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


      Now that a few days have passed we would be very interested in your feedback concerning Nationalization... the ability to "homeland" conquered cities either to top up your amount of cities OR to compensate for lost cities.

      Specifically we would like you to comment on these issues:

      A) I love how I can now stay alive in games by simply declaring previously conquered cities to HOMELAND if I am being overrun - even setting up base in other continents
      B) I hate how the new nationalization feature is diluting my victory over an enemy - instead of folding he simply can build up somewhere else - that's unrealistic and not fun at all

      Thanks for your help!
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • I havent played against or with this abuse of feature. It certainly sounds unrealistic and not fun to play against.

      Either way:
      - Taking his homeland cities should result in you capturing or destroying his productions, which is pretty good, which is half the reason why homeland cities are so important.
      - The goal in CoN is to take and control enemy land. But you should do so by focusing on killing the opponents army, not focusing on taking his homeland. Once the army is gone, you are free to take over ALL his territory in a short time (because resistance is dead)
      - Building up somewhere new takes resources and times(construction of buildings), except he prepared that.

      What I suggest:
      Make the nationalization progress take a LOT more time! How long does it take right now? 12 hours? 24 hours? Either is a joke. Make it 5 days! Or even 7! The process to call a previous foreign city your homeland should take quite a bit of time. If 5 days are too long to construct in a row, you could split it to 2-5 levels (nationalization lv1 takes 24 hours, etc)
    • Here is the Discord conversation (irrelevant comments removed) that inspired this thread:

      DTBama wrote:

      I like every update and addition that i have seen for the most part, except one. The new "annex a homeland feature" is the one that i cant stand. i am in a overkill game, a couple of large players, i pull what should be a game winning move and sack his homeland, but no, he just makes a new one. instead of Congo he is now greece. and someone else has homeland cities scattered all over the map, seems like disadvantage but if you take one they make another. the game is a stalemate since we all have a ton of resources on day 78. It is unrealistic, you cant be Japan and then your homeland is in brazil, it does not work that way, a Homeland is your home, you cannot just be another country one day. annex made sense and used to be expensive and take time. now it is a new homeland and the balance of the game is off. Sorry for the rant but i do feel strongly about this one. thanks.

      i would keep the small country feature if they start with less cities can do it to get to max then it freezes, but just because you lose a homeland you should not be able to make new homeland cities, takes away from the "capture the flag" part of the game strategy. thanks again.

      ChrisJ909 wrote:

      I agree with @DTBama. Its one thing to allow smaller countries to setup another homeland city once they take something over. It’s another thing to think you can quickly relocate your entire homeland.

      Whipping a homeland should be a death blow. If not, then this game is changed drastically.

      Germanico | Dev wrote:

      well - it surely isn't as easy as 1-2-3 to simply set up shop somewhere else across the globe. But I hear you and think there is a lot of truth in your comments. So I will discuss it with prio. Would be interesting to get some players feedback from the other side - ie, players who enjoy the new mobility.

      DTBama wrote:

      I find myself now attacking homeland cities of opponents, but not occupying them or even destroying them enough to go rouge, so they will not have a free slot to make another. i am keeping them at 40% moral so i can keep them together and my troops around them versus the realistic approach of occupying them. seems awkward.

      My personal opinion:

      - I've enjoyed this feature so far, probably because it rewards activity.
      - I really like how it gives small starting countries a chance to be competitive without having to depend on gold.
      - It is unrealistic. The concept of "The Homeland" has to do with patriotism/nationalism so some constraint involving proximity to starting location or city morale would be really interesting.
      - It buffs occupied cities slightly and greatly increases the value of captured infrastructure
      - It changes the strategic focus from capturing cities to destroying infrastructure
      - It reduces player's need to defend their homeland since any one city is expendable as long as they have a suitable replacement

      In conclusion, I think it's fine as a game mechanic, although some sort of adjustment to make it more realistic would probably be appreciated. The possibility of stalemates does increase, but I don't personally have a problem with that.

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

    • Homeland is not really expandable. If you lose your homeland you still lose all those production facilities you build up.

      Sure, you can make a new city your homeland, but this city will still lack level 5 arms industry, level 5 airport or what ever you had build. This city will also most likely lack morale, so a loss of a homeland city will still be a loss.

      Also it is not that unrealistic. In huge empires importance of cities shifts. Some cities may be able to keep their importance, but often they will get replaced. The bigger an empire grows the more likely it is that shifts will occur.

      You as a play can conquer an other country in less of a day if everything goes right, though the InGame-Realtime would be more likely years or even tens of years.

      City on trade route crossing tend to grow and flourish, cities on borders will slowly lose their importance.

      Just take Detroit as an example, once of high importance for car industry and the US it lost a lot of importance over time.

      And in growing empires like the roman empires happened surely a lot of shifting, even more when the roman empire started to fall apart. ;)

      So far I like the mechanic. I even would like to be able to 'denounce' core cities by myself. It would add even more strategic possibilities.
      Also what would be unrealistic: ruining the economy of a country with dozens of cities just by capturing 7 of them.

      As I already said: making a new city core city might be a short process, but letting it grow and building all those building will take a lot of effort and resources. So a lot of preparation if you don't want to lose a lot of income.