Patch 1.1 lima : Problem with Military Control

[Yoi64]

I don't know if it's a bug.
or if the rules change in this point ?

But i can't change the military contol.
I put an army in a foreign country (colony territory) and the MC never change in my favor. (he stay 100%)

can you help me please


PS : this patch is really good my game crash all the time, and i stop ti play...
now i can play, thk's a lot

[yellow ribbon]

i would like to underline and support this question.

in my case, it was not a colony but a rebel uprise in the western USA.

needed couple of turns in the dark red order to have an Apache territory being a Apache territory again.
did not gain any ground (MC), then suddenly.

WAD / ISSUE / BUG ???

[Yoi64]

i try 2 new games and i have the same problem

without Military control the game is not interresting...

[Yoi64]

the only solution is doing war between "the state" (i'mspeaking of tribal nation for colonize it)
i don't know if it's a rules change ?

[Sir Garnet]

I'm not sure I understand your problem, but hostility to the controlling tribe or nation or there being no controlling tribe or nation is required for Military Control to change, and this requires the AI attacks you or you DOW them.

[Yoi64]

excuse me my english is poor :s

thk's for your reponse

in 1.01 i can go in tribe territorry without war and win Military control

if i understand now i need war ?

[Pocus]

i would like to underline and support this question.

in my case, it was not a colony but a rebel uprise in the western USA.

needed couple of turns in the dark red order to have an Apache territory being a Apache territory again.
did not gain any ground (MC), then suddenly.

WAD / ISSUE / BUG ???

Absolutly not WAD... I need confirmation, that would be a major bug coming from nowhere! Are you able to take over MC of a region against an enemy?

[yellow ribbon]

hello Pocus,

unfortunately i started a new GC with USA at high noon, i will try a couple of declarations of war against tribe nations later.

the problem in my case, right in 1850 was a rebel uprise in Winnemucca (APACHE ground, american protectorate)

i remember loyalty was there for 2% (in words: TWO) for rebels but is was not triggered by colonial options, i had not used them this early in game.

i sent in the military unit from the west coast, nothing happened, i ordered orange aggressive state for one turn nothing happened, then red state of order for another turn, again nothing.
i walked to the next province, refilled supplies, walked back in red state of order, let them be there for a turn, again nothing.

no battle happened neither!

later i invested in San Francisco and this moment i acknowledged that it is Apache territory again and rebels gone.

i can also exclude one thing, it was not possible to use one of the three colonial military expedition options!
****************

i will try to test / replicate this later, maybe in the evening. i believe i still do have your email from the thing with the militancy...

[SonOfAGhost]

i can also exclude one thing, it was not possible to use one of the three colonial military expedition options!

Good thinking. I'd never had a use for those missions thus far so I'd forgotten they had an MC component. I'll try that next time I get some game time.

For the sake of comparison: The only place I've seen no MC change when occupying an enemy MC region is in South Africa (just South of Durban). It's also the only place I had generic rebels (vs locals) appear where they had 0 loyalty. I never saw any rebel force at all...though with how much I've paying attention to SA they could have pillaged themselves to death before I noticed I lost the region

[yellow ribbon]

ah, you misunderstood my point.

these colonial missions have different effects. one is, like other options, to trigger open revolts... this could explain the situation, but as i said, i did not use this options nor was i able to use the military options to fight uprise.

in case there is only an uprise of natives, this pacifying mission better than fighting them (no losses, no supply needed, inexpensive, able to increase CP and development level... its like Christmas, eastern and birthday on one and the same day)

for north america, its perfect, even in the 1870s it describes the situation perfectly.
the next alternative is the mixed brigade in this kind of fight-the-sioux-war. for describing very small combat groups and still the improvement of haven some cavalry attached (was close to normal after the ACW)

I DO LOVE the system, but this weekend, out of nothing, this certain province was grey, had a rebel flag and i could do nothing against it...

unfortunately they pressed me to go on site to the customer, will not be able to check it in the next two or three days...

[yellow ribbon]

the only advantage of traveling by trains... right, u can play and surf in the WWW

Pocus i checked it as far as i can.

1.00 retail version, patch to 1.01, patch to 1.01L

new GC

I CANNOT REPLICATE the problem with military control.

I just walked a cavalry corps into Dakota territory after declaration of war and had normal gain of MC. as well in the saved games as in the new GC.

but i still dont understand the sudden rebel uprise. as mentioned i did not use any colonial card before the uprise... normally the Apache were unexpected peaceful and unhistorical eager to join...

