Why would the anyone ever want colonies?

[Emma]

With the few exceptions such as Egypt and Panama, which control choking water ways linking 2 oceans, I simply fail to see any benefit of having colonies. I cannot think of a single benefit of having colonies other than making the map look aphetically appealing.

Playing as the US, I find not having colonies a great relief and a burden ridded off. You are able to focus your fights in 1 or 2 areas and do not have to worry about facing invasions at all.

Somehow it feels counterintuitive. Why did the great powers even bother having colonies in our time line? I thought they were supposed to have immense economic value. They provide resources, markets, manpower, and most importantly, profits, which can, in turn, be used for keeping a navy. In game, the budget, and the economic resources don't really change all that much with and without colonies.

Why are the colonies so undervalued in the game mechanic? Having footholds is supposed to be an advantage, not a disadvantage. I can't believe that I felt more empowered by having less. I become the navy with the most fighting power through a policy of zero expansion...

Am I playing the game wrong?

[dorn]

In history it is as you said, colonies provides resources, market, manpower, political and economical power.

In the start of 20th century a lot of colonies as Australia, Canada, South Africa was quite independent however colonies were still quite important by economic, politic and military view. All views are connected. You import raw materials to Europe, a lot of them are unavailable in Europe, than you use your skilled labour force to produce goods. And you need to sell that goods and colonies are important markets as at that time under control of master. This helps your economy and indirectly increase your budget which includes navy.

Another import point of view is cultural view. You can easily even in the 21st century see what was the master of that colony. 


Related to game there are more strategic effects:
- access to oil
- access to important channel (Panama, Suez)
- to get access to area you do not have
- to cancel acess to area different colonial nation
- to get naval bases there
- to get strategic important air base (eg. Malta)

[rodentnavy]

Playing as America in this game colonies make no sense in general but can do in particular circumstances. Now there are two ways to look at colonies, real world and in game.

In game colonies are something of a burden and can be of rather questionable value. For most nations colonies decline in economic contribution as time passes which is rather odd, certainly I could understand a static value which for many nation would work out with a similar effect. The other issue is the force on station requirement being a tonnage requirement rather than a number of hulls requirement. This obviates the need for light cruisers* in the game which means that efforts to make them relevant feel forced and unnatural.

However even in game colonies can make sometimes make strategic sense. For example playing against the USA one wants to take Maine so not only are fewer battles fought off Portland but you can expect some intervention from friendly land air when fighting off Boston once that becomes a thing. Panama and the Suez/Egypt are of course really advantageous but a variety if bases are potentially useful depending on campaign and whom you most often find yourself fighting. Airpower as it works in this game really increases the importance of a lot of territories even if only to simply deny them to the enemy.

That said the need to keep a large tonnage of ships on stations does make them something of a headache and I can understand why you might nor like them.

In the real world colonies were born of two things. One was the false doctrine of mercantilism which held that trade was zero sum game so best to hold both ends of the market and the other was need for bases which was and still is rather more genuine. Today even in a world of mass capitalism there are only three powers with genuine global power projection and notably all three have a global network of bases (France, UK and USA), China an aspirant global power is trying to acquire them and the USSR attempted the same only to fail.

Ships have limited range and a need for emergency repairs which being emergencies do not tend to conform to precise schedules. Spain was likely the first power to build overseas dockyards (not to be confused with slipways which are for building ships) in order to be able to repair ships of the line in Cuba. In addition navies have always followed trade, it is mostly trade even more so than coastal fence that has driven the rise of navies. Thus nations tended to seek bases where the trade was. In the 19th century for example the US fleet was frequently deployed around the world but had to abide as guests of host navies. This could throw up some awkward issues such as Admiral Dewey's Asiatic Squadron being politely asked to leave Hong Kong luckily he was able to capture a new base in Manila but things might have become awkward for both him and US trade with China had he been up against a power more robust than 1898 Spain.

The trick with colonies is to think strategically, often something the colonial powers or would powers failed to do in the real world. In game strategy is rather different from the real world but still like all real estate location, location, location is key and if it gives you extra airpower once that becomes available that can be a real bonus (remember you do not have to base aircraft there in peacetime keep them in reserve or transfer them in from quiet theatres). So consider who you expect to be fighting and would it be sueful to have a base for your ships to limp back to? The fact that most battles take place off enemy ports is annoying but can be ameliorated by having one reasonably close of your own. Colonies are not in this game a sound investment economically but can be decisive if they allow you to blockade an enemy.

[nimrod]

Don't think you are playing the game wrong, and Dorn and RodentNavy pretty much hit it on the head.

I'll add that the game seems to use as its standard a fairly open world economy in the 1950's-1970's. Which ties into RodentNavy's economic arguments.

The following is highly condensed and as such is missing a lot of data; it is also intended to be a reinforcing of what Dorn wrote with a different spin... Actually, RodentNavy got my spin across rather well.

