Diplo play in this aar got somehow even more gamey, not sure why they are showing such stuff
- 12
- 5
AAR Thread
- Thread starter Hammrtime
- 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.
Oh I see.
Not sure if it should be that easy when there is still a chance a big superpower will save you though
All of these would be done with, if making demands was limited to the strategic region the play was located at. Well, except GB joining conflicts for the lulz, but that seems to be an AI issue.
- 7
- 4
- 4
Isn't that what the entire game and epoch is supposed to be about? Major power meddling in other countries affairs? There is even a mechanic so you can get involved in everything that happens in your regions of interest. No matter where they may be.
- 6
- 5
- 1
For their own benefit. GB should not join when they have nothing to gain and even if they did it should not be an excuse for France to start a fight about something on the other end of the world.
If that's how it stays I'm going to spend an interest in Indonesia as Prussia so that the moment there is an uprising against the Dutch I can grab Amsterdam without getting the French involved.
- 9
- 2
- 1
For events like that law debate where there are multiple randomly chosen outcomes, do the odds of each outcome depend on anything, or are they fixed? It seems odd that, say, a backwater with no doctors and a super-advanced welfare state apparently have the same odds of reaching the same conclusions.
It's not for the thinly-veiled excuse to pick fights with France?
- 4
- 2
This solves just one aspect of the problem and actually it isn't right too - you basically kill world wars this way, and there should be at least a possibility for them to happen.
Problem is that an utterly irrelevant country can promice anything they want and they can't dream of possesing and it can probably easily manipulate GPs. There should be some leverage behind such promices - someone got a not bad idea that such partition deals should happen between equals. If you are a tiny country you should probably become their protectorate or part of their market and THEN you can expect their support.
Also, that gamey thing with capitulating to save all the gains and leaving brits and french fighting each other over what they were tempted with. This needs to be fixed with automatic reversing war gains after capitulation.
- 15
Part of the problem I think is that after conquering Cuba, Daniel went around and destroyed a bunch of industry. Also, all the slaves were freed instantly which is part of why that sugar plantation was so profitable. I suspect those actions added up to a lot of economic disruption and previously wealthy pops dropping in SoL which made for a huge amount of turmoil. Additionally, the relative size of the Cuban population compared to the Central American population was something around 1/3 - 1/2. That is a lot of people to be conquered in one go. I bet that also contributed to the immediate unrest. If it was the USA or Mexico annexing Cuba the unhappy population would be relatively smaller and easier to control.
On the topic of GB helping out Central America/Guatemala in those wars: in the case of New Grenada and Cuba at least, they were making plays that would destroy a slavery institution. They explicitly added that goal to the New Grenada play and annexing Cuba would inherently remove slavery. I wonder if that is part of the reason they were so eager to help.
- 8
- 4
World wars should definitely affect more then one strategic region. I would propose to simply gate the ability to make demands outside of the original conflict region behind a technology. The great war should be a late game thing anyway.
- 3
Maybe, but that wouldn't address the point of "why the hell do the French care" then.
Also IIRC the British joined a side first.
People really trying to pretend countries never join in diplomatic pressure or war for the reason of positioning a more friendly country as a larger player in a region, or because it's an opportunity to take a rival power down a peg even if they don't care about the specific minor instigation going on? This is classic diplomatic maneuvering in international relations and happens all the time throughout history.
- 7
- 6
- 2
- 1
Can't wait to hear some historical examples of two great powers gaining nothing and bleeding each other out because one minor country attacked another minor country
Good example of healthy Diplo play is second Italian war for independence - France supported Piemont after securing important piece of land from them
- 14
- 5
- 1
Countries shouldn't be able to promise lands they don't possess, me telling Britain that I will give them Paris while I am Afghanistan if they fight Russia and France for me should be a nonstarter.
- 6
- 3
- 3
I don't really have a problem with Great powers meddling in other countries affairs or conflicts and it leading to global wars.
I think that it would make sense for you to have war goals outside of the strategic region the diplo play originated, you need to have at least one war goal in side the region that the diplo play originated in.
This would clearly be a way to show the conflict going from regional to global. The escalation makes more sense.
An example would be in this AAR: Central America wants to conquer Cuba -> Britian decides that is in its interest, so it joins no war goal -> France decides this is a balance of power issue in the region and either joins on the side of Cuba with no war goal (thus keeping it regional) or have a war goal on British Belize -> If France wants Belize, France or Britain can now escalate it globally if they want.
This to be seems like a more logical way to escalate wars, rather than anyone piggybacking on a rando diplo play to just fight someone on the on the other side of the world.
I think that it would make sense for you to have war goals outside of the strategic region the diplo play originated, you need to have at least one war goal in side the region that the diplo play originated in.
This would clearly be a way to show the conflict going from regional to global. The escalation makes more sense.
An example would be in this AAR: Central America wants to conquer Cuba -> Britian decides that is in its interest, so it joins no war goal -> France decides this is a balance of power issue in the region and either joins on the side of Cuba with no war goal (thus keeping it regional) or have a war goal on British Belize -> If France wants Belize, France or Britain can now escalate it globally if they want.
This to be seems like a more logical way to escalate wars, rather than anyone piggybacking on a rando diplo play to just fight someone on the on the other side of the world.
- 7
- 2
Seriously when people go down the "what is in it for country xyz..." route, you realize you are basically just talking AI? Please, go take a look at previous Pdx games and show me a game where the AI did a good play? The AI always plays randomly, you think it's gonna be different here?
