1. All of it!

The population numbers are the most important. None of the American nations is particularly large compared to many European or Asian nations, but the New Spain Colonies together are near to double the size in population to the 13 Colonies, and in the game population equates tax income, market size and port protection (militia). Climate and resources also make a difference, but there I don't think North America has a particular disadvantage. Just different. All three 13 colony nations together still have some fair numbers, certainly the largest in North America. But they really need to be careful, because they will not withstand prolonged campaigns of any of the large empires at the start of the game. The numbers aren't there. So I think they should realize that at the start the protection of the British Empire (or another empire) has value.

Just to give some perspective, if the 3 nations of the 13 Colonies would manage to stay united, they would rate place 42 on the world population size list, together with Savoy, the Kingdom of Mysore and the Captaincy-General of Brazil. If the 13 Colonies will be divided they will be much smaller. The Middle Colonies, marginally the largest, rates 62nd world nation. Of course there is a great advantage, probably, of a lot of gamers. That will certainly count for a lot. But the budget the Colonies have to work with is just going to be small. So hopefully its community spirit and unity can make up for it. But the 13 Colonies will be vulnerable, so that needs securing before they get too confident.

2. True, Britain might take such a measure if they lose one client nation in rebellion. I imagine that depends on their confidence in the other Prime-Ministers they appointed. It might be a wrong move to just sack people, as they might be influential too. But to get all three nations of the 13 Colonies to rebel simultaneously, although entirely possible, seems a very improbable feat. But who knows? A lot of intrigue and corruption can do the trick. 

There is also the diplomatic way, often discussed already. Rebellion is not the only way. There might be good reasons to give the Colonies partial of complete independence. There might also be ways to corrupt, or dominate, British politics. 

There is also the outside path. Use one of the independent smaller surrounding nations to mount a war. If you succeed in subduing one of the colonies, populate its government and then declare it independent, and then you've got one too. 

There can be several options to achieve the goal of independence. But none of them will work without a larger body of gamers working in unison. But if they are, nothing is impossible.

3. If two of the three nations are client nations, they are essentially one whole. One House of Lords and one elected Prime-Minister to rule them all. Or there is the Union form, which functions with independent nations, in this case 3 independent Prime-Ministers, but with one President for foreign policy. Not that much different to the current structure of the United States. Which, at times in history, has been an uneasy alliance of states as well.

To be honest I am not that sure or the three nations of the 13 Colonies will be that eager to give up their individual independence. It seems easy in theory. But if you are the independent Prime-Minister of one such nation, are you going to want to give that up for subservience to another Prime-Minister? Just because he/she also happens to be an American? As far as I know Americans, bowing down to someone else for the sake of giving your independence up, has never been a trait they have particular talent for. Even if a Prime-Minister wants it their House of Lords will resist it. It might happen, but I think only by the way of war, one nation conquering the other. It's 'civil war' or a Union, that's what I think it will come down to. But I might be mistaken.

Do the Prime Minister appointments over client nations have to be approved every 14 weeks like the actual Prime Minister of the host nation?

Is the Nobility of a client nation merged into the Nobility of the parent nation?  Or, does the Nobility of the client nation remain obsolete until they become independent?  

@rodion

The only thing a master nation can do is appoint a Prime-Minister of a client nation, which they can sack again at any time. Apart from that they have no power over what he/she does during their tenure, so the client Prime-Minister has complete freedom of reign. But the master nation does get an overview of policies, positions and statistics of the client nation, so they can keep an eye on the developments there and force the Prime-Minister to change things they don't like (or else be sacked).

Each respective minister of the master nation cabinet gets a view into client nation statistics. So the Home Secretary of the master nation can see the statistics of all Home Secretaries of client nations. So you have to imagine that if you're a Chancellor of the Exchequer of the British Empire, which is already complex, you also have to keep an eye on more than ten client nation statistics and policies. If you see something you don't like, you have to either make contact with your colleage/opposite number directly, or report it to his or your Prime-Minister to see whether you can get something adjusted. And your power in that all depends on the willingness of your PM to take decisive action. So it's not an easy process.   

So ultimately the master nation has the power, but it is a very indirect power. You can imagine that a nation like the British Empire, with a lot of client nations, will have quite a challenge keeping an eye on all of them. Things will slip by. So ultimately they will have to trust their Prime-Ministers.

So a client nation is probably more independent than people imagine, especially in a large empire where ministers have their hand full. So it's a matter of trust and sacking a client nation PM is a nuclear option.

As to the local nobility in a client nation, they still have the House of Lords, and Ministers and Governors have to be chosen from among them. So there will still be political parties too. Only votes won't take place. So it's a lot less influential.

In our nation, we have 1 client nation.  Regardless of the additional ships a client nation brings due to a cap on ships, can we still annex a client nation where it's no longer possible to be independent again?  A series of ports might prove easier to manage while providing a boost to defense (since all other ports must be captured before the capital port).  

@rodion

I'm trying to understand the question.

Each client nation is not independent, but is capable of being independent again. So this is always possible (but not easy).

