I imagine this has been discussed before, but... I remember a time when in CoW the number of active wars a player had was an important part of the game. I don't remember the details, but the more active wars, the greater the morale hit.
I don't know whether the 'expansion' morale penalty replaced the old system. But I don't feel that it's enough.
I don't feel that players are worried enough or suffer enough consequences from excessive active wars. Right now, a declared enemy A.I. won't trade with you and eventually starts attacking back. It seems insufficient.
I think that a player should be more cautious (to avoid the morale hit) when deciding to attack another player or A.I.
These are just comments for discussion. I enjoy CoW regardless, I just want to see it continue to improve.
Please log in to post a reply.
An unwanted side effect of that system was the fact that it was another incentive to go for a "complete kill", where you go out of your way to get the last province; or when you were prevented from doing so because some naughty ally gave them a province deep in their territory. So the penalty should at least be something about "total provinces of people you're at war with" rather than just "number of players you're at war with".
Expansion is based on amount of land you own, and should be capped at around 35, which this tends to be around the time you are about to win a solo on a WaW map. I remember when I started it used to be based on how many wars you are currently in, currently I see no indication that this is true anymore. This expansion penalty combined with distance from your capital (peaking at 30), ends up being -65 on most of your faraway conquests... This causes the target moral to drop from 102 (base moral) by 65 to 33 moral, just above the rebellion zone, which tends to drop even more by the other neighboring penalties and factors... If you ask me, expansion is already harsh enough.
As of penalties of declaring too many wars? That is covered by the popularity mechanics. Hard to throw numbers on this as there are so many factors attributed to how it drops, but declaring wars, especially to peaceful AI, will absolutely obliterate your overall popularity. The results as you know just end up being trade embargos and spontaneous wars from the AI, which can be extremely annoying on low activity maps like Europe and Homefront. If anything the popularity mechanic should be made more clear to newer players so they don't end up unintentionally shattering their popularity and screw themselves over later on.
System could probably use some changes, though I'm not sure what should change. I value market access, so I care deeply on conserving game popularity to ensure market access. Expansion penalty increasing by the amount of provinces owned encourages teamwork with other players instead of seeking world domination via solo routes. Multiple players can share the burden of conquest in the current system, and I really like the game encouraging alliances, it grants newer players a chance to succeed alongside more experienced instead of the experienced players just dominating everyone in these unfiltered lobbies. I say this like it doesn't happen already.
That used to piss me off, I got stuck into massive wars
Also maybe morale penalty for bad economy? Idk if this would just make it more difficult...Kolonnos wrote:
I imagine this has been discussed before, but... I remember a time when in CoW the number of active wars a player had was an important part of the game. I don't remember the details, but the more active wars, the greater the morale hit.I don't know whether the 'expansion' morale penalty replaced the old system. But I don't feel that it's enough.
I don't feel that players are worried enough or suffer enough consequences from excessive active wars. Right now, a declared enemy A.I. won't trade with you and eventually starts attacking back. It seems insufficient.
I think that a player should be more cautious (to avoid the morale hit) when deciding to attack another player or A.I.
These are just comments for discussion. I enjoy CoW regardless, I just want to see it continue to improve.
Ye, so extension penalty, reduced resource production from conquered cities, ramping app cost of army upkeep, negative morale from distance from capital. In consequence more random bots attacking you.
Hmm how can we punish solo players more?
I remember the old system made more political sense... Declaring war on another country was a bigger deal back then. You had to cafefully consider who, where, and how many enemies to deal with. The current system seems too soft on players.
Perhaps the current system could be tweaked, or a fusion, somehow, of the old and new systems...
Perhaps im a dumb knuckle dragger but personally I hate anything that prevents me from engaging in combat all the time. Why should moral even be a think If my citizens have a problem there should be an option to eliminate them. Any decent is a clear coup attempt. A nation that is actively winning wars I dont see why this would be a negative. German people were probably very strong nationalists as France and Poland fell.
Feudal Japan for example Im sure that when the emperors were winning the citizens were happier then when they were losing. More warriors would flock to the greatest commander.
Ah yes because Germany definitely stamped out all partisan resistance by killing people! Come on, try harder… Think Rook, Think! Genocide does not have any benefits!RookOnzo wrote:
Perhaps im a dumb knuckle dragger but personally I hate anything that prevents me from engaging in combat all the time. Why should moral even be a think If my citizens have a problem there should be an option to eliminate them. Any decent is a clear coup attempt. A nation that is actively winning wars I dont see why this would be a negative. German people were probably very strong nationalists as France and Poland fell.Feudal Japan for example Im sure that when the emperors were winning the citizens were happier then when they were losing. More warriors would flock to the greatest commander.
