1903 Rules Patch

[snip]

Some quick change notes for you all. One of us will add these to the official proposal later, but we wanted to make these available now.

--Change of the minimum for Commonweath status to the Colony having a Pop:IC ratio equal to or greater than the average Pop:IC ratio of the homeland.
----We chose the average because it is both simple to calculate from our existing data and passes the common sense idea of "We live as well as the average Homelander, so why bother revolting?". While the proposal of median has merit, we feel that it is both more difficult to calculate and does not guarantee the previous common sense clause because some homeland regions can be extremely underdeveloped.

--Change in the way revolts work. There will be two rolls instead of one. The first will be a flat 10% chance for something to happen. Something can range from a disgruntled local priest sends a letter to the governor about the price of bread, to armed insurrection capable of defeating the local garrison handily. What sort of event you get will be determined by the second roll. This roll will be on a D20, be modified by two factors, and have the fixed outcomes below.

Large scale revolutionary revolt (A large enough force to overwhelm the local troops) [Result of 20]
Small scale revolution (A force approximately equivalent to the size of the local garrison) [Result of 18-19]
Protests and riots (inability to build IC that year and $1 per IC in region in damages) [Result of 15-17]
Minor protests (inability to build IC that year) [Result of 11-14]
Petitions and Grumbling (10% increase in the cost of IC for the year) [Result of 6-10]
Minor dissatisfaction in populace (nothing happens) Result of 1-5]

It is on this roll the modifiers for development and time will apply. Time will be Years since last revolt or date of colonization. Development will work by taking the change in Pop:IC ratio over the last year and rounding it to the nearest whole number.  So the result is determined like so: [Result]=[Roll d20]+[Years since revolt or colonization]+[Roundup(delta(Pop:IC))]. The player may react to the result in any manner they see fit, and along with the mods will determine what happens over the course of the year.

An Example: In 1905, the roll for the Japaneses player indicates a revolt takes place in the Philippines. It has been 7 years since the Philippines were colonized. In 1904, the Pop:IC ratio changed by 1.5, rounded up to 2. The d20 is rolled and turns up with a 4. To get the result, we add 4+7+2 for a result of 13. Looking on the chart, this corresponds to minor protests, so no IC can be built in the Philippines for 1905. The Japanese player may take whatever action s/he wishes with playing out this result.

[Walter]

... so if I get this correct, helping out the locals with developing the region increases the chance of riots? Should it not be the other way around?

[Logi]

It is a penalty for developing too fast rather than developing at all.

The way I see it is: Developing the region too quickly would displace a large quantity of people and disrupt their way of life. These would all result in people feeling that their local customs and traditions are being trampled over. Not to mention, some folks simply don't like to see their landscape (view) change.

The growth penalty shouldn't be significant if you are growing at a low rate.

[Kaiser Kirk]

The 12nm limit is intended to be off of both respective shores. We had to pick some number, and since the 12nm limit would be something that could be verified with modern documentation simply. Other then the land connection and a territorial waters link, what else is there to objectively define the difference?

....
As to the population of colonies with native populations, how do you propose we would track it? I am not sure how we would track that without lots of additional work and ambiguity. I'm also not sure how we would objectively define the level of native to transplant that would grant Commonwealth status.

I would very much like an answer from Snip/Logi to the concerns I raised on page 7, in the post above this quote of snip's. 

Many of the islands I list are far more than 24nm away from their continental homes. All of these would count as colonies, and therefore do not fall under the 1903 exception. Perhaps the idea is that since it's been more than 25 years they have automatically become homeland regardless of any other action?? Is that the part I'm missing? In which case I'm missing it for good reason, as it's nonsense if you look at things from a historical perspective.

The issue of Spain and the Ottomans (and I wasn't intending to accuse Rocky in any way) being able to contiguously expand into Africa as "homeland" is not exactly balanced and fails the logic test- the Ottomans less so due to historic reasons.

I also mean my question - if you go off changing the colonial rules AND slap that limit on moving folks, you put a pretty huge dent in my logic for buying a chunk of Africa to move excess population to. So I want an allowance for a RETCON to get my resources back if the final rule changes eliminate my desire to have African colonies.

