tour86rocker
Warlord
Attacking opponents while they're fighting for independence: really fun or really wrong? If it's wrong, I don't want to be right!
It can be a great way to pick up free colonies/resources/colonists while having a guarantee that the victim is unlikely to "hit back", at least in the sense that they're going to be too preoccupied with their King to come take out YOUR colonies.
I understand from a CivIV point of view why this is okay. But when you bring in the luggage of a historical mindset, you start to wonder: why is the Dutch King allowing me to steal these colonies that he believes are his? Think about it: say you're attacking the Dutch during their WoI. The King says to the Dutch colonies: "wait, these are my colonial assets. I'm coming to claim them as rightfully mine!" Shouldn't he be mad at you, a third party, for stealing those colonies?
I think intervening in a foreign WoI should make YOUR king happy with you under some circumstances (there need to be more ways of making the king less unhappy!!) and it should carry some risk of war with the foreign king if you occupy a settlement that wasn't yours.
I'd also love to be able to intervene on the behalf of the colony trying to rebel in a way that would give you points. Sometimes you know that there's just not enough time for you to declare independence and win; it would be some consolation if you could score some major military points attacking another country's REF.
However, it would need to have risks involved, like unhappiness in your colonies, or even negative opinions from Native chiefs. Otherwise, EVERYBODY would take advantage of a player declaring independence.
Alternatively: I wouldn't be opposed to making it impossible for European colonial players to attack those declaring independence.
It can be a great way to pick up free colonies/resources/colonists while having a guarantee that the victim is unlikely to "hit back", at least in the sense that they're going to be too preoccupied with their King to come take out YOUR colonies.
I understand from a CivIV point of view why this is okay. But when you bring in the luggage of a historical mindset, you start to wonder: why is the Dutch King allowing me to steal these colonies that he believes are his? Think about it: say you're attacking the Dutch during their WoI. The King says to the Dutch colonies: "wait, these are my colonial assets. I'm coming to claim them as rightfully mine!" Shouldn't he be mad at you, a third party, for stealing those colonies?
I think intervening in a foreign WoI should make YOUR king happy with you under some circumstances (there need to be more ways of making the king less unhappy!!) and it should carry some risk of war with the foreign king if you occupy a settlement that wasn't yours.
I'd also love to be able to intervene on the behalf of the colony trying to rebel in a way that would give you points. Sometimes you know that there's just not enough time for you to declare independence and win; it would be some consolation if you could score some major military points attacking another country's REF.
However, it would need to have risks involved, like unhappiness in your colonies, or even negative opinions from Native chiefs. Otherwise, EVERYBODY would take advantage of a player declaring independence.
Alternatively: I wouldn't be opposed to making it impossible for European colonial players to attack those declaring independence.