Many government in the past have had a different opinion on this subject, no matter how politically correct it is to condemn them.
@Carking the 6th yes it's a big no for genocide but since the game tend to stick to certain realities, I agree with @RookOnzo ,we don't have to have genocide and massacres features in the game but some sort of system that would balance it out.In real life some countries aren't bothered with popularity, expansion penalties and sanctions and the better war they make the better the population thrives,both America and Russia (both have committed genocide)are good examples.
After all this game is about expansion but the more you expand you get penalized and with the province revolts, I also think that the system is penalizing us enough.
Yes, some don’t care, doesn’t mean that such things don’t affect them. US embargo’s damaged Japan. Right now Russia is degrading from the inside. The US didn’t thrive because they murdered the Native Americans, war isn’t what gave America its prosperity. I didn’t agree with penalizing anymore but him asking to be able to basically kill citizens that don’t want to have imperialism is just… really weird.Vanrendo wrote:
@Carking the 6th yes it's a big no for genocide but since the game tend to stick to certain realities, I agree with @RookOnzo ,we don't have to have genocide and massacres features in the game but some sort of system that would balance it out.In real life some countries aren't bothered with popularity, expansion penalties and sanctions and the better war they make the better the population thrives,both America and Russia (both have committed genocide)are good examples.After all this game is about expansion but the more you expand you get penalized and with the province revolts, I also think that the system is penalizing us enough.
From a game point I agree with the first two responses to this post, I just found what he wrote strange. Yes, when you expand and annex more land your problems don’t go away. You’re spending a huge amount of resources that could be spent on development to expand the military. Much of the population are soldiers. Not to mention the potential refugees you created that may migrate to the wealthiest part of the country- the cores. People don’t just get distracted by the fact you’re conquering a bunch of stuff and stay happy, the fact that their family members are on a battlefield and there quite a bit less food is gonna have an effect.
If you are talking about genocide, then when did such genocide ever reduce resistance for the one committing it? Soviet, Polish, Yugoslav, Chinese, Indonesian, Vietnamese and French partisans existed and fought through when their land was taken over up until liberation, no brutality managing to stop them. If you mean constant war, then it’s pretty easy to know that war takes a constant toll on a countries population and resources. One that even with victories does not magically go away.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Many government in the past have had a different opinion on this subject, no matter how politically correct it is to condemn them.
There's many examples. The Uygurs in Western China, the Papua's under Indonesian rule, the East Congolese people under their "own" government, and that's just some of the larger ones. Even Armenia, one of the more famous genocides in the past, is firmly in the hands of the Turks now. When you suppress the people in the "right" way, sure rebellion will cease after a while.Carking the 6th wrote:
Vanrendo wrote:
If you are talking about genocide, then when did such genocide ever reduce resistance for the one committing it? Soviet, Polish, Yugoslav, Chinese, Indonesian, Vietnamese and French partisans existed and fought through when their land was taken over up until liberation, no brutality managing to stop them. If you mean constant war, then it’s pretty easy to know that war takes a constant toll on a countries population and resources. One that even with victories does not magically go away.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Many government in the past have had a different opinion on this subject, no matter how politically correct it is to condemn them.
In China, the sheer size difference is a far bigger factor. Even then, there still is some resistance. If anything more than there would have been had they not been committing the genocide at all. West Papua is constantly revolting and Indonesia has been consistently failing to fully stamp out resistance. Seeing how the Congo is constantly fighting civil wars periodically I don’t believe that it worked out for them. And Armenia. They contributed to Armenian revolts after which helped Russia and the Entente crush the Ottomans more easily. Not to mention the Arabs, who revolted for the same reason of suppression.K.Rokossovski wrote:
There's many examples. The Uygurs in Western China, the Papua's under Indonesian rule, the East Congolese people under their "own" government, and that's just some of the larger ones. Even Armenia, one of the more famous genocides in the past, is firmly in the hands of the Turks now. When you suppress the people in the "right" way, sure rebellion will cease after a while.Carking the 6th wrote:
If you are talking about genocide, then when did such genocide ever reduce resistance for the one committing it? Soviet, Polish, Yugoslav, Chinese, Indonesian, Vietnamese and French partisans existed and fought through when their land was taken over up until liberation, no brutality managing to stop them. If you mean constant war, then it’s pretty easy to know that war takes a constant toll on a countries population and resources. One that even with victories does not magically go away.K.Rokossovski wrote:
Many government in the past have had a different opinion on this subject, no matter how politically correct it is to condemn them.