But I think you mean: is there protection in taking all the ports of your client nation and adding them to your master nation, so that there are a lot of ports to capture before they get to your capital? Interesting question.

I suppose you can. It would leave your client nation more vulnerable, so I don't know whether it's a clever strategy. As long as you have both nations, you have 6 fleets. If you have left your client nation weak with only one (capital) port, it's easy pickings. If it's captured, you instantly go from 6 to 3 fleets, and even worse, the client nation can be turned against you, adding 3 fleets to the enemy (all providing all fleets are utilized of course).

It is often said that a good way to lose a war is to fight defensively.

Also, it is economically not optimal to separate ports from their country zone. There is something of a penalty in trade. Not dramatic, but it is going to cost you income, which in a war is needed to support your military. So there is a disadvantage there too with the proposed tactics.

But nevertheless it is an interesting tactic to remember. Imagine you are already losing the war badly, and now the enemy is at the gates of London itself. You then transfer a client nation port, let's say New York city, to England. Now the enemy has to regroup and capture that too before they can begin their siege of London. So it would certainly delay the enemy, maybe give you an opportunity to regroup and counter attack.

You could say it is an exploit. Maybe we should create a limit to it somehow. But on the other hand, it's not unrealistic that if you fight an Empire, you'll actually have to fight the Empire, not just a little bit of it. Can you beat the British Empire just by beating England? That's not that realistic either. Enemies that fight an Empire should be prepared to be in it for the duration, nothing wrong with them facing extra challenges like that I think.

Scenario:  Britain allows the Southern Colonies to be independent.  The Southern Colonies later work trade deals with Britain to take on New England and Middle Colonies as client nations.  Now the Southern Colonies want to make one single nation along the North American east coast giving them 13 ports of defense and using their alliances with Britain and others to create defensive treaties.  This puts the 13 Colonies now under one flag and validates all political parties that were invalidated by being in a client nation.  Now they have a solid base to build from and potentially push out to take on foreign client nations.

Would annexing New England and Middle Colonies into the Southern Colonies be possible thereby completely removing those nations as being nations forevermore?

@rodion

No, I don't think we'd do that. We could of course create a new patch in which we turn 3 nations into one, but that would probably be quite a big operation, as you also have to merge them economically, which would be complex.

But I don't think anybody would want it. You go from 9 possible fleets to 3. From 6 possible divisions to 2. And you'd reduce all government positions to one third. I think USA gamers would be outraged, especially because it will likely be a large group with a lot less opportunity. And it would greatly reduce American power.

I think it is unnecessary, as having one nation with two client nations would essentially create control over the whole too, with a lot of added bonuses. And additionally, you could also choose to all be equal, and work as a union with a President. I think both options are better than making it into 'one country'. That's also not historically what the USA has become, it's a Union with largely independent states. So our Union form is 'reasonably close' to reality.

@petersj

I think there will be plenty of American gamers who would like to see a U.S. that is "One nation, indivisible...etc etc" because they 1. are thinking with a modern mindset and 2. are not considering the game elements that you bring up. 

At first I was disappointed to find out that we wouldn't be able to recreate the U.S. as a single nation... but then I realized that the game design actually potentially tripled the nation's eventual power and I was disappointed no longer 😀

@heptarch

True. But I'm also fascinated that people from the USA actually see themselves as such a united nation, alsmost as one country. This is perhaps because the USA has never been like this, so it's hard for Americans to imagine the difference. I come from a country that is definitely a united country. It would be unthinkable for us to have locally different judicial systems, local laws, local government agencies. We have municipalities, but they definitely fall under one country-wide law. The country government can make rules that all municipalities have to obey. All power lies pretty much in our Capital.

It strikes me that the USA is 'a United States', states working together. I have the impression that states have state laws that can be very different, judicial systems that are very different too. And states don't have to follow the President of the USA in all matters, and quite often don't seem to do so.

To be united in spirit, under one banner, is more a feeling. But the state form of the USA is not quite made like that. It's not like China, which is both massive and has an absolute central power.

So if you look at Rulers of the Sea, the union construct was made very much with the USA in mind. How can such a union be formed and function? Because in the game more nations might want to follow that form. A President for joint foreign policy, but a measure of independence for the nations under the common flag, approximates the USA far more, I believe, than one nation with an autocratic leader. And especially in the 18th century. Or am I wrong?

Although I can see an interesting possibility  developing here. Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that the Southern colonies unify America, either by Rodion’s example of conquest or a successful revolution of all three colonies. Now if I’m understanding the game correctly, the capital ports of the Middle and New England Colonies (which I believe are Philadelphia and Boston) cannot be annexed by another country, but everything else could be. Thus it’s possible that the Southern Colonies could take all the non-capital ports of the other two and enter into a “union” with the vestigial remnants of the two. 

The result would be effectively a de-facto United States with two somewhat autonomous city states existing for the purpose of the increased armed forces. Effectively, the population of the two states would be predominantly military officers of the USA, with the “Prime Ministers” effectively military governors assigned to make sure that the tax rates match what has been agreed on for the rest of the country, the subsidies from the “national” government are being spent properly, and the men and women who make up two thirds of the union’s army and navy don’t get any funny ideas...

