AHD DD11 – Rise of the Noble Savage

[John Forseti]

i reckon you ought be able to intervene without needing any of that, im sure you could at one point pre-patch maybe or it might have been in a mod, or not at all i dont know. but anyway the point is, if you want to intervene you oughtta be able to, without all the current and arbitrary restrictions. I mean whats the point of having a mechanic to enforce the status quo if you have you destroy the status quo to be able to use it

Why should you just be able to intervene in any war anywhere on the planet without issue or penalty? That sounds utterly ridiculous, I don't think any country ever intervened to enforce a status quo unless they had a vested interest in the status quo or had something to gain afterward. Not to mention the nightmare it would be trying to teach the AI the difference between Nowherestan's war with Amillionmilesawayia and protecting Theplacewhereourcoalcomesfromland from the Kingdom of Potentialrivalimperialpower.

 

[Orinsul]

Why should you just be able to intervene in any war anywhere on the planet without issue or penalty? That sounds utterly ridiculous, I don't think any country ever intervened to enforce a status quo unless they had a vested interest in the status quo or had something to gain afterward. Not to mention the nightmare it would be trying to teach the AI the difference between Nowherestan's war with Amillionmilesawayia and protecting Theplacewhereourcoalcomesfromland from the Kingdom of Potentialrivalimperialpower.

Your a great power, if another great power is invading somewhere then as a great power you ought be able to intervene. At the penalty of going to war with a great power in a war youre not allowed to add war-goals to and as such will get nothing out of.

 

[s1234567890m]

Your a great power, if another great power is invading somewhere then as a great power you ought be able to intervene. At the penalty of going to war with a great power in a war youre not allowed to add war-goals to and as such will get nothing out of.

You know you could always just declare on the GP and hit them when they are distracted

 

[Orinsul]

You know you could always just declare on the GP and hit them when they are distracted

no you cant, you cant declare war on them to end their war. whats just declaring war, you win your war it wont stop their war with the other bloke. The point isnt to gain something from the great power, but to end its war. The aim isnt a war, but to stop a war.
To stop france annexing something and getting more powerful, not to goto war with france for some other reason but to stop its current war.
Which would be especially needed now theres a Communism CB, so you can intervene not to defend a friend but to prevent the spread of communism.

 

[s1234567890m]

Why not just ally the country that you want to protect or go to friendly status?

Is there any historical precedent for interfering to defend a country you have no interests in?

 

[Secret Master]

Why not just ally the country that you want to protect or go to friendly status?

Is there any historical precedent for interfering to defend a country you have no interests in?

This is what I was going to say. I never have a problem getting to friend with non-GPs that I want to keep safe. Sometimes getting and keeping friend with China is dicey, but aside from that, I never have a problem.

What you can't do is be the world's policeman and stop all aggression, but it's the Victorian period, so that's not really viable.

Now, personally, I love the crisis mechanic from Pride of Nations, as I think it gets that whole "we have a vested interest in Whateverstan" spot on, but Vic2 isn't PoN, so it's a moot point. If you want to protect a minor power, put some effort into it.

 

[keynes2.0]

The problem with that idea is that if you offer a random 3rd world nation an alliance when it's currently getting swamped by a GP, they are like 99% likely to reject it unless they're already geopolitically aligned with you. That's crazy, they should be falling over themselves to accept your offer of protection, especially since that protection is basically without string attached. But they would rather sit back and let their country be ravaged then sign an alliance with a state they don't trust. Saving their bacon shouldn't be a privilege allowed you because they like you. Them liking you should be the consequence of you saving their bacon.

 

[Orinsul]

Why not just ally the country that you want to protect or go to friendly status?

Is there any historical precedent for interfering to defend a country you have no interests in?

its not about protecting a country, but checking a rival. Not protecting one country against all aggression, but stopping another Great Power from expanded wherever it expands.
And historical percent? every conflict russia and britain got stuck in over.

 

[Secret Master]

its not about protecting a country, but checking a rival. Not protecting one country against all aggression, but stopping another Great Power from expanded wherever it expands.
And historical percent? every conflict russia and britain got stuck in over.

Are you really saying that Russia and Britain had no interests in Afghanistan, Persia, or any other place related to the Great Game? Or are you suggesting that the Eastern Question was not an interest of the British? I'm confused, because if you are thinking of the Crimean War, then either you think the Ottomans are still a GP, or they are not. If they are a GP, then British involvement becomes one of alliance. And the British did have a vested interest in checking Russian power via an alliance with a GP. If you think the Ottomans were no longer a GP, then it is one of influence. Again, the Brits intervene because they have Friend status with the Ottomans.

How can you say that the British don't have an interest in these places when they have either wars or diplomatic conflicts with the Russians. Even if it's a strip of land you don't really care about, you have interests there if you want to block a rival's power. Hell, that's what having interests means.