As for snips's query above- with spreadsheet's it's pretty easy to track a base native population AND the emigre population. Apply growth rates to both...except only one has that "medicine" thing or that exploitation and lead poisoning thing.  Once it's 2/3rds European...that's overwhelming.

Lastly, this choice to go with the Average Pop:IC
I've point, I'll darn well make it again.
That means that for an Italian Colony to loose it's revolt risk, it needs to be better off than the average Pop:IC of Italy.
Of course, my limited IC is spread about, which means the ratio is highest for my smallest provinces. This is also aided and abetted by 38% of my IC being allocated to 13% of my population so I can do that research stuff.  Which means, any Colonies will hover in potential revolt until better off than 6 of my 11 provinces, representing 84% of the Italian population.
That is....bull pucky.

[snip]

I have limited time to reply, so will hit these two points.

The issue of Spain and the Ottomans (and I wasn't intending to accuse Rocky in any way) being able to contiguously expand into Africa as "homeland" is not exactly balanced and fails the logic test- the Ottomans less so due to historic reasons.

Any territory any nation takes in counts as a colony. Territory that is contiguous looses that status after 25 years regardless of the Pop:IC ratio. To quote the relevant section with the modification I posted in reply to your concern here.

A Colony also is any territory taken over by a nation from another nation or non-incorporated territory for a period of 25 years.

Many of the islands I list are far more than 24nm away from their continental homes.

We have to draw the line somewhere, and no matter what its going to leave some place out that someone feels should be homeland or include someplace that someone feels should be a colony. Logi and I have both not seen a better objective proposal for cataloging this.

Lastly, Logi and I both feel very strongly there needs to be some sort of drawback to expansion and we have come up with revolt as the way to do that. For all the complaints, not one counter-proposal aside from "do nothing", which is unacceptable to us, has been raised. If you guys feel this strongly about it, give us some counter-proposals for consideration.

[Logi]

I am aware of your concerns but we haven't had a good idea of how to differentiate between large native and large settler populations without creating an undue amount of paperwork. The problem with simply relying on spreadsheets is that we would need different rules for native and settler populations. As Snip has said, if you have a proposal (other than do nothing), please bring it forward.

Regarding the average population. We could consider making it better than the total Pop / total IC rather than the average of the regions. That would reduce the outlier effect of those research centers.

[snip]

Pop:IC ratio of the homeland of a whole works for me.

[The Rock Doctor]

I appreciate the extra information on revolts; the list of graduated outcomes makes some sense.

I echo Kirk's sentiments that there are still problems with the definitions of colonies/territories.  A strict geographic distance makes for an easily enforced rule, but not a sensible rule.  A place like Corsica or Sardinia or Tasmania seems less likely to rebel against its capital than a place like Russia's Muslim oblasts, China's Uighur population, or [insert Ottoman territory here].  Focusing on geographic distance and economic strength overlooks factors such as religion and historical antipathy.

To my thinking, we can take a couple of approaches to our starting territories:

-We assume it's all pacified and there's no rebellion risk, though that does seem unlikely for those nations with large colonial holdings.

-We look at each on a case by case basis and assume rebellion risks based on historical issues.  Perhaps we mitigate to some degree based on the divergences from our actual history - for example, some Ottoman territories (I'm looking at you, Serbia) remain at risk for revolt, while others (Bulgaria or Egypt) generally co-exist okay with the centre as the Ottoman political reforms have made the Empire less obnoxious to non-Muslims.

As for territories added after 1899, in play, they should all present some risk of revolt.  But we'd be wise to consider the settler population versus non-settler population - with the caveat that it's the responsibility of a player to track such matters.

Settler Colony:  Majority of inhabitants are colonizer-ethnicity (say, British in Canada or Germans in Austria).

Non-Settler Colony:  Majority of inhabitants are of "native" ethnicities (say, India, Philippines, or most African territories.

We'd still go through the revolt checks for both types of colony, but stronger settler ties to the homeland would generally reduce the intensity of the conflict.  Maybe we'd roll that second dice twice and take the lower result.

With Kirk's example of the new Italian colony - it's going to start out as a non-settler colony, with a full risk of revolt for some years.  However, as Italy spends that cash to re-locate ethnic Italians to Africa, the place will eventually transition to a settler colony.