[Doctoxic]

How is the game supposed to work with regards to military control?

e.g.
If you do NOT declare war agaist (say) the Dakota can you still increase/change military control?

In my USA game with latest patch i have to declare war but don't recall having to do this with an earlier version of the game (just started playing again after a couple of months off). because of this there are some territories where i can't play any Colonial options to increase CP.

[Pocus]

For rebel uprising, it can very well be an event... So I'm not too worried here, perhaps PhilThib can chime in on that.

For MC... No you can't take MC from another nation if you are not at war with them... The exception is that if you are the legitimate owner of a territory and someone here has some MC (and is not at war with you) then he will generously gives back some MC each turn.

Now, about at war & MC.

Against a tribal, you are at war as soon as you have -1 or lower relationships. You can also DOW them formally.

To take MC then, you have either to be the sole occupier of the region and have at least one line unit (i.e not just an artillery) in offensive posture (no need to be on assault). If there are enemy units, you must beat them in battle. Think WW1 Verdun here, two armies facing each other, you will only get a few acres of land if you launch an offensive (switch to orange posture) and then repulse them (inflict more losses than you suffer).

[yellow ribbon]

North America is an exemption, for there are no true colonies in the USA.

since the for native states start already as protectorate it is only necessary to increase the colonial penetration.
after the first patches they switched it, so tribes start neutral and even get cordial relationships with you. if they are friendly you cant get military control but in case of open war.

there are a couple of events and treaties for getting more land and for getting from colonies to statehood

you only need to improve the colonial penetration by alt-F3 colonial actions.

best way is to start with cede territory treaties, merchant and tradepost. then mission, school and the very last military outpost.
if you do it right, it brings you up to 50% CP, immigrants can be used too.
and colonies to be formed then!

with the new patch "L" i had no trouble to form colonies there (as half a dozen claims it at paradox!!!), i wait for oklahoma and the northern indian land for later after the ACW (historical). cant speak for this issue.

for my common sense, i disgust this warmongling people who start to slaughter the tribes as soon they can afford military, just for they dont even understand the game concept of colonial cards and TIME (its not a game of 100 turns, but over 1600 damn it).
there should be truly higher penalties for it and a limitation of military units as i argued for it in a detailed way in different places...

so, yes MC is gained by open war and posting troops there for a moment, but NO you dont need it in north america.

in Hawaii and Samoa you shall use one single brigade and a strong fleet.
use the gunboat and demonstrate Navy colonial cards and then proceed as i suggested for the natives in N.A..

I wrote it in one place, Samoa protectorate gives you all possibility to use the island at free will, but historical it was a treaty in the 1890s which split it between US and Prussia.

I guess thats the reason why after decleration of protectorate and building there everything i want frm alt-f2, it is still announced to be american influenced territory.

AGAIN:

you dont need to declare war and in Samoa is no tribe, you will get MC just by entering it.

[Sir Garnet]

North America is an exemption, for there are no true colonies in the USA.

since the for native states start already as protectorate it is only necessary to increase the colonial penetration.
after the first patches they switched it, so tribes start neutral and even get cordial relationships with you. if they are friendly you cant get military control but in case of open war.

there are a couple of events and treaties for getting more land and for getting from colonies to statehood

you only need to improve the colonial penetration by alt-F3 colonial actions.

best way is to start with cede territory treaties, merchant and tradepost. then mission, school and the very last military outpost.
if you do it right, it brings you up to 50% CP, immigrants can be used too.
and colonies to be formed then!

with the new patch "L" i had no trouble to form colonies there (as half a dozen claims it at paradox!!!), i wait for oklahoma and the northern indian land for later after the ACW (historical). cant speak for this issue. . . . so, yes MC is gained by open war and posting troops there for a moment, but NO you dont need it in north america.

So you can definitely confirm that this path gets you to colony, and therefore set up for Statehood to follow, without the need for combat? How common is indian raiding/revolts?

[Sir Garnet]

there should be truly higher penalties for it and a limitation of military units as i argued for it in a detailed way in different places...

In this connection, in the Army Historical Series,WINNING THE WEST THE ARMY IN THE INDIAN WARS, 1865-1890 online, there are details about US army strength. A large army in the west would mean 2,000-3,000 combat troops.

In the absence of war with anyone other than the Indian tribes this should mean small single battalion (called regiment) sized Units with strict caps and some tiny garrison units fixed in a few major eastern forts. I also think Outposts rather than PON "Forts" more accurately represent the small forts of the west, but enforcing that is probably not necessary. Given the prevalent use of volunteers raised locally or by state through the century, this would be the way the forces would be built out in major difficulty.

