Build Capital in Rural Provinces

Commander Schleicher wrote:

I don't get why a government could not reside in a province. Technically, a government can operate from anywhere. The US has many contingency plans in case any federal buildings are destroyed or at risk, then Air Force One or any other presidential aircraft will have the necessary equipment to carry out their duties. I get the game doesn't have that, but a government could operate from anywhere is what I'm saying. In my opinion, it's more of a pain in the ass not to have the ability to have capitals anywhere. The Holy Roman Empire, even thought it is old, they hosted many government functions in small cities like Wetzlar. Weimar Germany also hosted some functions in Weimar during crisis in major cities like Hamburg and Berlin. Even Vichy France, which had larger cities under its control such as Lyon and Marsielle.

There were reasons why it was built in Vichy, but that city is still relatively large. You can’t build the capital of the Soviet Union in bumfuck nowhere Siberia. All the capitals that you mentioned seem to still be in decent sized cities (except for the HRE, but that was a decentralized medieval state and this is the 20th century), and the US government would still need eventually base itself somewhere.

From the perspective of the developer and even realism, it makes sense. Either way I don’t see this changing any time soon..

Carking the 6th wrote:

Needs to be a limit somewhere, to be honest. Sure, it’s a pain in the ass when you can’t prevent someone from taking your capital, but that makes sense from a game perspective. Furthermore, hosting a government in a place is NOT easy. Permanent capitals need to be in a strategic part of a country, be able to support a government, and usually are hosted in an important part of a county. Considering the fact that the developers removed this feature, there is probably others reasons for it as well.

There were reasons why it was built in Vichy, but that city is still relatively large. You can’t build the capital of the Soviet Union in bumfuck nowhere Siberia. All the capitals that you mentioned seem to still be in decent sized cities (except for the HRE, but that was a decentralized medieval state and this is the 20th century), and the US government would still need eventually base itself somewhere.

No matter how many resources are poured into such an endeavor, the UK’s government could never permanently be based in St.Helena. What’s the point anyway? What does this add to the game?

Taffyta Muttonfudge wrote:

Carking the 6th wrote:

Needs to be a limit somewhere, to be honest. Sure, it’s a pain in the ass when you can’t prevent someone from taking your capital, but that makes sense from a game perspective. Furthermore, hosting a government in a place is NOT easy. Permanent capitals need to be in a strategic part of a country, be able to support a government, and usually are hosted in an important part of a county. Considering the fact that the developers removed this feature, there is probably others reasons for it as well.

There were reasons why it was built in Vichy, but that city is still relatively large. You can’t build the capital of the Soviet Union in bumfuck nowhere Siberia. All the capitals that you mentioned seem to still be in decent sized cities (except for the HRE, but that was a decentralized medieval state and this is the 20th century), and the US government would still need eventually base itself somewhere.

I think the best solution, which was brought up already, would be to make a rural capital take longer to build than an urban capital.

Carking, read my suggestion. I'm not talking realism here, anything related to WWII is possible in this game. In my previous game where Ukraine was attacked, we had to relocate the capital to ensure their provinces wouldn't revolt and their army would continue. However, eastern Poland doesn't have many cities on the Europe map. So we were forced to relocate it to Lvov which was dangerously close to the frontlines. Even if it was an adjacent province, we might have won the war and used the city to build and produce.

Your main suggestion was literally mostly realism. You LITERALLY said “throughout history” even from a game perspective, this would just make it easier for defending countries; not needed. Again, this was removed for a reason.

Developers usually don't make the smartest decisions, and maybe at the time it was a bad feature but now the game is different. I mentioned realism because that's what everyone seems to focus on when suggestions are discussed.

Considering this is a game with countless players and quite profitable, I don’t believe you are correct. The game hasn’t yet even been fully monetized to hell! No forced ads either! Far better than 90% mobile (I know it’s also PC) games. This game has continued to lean into cities since the urbanization update, so I would not say things are going in that direction either. And yes, you mentioned realism. In fact that was again, most of that your main post was about. How was I supposed to assume that from what I read?

My suggestion is not based on realism, and I still don't get your point as to why this would be a bad thing. This game is constantly changing and who knows if they might see hiw this can make the game better. I have given you a whole example as to why this is good to add.

Because it makes defending easier and attacking even more of a pain in the butt? Defenders already have many advantages, no need to pile on more. WW2 was a mobile offensive War, not a grinding defensive one like it’s predecessor.