Balance of Power

[unmerged(11633)]

In the period after the Napoleonic wars, European statesmen were mainly concerned with keeping the balance of power. The ruler os every state, though concerned to raise their own power and prestige, were nevertheless often motivate by fear to prevent other rivals from growing too strong. This resulted, for example, in Britain and France preventing Russia from destroying the Ottoman Empire and establishing control of Constantinople, one of Russia's greatest dreams.

I wonder how Victoria will model the effects of the balance of power? I hope it is more sophisticated than EU II's BB wars.

 

[unmerged(10894)]

Yeah, I hope it will be better than bb in EUII too. I think if anything, AI would have to be nicely tweaked to do what you say.

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Yeah, I think that a 'balance of power' think would be good, but it also has to recognize alliances, as if the most powerful state alone was Britain but a German-Austrian-Italian alliance would be more powerful then that.... it would be stupid if the rest of the world still hated Britain.

 

[King of Men]

Originally posted by Gjerg Kastrioti
I hope it is more sophisticated than EU II's BB wars.

Ye gods, what a spoilt lot we Paradox players are! BB is the best (AFAIK the only) balance-of-power mechanism on the market, and you complain that you want something better?

 

[unmerged(9563)]

Civ 2 had a balance of power thing, it was whoever was the most powerful towards the end of the game got hated by everyone and everyone formed 'seceret alliances' against them.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Re: Re: Balance of Power

Originally posted by King of Men
Ye gods, what a spoilt lot we Paradox players are! BB is the best (AFAIK the only) balance-of-power mechanism on the market, and you complain that you want something better?

Well, maybe not complain, but we can hope.

The problem with BB is that it kicks in only after the territory is taken. That's not historically what happened. Taking the collapse of the Ottomans example. The other European powers intervened before Russia took oveer all of the Balkans. But under the BB system what would happen is that Russia would conquer allof the Balkans and THEN get DOWs from the rest of the world.

 

[HVC]

To work around the EU BB system of points being given for territory taken, maybe a country can be awarded BB for declaring war? More points if you don't have a CB on a country or for a specific war (ie a larger number of BB points awarded to Russia if it attacks the Ottoman’s). That would allow other countries to intervene before the aggressor country wipes out its enemy.

 

[unmerged(14689)]

There shouldn't be DOWs immediately. First diplomacy should get a change. If Russia attacks the Ottomans, a message should pop up like: "London and Paris are quite disturbed by your constant warmongering. They demand you refrain from further aggressive actions or face war!"
Options: "Let them come!" and "Give in to their demands".
Also, a country should have more freedom if another country is an even greater threat. GB and France wouldn't have attacked Russia in 1890 or something, because by that time Germany would have been of even greater concern.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

Yeah good idea they should be warned first then they might declare war! These actions should be led by the oposing great powers not by little ones as they are just annoying! Also if the country is far away geographically it shouldnt matter that much say japan conquers china maybe russia would get upset but not rest of europe etc... This is kinda relatedto the HOI join war thing/ when you declared war or annexed someone the other nations would declare war etc. this could be implemented as you conquer more territory for example the gotowar thing could be raised and if you go to far they will attack you!

 

[unmerged(14689)]

I would just like to know how this distance thing is done. If Russia attacks China, Japan & Korea, Germany shouldn't be able to say: "Stop that or we'll attack!" Of course if Russia were to attack Afghanistan, Persia and the Ottomans, Britian's interest would be severly threatened and so the Brits (with their allies if there are any) in this case should get a CB.

 

[unmerged(15764)]

yeah exactly only the affected countries should respond to these attacks england could be pissed off in asia to though cuz they were everywhere !

 

[unmerged(12746)]

"Diplomacy- Victoria has a full flexible diplomatic system based on the concepts from EU1/2 and HoI, with bilateral alliances, limited colonial wars, claims over provinces, and much tied in to the concept of national prestige as the strength in diplomatic actions. Victoria also introduces a complex peace resolution system where claims can be given up, as well as trade deals and resources."

The "national prestige as the strength of diplomatic actions" might be apart of the solution to this very good question. I like tbe BB system in EUII but it can be improved, from the statement above from the developers it would seem that your prestige is going to be crucial in negotiations at all levels. So this may be a viable tool to maintain a balance of power, or maybe its true measurement.


Odin

 

[saskganesh]

hmm. sometimes peace resolutions were brokered by a third party. which could mean that a Player nation could create the peace for a non player war. an interesting dynamic.

example: Teddy Rooseveldt wining the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese war.

 

[King of Men]

It helps when the war is essentially over anyway, mind you. The Japanese had won, what more was there to say? Teddy mainly served as a communications channel.

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by saskganesh
hmm. sometimes peace resolutions were brokered by a third party. which could mean that a Player nation could create the peace for a non player war. an interesting dynamic.

example: Teddy Rooseveldt wining the Nobel Peace Prize for mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese war.

Another example is what became known as the Pig War between England and USA in the San Juan Islands.

I know you will all say - what??? It is a little known fact that a "war" was fought when a pig was shot (by mistake) on an island which belongs to a chain of Islands between Vancouver Island and the Mainland. Ownership of the southern portion of the Island chain (the San Juan Islands) was contested and therefore the island was garrisoned by both English and American troops.

When news of the Pig incident spread both garrisons were called out. Thankfully both commanders kept there heads, no shots were fired and the incident was settled when the two "armies" dined together that night.

But the incident could have easily escalated and so Britain and the US agreed to be bound by a boundary line to be drawn by the Kaiser of Germany.

Unfortunately, the Kaiser drew the boundary way to far north and robbed us of some very beautiful islands

 

[unmerged(14689)]

The UK accepting mediation by the Kaiser?!?

Next you'll tell me that Israel is gonna let Iran resolve the "situation" with the Palestinians.

 

[crazy canuck]

I warned you that you're first reaction would be - WHAT???

 

[Demetrios]

The King of the Netherlands drew the line between northern Maine and Canada in 1842 (IIRC), in an area that had been long disputed by the US and the UK ever since the birth of the USA...

 

[crazy canuck]

Originally posted by Demetrios
The King of the Netherlands drew the line between northern Maine and Canada in 1842 (IIRC), in an area that had been long disputed by the US and the UK ever since the birth of the USA...

Another border drawn way to far north

 

[Demetrios]

Well the thing is, the first time it went to arbitration, the Maine border was even further north, but the US rejected it. After a few years of further dispute and the threat of actual low-level fighting breaking out in the area, the two countries went to arbitration again, and the US this time accepted a border that was further to the south, realizing that if the border wasn't accepted this time, there was the threat of an actual war breaking out...