@petersj  

The problem I see is when a gamer joins RotS, and has to consider what their options are.  In order to play in their timezone, they have to be under the rule of another nation by default, and that creates an issue.  Britain is so powerful at the start of the game, that any a group's effort from North America (or any other client nation) is virtually impossible.  Yes, there are native tribal North American nations that one can start from, but as you've pointed out, they are seriously handicapped.  Even if players in North America found a nation to gravitate to, they would immediately be under servitude as a client nation by Britain or any other enemy.  That impacts everything - a player's ability to run a JSC, to have any vote in the House of Lords (because they are useless as a client nation), or any hope of being in politics are gone. 

As Britain grows, their player base becomes more united, and they won't give up power or let other random players run a nation.  They'll insert who they know and trust to control things.  That's why it may feel pointless right from the start, despite being historically accurate.  I could invest $1000 on a Grand Duke Nobility Pack and find myself sitting with no political influence, with a JSC that's been marginalized with no port lot because we're subject to a Governor from Britain.  

Any nation in the game can find themselves in this scenario, and at any stage of the game.  Clearly the deck is stacked for certain groups and it could be said that they'll quickly find themselves ruling the world alone.

@poor-richard

To prevent any misunderstandings (you probably understood this already), if you want to conquer a nation, you have to capture all of it's ports, and the last one you have to capture is the capital port, the port with access to the capital. This might be a powerful port to capture, because it also holds the population numbers of the interior, so a lot of militia might be present (if it's a big nation at least). In any case, if you capture this capital port, the whole nation becomes your client nation.

At that time the client nation will only exist of a capital and a port. And those you can't as such absorb into your nation (so the identity of the client nation persists) but nevertheless the you have the power over it. So I wouldn't exactly say they are not annexed. Next you can appoint a government to run it. And for economic reasons you might give it some of its former ports back. And why not? It will help it economically, and you can use its fully funded Army and Navy, and its prosperity is yours.

But you paint the picture accurately. In the case where one nation rules others, were that the USA, then one colony would autocratically rule the other two. That's not the USA as it is today, although maybe some felt it was after the civil war? You'd have to worry that one of the client nations might rebel, and I'm sure it would cause tensions, as none of the colonies probably sees itself as subordinate to the others. That's not unity, it's dictatorship.

Of course it is also possible to then carefully restore the independence to the other nations and try for a Union. But a Union is also a difficult form, because it depends on the members reaching agreements on many things. The members can always leave the Union. And maybe then you get a civil war situation. History repeats itself.

@petersj

I’m more of an enthusiastic amateur than a scholar, so take all of this with a grain of salt. It’s essentially my opinion buttressed by what I know of American history/jurisprudence.

I think the concept of “Unity” for Americans is complex. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of American history knows that the Union was conceived originally as a Confederation of essentially equal nation-states, much as your game would have it. The Constitution itself says as much in the Bill of Rights, with the 10th Amendment saying what amounts to “Anything that isn’t mentioned in Amendments One through Nine is up to the individual states to determine.

It’s also true that the nation has always been diverse culturally and there has very often been friction between States and between subcultures.

However, the 10th Amendment has gradually been neutered by the Supreme Court. Our first political parties (the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans) were split precisely on the issue of how much power the central government had or should have. You can make a compelling argument that the Federalists won the argument ultimately with the great shift toward Federal sovereignty that happened after our Civil War.

Now, add to that the quasi-historical mythmaking that up until quite recently we all took in with mother’s milk… including hagiography of the Founding Fathers and the idealization of the events that made us into the nation we are today… and you are left with a populace that has grown up believing that our nation is special. That WE are special. 

So when I say that many Americans will be disappointed that we can’t create “One nation, indivisible…” in this game, it’s less about hearkening back to our actual history and more about how we see ourselves and the nation today. Our identities are inextricably linked with the notion of American Exceptionalism and that means a visceral attachment to the U.S.A.

Now… having said all of that, one thing that Americans love more than anything is to be the big dog on the block. That’s also something every single one of us today has grown up with knowing from cradle to grave, since none of us pre-date the American rise to prominence after WWI. So… I think that convincing them that we’re better off creating a new “Union of Sovereign States” won’t be terribly difficult. They’ll realize that working together will ultimately mean we’re carrying a damn big stick wherever we walk.

Does it mean that we’ll be dealing with regional differences? Yes. Conflicting egos? Sure. Serious arguments about how best to project our power? Absolutely. But I think you’ll find that at least among the three nations comprising the modern U.S. that there will be plenty of gamers willing to act as a unified political entity.

I think the interesting part will be once we start expanding. I can almost guarantee that American gamers will want to re-claim the West and that means some serious friction with Spain. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if our expansion leads to a Union that includes Canadian gamers (and thence Canadian geography such as Nouvelle France and Rupert’s Land). Sooner or later we’ll project our power overseas (not just to have access to rare goods, but to accommodate our gamers that play in different time blocs) and those holdings will eventually want to become equal States under the Union as well.

Should make for a VERY interesting game.