Diplomacy, coups and TAGs.

[unmerged(25612)]

*Edited to: Version 1.2*

Now firstly as you all know, in every Paradox game the relations are tied on country TAGs. Country A`s relation to country B. This varies if the either of the countries does something. However in most cases this model does not work, does not work at all:

Now when a goverment of a country changes, especially when the change is very radical or indeed an illegal coup, the relations and existing treaties would have no value. The grandest example would be Russia turning into USSR. Japan turning to the west is a less radical example... Post WWI Germany... France after the revolution.... The list goes on... And on...

Countries can not be judged solely on their name. The way we think about the country of today with the name of France is indeed very different from what the people in the 16th century thought about France, yet the TAG is same...

***For HOI2 my idea is the following: After a succesful coup the target country should annull of all its relations and treaties.***

Now then we come for HOI2 more specificly. I was rather astounished by the fact that HOI2 will use the same -200 - +200 system of EUII and Vic. This seems not right for a game with such a small scope... Why have the old relations model at all? WWII was war. It did not matter on whose side you were, but rather whom were you up against. USA and USSR being on the same team is the best example if any to mark this. The cold war then? Again the same pattern...

Frankly I fail to see any scenario since WWI where these kind of relation meters would have worked. The coming of democracy made it possible for citizens to express their views, this made democracies "One team". Then there were strong ideologies (Fascism and Communism pop into mind at once, strangely enough )that binded other more oppressive countries into one. There was no "diplomatic game", there was no "choosing of sides". The only way Turkey would have joined Germany in WWII would have been a coup or an election which would have brought Fascism into rule. Likewise the only cause for Finland to join the Comitern would have been a coup or an election.

Domestic policies began to affect foreign policies when it was indeed "domestic people" running the things, instead of some in-dream-world-living king or queen.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule... Oh there are... Now Finland in WWII fought with Germany. However without being Fascist. And this again brings us back to the golden rule of WWII: "Not whom for, but against whom".

However making the relations only tied to against and for whom, would be a poor solution. After all that would make no difference between USA and USSR for UK. And as such a smaller scale of -5 - +5 should be introduced. The "points" however would not be regular relation points, acquirable through bribery. They would be granted for larger issues:

-Being at war against us -5
-Being a goverment that we are against -2
-Embargoing us -2
-Owning our core-province(s) -1
-Being at war WITH the same country as we are +2 (Alliance not needed)
-Being in our alliance +3
-Sharing tech with us +2
-Being a goverment that we are too +2
-Being against a goverment that we are too +2
-Giving us a military access +1

(Democratic are neutrals. Fascists hate Communists and vice versa. Countries, even neutrals, can become anti something by having been at war with them.)

Examples:

Germany-Finland in Spring of 1941 (pre-Barbarossa): +3

Germany is anti-democratic -2, Finland is anti-Communist as is Germany +2, Tech share +2, Military access +1

USSR - USA in 1943: +1

Allies at war +3, USSR hates democrats -2 (Been at war with Finland, a democratic country like USA)


And this brings to a conclusion of which I intend to represent as suggestion to the game HOI2:

-Change relation meter (+200 - -200)
-Introduce the meters of: "Anti-Com", "Anti-Dem", "Anti-Fas" and "Anti-minor(1-9999)".
-Introduce the new relation boundaries of +5 - -5
-Relation boundary points limit the relation changes between two country by: 4 and 5 = 100 - 200, 3 and 2 = 50 - 150 AND 1 and 0 = 50 - 50 (+5 limits to +100 to +200 and so on...)
-Relation boundaries can not be exceeded at any time. (But the boundaries can be changed)
-When a change of boundaries is made, a "forced change of relations" occurs, the maths below:

CHANGE = The change of the relation boundary points (From -3 to +2 is five points for example)

CHANGE ^ 1,5 = Relations change per month

Or as in a list:

CHANGE OF POINTS----------------CHANGE OF RELATIONS (Rounded if needed)

1---------1
2---------3
3---------5
4---------8
5---------11
6---------15
7---------19
8---------23
9---------27
10--------32

(So if you make a 180 degree turn (Bulgaria after soviet puppeting) you will lose 32 relations points per month, that is together with the other changes (And also remember the annulment of relations after a coup or a puppeting!!))

That way if you do a small change, then it is not that big of a deal, you get 1 extra point per month, but if the change is huge, then so is the affect.

