|
|
Post by buttons on Apr 10, 2021 0:30:14 GMT -6
As of currently colonies are borderline useless the small boost to the economy is usually offset by the extra need of ships to staff them unless you have 5+ in one region Another thing is while the war reperations thing does not give that big of a boost to the economy its far better than colonies and yes it makes absolutely 0 sense for "colonies" such as Sweden and Russia to essentially be worthless I've always treated "colonies" like Norway as client states/allies. If Russia gets Norway as a "colony" they don't annex them, but they ensure their government and policies closely align with their own, they might have favourable trade agreements, and pressure them into embargoing hostile countries if not outright joining wars on their side. Personally however I view colonies as a thematic choice, Germany wants to dominate Africa as their own colonial empire, Japan wants dominion over China and to drive the Europeans from the Pacific to ensure their own hegemony and resource independence, the imperialistic CSA wants to secure the entire Caribbean from European nations and the USA. Oftentimes my goal at the outset of a campaign will be based around colonialism, Italy getting a private lake or Japan dominating the Western Pacific and Indonesia. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 10, 2021 5:34:10 GMT -6
As of currently colonies are borderline useless the small boost to the economy is usually offset by the extra need of ships to staff them unless you have 5+ in one region Another thing is while the war reperations thing does not give that big of a boost to the economy its far better than colonies and yes it makes absolutely 0 sense for "colonies" such as Sweden and Russia to essentially be worthless I've always treated "colonies" like Norway as client states/allies. If Russia gets Norway as a "colony" they don't annex them, but they ensure their government and policies closely align with their own, they might have favourable trade agreements, and pressure them into embargoing hostile countries if not outright joining wars on their side. Personally however I view colonies as a thematic choice, Germany wants to dominate Africa as their own colonial empire, Japan wants dominion over China and to drive the Europeans from the Pacific to ensure their own hegemony and resource independence, the imperialistic CSA wants to secure the entire Caribbean from European nations and the USA. Oftentimes my goal at the outset of a campaign will be based around colonialism, Italy getting a private lake or Japan dominating the Western Pacific and Indonesia. That is one way to look at it. But personally i find it quite dumb that you do not get a large economic boost when you capture strategic resources like the worlds entire production of rubber. If you as japan take over Southeast Asia you have essentially captured 95% of the worlds rubber production which is used in ships aircraft tanks and equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by buttons on Apr 10, 2021 21:04:35 GMT -6
I've always treated "colonies" like Norway as client states/allies. If Russia gets Norway as a "colony" they don't annex them, but they ensure their government and policies closely align with their own, they might have favourable trade agreements, and pressure them into embargoing hostile countries if not outright joining wars on their side. Personally however I view colonies as a thematic choice, Germany wants to dominate Africa as their own colonial empire, Japan wants dominion over China and to drive the Europeans from the Pacific to ensure their own hegemony and resource independence, the imperialistic CSA wants to secure the entire Caribbean from European nations and the USA. Oftentimes my goal at the outset of a campaign will be based around colonialism, Italy getting a private lake or Japan dominating the Western Pacific and Indonesia. That is one way to look at it. But personally i find it quite dumb that you do not get a large economic boost when you capture strategic resources like the worlds entire production of rubber. If you as japan take over Southeast Asia you have essentially captured 95% of the worlds rubber production which is used in ships aircraft tanks and equipment. War indemnities/reparations as a straight economic boost is also weird. Personally I would split the benefits of war indemnities and colonies quite a bit, with war indemnities providing a very minimal economic boost but giving additional budget room, padding the post-war slump in budget. Colonies could probably have a bit more depth added, I would make most of them more profitable (tiny islands shouldn't really add anything, but controlling Indonesia should add a good bit) especially early game. Later game colonies suffer from higher unrest and very late game (40s and later) rebellions become much more common. I would also allow greater influence in supporting rebellions and greater chances of war, if tensions are high with Germany and Vietnam is rebelling, Germany should practically write the rebels a blank check to keep the French military distracted so in the event of a war Germany will have less resistance. Beyond that depending on how in depth the developers are willing to go when it comes to geopolitical depth I might suggest increasing chances of colonies rebelling during a war, especially late game, the conquering or liberation of major colonies such as India as peace terms, and the chance (like 66%) for automatic rebel victories if they are rebelling and their controlling country accepts a bad peace deal. East Africa rebelling from Germany in 1945 when they lose their war against Britain, Japan, and France? The German government cuts their losses and gives East Africa independence or the allies force them to give East Africa as part of the peace terms, flavouring it however you want in your head/AAR. |
|
|
|
Post by christian on Apr 11, 2021 2:10:14 GMT -6
That is one way to look at it. But personally i find it quite dumb that you do not get a large economic boost when you capture strategic resources like the worlds entire production of rubber. If you as japan take over Southeast Asia you have essentially captured 95% of the worlds rubber production which is used in ships aircraft tanks and equipment. War indemnities/reparations as a straight economic boost is also weird. Personally I would split the benefits of war indemnities and colonies quite a bit, with war indemnities providing a very minimal economic boost but giving additional budget room, padding the post-war slump in budget. Colonies could probably have a bit more depth added, I would make most of them more profitable (tiny islands shouldn't really add anything, but controlling Indonesia should add a good bit) especially early game. Later game colonies suffer from higher unrest and very late game (40s and later) rebellions become much more common. I would also allow greater influence in supporting rebellions and greater chances of war, if tensions are high with Germany and Vietnam is rebelling, Germany should practically write the rebels a blank check to keep the French military distracted so in the event of a war Germany will have less resistance. Beyond that depending on how in depth the developers are willing to go when it comes to geopolitical depth I might suggest increasing chances of colonies rebelling during a war, especially late game, the conquering or liberation of major colonies such as India as peace terms, and the chance (like 66%) for automatic rebel victories if they are rebelling and their controlling country accepts a bad peace deal. East Africa rebelling from Germany in 1945 when they lose their war against Britain, Japan, and France? The German government cuts their losses and gives East Africa independence or the allies force them to give East Africa as part of the peace terms, flavouring it however you want in your head/AAR. Agree Though i do hope the devs make strategic resources more important and alot more vaulable in budgets |
|
