|
Seems like it would be easy to have belligerent actions produce events that can lead to a reason to join a war. Are their subs attacking shipping in a sea zone that you use? Small chance they accidentally attack the wrong thing and whoopsiydoodle Lusitania. Are they trying to pull in a new ally that is on your door step? O dear diplomatic incident. Those are the two most obvious but I am sure their are more. It could make maintaining your diplomatic chops during war import too. Which is cool and good.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
One other thing it strikes me that this sounds like it alleviates is the player's foreknowledge that this period contains the tipping point where the minimum cost of a war starts to exceed the maximum benefit of a war. In Vicky 2 (as in real life), the winning move in late game wars was not to play; since deaths in the field directly depleted your pops, and your pops were the engines which created wealth for your state, getting into big wars is basically a fool's errand if your goal was to top out the various rankings. But with that system, players are strongly encouraged to go into brinkmanship. Getting territory via diplomacy is effectively "free" so even a player avoiding war will want to do it. And even if you don't want a war, you're incentivised to ramp up the claims to the point where the other side caves since the consequence of backing down is much lower than the consequence of losing the war. But eventually someone calls your bluff, and now your plan of diplo-only expansion has a spanner in the works.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 00:20
|
|
|
everydayfalls posted:Seems like it would be easy to have belligerent actions produce events that can lead to a reason to join a war. Yeah belligerent actions and the interest system sound like a great way to both encourage limited wars and also to bring in neutral parties by too aggressively sitting the rules of war around someone who can hit back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:This was basically the system back in early EU4 where if you war decced someone the AI deemed too small it would make their biggest ally the warleader who then got to call in all of their allies. And then if that ally was too small their biggest ally would be the warleader and call in all of their allies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
What if "intervene in war" is a special type of diplomatic play that you can only use under certain conditions? So for example the US trade fleet keeps getting sunk by German subs, and the US starts a play to intervene. But Germany can defuse it by not using unrestricted submarine warfare. Also, it doesn't seem like there's anything stopping a belligerent from launching another play while they're already at war. Perhaps that's the way to represent war goals changing later in the war. I suspect both of these ideas have pathological edge cases I haven't thought of, but it does seem like to properly simulate ww1 you need both the ability for countries to enter the war later and the ability to expand the scope of the war.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 08:15
|
|
|
This system sounds too good to work properly. However, I'm puzzled by the fact you can't just attack someone. This stuff still happens today, you know, people move their armies in some territory and don't want to talk about any mediation except for terms of surrender. Plainly attacking someone should not be a primary way to do it but it's still should be there. I know it's a game first and foremost so the historical reality should not be a reason for worse gameplay, but it would seem strange to me if every single conflict is preceded by this process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 09:40
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:This system sounds too good to work properly. I can see border skirmishes happening spontaneously (if relations are bad enough) but you don't mobilise a million men to take Alsace Lorraine without having to engage with your populace and drum up war support first
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 09:45
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:This system sounds too good to work properly. I don't think the dev diary actually states how long the horsetrading period between threatening war and war occuring (or one side capitulating) is. It might be variable? I guess a very straightforward way to implement a war that occurs with no prior notice would be that you can declare one, but if there's no negotiation phase you expose yourself to the risk of any interested party in the region intervening in your war once the fighting has started, which would also be historically accurate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
Gort posted:I can see border skirmishes happening spontaneously (if relations are bad enough) but you don't mobilise a million men to take Alsace Lorraine without having to engage with your populace and drum up war support first If the game about 19th century allows French to create the biggest army ever to just walk on Moscow without any clear war goal and demands then we call it bullshit, yeah. Red Bones posted:I don't think the dev diary actually states how long the horsetrading period between threatening war and war occuring (or one side capitulating) is. It might be variable? I guess a very straightforward way to implement a war that occurs with no prior notice would be that you can declare one, but if there's no negotiation phase you expose yourself to the risk of any interested party in the region intervening in your war once the fighting has started, which would also be historically accurate. The possibility of just sending an ultimatum would be nice, I guess, if the game allows you to send an ultimatum that will definitely be declined. It just feels wrong if the British or French or Russians are forced to go through those motions to annex some minor Asian country no one cares about. ilitarist fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 10:47
|
|
|
You literally can just send a "hey I will annex you entirely" ultimatum. Either that's declined and you get your war, or it's not and you get literally everything you wanted without even needing to fight for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 11:16
