Expeditionary/Volunteer forces!

[jamesd]

It's in beta. The feature worked in the example we were shown. Ergo its not broken, just requires balancing.

People attacking features of a game that is still in beta as "broken" is just ridiculous. We see the same thing with the silly attacks on the supply system from people who still haven't even played the game.

Please forgive me for not being an IT guru and getting the terminology 100% correct. The way the number of divisions that can be sent as volunteers is calculated is something that's extremely exploitable as it stands at the moment and so is need of change between now and game release.

 

[jamesd]

Except for the same reasons that German and Italian troops were deployed there. You could say the same of USSR troops in Somalia, or Cuban troops in Angola.

Again, I'm not saying that this is likely. I'm just saying that there's no reason why this should be impossible.

If you quoted the rest of my post regarding there being no rationale for Japanese forces to be committed to Spain you would have seen that I listed factors such as:
shared ethnicity
shared religion
shared geo-political region

All of these give Germany & Italy reasons to intervene in Spain that did not apply to Japan.

 

[FOARP]

If you quoted the rest of my post regarding there being no rationale for Japanese forces to be committed to Spain you would have seen that I listed factors such as:
shared ethnicity
shared religion
shared geo-political region

All of these give Germany & Italy reasons to intervene in Spain that did not apply to Japan.

And Cuba in Angola? And the US in China?

German and Italian soldiers weren't, anyway, deployed for any reason other than immediate geo-political ones. The Nazis were actually pretty dismissive of Catholicism so citing religion as a reason for their intervention requires a bit more substantiation than the mere fact that some Germans are catholic.

The reason they did give for intervening (defeating communism, competing with the USSR) are actually exactly the ones that Japan used to justify its war in China.

Please forgive me for not being an IT guru and getting the terminology 100% correct. The way the number of divisions that can be sent as volunteers is calculated is something that's extremely exploitable as it stands at the moment and so is need of change between now and game release.

Even a layman (and I am hardly an IT expert) knows that something that is not finished cannot just be declared broken because of an as-yet theoretical exploit.

 

[FUregistration]

Then Japan has to move diplomatically BEFORE sending people. Sending supplies would be fine, though.

Again, I think it should be up to the player to decide what he wants to do, but of course doing far-fetched stuff should have its price. In this case I see good enough reasons for a Japanese player to want to help fascist Spain, therefore it shouldn't be blocked/impossible like some people want. Hell, if the Japanese player wants he should be able to help republican Spain!

munitions, spare parts and clothes is the bulk of the supplies.

Food and clothes can easily be bought in the region, the rest would have to be sent from Japan, but I don't see it as being impossible at all.

It's just so improbable/implausible to the point that it should be impossible.

That is true only if you look at it historically, each player should be able to draw is own path, its a game, not a BBC documentary.

 

[Secret Master]

I'm not so sure about that. In Spain we have an example of a country that both receive division-sized forces of volunteers (the CTV, the Portuguese Viriatos, the International Brigades) and sent them (the Blue Division).

Casting our net a tiny bit wider, we have the UN command of several hundred thousand men in Korea, as well as the Chinese People's Volunteers who were more than a million strong. A bit more widely and we have the Chinese in Indochina and Vietnam. Wider still and we have the German expeditionary forces in the Finnish civil war.

Regarding Japan being involved in the SCW and the consternation it has caused:

I should point out that, regardless of how silly it looks, I am more interested in why countries are allowed to send help than what countries are actually doing it.

For example, Mussolini's massive intervention boosted his popular support at home because of anti-Catholic behavior among the republicans. In this case, a huge intervention wasn't just about generating XP (which is why players will do it), but all about boosting the regime's popularity and cementing ties with a potentially friendly Spain.

Italy is a great example, because intervention meets political goals as well as military goals. France's non-intervention is the opposite; due to concern about the impact on domestic politics, France refrained despite sympathy with the republicans among some of those in power.

I bring it up, because I am not bothered by Japan's intervention so much as I am about the potential for abuse. What does Japan have to gain from intervention in the SCW, regardless of what is happening in China? (Or am I being dense, and Japan's intervention does forward her national goals and agenda?)

What I'm hoping isn't that Japan never intervenes, but that interventions happen with clear goals that make sense beyond "I need to farm military XP."

 

[FOARP]

Regarding Japan being involved in the SCW and the consternation it has caused:

I should point out that, regardless of how silly it looks, I am more interested in why countries are allowed to send help than what countries are actually doing it.

For example, Mussolini's massive intervention boosted his popular support at home because of anti-Catholic behavior among the republicans. In this case, a huge intervention wasn't just about generating XP (which is why players will do it), but all about boosting the regime's popularity and cementing ties with a potentially friendly Spain.

Italy is a great example, because intervention meets political goals as well as military goals. France's non-intervention is the opposite; due to concern about the impact on domestic politics, France refrained despite sympathy with the republicans among some of those in power.

I bring it up, because I am not bothered by Japan's intervention so much as I am about the potential for abuse. What does Japan have to gain from intervention in the SCW, regardless of what is happening in China? (Or am I being dense, and Japan's intervention does forward her national goals and agenda?)

What I'm hoping isn't that Japan never intervenes, but that interventions happen with clear goals that make sense beyond "I need to farm military XP."

Japanese justifications for their actions in China were similar to those given by the Germans (whose Nazi ideology deprecated Catholicism) for intervening in Spain - opposing communism, defeating the USSR.

 

[Secret Master]

Japanese justifications for their actions in China were similar to those given by the Germans (whose Nazi ideology deprecated Catholicism) for intervening in Spain - opposing communism, defeating the USSR.

