Remove the Expansion Penalty on Morale!!

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

    • Remove the Expansion Penalty on Morale!!

      In this game the larger your country is the unhappier your citizens? How on earth does that make sense?! Remove the annoying Expansion Penalty! :wallbash
      "Never fail to honor your people. When a true leader's work is done and his aims fulfilled, they should say and believe 'We did this ourselves.'" - US Army General George S. Patton Jr. [1885-1945]
    • I mean, I consider it realistic. Think about the crap ton of unhappy people in your lands. The more you expand, the bigger the percentage of non-citizens you have compared to citizens.
      Have an amazing rest of your day. =)

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself." - the Lord Buddha

      Need support? --> Send a ticket here!
      :00010166:
    • This is less of a realistic feature and more of a balancing one. People who expand fast oftentimes are the ones that are really good at the game. The people who don't are less experienced, and this feature is to level the playing field.
      - Donk2.0
      CoW player, CoN player, S1914 player, and Bytro game addict.

      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal, it is the courage to continue that counts.”


      Need support? --> Send a ticket here!

      Have a great day! :D

      Слава Україні! :thumbsup:
    • Thinking about it as supply makes no sense. Neither does the idea of expanding negatively impacting your morale. I can't think of a single time in history that a nation has gotten angry that they're winning. Expansion should cause a morale buff for those living in core provinces and have no effect on those living in captured provinces.
    • The realism is beside the point.

      Once a player (or coalition) is really big and victory is guaranteed, everyone just wants the game to end. Expansion penalty makes the game take longer for no good reason. It's just a test of everyone's patience.

      Who gains from this? Bytro has large games with tons of units consuming server time. Winning players have to do a bunch of annoying flips and propaganda centers and garrison units. Losing players have to sit there and wait for their meager gold rewards. For what?

      Just end this stupidity.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      The realism is beside the point.

      Once a player (or coalition) is really big and victory is guaranteed, everyone just wants the game to end. Expansion penalty makes the game take longer for no good reason. It's just a test of everyone's patience.

      Who gains from this? Bytro has large games with tons of units consuming server time. Winning players have to do a bunch of annoying flips and propaganda centers and garrison units. Losing players have to sit there and wait for their meager gold rewards. For what?

      Just end this stupidity.
      Again, to reiterate the point.

      The primary purpose of this is to ensure that big nations do not get too powerful, giving the underdogs time to hold their ground against them. Victory is never guaranteed, trust me. You might think you've reached a point where you've won, but you can only guarantee it with the victory screen itself. Never trust other players in game (unless they are from the same alliance), since you will at one point be certainly betrayed by a greedy ally. They give morale a use, since before this whole "Expansion" part of the game, it was determined by the number of countries that you are at war with. With no debuff for expansion and wars, underdogs don't stand a chance.

      I do agree on one point though, the penalty should definitely not count for core provinces. The loyal citizens should be happy, not angry about the rapid growth and expansion of the economy and military of their homeland.
      Have an amazing rest of your day. =)

      "Everything is impermanent. The only thing that is permanent it impermanence itself." - the Lord Buddha

      Need support? --> Send a ticket here!
      :00010166:
    • Sure, there could be maps where you're winning, and there are still some human-controlled countries out there with large economies and powerful armies. That's not what I'm talking about. What I see towards the end of a game is a few small fry with undeveloped militaries and a bunch of AI countries declaring war. The only thing left to do is endure the stupidity day after day. And when was the last time you were winning as a coalition on a large map, where you didn't know your partners before the map started? I've never seen back stabbing in the end game, and I would consider it gauche.
    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      It does make sense. Imagine stealing your taxpayer's money to build a large ass army and conscripting your citizens. Of course they won't be happy, no one is ever happy about constant warfare.
      This is a modern way of looking at war. Very rarely (pre-1950s) would civilians object to or oppose a war that they're winning. War was mostly/always (thanks to the effectiveness of ye olde state propaganda) met with proud determination (that goes for most/all nations involved, even if previously trying to avoid the war), if not pomp and celebration. Only when expansion slowed and casualties mounted did civilians start to rethink the whole war thing. I understand that raising morale for rapid conquest may not be conducive for this game, but:
      a) it makes far less sense to punish a nation/player for success
      b) you could balance it by causing a more severe morale penalty for non-core provinces with a morale below, say, 80% (to give an arbitrary but ballpark number). There would be no impact at all on non-core provinces with 80% and above.
    • newbgamer101 wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      It does make sense. Imagine stealing your taxpayer's money to build a large ass army and conscripting your citizens. Of course they won't be happy, no one is ever happy about constant warfare.
      This is a modern way of looking at war. Very rarely (pre-1950s) would civilians object to or oppose a war that they're winning. War was mostly/always (thanks to the effectiveness of ye olde state propaganda) met with proud determination (that goes for most/all nations involved, even if previously trying to avoid the war), if not pomp and celebration. Only when expansion slowed and casualties mounted did civilians start to rethink the whole war thing. I understand that raising morale for rapid conquest may not be conducive for this game, but:a) it makes far less sense to punish a nation/player for success
      b) you could balance it by causing a more severe morale penalty for non-core provinces with a morale below, say, 80% (to give an arbitrary but ballpark number). There would be no impact at all on non-core provinces with 80% and above.
      The type of war you are talking about. Like waging war against 6 different countries would definitely provoke Civlian outrage. Oh yeah plenty of civilians did object to World War I and plenty of other wars. The wars that take place in game are far larger in scale than the wars civilians would not object to.
    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      The type of war you are talking about. Like waging war against 6 different countries would definitely provoke Civlian outrage. Oh yeah plenty of civilians did object to World War I and plenty of other wars. The wars that take place in game are far larger in scale than the wars civilians would not object to.
      This is either inaccurate or proves my point. WWI involved over 30 different countries. Germany, France, Britain, the US etc etc all entered the war with higher morale than imaginable in this day and age. It was considered disgraceful to stay behind, even if you were denied for legitimate reasons. It's only until progress slowed and casualties rose that civilians started to rethink the war. Where there was success, homefront morale improved. With failure came unrest. WWII mirrors this almost exactly, and over 50 nations took part. Britain was fighting literally all over the world, from Dunkirk to Singapor to El Alamein. These wars are prime examples as they are almost directly relevant to this game. But even going back to the Civil War (to name another famous example), the Confederates started the war in the highest of spirits. By the time they were losing, their will was broken. But in between then, homefront morale rose and fell with each victory or defeat the armies experienced. Idk how many examples I have to name to demonstrate the fact that winning is fun and losing sucks. It doesn't really matter how many opponents you're facing.
    • newbgamer101 wrote:

