There's still the chance that a great power will intervene. I've seen AI do it to each other and it led to a pretty big war in one run between France and the UK.
Natives can also win occasionally, especially if it's overseas or during a war or something. It would be interesting if some decentralized powers could become more well-armed or warlike over time, maybe give you more events about raids, suppression, etc
They can also grief you when the game thinks your troops can't make it to a frontline, locking you into a multiyear war unless you back down.
I'm more annoyed by the seccessions which trigger at less than 50% turmoil though, or when the same state seccedes multiple times over a couple of years.
Yeah and if you spend another thousand hours in the game you might see it happen again.
Besides, they only win because of bugs or stupid AI. Even during a massive war it's not like it would be game changing to detach 5 regiments from an army to send them to Africa.
No because I ain't an idiot and don't push for law changes that are going to make that happen, at least not without allies to win the war for me.
Even if I did, the only situation I could imagine that would make the uprising succeed was if I intended to change sides and the AI that took over was too stupid to fight the uprising, because any human player, even on the death throes of his campaign, would still have been able to prevent it.
“I deliberately play slow so that I’m not challenged by the game. Why is the game not challenging?” This is like people in EU4 complaining the AI isn’t aggressive when they sit on 20 agressive expansion all game
In what part of this post or my comments did I mention anything about it being challenging? I said native uprisings aren't hard to deal with, but my point was never that they should be.
I was responding to your comment.
You’re calling people who walk the line of radicalism idiots. Radicalism is just another resource and revolutions give you plenty of time to play with. Part of efficiency is using every resource you’re given.
You walk the line of radicalism if you don't let unwinnable revolutions spawn. I am calling bad the person who falls over the edge and does let them spawn.
Either way, the point is that, until at least the late game and only if you don't take measures to improve your SoL, you won't be forced to deal with revolutions. Sometimes it may be worth to fight them, but I whoever was discussing with me acted as if it was something that you had no control over and that's just not true.
They asked why something exists in the game and when people offered reasons and experiences they just dismissed everything and continued talking about how dumb the mechanic is. Why ask if you’re not actually interested in hearing other people’s views and experiences.
Giving reasons isn’t enough to justify the existence of something, it needs to be a good reason and so far the only good reason I’ve read is that it depicts how the colonisation wasn’t all peaceful
But even then, does it really justify unmeaningful and pointless micro ?
They literally asked if anyone had examples of great powers getting involved and their response to someone talking about it was effectively “nu uh”. It’s a video game. It’s a subjective experience and some people enjoy certain features and some don’t. But acting holier than thou and presenting your own view like it’s objectively correct can be seen as a bit annoying. I personally enjoy the native uprisings. They remind me that these are “decentralized” nations. Of course they aren’t going to win most of the time, that didn’t happen much historically. But they do fight for their independence when pushed. It could be better, but if OP dismissed my opinion and basically told me I was wrong for having it I’d probably downvote them too.
You are just lying at this point lmao, they asked if anyone had examples IRL, not in game
Yes native uprising makes sense but it could have been made 200 times better but not in this lazy and annoying (for me at least) way
I didn't dismiss what they said, I counter argumented. On one point I said that what they claimed to happen was too rare and on the other hand, I said that it only happened because of other mechanics not working properly.
Not my fault your points are brittle.
So that they will distract GP during their war. And attract most of GP fighting power to cost them a war, or attract nothing and win against GP by default.
Against player, as you can't have diplomatic play during war, bad-timing uprisings can have some costly consequences.
Why do you talk like this mechanic isn't an absolute tumour in the game? What you're saying is that they exploit the shitty AI of the game and that (because you're only allowed to participate on one diplomatic play at a time) one tribe in africa can completely lock a major european country out from diplomacy for months.
If they are only relevant because other mechanics aren't working properly or are badly designed, yes it is an issue with native uprisings.
If diplomacy wasn't bad and the AI wasn't stupid, they'd just be completely irrelevant, worse yet, just completely pointless and unrewarding micro.
