+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 50

Thread: Guarding ones Borders

  1. #1
    Field Marshal 21oliver's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourRome GoldSemper FiSengoku
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wolf's Lair
    Posts
    7,804

    Guarding ones Borders

    I was thinking about this the other day, we have had limited discussions on it too. It bothers me how gamey you can get by leaving your borders unprotected. In certain spots (Balkans? Soviet/Turkish border etc..) You should be required to leave a certain amount of units as if it was a NAP or the likelyhood of invasion would increase, regardless of your political agreements. I mean the Balkans all entered into defensive agreements with each other, but they all hated each other, if the opportunity rose up to do a land snatch whose to say they wouldnt have?

    One thing i always found interesting...I played a PBM a long time ago (long time ago lol) where the German and Soviet players were cozying up to each other, so the GM not wanting that began to impose sanctions against them slowly, and built them up to the point where it was better for them to go to war then to remain friends.

    Imagine your Turkey and your plan is to grab Persia so every unit you have is on that front, the whole western part of your nation is unprotected. Imagine if the game had an "Unrest" Event, riots and fighting break out, much concern amongst the peoples along the Bulgarian front, lots of ethnic unrest, work stoppages etc... You suffer a 25% IC penalty until X amount of brigades are stationed along the border to restore peace....

    Or if your Turkey and leave the Soviet Front empty as you plan on going into the Balkans...Every turn would be a random chance modified by the amount of units stationed on the front, whether the Soviets (whom have no agreements with you) DOW you....

    Sort of forces you to play more "realistically" Now i know you can say you can do that anyway on your own. I prefer it to be a game mechanism. I dont like getting gamey if i can, but the fact that the game can get gamey (unlimited naval range???) almost makes you want to get gamey back. I also never like going into the files to change anything mid game, that feels too much like cheating imo.

    Certain places in the world were hotspots. Nothing is guarenteed. Just because im the Soviets and have a NAP with Japan should i be able to pull every unit out of the front for thousands of miles without even a skeleton army left? I mean you should be able to do what you want, there should just be risks of consequences. Just my 2 cents...

  2. #2
    Colonel
    Europa Universalis: ChroniclesEU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest Hour
    Semper FiSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,189
    Quote Originally Posted by 21oliver View Post
    Now i know you can say you can do that anyway on your own.
    You gave my answer yourself...

    But maybe some dissent or more possibility of a coup if you leave the country completely empty.

  3. #3
    Field Marshal 21oliver's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourRome GoldSemper FiSengoku
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wolf's Lair
    Posts
    7,804
    Thats the kind of stuff im referring too. I mean take the baltic nations. They out of neccessity formed defensive alliances, but these nations hated each other, had been at war with one another for thousands of years....now imagine if your game is going in a direction where they didnt feel threatend by the majors and they had an opportunity to grab contested territory with little or no cost? You know the conversations at least would come up within the governments whose to say?

  4. #4
    Convicted Drive-by Poster Pro_Consul's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourVictoria: Revolutions
    Semper FiSword of the StarsMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations500k club

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,024
    Quote Originally Posted by 21oliver View Post
    I mean you should be able to do what you want, there should just be risks of consequences.
    I like two things about this suggestion. First, I like that you are not trying to restrict people from doing gamey things, but rather trying to add realistic consequences for when they do. Second, I like that you are applying realism to this situation.

    That said, I think this idea might be unworkable, despite being a good one. I think it is a case of closing one exploit only to open a bigger one. Take your Turkey example and turn it around, where the AI is playing Turkey and you have the USSR. If there were a chance for the AI to attack an unprotected border, then you could deliberately pull all your troops away in an effort to get the AI to DoW you at a time when you are not permitted to DoW them. In short, it would give players another way to do an end run around neutrality.

    Also, there is the realism angle. For some countries of the "stab-them-in-the-back" sort, e.g. USSR, Japan, Italy, Germany, that type of behavior would be consistent. But for, say, Portugal to DoW RepSpa just because there were not enough border troops...not seeing it.