      vietcong2005 wrote:

      The type of war you are talking about. Like waging war against 6 different countries would definitely provoke Civlian outrage. Oh yeah plenty of civilians did object to World War I and plenty of other wars. The wars that take place in game are far larger in scale than the wars civilians would not object to.
      This is either inaccurate or proves my point. WWI involved over 30 different countries. Germany, France, Britain, the US etc etc all entered the war with higher morale than imaginable in this day and age. It was considered disgraceful to stay behind, even if you were denied for legitimate reasons. It's only until progress slowed and casualties rose that civilians started to rethink the war. Where there was success, homefront morale improved. With failure came unrest. WWII mirrors this almost exactly, and over 50 nations took part. Britain was fighting literally all over the world, from Dunkirk to Singapor to El Alamein. These wars are prime examples as they are almost directly relevant to this game. But even going back to the Civil War (to name another famous example), the Confederates started the war in the highest of spirits. By the time they were losing, their will was broken. But in between then, homefront morale rose and fell with each victory or defeat the armies experienced. Idk how many examples I have to name to demonstrate the fact that winning is fun and losing sucks. It doesn't really matter how many opponents you're facing.
      You gain casualties in war. Plus you are fighting like ten countries, it is not cheap enterprise. So people won't support it. The wars you fought throughout the course of the entire came will for sure frustrate your citizens. By the end of the game tens of thousands of your soldiers have died and you think the mothers and fathers of these soldiers would be joyful. No.
    • vietcong2005 wrote:

      newbgamer101 wrote:

      This is either inaccurate or proves my point. WWI involved over 30 different countries. Germany, France, Britain, the US etc etc all entered the war with higher morale than imaginable in this day and age. It was considered disgraceful to stay behind, even if you were denied for legitimate reasons. It's only until progress slowed and casualties rose that civilians started to rethink the war. Where there was success, homefront morale improved. With failure came unrest. WWII mirrors this almost exactly, and over 50 nations took part. Britain was fighting literally all over the world, from Dunkirk to Singapor to El Alamein. These wars are prime examples as they are almost directly relevant to this game. But even going back to the Civil War (to name another famous example), the Confederates started the war in the highest of spirits. By the time they were losing, their will was broken. But in between then, homefront morale rose and fell with each victory or defeat the armies experienced. Idk how many examples I have to name to demonstrate the fact that winning is fun and losing sucks. It doesn't really matter how many opponents you're facing.
      You gain casualties in war. Plus you are fighting like ten countries, it is not cheap enterprise. So people won't support it. The wars you fought throughout the course of the entire came will for sure frustrate your citizens. By the end of the game tens of thousands of your soldiers have died and you think the mothers and fathers of these soldiers would be joyful. No.
      You say this and yet there are thousands of wars throughout centuries which prove otherwise. Any war after WWII is an entirely different story thanks to the faster spread of information. The homefront would have to constantly be reminded of the unpleasantness of war. Well it's a good thing that this game *is* WWII, so we don't have to worry about that. I invite you to show me an example or two (pre-1945) where a people opposed a war that they were winning (at the time they were winning it). Then I might reconsider my stance.