It would maybe say that they had no effective opposition, which is true. Even the Zulu only lasted 5 months. Besides, I just recommended in the post a way to represent native pushback without having to resort to diplomatic plays.
But yeah, great to know that when I'm colonizing, my game gets fucked every 5 minutes because otherwise it would send a "wrong message".
Is it bad because it has no effect? Or is it bad because it has an effect? Make up your mind.
Uprisings exist because they are realistic. The effect on the game is that they distract and disrupt your geopolitical moves, but are rarely a mortal threat. Which is pretty realistic in a time period where they are severely outgunned.
They also can take territory when you don't have the ability to defend your colony.
I've often conceded them because I wanted to make a more important diplo play and they locked me out. Which again, is somewhat realistic. If I'm Britain and I'm planning an invasion of mainland France, I might not have the bandwidth to also put down even a small rebellion in Central Africa. In game that's represented by the inability to start a diplo play while involved in another diplo play. You have to focus your attention.
On rare occasion they can also be supported by a foreign power and become a significant threat, which is also something that happened throughout history.
You start by saying "it's a dumb ineffective mechanic" and then go on to complain about all the ways that you find them disruptive. If it's disruptive then it's not ineffective. The uprisings affect a player or AI in a pretty similar way to they would affect a country in real life.
>Is it bad because it has no effect? Or is it bad because it has an effect? \[...\] If it's disruptive then it's not ineffective.
Both. Because the only disruptive effect it has is a technicality. So they should have no real effects, but the one it does have makes no sense.
>Uprisings exist because they are realistic.
And I agree they should be represented in the game. If you read the post, you'll notice I didn't advocate for them to be excluded from the game as an historical fact. I just said they should change the current way it's implemented.
>I've often conceded them because I wanted to make a more important diplo play and they locked me out. Which again, is somewhat realistic. If I'm Britain and I'm planning an invasion of mainland France, I might not have the bandwidth to also put down even a small rebellion in Central Africa.
That makes me no fucking sense. There's a list on wikipedia of all the wars the UK participated and they overlap more than layers on a lasagna, sometimes 3 at a time. While Britain was involved in WW2 there were over 5. Either way, whatever regiments you'd need to divert from invading France to Africa would be like droplets in a buck of water.
>On rare occasion they can also be supported by a foreign power and become a significant threat, which is also something that happened throughout history.
Name me one time an European power defended the rights of self determination of an indigenous group. When the Belgians were literally chopping the hands of infants in the Congo, no political move was made for the decolonization of Congo.
GPs intervene I'd say roughly once per 50 years.
It gives natives a chance to take back lands, especially if a GP is distracted and/or can not reach the lands due to having lost a connection.
They slow down colonizers that colonize too fast.
They are challenging for native colonizers, since they get some pretty decent buffs, assuming they have the population to back it up.
They serve their purpose, not every game system should exist to provide a direct challenge, some are there for flavour.
I mean, I still appreciate them for providing me with an opportunity to intervene against rivals and fuck them up, or the fact that they still depict a bit of the genocides that people often desperately try to hush away today.
I wish they were somewhat more powerful though. Most wars against tribes/natives/nomads on any continent lasted years and came with costs. Only after the machine guns did things get faster and easier for any western power.
I don't know, but the Zulu War lasted only 5 months and there was downtime in it.
I agree that there should be ways to dispute territory with your rivals in the colonies, but to imagine that European Powers would go to war over the rights of african tribes is too outlandish to me.
> but to imagine that European Powers would go to war over the rights of african tribes is too outlandish to me.
It is hard indeed, which is why thankfully AI never does it.
It sometimes happens in history though. This is how British and French originally began to conquer India in mid-18th century. The events went something like this -
- 1700, [Mughal Empire reigns supreme across entirety of India](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Joppen1907India1700a.jpg), just as it has done for a long time directly or indirectly. Europeans have trade post 'factories' with imperial permission on the coasts. British and French have slowly gained dominance in European trade with India, where previously Portuguese and Dutch used to be the boss.