    If you could come up with measures to deal with those two issues, the reverse exploit and the historically more passive countries, then I could get behind this.
    An Englishman thinks a hundred miles is a long way. An American thinks a hundred years is a long time. I am beginning to think a hundred dollars is a lot of money. Two of these facts are interesting. All of them are revealing. But only one of them is truly pathetic.

    Member of the Ahistoric Association

  5. #5
    Field Marshal Kovax's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourSemper Fi
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Reading, PA
    Posts
    2,642
    More than conversations were involved. There were numerous "incidents", both between and within several of the Balkan countries. Besides the old Serb/Croat rivalry that spanned over 1500 years (and triggered WWI), and the leftover hatreds and divisions (nurtured by both the earlier Turkish and more recent Austrian occupations to keep the populations focused agains each other instead of organizing against the "outsider"), there were contested borders between nearly all of the countries in the region.

    As an example, the majority of Hungary's army was stationed on the Romanian border throughout the war, NOT on the Soviet border as one might expect. The threat represented by Romania, despite both being technically allies of Germany, was considered far greater than that of the Soviets, despite the strong reasons (and previous history) to fear another Russian incursion. Having already done so once after the WWI armistice, Romania was more-or-less expected to try it again at any moment, while the Romanians feared a Hungarian attack to reclaim the territory handed over by the post-WWI Trianon treaty.

    Romania and Bulgaria were poised on the brink of conflict at least once during the period, with land being handed over to avoid an outright war between them.

    In the game, they all start out with 75 relations and pleasant smiley faces. The tension isn't there, and the reasons for guarding the borders simply don't exist. It's not that the game should allow them to DoW in cases where neutrality wouldn't otherwise allow it, or between "friends", but in cases where there's already "bad blood" and a mutual expectation of trouble, there should be a CHANCE for such trouble to occur. Some of those countries should be pretty close to being able to attack each other from the start of the game (it's one reason why HU is a popular "training" game: low neutrality combined with "Cores" in 3 neighboring countries), and should have fairly low (or in a couple of cases, negative) relations between them.
    Last edited by Kovax; 28-06-2012 at 15:48.

  6. #6
    Covert Mastermind Demi Moderator Secret Master's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDeus Vult
    Europa Universalis 3Divine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHearts of Iron III Collection
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineThe Kings CrusadeMagickaMarch of the Eagles
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengoku
    Ship Simulator ExtremesSword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations
    CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    It's a secret, duh...
    Posts
    15,993
    Well, the all or nothing nature of HOI3's war and peace mechanic, all or nothing faction system, and the historical nudging in the direction of WWII, makes leaving other fronts unprotected par for the course in a way that it isn't in other games. I'm not sure that applying penalties to countries that leave borders unprotected would be seen by other players as anything other than a punishment for playing the game the way it's setup.

    Why penalize Romania for keeping its border with Hungary unprotected if they are both in the Axis? Why penalize Canada for leaving its border with the USA unprotected if they are both in the Allies?

    If HOI3 covered a long historical period, or if the game was less focused just on WWII, it might make more sense to do what you are talking about.
    All Hail Him,

    The Secret Master

    Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.

  7. #7
    Field Marshal 21oliver's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourRome GoldSemper FiSengoku
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wolf's Lair
    Posts
    7,804
    WHy punish them ? lol for the very reasons Kovax explained. Because in WW2 the Germans had to keep the Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and even Italians often seperated because they preferred to fight each other then the "enemy". The mistake the game makes and most players is just because your in an alliance, everything isnt warm and fuzzy.

    The Balkan nations all hated each other and fought for thousands of years, just because out of fear, or self preservation or bullying they join the Axis (rem Bulgaria was traditionally closer to the Soviets) doesnt make all that go away. Just because they all had peace agreements prior to the war doesnt make them friends.

    Currently in RL Egypt and Israel have been at peace for 30 years. You think they are friends? think again.