[Walter]

The way I see it is: Developing the region too quickly would displace a large quantity of people and disrupt their way of life. These would all result in people feeling that their local customs and traditions are being trampled over. Not to mention, some folks simply don't like to see their landscape (view) change.

Okay so you are spending a lot of your budget on developing such a region by replacing dusty or muddy paths with paved roads making the area more accessible to bring food and water and medical facilities and making trade more easy and give them a reliable light source that does not require a fire and lights up a bigger area and the people see all those positive things being brought to them... and there is a chance that they become more angry and riot because of that?!? Where's the logic in that? Unless you enter the region and immediately build a church or a mosque or temple and start your attempts to force the locals to convert to your religion or start building a city with skyscrapers right next to that isolated fishing village (or worse on top of it), I do not see why developing too fast should be penalized all the time.

Now, the opposite is true as well. People of Region A see you bring all those nice goodies to their region but also see that you are doing that to neighbouring Region B where you are actually bringing more goodies and at a much faster rate than in Region A. Would the people in Region A not become jealous because of that and significantly increase the chances of unrest and riots? Should the lower growth rate not be more penalized than the higher growth rate?

Now to me, logic would suggest that the 10% riot chance should be rolled on a D20 where 19-20 represents unrest/riots (to be determined by that second roll). That way you can split it up where 19 would represent that the IC growth has a positive effect and 20 would represent that the IC growth has a negative effect when it comes to applying the growth modifier.

[Tanthalas]

My biggest issue with this whole thing is that, I already intended to have revolts... at more or less historical points.  My Caribbean holdings have more or less zero chance of revolt, while the DEI didn't have anything worth noting (few angry letters etc) until basically post ww2.  I did intend to write about the various punitive expeditions from 1903-1908 but they are more or less minor issues.

While I don't totally object to the proposed changes, I have always felt that rules adding additional complexity to the system were unnecessary.  Just the change to IC costs (which even I agree was necessary) has the desired effect of slowing growth, so why keep the rebellion portion when it is obviously unpopular with a majority of the players and adds multiple layers of complexity that are IMHO unnecessary.  Remember Navalism is at it's core about building ships guys, the economic portion has always been and should remain a side thing just included to add some realism.

[Walter]

My Caribbean holdings have more or less zero chance of revolt, while the DEI didn't have anything worth noting (few angry letters etc) until basically post ww2.

From what I understand by actually being here in the land that you control, the main reason why you had that post war colonial conflict in the DEI is because the locals had seen how one Asian nation had kicked the @$$es of all those colonial powers. I'm pretty sure that without WW2 the DEI would have followed a similar path to that of Suriname. And from what I am reading, the way Suriname became independent from the Netherlands has nothing to do with any unrest/riot rolls and everything about politics and negotiations.

While I don't totally object to the proposed changes, I have always felt that rules adding additional complexity to the system were unnecessary.  Just the change to IC costs (which even I agree was necessary) has the desired effect of slowing growth, so why keep the rebellion portion when it is obviously unpopular with a majority of the players and adds multiple layers of complexity that are IMHO unnecessary.  Remember Navalism is at it's core about building ships guys, the economic portion has always been and should remain a side thing just included to add some realism.

Totally agree with that. I was trying to find something that was said that I can't seem to find...

... but while looking around where I could find it, I ran across this bit again...

Rules provide a common basis for discussion and allows gameplay to proceed with less moderator work. I have played (and moderated) games without rules and it is tiring on everyone. The players have to wait constantly for moderator feedback. The moderator has an undue amount of work to ensure the gameplaying experience proceeds fairly. If such feedback is not required, the gameplay quickly devolves into who has the loudest voice and other such low-class arguments.

Right now, there are no rules regarding the colonial expansion. Tan already indicated that he had some things planned along the historical lines. Maybe others have as well. The way it is right now there is no moderator work involved at all regarding this matter, there is no need to wait for moderator feedback regarding those matters and there is no chance that the way the gameplay is now would make it devolve into a "Yes, it is"/"No, it isn't" kind of argument.

Looking at the thread as a whole, the proposed unrest/riot aspect gives more moderator work. The more different regions a nation has or grabs a hold of, the more rolls the moderators need to make for all those regions. A player will now have to wait every time for moderator feedback regarding the results of the rolls for each of the regions before he knows what he can and cannot do for the next HY and what must be done to fix things.