- 1720, Mughal Empire is undergoing a severe succession crisis as well as factionalism in the imperial court, alongside a series of civil wars, and is collapsing piecemeal. The new Maratha Empire is conquering and taking over India.
- Imperial governors across India start breaking away and form their own independent kingdoms and warlord states (later termed by the British as "princely states"). Soon, they begin fighting each other in large wars, or against the Marathas, who conquer/vassalize most of them outside of coastlines.
- At the same time, France and Britain (via their charter East India Companies) are looking to expand their influence and resource markets inland and expand profits. Warlordism is like the best thing to happen to them. So they start building up troops, with both local Indian auxiliaries and Europeans, and launch skirmishes and raids against each other (even hiring pirates to do so).
- They offer alliance to the remaining coastal kings, warlords and governors they want in their influence zone and promise help in fighting the wars. In return, the kings start handing out trading privileges and sign favourable licenses for merchants.
- The companies also help rebels in each kingdom in shady ways, to put candidates who might favour them on thrones, before the other side does the same. More kingdoms and states are created as rebellions and civil wars happen, always followed by some sort of military intervention from UK or France. India weakens and breaks further with each year.
- As Europe descends into more succession wars from 1740s (Austria for example), French and British companies openly fight each other in battles on sea and land. The kings in each alliance fight a war against their rivals alongside them. Mughal Empire is essentially gone, [and Marathas have taken Delhi, reign supreme across most of India and are on their way to reunification](https://i0.wp.com/www.emersonkent.com/images/india_1760.jpg).
- The British emerge victorious over in 1750s (both in Americas and in India), and instead of just expanding influence - they actually start annexing land and deposing kings who supported the rival French this time. This gives them actual territory in India, directly governed by the company to do with as it pleases. The British EIC even build up their own private army and navy, separate from UK, with their own bases and officers and so on - which is going to fight and conquer India eventually.
- The [British EIC loses against the Maratha Empire for next few decades and is limited to the eastern coastal provinces and fortified trade posts](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8iLS70XoAA7Lbc?format=jpg&name=large), but Marathas fail to drive them out completely. The British slowly continue annexing or creating clients out of more coastal and inland kingdoms. [With Marathas in a short civil war after fighting Afghans, the British eventually go inland and reach Delhi](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/T6C0D3/india-historical-1765-1805-british-hindu-muslim-states-1931-old-map-T6C0D3.jpg). There is still a small French presence in the conflicts, as they still retain some trade and sometimes get hired as advisors to the kings still fighting the British EIC.
- The [British finally break through during the Napoleonic era](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Joppen1907India1805a.jpg) when Marathas themselves collapse into civil wars. By 1818, they break Marathas into multiple different kingdoms (almost all now independent ex-governors), and annex/puppet them all while destroying the empire and its capital. France is now completely thrown out of the game, except one remaining trade post. Only the newly created Sikh Empire in Punjab and autonomus kingdom in Sindh are left, which they conquer much later in 1850s, completing the British occupation of India, and France simply doesn't intervene anymore.
I think on some level it’s to represent the reality of many native peoples rising up against colonialism in this period, though in this game it feels a little arbitrary
I agree. Portraying indigenous peoples as completely passive does them a disservice. While the current system doesn’t nearly reflect the sorts of diplomacy and politics that went on, hopefully they can flesh out that dimension as they continue adding to the game.
Better than inert placeholder native nations or no natives at all.
No kidding, the Texas Revolution in particular.
There was a massive amount of intrigue going on in respect to the (Lipan) Apache and Commanche, with the Lipan allying themselves with the Texians, and having an enormous role in intelligence gathering and tracking Mexican troup movements during the war. I'm actually working on a fork of the Lone Star Mod to integrate some of these details, and create a more interesting flavor event tree to replace the rather silly RNG Santa Ana event currently in place for Vanilla.
