]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

Originally posted by Magnetola:

skill issue

This. I'll never understand players who come raging to the forums when something doesn't work the way they think it should. A much better approach in a game as complex as EU4 is for them to ask themselves "What did I do wrong? What do I not understand?" That's how you really learn the game.

Because you'd think that basic common sense would be overlords joining their colonial wars defensively when this isn't the case for the AI and the player. It's a massive fail in Paradox's logic. Play any native or colonial nation and watch how stupidly easy it is to conquer everything in sight. This is an intentional design choice by Paradox, how did something so basic become overlooked?

Somebody attacks your vassal? You join in automatically.
Somebody attacks your tributary? You get a call to arms.
Somebody attacks a nation inside the HRE? You get a call to arms.

You/They attack a colonial nation? Ergh... nothing?

You can see how this would confuse newer players and make the colonizer AI look absolutely stupid in comparison. The way they've designed it like this is terrible. Telling people to learn the game because of failed mechanics is pretty silly tbh.

One of the very few reasons to use 'Enforce Peace' is because of this. And does the AI natives calculate this before they declare war on the colony? Of course they don't. That's why these wars happen; and why they *shouldn't* happen.

[Marquoz]

Originally posted by Sharpie The Dergun:

Originally posted by Marquoz:

This. I'll never understand players who come raging to the forums when something doesn't work the way they think it should. A much better approach in a game as complex as EU4 is for them to ask themselves "What did I do wrong? What do I not understand?" That's how you really learn the game.

Because you'd think that basic common sense would be overlords joining their colonial wars defensively when this isn't the case for the AI and the player. It's a massive fail in Paradox's logic.

No, it's proof that Paradox knows history better than you do. Colonial nations went to war with native tribes many times without the mother country being involved, both defensive and offensive conflicts. The most famous American example of this is King Philip's War. As wiki says:

King Philip's War began the development of an independent American identity. The New England colonists faced their enemies without support from any European government or military, and this began to give them a group identity separate and distinct from Britain

Paradox implemented a colonial nation model that is historically accurate. Overlords have the option to join, but not the obligation. Following history is good. Options are good. The Paradox approach is good.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Marquoz is right. You should have asked yourself why the mechanics differed depending on the subject, and reminded yourself that there's the word "simulation" to describe the game. It means that they tried to adapt their mechanics to be as faithful as they could with history.
While not flawless they do a good job toward that goal. And all their historical games have their specificities toward that goal. Which makes all of them enjoyable even though we all have our preferences in term of game design.

[Sharpie The Dragon]

Originally posted by Marquoz:

No, it's proof that Paradox knows history better than you do. Colonial nations went to war with native tribes many times without the mother country being involved, both defensive and offensive conflicts. The most famous American example of this is King Philip's War. As wiki says:

Right, because as French Louisana, I can conquer the entire continent without repercussions from the AI Europeans. The reason these natives declare war on colonies in the first place is because they don't check for the overlord, I can't remember the last time an AI enforced peace. A player? Sure, it's like the only use this button has.

It goes against the logic of subjects being defended, and is the only instance where this occurs in the game. It allows natives and colonial nations alike to expand wherever they want on the European continent without Europeans intervening and gives the player playing on this continent an absurdly easy time.

[grotaclas]

Originally posted by Sharpie The Dergun:

Right, because as French Louisana, I can conquer the entire continent without repercussions from the AI Europeans. The reason these natives declare war on colonies in the first place is because they don't check for the overlord, I can't remember the last time an AI enforced peace. A player? Sure, it's like the only use this button has.

It goes against the logic of subjects being defended, and is the only instance where this occurs in the game. It allows natives and colonial nations alike to expand wherever they want on the European continent without Europeans intervening and gives the player playing on this continent an absurdly easy time.

Why don't you argue that the AI should enforce peace more often? That would also solve this problem. In the past some players have complained that the AI overlord always enforces peace, but I don't know if that was because the AI did it more often in those versions or because the AI does it in certain circumstances which those players triggered(e.g. they had less troops than the overlord)

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Don't you try to enforce peace on other European/whatever big nation to avoid them to become too powerful? I mean, this is an awesome button to enter a war against a far away rival without needing a casus belli.
It's even more interesting than the great power button to intervene in a conflict. Especially if the power you threaten has an ally close to you that isn't call into the war. You just have to declare on it after wise and engage the same power into another war and it won't bother your expansion for decades, even more if other smaller powers take advantage of it to prey on its weakness.

