Capital Penalty

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

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Are we really going to compare an ancient, stone age empire like the Incas with a WW2 country capable of building aircraft carriers, strategic bombers, and (eventually) nuclear missiles?
      I am so glad you missed the ENTIRE point due a lack of understand how points in an argument are made and yet your example of travel by water being safe and EFFICIENT in sub infested waters is allowable.

      z00mz00m wrote:

      But if you are Great Britain and your navy rules the world's oceans, traveling by water is SAFE and EFFICIENT.
      This is how Great Britain was able to rule far-away colonies with relative ease.
      So I will explain the the POINT so that you can understand it. Distance makes ruling difficult. People farther away from the seat of power do not always buy the party line and are thus more likely to be dissatisfied with the directions of the government. The penalty does this, plain and simply. (I will further address the British Empire later on.)

      General Freiheit wrote:

      Yeah. Most people would be estatic that their empire is expanding. Germany in WWII, the people were happy as hell to see Germany grow. Same with Japan and all other modern countries. Even in WWII it was easier to control large amounts of land. Telegrams, phones, railways, cars, planes! They all made it easy to control large amounts of land
      If the penalty only affected the core I would agree with this but since it applies to ALL provinces I do not. I am going to start by point out even in Germany not all the people were happy as hell that German Nazis were expanding their empire. There was a German Resistance which while not an organized group like other Resistance movements did oppose the German government and operated in individual groups between 1933 and 1945. Also let me point out that the almost none of the people of Poland (attacked in September 1939), Denmark (April 1940), Norway (April 1940), Belgium (May 1940), the Netherlands (May 1940), Luxembourg (May 1940), France (May 1940), Yugoslavia (April 1941), and Greece (April 1941) were ecstatic that the German empire was expanding. This also does not count the areas that Germany annexed prior to the war and while those areas were predominantly German speaking they were not the sole people that made up of the population of those areas and there was dissatisfaction with German control. Control of the land does NOT mean control of the PEOPLE. All the nations listed above had Resistance Movements (also called Undergrounds) while on the Eastern Front the Partisans (Read this article on Soviet Partisans: The Rag-Tag Scourge Along WWII’s Eastern Front) ran rampant and generally made life for the occupying German Army an absolute hell. So while the Incas and Romans were Bronze and Iron age peoples they had the same problems dealing with outlying provinces. While the British Empire that spanned the globe and ruled it over the world's oceans they had issues keeping control over Thirteen Colonies (or better known today as the United States of America). So as Empire leaders today you face the same difficult challenges. Personally the Capital distance or even the expansion penalty to be an issue as they can both be dealt with the simple measure of Propaganda Offices and the capture of enemy Capitals. Used properly Propaganda Offices will easily offset both penalties.

      As a post script I would like to address z00m's statement about "This is how Great Britain was able to rule far-away colonies with relative ease." The reason the British Empire was able to rule far away colonies was in fact more to do with their having firearms and cannon and machine guns while the indigenous peoples they ruled had spears and bows and arrows. The only time British Empire faced a foe with the same modern weaponry they were beaten, yes I am in fact speaking of the American Revolution.
      "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

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

    • 6thDragon wrote:

      I believe the expansion penalty is a result of wartime casualties, higher taxes, and other wartime rationing and restrictions. Not everyone is happy to see their sons and husbands off in foreign lands. Some countries controlled the media better than others to minimize this. With this in mind, it makes sense. Plus you always have the debate over which conquered territory is formally annexed and those living in that territory being granted the same rights of citizenship. Continued occupation was always an option as was puppet governments in charge of local affairs. All of these things left some unhappy.

      I agree with distance penalty being less applicable in WWII than in previous eras. Perhaps there was a psychological element to decisions being made in a far off place.

      With all that said I think the resources from looting are probably a little too high compared to the era, but the non-core penalty is a little high too. But that's just my opinion.
      Nah I dont think so, I have little casualties but I get the same penalty, so that is not the mechanism ( and thus this cant be the right interpretation of the mechanism).

      It is a plain and simple the larger your empire, the more "unhappy" people are, which I think is "trash". Big nations wherein nationalism/national identity or even local identity is preserved and encouraged would yield happy people too.

      The number of active wars (like before), duration, and the "density" (how many in time) are logical penalties and can relatie to expansion. I think of these number of wars involved in and the duration as well as you rightfully mention, number of casualties are big determinants/factors of morale.

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

    • Good points are being made here, even if they are being made in a combative way. Let's keep it chill.

      The core should behave differently from conquered regions. That should be easy to implement. The core should be happy with expansion, but unhappy with casualties.

      Conquered regions could have different feelings about being part of the empire depending on how they were conquered. Were their cities pounded into rubble? Do the people still lack basic infrastructure? Are they low on food and goods?

      Finally, do the conquered people feel like they belong, more or less? Are they being treated like people or animals? I understand this is CoW and not Civilization, so we're but going to have religion or race or cultural moments. Perhaps doctrine could be a simple modifier to happiness. Axis likes Axis, tolerates Allies, despises Comintern.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      Good points are being made here, even if they are being made in a combative way. Let's keep it chill.

      The core should behave differently from conquered regions. That should be easy to implement. The core should be happy with expansion, but unhappy with casualties.

      Conquered regions could have different feelings about being part of the empire depending on how they were conquered. Were their cities pounded into rubble? Do the people still lack basic infrastructure? Are they low on food and goods?

      Finally, do the conquered people feel like they belong, more or less? Are they being treated like people or animals? I understand this is CoW and not Civilization, so we're but going to have religion or race or cultural moments. Perhaps doctrine could be a simple modifier to happiness. Axis likes Axis, tolerates Allies, despises Comintern.
      for your last sentence then Alberta can't like anyone , allies doctrine is everywhere on world

      actually for last article I made a similar suggestion about production at non-core provinces for allied doctrine
      allied doctrine should have a production bonus at non-core provinces because they have many difference from other doctrines but it seems they think research speed is enough to describe them

    • Undaunted wrote:

      for your last sentence then Alberta can't like anyone , allies doctrine is everywhere on world
      actually for last article I made a similar suggestion about production at non-core provinces for allied doctrine
      allied doctrine should have a production bonus at non-core provinces because they have many difference from other doctrines but it seems they think research speed is enough to describe them

      This is debatable. Today, we living in the West think not only that everyone loves the NATO world order, but that they have always loved the Anglo-American world order.

      During the early 20th century, Communism had a large following, including in parts of Europe and Asia. The German coalition cut across ideological lines, building on regional grievances.

      For example, Romania saw the USSR as an existential threat, and they had been fighting the Russian Empire before that. They were happy to ally with Germany, if it meant they could better resists Russia. Romania had the 2nd largest Axis army in WW2, larger and better trained than the Italians. We just don't talk about it in the West because the Romanians fought on the Eastern front.

      Similarly, there were a lot of Poles and Ukrainians who hated the Russians more than they hated the Germans, plus a lot of Central Europe had an Anti Semitic bend that fit the Nazi story line. Then you have the Balkans, where the Croats and the Bulgarians were happy to be friends with the Germans, if it meant they got to pillage the Serbs, and the Bulgarians were equally happy to stick it to the Greeks.

      So yeah, about everyone wanting to be friends with the Allies... no way. Germany had a real sphere of influence built on historical tensions in Europe. And so did the Russians. CoW simplified this map, by necessity, but it is reasonably accurate.