    Pro..the circumstances would be diff for every nation. I wouldnt have thought to include Portugal in the mix but more along the other lines as you mentioned. Not sure about the exploit, i guess there will always be exploits.

    I would just like to see alot more events and decisions in game based on 1) random chance and 2) the direction the game is going. The more different avenues the game can go the more interesting it becomes. There should be less hardcoded decisions (If Japan isnt aggressive in the PAcific, then the US doesnt embargo, then Pearl Harbor doesnt NEED to happen because war ISNT inevitable..etc...). Nations with rivalries really need to guard against each other as it is realistic (again my Israel-Egypt comment, you dont think the Israelis watch the Egyptian borders even after 30 years?).

    BTW comparing Romania and Hungary with the US and Canada is not a good analogy. One had a long history of hatred, conflict and territorial disputes with both nations being similar militarily, the other had a history of close friendship with one nation being far superior militarily to the other. It makes a huge difference.

  8. #8
    B/c the Balkan simmering hatreds were rather overshadowed by the big badasses of WWII duking it out. I wouldn't mid seeing some event chains for volatile areas, but once two nations are in a faction together, with the all-or-nothing faction system, it makes no sense to force troops to be left behind to guard a border which can now not be attacked. Last I checked you can't war dec a member of your own faction...

  9. #9
    Just because some nations can be unfriendly to their neighbours does not mean that they jump at any opportunity to nab land off their neighbours. That suggestion is frankly fairly ludicrous. So too is dissent or IC modifiers. In fact the entire idea is a bit silly. Hell, most nations didn't even put their army troops on the border. That's what border guards were for at major crossing points to inform military units a way back to mobilise and head to the border.

    As far as I am aware there is no possible way to mod in the AI to keep back a strategic reserve like this, any more than it already does. Therefore you really are asking the impossible out of the game. Paradox could do it if they wished, but this is a point very far down the line of issues that should be solved. _Very far down_

    -------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, border clashes can be simulated dead easy. The HPP mod has at least two with the Soviets and Japs that throws them into war until one side occupy a province, then it either returns to status quo, or escalates. Indeed if that event chain was rebuilt for every nation that experienced border clashes throughout the era, that would be good enough for the point of this thread, because if you don't protect your border, then you loose a province, and it makes it more likely the conflict escalates.

    There are some concerns though with fights within factions, as that tends to screw over however diplomacy works creating many crashes if odd parties are at war.

  10. #10
    Field Marshal 21oliver's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourRome GoldSemper FiSengoku
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wolf's Lair
    Posts
    7,804
    Ok two issues here.....

    it makes no sense to force troops to be left behind to guard a border which can now not be attacked
    In Russia the Germans had to keep the minors seperated because they WERE skirmishing with each other regardless of the alliance.
    but once two nations are in a faction together
    Nations can join a faction and still be at relative peace around the globe, and that doesnt preclude historical hatreds. Japan can join the Axis as early as July of 1937 and yet even historically as Germany you dont go to war until the end of 1939...there could in game be 2-4 years between any major conflict, alot of time for skirmishes and border wars to occur without risk of the big boys hammering down on you.
    Last I checked you can't war dec a member of your own faction
    This is true, but should be changed or at least modified, perhaps not for full out wars but at least skirmishes under certain circumstances.

    Just because some nations can be unfriendly to their neighbours does not mean that they jump at any opportunity to nab land off their neighbours. That suggestion is frankly fairly ludicrous
    Im disapointed in you Gensui, that comment was frankly ignorant. Im not talking every nation or every possible opportunity. Im talking a random chance that it happen depending on a variety of circumstances being in place.

    So too is dissent or IC modifiers. In fact the entire idea is a bit silly
    Actually its an outstanding idea if your going to get Gamey the AI makes sure there is a price attached for your efforts.

    Hell, most nations didn't even put their army troops on the border
    We are talking primarily the Balkans (but possibly other situations as well), have you read up on any of that? They ALWAYS had an eye on their borders, and you know what? 70 years later, they STILL do.

