If you don't like abstractions, this game might not be yours. Others accept that abstractions are there, ie the reserve and replacement system I mentioned earlier.
-
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.
If you don't like abstractions, this game might not be yours. Others accept that abstractions are there, ie the reserve and replacement system I mentioned earlier.
Again IMO thats another inferring on your part 
Im happy not inferring much or considering too many abstractions are inlcuded if Paradox doesnt say its so. I dont think its necc to do so. Generally speaking we know everything isnt covered, it is a game. But there is no need to stretch the boundaries of what one infers. I am supposed to leave my borders empty and send my troops all over the world, and ill pretend to myself that the illustrious Turkish Police force (did they have such a thing?) will protect me from the big bad soviets! Nah ill continue to think that its important to protect my borders because they feared invasion. I may leave them unprotected, but ill always think of it as gamey unless its a particular circumstance (Canada leaving the US border empty is not the same...).
Im happy not inferring much or considering too many abstractions are inlcuded if Paradox doesnt say its so. I dont think its necc to do so. Generally speaking we know everything isnt covered, it is a game. But there is no need to stretch the boundaries of what one infers. I am supposed to leave my borders empty and send my troops all over the world, and ill pretend to myself that the illustrious Turkish Police force (did they have such a thing?) will protect me from the big bad soviets! Nah ill continue to think that its important to protect my borders because they feared invasion. I may leave them unprotected, but ill always think of it as gamey unless its a particular circumstance (Canada leaving the US border empty is not the same...).
Of course there are abstractions this is a game afterall, but how far we stretch the envelope is up to each of us. I just particularly find it gamey to leave my entire nation unguarded when surrounded by nations whom dont like me while i send my units all over the world fighting. This isnt a particular area of real friendly cooperation, its a whole different ballgame. Hey if in your minds its realistic and historical thats good for you, i dont particular find it so. I do it if i must as a game mechanic and because generally i know nothing happens most of the time, but even when i do it i dont really like it.
...except that they DID send an army to fight Russia, including both of their armored battalions. There was a real fear of attack by Romania, because it had already happened once, less than 20 years earlier (AFTER, not during, WWI). There was also a real fear of attack by Hungary on the part of Romania, because Hungary was applying as much pressure as possible for the return of the land and people turned over to Romania at the end of WWI, and the incursions into both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia during the early stages of the war proved that they were quite willing to use force to get it back.
The small "cores" in the game are merely the token areas that were actually reoccupied during the war (in Yugoslavia), or turned over as a result of Hungary pressing Hitler for their return (in Czechoslovakia and Romania). The previous borders of HU for most of the 900+ years before WWI included the entire "brain-shaped" ring of the Carpathian Mountain range, visible on the map in Terrain mode.
In the end, Germany occupied Hungary to insure loyalty after Hungary made overtures to the Allies about dropping out of the war, and sent a larger proportion of the border defenders to assist in the fight in Russia. Not all that long after, Romania surrendered to the Soviets, who promptly send the Romanian army on the offensive into Hungary. That "just an excuse" suddenly materialized into an attack, so it wasn't only an excuse, it turned out to be quite valid. While the previously sizable portions of the Hugarian army were fully capable of holding the border against the Romanians, the addition of large Soviet armored forces made it impossible for the heavily depleted remnants of that army to hold the open plains in the South, and the combined Soviet/Romanian armies poured into the Carpathian Basin. The animosity was enough to keep the Hungarian army fighting against the Russians until a few days AFTER the battered remnants of the Hungarian army had been driven completely out of the country into Austria, and there was no homeland left to defend.
Funny, how the starting relations in the game between HU and RO are 75, which is the same as between the US and Canada.
They are 75 for the very same reason the Minors are nerfed in manpower and pretty much everything else, Paradox wants to ensure that nothing detour the plan to have Germany (and all its little friends) invade the Soviet Union in an historical manner. Any actual war breaking out in the Balkans can throw the whole direction of the game down a different path. Most of us want to recreate the time period surrounding WW2 not the actual events as they happened, but no one at Paradox is listening
Nothing in the game says you are "supposed to leave (your) borders empty and send (your) troops all over the world". Nothing in the game prevents you from doing so, but neither are you compelled to do so. It is 100% a player decision. So if you find it gamey, don't do it. Redesigning the game to prevent all behavior that you personally consider gamey is not a good place to work from. That said, if you have a way to improve the game's realism, a way which would truly represent an overall improvement of the game itself, that's a very different place to work from. So far I haven't seen such a proposal, though a few ideas seemed to be headed in that direction.