The colonial mechanic needs a rework because it's sure way too easy to get Americas extremely fast. But the mechanic itself is just an attempt to be faithful to what happened historically.

[Sharpie The Dragon]

Originally posted by grotaclas:

Originally posted by Sharpie The Dergun:

Right, because as French Louisana, I can conquer the entire continent without repercussions from the AI Europeans. The reason these natives declare war on colonies in the first place is because they don't check for the overlord, I can't remember the last time an AI enforced peace. A player? Sure, it's like the only use this button has.

It goes against the logic of subjects being defended, and is the only instance where this occurs in the game. It allows natives and colonial nations alike to expand wherever they want on the European continent without Europeans intervening and gives the player playing on this continent an absurdly easy time.

Why don't you argue that the AI should enforce peace more often? That would also solve this problem. In the past some players have complained that the AI overlord always enforces peace, but I don't know if that was because the AI did it more often in those versions or because the AI does it in certain circumstances which those players triggered(e.g. they had less troops than the overlord)

Personally I think it's better if the natives can calculate the overlords power. This almost reminds me of the Burgundian Inheritance where France would get destroyed as they didn't calculate the Emperors allies.

The natives on the American continent really shouldn't stand a chance; the natives shouldn't be declaring war on something that is so superior to them; And the only reason they win is because this mechanic allows them to. Making the AI enforce peace doesn't prevent this calculation first. It just gives the option of suicide or fight another day.

The AI relies on calculation everywhere else, so why can't it be true here?

[RCMidas]

A lot of colonies and outposts WERE wiped out or horribly crippled by native attacks well into the 18th century, despite the fact that by this time it was obvious nobody could beat the Europeans. Look up the Apache. Look up the Comanche. Look up the Pawnee.

[Sharpie The Dragon]

Originally posted by RCMidas:

A lot of colonies and outposts WERE wiped out or horribly crippled by native attacks well into the 18th century, despite the fact that by this time it was obvious nobody could beat the Europeans. Look up the Apache. Look up the Comanche. Look up the Pawnee.

And that could go with anything else in the history. There have been countless of battles where the game would never simulate properly. Battle of Agincourt, Various battles involving Skanderbeg... yadda yadda

The game is trying to simulate something that can't be simulated; And it hurts the core element that subjects are defended; When this is clearly not the case. On both sides, the Europeans, their subjects and the natives are all split brained and don't communicate on the calculation that happens pretty much everywhere else.

[grotaclas]

Originally posted by Sharpie The Dergun:

Originally posted by grotaclas:

Why don't you argue that the AI should enforce peace more often? That would also solve this problem. In the past some players have complained that the AI overlord always enforces peace, but I don't know if that was because the AI did it more often in those versions or because the AI does it in certain circumstances which those players triggered(e.g. they had less troops than the overlord)

Personally I think it's better if the natives can calculate the overlords power. This almost reminds me of the Burgundian Inheritance where France would get destroyed as they didn't calculate the Emperors allies.

The natives on the American continent really shouldn't stand a chance; the natives shouldn't be declaring war on something that is so superior to them; And the only reason they win is because this mechanic allows them to. Making the AI enforce peace doesn't prevent this calculation first. It just gives the option of suicide or fight another day.

The AI relies on calculation everywhere else, so why can't it be true here?

I would say that the AI overlord should enforce peace more often and that the AI natives should take this into account. But they should still declare in situations in which an AI overlord would not enforce peace(e.g. because they are occupied in a war on the other side of the world) or in which they can expect to win before the overlord can intervene.
This also applies to other situations. I'm not sure if it was fixed, but in recent versions, the AI did not seem to take into account that an AI overlord can call his allies when one of his non-colonial subjects gets attacked.

[red1]

I would add one last comment. The new world is perfect place to use mercenaries after 1500. Almost, always good enough to beat any native armies. Using mercs saves on manpower for your main armies in Europe. I typically hire enough mercs to campaign in NA/SA without using reg troops. This way I can use all my manpower to focus on wars in Europe. I typically fight a war in Europe. When it is over, fight a war in the new world. Repeat until you have taken all the lands you can in NA/SA.

[Olter]

Enforce peace is your friend. I agree it is a ♥♥♥♥ system, but you have to keep an eye on the situation and when your colonies get invaded, enforce peace. If they dont agree you get a free war of conquest against them. Free land

ENFORCE PEACE