Capitals

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

    • Capitals

      I think the penalties for not rebuilding a lost Capital need to be increased. I say this as I have seen players and AI lose a Capital and never rebuild one. Currently I am in a game where France lost Paris to the UK and the UK then lost London to France. Paris was lost on Day 2 and it is almost Day 7 now an no sign of a new Capital. The UK lost London on Day 3 and still no sign of a new Capital. Current morale for France is 27 but in the core area it is still above the point of revolt. UK morale is currently 58 and his core is all above 60. I am not suggesting that if you lose you Capital that you must immediately rebuild it but within 24 hours of losing it a Capitol must be started or face increasing cumulative penalties until it is completed. Completed as many players would try to game the system as they are currently doing. Also if no Capital exist then the bonus from building Propaganda Offices should go away after 24 hours. No Capital means no government to operate the machinery of providing Propaganda to the masses of citizenry. After 24 hours of no Capital, no additional units can be created. Also a reduction in resources should start to take effect, 1 would suggest at least 10% per day to start, this would be because there is no government to collect the taxes.

      As for why AI nations do not rebuild is in a way a question for another post but I think it should be addressed now as well. An AI nation should have 48 hours before a new Capital is built. With the same penalties applied to it as the human player.
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel

    • Along these lines, perhaps change how propaganda offices work by removing the direct modifier to morale and replacing it with a modifier to "Distance from Capital" or some variation on that concept?

      If the capital is lost, the propaganda offices would cease to function.

      Just a thought.
      A List of My Heroes:
      Display Spoiler
      BlackS0rcerer:
      9/5/22 - 13:58
      just posting here cause it gives a reward

    • Why are you so concerned about this? It seems both France and UK in your example don't really benefit from not rebuilding it, their morale is low as you say and they could quickly pump it up by rebuilding... why is this so much worse than, say, a player only building heavy tanks?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Why are you so concerned about this? It seems both France and UK in your example don't really benefit from not rebuilding it, their morale is low as you say and they could quickly pump it up by rebuilding... why is this so much worse than, say, a player only building heavy tanks?
      Or a moderate penalty to over all loyalty. like a -5
      And propaganda buildings should influence neighboring provinces to an extent as well.

    • Why am I so concerned about this? Let me start by pointing out that comparing this to the player who just builds Heavy Tanks is not even in the same category, by building only Heavy Tanks they are not bypassing game mechanic rules. When an enemy never rebuilds a Capitol, I am unable to get the two benefits for capturing their Capital. I do NOT get the 10 morale boost not do I collect 50% of the money they have. If they do not rebuild then change the system so that I get these benefits once I capture their last city, the problem there is that it would be exploited by players who would capture the enemy Capital and then take the last city to get the benefit twice. But because they never rebuild I do not get these benefits even once and are thus they are bypassing the game mechanics, all I am suggesting is that there be additional penalties for never rebuilding and giving players a reasonable timeframe to do so.
      "Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte

      "Anyone who has to fight, even with the most modern weapons, against an enemy in complete command of the air, fights like a savage against modern European troops, under the same handicaps and with the same chances of success." ~ Erwin Rommel

    • An AI rebuilding his capital is like a tourist wearing a Rolex and a Nikon when he's taking a stroll in Harlem.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.

    • I have to agree, the penalty for not having a capital is pretty steep. I don't think we need to overcomplicate it.

      I rarely go after AI after the second day just to save a few for mid and late game when you need to take a capital in situations like you describe.

      I do agree that AIs should rebuild capitals. To me, it's just basic self-preservation. Although to be fair, AI don't seem to be good at that. I see too many instances where AIs stockpile flying bombs with no aircraft factory or air strips to give them the capability to utilize them. Sad.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by 6thDragon ().

    • MY Bad for starting a new thread about this topic instead of adding to this one.
      =======================

      Suggestion
      =========

      Every nation MUST have a Capitol city. I can't think of an example of a nation NOT having one. This should apply in game.

      Every nation which possesses a city, MUST have a capitol (or be in the process of building one) to function.

      If a capitol is captured, then the city MUST start building a capitol before it can produce any more units, upgrade any more buildings or start any more research. I would even go as far as saying, you can NOT issue orders to existing units if you do not have a command centre, aka a Capitol.

      Once the construction on a new capitol has begun, you can issue orders to units, build research and all the other wonderful things nations do.

      Without a capitol, there is no leadership, and without leadership, a country can't exist of do anything (we see every day that even WITH leadership sometimes getting things done is difficult, without it would be impossible)

      That would apply for Player controlled countries, as well as AI's starting with only the single city, their capitol.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      I can't think of an example of a nation NOT having one. This should apply in game.

      I respect that this may be a sensitive topic to some, but here is an example of a country without a capital. Palestine. Their declared capital has been under Israeli occupation for 55 years now.

      You could also make the argument that that is what a country looks like without a capital.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      I respect that this may be a sensitive topic to some, but here is an example of a country without a capital. Palestine. Their declared capital has been under Israeli occupation for 55 years now.
      You could also make the argument that that is what a country looks like without a capital.
      Not a controversial topic at all.

      Palestine is NOT a country (as of yet, though they are applying and trying for recognition as such). Along with the Holy See, they are recognized by the United Nations as Non-member observers.

