Only if they're defended and can be assaulted, like in EU or CK. Otherwise, it should be very quick. Think of how fast it was for Germany in ww1 to take over Russian territory after their armies collapsed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Faustschlag
"Central Powers armies had advanced over 150 miles within a week, facing no serious resistance. German troops were now within 100 miles of Petrograd, forcing the Soviets to transfer their capital to Moscow.[6][9] The rapid advance was described as a "Railway War" (der Eisenbahnfeldzug) with German soldiers using Russian railways to advance eastward.[7] General Hoffmann wrote in his diary on February 22:
It is the most comical war I have ever known. We put a handful of infantrymen with machine guns and one gun onto a train and rush them off to the next station; they take it, make prisoners of the Bolsheviks, pick up few more troops, and so on. This proceeding has, at any rate, the charm of novelty."
This is impossible in V2, even if the opposing country has 0 defenders.
Exactly. In 1870 the Prussians quickly took over whole swathes of North-West France, in 1864-5 the Union advanced rapidly across the Confederacy, in 1899-1900 the British advanced across the Orange Free State and Transvaal republics in a matter of a few months, in 1904-5 the Russians and Japanese swept across areas of North-East Asia bigger than most of Western Europe. In none of the wars during the period (or, actually, in no wars I can think of) did taking over territory require units to hang around in provinces before they came under the effective control of the attacker - it was simply a case of the army turning up. The only exception to theis rule is where
manned fortifications were in place, in which case they had to be besieged first - but in the Vicky period the biggest sieges (Port Arthur, Sevastopol, Paris) the fortresses were the size of provinces, required months to capture, and cost their attackers dearly.
There simply is no grounds on which the present "occupation speed" mechanism can be justified. A move=attack model is a far more accurate way of modelling siege warfare during the period than requiring that units simply hang around in a province with no defenders taking a few casualties because of "attrition" (from where?), and then the province becomes yours.
Well, I certainly wouldn't suggest making occupation instant or very short. Those situations where a half-depleted cavalry division runs through half of France capturing everything in its path were always one of the most annoying things in the HoI-Series.
Yeah, because I can't possibly think of a real-life example of small, rapidly advancing units entering an undefended capital city and quickly taking it over in one of the period's most prominent conflicts.
Oh wait.
Actually controlling the capital and the major towns and fortresses in a province should take time..
. . . because? Look, if a fortress is undefended, capturing it is simply a case of walking in. that's how the Germans captured
Fort Douaumont afterall. The same goes double for an undefended city - when the Germans entered Brussels in 1914 they simply walked in and took over.
It's just unrealistic that fortresses can be cheaply built everywhere and cost nothing to maintain.
Depends. Do they represent the fortress AND its garrison? If yes, then you should pay for the garrison's upkeep, but if not, then they are just a building like any other. Currently, there is no garrison integral to each fortress (although, bafflingly, you still can't just walk in and take over fortresses because of the stupid occupation mechanism) but if there was one this might make sense.