... so what I am actually seeing is that the opposite is happening from what Logi said there.

[snip]

Stuffs

We could absolutely create some monstrous equation to tie in all possible factors, but it seems that a more simple solution is desired. We feel the only development penalty should be for swinging the Pop:IC ratio to fast by building many IC. Remember, the native populations may not feel that the improvements brought by a colonial power are really improvements.

While I don't totally object to the proposed changes, I have always felt that rules adding additional complexity to the system were unnecessary.  Just the change to IC costs (which even I agree was necessary) has the desired effect of slowing growth, so why keep the rebellion portion when it is obviously unpopular with a majority of the players and adds multiple layers of complexity that are IMHO unnecessary.

There absolutely needs to be some from of drawback to land grabs. We both feel really strongly about this, and have said so several times before. As it stands right now, there is only a economic penalty for wanting to grow upwards. If there is no drawback to land grab, that becomes the absolute optimal option. We want there to be choice in game, and so far the only presented option that has created that is adding risk via revolt to investment outside the homeland.

I echo Kirk's sentiments that there are still problems with the definitions of colonies/territories.  A strict geographic distance makes for an easily enforced rule, but not a sensible rule.  A place like Corsica or Sardinia or Tasmania seems less likely to rebel against its capital than a place like Russia's Muslim oblasts, China's Uighur population, or [insert Ottoman territory here].  Focusing on geographic distance and economic strength overlooks factors such as religion and historical antipathy.

The issue I have with using thing such as religion, ethnicity, and historical antipathy is that they are subjective terms. Its not something we have tracked, at all, and doing so would require enough additional information to where its gets prohibitive. Also, it sits poorly with me because a player [Just to be clear, not pointing any fingers here.] could contest anything under that section because we do have a different timeline and things could have changed. It quickly descends into a subjective rabbit-hole that Logi and I despritly want to avoid. Geography is a constant and while any line we draw is inevitably going to leave out something someone feels should be in and include something someone feels should be left out, said rule would be easy to enforce because of maps. Economic power is something we already track, so using that data in a different way does not add overhead comprible to tracking additional factors.

The way it is right now there is no moderator work involved at all regarding this matter

We have been working with players on colonial bits. Revolts will not add that much to what we do before a turn for each player anyway, just a few more virtual dice.

[Walter]

Remember, the native populations may not feel that the improvements brought by a colonial power are really improvements.

Right, but the reverse is true as well. Right now it is as if that what you said is always the case (whether you fail the 10% roll or not) and I do not believe for one moment that that is true.

Geography is a constant and while any line we draw is inevitably going to leave out something someone feels should be in and include something someone feels should be left out, said rule would be easy to enforce because of maps.

I think the big problem here is that by enforcing it that that way players are forced to accept that Corsica, Sardinia, Tasmania, etc. would be considered colonies while Canada and Australia are being made exempt. That to me is just BS. If Canada and Australia are going to be exempt then Corsica, Sardinia, Tasmania, etc. should be exempt as well.

If you disagree with that then I will ask you this question: What's the difference for example between Canada-UK and Sardinia-Italy? Actually, as Kirk indicated earlier the fact that current Italy started out with Sardinia and then gobbled up the rest of the Italian Boot should mean that the chances of unrest/revolts in Canada should be many times greater than Sardinia, that Sardinia should actually be the region to be exempt and not Canada. I am pretty sure that Sardinia is closer to being 100% Italian than Canada is to being 100% British.

[snip]

Then give us a better objective way to define colonies.

[Logi]

The current colonial limits hold. The issue raised with gobbling up neighboring territory is covered under the "A Colony also is any territory taken over by a nation from another nation or non-incorporated territory for a period of 25 years." clause.
By default the 12nm holds unless the player petitions their "colony" be considered homeland, in which case the onus falls on their shoulders to present a case backed with ample evidence. If a player petitions for a region to be considered a colony, but is regarded as homeland under the geographical limit we can review it case-by-case to determine what natural severity modifier should be added.

These modifications will obviously be expensive in time and effort on the part of everyone, but we think it addresses some of the grievances raised.


We have also come up with an alternative to revolt risk. Building IC in a colony costs 3x more than usual and will continue to cost that much until the Colony has a higher IC/Pop ratio than the homeland (calculated as a total).