"Congress in June 1850 approved enlarging the companies serving on the frontier to 74 privates, a considerable increase over the 50 in the dragoons, 64 in the mounted rifles, and 42 in the artillery and infantry authorized at the end of 1848. Thereafter 90 of the 158 companies were enlarged, so that by the end of 1850 the Army was authorized 12,927 officers and men.

When Jefferson Davis became Secretary of War in 1853, he strongly urged a larger Army, one that could be expanded to 27,818 men in time of war by enlarging the company to 128 men. Davis desired new mounted regiments for frontier service, because only highly mobile units could hope to handle the Indians. In March 1855 Congress added 4 new regiments to the existing 15 (2 of dragoons, 1 of mounted rifles, 4 of artillery, and 8 of infantry). They were the 1st and 2d Cavalry Regiments and the 9th and 10th Infantry Regiments. The mounted arm thus consisted of dragoons, mounted rifles, and cavalry until the Civil War, when all mounted regiments were called cavalry."


"Whereas the prewar Army of the 1850's was essentially a frontier Army, the postwar Army became something more. To defense of the frontier were added military occupation of the southern states, neutralization of the Mexican border during Napoleon's colonial enterprise under Maximilian, elimination of a Fenian (Irish Brotherhood) threat to Canada in the Northeast, and dispersion of white marauders in the border states. But these and other later involvements were passing concerns. The conflict with the red man was the overriding consideration in the next twenty-five years until Indian power was broken.

Unfortunately, the military assets released from other tasks were lost through reductions in force instead of being diverted to frontier defense. For even though the country during the Indian campaigns could not be said to be at peace, neither Congress nor the war-weary citizens in the populous Atlantic states were prepared to consider it in a state of war. And in any case, there was strong sentiment against a large standing army as well as a widely held belief that the Indian problem could be settled by other than military means.

As the postwar Army took shape, its strength began a decade of decline, dropping from an 1867 level of about 57,000 to half that in the year that General Custer was killed, then leveling off at an average of about 26,000 for the remaining years up to the War with Spain. Effective strength always lay somewhere below authorized strength, seriously impaired, for example, by high rates of sickness and desertion."

Specifically, "General Grant, the General in Chief, wanted to increase the Regular Army, kept small during the Civil War, to 80,000 men, but neither Secretary Stanton nor Congress would agree. Congress, on July 28, 1866, voted an establishment of 54,302 officers and enlisted men. Actual strength reached about 57,000 on September 30, 1867, a peak for the whole period down to 1898. In 1869 Congress cut the number of infantry regiments to 25 and the authorized strength to 45,000; in 1876 the regimental tables of organization were reduced so as to limit the total authorized force to 27,442, an authorization that remained virtually stationary until the Spanish-American War.

A significant effect of the Civil War on the new organization of the Army was a provision in the 1866 act for four Negro infantry regiments, which were reduced to two in 1869, and two Negro cavalry regiments, though most of their officers would be white. "


"Thus the regional defense systems established in the West in the 1850's and 60's provided a framework for the deployment of the Army as it turned from the Civil War to frontier responsibilities. In the late summer of 1866 the general command and administrative structure for frontier defense comprised the Division of the Missouri, containing the Departments of Arkansas, Missouri, Dakota, and the Platte; the Division of the Pacific, consisting of the Departments of California and the Columbia; and the independent Department of the Gulf, whose area included Texas."

"George Crook almost alone among the Army leaders at the upper levels of the Indian wars had pre-Civil War frontier experience, dating from 1852, that he could bring back to the West in 1866."

"As Lt. Gen. William T. Sherman, commanding the Division of the Missouri, put it, 'Were I or the department commanders to send guards to every point where they are clamored for, we would need alone on the plains a hundred thousand men, mostly of cavalry. Each spot of every road, and each little settlement along five thousand miles of frontier, wants its regiment of cavalry or infantry to protect it against the combined power of all the Indians, because of the bare possibility of their being attacked by the combined force of all the Indians.'"

