Recapturing Your Provinces

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Recapturing Your Provinces

      There is something I'd like to mention about recapturing your provinces. But first, let me put an example:

      I'm France. Germany attacks me and takes, say, Cherbourg. Morale in Cherbourg straight after Germany captures it is of about 25% (I think this happens with every province as soon as you capture it). Some days pass and morale in Cherbourg is now of 40%. I, being France, organize a counterattack and recapture Cherbourg. Morale goes back down to 25%, putting the province in a state of rebellion again. But in real life this wouldn't happen, because Cherbourg is a French core province and its citizens would be happy to form part of France again. I am not suggesting that by me recapturing Cherbourg the morale should go up to 100%, but what I am saying is that when Cherbourg returns to its legitimate owner, it should not rebel, as the citizens would be happy.

      All being said, it is only a suggestion and if the mods/devs don't want to implement it, I am fine with it, but at least I expect some time of response from a person in authority.

      Pablo22510
      The past is a foreign country.

    • @Pablo22510: How should people feel happy about their houses being burned and all their gatherings destroyed by the fighting? Because that's what war is: utter destruction. Yes, the citizens would be happy right after liberation, but that won't keep them from getting rained under the free sky or from getting hungry. You want to help your people? Put some of your troops to help them, that way they surely won't rebel. But if you don't care about your people and only about your stupid wars with others, and put all your resources in the fighting, nothing for the people, I'm not at all surprised they rebel ;)

      The post was edited 2 times, last by mihaipmp: Profanity ().

    • mihaipmp wrote:

      @Pablo22510: How the hell should people feel happy about their houses being burned and all their gatherings destroyed by the fighting? Because that's what war is: utter destruction. Yes, the citizens would be happy right after liberation, but that won't keep them from getting rained under the free sky or from getting hungry. You want to help your people? Put some of your troops to help them, that way they surely won't rebel. But if you don't care about your people and only about your stupid wars with others, and put all your resources in the fighting, nothing for the people, I'm not at all surprised they rebel
      Look at France in 1944. Despite the Allied bombings that killed tens of thousands of innocent French civilians, the French received them like heroes and morale soared. If you know the operation to capture Pegasus Bridge, you will also know that the British Commandos were given a regular supply of Champagne by the French civilians. Recaptured provinces should start at 35%.
      The past is a foreign country.

    • Pablo22510 wrote:

      Look at France in 1944.
      You give me France as an example of a country liberating their own territory, but all the details show the liberating armies were actually foreign troops. So, your historical example proves nothing.

      Do you know who was also extremely well received? Hitler's army in the Soviet Union. After the Holomodor, Stalin wasn't at all loved in USSR. But since Stalin had an equally stupid dictator on the other side, Hitler imposed his policy of ethnic cleansing, considering the Soviets inferiors, and that definitely turned the locals against Wehrmacht.

      Also, while we discuss the morale of the liberated people in WW2, why don't you also look at the West USSR? Local partisans fought the Red Army years after WW2 - look up Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). The soviets lost against UPA twice the men lost in Afghanistan in the '80s.

      Before you tell me it's only about USSR, take a look at Greece's example: they actually rebelled against the British liberators, waging a bloody civil war.

      Back to the game: you don't like a feature, I like it as it is and base my strategy on it.

    • mihaipmp wrote:

      Pablo22510 wrote:

      Look at France in 1944.
      You give me France as an example of a country liberating their own territory, but all the details show the liberating armies were actually foreign troops. So, your historical example proves nothing.
      Do you know who was also extremely well received? Hitler's army in the Soviet Union. After the Holomodor, Stalin wasn't at all loved in USSR. But since Stalin had an equally stupid dictator on the other side, Hitler imposed his policy of ethnic cleansing, considering the Soviets inferiors, and that definitely turned the locals against Wehrmacht.

      Also, while we discuss the morale of the liberated people in WW2, why don't you also look at the West USSR? Local partisans fought the Red Army years after WW2 - look up Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). The soviets lost against UPA twice the men lost in Afghanistan in the '80s.

      Before you tell me it's only about USSR, take a look at Greece's example: they actually rebelled against the British liberators, waging a bloody civil war.

      Back to the game: you don't like a feature, I like it as it is and base my strategy on it.
      Yes, but the foreign troops were frances allies, and the french generals aswell as the French Maquise fighters were the ones who liberated france. Becuase the Americans tho conquering, were giving it ll back to france. but you are right, about how france could not liberate its own province, because french are only good at surrendering and kissing.

    • Butter Ball Bill wrote:

      mihaipmp wrote:

      I like it as it is and base my strategy on it
      You base your strategy on provinces rebelling?
      I base my strategy on the fact that provinces rebel when they're not properly attended. This has 2 parts:
      * defense: make sure my provinces don't rebel
      * offense: try to go as deep as possible in enemy's core, even in suicide missions -> destroy some buildings (not very effective in late game, when everything is upgraded) + destroy the morale of the enemy.

