Colonial possessions: another refrain of the old tune

[mrchuck]

Hi all,

Apologies for banging on again on this subject, but I'm more convinced than ever that the way possessions are being handled in the game isn't right.

In my current campaign, as Germany yet again, I hammered the French between 1892 and 1897 and, much against my better judgement, took Corsica, Algeria and Tunisia from them in the treaty. Shortly after, I got a China possession as well, can't remember which one.

Later on in the 1910s, I ended up in a long war with UK, USA, Italy and Japan all at once.

The Italians took Corsica, the British took Algeria, and the Japanese took whatever it was in China. I simply ignored them and focused on mangling the RN in home waters. This cost quite a few VPs, but since I managed to defeat (utterly) three British attempts to take Norway (and maul the US expeditionary force as well), in the end I came out well ahead. The coalition collapsed after GB threw in the towel, following the almost total destruction of the RN and a year or so being blockaded by Germany. They can dish it out...

In the peace, there were no conditions imposed on anyone, and while the loss of the above possessions was confirmed, I got 8 points in the settlement which I put into the economy.

What I didn't see during the war was:
prestige loss and/or unrest at possessions not being defended at all
prestige loss and/or unrest for losing them

What I didn't see during the peace was any incentive to recover the lost possessions, or penalty for not doing so, and it is almost invariably of greater benefit to the player not to take on extra foreign commitments.

How can this be a realistic model of the way governments and populations behaved in the game era, especially before the 50s? Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Also, side issue, I would love to see base cap as well as oil in the list of possessions up for grabs if it pans out that way.