Historically nations wanted to keep trade within a closed system that they controlled and taxed from start to finish. A lot of colonies were thus profitable because they traded predominately with the mother country and things were priced and taxed within the closed system to maximize profitability. As such, tariffs and other means of limiting / taxing outside trade and protecting your own industries were extensively used. During the cold war, both sides used international trade (free trade agreements, military and commercial trade discounts like Lend Lease in WWII, etc.) to keep and buy allies. This along with Nixon's trade deal with China effectively brought the modern world market into being. With an open economic system, you generally mine, farm, produce, manufacture, etc. where it is cheapest to do so and thus the colonies that are of great value in a closed system (with elevated pricing due to tariffs or other protections) lose their economic viability. In game, we have effectively constant ship maintenance costs even when buying oil on the world market post 1920 - historically, fleets would sometimes postpone exercises or deployments if fuel was short and or costs excessively high.

Regarding the colonies paying for the navy, post WWI / Great Depression and especially post WII the colonies started having issues doing so directly. Ship sizes and their technologies rapidly increased which brought about huge increases in ship costs. Additionally, the strategic value of the colonies for coaling was significantly reduced with the rise of oil powered ships and the reduced fleet train needed. Part of why GB was the navy power through the 1930's was its worldwide coaling bases, I mean repair ports, uh colonies... A lot of the colonial fleet support was in having stockpiles of cheap coal like in Gibraltar, Egypt or South Africa, India, etc. and repair facilities. In effect the colonies subsided fleet deployments and their maintenance rather than the actual cost to produce the ships themselves. Ships often went to Pearl Harbor or Australia for repair in WWII rather than all the way back to the US west coast.  Likewise, if you didn't have the coaling stations, uh colonies then going from NE to the Pacific could be a nightmare. You had to buy coal in foreign ports, and you often had to pay a premium for low quality coal - especially in the winter. Yes, I'm looking at you 1904-1905 Russia.

[jwsmith26]

In large part, how you utilize, or ignore, colonies comes down to what winning the game means to you personally. The game doesn't have a specific victory condition, you have to set what you consider to be victory. It is completely possible to "win" by keeping your fleet at home and actively avoiding wars (I'm not implying that is your strategy), but I think most players set far more ambitious goals for themselves and their nation or specifically for their navy. I'm sure many players try to imagine what the national goals would be for the nation they are playing and then act to achieve or surpass those goals. Other players simply want to paint the world with their colors, economic success is just a means to that end. From that viewpoint any newly acquired colony is a step toward victory even if it exposes your economy, your prestige or your fleet to risk.

Perhaps you just want to be able to replicate some of the historical successes of the navy you are playing or improve upon them. For that you may need to capture colonies to set up the right conditions.

Perhaps you just want to build the best navy and then test it in battle. Invading an enemy possession is one of the best ways to encourage the enemy fleet to engage with yours.

There are many regions where owning specific possessions can provide significant advantages because of the way the game generates battles. This becomes increasingly true as aircraft mature and begin to decisively influence battles. As a Mediterranean nation in 1905 I have little motivation to capture colonies in north Africa, but by the 20s the pressure to capture colonies there begins to increase. I definitely want to establish airbases in Tunisia, as well as in Corsica and Sardinia by the 30s because, once range is sufficient, aircraft from those bases can decisively influence many of the battles that take place in the western Med. The same can be true for Norway, if only to establish bases for scouts, because the waters off the southern shores of that nation often see battles. There are numerous other examples of "hot spots" around the world where it is very beneficial to own colonies simply to use their airbases.

Personally I've never been concerned about the economic value of a colony. It's a trivial increase. It's all about what that particular colony can do for my strategic goals.

[aeson]

It's also worth mentioning that, even if you don't intend to make use of the potential airbases a colony has to offer, denying those airbases to an enemy can be valuable, especially if the airbases are close to an area where you expect a lot of engagements to occur.

[itrefel]

Apr 16, 2021 16:48:34 GMT -6 aeson said:

It's also worth mentioning that, even if you don't intend to make use of the potential airbases a colony has to offer, denying those airbases to an enemy can be valuable, especially if the airbases are close to an area where you expect a lot of engagements to occur.

Yes this was going to be my point - as France, capturing all colonies in the Med is a no brainer (at least the way I play) as the lack of enemy airfields in these places is far far more valuable than any downsides. Of course this is slightly different in that these are in a home sea area so don't substantialy increase colonial station issues - but it can also be worth taking German and Italian (or British if you're a masochist) colonies in Asia/indian ocean simply to remove them from these zones for security. 

If you are fighting Austria, having your aircraft in Dalmatia and not theirs means you can actually go into the Adriatic.

[director]

I tend to take colonies in the early game, take only strategically-valuable colonies in them id-game and rarely if ever take colonies in the late game.

Some of that is due to the extreme budget-crash that follows even a successful war and the increasing cost of everything in the later years, plus the proliferation of independence movements means you may not get to keep them anyway.

[Adseria]

Two words: Bragging rights