I'm positive this has been brought up before, but i would like to bring it back to everyone's mind. the issue on humanitarians stopping you from attacking. a failsafe to keep large fluffholes from beating the crap out of very small countries, but I find it a bit annoying that when running a dict or tyranny country that they are present, even if you declare war on a country. Who has heard of tree huggers really stopping either of those types of regimes from doing anything?

I propose the removal of humanitarians from government types such as dictatorships and tyrannies. of course something would have to put in place to balance that out, so those types don't end up being abused for farming small countries into the grave. perhaps smaller gains from attacks, or military readiness drops faster?

please discuss.

and make the new players suffer...

read the whole thing asshat

I'd also appreciate it if you had something worthwhile to add to the discussion

Gotta say I'm against this idea. It's maybe a nod in the right direction, but I don't quite see the benefit of replacing one restriction with another similar restriction. Humanitarians in game aren't meant to serve as a real world representation of humanitarian efforts, but as a commonly named entity in game that protects players from exactly what you described above.

Hell, if it were a real world representation, even Demo's would have the ability to ignore their humanitarians and proceed as they wished anyways.....just look at the US.

thank you nowie. but seeing as both dicts and tyr are a bit more military alligned strats, so to say, perhaps humanitarians could come in effect when dealng with countries that are smaller than usual. like a bonus could be that these governments are able to attack smaller than usual countries than say a republic or democratic government could.