You do know what the word Entente means in french?(hint: Red Light District)...
Paradox is so smart with this expansion, instead of doing a WW1 expansion
- Thread starter unmerged(312250)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I
It is a standard word for that alliance (and others). Also in French: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entente
If it has gathered some other meaning since then, that is not the original meaning. It means an agreement or understanding.
I'd certainly like to see a 1914 scenario in the future. This is a good expansion, but for the second one, a 1914-focus would allow to deepen the military aspects of the game, which can be a little shallow at times.
Logistics in particular need to be restricted a little more.
As much as I dislike hardcoded alliances, your reply made me chuckle a bit. You are aware of the Three Emperors' League, right? As long as Bismark was in power, this was cornerstone to German foreign policy. If anything, what's implausible is that the Germans failed to realize how isolated they would be if they let that go, as they did. Its perfectly reasonable uchronia to think about this alliance setup. But we certainly shouldnt be pigeonholed into it
Logistics in particular need to be restricted a little more.
As much as I dislike hardcoded alliances, your reply made me chuckle a bit. You are aware of the Three Emperors' League, right? As long as Bismark was in power, this was cornerstone to German foreign policy. If anything, what's implausible is that the Germans failed to realize how isolated they would be if they let that go, as they did. Its perfectly reasonable uchronia to think about this alliance setup. But we certainly shouldnt be pigeonholed into it
As much as I dislike hardcoded alliances, your reply made me chuckle a bit. You are aware of the Three Emperors' League, right? As long as Bismark was in power, this was cornerstone to German foreign policy. If anything, what's implausible is that the Germans failed to realize how isolated they would be if they let that go, as they did. Its perfectly reasonable uchronia to think about this alliance setup. But we certainly shouldnt be pigeonholed into it
Yes, that's why I said it wasn't exactly implausible. If there is a WWI scenario I would like the possibility for historically plausible alliances, like Italy in the CP or Britain and Germany against the Franco-Russian Entente. Limiting by government type is just too restricting (and boring IMO)
I think the Great Wars mod showed the amount of potential there is for a more developed system for a world war without it being deterministic, and if you want to play through a historic WW1 then play the scenario.
As for factions I think there should be 4 'slots' for potential alliances (as there are 8 great powers), but obviously they don't all have to be filled, and more than 2 nations can be in an alliance. Names can be based off government types but the alliances themselves aren't restricted by them.
As for factions I think there should be 4 'slots' for potential alliances (as there are 8 great powers), but obviously they don't all have to be filled, and more than 2 nations can be in an alliance. Names can be based off government types but the alliances themselves aren't restricted by them.
For those interested in reading books instead of Wikipedia entries, Norbert Elias did some great essays about why the Second Reich behaved like it did and why the Weimar Republic failed.
Some of the suggestions here are pretty interesting.
About 'hardocoded' alliances: Not until the diplomacy - and other related things - in this game is improved. Before any of what has been said here could be put to use, the alliances in the game should be more complex; for instance, you could sign a non-agression treaty with someone, while not allying with them - you would not help them, but neither would declare war against each other. This is simple, and yet is not there. And before a thing as factions could exist, alliances should influence and be influenced by CBs and other things, like what cores does a nation have. For example, you could have a decision to gain/lose cores depending on who your allies are - and vice-versa, you should be able to form decision-based alliances depending on your cores. And so on. I still believe that before implementing new systems and such, Paradox needs to improve what they already got, to include more options, more decisions, and etc.
And saying that Paradox is smart for not doing a WW1 expansion first is an understatement: the fact is that Paradox is smart for having made a vanilla V2 that is, for lack of a better word, empty. While EU3 and other have been shipped with severals starting points, V2 has one. They could literally make dozens of expansions, based on historical events and conflicts alone: Boer's Wars, Opium Wars, germanic unification, War of The Triple Alliance, and others. Also, the government: there's nothing like a leader to a nation, like an emperor character, or a president. The senate, or chancellery, and anything of the sort is purely imaginary, and counts only as POP influence bonus/penalty. The election system is simple at best, as is the rebelion system.
What I'm saying is that there's many ways they could improve the game; and many more others where there's room to new things. I honestly don't know if that's just genious or perverse as well, but such is the industry, and after all, everyone has to make a living somehow.
Do you have any links for us? I study philosophy, but social studies have been an interest to me for some time now. I only read parts of the Civilizing Process, I would like to read more about it. If it's in portuguese, all the better.
About 'hardocoded' alliances: Not until the diplomacy - and other related things - in this game is improved. Before any of what has been said here could be put to use, the alliances in the game should be more complex; for instance, you could sign a non-agression treaty with someone, while not allying with them - you would not help them, but neither would declare war against each other. This is simple, and yet is not there. And before a thing as factions could exist, alliances should influence and be influenced by CBs and other things, like what cores does a nation have. For example, you could have a decision to gain/lose cores depending on who your allies are - and vice-versa, you should be able to form decision-based alliances depending on your cores. And so on. I still believe that before implementing new systems and such, Paradox needs to improve what they already got, to include more options, more decisions, and etc.
And saying that Paradox is smart for not doing a WW1 expansion first is an understatement: the fact is that Paradox is smart for having made a vanilla V2 that is, for lack of a better word, empty. While EU3 and other have been shipped with severals starting points, V2 has one. They could literally make dozens of expansions, based on historical events and conflicts alone: Boer's Wars, Opium Wars, germanic unification, War of The Triple Alliance, and others. Also, the government: there's nothing like a leader to a nation, like an emperor character, or a president. The senate, or chancellery, and anything of the sort is purely imaginary, and counts only as POP influence bonus/penalty. The election system is simple at best, as is the rebelion system.
What I'm saying is that there's many ways they could improve the game; and many more others where there's room to new things. I honestly don't know if that's just genious or perverse as well, but such is the industry, and after all, everyone has to make a living somehow.
Do you have any links for us? I study philosophy, but social studies have been an interest to me for some time now. I only read parts of the Civilizing Process, I would like to read more about it. If it's in portuguese, all the better.
And you obviously do not speak French as it has absolutely nothing to do with Red Light District what so ever...
In portuguese, the name of the book is "Os Alemães: A luta pelo poder e a evolução do habitus nos séculos XIX e XX". Great book, I like Norbert´s style more than Foucault´s. Foucault is... boring hehe
Thanks. And I agree entirely. Sociologists write way better than philosophers, even tough I read mostly only philosophy. That case is specially evident with post modern philosophers, all those french guys, they are, I wouldn't say boring, more like pedantic to me.
Related to this, does anyone know how, if possible, to get rid of the CB Assert Hegemony? In my games as Prussia, I managed to form the German Empire, but Austria is, for the entire duration of the game, with bad relations with me and they never agree to ally themselves with me - even after I used the 'tag' command and broke all of their alliances with 200 relation with them. I've read somewhere that's because it's very difficult to form alliances with nations that have CB against you.
The reason for this is that I'd like to form the central powers as they where in the eve of WWI and to build the kind of positive relation that could lead to such a thing as the peaceful annexation of Austria into Greater Germany in the 30's.
I would have greatly preferred they forced on an area the game completely fails at representing, which is pretty much everything post 1900. I think they could have done just as well, if not better, improving the economic and diplomatic areas of the game by focusing on post 1900. I'm pretty satisfied with what I've heard about the expansion so far, but it would be nice to have the last 36 years of the game be playable in some form.