Still they all have their way. They're exploiting the national resources in those territories and only need a bit of brute police force to keep the locals in check.
Very unsustainable approach. Had they simply taken the treat people like humans route they’d have no resistance by now. Like China has given the US the moral high ground in anything, Indonesia is already unraveling in some aspects, this adds another toll that is harder to deal with. Congo definitely isn’t getting any of those resources, Vulture companies though…
On the contrary; the voices of opposition are quenched. In my country they don't do that; and now we have farmers driving their tractors into government center for a protest. Can you imagine how many years of prison you would get if you do that in, say, Tomsk?Carking the 6th wrote:
Very unsustainable approach.
On a micro level, I agree with you completely; people shouldn't govern like that. But on a macro-Machiavellian level, oppression really works. Why do you think so many states use it?
This thread went in an interesting direction from my first post. It's a surprise to me how the topic morphed.
Even in Tomsk, or at least Russia they do such things, only less extreme. Haven’t you heard of those Russians who literally burned down mobilization centers at the cost of life sentences? And of course the brain drain where over a million educated male Russians fled the country, exacerbating the demographic crisis significantly to the point where even if Russia can win the war it’ll still have a rapidly declining population. Oppression does work, but never forever. It is not a sustainable system. There has never been a single state that survived by oppressing its people forever. Even if led to another the regime, the original one fell. These states also tend to be, at least in the modern era more poor and weak than more free countries, though that’s for multiple reasons. It never lasts. Unsustainable.K.Rokossovski wrote:
On the contrary; the voices of opposition are quenched. In my country they don't do that; and now we have farmers driving their tractors into government center for a protest. Can you imagine how many years of prison you would get if you do that in, say, Tomsk?Carking the 6th wrote:
Very unsustainable approach.On a micro level, I agree with you completely; people shouldn't govern like that. But on a macro-Machiavellian level, oppression really works. Why do you think so many states use it?
There has never been a single state that survived, period. If I could manage to argue that the Romans were somehow oppressing their people (and yes, arguing in that direction is well possible), you could always tell me "Yeah but it didn't work in the long run, look, they fell after a 1,000 years".Carking the 6th wrote:
There has never been a single state that survived by oppressing its people forever
But they did so a whole lot less than others, no? Roman society was one of the most free in history, even considering the slave system, which was far more humane than its Atlantic counter part. Even then, that still oppressive slave system is one of the many reasons Rome collapsed, along with a corrupt and you guessed it- oppressive government. When we talk about major civilizations, it’s almost always one’s that gave better freedom and prosperity to their people. Another example is the Ottomans; at their height they promoted religious tolerance and even women had greater rights than the rest of Europe and most of Asia. It was only as they failed to modernize their economy and government, continuing more brutal oppression of people who wanted freedom. The young Turks at the end were especially bad, committing the WW1 era genocides the country is known for. That’s what caused the Arab revolts. That’s what led to its fall. Point is that more free and less oppressive societies tend to be more prosperous and long lived. Ones that people do not want to live in are destined to eventually fall apart at an eventual and inevitable opportunity. If you are a country, you should want your people to be there for you during a crisis or unstable time. If Russia was nearing collapse, I wouldn’t be surprised if ethnic groups would take the opportunity to secede and let it burn. We know that in WW2 many saw liberation in the German invaders until they started their genocide, even wanting to join them to fight the USSR. But in the US or UK? The people had solidarity and held it together until the Germans were defeated (By the way, the Nazis had a very oppressive slave economy, which would eventually lead to their collapse once they ran out of places to pillage ironically.). Once the people in the USSR realized that they’d probably rather take their chances with Stalin, they quickly turned against the Germans, launching partisan attacks. Once the Soviet industry and manpower came to bear, it was all over. Oppressive governance is simply worse in the long term.K.Rokossovski wrote:
There has never been a single state that survived, period. If I could manage to argue that the Romans were somehow oppressing their people (and yes, arguing in that direction is well possible), you could always tell me "Yeah but it didn't work in the long run, look, they fell after a 1,000 years".Carking the 6th wrote:
There has never been a single state that survived by oppressing its people forever
Please log in to post a reply.
