Loving the game so far!
The static Non-Core Production Penalty of -75% however just doesn't make sense.
Yes absolutely there should be a penalty, but not locked in at -75% for the rest of the game.
I asked why this was in "Help" and was told because it was occupied territory.
When you capture a new province the morale will drop to 25% (or -75%) and then slowly improve. So why not make the Non-Core Production Penalty the same as the Morale??
Is there a game mechanic that depends on the -75% further into the game? That is the only thing I can assume.
So here is a very strong and forthright call to have this suggestion taken on board and considered.
It is intended to give quick growers only a minor advantage over people just playing with their core provs. Even as it is, quick growth pays well enough. Believe me, we really don't need non-core to produce more than they do, or smaller players would be completely irrelevant.
Cheers for the reply.
So its for game balancing then? I suspected that it could be something like that.
It's just that it doesn't "make sense" in terms of accurate simulation.
Two things here :
- Yes the -75% penalty makes complete sense historically : you can't efficiently exploit a province's resources when the infrastructures are destroyed, often built completely differently from what you're used to, and anything you produce with your extremely unmotivated workers, being blown up by resistance members.
- That's where the suggestion to corrolate morale with penalty does make a lot of sense. Nevertheless, for game balancing purposes, it isn't really necessary. Good idea though
I too agree something should be added to the non-core provinces. It comes to a point where food supplies run short because the population and units grow to the point your core and non core can't possibly support it. Usually by that time you are further in the game and I feel should be rewarded a little. That's why I suggest maybe being able to spend money to move the non core percents up. Usually you have a lot of money you can't possibly spend, so why not pay per city to rise it to 50% or 75%?
Well, yes. And, no. Yes, I do believe that highly motivated, patriotic workers who are determined to contribute to the war effort are going to work harder and be more productive. And that was certainly true of the major powers home front economies during WWII; the efforts made to maximize resource and weapons production within the United States, Britain, Canada, the Soviet Union and Germany were quite remarkable. So, yes, domestic resource production is almost always going to be stronger than resource production in captured territories, regardless of whether there are active resistance or sabotage efforts. The domestic worker is part of a crusade of national self-preservation, and is often willing to work longer hours and for reduced pay; the worker in the captured province, even if he is well treated, has no psychological investment in the war effort and is simply showing up to do a job.darksoul111 wrote:
Yes the -75% penalty makes complete sense historically : you can't efficiently exploit a province's resources when the infrastructures are destroyed, often built completely differently from what you're used to, and anything you produce with your extremely unmotivated workers, being blown up by resistance members.
That said, I do think the 75% penalty in reduced economic output in captured provinces is unrealistically high, especially over time as workers in the captured provinces adapt to their new regime. So, there should be a percentage of considerably less than 100% output, but substantially more than 25% output, that would be a more realistic number than the straight-line 75% penalty that we currently have. Perhaps, as others have suggested, the compromise would be to permit production to rise slowly over time in captured provinces, say from 25% to 50%.
I also think we need to take into account the interaction of the 75% output penalty and the distance-morale dynamic. On the larger maps, it can be damn difficult to stabilize the morale of captured provinces on the opposite side of the map from your own capital. (I have previously suggested that the distance-morale formula probably needs to be tweaked for the bigger maps.) If morale is stuck at 35% or 40% because of the distance-morale dynamic, even with fortifications, that has a further dramatic negative impact on resource production that was already reduced by 75%. I will also note that we are being somewhat inconsistent here: there is NO penalty for unit production in industrial complexes in captured provinces, even as resource production is cut by 75%. That inconsistency is kinda odd.
Agreed for 1. Nevertheless, conquering a continent will usually mean your province will rise quite rapidly. If you play well, in a week or two everything is 70+ MINIMUM. Which therefore means that it could be a bit too rapid for Bytro's taste.MontanaBB wrote:
Perhaps, as others have suggested, the compromise would be to permit production to rise slowly over time in captured provinces, say from 25% to 50%.I also think we need to take into account the interaction of the 75% output penalty and the distance-morale dynamic. On the larger maps, it can be damn difficult to stabilize the morale of captured provinces on the opposite side of the map from your own capital.
I will also note that we are being somewhat inconsistent here: there is NO penalty for unit production in industrial complexes in captured provinces, even as resource production is cut by 75%. That inconsistency is kinda odd.
For 2), I fully agree. This is possibly the most annoying thing in 100 players map. Just as irrealistic in the 25 player historical 1939 map, as colonies were usually doing good during WW2, (india, north africa, egypt...).
Lastly, 3) also seems a good point. I think this is adressed though as merely capturing a province will deal significant damage to its buildings. So yes, true, but it has been solved in my opinion, although more can be added.
One way the production problem was solved in later years of empire building was to create a mostly independent subservient state. This allowed the illusion of sovereignty through self government, while still remaining wholly loyal to the desires and motives of the empire. Today we call it "nation building", but is still empire building which ever way you look at it.
Please log in to post a reply.