    Ok this is what bothers me the most and it is real prevalant here on this forum and occurs often;
    As far as I am aware there is no possible way to mod in the AI to keep back a strategic reserve like this, any more than it already does. Therefore you really are asking the impossible out of the game. Paradox could do it if they wished, but this is a point very far down the line of issues that should be solved. _Very far down_
    I am a consumer discussing the game on a forum, Paradox never ever comes into my thoughts. I really could care less how difficult, expensive nor time consuming any suggestions on this forum are, i could care less if they ever are likely to get implemented or if they need to be modded. We are simply gamers discussing how the game could be better and tossing ideas out there and seeing what sticks and getting feedback. I have never in my life in any area seen this behavior before lol

    Imagine two guys talking and one guy says to the other man i wish this truck came with the wide tires.... and the others response;

    you know how expensive that would be to chevy?
    you know how many other things they are working on that are more important?
    do you really need them?
    If you knew how to drive it wouldnt matter....

    Thats what its often like here. Instead the two replies should be;

    Yeah i really like them too or I never liked them myself.

    Focus on the points!!!! Stay on topic!!!!!

  11. #11
    Covert Mastermind Demi Moderator Secret Master's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDeus Vult
    Europa Universalis 3Divine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHearts of Iron III Collection
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineThe Kings CrusadeMagickaMarch of the Eagles
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengoku
    Ship Simulator ExtremesSword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations
    CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    It's a secret, duh...
    Posts
    15,993
    Quote Originally Posted by 21oliver View Post
    WHy punish them ? lol for the very reasons Kovax explained. Because in WW2 the Germans had to keep the Romanians, Hungarians, Bulgarians and even Italians often seperated because they preferred to fight each other then the "enemy". The mistake the game makes and most players is just because your in an alliance, everything isnt warm and fuzzy.
    I don't dispute what historically happened, the historical problems, or even the fact that the Axis nations weren't really cozy with one another.

    What I am saying is that with current game mechanics, forcing players to either post substantial troops at home or face unpleasant events will just punish them for trying to play the game properly. The game is set up so that factions are ironclad until you are couped or surrender to another faction. There is no way, under current mechanics, for fights to break out between faction members (without screwing up the game in other ways).

    What I'm basically trying to tell you is that you'd have to make an entirely new game with new mechanics to do justice to the issues brought up in this thread. In fact, I am in favor of making the major factions more "brittle" because it's not just the Balkans that are a problem. You want to talk about weirdness? Let's talk about France and the UK being in the Allies from the start, and France having no input at all on whether the UK drags France into a continental war or not (or even vice versa). Or how about the USA joining the Allies and deciding that war with the COMINTERN is a great idea. USA DOWS Soviets, WWIII starts, and no one else has a say in the matter (not even the Soviets).
    All Hail Him,

    The Secret Master

    Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by 21oliver View Post
    BTW comparing Romania and Hungary with the US and Canada is not a good analogy. One had a long history of hatred, conflict and territorial disputes with both nations being similar militarily, the other had a history of close friendship with one nation being far superior militarily to the other. It makes a huge difference.
    And yet America attacked Canada in 1812 and had plans to attack Canada once again if conflict with Britain could start 1930s

  13. #13
    Covert Mastermind Demi Moderator Secret Master's Avatar
    200k clubAchtung PanzerCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDeus Vult
    Europa Universalis 3Divine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHearts of Iron III Collection
    Heir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis III: In NomineThe Kings CrusadeMagickaMarch of the Eagles
    EU3 Napoleon's AmbitionVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSengoku
    Ship Simulator ExtremesSword of the Stars IIVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    Rome: Vae VictisMount & Blade: WarbandWarlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations
    CK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV

    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    It's a secret, duh...
    Posts
    15,993
    Quote Originally Posted by mnplastic View Post
    And yet America attacked Canada in 1812 and had plans to attack Canada once again if conflict with Britain could start 1930s
    Now, let's be fair to the Canadians. The USA had War Plan Red which would have been an invasion of Canada as part of a war against the British Empire and yes, it did get a new lease on life as late as 1935. But Canada had Defense Scheme No. 1 which was a planned invasion of the USA in the 1920s. It was great because it assumed a surprise invasion of the interior of the US as a way to force the US Army to fight defensively until the Empire could ship over help.