[yellow ribbon]

i never used a other way since Cherokee became a neutral nation...

did the same the last days weekend and at work.

i give you a more detailed answer in the evening if i find another hotspot. now customer demands my attention to burn me like a witch...

i will list you an advice how to use colonial cards in N.A.

and yes, so far it is as i wrote:

i can do whatever i want in Hawaii,

Samoa is just not announced to be a protectorate but i can do everything there (i build a fort, plantation, depot, habor...)

for Arizona i believe its necessary to get the Republic of Sonora event before its possible to invest and get it to a colony)

for Oklahoma it became always under military control in the 1860s even before patch "I". After the ACW (i guess after 1865) it always got under my control (became blue in the MC filter)
but my saved games were corrupted by patch "L" so i can develop it to colony to test it. i do have to get there again first.

for the rest in the midwest and the west i do have all colonies founded last weekend under patch "L" in my style only with the colonial cards.

Uprises are common, but the pacifying card is sufficient, dont need military units (all 5 cards are ALWAYS used in provinces)
however, consider that colonial cards trigger uprise by chance... no more investment, no more triggers but normal DB

rebels (grey provinces) i hve only seen less than a dozen times in about 2 months of gameplay. (including the militancy problem in the last patch)

For i never got all colonies (did not get thus far in the years) i never swa national regions on tribes estate getting under blue (my own) military control.

i can just assume, this happens that day i do have all tribe regions as national territory of the US or by event.

Consider, some statehoods were established in the 1890s and even later !!!!

the indian wars (the ones of the 1850s are not in game), all the diplomacy of sending some chiefs to washington and then some surrendered in the 1850s and 1860s, all that is missing or substituted by the use of colonial military pacifying / strafing / expedition cards...

absolute ignorant to walk in with corps, just to change the color of the map...

BTW:

West virginia never ever was declared a state in my games... just they jumped over it and the next state gets the right number...

[yellow ribbon]

"In this connection, in the Army Historical Series,WINNING THE WEST THE ARMY IN THE INDIAN WARS, 1865-1890 online, there are details about US army strength. A large army in the west would mean 2,000-3,000 combat troops."


that is exactly what i am talking about for two month now... the military colonial cards in the game are describing this situation close to perfectly

I DO LOVE this system for North America (if it works)

later more about it

[yellow ribbon]

customer wants coffee break, i hate it, lazy buggers of IT staff...

Sir Garnet, first part of my progress with patch "L"

its june 1854

behind all name, "Territory" must be added, i spare it in the remainder:

WAD colonies are Washington and Oregon

colonies founded by my described way:

Colorado

New mexico

Kansas

Minnesota

Nebraska

Utah

Nevada

Arizona will be added, i have to invest somewhat more

for Oklahoma i wait till after ACW for then i can invest in development of the area

the same is true for Montana, the Dakota territories etc...

i will wait for event to be able to invest, war would be ignorant...

in the evening i show, how to gain CP in a certain way with guaranty of success

EDIT:

Wyoming is started as colony in February 1855

Samoa was started and confirmed as colony in October 1854

Arizona was started as colony in October 1854

[Yoi64]

thk's Pocus...


Tu pourrais me refaire le truc en français stp car je suis pas bien sur d'avoir compris ...
merci vraiment, désolé de demander cela je suis vraiment nul

[yellow ribbon]

so...

as promised a lecture how to play a USA GC without the tendency to confuse northern american colonial actions with a nowadays (splatter) movie.

not one single shot fired, and all available colonies in not even three years of investment!

first shift the mouse over the immigrants card of the colonial actions, everywhere were it is able to be applied in the very beginning, but at the north-westcoast, is a capital region of a later colony...

for the numbers in the remainder, first always meas added CP, the second always the maximum up to the colonial points are gained

start as follows:

[ in case of Samoa and Hawaii just start with:

Navy demonstration 7% / 25%
then
Gunboat policy 5% / 30% ]


chief bribing 2% / 30 %
chief treaty 5% / 35 % (only if you want to spare diplomats)
chief cede territory 7% / 35%
merchant 1% / 35%
tradepost (total effect unknown, but also giving you extra goods)

do that until 35% CP

use immigrants to close a gap to the protectorate



second step:

after you reached 35% (the regions are already protectorates, cannot be declared as such but SAMOA and HAWAII)

school +5% / 60%
outpost +5% / 75%
mission (only reducing uprise probability)

in case of uprise, use ONLY PACIFYING military card which gives you 2% / 50%

and then use immigrants to close the gap of development and CP until you can declare COLONY


third step:

invest at will

immigrants / up to 100%
telegraph network 4% /100%
roads 3% / 95%


the only thing is, that you have to wait long Montana, the Dakotas, Oklahoma...
As you would have to do historically.

you can manage to get high CP there but normally lack some development and loyalty to declare colony.
to gain the needed loyalty it would be needing a very long military occupation.

