Two capitals

    • Two capitals

      Do you want an option of more than one capital? 21

      The result is only visible to the participants.

      I am currently playing a game as Argentina and have expanded to Africa, Germany, and in between, but all morale in my non-core provinces is below 30 except Brazil. Could it be possible to have two capitals after a certain amount of provinces? Some real-life countries have more than one capital you know. Such as Sri Lanka, Benin, Lesotho, Bolivia, the Netherlands, and others still. South Africa even has three! I think two capitals would make stabilized morale easier to get to.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Edward Hartmann ().

    • Yes, an old but a still good idea ..
      .. however there still should be only one capital. But it would be an elegant solution to be able to build one "capital-like" building per every continent in which one have provinces, from where the distance and thus the moral-malus for this continent will be calculated. For example, this building could be called as "continental administration" or something like that.
      _________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      Browsergames sind eine geniale, mehr oder weniger geschickt als Spielattrappe getarnte Geschäftsidee zum Kohleziehen :!:
      Also Vorsicht, es können überall Fußangeln, Stolperdrähte und Selbstschussanlagen lauern :00000156:
      Achtung!
      Texte oberhalb dieser Signatur können Spuren von Ironie enthalten ;)
    • I don't like the idea of more than one capital, but I think there definitely has to be a "capital-like" building that boosts morale in provinces close to it. If you control a vast empire, there's no way to make all your civilians happy- the morale will never rise above 30. Things get even worse if you run out of resources or are at war with someone else. Point is, rebellions are just too hard to quash.
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel
    • I have a great idea: semi-independent colonies. You have to pay for them to get administration, but they will give you share map, not waste resources like normal AI, and defend themselves by making limited troops. They won't take any aggressive action, and won't be very powerful in their own military, but the morale boost and the ability to raise a few militia or AT for themselves will help a lot later in World maps.
    • I agree with the idea there should only be 1 capital, but capital-like buildings are okay (no more than 1 capital and 2 capital-like buildings; this applies to all maps, even 100p map). Capitals have become centers to allow production of super-units such as commandos and paratroopers, I believe only 1 of those need to exist. Now there can be other "hubs" within your country that will aid your morale, but only after you conquer a number of your enemies.

      My suggestion is that you can have your first "hub" to aid your morale once you have the number of provinces that would normally be under the control of 10 player nations. So if one player has 40 provinces, you must own 400 to build your first "hub". If you fall below that 400 provinces, you don't lose the "hub", you just cannot repair or rebuild it until you reach 400 again. The second hub can be obtained when you have the number of provinces that would normally be under the control of 25 player nations (if we keep the 40 provinces per player model, that would require 1000 provinces).
      These hubs will cost more than the typical capital and will also take more time to be built (maybe 16 hours). The bonus of these hubs is that they will decrease the penalty for a distant capital by 25% at level 1, 45% at level 2, and 60% at level 3. The cost will be increasingly higher with each level.

      You cannot eliminate the penalty entirely, because that would decrease the use of fortifications and other morale boosting buildings. This would help the player prevent rebellions, but not make fortifications entirely useless.
      "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:

      My suggestion is that you can have your first "hub" to aid your morale once you have the number of provinces that would normally be under the control of 10 player nations.
      The problem with this idea is, and correct me if I'm wrong, but no map has countries where each player starts off with equal amounts of provinces except Antarctica, Tournament Island, and the English Channel map. Instead of having to own a certain amount of player provinces, there should just be a simple province threshold. Hope this makes sense :))
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel
    • There is not one exact number, but usually they gravitate near one (the mean is x provinces). But that still is not nearly as simple as it should be. Let's pretend the largest (base) nation has about 50 provinces, let's make the requirement for the first "hub" at 500 province requirement, and the second one at 1250 provinces.

      Now my question that remains is: Should the province requirement carry over to every map? Or can it vary?

      If anybody is willing, I would like to know a rough estimate for the mean (average) number of provinces per player country. I do know that some maps are less consistent in the number of provinces a nation controls, but this might help. If you're not up to doing means, just figure out the minimum and maximum values for a player country (If Libya has the least provinces at 40 and UK has the most at 44 the min would be 40 and the max would be 44).
      "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."
    • New

      The only reason for wanting multiple capitols is to control rebellions and boost morale.
      Wouldn't this mean that blitzing would go faster and games would become shorter?
      Wouldn't this lead to lessor researching upgrades and less needed new units?
      Wouldn't this lead to anyone being invaded less time to react and build or send units to defend?

      Without causing a major imbalance in the game, because I hate going -500 food per hour as everyone else, maybe change the % amount of food that can be grown for captured food provinces? Maybe also modify IF's from 3 upgrades to 5 upgrades, reduce the build time accordingly, to allow resource starved nations to build lvl 2, 3, 4, and 5 of IF's instead of only having the 3?

      1) It would force the attacker to create more IF's while getting better than 25% food results in captured provinces.
      2) It would still leave the 'balance' in place for people who are defending and need time.
      3) It would still keep people like me from attacking aimlessly without concern for food but give me an option to help fix the problem.

