A post about guaranteeing independence (not order 66)

[leftkeh]

So, in most of my non-historical runs Canada starts guaranteeing the independence at above 25% WT. This results enery time to a gane of cat and mouse, where in order to justify our war goals in Europe we first need to spend some pps (temporarily) justifying on remote places like the Bahamas or Jamaica, so that the cost is increased beyond easy reach.
This is a well known issue/feature and nothing new so far. Thus, my questions for our community are:

Is there a hard cap (limit) to the number of guarantees a country can maintain. I suspect that there is one and that it is 5, but what say you? (I guess that US guaranteeing all of the South Americas is a preset thing, so it stands alone)

Also, it appears that guarantees work only in defensive wars (and probably rightly so). However, has anyone noticed them being triggered in offensive wars going sour?

And finally, is there a possibility factor (or something simikar) built in the system so that the guaranteer does not actually declare on the attacking nation?

 

[Bunnytob]

1) No but the PP cost increased by 25 each time so it becomes really hard to guarantee multiple countries.
2) No, never.
3) Not as far as I'm aware, though if a nation is guaranteeing both nations in a war it can't intervene.

 

[squid_hills]

I haven't seen nations join aggressive wars started by a country they guarantee, but I have seen France use it's guarantee on Romania to join them in defending Greece against me once or twice. I've declared on Greece as Italy and had Romania declare on me. That's all fair and good; they are supposed to come to the rescue as they guarantee Greece. But then every once in a while, France decides that since Greece is in a defensive war, technically Romania is too, and BAM! they declare on me (the popup window usually says "Romania has called France as our enemy in the Greco-Italian war").

I checked and they weren't allies prior to the declaration. The Little Entente wasn't forming or anything that might provide an alternate explanation. It might be a bug, because neither Czechoslovakia nor Poland joined the war, and both had guarantees on Romania at that point, as well.

 

[Vlad123]

The underlying problem, I think it is the WS, as a system ... it's even worse than the old "badboy", but at least the Badboy was PERSONAL! That is, if on hoi3 with Italy I declared many wars the UK declared WAR ON ME! Not to germany! Which was much more realistic (and if I'm not mistaken on hoi2 too). I know as a programmer once said "programmers are creative", but there is a difference between good ideas and bad ideas! And often if you think about it a little, the ideas that are good at the beginning, then are BAD after a little reasoning! And this also applies to other functions removed from the old hoi to "innovate". But innovating means "IMPROVING" if you innovate and don't like it, I'm not surprised customers ask for a "step back"

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

The underlying problem, I think it is the WS, as a system ... it's even worse than the old "badboy", but at least the Badboy was PERSONAL! That is, if on hoi3 with Italy I declared many wars the UK declared WAR ON ME! Not to germany! Which was much more realistic (and if I'm not mistaken on hoi2 too). I know as a programmer once said "programmers are creative", but there is a difference between good ideas and bad ideas! And often if you think about it a little, the ideas that are good at the beginning, then are BAD after a little reasoning! And this also applies to other functions removed from the old hoi to "innovate". But innovating means "IMPROVING" if you innovate and don't like it, I'm not surprised customers ask for a "step back"

Hearts of Iron III had a threat system instead of world tension. It had some advantages, like being more flexible (Germany expanding in Europe caused more threat towards France/Britain than USA for instance). It also allowed nations which had caused less tension themselves to continue flying more under the radar. On the other hand, it didn't take into account the cumulative effect of foreign aggression in many ways like World Tension can. Essentially public opinion in democratic and non-aligned countries going from "never another Great War" to "we have to draw a line in the sand and stand up to foreign aggressors/rebuild our military ASAP." Besides for war declarations iirc, the main concern was just the nation with the highest threat against you. So say Italian aggression wouldn't have much effect unless it somehow surpassed German aggression, rather than contributing more broadly to democratic/non-aligned countries taking more hardline stances and rearming.

 

[GrandVezir]

There is a component of the old threat system left in world tension: if a particular country has not contributed over 10% to world tension, it will not draw democratic/Allied guarantees even if overall world tension is above 25%.

This is a fairly small niche, but it allows a country with a slow path to belligerency to obtain a war goal or two before overall world tension hits 100% and everybody begins joining factions.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

-no theirs no Limit only a PP cost which increases per nation guaranteed ( hense why america has to Pay 500 PP to guarantee someone new.

- if the guarenteed nation attacks someone then they are on their own.

- The AI Might not join if you overwhelmingly powerful and I mean it in the sense that you own 3/4 of the world so yea its pretty much a given.


its worth noting that the AI will only guarantee against you if you have caused the most world tension, It is normally Germany which causes the most but early player justifications and annexes will put you above Germany usually allowing just 1 free war prior to this.

If you wait for Germany to really kick off yo can usually get a few more but your choices are limited to: some one who isn't guaranteed already by an the Allies and someone who isnt on Germany's to declare on list. Also after 80% countries can freely join the allies so yea the numbers are tight but it can be done.

 

[GrandVezir]

its worth noting that the AI will only guarantee against you if you have caused the most world tension, It is normally Germany which causes the most but early player justifications and annexes will put you above Germany usually allowing just 1 free war prior to this.

Usually.

For example: I have, as Greece, snuck a couple free wars in prior to "Danzig or War," then tried justifying on Bulgaria while they were still non-aligned. Bulgaria got guaranteed by Belgium (!), even as Germany was running the "Around the Maginot" focus (!!), and Belgium declared war on me after they had capitulated (!!!).

I don't believe I had generated more tension than Germany had by starting WW2, though I can't check now as I deleted that save in annoyance.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

Usually.

For example: I have, as Greece, snuck a couple free wars in prior to "Danzig or War," then tried justifying on Bulgaria while they were still non-aligned. Bulgaria got guaranteed by Belgium (!), even as Germany was running the "Around the Maginot" focus (!!), and Belgium declared war on me after they had capitulated (!!!).

I don't believe I had generated more tension than Germany had by starting WW2, though I can't check now as I deleted that save in annoyance.

I would definetly check. I think its roughly 17% from one justification + annex. If you had a couple is definitely above Germanys 25% and Japans 17%.

 

[Vlad123]

The problem however ... remains ... the ideal would be that there was another system ... like the "belligerence" of hoi2, the threath of hoi3 ... but with the possibility of paying (PP? PP and Civil industry?) To decrease belligerence or threath quickly 0.5 per month is too little.

 

[leftkeh]

The problem however ... remains ... the ideal would be that there was another system ... like the "belligerence" of hoi2, the threath of hoi3 ... but with the possibility of paying (PP? PP and Civil industry?) To decrease belligerence or threath quickly 0.5 per month is too little.

It would be a dream (for me at least) to manage to overexpand without ever entering any major wars, and I guess it could somehow be achieved (attacking only minors after having skyrocketed the cost of guarantees) and definitely not on Ironman mode, and probably at a highly decolonized scenario, but I am not quite sure this is the purpose of the game... Still, it would be a dream...

 

[Vlad123]

It would be a dream (for me at least) to manage to overexpand without ever entering any major wars, and I guess it could somehow be achieved (attacking only minors after having skyrocketed the cost of guarantees) and definitely not on Ironman mode, and probably at a highly decolonized scenario, but I am not quite sure this is the purpose of the game... Still, it would be a dream...

This would be possible on hoi3 and hoi2: there the peace system is partial! You can make peace with "capitulated" nations without too many problems ... it was possible to make separate peace, there was the trading system 1000 times better, you could accumulate the resources, the belligerence / threat system was certainly better than this stuff which is the WT!