This game is designed around multiplayer, so judge it by what real people what do with the system and what situations might unfold.
This game is designed around multiplayer, so judge it by what real people what do with the system and what situations might unfold.
- 21
- 1
Well a country should join a diplomatic play if they have a real interest in the main and side war goals. UK should only join a war against Cuba if they have a problem with Cuba or really want Central America to get stronger. Then France should join if they really don't want Cuba to get annexed or Central America get stronger. Otherwise it makes little sense to get into a conflict.
If France really wanted to fight UK for Indian islands, they can do it themselves. No need to have them promised by Cuba. It feels incredibly dumb to have Cuba make a promise that France can carry the whole war by itself and get something in exchange... Sorry guys, but we don't care about your independence, you offer no help and we can just do it ourselves on our terms.
Like if it was UK trying to conquer Cuba, then sure. France doesn't want them to get stronger and would be willing to join in and a couple of islands sure would sweeten the deal, but not Central America.
If France really wanted to fight UK for Indian islands, they can do it themselves. No need to have them promised by Cuba. It feels incredibly dumb to have Cuba make a promise that France can carry the whole war by itself and get something in exchange... Sorry guys, but we don't care about your independence, you offer no help and we can just do it ourselves on our terms.
Like if it was UK trying to conquer Cuba, then sure. France doesn't want them to get stronger and would be willing to join in and a couple of islands sure would sweeten the deal, but not Central America.
- 13
I very much doubt this is factually true. I'm fairly sure that over 95% of time spent in PDX games is spent in SP, and if we take some other measure than time spent we will have roughly the same numbers.
More than that, it's not logical. Even in an MP game, most countries are played by AI and should be expected to behave more or less adequate.
- 10
- 1
The biggest issue for me is the seeming disconnect between the war itself and the supposed goals of the great powers involved. Let me go through this step by step:
1) Central America starts a play against Cuba - I think it's a bit weird that you are able to arbitrarily demand anything from anyone. But otherwise, there's no problem
2) Britain joins the diplomatic play - Why?
3) France joins the diplomatic play and demands colonial territory from Britain - It makes some amount of sense that France would want to oppose British interests, so the main issue here stems from the fact that we haven't actually established what the British interests are. Though we know that the British interest has something to do with Central America annexing Cuba, the French main goal is to prevent that (Which they back up by sending divisions). They also want to annex some territory from Britain.
4) Cuba is annexed and Central America abandons the war, the French let them (In fact, I don't think they have an option to reject "capitulation). Now the French and the British fight over some colonial territory. - Alright, this is the biggest issue. If the French cared about Cuba they shouldn't let this go. We know they care about Cuba because if they only cared about Britain they could just go to war with them at any moment, without getting the Cubans and the Guatemalans involved at all.
My takeaway from this is that this could actually be resolved quite simply if the French automatically received a war goal to liberate Cuba. But it does reveal some deeper issues with the diplo play system.
(Completely unrelated, but it would be cool if a player playing Cuba could go "into exile" for the duration of the war, not able to do anything other than observe, but it would avoid ridiculous situations where you get a game over and your government is restored a month later).
1) Central America starts a play against Cuba - I think it's a bit weird that you are able to arbitrarily demand anything from anyone. But otherwise, there's no problem
2) Britain joins the diplomatic play - Why?
3) France joins the diplomatic play and demands colonial territory from Britain - It makes some amount of sense that France would want to oppose British interests, so the main issue here stems from the fact that we haven't actually established what the British interests are. Though we know that the British interest has something to do with Central America annexing Cuba, the French main goal is to prevent that (Which they back up by sending divisions). They also want to annex some territory from Britain.
4) Cuba is annexed and Central America abandons the war, the French let them (In fact, I don't think they have an option to reject "capitulation). Now the French and the British fight over some colonial territory. - Alright, this is the biggest issue. If the French cared about Cuba they shouldn't let this go. We know they care about Cuba because if they only cared about Britain they could just go to war with them at any moment, without getting the Cubans and the Guatemalans involved at all.
My takeaway from this is that this could actually be resolved quite simply if the French automatically received a war goal to liberate Cuba. But it does reveal some deeper issues with the diplo play system.
(Completely unrelated, but it would be cool if a player playing Cuba could go "into exile" for the duration of the war, not able to do anything other than observe, but it would avoid ridiculous situations where you get a game over and your government is restored a month later).
- 10
- 1
I must add, I'm all for the MP-first design philosophy "everything should work well in multiplayer too", meaning that
1) no actors (countries in V3 case) can have inherent advantages over one another, except for their starting position. The game may have handicaps, but its rules must be fair
2) all mechanics should be designed and balanced to prevent abuse, regardless of AI's ability to abuse them
But that actually demands a better AI rather than a worse one. It needs to provide the maximum challenge possible in a fair game. The AI shouldn't just do random things, instead it should act more or less like a human in MP would, using all available mechanics consciously, rather than it being stupid.
1) no actors (countries in V3 case) can have inherent advantages over one another, except for their starting position. The game may have handicaps, but its rules must be fair
2) all mechanics should be designed and balanced to prevent abuse, regardless of AI's ability to abuse them
But that actually demands a better AI rather than a worse one. It needs to provide the maximum challenge possible in a fair game. The AI shouldn't just do random things, instead it should act more or less like a human in MP would, using all available mechanics consciously, rather than it being stupid.
- 3