      What if we got, let's say, 35% food in captured provinces instead of 25%? Would that be enough? With the ability to make 5 levels of IF's, wouldn't that satisfy the needs for people who are low on resources?
    • New

      ike53 wrote:

      The only reason for wanting multiple capitols is to control rebellions and boost morale.
      Wouldn't this mean that blitzing would go faster and games would become shorter?
      Wouldn't this lead to lessor researching upgrades and less needed new units?
      Wouldn't this lead to anyone being invaded less time to react and build or send units to defend?

      Without causing a major imbalance in the game, because I hate going -500 food per hour as everyone else, maybe change the % amount of food that can be grown for captured food provinces? Maybe also modify IF's from 3 upgrades to 5 upgrades, reduce the build time accordingly, to allow resource starved nations to build lvl 2, 3, 4, and 5 of IF's instead of only having the 3?

      1) It would force the attacker to create more IF's while getting better than 25% food results in captured provinces.
      2) It would still leave the 'balance' in place for people who are defending and need time.
      3) It would still keep people like me from attacking aimlessly without concern for food but give me an option to help fix the problem.

      What if we got, let's say, 35% food in captured provinces instead of 25%? Would that be enough? With the ability to make 5 levels of IF's, wouldn't that satisfy the needs for people who are low on resources?
      Thank you, I think many of us needed that reminder. With these additional capitals, the morale will become little to no issue at all. The only concern I have remaining though is the morale of 50+ player maps. How are you supposed to control 30 nations (60% of VP) without having serious morale issues? This basically forces these players to enter coalitions in order to win with the serious problem of morale. While I'm not changing my mind just yet, I have decided to make revisions to my previous suggestion. Once you control 1600 provinces, you can create your 1st, and only, hub. The revised version only has 2 levels: the 1st decreases the penalty by 15%, and the 2nd is 25% reduction. This would make the reduction insignificant, and would only aid the extremely large maps in having independent countries. This is an alternative method to an empire idea that others have suggested except it does not include other players as a coalition would or vassals like some suggest.

      I am also for a reduction in the resource penalty for non-core provinces, even if a building is required to reduce this penalty like I suggested with the hubs. Or if it's only a select number of provinces where this is allowed to be enabled.
      "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."
    • New

      Lukenick wrote:

      The only concern I have remaining though is the morale of 50+ player maps. How are you supposed to control 30 nations (60% of VP) without having serious morale issues?
      Don't forget the Historic World War, that one's actual hell. Half of the provinces in that map aren't cores to ANY country!

      ike53 wrote:

      The only reason for wanting multiple capitols is to control rebellions and boost morale.
      Wouldn't this mean that blitzing would go faster and games would become shorter?
      Wouldn't this lead to lessor researching upgrades and less needed new units?
      Wouldn't this lead to anyone being invaded less time to react and build or send units to defend?
      The answer to this is yes, yes, and yes. It is SO BORING to be stuck in the late stages of a game on a huge map, where literally all you can do is to try to make sure your provinces don't all flip. In the Historic World War map, you can't declare war to 3 or more people as France without all your colonies flipping out, not to mention how 97% of all provinces produce no resources and how much freaking land there is between Paris and San Francisco. AMERICAN WEST COAST, STOP REBELLING.

      Did I mention I hate the Historic World War map? It needs a revamp, like, NOW.
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel
    • New

      It is an actual NIGHTMARE to keep colonies happy. I can now see why the UK and France gave up their colonies so willingly in the 20th century- they're AWFUL. Look subjects, la belle France is going to beat up the United States and there's nothing you can do about it, so BE HAPPY ALREADY.
      "That's impossible! The Americans only know how to make razor blades."
      "We could do with some of those razor blades, Herr Reichsmarshall."
      Hermann Goring and Erwin Rommel
    • New

      The ones I think this needs to solve most though is the larger maps that takes a longer time to play. Maybe it would also be unlocked at day 30 for anybody who has not yet unlocked it? Like iDragons mentioned, the Historic World War map was very painful, similar to what it probably was back in history; it's a historical map, colonies are painful for morale, deal with it.
      Realistically, I believe that one nation could never conquer the globe without allowing others to lead other masses of land on their part (like vassals). In the 100-player map, the basic ideal distribution I expect is that 1 player controls the Americas, 1 person controls Southeast Asia & Oceania, 1 person controls Africa, 1 person controls Europe and Western Asia, 1 person controls the rest of Northern Asia and some of the remaining Asian lands, and you would still need 1 to control a portion of land in southern Asia (& middle east). In this situation, unless prepared beforehand, most of these nations are forced to move their capital away from their nations, which if they could avoid it, many would, and set up an additional hub city for their distant lands.
      With a coalition, you only need 80% of the VP, and 5 players should be able to hold 80%, especially of the VP. The problem is that instead of moving their capital, some would decide to create vassal states or something that would work for them and these vassals would only exist because their empire is so large. Instead of creating a vassal simulation, I proposed reductions to the capital distance penalty with a hub for nations that meet the requirements.
      "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."
    • New

      Everything that is needed to quell rebellions and raise morale (to realistic standards) despite having a huge empire that spans the globe already exists in the game.

      About a year ago the devs increased the rss required to build infrastructure and people were crying about it threatening to quit playing or simply not build any. Very few people noticed that the +morale buff provided by infrastructure had been increased... This is just one example of things you can do to raise morale. Building forts is another and lastly you can garrison troops in key locations both for protection and to provide morale boost.

      Lest we forget that keeping huge empires together that span continents is NOT suppoed to be easy.