The "Distance from Capital" penalty is a needless and harmful penalty. In HWW it hinders the nations USA, USSR, France, Italy, and UK. The penalty seems needless because of the already-oppressive expansion penalty. It is essentially the same penalty, just double dipping.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
24 Replies
6 Jan 2023, 14:33 (edited)
6thDragon wrote:
I believe the expansion penalty is a result of wartime casualties, higher taxes, and other wartime rationing and restrictions. Not everyone is happy to see their sons and husbands off in foreign lands. Some countries controlled the media better than others to minimize this. With this in mind, it makes sense. Plus you always have the debate over which conquered territory is formally annexed and those living in that territory being granted the same rights of citizenship. Continued occupation was always an option as was puppet governments in charge of local affairs. All of these things left some unhappy.
I agree with distance penalty being less applicable in WWII than in previous eras. Perhaps there was a psychological element to decisions being made in a far off place.
With all that said I think the resources from looting are probably a little too high compared to the era, but the non-core penalty is a little high too. But that's just my opinion.
Nah I dont think so, I have little casualties but I get the same penalty, so that is not the mechanism ( and thus this cant be the right interpretation of the mechanism).
It is a plain and simple the larger your empire, the more "unhappy" people are, which I think is "trash". Big nations wherein nationalism/national identity or even local identity is preserved and encouraged would yield happy people too.
The number of active wars (like before), duration, and the "density" (how many in time) are logical penalties and can relatie to expansion. I think of these number of wars involved in and the duration as well as you rightfully mention, number of casualties are big determinants/factors of morale.
6 Jan 2023, 15:22
Good points are being made here, even if they are being made in a combative way. Let's keep it chill.
The core should behave differently from conquered regions. That should be easy to implement. The core should be happy with expansion, but unhappy with casualties.
Conquered regions could have different feelings about being part of the empire depending on how they were conquered. Were their cities pounded into rubble? Do the people still lack basic infrastructure? Are they low on food and goods?
Finally, do the conquered people feel like they belong, more or less? Are they being treated like people or animals? I understand this is CoW and not Civilization, so we're but going to have religion or race or cultural moments. Perhaps doctrine could be a simple modifier to happiness. Axis likes Axis, tolerates Allies, despises Comintern.
6 Jan 2023, 15:33
z00mz00m wrote:
Good points are being made here, even if they are being made in a combative way. Let's keep it chill.
The core should behave differently from conquered regions. That should be easy to implement. The core should be happy with expansion, but unhappy with casualties.
Conquered regions could have different feelings about being part of the empire depending on how they were conquered. Were their cities pounded into rubble? Do the people still lack basic infrastructure? Are they low on food and goods?
Finally, do the conquered people feel like they belong, more or less? Are they being treated like people or animals? I understand this is CoW and not Civilization, so we're but going to have religion or race or cultural moments. Perhaps doctrine could be a simple modifier to happiness. Axis likes Axis, tolerates Allies, despises Comintern.
for your last sentence then Alberta can't like anyone , allies doctrine is everywhere on world
actually for last article I made a similar suggestion about production at non-core provinces for allied doctrine
allied doctrine should have a production bonus at non-core provinces because they have many difference from other doctrines but it seems they think research speed is enough to describe them
6 Jan 2023, 20:14
Undaunted wrote:
for your last sentence then Alberta can't like anyone , allies doctrine is everywhere on world
actually for last article I made a similar suggestion about production at non-core provinces for allied doctrine
allied doctrine should have a production bonus at non-core provinces because they have many difference from other doctrines but it seems they think research speed is enough to describe them
This is debatable. Today, we living in the West think not only that everyone loves the NATO world order, but that they have always loved the Anglo-American world order.
During the early 20th century, Communism had a large following, including in parts of Europe and Asia. The German coalition cut across ideological lines, building on regional grievances.
For example, Romania saw the USSR as an existential threat, and they had been fighting the Russian Empire before that. They were happy to ally with Germany, if it meant they could better resists Russia. Romania had the 2nd largest Axis army in WW2, larger and better trained than the Italians. We just don't talk about it in the West because the Romanians fought on the Eastern front.
Similarly, there were a lot of Poles and Ukrainians who hated the Russians more than they hated the Germans, plus a lot of Central Europe had an Anti Semitic bend that fit the Nazi story line. Then you have the Balkans, where the Croats and the Bulgarians were happy to be friends with the Germans, if it meant they got to pillage the Serbs, and the Bulgarians were equally happy to stick it to the Greeks.
So yeah, about everyone wanting to be friends with the Allies... no way. Germany had a real sphere of influence built on historical tensions in Europe. And so did the Russians. CoW simplified this map, by necessity, but it is reasonably accurate.
