More Economy Impacts from Conquests

[cajer]

As the game scope has been extended a few decades, the economic impact of taking territory should be better modeled.  For example if you're Japan and you take large chunks of SEA or Asian territory in the 1890s and hold onto it for a good portion of the game, that should have large positive impacts on your economic growth for the rest of the game.  Unfortunately this does not seem to be modeled well.

Additionally in my current game as Germany I've taking all of the European Russian possessions, but it doesn't appear to have a significant negative impact on the Russian budget.

It would feel allot more rewarding or meaningful if you could grown a minor nation significant over the next few decades.  Additionally as this time period covers two world wars, exchanges of home territories should be allowed assume certain conditions are met.

[dorn]

They are considered as colonies and their economic value decline over years which is simulated in game.

The reason for that is that there is increased movement for freedom of these nations as historically happened, so they get freedom or more funds are sunk into the status quo. Even if they do not get freedom they independence usually rose which means that colonial power has less and less advantages from them.

Main reasons for advantages of colonies through the centuries was common market with colonial power, giving colonial power access to raw resources and sometimes even luxury ones and ability to increase demand for domestic production but as time progress the trade become more free and this advantage slowly vanished.

Overall economy in RTW3 are simplified to maximum but still go quite realistic way to the basic history principles.

This game is about management of your navy, not put your flag around the globe (even if this is possible) as you are head of navy, not the state so all deep simulations are around navy and other things are in background.

[t3rm1dor]

You can growth a nation by no taking land in treaties as that increases base resources instead and it can be very significant, at least in 2 it was.

[arminpfano]

Historically colonies and posessions rarely paid economically for the hegemonial power, especially after 1890. AFAIK it was the other way round - you had to have a thriving economy in your nation first to be able to afford an empire.

Another point of course it the positive stimulus of a won war for the home economy. This seems modelled somehow, but I am not aware about the details.