    • mihaipmp wrote:

      suicide missions -> destroy some buildings (not very
      I agree completely. I usually try to aim for destroying as much buildings as possible even if its suicide mission. Its a smart move to make, wrecking your enemies economy. There was a time that I had two infantry separated on two islands that my enemy didnt notice. While his troops were busy attacking me I sent them through his provinces. I kept pushing through his lands while he tried to chase after them. It done a great deal of damage. I was eventually able to destroy him. Oh btw, those units are still alive. :)

    • mihaipmp wrote:

      Butter Ball Bill wrote:

      mihaipmp wrote:

      I like it as it is and base my strategy on it
      You base your strategy on provinces rebelling?
      I base my strategy on the fact that provinces rebel when they're not properly attended. This has 2 parts:* defense: make sure my provinces don't rebel
      * offense: try to go as deep as possible in enemy's core, even in suicide missions -> destroy some buildings (not very effective in late game, when everything is upgraded) + destroy the morale of the enemy.
      To say this has little to do with the issue at hand is being very generous. The idea is about core provinces being recaptured by core owner. It's not a huge game breaking thing. Making sure your provinces don't rebel is barely strategy, regardless those are pretty much going to be non core provinces most of the time.

      I think anyone with half a brain tries to go take the enemies core and wreck havoc when they can, and if you take those provinces you still destroy morale and buildings.

    • I think the strategy is good for when you are fighting against large countries. If you wreck their economy they cant fight back right? Ive done this before and the morale goes back up a few days later. To be honest I havent really seen provinces rebelling as a problem that much.

    • mihaipmp wrote:

      You give me France as an example of a country liberating their own territory, but all the details show the liberating armies were actually foreign troops. So, your historical example proves nothing.

      Do you know who was also extremely well received? Hitler's army in the Soviet Union. After the Holomodor, Stalin wasn't at all loved in USSR. But since Stalin had an equally stupid dictator on the other side, Hitler imposed his policy of ethnic cleansing, considering the Soviets inferiors, and that definitely turned the locals against Wehrmacht.

      Also, while we discuss the morale of the liberated people in WW2, why don't you also look at the West USSR? Local partisans fought the Red Army years after WW2 - look up Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). The soviets lost against UPA twice the men lost in Afghanistan in the '80s.

      Before you tell me it's only about USSR, take a look at Greece's example: they actually rebelled against the British liberators, waging a bloody civil war.

      Back to the game: you don't like a feature, I like it as it is and base my strategy on it.
      France did not liberate their own country alone. But the French Resistance was key for Operation Overlord, as were the French Maquis in the Liberation of Paris, and the FFF also fought in France. Look at the photos. The French look happy enough to me.

      Now I'll answer to what you said about Stalin and Hitler. When the Wehrmacht took Kiev, the German soldiers were received as heroes because the Russians thought Hitler was better than Stalin (all in all, Stalin killed 30 million people). However, as we all know, Hitler was not better than Stalin. In a visit of Hermann Göring to Kiev, he was received by very happy Russian faces. A week later, many Ukrainians were exterminated. So when the Russian Army retook Kiev, suddenly they were very popular. Another example of liberation.

      Now, about UPA. They fought the Soviets after WW2. During the war, many proud Ukrainians enlisted to defend the Motherland.

      And I was about to say it only was about the USSR, when I read you're example about Greece. It still is only about the USSR. The Greek Civil War was a bloody war. The rebels were, guess who? That's right: Greek Communists funded by the USSR. That's why the British didn't want the Communists to get power in Greece (although Mr. Tsipras has now). They didn't want the Communists to get hold of a strategically important country in the Med.

      Back to the game: I suggested a new feature, but some people don't like it, and that's perfectly fine. after all, it's a forum. ;)
      Images

      • descarga.jpg

        204.66 kB, 736×568, viewed 820 times

      • descargaa.jpg

        84.09 kB, 635×357, viewed 341 times
      The past is a foreign country.

    • mihaipmp wrote:

      I base my strategy on the fact that provinces rebel when they're not properly attended. This has 2 parts:
      * defense: make sure my provinces don't rebel
      * offense: try to go as deep as possible in enemy's core, even in suicide missions -> destroy some buildings (not very effective in late game, when everything is upgraded) + destroy the morale of the enemy.
      Thats not a strategy, that is making sure no provinces rebel. Destroying a load of infra is bad too, then you have no frontline factories.

      Forum ArmyField Marshall :00000441:

      Mess with the Bill, you get the scorn!

    • @Pablo22510: UPA was formed in 1942. Although they initially fought the Germans, they ended up working with the Wehrmacht against the Soviets. Then they continued fighting even after the war ended.

      About the Greeks, all serious resistance movements of all times were funded and helped by some foreign state. The only exception is the UPA above - they pretty much managed to fight against everybody else. Still, the resistance movement was not helped by USSR - as you claim - but by Yugoslavia. In fact, Stalin wanted it stopped, because he traded (with Churchill) Greece for Romania. This was the most important disagreement between Tito and Stalin - that led to a stalemate between USSR and Yugoslavia. Unfortunately for them, the Greek communists sided with Stalin in the ideological battle, and soon saw the borders to Yugoslavia closed - that brought their ultimate defeat.

      P.S.: On your side note - the Greek communists - KKE - are opposing Tsipras Government. You should get your facts straight!