      Until such a time as that changes and they become a full member state, they will not have a recognized capitol.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      I respect that this may be a sensitive topic to some, but here is an example of a country without a capital. Palestine. Their declared capital has been under Israeli occupation for 55 years now.
      You could also make the argument that that is what a country looks like without a capital.
      Not a controversial topic at all.
      Palestine is NOT a country (as of yet, though they are applying and trying for recognition as such). Along with the Holy See, they are recognized by the United Nations as Non-member observers.

      Until such a time as that changes and they become a full member state, they will not have a recognized capitol.

      There is your answer. Sovereign states limp along as something less than a full nation until they have a capital. I think the game captures this dynamic. Perhaps you could limit their ability to send messages to other players to represent lack of diplomatic recognition, but that just sounds too complicated. And AI don't send messages anyway.

      I know plenty of people who would passionately disagree with you about Palestine not being a country, but it's a topic I feel I can be impartial on.

      I'll point out the flaw in your logic of UN recognition being the sole defining characteristic of what makes a nation in Call of War: the UN didn't exist during WWII and therefore does not exist in the game.

      Personally, when I'm expanding and there is some territory remaining of another country, if there are no cities or armies, I just ignore it and move around. It's not worth the popularity hit you take by declaring war. There is simply too little to gain from taking it. I'll consider my options if it has a city (and victory points), an army, or occupies a strategic location.

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      6thDragon wrote:

      I respect that this may be a sensitive topic to some, but here is an example of a country without a capital. Palestine. Their declared capital has been under Israeli occupation for 55 years now.
      You could also make the argument that that is what a country looks like without a capital.
      Not a controversial topic at all.Palestine is NOT a country (as of yet, though they are applying and trying for recognition as such). Along with the Holy See, they are recognized by the United Nations as Non-member observers.

      Until such a time as that changes and they become a full member state, they will not have a recognized capitol.
      There is your answer. Sovereign states limp along as something less than a full nation until they have a capital. I think the game captures this dynamic. Perhaps you could limit their ability to send messages to other players to represent lack of diplomatic recognition, but that just sounds too complicated. And AI don't send messages anyway.

      I know plenty of people who would passionately disagree with you about Palestine not being a country, but it's a topic I feel I can be impartial on.

      I'll point out the flaw in your logic of UN recognition being the sole defining characteristic of what makes a nation in Call of War: the UN didn't exist during WWII and therefore does not exist in the game.

      Personally, when I'm expanding and there is some territory remaining of another country, if there are no cities or armies, I just ignore it and move around. It's not worth the popularity hit you take by declaring war. There is simply too little to gain from taking it. I'll consider my options if it has a city (and victory points), an army, or occupies a strategic location.
      Actually before the UN it was the League of Nations (1920-1946)
      As for popularity .. lol .. it seems random to me.
      Yes there are things you can do to make it less harsh, but meh

    • 6thDragon wrote:


      I know plenty of people who would passionately disagree with you about Palestine not being a country, but it's a topic I feel I can be impartial on.

      I'll point out the flaw in your logic of UN recognition being the sole defining characteristic of what makes a nation in Call of War: the UN didn't exist during WWII and therefore does not exist in the game.
      Many confuse "Should Palestine be a country" with "Is Palestine a country?"... which are two completely different topics. "Should".. I agree can be a very controversial topic. As to if it Is a country or not, that's a simple answer. Same answer as "Was Israel a country during WWI" since it doesn't show on the map. WWII ended in 1946, Israel wasn't formed until 1948, that's why it's not represented on a WWII game map. Simple. Likewise Palestine, until such a time as it is recognized by the world nations as a country of it's own... is NOT a country.

      Yet a similar situation can be said of Sri Lanka which was not recognized as a sovereign state till 1948 yet does have it's own capitol on the 100 Map. Curious!

      So... people will continue to discuss, argue and disagree on weather Palestine Should be a country and will continue the argument well after Palestine becomes a country, just as they are having the discussions about Israel.

      Scotland, Quebec and Palestine are all provinces of their respective states who conquered them long ago, and are seeking independence, the desire to be so does not make it so. Some of these transitions are relatively peaceful, others not so much. Yet none of these territories have accomplished Independence.... That's why they don't have internationally recognized capitols.

      They don't have international relations or embassies.
      They don't have armies at a federal level.

      I'm just saying that should be a game mechanic that has a real effect on game-play.

      Interestingly enough, I can not find a single example of a nation moving it's capitol from one city to another during WWII. Several changes took place right after the war from1947 onward, but none between 1939-46.

      Hmm... Interesting.
      General Maximus Decimus Meridius - "Are you not entertained?"

    • Moss20 wrote:

      Actually before the UN it was the League of Nations (1920-1946)
      Thank you for highlighting the absurdity of this logic. I'll remind everyone the Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations in Dec 1939 in response to their invasion of Finland. I think we can all agree that despite this, they continued to be a nation during WWII.


      OneNutSquirrel wrote:

      Interestingly enough, I can not find a single example of a nation moving it's capitol from one city to another during WWII. Several changes took place right after the war from1947 onward, but none between 1939-46.

      Hmm... Interesting.
      This may be arguing semantics, but many countries set up governments-in-exile during WWII. It's not a stretch to view this as temporarily moving the capital. As one example, Greece moved their government to Cairo during the war. This served as a double-edged sword for them as the communists (not in government) stayed in Greece to continue an insurgency against the Nazis and were the ones viewed as war heroes after the war.

      France also had a government-in-exile during the war. Initially it was in London but was later moved to Algiers.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by 6thDragon ().