Why does the "nationalize buildings" wargoal require you to do...anything at all?

[Pellucid]

The buildings are in YOUR land. Shouldn't you be considered to be winning by default as long as you still control your own land?

 

[TheFlemishDuck]

Probably some practical arrangement to determine who is on the position of the attacker and the defender in the diplo play, as in your going to be the attacker and they are going to be the defender and hence they can for example maybe call on their defensive alliances as "their interests are being attacked" while you cant fall back on your defensive alliances for something like this.

 

[Nitros14]

In Victoria3land the buildings in question are considered to be the financial districts in London, for some reason.

 

[Aloraand]

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense and I've never used it since launch, because it costs the least abundant resource(infamy) instead of the most abundant one(money) and both cost a lot of opinion.

There should rather be a "restore ownership" wargoal, which you can access after your buildings have been nationalised. Maybe even "seize ownership" and you don't get infamy if you have been expropriated.

 

[yurcick]

Probably some practical arrangement to determine who is on the position of the attacker and the defender in the diplo play, as in your going to be the attacker and they are going to be the defender and hence they can for example maybe call on their defensive alliances as "their interests are being attacked" while you cant fall back on your defensive alliances for something like this.

What OP refers to is not who is considered an attacker, and who -- a defender in the nationalisation DP. This is a meaningful, but separate topic.

What he or she asks is that why is it not sufficient to hold onto your territory for the wargoal to count as fulfilled (and your opponent's war support to fall below zero). He or she is right, it's not, you have to occupy the enemy capital IIRC, otherwise you can't win. Despite the fact that the contested industries are on your soil that you keep controlling militarily.

I don't have a good answer for that.

• One joke is that, well, when you nationalise something, you're stealing the enemy's capital. So it makes perfect sense that you should occupy the capital
• A more reasonable answer is that it's likely that devs decided that it'd be too easy to cheese it by stealing other countries' investments repeatedly, as it wouldn't require much. I'd prefer a system of "investor attraction" and "investor infamy" to be the solution here (so that if you do this trick once, you will have a very hard time trying to convince anyone to invest in your industries). But since we don't have it, simply making the wargoal harder to fulfill than would be narratively logical is also a solution

 

[Life is Comedy]

If you go back to the relevant DD (I cant be bothered to look it up now) its strictly game mechanic reason. As otherwise one would need to flag in some way the nationalized buildings, ans what happens if a downsize happens in the mean time ? Can one just delete all buildings ? And what should be the downsize for the nationalizer country ? Raparation.

Hence, it was just much easiet to have the affect be AT THE END of the war

 

[Zander]

Hence, it was just much easiet to have the affect be AT THE END of the war

The issue isn't when the effect happens - it's that you have to basically conquer the entire other nation to nationalize the buildings in your own land. It would make more sense if, say, you just had to defend all your own territory (though it should be all your own territory), rather than having to conquer the investor's capital state.

 

[Haresus]

It seems like a pure game balance decision. If Switzerland decides to forcibly nationalise their British-owned industries, it would be too easy if all Switzerland had to do was wait for the "ticking war score" to end the war in their favour. Is it particularly realistic? No, but otherwise the obvious meta strategy would be to attract foreign investment and then nationalise everything as soon as you feel confident that the investing countries can't successfully (naval) invade you.

 

[Aloraand]

It seems like a pure game balance decision. If Switzerland decides to forcibly nationalise their British-owned industries, it would be too easy if all Switzerland had to do was wait for the "ticking war score" to end the war in their favour. Is it particularly realistic? No, but otherwise the obvious meta strategy would be to attract foreign investment and then nationalise everything as soon as you feel confident that the investing countries can't successfully (naval) invade you.

But you can already sort of do that if you cancel the agreement and nationalise with money and iirc the agreement breaks if you oppose eachother in diploplay, so there's no difference there either. You just have to take it a bit more slowly not to mess up relations too much.

 

[Haresus]

But you can already sort of do that if you cancel the agreement and nationalise with money and iirc the agreement breaks if you oppose eachother in diploplay, so there's no difference there either. You just have to take it a bit more slowly not to mess up relations too much.

Nationalising with money versus seizing everything for free seems like a pretty big difference to me.

 

[alexgmcm]

I'd prefer a system of "investor attraction" and "investor infamy" to be the solution here (so that if you do this trick once, you will have a very hard time trying to convince anyone to invest in your industries).

Damn, I want this so badly now.