 

[Grubnessul]

Are you really saying that Russia and Britain had no interests in Afghanistan, Persia, or any other place related to the Great Game? Or are you suggesting that the Eastern Question was not an interest of the British? I'm confused, because if you are thinking of the Crimean War, then either you think the Ottomans are still a GP, or they are not. If they are a GP, then British involvement becomes one of alliance. And the British did have a vested interest in checking Russian power via an alliance with a GP. If you think the Ottomans were no longer a GP, then it is one of influence. Again, the Brits intervene because they have Friend status with the Ottomans.

How can you say that the British don't have an interest in these places when they have either wars or diplomatic conflicts with the Russians. Even if it's a strip of land you don't really care about, you have interests there if you want to block a rival's power. Hell, that's what having interests means.

I think the use of 'having interests in' is getting mixed up a bit here. As a Great Power you always have an interest in keeping the other great powers in check, but you do not really have an interest in random state X.

 

[Santôka]

its not about protecting a country, but checking a rival. Not protecting one country against all aggression, but stopping another Great Power from expanded wherever it expands.
And historical percent? every conflict russia and britain got stuck in over.

That would be the "Warning" diplo-action from EU3. "Guaranteeing" is already kinda represented by friending countries.

 

[Orinsul]

I think the use of 'having interests in' is getting mixed up a bit here. As a Great Power you always have an interest in keeping the other great powers in check, but you do not really have an interest in random state X.

That would be the "Warning" diplo-action from EU3. "Guaranteeing" is already kinda represented by friending countries.

Friending countries is a massive investment in V2, thats the point. you dont get to have an interest in checking your rival, you have no warning, you can only prevent their conquest by first having spent a good half a decade building up relations with that specific country. And if the invade another country, theres nothing you can do about it.

The Status-Quo intervention should be available as a response to your rival GPs actions as well as an intrusion in your almost-sphere, so it can be intervention against not just in defense of. And anywhere in the world, not just places yourve spend years preparing for it, otherwise its pointless.

 

[Darkrenown]

because:
1. MS1 was largely a copy of FT-17.
2. time difference is largely negligible(between MS1 and BT2).
3. BT-2 looks much cooler and way more "modern".

1. Doesn't matter
2. BT2 came 7 years later and is almost outside of the timeframe covered.
3. We are not going for modern looking tanks here, the clunkier and more "WWIish" the better.

I argued for the Tsar tank, but the artists wouldn't do it

 

[BigPoppa1111]

Friending countries is a massive investment in V2, thats the point. you dont get to have an interest in checking your rival, you have no warning, you can only prevent their conquest by first having spent a good half a decade building up relations with that specific country. And if the invade another country, theres nothing you can do about it.

The Status-Quo intervention should be available as a response to your rival GPs actions as well as an intrusion in your almost-sphere, so it can be intervention against not just in defense of. And anywhere in the world, not just places yourve spend years preparing for it, otherwise its pointless.

I think you have to bear in mind the time period here. I am fine with a status quo wargoal being available to stop other nations' wars against random country X. I disagree that it should be infamy free. If you have Friendly status, yes it should be infamy free. You are protecting "your turf". But if you don't have friendly status with said country, and are more or less acting as a check on another great power, that would generate some ill-will in the rest of the world. At least the portion that isn't rabildy pro-your country. Other countries that are less-aligned to your side would resent you acting as "world policeman" and some favorable to your enemy would be more actively aligning against you.

This would be alot easier to model with every nation having a separate infamy counter for every other nation to properly reflect how different nations viewed particular actions, but short of that, a 10 infamy "restore status quo" war goal would work, and be somewhat historical.

 

[Grubnessul]

I think you have to bear in mind the time period here. I am fine with a status quo wargoal being available to stop other nations' wars against random country X. I disagree that it should be infamy free. If you have Friendly status, yes it should be infamy free. You are protecting "your turf". But if you don't have friendly status with said country, and are more or less acting as a check on another great power, that would generate some ill-will in the rest of the world. At least the portion that isn't rabildy pro-your country. Other countries that are less-aligned to your side would resent you acting as "world policeman" and some favorable to your enemy would be more actively aligning against you.

This would be alot easier to model with every nation having a separate infamy counter for every other nation to properly reflect how different nations viewed particular actions, but short of that, a 10 infamy "restore status quo" war goal would work, and be somewhat historical.

That's actually quite a good idea.

@Darkrenown: fancy new avatar.

 

[CaptRobau]

I argued for the Tsar tank, but the artists wouldn't do it

And you let them? Strychnine or cyanide?

