When attacking a country..

When you attack an opponent's country and all your land units are destroyed as well as your opponent's entire stack that was in that country, I don't think the opponent should get to keep that country. Obviously, if the person attacking the country has no land units left, he doesn't deserve it either. But what if the country went neutral when there are 0 units left after a battle in the country/city?

Thoughts?

So if I lose all my troops while defending my capital the land just... Go neutral?
Besides, this wouldn't make much sense as you would already possess the land, why would it just defect and declare independence without a standing army?

^ you would no longer have any need for land units to take control of the city which is absurd, you cannot command a city with just air units. unless there are land units to assume command your opponent will still be in charge but without any defense, free to be overrun by your troops next turn.

作者： Guest, 17.09.2013 at 19:04

作者： Xenosapien, 17.09.2013 at 18:33

^ you would no longer have any need for land units to take control of the city which is absurd, you cannot command a city with just air units. unless there are land units to assume command your opponent will still be in charge but without any defense, free to be overrun by your troops next turn.

Well in AW we can kind of defend cities with bombers :/

yeah the defending with bombers thing is not realistic, you'd just bomb your own city.
Maybe the bombers bomb right outside the city gate where the opponent comes, in that case it would be ok to defend with bombers

作者： The Tactician, 18.09.2013 at 00:35

作者： Guest, 17.09.2013 at 19:04

作者： Xenosapien, 17.09.2013 at 18:33

^ you would no longer have any need for land units to take control of the city which is absurd, you cannot command a city with just air units. unless there are land units to assume command your opponent will still be in charge but without any defense, free to be overrun by your troops next turn.

Well in AW we can kind of defend cities with bombers :/

yeah the defending with bombers thing is not realistic, you'd just bomb your own city.
Maybe the bombers bomb right outside the city gate where the opponent comes, in that case it would be ok to defend with bombers

Yes it is realistic, in war you will do anything to keep a city from your enemy, even bomb it to shreds, the process of defending will be a heavy toll on your population and income. Besides, some could be evacuated if you know it will be attacked. Otherwise why would you defend it with bombers? Also you can use tactical strikes to minimize civilian casualties instead of just bombing the shit out of the city.
You also have have home advantage and as you said you can bomb them when they are arriving at the city

Here's the way it was going in my mind.

We attack a country that isn't our opponent. We take that country's money, people, and we kill off that country's army. So if another country bombed all the military inside that country that the person took, why would that country still pledge it's allegiance to the country who ran them over?

Well once you take control over a country I would say a lot of stuff happens in government and such that AW doesn't reflect. You don't always need a military occupation to have control over a country. Maybe they have more loyalty to you who were defending them? Also I am sure they would still have a police force to prevent anarachy which is what would inevitably insue. So it pays to be loyal rather then descent into anarachy and open your self up to more attack. No need to fix something that works just fine. This doesn't seem like a good idea.