Modding the End of Empire

[TheOtherPoster]

Maybe it would be interesting to find a way for the decolonization process to get through as we get into the later part of the game. Keeping such big empires into the 60s and 70s seems a bit odd.
For the sake of simplification, I would suggest to use the rebellion event window.
Maybe after 1950 or a bit earlier, the rebellion message may be substituted by something like “X territory is fighting for its independence” (to make it politically correct ) or “Y territory has reached independence”
As Admirals on charge of the navy, it’s not for us, but for the politicians to decide about political independence of our colonies. But they would have been asked our opinion. And of course we would have said that we want to keep some naval bases around the globe. So I would suggest that some small key possessions like Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Guam, some in the Caribbean and a few other should be altogether excluded from these events so we keep using them as naval bases in those areas (which is historically accurate and helps the mechanics of the game)
Maybe these independence events should be concentrated in a few general ones so we do not end up with dozens of window messages. Maybe something like “British territories in Oceania have become independent” or “French possessions in Africa have become independent… “or even better, using the areas and including all possessions from all nations: “Territories in West Africa have gained independence” and the like.
Losing possessions means a reduction in our funds. After WWII, particularly the UK, but also France went through a period of relative decadence. I think RTW2 simulates this very well and the rate of growth of those countries is usually behind the USA, whatever you do. So if they were to actually lose much of their colonies after 1950, that would mean a reduction in their budgets and hence a further negative impact in their somehow slow rate of growth. A simple way of fixing this could be to reduce even more that now, how much possessions contribute to the naval budget of the naval powers after let’s say 1950. So the loss of the colonies does not impact too much. Otherwise France and UK may end up with a slower growth in the later part of the game than in intended.

[maxnacemit]

The decolonization event is already in RTW 2, although it might not be seen in all games. The government asks you whether to give independence to a territory, and you either agree or lose prestige. Its intensity could, of course, be increased, and large territories like India could rebel more often in the late game, but the mechanics for decolonization are already in the game.

[mobeer]

Decolonisation needs some fine tuning so that we don't get small territories like Midway declaring independence whilst big countries like India remain colonies.

[gurudennis]

For those who wish to "paint the map" it may be worth having a no-decolonization option now that the game extends well past the time frame of the limited decolonization of late 40s to early 50s.

[zederfflinger]

Jul 11, 2022 16:24:50 GMT -6 gurudennis said:

For those who wish to "paint the map" it may be worth having a no-decolonization option now that the game extends well past the time frame of the limited decolonization of late 40s to early 50s.

I like this idea. It's also worth keeping in mind that without WW2, colonial powers may have held on to their possessions for considerably longer.

[cogsandspigots]

Jul 11, 2022 20:26:28 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

Jul 11, 2022 16:24:50 GMT -6 gurudennis said:

For those who wish to "paint the map" it may be worth having a no-decolonization option now that the game extends well past the time frame of the limited decolonization of late 40s to early 50s.

I like this idea. It's also worth keeping in mind that without WW2, colonial powers may have held on to their possessions for considerably longer.

That’s quite true, but in the case of RtW2, by the time we hit the 1950s, we’ve had WW1, 2, 3, 4, and sometimes 5.

[maxnacemit]

I'd say RTW doesn't model devastating global wars well, except when we're speaking about revolutions. Wars have almost zero effect on the economy or the naval budget(except when they end), so the war implementation in RtW is in an awkward spot between a local war(the navy does most of the fighting, home territories or the economy are never threatened) and world wars(revolutions and social unrest in general).

[zederfflinger]

Jul 12, 2022 7:57:52 GMT -6 maxnacemit said:

I'd say RTW doesn't model devastating global wars well, except when we're speaking about revolutions. Wars have almost zero effect on the economy or the naval budget(except when they end), so the war implementation in RtW is in an awkward spot between a local war(the navy does most of the fighting, home territories or the economy are never threatened) and world wars(revolutions and social unrest in general).

This is so true. Unless this sees some major changes in RTW3, I will probably view the wars as the weakest part of a fantastic game. 

