What's the gain from conquering non-national territories?

[Zhang]

I always think about this question, in reality and AOD.

Well, in AOD, you spend extra TC and risk revolt chances on conquered non-national provinces, while the resources and IC gain is relatively slim.

When you annex a country, you gain no tech blueprint, no better tech team, very few IC and resources, and pay TC for every conquered provinces.

Full IC take over and tech team take over are cheat like and unbalanced.

Is it possible to make conquering more rewarding?

 

[walrus]

You must remember though, in conquering these provinces, you're denying them to the enemy

Edit: And there are values in misc.txt that you can edit relating to the percentage of IC, manpower and resources you get from non-national provinces

 

[funkeyman]

Release some puppets, they will feed you resources once they max their stockpile.

 

[eleinvisible]

Also, in order to win the game you must acquire VP. This is best attained through conquering provinces of the enemies...

 

[Mjuice]

This is like asking what's the point for a team to try and score goals in a football game. After all your players will just get more tired :rofl:

 

[HogansHeros]

Edit: And there are values in misc.txt that you can edit relating to the percentage of IC, manpower and resources you get from non-national provinces

Can you? I've looked and I don't see how to change the amount of resources from occupied provinces.

 

[lee1026]

this is also realistic - this is why nations don't go around the place trying to conquer each other in the modern world.

Ruling over people who don't want to be ruled by you is rarely a profitable endeavor. China is losing billions every year in Tibet, HK and Macau. The US is losing money in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on and so forth.

 

[unmerged(53534)]

Aside from the debate about accuracy, it's worth noting that the prince of terror does not function as stated.

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?p=11122693

I posted there how to change the prince of terror to give more of a foreign IC bonus. Overall, once you fix the POT, foreign IC does become worthwhile. But it takes awhile to rebuild after conquering it. All in all this is pretty realistic.

 

[Zhang]

I know it's stimulating reality, but it's a war game after all, not Sim Country.

Like anyone would prefer to play Swiss for the entire game period without any conflict?

 

[unmerged(201305)]

I think it's simply because completely overrunning and conquering your enemy is the fastest and most reliable way of defeating them

 

[Yaromir]

The yield on occupied provinces does seem low. However, in my recent Jugoslavia game after annexing Italy and Austria (and building my own IC), I did get enough IC to become a world.

This is a typical problem of double (or triple!) rewards for success. Any system which rewards success with more success will quickly become de-stabilized and overrun.

So for game-play reasons, it is necessary to have a breaking mechanism to slow down expansion (and to progressively slow it more and more) or you will have just 3 huge blobs.

Mind you, it is still quite easy to break, even with low yields. In my current Jugoslavia game I managed to take over Italy (a must, I know) and then Austria, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria Romania, Hungary and half of USSR (Pan-Slavic empire of sorts). This was done with the help of French troops and English did land in Soviet Far East (weird :wacko

The only thing I would change is increase the efficiency of occupied provinces vs owned but non-national.

 

[unmerged(36286)]

this is also realistic - this is why nations don't go around the place trying to conquer each other in the modern world.

Ruling over people who don't want to be ruled by you is rarely a profitable endeavor. China is losing billions every year in Tibet, HK and Macau. The US is losing money in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so on and so forth.

Yes, this is very realistic.

"China losing billions every year in HK and Macau" however sounds like Western propaganda. Tibet is a money-loser, sure, but not HK or Macau.

 

[Zhang]

Well, in every country, always, the richer regions support the poorer regions, it has nothing to do with national/non-national provinces.

Today, I read such news that "Belgium's Flemish separatists make big election gains" :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10303179.stm

 

[lee1026]

however sounds like Western propaganda. Tibet is a money-loser, sure, but not HK or Macau.

Well, Beijing gets no revenue from them, and they incur some (small) costs to Beijing.