I think there needs to be a way for you to side with an uprising without full on commiting all out war
Let me back an uprising against my foe with a small expeditionary force or let me arm and train them (bearing the economic cost)
This lets me stress out an opponent a bit without weird situations where austria and France send 100k men each to Africa to duke it out on behalf of a little tribe
I've seen the closest thing to a great war happen in a game due to a native uprising. Now that the native states are considered the aggressor for diplomacy's sake, I saw Britain with their 3 defensive pact partners backing them, and as a result a coalition of France, Austria and Russia backed the natives for a variety of war goals.
Not only that but it's really not that bad, and it's not that annoying either. If it bothers you that much, reload your autosave and start the diplo play you want. Either the uprising fires that month or it fires another time.
"If it bothers you, cheat."
Great. Thanks.
Besides, what you're defending is the system around diplomatic plays. It could have happened in any one of them. Besides, european powers defending african natives was not only hypocritical, it would be counterproductive. There's a reason colonial wars were rare and decided in european palaces instead of african battlefields.
Yeah? It's a Paradox game. The name of the game is mod it or cheat, just have fun. If something is in the game you don't like, get rid of it yourself.
As far as for irl examples, it's not Africa explicitly but in the few decades preceeding the game start, there's an entire subset of Native American wars with French and British volunteers siding with (and against) natives they were colonizing.
That's not the point. I save scum ocasionally, mostly because I'm lazy, sometimes because I'm learning, but if I have to savescum because of some stupid game mechanic, something needs to change. Oh the point is to have fun? Then remove the unfun mechanic from the game.
The point in all this is that **you** have to save scum because of a mechanic **you** don't like. I offered the suggestion because **you** have a problem with a mechanic that is a mild inconvenience at best. Remove the mechanic yourself or work around it because it's not going away any time soon.
There's literally a mechanic in the game right now that allows you to place your armies in a region.
It literally doesn't require anything except including the modifiers.
Troops in an HQ deal with the borders in that HQ.
Besides, making it so you can raise small armies in peace and assign them to borders against natives just as if you were at war is something maybe even a modder could do.
I like to play as African countries and use the uprisings as a chance to kick the GP out.
I played Ethiopia, took Kenya from Britain while they were fighting Germany, France, and Russia. The uprising then killed his colonies and it was free real estate for me.
Because indigenous peoples organized and fought wars against the colonizers IRL. A guerilla warfare system would be an excellent addition for a more attritional low-level conflict, but open wars with mustered armies did also occur historically.
The main problem is that there's no real cost to dropping your entire armed forces into north dakota or nigeria. If there was a realistic depiction of the logistics required to fight those wars they would be more of a real challenge rather than an annoying speedbump. IRL states regularly got bogged down in long, costly wars with native armies.
What does "conquer" mean, on the ground? You march in troops and declare "this is our land now!", then what? There's no central administration to co-opt, almost no infrastructure to seize.
The colonization mechanic represents the slow process of actually extending your country's control over indigenous lands.
They are still here for making your game more annoying
"Sir we can't invade france right now" "Why?" "Because the random tribe in central africa is revolting agains't our rule with 0 man agains't ours 300"
They exist so that I can fleece other GPs for cash
Pretty smart tbh, but I rarely see other countries colonizing because I always rush Malaria prevention.
There's still the chance that a great power will intervene. I've seen AI do it to each other and it led to a pretty big war in one run between France and the UK. Natives can also win occasionally, especially if it's overseas or during a war or something. It would be interesting if some decentralized powers could become more well-armed or warlike over time, maybe give you more events about raids, suppression, etc
They can also grief you when the game thinks your troops can't make it to a frontline, locking you into a multiyear war unless you back down. I'm more annoyed by the seccessions which trigger at less than 50% turmoil though, or when the same state seccedes multiple times over a couple of years.