[garrisonchisholm]

Jul 11, 2022 16:24:50 GMT -6 gurudennis said:

For those who wish to "paint the map" it may be worth having a no-decolonization option now that the game extends well past the time frame of the limited decolonization of late 40s to early 50s.

In the new game the player is given the option to prevent decolonization of key territories by expending prestige, or if you have a ridiculous amount of prestige to prevent all of them.  Also Communist and Fascist states will not be exposed to decolonization, given that is very much to the opposite of their designs.

[t3rm1dor]

What would be ideal would be to have neutral friendly pots, so once decolonization happens, you lose access to the resources the locations provide but in return they don't need to be garrison anymore.

[TheOtherPoster]

Jul 12, 2022 11:27:48 GMT -6 zederfflinger said:

Jul 12, 2022 7:57:52 GMT -6 maxnacemit said:

I'd say RTW doesn't model devastating global wars well, except when we're speaking about revolutions. Wars have almost zero effect on the economy or the naval budget(except when they end), so the war implementation in RtW is in an awkward spot between a local war(the navy does most of the fighting, home territories or the economy are never threatened) and world wars(revolutions and social unrest in general).

This is so true. Unless this sees some major changes in RTW3, I will probably view the wars as the weakest part of a fantastic game. 

RTW2 is really an amazing game at so many levels, it really is. But maybe some aspects in strategy and naval warfare haven't changed much and they clearly show their RTW1 origins. What is modelled is really a sort of limited age-of-empire war, where you will be fighting some naval battles (doesn’t really matter where or what) to reach a good peace deal, including a few possessions. This obviously fits very well with RTW1 time frame. It is also very reasonable, although it has the unfortunate effect that all wars look a bit alike: we may be given a shore bombardment or fleet engagement or convoy defence… but without any real strategy behind them, they all feel a bit the same, a bit aimless. Their only purpose is to get as many victory points as possible to reach a good peace deal at the end.

But by the time we get to WWII and total war the model starts showing some shortcomings: for example we cannot reproduce the island hopping strategy the Americans followed in the Pacific because islands are too far for our invasion ranges. But really any major change on this area I think will have to wait for RTW4.

I would suggest only two minor things now

1. A quick and easy way to make wars a bit more meaningful and engaging could be if the messages we get before the battles are a bit more specific: for example: attacking/defending French convoy transporting troops from Africa. Or if in the Atlantic: food convoy from Argentina, or in the Pacific, Convoy transporting oil from the East Indies… Or enemy raider (ship’s name here) intercepted by (our ship’s name) in the Atlantic, or our patrolling forces in Western Mediterranean have encountered enemy forces (cruiser battle), or after receiving reports of an enemy fleet in the North Sea we have put our fleet to sea… Do you want to play the battle?

I think it has been suggested before: it would be great if we could get some input on shore bombardment operations, as we are the ones supposedly preparing those operations. But if that’s not possible, then maybe we could have specific messages like “High Command has decided urgent bombardment of enemy naval depot at… is needed” or a factory, or Intelligence gathering base, or communications headquarters, or steel plant, or chemical plant… (the High command urgent order would explain why sometimes we get these operations in daylight under the menace of enemy airstrikes)

2. I think there's a mod, but invasion of a few small neutral territories if in range I think would be good: If an enemy fleet is in the same area, that fleet would be opposing the invasion. In any case, invasion of neutral territories will produce the same effect as unrestricted submarine warfare/sinking civilian liner: international condemnation and increase in tensions risking another enemy entering the war.

[laplace420]

Jul 14, 2022 3:30:35 GMT -6 t3rm1dor said:

What would be ideal would be to have neutral friendly pots, so once decolonization happens, you lose access to the resources the locations provide but in return they don't need to be garrison anymore.


I agree with this, and there is historical precedent. For instance, the U.S. maintained bases in the Philippines until the 1990s despite the Philippines becoming independent in 1946. Also, the UK would maintain an airbase in Belieze into the '90s even though Belieze became independent in 1981.