The effects of the "forced change" will last until a boundary point is found, so going from +2 to +3 will not grant the bonus, but going from +3 to +4 will.

Example:

Bulgaria - Germany 1944 (Before the "puppeting") +5 ideology +187 (Alliance, anti-communism, Fascism, Sharing tech, Military access....)

BULGARIA IS PUPPETED BY THE USSR (Relations jump to 0)

Points after the puppeting: -5 (At war, other fascist other communist...)

Change speed: -32 per month. Months to get to boundary (-100) 4.

So after three months the relations are -128, and the effects of the "forced relations" stop. From now on the relation begin to change by other factors (-2 or something per month from anti-ideologies and being at war)



Technically speaking: To determine which country is of which ideology, a system similar to the religion system of EUII would be used. (This would only be for a country, don`t worry no conversion... )

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I'll say it again: I'd love three sub-tags per nation for each of the three major ideologies. This would among other things allow for ANY civil war situation, anywhere. We already have a bastardised version of this for the SCW but I'd like to see it expanded across the board.

One of the things I loved about Vic was how the flag changed with ideology; I'd love to see it developed.

 

[unmerged(12699)]

Listen to the man!!!!!

 

[unmerged(11874)]

Clearly, the relations meter is for the small ententes we can now develop, and for crazy but true things like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and for fun but ahistorical stuff like a Britain-France-Germany anti-Soviet crusade.

 

[unmerged(23487)]

Listen to the man!!!!!

Yeah!

 

[Wämö]

I'll say it again: I'd love three sub-tags per nation for each of the three major ideologies. This would among other things allow for ANY civil war situation, anywhere. We already have a bastardised version of this for the SCW but I'd like to see it expanded across the board.

One of the things I loved about Vic was how the flag changed with ideology; I'd love to see it developed.

I like your idea very much, and actually agree to everything in that post.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Very good idea, idealist!

 

[unmerged(6766)]

I'll say it again: I'd love three sub-tags per nation for each of the three major ideologies. This would among other things allow for ANY civil war situation, anywhere. We already have a bastardised version of this for the SCW but I'd like to see it expanded across the board.

One of the things I loved about Vic was how the flag changed with ideology; I'd love to see it developed.

I, too, have said that and agree - it works great for any situation, especially between different ideologies.

Now, the -200 - +200 was hidden in HOI so it seemed to have been fading then, though it was brought back for Victoria. I do like this idea - similar to how stability was in EUII... your relations are really as simply as that, love, like, neutral, worried, hate... and they wouldn't be dependent on gifts, but dependent on ideology and actual diplomatic treaties.

- 5 - +5 sounds great and allows for shades based on realities rather than why are we at -35 with this country? what's the difference between that an -45 if they reject my royal marriage? That first system worked for EUII, but not for HOI.

Great idea idealist!

 

[loki_poki]

I like this idea, because you have to have the option of the fascist being in liege with the dems against the big bad Commie buggers.

That could have been one scenario of how things played out differently in history.

Certainly the Natzies got money early on from big players in democratic countries around them to counter the comunists in Germany.

Maybe the dems hoped to use them as a weapon against the commies in the future?

So that should be an option instead of it always being Germany at war with the allies.

The allies could sit back and watch Germany and Russia tear each other to shreds, or intervene on ether side.

Not always against the Germans.

 

[unmerged(12244)]

Great idea!

 

[Earl Uhtred]

I, too, have said that and agree - it works great for any situation, especially between different ideologies.

Wow, it's been a while since someone agreed with me

Also, each ideology could have its own AI and perhaps its own cores too.

 

[unmerged(30686)]

Me2

Yep me 2 - it could add so many different types of game

 

[ForzaA]

I think that your ideas and a -200 +200 scale could fit perfectly together, for example, your ideas might be used as a daily/monthly/jearly/..... decrease. I don't see f.e. France jumping on England immediately if a communist regime comes in place, a government changing does NOT undo completely the previous history of two countries. And I would imagine you hate a country you have been at war with for 8 years more than a country you have been at war with for a year.

you could even make relations being built up of two parts: ideological relation, and country-country relation. And have the actions of ALL countries of a certain ideology have an effect on all countries' opinion of that ideology- regardless of their own (although negative modifiers probably should be less for same-ideology countries)

 

[unmerged(25612)]

I think that your ideas and a -200 +200 scale could fit perfectly together, for example, your ideas might be used as a daily/monthly/jearly/..... decrease. I don't see f.e. France jumping on England immediately if a communist regime comes in place, a government changing does NOT undo completely the previous history of two countries. And I would imagine you hate a country you have been at war with for 8 years more than a country you have been at war with for a year.

