Partisans moving capitals?

[Tanaka]

Playing as Japan I have captured most of China and Urumchi is the Chinese capital. A Partisan unit spawned in Lanchow and the Chinese capital was moved all the way back to Lanchow far behind enemy lines. Maybe Partisans taking cities should not make nations move capitals behind enemy lines? Haha

[BillRunacre]

It's based on when a place is liberated, and might get a bit complicated if a test of the type of unit has to be added, especially as not allowing it to become the capital means it could not benefit from the features a capital brings, e.g. full supply and the ability to deploy new units there. That might be seen as too prohibitive.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

It's based on when a place is liberated, and might get a bit complicated if a test of the type of unit has to be added, especially as not allowing it to become the capital means it could not benefit from the features a capital brings, e.g. full supply and the ability to deploy new units there. That might be seen as too prohibitive.

Ah I see thanks Bill. I shall crush the Partisan and send the capital right back!

[Cpuncher]

The quickest fix might be to change the type of the Partisan on any possible prior capital location to the kind that only disrupt resource strength, but not becoming a unit. Looking at the whole world map, there are quite many of those: Lanchow, Paris, Moscow, Ankara...

Having the capital moved to behind the enemy line is extremely bad for the owner, right? Now all your currently owned resources lost their rail connection to the new (previous) capital, and will all take strength losses, and suddenly your troops in terrible supply. This can be an extremely powerful gamey move now for the invader, and not doing it must be included in any current MP game.

Or you can give the player a choice to move the capital back or not. Currently I don't see any benefit but harm to move your capital back. You lose all the benefit of your currently most likely safer capital to your previous one, while in the process having all your non rail connected resources taking a hit. When I liberated London I was dismayed to find out that my CV parked in Belfast port couldn't repair due to the port strength just got killed...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Cpuncher

The quickest fix might be to change the type of the Partisan on any possible prior capital location to the kind that only disrupt resource strength, but not becoming a unit. Looking at the whole world map, there are quite many of those: Lanchow, Paris, Moscow, Ankara...

Having the capital moved to behind the enemy line is extremely bad for the owner, right? Now all your currently owned resources lost their rail connection to the new (previous) capital, and will all take strength losses, and suddenly your troops in terrible supply. This can be an extremely powerful gamey move now for the invader, and not doing it must be included in any current MP game.

Or you can give the player a choice to move the capital back or not. Currently I don't see any benefit but harm to move your capital back. You lose all the benefit of your currently most likely safer capital to your previous one, while in the process having all your non rail connected resources taking a hit. When I liberated London I was dismayed to find out that my CV parked in Belfast port couldn't repair due to the port strength just got killed...

Yeah this is what I was thinking?

[BillRunacre]

If we look at WW2 then we see a good number of countries, including France and Poland, where if the occupier left then undoubtedly the capital would have been liberated by its residents, and so changing the Partisan scripts to not provide a unit if the location is left empty is not ideal.

On the other hand I can see what you mean, but only if the Partisan liberates the capital and the occupier is still in strength in the country.

A question then arises, why is the occupier leaving the capital open so that a Partisan unit will deploy there?

Is this a deliberate (gamey) move?