There is an event that WILL allow a minor nation such as Australia to puppet Japan. But Australia has no control over whether or the event occurs.

[alexvk3bqn]

Let me say at the outset that I have no idea why or how this acts in the way it does.

As before. DH Full, playing as Australia.


In the following position, with Australia controlling the white areas, Australia can ALMOST never puppet Japan.
In my experience, the game WILL NOT allow it.

I recently discovered, almost entirely by accident, that if the allies are at war with Japan, and RUSSIA THEN DECLARES WAR ON JAPAN, Australia will THEN be able to puppet Japan from exactly the same position.

The ONLY change was that Russia had declared war on Japan.

I have re-loaded and retried this from several points, and the same thing happens each time.

It is definitely a "repeatable" effect.

Russia's declaration of war with Japan allows Australia to puppet Japan successfully, although if you want to keep control of Korea, you need to release it as a separate nation first or Japan will regain ownership of it.

It may also allow you to demand and receive ownership of a couple of provinces as part of the deal.
(It seems to depend heavily on which provinces you demand, and how many.)

Since I tend to have strange ideas, at one time I demanded that Japan give me ownership of Beijing, despite the fact that it was actually controlled by Nationalist China at the time, just to see what would happen.
It Agreed.

I then had the situation where Japan was my puppet, and the game said Australia owned Beijing, which was already occupied by nationalist China, and one of their "national provinces".
(I DID NOT have the option afterwards to "demand territory" from them though. That didn't really surprise me.)


At this point I am just pointing out some of the facts I have observed in how the game acts.

I have no idea how most of these things are happening, but there may be somebody interested who could work them out or has some ideas, or the information may be of use to somebody else playing one of the other minor nations.

I haven't tried, so I have no idea if it will happen for other minor countries or not.

I have tried to report these events as accurately as I can.
If I have made any errors, I apologize.


Alexvk3bqn.

 

[Altruist]

Since I tend to have strange ideas, at one time I demanded that Japan give me ownership of Beijing, despite the fact that it was actually controlled by Nationalist China at the time, just to see what would happen.
It Agreed.

Well, that sounds legit.
Looks like Japan was (at that time) the rightful owner of Beijing, even though when it is occupied by Nationalist China.
If Japan agrees to transfere Beijing to Australia, Australia gets both: ownership of Beijing and occupation by Nationalist China.

Australia can ALMOST never puppet Japan.

That's called historical authenticity.

 

[alexvk3bqn]

That's called historical authenticity.

Thank you for the reply.


I understand that that's what happens in the game, and that it's partly for "historical accuracy" and partly because Australia isn't the "leader" of an alliance, and only "leaders" can puppet countries under normal circumstances.

The specific point I can't understand in this case is why Russia declaring war on Japan should suddenly change the rules for what Australia can do.
As I have said previously on other subjects, that seems strange to me.

I can't work out how or why it would happen, but as I said, it might be useful for people playing other minor nations to know that these type of things can happen.
(I haven't tried to look into the coding to work it out. I'm not very good at that.)

I also have no idea if it was a deliberate choice by the programmers, or is some unexpected result of a combination of events..

Similar events might also affect whether or not other minor nations can puppet other countries besides Japan, ad if they can, it could affect WHEN.
It might open up possibilities that hadn't previously been available to them, or that they hadn't considered because they may have thought them impossible in the game as it operates.

I just thought people playing minor countries should be aware of the possibility that such an effect can occur, and keep it in mind.
I know it came as a hell of a shock to me.


As to the point about Beijing, that was basically the conclusion I had come to.
It is a bit of an interesting point that countries can transfer ownership of provinces that they "own" but don't actually "control".
I tried it because it occurred to me that I wanted to see if the computer would allow it, and it did.

That might also open up other possibilities for other players to consider that they might not have thought of, and that they might find useful to consider.

Apart from anything else, it would mean you MIGHT be able to buy up "non-core" but enemy occupied provinces from allies who are about to be overrun, defeated and annexed, for use in future planning of your own operations. (If they have any, and you can afford them.)
(Having nominal "ownership" of a province that is deep inside enemy held territory could raise some interesting possibilities.)
There won't be many available that would fit that category since most countries have very few "non-core" provinces, but there may be a few that it could be useful to try and get.

It might also affect what resources the other country would get from the province, but I'm not sure about that.
That's a point that might also be worth considering.

Would it affect the "IC" (If any) that the other country gets from that province or not when using the standard settings?
I don't know, but I think it might.
(Is there a difference between the "IC takeover" for a province that has been "annexed" and one that has been "occupied" but is still owned by another country?)
The losses and inconvenience initially caused to the enemy, if any, would clearly be very minor, but some effect may occur.

I thought it worth suggesting that people with more knowledge than me study these ideas, and see if they have any merit.


Alexvk3bqn

 

[Altruist]

Would it affect the "IC" (If any) that the other country gets from that province or not when using the standard settings?

from misc.txt (DH full)

# IC Non-National Province Multiplier
    0.2 #0.3333
# IC Non-Owned (i.e. occupied) Province Multiplier (overrides Non-National where applicable)
    0.2

# Resource multiplier for non-national provinces
    0.5 #0.5
# Resource multiplier for occupied provinces (overrides non-national)
    0.4 #0.4

# Enable return of occupied provinces, owned by non-enemy countries. If the province is owned by neutral country, it will be returned only when not in a war zone. 0 - Disabled, 1 - Check every day, 2 - Check every other day and so on.
    0 #0

So, no IC-difference for non-national or occupied and a slight difference for resources.

But as far as I know, as long as there is no peace treaty, every conquered region should be considered occupied, even if they belong to your core regions. Only a proper peace treaty changes the occupied-status.

 

[alexvk3bqn]

Thanks, that makes it clearer for me on a few points..

I don't think I explained what I meant very well about that idea though.

The main point I was trying to raise there was:- is it worth thinking about buying provinces from your ALLIES (if you can), if they are about to be defeated by the enemy and annexed, so that while the enemy occupies the province, you technically "own" it, and you may thereby deprive the enemy from getting the full benefit when your ally is defeated?
As you may have noticed, this happens a LOT to the allied side early on.
(There was a movie made many years ago based on a similar concept, supposedly based on true events, of the British trying to get all the diamonds they could out of Amsterdam before the Germans could seize them.)

Your answer indicates that it might slightly reduce what resources they might get over time, but given the cost to buy provinces, it's probably not worth it.
Besides, you might just be providing more resources for them to seize.
It would depend on how much of the "price" you paid in money, supplies and resources the country that annexed them would get.
Doing a deal that would BENEFIT your enemy overall is not good long term strategy.

I was thinking specifically of trying to buy provinces that had already been enemy occupied, because province values vary wildly at different times, and you almost certainly can't afford to buy a province with good resources, even if it's available and "non-core", but if it's already been "lost" and is enemy-occupied, the value MIGHT drop far enough, and you might be able to buy a "resource rich" province so that the enemy wouldn't get as much benefit just "capturing" it as they would from annexing it.

It doesn't sound like it would be worth it from that point of view, although I still think there might be some strategic and tactical benefits to having technical "ownership" of certain areas of enemy held territory.
Clearer potential for functioning of the supply system at a later stage, when you're ready to start retaking the area for one, if you already "own" a coastal province.

But, as I said, there also aren't very many areas where MOST of your allies own "non-core" provinces, so it wouldn't be worth trying most of the time anyway.


Alexvk3bqn