Hmm... That could work rather nicely

Or maybe make it even so that the relation/ideology "points" work as boundaries for the normal relations as well as a factor in their growth. So that a country with Very good ideological understanding and/or perhaps alliance (+5 or +4) will always relations between +200 and +100, countries with good ideological understanding (+3 and +2) will have +150 to +50 and neutral nations (+1, 0 and -1) will have +50 to -50, and then again -50 to -150 for hostile ideologicalities and -100 to -200 with enemies. (Intentionally overlapping at some points to create some randomity and to enable the deepening of relations by artificial measures (Tech trading, military access).

Those boundaries can not be exceeded without changing the "ideological" points. Bribery and events will only increase or decrease the relations within the set boundaries.


And this way the speed of deteriration can be tied here. Maybe with the formula of:

CHANGE = The change of the ideological points (From -3 to +2 is five points for example)

CHANGE ^ 1,5 = Relations change per month


Or as in a list:


CHANGE OF POINTS----------------CHANGE OF RELATIONS (Rounded if needed)

1---------1
2---------3
3---------5
4---------8
5---------11
6---------15
7---------19
8---------23
9---------27
10--------32

(So if you make a 180 degree turn (Bulgaria after soviet puppeting) you will lose 32 relations points per month, that is together with the other changes (And also remember the annulment of relations after a coup or a puppeting!!))

That way if you do a small change, then it is not that big of a deal, you get 1 extra point per month, but if the change is huge, then so is the affect.

The effects of the "forced change" will last until a boundary point is found, so going from +2 to +3 will not grant the bonus, but going from +3 to +4 will.

Example:

Bulgaria - Germany 1944 (Before the "puppeting") +5 ideology +187 (Alliance, anti-communism, Fascism, Sharing tech, Military access....)

BULGARIA IS PUPPETED BY THE USSR (Relations jump to 0)

Points after the puppeting: -5 (At war, other fascist other communist...)

Change speed: -32 per month. Months to get to boundary (-100) 4.

So after three months the relations are -128, and the effects of the "forced relations" stop. From now on the relation begin to change by other factors (-2 or something per month from anti-ideologies and being at war)




This way the relations stay somewhat unbribeable, but there is a good amount of randomity and differences.



* o Gosh, there are so many typos in that original post, I need to fix that, also I edit this in. *

 

[unmerged(26691)]

Great ideas idealist!

I don't think separate TAGS are necessary. Just change the flag like in Vicky and set a flag (as in, event flag), communist_government, for example.

That's already very possible in the current framework, and it makes it easier to make events that happen independently of the ideology.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

But it makes civil wars impossible beyond those for which the event system provides (ie Spain).

 

[Sling Shot]

I would like it if you could form new alliances like a latin american alliance or league of asian nations against Japan instead of just Allies/Axis/Comintern.

 

[Maximilian I]

I would like it if you could form new alliances like a latin american alliance or league of asian nations against Japan instead of just Allies/Axis/Comintern.

http://www.europa-universalis.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2980685&postcount=17

 

[unmerged(26691)]

But it makes civil wars impossible beyond those for which the event system provides (ie Spain).

Well, since there can't really be events for ahistorical civil wars (not that these should be avoided at all costs), I think it's fine to handle them via rebel divisions, with the possibility to change government if they occupy the capital and a certain percentage of territory (like in Vicky ). If the Rebels could be programmed to act intelligently without international rebel-cooperation, this would be perfect (otherwise, there are indeed arguments for your individual tags).

 

[Earl Uhtred]

What about where two factions coexist side by side for long periods in opposition to each other? I'm thinking of the Chinese civil war, and after the HoI period the situation in Korea, Vietnam and Germany. I'd love it if the possibility was there for that sort of situation to exist in any country. Who knows, perhaps Germany will be sponsoring rightist Latin American proxies by 1947.

Extra tags would also allow the insurgents to strike their own diplomatic agreements, receive expeditonary forces / technology etc, none of which rebels can currently do.