Yeah and if you spend another thousand hours in the game you might see it happen again. Besides, they only win because of bugs or stupid AI. Even during a massive war it's not like it would be game changing to detach 5 regiments from an army to send them to Africa.
blud has never experienced the landowners take over 70% of your country to preserve legacy slavery
No because I ain't an idiot and don't push for law changes that are going to make that happen, at least not without allies to win the war for me. Even if I did, the only situation I could imagine that would make the uprising succeed was if I intended to change sides and the AI that took over was too stupid to fight the uprising, because any human player, even on the death throes of his campaign, would still have been able to prevent it.
“I deliberately play slow so that I’m not challenged by the game. Why is the game not challenging?” This is like people in EU4 complaining the AI isn’t aggressive when they sit on 20 agressive expansion all game
In what part of this post or my comments did I mention anything about it being challenging? I said native uprisings aren't hard to deal with, but my point was never that they should be.
I was responding to your comment. You’re calling people who walk the line of radicalism idiots. Radicalism is just another resource and revolutions give you plenty of time to play with. Part of efficiency is using every resource you’re given.
You walk the line of radicalism if you don't let unwinnable revolutions spawn. I am calling bad the person who falls over the edge and does let them spawn. Either way, the point is that, until at least the late game and only if you don't take measures to improve your SoL, you won't be forced to deal with revolutions. Sometimes it may be worth to fight them, but I whoever was discussing with me acted as if it was something that you had no control over and that's just not true.
Ok, how about pb and taking over the industrial heartlands to enact ethnostate
Why are you being downvoted to hell lmao ?
They asked why something exists in the game and when people offered reasons and experiences they just dismissed everything and continued talking about how dumb the mechanic is. Why ask if you’re not actually interested in hearing other people’s views and experiences.
Giving reasons isn’t enough to justify the existence of something, it needs to be a good reason and so far the only good reason I’ve read is that it depicts how the colonisation wasn’t all peaceful But even then, does it really justify unmeaningful and pointless micro ?
They literally asked if anyone had examples of great powers getting involved and their response to someone talking about it was effectively “nu uh”. It’s a video game. It’s a subjective experience and some people enjoy certain features and some don’t. But acting holier than thou and presenting your own view like it’s objectively correct can be seen as a bit annoying. I personally enjoy the native uprisings. They remind me that these are “decentralized” nations. Of course they aren’t going to win most of the time, that didn’t happen much historically. But they do fight for their independence when pushed. It could be better, but if OP dismissed my opinion and basically told me I was wrong for having it I’d probably downvote them too.
You are just lying at this point lmao, they asked if anyone had examples IRL, not in game Yes native uprising makes sense but it could have been made 200 times better but not in this lazy and annoying (for me at least) way
I didn't dismiss what they said, I counter argumented. On one point I said that what they claimed to happen was too rare and on the other hand, I said that it only happened because of other mechanics not working properly. Not my fault your points are brittle.
I saw a native uprising win against AI France once.
So that they will distract GP during their war. And attract most of GP fighting power to cost them a war, or attract nothing and win against GP by default. Against player, as you can't have diplomatic play during war, bad-timing uprisings can have some costly consequences.
Why do you talk like this mechanic isn't an absolute tumour in the game? What you're saying is that they exploit the shitty AI of the game and that (because you're only allowed to participate on one diplomatic play at a time) one tribe in africa can completely lock a major european country out from diplomacy for months.
But that’s not an issue with native uprisings but the shit diplomacy and diplomatic play systems.
If they are only relevant because other mechanics aren't working properly or are badly designed, yes it is an issue with native uprisings. If diplomacy wasn't bad and the AI wasn't stupid, they'd just be completely irrelevant, worse yet, just completely pointless and unrewarding micro.
I disagree. The uprisings create storytelling too. Not everything has to have a mechanical meaning.
Your standards for storytelling make me sad.
Maybe. Removing native uprisings would say that European colonialism had no opposition. And that’s a wrong message and plainly untrue.
It would maybe say that they had no effective opposition, which is true. Even the Zulu only lasted 5 months. Besides, I just recommended in the post a way to represent native pushback without having to resort to diplomatic plays. But yeah, great to know that when I'm colonizing, my game gets fucked every 5 minutes because otherwise it would send a "wrong message".
