Can the Pan Asian Combine Eat India?

[The Shadow Rose]

If so how?

[KFC-AI]

I think that since China and India both have claim over a region, it should be possible to bring India into the Pan Asian Combine ?

However, I am not sure you want to do this. My China alone has 40bn GDP, so maybe it is better to form either Greater India or united the EU with Russia.

[VoiD]

Not normally.

But if you break india apart then annex it's capital with one of the micro nations with a claim on it you can move it's capital elsewhere, if you move it to the region claimed by the combine (or the caliphate) you can annex it with them. after you re-unify india.

[Rogal Dorn]

If you are on the latest experimental release no, when you regain your original capital region the capital moves back to it.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by Rogal Dorn:

If you are on the latest experimental release no, when you regain your original capital region the capital moves back to it.

Party Pooper Patch

Edit: Well, you can sort of do it still, as long as you leave the original capital region you can still take the rest of the country

[Prisoner 76561197992841073]

PAC needs a claim on India's capital, New Delhi, in order to unify which it does not have. So only a federation is possible.

Compare this with EU who can unify with the entire restored Warsaw pact because it has a claim on Moscow.

[heh]

Nothing can eat India. Nothing has a claim on its capital. That's why India has to eat everyone else for the one-tag world conquest.

[The Shadow Rose]

Originally posted by 76561198022369703:

Nothing can eat India. Nothing has a claim on its capital. That's why India has to eat everyone else for the one-tag world conquest.

Theres a way to unite every country?

[Seva]

Originally posted by Rogal Dorn:

If you are on the latest experimental release no, when you regain your original capital region the capital moves back to it.

Why are they doing this just let people have fun ffs sometimes devs are real morons.

[Badger BrownCoat]

instead of 'morons' - let's say, if we may...
"deterministic vs holistic design philosophy'
- it was less onerous in a curated experience like modern xcom; more? obvious ? in a genre that is usually more sandbox than curated / single puzzle solution.

not arguing per se; just - LWS taught about 1/2 of us nexusmoddders *how* to mod xcom
( literally at the hexi- coding level !! ) - so it's hard to see them as morons; just-
"deteministic" or curated solutions / plot progressions- Fair?
perun's viewers mass attack me over battlestations in 5...4...3...

[Blockhead]

Originally posted by The Shadow Rose:

Theres a way to unite every country?

It's been done before, supposedly legitimately; although from the sound of things the devs are about to patch out the possibility.

As VOID describes, it requires carefully breaking down nations so that their capitals change. If you very carefully Unify in the right order, it is technically possible in the current build.

[BrowneHawk]

On a recent youtube video I have been watching for insight, the player discovered that having too many nations or certain nation is not good. For instance the EU colonial holdings actually hurt his economy. After taking fall of great nations he was able to research decolonize and release those countries, which had the result of greatly increasing the EU strength.

So I'd avoid trying to gobble everything into one mass, it might not be the best option.

[VoiD]

Originally posted by BrowneHawk:

On a recent youtube video I have been watching for insight, the player discovered that having too many nations or certain nation is not good. For instance the EU colonial holdings actually hurt his economy. After taking fall of great nations he was able to research decolonize and release those countries, which had the result of greatly increasing the EU strength.

So I'd avoid trying to gobble everything into one mass, it might not be the best option.

It really depends on what you want, the game's full of that.

IE: What's better, an authoritarian government or a democratic one? Well, if you want a country that's easier to keep and maintain authoritarian, if you want better development and research then it's democratic.

What's better, a small country or a big one? To develop one-offs like mission control tiny countries are better, to develop the population the larger ones are better.

Likewise, creating one massive block creates pros and cons, huge countries are much cheaper to maintain and easier to develop, but also takes away opportunities from the rest of humanity and the other organizations, which also help you with stuff like Global Research.

In my game, as an example, I've merged all of china, siberia and australia into indonesia, then formed the african union, ate both africa and indochina with the caliphate (all of which is "legit" and requires no shenanigans https://steamcommunity.com/app/1176470/discussions/0/5595184948701318267/ ).

I've also united them with the EU+Eurasia, but this part might not be legit as the next patch is making it harder to move capitals around (though it seems like ti can still be done, if you avoid taking the capital region back(?) but it's not really that important as they added about 500m people to a country that already had almost 7 billion.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876093027

The plus is rather obvious, with so many strategic resources and so many pops I can develop the economy of most of the world very, very easily, but, as you know, GDP has diminishing returns, so there's a lot of "wasted" potential there.

But, that also didn't leave much of the world for the other factions:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876092990
As they are all pretty much erased from the game and can only cause minor nuisances with their agents, they don't have resources, income or even MC to build anything else in space, so that's something neat.

Another neat feature is that such a huge country is 100% impossible for enemy agents to do anything against, the penalties are just too big, they can't target that country for any actions.

I'm still trying to decide what I'm going to do once I get that huge block to something like 60k per capita GDP, 1 inequality and max development, might keep it as is, might split the world in several very rich pieces and watch the AI struggle to even get into any of them.

[The Shadow Rose]

Originally posted by VoiD:

Originally posted by BrowneHawk:

On a recent youtube video I have been watching for insight, the player discovered that having too many nations or certain nation is not good. For instance the EU colonial holdings actually hurt his economy. After taking fall of great nations he was able to research decolonize and release those countries, which had the result of greatly increasing the EU strength.

So I'd avoid trying to gobble everything into one mass, it might not be the best option.

It really depends on what you want, the game's full of that.

IE: What's better, an authoritarian government or a democratic one? Well, if you want a country that's easier to keep and maintain authoritarian, if you want better development and research then it's democratic.

What's better, a small country or a big one? To develop one-offs like mission control tiny countries are better, to develop the population the larger ones are better.

Likewise, creating one massive block creates pros and cons, huge countries are much cheaper to maintain and easier to develop, but also takes away opportunities from the rest of humanity and the other organizations, which also help you with stuff like Global Research.

In my game, as an example, I've merged all of china, siberia and australia into indonesia, then formed the african union, ate both africa and indochina with the caliphate (all of which is "legit" and requires no shenanigans https://steamcommunity.com/app/1176470/discussions/0/5595184948701318267/ ).

I've also united them with the EU+Eurasia, but this part might not be legit as the next patch is making it harder to move capitals around (though it seems like ti can still be done, if you avoid taking the capital region back(?) but it's not really that important as they added about 500m people to a country that already had almost 7 billion.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876093027

The plus is rather obvious, with so many strategic resources and so many pops I can develop the economy of most of the world very, very easily, but, as you know, GDP has diminishing returns, so there's a lot of "wasted" potential there.

But, that also didn't leave much of the world for the other factions:
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876092990
As they are all pretty much erased from the game and can only cause minor nuisances with their agents, they don't have resources, income or even MC to build anything else in space, so that's something neat.

Another neat feature is that such a huge country is 100% impossible for enemy agents to do anything against, the penalties are just too big, they can't target that country for any actions.

I'm still trying to decide what I'm going to do once I get that huge block to something like 60k per capita GDP, 1 inequality and max development, might keep it as is, might split the world in several very rich pieces and watch the AI struggle to even get into any of them.

Eh i just wanted to merge india with the combine and leave the world to nuke the aliens. Im already over 50% of the worlds gdp at 70 trillion and gaining 931m a month in gdp in 2031 so i mostly just wanted more even borders and indias pop.