[Yoi64]

i have a little problem with my Tunisian protectorat

in fact i'm in 43% in Pc i declare a protectorat
but i can't up him to 50% because i have impossibility to build scholl, road, and telegraph.

How i can change this thk's

[montgomeryjlion]

i have a little problem with my Tunisian protectorat

in fact i'm in 43% in Pc i declare a protectorat
but i can't up him to 50% because i have impossibility to build scholl, road, and telegraph.

How i can change this thk's

I assume you're playing as S-P. In that case, the answer is that you can only do it after Italian re-unification.

[Pocus]

thk's Pocus...


Tu pourrais me refaire le truc en français stp car je suis pas bien sur d'avoir compris ...
merci vraiment, désolé de demander cela je suis vraiment nul

pas de prise de MC envers quelqu'un sauf si c'est un ennemi. Pour cela, il faut être en offensif et etre victorieux en bataille.

Les tribaux sont ennemis des que tu as -1 de relations, et tu peux aussi leur faire une déclaration de guerre formelle.

[Yoi64]

merci

être en guerre avec une nation tribale joue sur l'usure de guerre dans la population... car en fait je me retrouve dans une situation complexe les nation sans capitale sont de fait impossible a conquérir... Faire la paix détruit les infrastructures coloniale et fait perdre le contrôle acquis...


et pour la question de mon protectorat tunisien...
comment puis je faire pour le monter a 50% et en faire une colonie...


enfin a par déclarer la guerre occupé et faire des pacification jusqu’à que je recréer un protectorat et puis une colonie...



tant que j'y suis
pour le remplacement des navires... j'ai Toulon qui est évolué aux maximum Nv 10 comme port. J'ai plein d'unité maritime dans le pool, j'aimerais savoir pourquoi a certain moment de nouveaux navires se construisent pour renforcer les unités non complètes et des fois non.

Encore merci


PS : merci pour le travail accompli, le jeu est comme toujours exceptionnel.
Le nouveau patch m'a permis d'y jouer. la version première était tout simplement injouable a cause des bug

[Yoi64]

je remonte le sujet pour avoir une réponse car ca m'angoisse...

j'ai un problème avec les protectorat...
en fait si je déclare un protectorat sur une région qui ou je n'ai pas le controle militaire, la situation se bloque pour évoluer vers le statut colonial vu que sans contrôle militaire on ne peut faire les infrastructures (routes, telegraphe etc...)
qui devrait normalement me permettre de monter a 50 en pénétration coloniale et ainsi déclarer une colonie ...

Comment dois je faire ?

[Yoi64]

La solution que j'ai trouvé
- c'est déclarer la guerre
- occuper les provinces
- Monter le contrôle colonial jusqu’à 50% dans capitale et 35 % ailleurs
- puis déclarer successivement puis déclarer protectorat et enfin colonie
-Ensuite signer la paix avec une nation qui n'existe plus.

je sais pas si c'est la seule solution ?

[Pocus]

Ca me parait pas mal oui... quel est le point de blocage exactement? Il est possible de coloniser sans déclarer la guerre, mais on peut le faire aussi.

[Yoi64]

Le point de blocage est simple

je prend l'exemple de la Tunisie
Que j'ai passé sous protectorat pour couper l'herbe sous le pied du piémont Sardaigne. N'ayant pas le controle militaire.
je ne peux construire les infrastructures qui pourrait me permettre de passer de 35% à 50% (route, télégraphe etc ...) excepté le Poste militaire.
JE rempli bien sur les conditions sauf celle de la possession semble t'il

Comment dois je faire ?


De même j'ai un problème que je n'arriva pas a résoudre avec les territoires du Sénégal.
Dakar je la possède malgré que les Ouolof ont un controle militaire de 75% la je peux y développer ce que je veux vu que je la possède (drapeau français)... par contre le Podor et Kaolack (tribut Trarza) me pose un problème similaire...




tant que je t'ai
j'aimerais comprendre le remplacement des Navires
Pourquoi des fois y'a du remplacement des fois non...
Sachant que j'ai du pool... et que je les met a Toulon port niveau 10 (développement maximum).
y'a t'il un nombre de navire maximal qui bloque le remplacement ?
enfin j'en sais rien ou alors certaine escadre sont bloqué pour une raison que j'ignore...

[Yoi64]

je viens de relancer une partie avec le patch M
le problème de podor semble résolu
en effet allégeance des régions concernées a changer
je pense que le changement est dû au niveau de CP qui a atteint le seuil nécessaire.
Ce qui n’était pas le cas dans mon autre partie