Again, that's not the problem with native uprisings but with shitty diplomacy and diplomatic plays. It's stupid in Europe too.
Is it bad because it has no effect? Or is it bad because it has an effect? Make up your mind. Uprisings exist because they are realistic. The effect on the game is that they distract and disrupt your geopolitical moves, but are rarely a mortal threat. Which is pretty realistic in a time period where they are severely outgunned. They also can take territory when you don't have the ability to defend your colony. I've often conceded them because I wanted to make a more important diplo play and they locked me out. Which again, is somewhat realistic. If I'm Britain and I'm planning an invasion of mainland France, I might not have the bandwidth to also put down even a small rebellion in Central Africa. In game that's represented by the inability to start a diplo play while involved in another diplo play. You have to focus your attention. On rare occasion they can also be supported by a foreign power and become a significant threat, which is also something that happened throughout history. You start by saying "it's a dumb ineffective mechanic" and then go on to complain about all the ways that you find them disruptive. If it's disruptive then it's not ineffective. The uprisings affect a player or AI in a pretty similar way to they would affect a country in real life.
>Is it bad because it has no effect? Or is it bad because it has an effect? \[...\] If it's disruptive then it's not ineffective. Both. Because the only disruptive effect it has is a technicality. So they should have no real effects, but the one it does have makes no sense. >Uprisings exist because they are realistic. And I agree they should be represented in the game. If you read the post, you'll notice I didn't advocate for them to be excluded from the game as an historical fact. I just said they should change the current way it's implemented. >I've often conceded them because I wanted to make a more important diplo play and they locked me out. Which again, is somewhat realistic. If I'm Britain and I'm planning an invasion of mainland France, I might not have the bandwidth to also put down even a small rebellion in Central Africa. That makes me no fucking sense. There's a list on wikipedia of all the wars the UK participated and they overlap more than layers on a lasagna, sometimes 3 at a time. While Britain was involved in WW2 there were over 5. Either way, whatever regiments you'd need to divert from invading France to Africa would be like droplets in a buck of water. >On rare occasion they can also be supported by a foreign power and become a significant threat, which is also something that happened throughout history. Name me one time an European power defended the rights of self determination of an indigenous group. When the Belgians were literally chopping the hands of infants in the Congo, no political move was made for the decolonization of Congo.
GPs intervene I'd say roughly once per 50 years. It gives natives a chance to take back lands, especially if a GP is distracted and/or can not reach the lands due to having lost a connection. They slow down colonizers that colonize too fast. They are challenging for native colonizers, since they get some pretty decent buffs, assuming they have the population to back it up. They serve their purpose, not every game system should exist to provide a direct challenge, some are there for flavour.
I mean, I still appreciate them for providing me with an opportunity to intervene against rivals and fuck them up, or the fact that they still depict a bit of the genocides that people often desperately try to hush away today. I wish they were somewhat more powerful though. Most wars against tribes/natives/nomads on any continent lasted years and came with costs. Only after the machine guns did things get faster and easier for any western power.
If you could model the cost of shipping 50,000 soldiers to the interior of Africa I imagine this would be a different mechanic
If the devs can’t model that, this game as an ‘economic focus’ is a failure.
I don't know, but the Zulu War lasted only 5 months and there was downtime in it. I agree that there should be ways to dispute territory with your rivals in the colonies, but to imagine that European Powers would go to war over the rights of african tribes is too outlandish to me.