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:If the game about 19th century allows French to create the biggest army ever to just walk on Moscow without any clear war goal and demands then we call it bullshit, yeah. Didn’t they go through these motions historically, for the most part? I can’t say I’m an expert on every 19th century annexation, but the one that springs to mind is the annexation of the Kingdom of Benin in Africa, where the process began with pamphlets being distributed in Europe denouncing the kingdom’s barbarism, then moved on to forcing an unequal treaty “guaranteeing” free trade for British merchants which the Benin were either unwilling to recognise or deliberately misinformed about, then an expedition that pretended to be a diplomatic delegation while really being an invasion force with a mission to depose the king and set up a puppet government, and then when that expedition was defeated, a final punitive expedition sent under the pretext of avenging the massacre of the diplomatic delegation (no mention of it actually being a hostile armed force which aimed to depose the king, of course) with the objective of annexing the kingdom and laying the city to ruin. Even for a minor African country at the apex of the Scramble for Africa, all this sophisticated diplomatic manoeuvring was seen as worthwhile and necessary over just marching in and asserting a right of conquest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 11:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I really don't know of any cases of significant conflicts (aka, not border skirmishes) in the 19th century that weren't preceded by diplomatic discussions/offensives, justifications and/or heightened border tensions and mobilization on some level. There might have been, but if so I'd like some examples cited, but it wasn't really an era of starting wars with complete surprise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 11:42
|
|
|
Question: I remember an earlier diary mentioning the breaking of territorial integrity. This diary mentions possible war goals. I don't see anything related to that or supplying an enemy with goods in this diary though. This however did play a role in WW1. I'll take the example of the sand and gravel question. In WW1 Germany needed to supply its construction works in Belgium with sand and gravel. To do this their convoys went through a neutral country, the Netherlands. This matter resulted in threats of war from both Germany (who wanted to let through more supplies) and the UK (who didn't want any to go through). In the end neither declared war on the neutral Netherlands as neutrality was better for them, and the dutch managed to placate both but both this and rumours of German troops travelling through were considered seriously as reasons for declaring war. Any chance of casus belli related to these matters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 12:42
|
|
|
Wiz posted:There might have been, but if so I'd like some examples cited, but it wasn't really an era of starting wars with complete surprise. It certainly wasn't fashionable but I just find it weird that the game system doesn't allow for extremely famous surprise attacks that happened 20 years before its timespan (Napoleon's invasion of Russia) and 3 years after (WW2 had a few of those). I may be misunderstanding the abstraction here. I guess for all of those you can argue that Diplomatic Play was in progress for years, the only surprise was a specific date.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
As someone who was really hyped for the diplomatic play system, I’m overall very pleased. I think it represents that diplomatic maneuvering prior to war very well while also simulating the tendency for brinksmanship to get out of hand and lead to catastrophic Great Wars. My only concern would be the inability to change your demands after the war begins. Historically, WW1 is a great example of how the ultimate peace terms might look completely different from what the initial war goals might have been. And from a player’s perspective, if I do really well on a war, I want the freedom to take more than I originally planned. One century is a short timeframe for the game, truce timers are long, and it would suck to get into a knock down, drag out war with the AI for one province. This is a more general complaint that I have with the Paradox style war score system though. I find it thoroughly unrealistic that if I have utterly defeated an enemy, have an army sitting in their capital, occupied 100% of its territory and gotten that 100% war score, that I can’t take off much larger chunks of it and/or annex it outright. Yes, they might be unruly, rebellious, hard to control, cause overextension etc, but from an international legal standpoint gently caress it, why not. There should be more natural limits to taking territory than war score.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
I think having the wargoals set from the start may actually help with the whole total war thing. It'd make it a lot easier to figure out a good point to have AI countries give up/in during the war. Maybe you won't have to carpet siege/control the entire country anymore for anything short of annexation. V2 was decent at this. I guess we might find out in the next dev diary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 14:40
|
|
|
I think a way to achieve a versailles style ending to a great war would be to, once a threshold is reached, have is be event driven based on the end of the war. Kind of like the first phase of the play, but at the end with the victors adding and negotiating demands. Some ricky mod did that and it was fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Napoleon absolutely used a diplomatic justification to invade Russia
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:This is a more general complaint that I have with the Paradox style war score system though. I find it thoroughly unrealistic that if I have utterly defeated an enemy, have an army sitting in their capital, occupied 100% of its territory and gotten that 100% war score, that I can’t take off much larger chunks of it and/or annex it outright. Yes, they might be unruly, rebellious, hard to control, cause overextension etc, but from an international legal standpoint gently caress it, why not. There should be more natural limits to taking territory than war score. That's not really what happened in reality outside of a few particular cases (EG: The Mongols) - there probably wouldn't be much of a military history of the world if every war ended in total annexation of the loser. Someone would've done a world conquest in 2000 BC and we'd have lived under the Finno-Ugrian One World Government ever since.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 15:20