I still cannot think of a way to represent this issue in game terms without making the political system far more complicated than I am comfortable with. After all, this game is already so complex that only a rarified group of gamers (us!) have the wherewithal to climb its learning curve and still find it fun. As it stands, since there are so many different specific pairings of nations with different historical bases in this area, that this idea does not lend itself to any kind of one size fits all design change....or even a two-size fits all change. You have nations where invasion was pretty much politically impossible, e.g. USA and Canada. You have nations where it was theoretically possible but still pretty much unthinkable, e.g. Portugal and Spain. You have nations where the possibility was more than theoretical but still remote, e.g. much of a South and Central America. And then you have a few cases where it was both realistic and of a high enough probability to require a major deployment, as the examples given in earlier posts. With such an array of differing circumstances and political relationships, and with so few of them being of a nature that meets your stated criteria of being "gamey" if they don't mutually array their armies along their borders with each other....
Let's just say I am having a hard time seeing the need to make a major change to fix a problem of such limited scope, especially when the entire thing is already within the player's control. At least until I see a proposal where the change is surgical and simple enough, from a player's perspective, that it represents a real improvement of the game.
Perhaps something could be done along the lines of simply the relationships? Certain nations for example would either always have a negative modifier or a cap on how high they could go? Also the Balkan nations (as mentioned) start with unusually high relationships. Yes they were in defensive agreements and yes they likely traded with each other and yes they probably wanted to wipe each other off the face of the planet. The agreements were out of necessity due to greater evils. Egypt and Israel have had peace for 30 years and no they arent friends...
Im not saying i have the solutions necessarily, and yes i will leave my borders empty in games like everyone else, im just saying while playing certain nations it feels like cheating because we often know an attack will not occur. At least if there was some risk factor involved, then yes the risk would be up to us, but imo it is gamey say as the Soviets or Japanese to leave their borders unguarded after the NAP because we know the game wont attack. Because we likely would react differently if there was a chance of invasion, and that aspect alone makes it more game then historical. I just wish it was different.
Im not saying i have the solutions necessarily, and yes i will leave my borders empty in games like everyone else, im just saying while playing certain nations it feels like cheating because we often know an attack will not occur. At least if there was some risk factor involved, then yes the risk would be up to us, but imo it is gamey say as the Soviets or Japanese to leave their borders unguarded after the NAP because we know the game wont attack. Because we likely would react differently if there was a chance of invasion, and that aspect alone makes it more game then historical. I just wish it was different.
If it feels like cheating, don't do it. If you feel it is more realistic as, say, Hungary to leave some forces arrayed along your border with Romania, then do it. I have many times placed limitations of that kind on myself, either in the pursuit of a more realistic feel or just to challenge myself. It is a simple matter enforcing a house rule when the only person in the house is you.
Then make it different. And the first step in making it different is deciding just how you DO want it to be. When you formulate that concept into a specific framework, then return here and you will find numerous people ready and happy to help you make it into reality via a mod, or perhaps even make a strong enough case to get it incorporated into a future update. It has happened many times in the past. Paradox is by far the most responsive developer I have ever dealt with when it comes to heeding their players' wishes.
I myself would get behind it 100% if you or someone else proposed a way to incorporate this general idea into a specific change that would address this issue of realism while not complicating the political model much or creating unrealistic side effects. I have tried to think of a way to bridge that gap and come up empty, but hopefully someone will carry that ball over the goal. If not, well we are still left with a problem that has a totally player-controlled solution.
I just havent committed myself to creating a mod at this moment and am simply speaking out loud here on the forum for conversation and feedback. I have been asked to participate in mod groups and while i have the time just havent decided to commit and give up other gaming interests fully. In part because i spent so many years designing games, and unfortunately lost so much material in a flood some years back . Also the amount of mod groups out there, many have done some nice things but also because in the end i know that no matter what is done it will always be limited by the AI. So these are my deterrents to jumping in (that and the fact that have very little modding experience, although many people here are very hepful). I am interested in seeing some actual work in that Gordon Works mod, he presents it well and it is ambitious, i am anxious to see the first results.
. Also the amount of mod groups out there, many have done some nice things but also because in the end i know that no matter what is done it will always be limited by the AI. So these are my deterrents to jumping in (that and the fact that have very little modding experience, although many people here are very hepful). I am interested in seeing some actual work in that Gordon Works mod, he presents it well and it is ambitious, i am anxious to see the first results.