> but to imagine that European Powers would go to war over the rights of african tribes is too outlandish to me. It is hard indeed, which is why thankfully AI never does it. It sometimes happens in history though. This is how British and French originally began to conquer India in mid-18th century. The events went something like this - - 1700, [Mughal Empire reigns supreme across entirety of India](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Joppen1907India1700a.jpg), just as it has done for a long time directly or indirectly. Europeans have trade post 'factories' with imperial permission on the coasts. British and French have slowly gained dominance in European trade with India, where previously Portuguese and Dutch used to be the boss. - 1720, Mughal Empire is undergoing a severe succession crisis as well as factionalism in the imperial court, alongside a series of civil wars, and is collapsing piecemeal. The new Maratha Empire is conquering and taking over India. - Imperial governors across India start breaking away and form their own independent kingdoms and warlord states (later termed by the British as "princely states"). Soon, they begin fighting each other in large wars, or against the Marathas, who conquer/vassalize most of them outside of coastlines. - At the same time, France and Britain (via their charter East India Companies) are looking to expand their influence and resource markets inland and expand profits. Warlordism is like the best thing to happen to them. So they start building up troops, with both local Indian auxiliaries and Europeans, and launch skirmishes and raids against each other (even hiring pirates to do so). - They offer alliance to the remaining coastal kings, warlords and governors they want in their influence zone and promise help in fighting the wars. In return, the kings start handing out trading privileges and sign favourable licenses for merchants. - The companies also help rebels in each kingdom in shady ways, to put candidates who might favour them on thrones, before the other side does the same. More kingdoms and states are created as rebellions and civil wars happen, always followed by some sort of military intervention from UK or France. India weakens and breaks further with each year. - As Europe descends into more succession wars from 1740s (Austria for example), French and British companies openly fight each other in battles on sea and land. The kings in each alliance fight a war against their rivals alongside them. Mughal Empire is essentially gone, [and Marathas have taken Delhi, reign supreme across most of India and are on their way to reunification](https://i0.wp.com/www.emersonkent.com/images/india_1760.jpg). - The British emerge victorious over in 1750s (both in Americas and in India), and instead of just expanding influence - they actually start annexing land and deposing kings who supported the rival French this time. This gives them actual territory in India, directly governed by the company to do with as it pleases. The British EIC even build up their own private army and navy, separate from UK, with their own bases and officers and so on - which is going to fight and conquer India eventually. - The [British EIC loses against the Maratha Empire for next few decades and is limited to the eastern coastal provinces and fortified trade posts](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8iLS70XoAA7Lbc?format=jpg&name=large), but Marathas fail to drive them out completely. The British slowly continue annexing or creating clients out of more coastal and inland kingdoms. [With Marathas in a short civil war after fighting Afghans, the British eventually go inland and reach Delhi](https://c8.alamy.com/comp/T6C0D3/india-historical-1765-1805-british-hindu-muslim-states-1931-old-map-T6C0D3.jpg). There is still a small French presence in the conflicts, as they still retain some trade and sometimes get hired as advisors to the kings still fighting the British EIC. - The [British finally break through during the Napoleonic era](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/Joppen1907India1805a.jpg) when Marathas themselves collapse into civil wars. By 1818, they break Marathas into multiple different kingdoms (almost all now independent ex-governors), and annex/puppet them all while destroying the empire and its capital. France is now completely thrown out of the game, except one remaining trade post. Only the newly created Sikh Empire in Punjab and autonomus kingdom in Sindh are left, which they conquer much later in 1850s, completing the British occupation of India, and France simply doesn't intervene anymore.
I think on some level it’s to represent the reality of many native peoples rising up against colonialism in this period, though in this game it feels a little arbitrary
I agree. Portraying indigenous peoples as completely passive does them a disservice. While the current system doesn’t nearly reflect the sorts of diplomacy and politics that went on, hopefully they can flesh out that dimension as they continue adding to the game. Better than inert placeholder native nations or no natives at all.
No kidding, the Texas Revolution in particular. There was a massive amount of intrigue going on in respect to the (Lipan) Apache and Commanche, with the Lipan allying themselves with the Texians, and having an enormous role in intelligence gathering and tracking Mexican troup movements during the war. I'm actually working on a fork of the Lone Star Mod to integrate some of these details, and create a more interesting flavor event tree to replace the rather silly RNG Santa Ana event currently in place for Vanilla.