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's not really what happened in reality outside of a few particular cases (EG: The Mongols) - there probably wouldn't be much of a military history of the world if every war ended in total annexation of the loser. Someone would've done a world conquest in 2000 BC and we'd have lived under the Finno-Ugrian One World Government ever since. We would be living under the 50,000 year old Korean world government if not for the Finnoi-Korean hyperwar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 15:44
|
|
|
ilitarist posted:It certainly wasn't fashionable but I just find it weird that the game system doesn't allow for extremely famous surprise attacks that happened 20 years before its timespan (Napoleon's invasion of Russia) and 3 years after (WW2 had a few of those). But neither of those were surprise attacks
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:10
|
|
|
Yeah, the timing was a surprise but the actual presence of war was not, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Gort posted:That's not really what happened in reality outside of a few particular cases (EG: The Mongols) - there probably wouldn't be much of a military history of the world if every war ended in total annexation of the loser. Someone would've done a world conquest in 2000 BC and we'd have lived under the Finno-Ugrian One World Government ever since. Granted, but usually that's because countries will give in to reasonable terms prior to a complete and total occupation. But in cases where one side was completely and utterly defeated, annexation or wholesale creation of client states was much more common. In the time periods immediately preceding (Napoleonic Wars, creation of Spain and confederacy of the Rhineland as client states, wholesale annexation of the lowlands) and following (WW2, complete splitting of Germany, creation of the Iron Curtain and Soviet republics etc) the Victoria timeframe, annexation or puppeting after complete and total subjugation was the norm. And if WW1 had ended with the complete destruction of the Central Powers forces and occupation of Berlin, I doubt that Germany as a state would still exist, for example. Again, I grant that most wars between major powers throughout history have not ended in total annexation (although plenty of wars between one major and one minor power did!). But, most wars between major powers throughout history did not result in the equivalent of a Paradox 100% war score either. In fact, I'm curious to know if there are good historical counterexamples of where in a war with the complete occupation of a power's capital and countryside where the invaders agreed to limited terms. Cantorsdust fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Granted, but usually that's because countries will give in to reasonable terms prior to a complete and total occupation. But in cases where one side was completely and utterly defeated, annexation or wholesale creation of client states was much more common. In the time periods immediately preceding (Napoleonic Wars, creation of Spain and confederacy of the Rhineland as client states, wholesale annexation of the lowlands) and following (WW2, complete splitting of Germany, creation of the Iron Curtain and Soviet republics etc) the Victoria timeframe, annexation or puppeting after complete and total subjugation was the norm. And if WW1 had ended with the complete destruction of the Central Powers forces and occupation of Berlin, I doubt that Germany as a state would still exist, for example. Franco-Prussian war
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
French territory was left intact after the Napoleonic Wars. The Republic was destroyed though so I guess it depends on how you count it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If you're responding to my suggestion, I would counter that a Great War shouldn't see the war leader change much, since it presupposes great powers on both sides. There's not much escalation to be had, in terms of participants, if you've already drawn say 5/7 great powers into your war when it starts. The fact that the game is effectively capped, with the late game being a truly global affair, should prevent these sorts of ballooning of wars. Like, maybe the US/China gets dragged into the war, but that's not blowing a war up into involving an order of magnitude larger forces than before as could happen in EU4. I was responding more to The Chesire Cat's 'local conflict that spirals out of control' because we've seen that before and players hated it. Yes, if you let players know ahead of time that this is going to be a Great War then that's different, but back in old EU4 you had to check allies' allies' allies before taking on small powers just to make sure no one up the chain would trigger a world war unexpectedly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Part of the problem is that the AI lacks any sense of proportion so they're willing to bleed themselves white over things they have no real stake in.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Ithle01 posted:I was responding more to The Chesire Cat's 'local conflict that spirals out of control' because we've seen that before and players hated it. Yes, if you let players know ahead of time that this is going to be a Great War then that's different, but back in old EU4 you had to check allies' allies' allies before taking on small powers just to make sure no one up the chain would trigger a world war unexpectedly. in hindsight i kind of miss the ramping foreverwars because it's terribly easy to simply not pick fights you can't win in modern eu4
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:Part of the problem is that the AI lacks any sense of proportion so they're willing to bleed themselves white over things they have no real stake in. I'm hoping the interests system is a way to help sort that out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
yikes! posted:Franco-Prussian war OctaviusBeaver posted:French territory was left intact after the Napoleonic Wars. The Republic was destroyed though so I guess it depends on how you count it. Alright, you got me with the Franco Prussian war, although I'll quibble that they just occupied Paris, not the entire French countryside and in fact had significant difficulties attempting to do so. Regarding the Napoleonic Wars, I'll counter that while Napoleon's armies were defeated, Paris was not seiged, and Napoleon was forced to abdicate by the French themselves. I'd argue that that's a good example of a state recognizing when it was definitively defeated before reaching 100% warscore via exhaustive occupation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:50
