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

    • I reality you don't need to claim anyway. If there is a fabric, you can built there stuff anyway if necessary.
      Just how it works in Hearts of Iron 4 for example, so this 'relism' arguement against it is kind of flawed from the start. ;)

      And the the point still remains: You can't built tanks in a city, just because you claimed it. You will still need the necessary buildings.
    • I agree: in reality you don't need to claim other nations' cities to use them to mobilize from. However, in the game, you must, which leaves an unrealistic taste in my mouth.

      I don't recall ever mentioning anything in regards to "the point" about requiring buildings to mobilize... Of course you need them in the game, however, in historical reality, your "host" would assumingly already have the infrastructure in place. If not, they would usually have some of it and the "guest" nation would add/modify to it as necessary. This is just my non-expert take of how it would have been like. Not pretending to lay facts out.
      "Any of you *uckin' pricks move, and I'll execute every mother*uckin' last one of ya!" - Honey Bunny
    • The majority of our player feedback in the recent weeks was that it was either breaking some of the known mechanics for them or simply they didn’t like it. Although there was merit in the feature it was not up to par.

      This said we turned off overkill maps together with the nationalization feature because both are connected. We were not satisfied with the feedback, nor the results we saw in our stats and they need to be worked on.

      This work is secondary to our push for mobile which has been more complicated than anticipated and needs more development time ie. coders.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • the problem with nationalisation grszutr is how you implementedit.

      Most countries have more then 7 cities. You nationalisationlimit was 5.

      so I could not make use of this features unless i lost/give up 3 of my homecities.

      If you put the limit to 10. Then this featurs will equal small countries with f.e. USA and China.

      Still it lots off resources to get a cities nationalised (you need to annect it first).

      And you need to get it right that coalition partners dont do nationalisation for free when the regain land for one of theirs. ;)
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • The nationalization idea was mostly implemented for the smaller countries. A big country with 7 cities do not need more cities, they are getting enough resources. Small cities did not have the possibility to get at least one city with 100% production output, this is why nationalization was added, so smaller countries actually have some possibility of survival and victory. Otherwise, any small nations is practically doomed against anybody else.

      This is why together with the nationalization, we took down the overkill maps, as the small countries are indeed screwed.

      Annexing before nationalizing would kill a small country, as they do gaining a lot of resources at the start, to begin with.

      Also please try keep this thread to the nationalization feedback only, if you have other questions, please make your own threads. If you have any great ideas on how to improve nationalization, or what made it bad, just go ahead and type it here.
      Have a nice following day
      - Luoniev

      Conflict of nations - PL Team Leader, EN Senior Moderator
    • Why did you program it like that in the first place?

      Shouldn't it have just been if you have less than 6 homeland cities, you can nationalise any occupied cities until you had 6 minimum?

      Overkill was the best type of map and nationalisation was the perfect feature for small nations.

      Heck, just program it so only nations with 6 or less cities can nationalise in the first place, and once the small nations have nationalised up to their 6 cities they can no longer nationalise, even if they lose some homeland cities.
    • @Gen. Grievous Unfortunately coding in a live game environment with running systems as complex as ours requires massive workarounds and will never be straight forward.

      In hindsight it's always much easier to see the flaws - that's why we like to experiment. It allows us to take less time to figure out what works and what doesn't.

      Lastly, I didn't say nationalization will be gone forever, nor that overkill will be. Of course we want to iterate these features - but we have to pick and chose our goals ...

      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • I didn't play with it, but it seemed good until I started reading these posts.......
      In which people are nationlizing in different areas of the world and this one sums up my thoughts perfectly about the whole experiment.

      HoleInRightWing wrote:

      I think it’s unrealistic in the fact that I’m giving cars and guns to people in a captured enemy city that I nationalized in two days, especially since the city was below 30% morale and technically rebellious. Doing that in such short time is unrealistic I believe.
      So there is three suggestions I am giving to make future nationlizing more realistic and fun
      1. Make a boundary on how far you can nationalize like just outside your home country.
      2. Make it impossible to nationalize if the city is below 50% morale
      3. Make the nationlizing process take 5 days to happen.
      This would solve some of the complains and make it more realistic if you ever bring it back.
      War: "Sometimes you have to pick the gun up to put the gun down."- Malcolm X

      Peace: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein

      The post was edited 1 time, last by War and Peace ().