[A National Project to reduce all upkeep by 15%]

This is a good idea: a national project with some really good name(can't think of any as i'm writing this) that reduces ALL national upkeep by let's say, 15%. This could be for revenue, as having a lower upkeep amount per turn could really somewhat benefit people as even if someone has a domestic policy like Imperialism, this still isn't really enough for it to be seen as an effective. This isn't a hate speech on domestic policy, but a national project to reduce upkeep costs by a certain percentage could be beneficial. Sometimes national upkeep really ruins someone's general revenue, without including national resources as an addition to the revenue. This could be for people with 15 cities or lower. If someone has a great deal of money in national revenue, yet their revenue is ruined by upkeep, it ain't fun, that's for sure.

[Country loses if 0 soldiers and the winner decides what to do with the country.]

51 minutes ago, bmp15 said:

This is not hearts of iron iv 

This happens in real politics, but it doesn’t happen much

24 minutes ago, Blast said:

Some sort of "occupation" phase could be cool in the event of a lost war (maybe a new war type would be more appropriate for this). The aggressor stations an occupational force in your country for a capped amount of time (probably on the short end), and each turn the defender has an opportunity to roll for some sort of resistance that has potential to do damage to the occupational force and even break the occupation. During the occupation, a percentage of the resources generated gets taken by the occupier, but they also spend a lot to do the occupying.

No idea whether that kind of concept would be fun but it seems interesting in my head.

Kind of my idea

[Country loses if 0 soldiers and the winner decides what to do with the country.]

The country should immediately lose if there are 0 soldiers and the winner gets to take the land, puppet the country, or sattelite it like in real life.

[30 more resistance lost if the defending country has 0 soldiers available]

1 hour ago, Rin said:

There's some merit to the idea. If they have no soldiers and can't rebuy, they've already lost or are inactive. But 30 is too much imo.

Yes, but how 'bout that if in the battle, if one side has no soldiers, that they completely lose?

[30 more resistance lost if the defending country has 0 soldiers available]

It's not fair that the same amount of resistance is lost when in the ground battle, there is no soldiers for the country that you declared war on or are defending themsleves.