    In fact, I think Defense Scheme No. 1 was one of the few military plans from the the first half the 20th Century that was more insane than in its founding premise than Operation Unthinkable. What is is about the British Empire and insane military plans?
    All Hail Him,

    The Secret Master

    Note: If I write a post in this hideous color, I am speaking as a Demi-Moderator. Paying attention is strongly advised.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Secret Master View Post
    Now, let's be fair to the Canadians. The USA had War Plan Red which would have been an invasion of Canada as part of a war against the British Empire and yes, it did get a new lease on life as late as 1935. But Canada had Defense Scheme No. 1 which was a planned invasion of the USA in the 1920s. It was great because it assumed a surprise invasion of the interior of the US as a way to force the US Army to fight defensively until the Empire could ship over help.

    In fact, I think Defense Scheme No. 1 was one of the few military plans from the the first half the 20th Century that was more insane than in its founding premise than Operation Unthinkable. What is is about the British Empire and insane military plans?
    a military should have plans for everything. if not they are doing something wrong. i am sure you can find plans for alien invasions and world war 3 but that doesn't mean anyone plans to actually execute those plans unless the situation changes drastically.
    since hoi3 is after all a WW2 game i wouldn't worry to much about things that didn't happen and cannot be represented by the game mechanics anyway.

  15. #15
    Field Marshal 21oliver's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourRome GoldSemper FiSengoku
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wolf's Lair
    Posts
    7,804
    Secret (and Com) as i have stated before i and others sometimes bring up issues that we would like to see changed in the game or that should be changed in the game..we dont do so depending on whether Paradox can or ever will implement them. Often its just for discussion purposes, sometimes it gives ideas to modders and so on... Now some people i know have a real problem with this, for example if you know its not going to get changed why bother post it?? First off i dont think the forum is hard lined just for that and second everyone has the option to not participate in a thread. WHy people constantly get involved in threads they have no interest in or that bothers them is beyond me, but thats the right we have as posters.

    I see a ton of stuff i dont care about or agree with and simply leave it alone as it is the posters right to post. I think on this topic it is safe to say there are hotspots in the world at that time that could be treated far differently then they are. BTW i read once that secretly Churchill put Canada up for collateral to the US for support in the war. I only saw it once though, who knows?

  16. #16
    Second Lieutenant Corugi's Avatar
    For the MotherlandHearts of Iron III

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Corugi Bunker.
    Posts
    173
    The Imperial Might of the the most Holy Empire to have EVAR existed as been rather busy lately, without time to post as much as It likes...

    However, this thread has drawn Its attention.

    Frankly, I think having some sort of mechanism such as 21oliver suggests would be an absolutely brilliant idea.

    It disapoints me that I can get away with some things like, as the British, withdrawing all my troops from India, Palestine, Singapore, etc, leaving them utterly unguarded while I gather a concentrated British force to wreck holy Corugian havoc on Italy, invade Swedan, or take out Nationlist Spain.

    One time I started the 1941 scenario as Britian. I completely stripped forces from everywhere, took out Ireland and North Africa while I waited for the Germans to go deep into Russia, and then invaded Italy, Romania and Bulgaria, puppeting them while the Germans were up to their knees in T34's. Result? By March 1942 Berlin had fallen. I ordered the church bells to be rung across the whole of the Holy Corugian Empire, upon which the sun never sets.

    I then said one of my famous quotes:

    "This is not the beginning of the end, nor perhaps the end of the beginning of the beginning's end, but we can say it is actually the end, or maybe we can say something else, like, maybe, its a nice day to go fishing wearing only pink socks."

