A Plea to the Developers

[FOARP]

Occupation type seems to represent this mechanic. If you could create puppets out of occupied territory you would seriously just get to freely annex territory into a puppet whenever you want. That's pretty OP honestly. There's no reason Occupation Policy can't fill these shoes and potentially be fleshed out to be more accurate (IE adding a puppet leader which gives different effects on the land he oversees).

Sorry, but I really think you ought to give HOI2 a spin so you can see how this works: not OP, and not addressed by the occupation mechanic at all.

PS - kind of curious about what is wrong with "annex[ing] territory into a puppet whenever you want". This is what occurred historically, particularly in territories conquered by the Japanese. Even if the game didn't impose any cost for releasing puppets (HOI2 imposed a dissent cost), it is not "free" in any real sense because you still loose the advantages of occupying the territory. The only thing that need be added is a nerf for puppets.

 

[Zoe1444]

PS - kind of curious about what is wrong with "annex[ing] territory into a puppet whenever you want". This is what occurred historically, particularly in territories conquered by the Japanese. Even if the game didn't impose any cost for releasing puppets (HOI2 imposed a dissent cost), it is not "free" in any real sense because you still loose the advantages of occupying the territory. The only thing that need be added is a nerf for puppets.

So what this does, in game terms, is lets you get resources at a much higher rate than you would if you occupied it. And there's no way to really punish a player for doing this other than just having deadweight AI holding territory. But that's fine if you just want them to churn out resources for you, but historically were these puppet states any better at producing resources than a normal occupation? I don't think that information will be easy find and even if it is I am skeptical that a puppet state which really produced double the resources (since in an occupation you only produce 50% of the resources). What it also means is that you can bypass the new peace conference system because you want to annex whenever you want. I don't think the game should be trying to keep track of what puppets need to be dealt with every peace conference whom might also end up surrendering. Then comes the issue of how do you deal with occupied puppet land which is now occupied by an ally in a war?

Finally, when a nation capitulates you can create any satellite states you want which have cores on the capitulated nations. This, along with occupation type, is a much better system than simply letting you annex and create arbitrary states whenever you want.

 

[GermanPower]

Sorry, but I really think you ought to give HOI2 a spin so you can see how this works: not OP, and not addressed by the occupation mechanic at all.

PS - kind of curious about what is wrong with "annex[ing] territory into a puppet whenever you want". This is what occurred historically, particularly in territories conquered by the Japanese. Even if the game didn't impose any cost for releasing puppets (HOI2 imposed a dissent cost), it is not "free" in any real sense because you still loose the advantages of occupying the territory. The only thing that need be added is a nerf for puppets.

To me that's great. The only issue is I feel like there should be a puppet tree. If that makes sense. Meaning there's a chance to rebel, get support from a major, and so forth.

 

[VA GHOST]

Please allow us to do whatever we want with the land we conquer. From watching WWW, I've seen the options you have for occupied territory, and it's very basic. As far as I can tell, you can only annex land, give land to allies, release a nation as a puppet (only the nations that exist at the start), and puppet the enemies. These options are far too limiting and are not historically accurate. For example, say I'm playing as the USA and defeat Japan. I might want to create the puppet state of Micronesia (historically accurate), annex Hokkaido, make a democratic puppet of Kyushu, and leave the Emperor in power in Honshu. But under the current system, I can't. Another example, say I'm playing Germany and I've defeated the USSR. Maybe I don't want to annex the whole thing. I want to create a Ukrainian puppet, a neutral independent Muslim nation in the South, and a puppet of Siberia. But I can't. This can't be too hard to implement, and it would massively increase the enjoyment of the game for me.

Madness.
By the very meaning of annexation - and then creating a puppet government from annexed territory - the puppet government will not be exactly the same as the original country. There should at least be some built in historical/historical probable choices:
Burma (To give appearances of independence to make it diplomatically easier to swallow)
Vichy
Ukraine and other Russian puppets if the Germans had decided to be nice to the local populations which had been treated badly by the Soviet Government.
Chinese puppets if Japanese pushed farther west. No way they could directly administer all of China.

Also, the ability to give land to an ally or a neutral. If Germans win in Egypt and push east, they had friendly relation with Persia/Iran but it was unaligned at the time. (Hey - want Baghdad - join us!)

I may wait to buy it until rational choices are available to the player. All or nothing political choices is not rational when dealing with a world wide war with participants from every continent and every ocean.

 

[FOARP]

So what this does, in game terms, is lets you get resources at a much higher rate than you would if you occupied it. And there's no way to really punish a player for doing this other than just having deadweight AI holding territory. But that's fine if you just want them to churn out resources for you, but historically were these puppet states any better at producing resources than a normal occupation? I don't think that information will be easy find and even if it is I am skeptical that a puppet state which really produced double the resources (since in an occupation you only produce 50% of the resources). What it also means is that you can bypass the new peace conference system because you want to annex whenever you want. I don't think the game should be trying to keep track of what puppets need to be dealt with every peace conference whom might also end up surrendering. Then comes the issue of how do you deal with occupied puppet land which is now occupied by an ally in a war?

Finally, when a nation capitulates you can create any satellite states you want which have cores on the capitulated nations. This, along with occupation type, is a much better system than simply letting you annex and create arbitrary states whenever you want.

Again, all that's necessary is to nerf puppeted countries and every single objection you've raised here is met.

Logically, it just doesn't make sense that Japan has to wait until London falls to release Burma as a puppet (which they did in 1943, by the way) - doesn't this trouble you at all?

 

[Zoe1444]

Again, all that's necessary is to nerf puppeted countries and every single objection you've raised here is met.

Logically, it just doesn't make sense that Japan has to wait until London falls to release Burma as a puppet (which they did in 1943, by the way) - doesn't this trouble you at all?

No, because your occupation setting represents how you govern that land. I do agree it needs to be fleshed out but creating puppets out of occupied land is too convoluted to fit in the game.

 

[Xsio]

Good idea but short in time till release I think. I would prefer Paradox polish what they have already instead of adding new stuff. As mentioned above, MODS.

 

[FOARP]

No, because your occupation setting represents how you govern that land.

The whole point of puppets is that you (don't) directly govern the territory concerned.

And let's face it, because there's so many historical examples of puppet-formation on occupied territory, eventually people just code in events/decisions for releasing the historical ones, which is a clunky way of implementing what HOI2 implemented much more elelgantly for all possible tags that existed in-game.

 

[Beagá]

Mods shouldn´t be patches. If your base game needs mods to be enjoyable, it is a bad game.