Allow Puppet Nations in 1939 Map.

    • Allow Puppet Nations in 1939 Map.

      Should we be allowed to create puppet states in the 1939 map? 14
      1.  
        Yes (7) 50%
      2.  
        No (5) 36%
      3.  
        Yes, but with more rules/exceptions (2) 14%
      4.  
        Meh (0) 0%
      There should be an option to puppet states in the 1939 map..
      It's pretty hard to keep provinces without spamming fortifications which takes up too much materials for countries like Japan to keep up without moving the capital to there and keep moving it everywhere.
      Here's an example: (attachment at the bottom)
      I invaded the West US coast as japan in this game and Manchukuo so far (day 5). If I move my capital to Midway, it'd be too far from the Manchukuo provinces so they'd rebel. If I keep it into Tokyo the US provinces with rebel. If you could lets say select provinces, write a name, and a flag and a capital, you'd get a bonus on province morale in that area, but not production. (to prevent abuse, have a province limit of how many provinces can be in it, and limit the amount of puppet states per country (like 3).
      Please vote and give feedback on this idea!
      Forum Gang Kaiser




      South Dakota is the Best Dakota

      The post was edited 1 time, last by xXCooksterXx ().

    • I'm glad someone else is thinking of this as well :D . This is actually a huge map and it would definitely improve the whole experience much more if we add puppet states, say under the tag of "Other coalitions" in game maybe. This would also encourage players to be more immersive in this game mode as compared to what it is at present, giving their presence and actions more value and significance. I really hope the game devs work on adding these features to this amazing game mode.

      I have started a thread with a different suggestion for this game mode as well. Please do have a look when you have the time, and add to it if you come up with anything.
    • Or you could have a sub-choice in the coalition section. There would be a choice for equal representation, and one where the leader reaps most of the benefits.

      Given that the first one already exists, I'll just cover the second, recommended one.

      First of all, the leader of the coalition can ALWAYS change it from leader benefits to equal representation, but needs full support to do the opposite (or just cannot do it, and be forced to recreate the coalition). Basically the leader would be gaining a higher reward in this scenario than he would if he was a member, and the exact percentage of gold would be decided by the leader (Bring Capitalism in the Reward System!). Like their decision to change the mode, they can always lower the % dedicated to the leader (but only down to equal representation), but never increase it. Also, if a player has no interest in the gold reward, they can defer it to the other members (might have some concerns).

      There is also the option to choose how the relations work between member and leader (leader decides once, choice is permanent). The leader may choose every member shares their map with him, but they only get right of way with the leader. This will ONLY address the relation from member to leader NOT member to member (this will enable the members to plot against the leader if they wish).

      Basically you're revamping the coalition system to include other options that would base your choice not just on teammates, but the rewards that may follow.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • If by puppet nations you mean nations under your complete control, then I disagree, they should have some semblance of authority. Even if it's just that an AI is the one who decides the units and/or buildings to build, that MIGHT work. So basically it's an AI country that you control the troop movements for. In order to discourage abusive use of this, it should be limited to up to 2 puppets and the VP under their control is 50% in value to your victory (so maybe just build fortifications in cities).
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • Lukenick wrote:

      If by puppet nations you mean nations under your complete control, then I disagree, they should have some semblance of authority. Even if it's just that an AI is the one who decides the units and/or buildings to build, that MIGHT work. So basically it's an AI country that you control the troop movements for. In order to discourage abusive use of this, it should be limited to up to 2 puppets and the VP under their control is 50% in value to your victory (so maybe just build fortifications in cities).
      What I thought is that if you can puppet a player you have to do it via trade, and once accepted there is little to no way of being free (unless maybe the person who controls the puppet gets killed). The puppet could never attack its ally, (like a coalition) the puppet can not make diplomat actions to others, and maybe a extra diplomat action for the controller so he can chose which puppet to bring in for war. also you would get 50% of the puppets gold and resources(when I mean gold, I mean at end of game)

      The post was edited 1 time, last by kidgamerboy ().