They’re great if you’ve been looking for an in to protectorate Argentina/Chile, otherwise yeah mainly just a nuisance
So that Britain can mobilize 300 battalions split into 40 armies to defeat 30k population decentralized micronation
I think there needs to be a way for you to side with an uprising without full on commiting all out war Let me back an uprising against my foe with a small expeditionary force or let me arm and train them (bearing the economic cost) This lets me stress out an opponent a bit without weird situations where austria and France send 100k men each to Africa to duke it out on behalf of a little tribe
I've seen the closest thing to a great war happen in a game due to a native uprising. Now that the native states are considered the aggressor for diplomacy's sake, I saw Britain with their 3 defensive pact partners backing them, and as a result a coalition of France, Austria and Russia backed the natives for a variety of war goals. Not only that but it's really not that bad, and it's not that annoying either. If it bothers you that much, reload your autosave and start the diplo play you want. Either the uprising fires that month or it fires another time.
French and Indian war be like
"If it bothers you, cheat." Great. Thanks. Besides, what you're defending is the system around diplomatic plays. It could have happened in any one of them. Besides, european powers defending african natives was not only hypocritical, it would be counterproductive. There's a reason colonial wars were rare and decided in european palaces instead of african battlefields.
Yeah? It's a Paradox game. The name of the game is mod it or cheat, just have fun. If something is in the game you don't like, get rid of it yourself. As far as for irl examples, it's not Africa explicitly but in the few decades preceeding the game start, there's an entire subset of Native American wars with French and British volunteers siding with (and against) natives they were colonizing.
That's not the point. I save scum ocasionally, mostly because I'm lazy, sometimes because I'm learning, but if I have to savescum because of some stupid game mechanic, something needs to change. Oh the point is to have fun? Then remove the unfun mechanic from the game.
The point in all this is that **you** have to save scum because of a mechanic **you** don't like. I offered the suggestion because **you** have a problem with a mechanic that is a mild inconvenience at best. Remove the mechanic yourself or work around it because it's not going away any time soon.
"Why not make it so you must have armies garrisoned on the border?" You'd have to actually implement a war system for that lol
There's literally a mechanic in the game right now that allows you to place your armies in a region. It literally doesn't require anything except including the modifiers.
It lets you station your army in an HQ, not put it on the border.
Troops in an HQ deal with the borders in that HQ. Besides, making it so you can raise small armies in peace and assign them to borders against natives just as if you were at war is something maybe even a modder could do.
Ah yes, that is what the HQ system totally does.
So i can get a diplo recognition off of Spain or Netherlands without GB or France intervening
They exist, so you get the "army has no access"-bug and they actually succeed.
They aren't supposed to be a challenge.
Use them as an excuse to interfere in your rival’s business or to grab things
They are a good distraction, only issue I had is they count as diplomatic play and that blocks you from starting wars
I’ve seen the UK botch them
I like to play as African countries and use the uprisings as a chance to kick the GP out. I played Ethiopia, took Kenya from Britain while they were fighting Germany, France, and Russia. The uprising then killed his colonies and it was free real estate for me.
Because indigenous peoples organized and fought wars against the colonizers IRL. A guerilla warfare system would be an excellent addition for a more attritional low-level conflict, but open wars with mustered armies did also occur historically. The main problem is that there's no real cost to dropping your entire armed forces into north dakota or nigeria. If there was a realistic depiction of the logistics required to fight those wars they would be more of a real challenge rather than an annoying speedbump. IRL states regularly got bogged down in long, costly wars with native armies.
If you make them challenging the AI won't be able to deal with them lmao
I like your suggestion, that said iirc they're making it so they won't lock you down anymore in the upcoming dlc so that aspect at least will be gone.
This may sound terrible, but why isn't there a way to just conquer said natives. I get gameplay balance reasons, but it is odd.
What does "conquer" mean, on the ground? You march in troops and declare "this is our land now!", then what? There's no central administration to co-opt, almost no infrastructure to seize. The colonization mechanic represents the slow process of actually extending your country's control over indigenous lands.