    Like 21oliver, I would rather see a game mechanic that threatens you with dire consequences for such gamey strategies. In the above situation I should have been threatened by a number of possible threats. For example: A possible loss of of India due to internal rebellions, an invasion of Palestine by Vichy France forces or Axis backed forces, an early attack on Hong Kong by the Japanese.

    If such a mechanism existed then achieving victory in game would be more meaningful rather than just slugging it out on very hard difficulty (which is incrediably boring since all you essentially do is simply wait to amass even better odds for achieving local victories).

    If such a mechanism or something similiar existed then I could go on to make even more famous stirring quotes after I had ordered the church bells taken down and stored away. One comes to me right now.

    "We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them between the hedge rows, well, actually, you will fight them, I'm gonna stay in this bunker and sing sea shanties while knitting a yellow frock."
    Last edited by Corugi; 29-06-2012 at 10:13.

  17. #17
    Field Marshal 21oliver's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyDarkest HourEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourRome GoldSemper FiSengoku
    Victoria 2

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Wolf's Lair
    Posts
    7,804
    I think having some sort of mechanism such as 21oliver suggests would be an absolutely brilliant idea.
    Who will dare question the almighty Oz er Corugi?

  18. #18
    Convicted Drive-by Poster Pro_Consul's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourVictoria: Revolutions
    Semper FiSword of the StarsMount & Blade: With Fire and SwordPride of Nations500k club

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,024
    Quote Originally Posted by 21oliver View Post
    I think on this topic it is safe to say there are hotspots in the world at that time that could be treated far differently then they are.
    But as I said before, how do you differentiate between the hot spots and the safe zones? And once you do that, how you make sure the political system is not then so complicated that the learning curve of this game doesn't become a learning cliff?

    Note that as I said in my earlier post, I am not saying that we should not do this because of those objections. I am looking for ideas on how to deal with them, because I cannot think of any at present.
    An Englishman thinks a hundred miles is a long way. An American thinks a hundred years is a long time. I am beginning to think a hundred dollars is a lot of money. Two of these facts are interesting. All of them are revealing. But only one of them is truly pathetic.

    Member of the Ahistoric Association

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Corugi View Post
    Like 21oliver, I would rather see a game mechanic that threatens you with dire consequences for such gamey strategies.
    I too... but dissent, IC penalties (I.e. internal issues) is not the way to do it. I've already given an example of how border clashes could be intergrated for the more hostile nations etc. but the key thing is that this is a case by case basis that needs to be resolved and cannot be generalised because not every nation has every other nation bordering it.

    India again you could fairly easily mod that to go full independent if XX number of troops weren't there as far as I am aware. It's not a question of game mechanics, its a question of; 'you want content?' 'Go add it', if you feel that way about it. Overrall, trying to simmulate the world during this turbulent time is an amazingly challenging task, hence its no small wonder that even after 3 major updates Paradox has still presented a 'Diamond in the rought' as a community we probally have far more manhours to add these detials than Paradox does, and for the most part the 'rounding of the edges' is all we generally want. If you think its gamey to move units from India... Don't...you have the option of 'House Rules'.

    When/if you get tired of house rules the game content is generally easy enough to impliment your 'House Rules' with an ingame solution, but all you've done there is turn House Rules from optional, to non-optional, at the end of the day you are still playing by your own house rule, whether the game forces you to or not.


    "Man i wish this truck came with the wide tires.....You know what, I'll go to the Mod shop, see if anybody has one...if not, I'll work out how to make them myself...then if either of them are good, I'll drop a line to the manufacturers tell them why they should stock wide tires...hell they might even agree" *community map project cough cough*

  20. #20
    It seems like unnecessary code that can add unnecessary problems down the line. Who doesn't leave some, at least token, regional forces behind to cover, or respond to, border problems? Certainly not me. This is just another feature request that may work well in some instances but not in others, which would ultimately add unnecessary complication and quite probably hamstring player creativity and enjoyment.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts