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...
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...