Here are a few thoughts on this concept. I’ve had a look at this thread, and at the linked one where the idea was first developed, and if I understand correctly the concept involves replacing the Allied bid by letting the Allies pick one of their territories and give it a three-element enhancement (1 IC, 1 AAA and a +1 IPC boost) which would disappear if the territory is ever captured.
The concept in itself sounds basically okay, but I’m wondering if it might benefit from being tweaked to deal with a few points. The points have to do with the questions “What does this concept represent in real-life terms and how is this reflected by the terminology being use to represent it?”
Seen in isolation, the phrase “colonial outpost” evokes (at least in my mind) the image of an isolated and fairly small military garrison established by a colonial power in one of its relatively undeveloped colonies. The concept being described, on the other hand, more closely resembles the idea of what could be called a “fortified concession” (though I’m not really suggesting that this phrase be used instead), i.e. an economically-developed and militarily-defended zone that a foreign power has set up on someone else’s territory…roughly what Shanghai was prior to the Second Sino-Japanese War.
A related point has to do with the fact that, as I understand it, any Allied power can alter any one Allied-controlled territory in this manner. This raises the question of whether the “colonial” part of the phrase applies, depending on what territory is being altered by whom. Britain altering a territory in India would be classically colonial, because India was a British possession at the time, but things could get murky in certain other situations – in no small part because of political optics. For example, the self-governing Dominions at the time (Canada, Newfoundland, Eire, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) would have been outraged at the notion of Britain setting up a “colonial” outpost (or a colonial anything else) on their territory. The United States, while it did indeed have a number of overseas possessions (like the Philippines) which it controlled to various degrees, didn’t (as far as I know) refer to itself as a “colonial” power, a term which I think the Americans tended to despise as being too closely associated with the European great powers. And there’s also the question (whose answer I can’t discern from the discussion threads, though I may just be missing it) of whether Allied Power X could give this kind of upgrade to a territory controlled by Allied Power Y; if yes, this too raises the question of whether “colonial” would be the right term. (Example: the American base built at Argentia in Newfoundland under Lend-Lease was not regarded as a “colonial outpost”. I think it was seen more as an American enclave on Commonwealth territory. As a case in point, I read that within the Argentia base vehicles drove on the right side of the road, as per American practice, while outside the base they drove on the left, as per the British practice being followed in Newfoundland at the time.)
In one sense, this is all just a picky point of terminology, so it can easily be discounted. But I’m wondering if a two-birds-with-one-stone solution might be to tweak the concept slightly – maybe by specifying in more detail which power can make this change to which territories, and maybe even by splitting the concept into slight variants with slightly different names, depending on which of the scenario types I’ve described above are (and are not) being envisioned.