 

[Secret Master]

Friending countries is a massive investment in V2, thats the point. you dont get to have an interest in checking your rival, you have no warning, you can only prevent their conquest by first having spent a good half a decade building up relations with that specific country. And if the invade another country, theres nothing you can do about it.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. It never takes me half a decade to get Friend status with another power. The only exceptions, as I pointed out earlier, are China and a country that's already in another SOI (in which case it makes sense that they would resist my intrusion in their SOI). I've never had a problem lining up my ducks in this manner. In fact, it's so easy for me that I have been known to refrain from Friending lots of powers around the globe. It really causes the AI to balk at any aggression, since the AI respects Friend status so much (unless your military strength is really low).

 

[keynes2.0]

Investing enough influence to get to friendly just to enforce a status quo is crazy. And doing that to historical levels would take forever. It would take decades for the US and UK to get the level of influence in latin america needed to simulate the Monroe doctrine. But even then it wouldn't work since the US and UK didn't enjoy close relations with every last country in latin america. They just had a policy that they would intervene if anyone else started meddling there is ways that weren't kosher. And that's not even getting into how extremely unlike it is that the US and UK both get latin amerca to friendly levels and don't set about banning each other's embassies like crazy.

It shouldn't take years of pre-emptive diplomacy just to enforce the status quo. Did the Brits, French, Prussians and Austrians all invest a massive amount of influence in Belgium in 1839 just to be able to guarantee it?

 

[Celdur]

i'm baffled by the suggestion of downgrading South America's civilized status, i mean really? we are european populated colonies in the Vicky 2 time frame, some of the countries had significant indigenous population, some of them didn't, all of them had modern governments and sovereinty of their respective territories, even in tipically indiginous countries like Perú, the first time we had an indigenous president was in 2001-2006, much like in the USA or Australia, the indigenous population was not a part of the country, simply cheap labor to be exploited, wich brings me to another point.

The USA is already ahistorically buffed up quite a bit, to even suggest it could enforce the Monroe Doctrine, only when it developed into a great power (in real life, late 19th century) could it enforce it. Before then sweet things like Peruvian troops disembarking to restore order in California in the Mid-XIX century happened. If you can't even control your own populace, how can you be a great power? or even more, control a whole hemisphere. It was the British who tacitally enforced the Monroe Doctrine, to protect the american market from european powers, initally from the Holy League, a market bigger than the US at the time.

 

[Secret Master]

It shouldn't take years of pre-emptive diplomacy just to enforce the status quo. Did the Brits, French, Prussians and Austrians all invest a massive amount of influence in Belgium in 1839 just to be able to guarantee it?

I don't know why people keep talking about "years" needed to get friend status. It doesn't take that long unless you are competing with 4 GPs in China or something similar.

Your Belgium example is even worse. First, if you share a border and are on the same continent, it takes even less effort to build up influence. It's like shooting diplomatic fish in a barrel. Second, you can build influence even when the target is at war with another power. So, in your Belgium example, most GPs managed to build up to Friend during the civil war. And whether or not the war is new or old, the moment you hit Friend, you can intervene. So, in Vic2 mechanics, GPs that felt an independent Belgium was in their interest (GB, Prussia, Austria) started building influence. The moment it was independent, this became possible. Within a span of time, Belgium was still independent, so the relevant GPs had enough influence to threaten intervention. I should point out here that the possibility of French annexation is one reason these GPs all had an interest in influencing Belgium and keeping them neutral. And since France was not about to have a hostile state on its border, they got into the act, too.

The Treaty of London is also an example of Friend status at work. Having Belgium be at Friend status with the GP signatories to the treaty effectively is the same thing as all of them guaranteeing Belgian independence.

If you want to argue that GPs can't influence revolutionary movements, meaning you can't get influence on a rebellion before it forms an actual country, I agree. EU3 is better about this, in that you can help rebels and their new state will be friendly to you. Furthermore, if you want to argue that the AI does not predict the best countries in which to put its influence to stop imperialism, then I might also agree. Humans are a lot better at saying, "Hey, I better Friend Japan to prevent those jerks over in GPisstan from grabbing them while they are unciv." But I find it bizarre that anyone thinks you should automatically be able to intervene in all wars, all the time. Russia and GB have interests in Afghanistan, represented by their influence (hell, the article on Wikipedia is entitled "European Influence in Afghanistan"). Why should Prussia, with no influence in Afghanistan, intervene if GB or Russia invades? If you have no influence in the region, you don't get to play unless your allies ask you to get involved. Do not pass go, do not collect intervention wars without a reason.

EDIT: I would tend to agree, Celdur, but since terms like "unciv" and whatnot reflect the attitudes of the power brokers in charge of GPs, and are not necessarily an accurate reflection of what's really going on in an area, the real question isn't whether SA countries were "uncviilized." It matters how they were perceived. Given their treatment at the hands of Europeans in the period, they were not considered the same as China, Persia, Siam, and so forth. It would also break the game if you could use unciv CBs to crush them.