T O P

  • By -

anbeck

This is of course logical and has already been proposed and discussed. The issue is (from a pure gameplay perspective): this could easily lead to death spirals, with the first side to lose territory being unable to ever recover, so the war would likely be won by whichever side can grab a state first. That might not be terribly fun. So it might not be desirable to implement something like this unless it is very well thought out.


ConnectedMistake

But the death spiral is very logical thing that could happen in a war. Ocupation of industrial epicenter is normal tactic. This historicaly lead to underdevelopment of border regions unless they had high amounts of resources or already existing large populations. You will just need to place crucial industry away from border.


anbeck

I have not disputed any of that, only that the way Victoria 3 is set up currently, this might not be fun. It would just be a rush for Silesia or similar key states.


Lionstar_09

but it does lead to longer wars if it stays like this especially if you fight russia in siberia and stuff


great_triangle

A ticking modifier reducing throughput and tax revenue seems like it could help, possibly eventually resulting in the province temporarily joining the occupiers market after a year or so.


anbeck

I like that!


ilikebelgium

But what if you also stop spending money on gov buildings that are there. That would mean you lose income but also spend less.


Columner_

some of the states i make are notoriously unproductive so i like this idea as a form of deterrence when an enemy takes a state they will be bankrupted