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Alright, you got me with the Franco Prussian war, although I'll quibble that they just occupied Paris, not the entire French countryside and in fact had significant difficulties attempting to do so. I think the thing to realize is that it's fairly realistic for even total occupation to not lead to total annexation because that would fundamentally just be an occupation that never ends and the drain on resources would be immense. The videogame-y "you just take the territory and it's yours now" way that strategy games work isn't a particularly realistic depiction of real warfare; just look at Afghanistan and how much difficult extremely powerful nations have had there for examples throughout history all the way up to the modern day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 21:45
|
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:Granted, but usually that's because countries will give in to reasonable terms prior to a complete and total occupation. But in cases where one side was completely and utterly defeated, annexation or wholesale creation of client states was much more common. In the time periods immediately preceding (Napoleonic Wars, creation of Spain and confederacy of the Rhineland as client states, wholesale annexation of the lowlands) and following (WW2, complete splitting of Germany, creation of the Iron Curtain and Soviet republics etc) the Victoria timeframe, annexation or puppeting after complete and total subjugation was the norm. And if WW1 had ended with the complete destruction of the Central Powers forces and occupation of Berlin, I doubt that Germany as a state would still exist, for example. They maybe weren't equal powers at the time (but it wasn't Great Power vs minnow either), but the Mexican-American War? Vera Cruz, Mexico City, and several other major cities were occupied. But there was a negotiated treaty and not an unconditional surrender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
I mean in the end most of these edge cases don’t need to be represented? Like it’s fine if they aren’t. The Great War is the only mechanic that you can say is important to be a thing to itself
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:in hindsight i kind of miss the ramping foreverwars because it's terribly easy to simply not pick fights you can't win in modern eu4 EU4 definitely has issues, but I'm not sure sieging down thirty different countries to fix my border gore is going to be an improvement. Anyway, as for V3, the diplomatic stuff sounds cool, I like the whole "war is a continuation of diplomacy" angle, and I look forward to seeing it in action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:They maybe weren't equal powers at the time (but it wasn't Great Power vs minnow either), but the Mexican-American War? Vera Cruz, Mexico City, and several other major cities were occupied. But there was a negotiated treaty and not an unconditional surrender. I don't remember this part of my American history as well, but I'm pretty sure there was a major movement in the US to actually just straight up annex Mexico, and that the main reason they didn't was 1) racism against making Mexicans American citizens and 2) what was going to be done about slavery in all this new territory. That is, it was a political decision in the US not to annex Mexico outright rather than one forced by an arbitrary warscore. I'd translate this into "Paradox terms" as the Mexican-American war ending with a warscore ~90% with the US choosing to take the easily core-able and culture-matched territory rather than taking territory with poor, low-literacy and wrong-culture pops. Or in EU4 terms taking only easiliy core-able and culture-matched territory rather than wrong-culture territory to avoid overextension. Which is probably one of the loving nerdiest things I've ever written.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
There was a movement, but it wasn't really a particularly popular or realistic one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
the mexicans had a hard time controlling mexico in th e19th century and its not like they were shy about the occasional massacre. the us wouldnt have stood a chance
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:32
|
|
|
Regardless of the internal political tensions of the USA, the fact is that an annexation of that nature would have been just straight up impossible to carry out by the US for a variety of reasons, the main ones being as was described above, “annexation” meaning “permanent occupation.” Also at literally any time in the history of the US, you can find a political movement dedicated to annexing all or part of every nearby nation. Sometimes they don’t even originate within the US (the Fenians and their attempted retail false-flag invasion of Canada were mentioned above). If you said “there’s a political movement in support of Texan secession at this very moment” it would be as accurate as saying there was one in support of annexing Mexico in whole or part. (e: at that time*)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:35
|
|
|
The "All Mexico" lobby wasn't that big but Polk's ambition to take Baja and some other additional territory easily could have happened had negotiations gone differently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Cantorsdust posted:I don't remember this part of my American history as well, but I'm pretty sure there was a major movement in the US to actually just straight up annex Mexico, and that the main reason they didn't was 1) racism against making Mexicans American citizens and 2) what was going to be done about slavery in all this new territory. That is, it was a political decision in the US not to annex Mexico outright rather than one forced by an arbitrary warscore. I'd translate this into "Paradox terms" as the Mexican-American war ending with a warscore ~90% with the US choosing to take the easily core-able and culture-matched territory rather than taking territory with poor, low-literacy and wrong-culture pops. Or in EU4 terms taking only easiliy core-able and culture-matched territory rather than wrong-culture territory to avoid overextension. Which is probably one of the loving nerdiest things I've ever written. You realize that by twisting yourself into knots to defend your argument, you're actually arguing for the other side by admitting that historically it's not as simple as occupying enemy territory and forcing an unconditional surrender/annexation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 22:46
|
|