Yes, but would those justifications make sense if Japan used them to justify intervention in Spain? I mean, they are already clashing with the Soviets in Mongolia and Manchuria (Sinking, too?). Why send troops halfway around the world "to fight communism" when the Soviets are sitting right there and shooting has already started.

Of course, if there are no ways to simulate the undeclared conflicts between the Soviets and Japan in Asia, then maybe the justification makes perfect sense. After all, there won't be shooting on their border...

 

[agus92]

Again, I think it should be up to the player to decide what he wants to do, but of course doing far-fetched stuff should have its price. In this case I see good enough reasons for a Japanese player to want to help fascist Spain, therefore it shouldn't be blocked/impossible like some people want. Hell, if the Japanese player wants he should be able to help republican Spain!

Mmh, maybe I was too harsh with restrictions. But we have to keep something in mind that expeditionary forces* is something that no one took lightly. Mutual trust is needed, since you are allowing foreign troops into your territory. And accepting troops from a country which you don't have previous bond, could hurt you, since it could be understood internally as a loss of sovereignty. Besides, cooperation between your own military and the foreign could prove non-existent if they don't share anything.
Moreover, this could hurt you diplomatically as well: if you didn't show loyalty with your allies by accepting forces from a country that opposes them, they would stop supporting you (for this last argument I had your Japan-Rep. Spain relation in mind).


*: I refuse to call them volunteers since the sender has control over them.

 

[Zaku]

I bring it up, because I am not bothered by Japan's intervention so much as I am about the potential for abuse. What does Japan have to gain from intervention in the SCW, regardless of what is happening in China? (Or am I being dense, and Japan's intervention does forward her national goals and agenda?)

Japan could have trade or political reasons to intervene. I mean, if Spain becomes a fascist state they will be partners in trade and will probably join the Axis sooner or later. If historical mode is selected in the game, the AI Japan will also try to join the Axis(If the player's actions doesn't go against it).
If you select unhistorical mode, there could be even more reasons for Japan to do this, but we need to see their national focuses first to talk about that.

I agree with your post though.

 

[rafan]

World power is a country that can and will project power around a world.

Japan was great power but only one not from europe beside USA (but USA roots come from europe).

I belive that Japan could inervene in SCW for presige resons to show of that like european nations (+USA) can inervene in asia they can do the same in europe. Dont forget that Japan was anty comunist.

 

[FUregistration]

There's a number of mechanisms which we are told about that may prevent this:
1) Volunteers can't be sent whilst you are at war.
2) Democracies are very limited in when they can send volunteers.
3) World tension has to be sufficiently high.

1. This would be an extremely poor decision to implement, ridiculous to say the least, it makes no sense whatsoever to be a mechanic.
3. This world tension mechanic doesn't convince me at all, sounds like a lazy version of HoI3 neutrality system and I can see this new mechanic creating absurd impossibilities in the game that should otherwise be possible, making the game bond to play out always similarly, but we will see.

For Italy or Germany... Spain is very close. I want Japan supplying troops in Spain to be possible... but crippling for Japan. So crippling that Japan should never do it or risk losing in China or wherever else they actually care about.

I don't think that supplying 10k troops could ever be that crippling... and being crippling enough to risk losing in China sounds too much. Yeah it should come with a high cost, a sufficient cost that only a player that clearly needs to control the outcome in Spain is willing to pay, a sufficient cost that no player just sends volunteers for the sake of sending them, but not an exaggerated cost.

There was not a surplus of military supplies in 1936. Italy and Germany are already using what they are producing or sending it direct to Spain. Japan shipping military supplies to Spain is a lot more plausible than shipping troops and adequate military supplies to keep them in active operations.

Again that's all assuming everything plays out exactly like it did in real life, that's an argument you should stop from using because its invalid. This is a game and the path each nation chooses should be open for players and AI to decide within certain limitations, which in turn shouldn't be real limitations but more like time/politically/economically tied.

 

[agus92]

1. This would be an extremely poor decision to implement, ridiculous to say the least, it makes no sense whatsoever to be a mechanic.
.

This is already in, Podcat dixit.

Again that's all assuming everything plays out exactly like it did in real life, that's an argument you should stop from using because its invalid. This is a game and the path each nation chooses should be open for players and AI to decide within certain limitations, which in turn shouldn't be real limitations but more like time/politically/economically tied.

I don't get you now. Non-existant Spanish surplus of supplies will always be true. And both Germany and Italy struggled to supply Spain at the same time they were building their army. That should remain true for half of the war at least, before any player decision can greatly affect production.

I don't think that supplying 10k troops could ever be that crippling... and being crippling enough to risk losing in China sounds too much. Yeah it should come with a high cost, a sufficient cost that only a player that clearly needs to control the outcome in Spain is willing to pay, a sufficient cost that no player just sends volunteers for the sake of sending them, but not an exaggerated cost.

Yeah, about that... according to wikipedia, Italy spent 15 to 20% of their annual income supplying 75,000 Italian troops. You think that is something to be taken lightly?

 

[Zaku]

Yeah, about that... according to wikipedia, Italy spent 15 to 20% of their annual income supplying 75,000 Italian troops. You think that is something to be taken lightly?

I read that number too, but I don't think it's right. Italy had 500K fightning in Abyssina. That's 6-7 times more then what was sent to the SCW, so that should have bankrupted the country then.
I think what the wiki meant is that the cost of the whole Italian intervention in SCW was 6-8 billion liras, and that it was 15-20% of their yearly military budget.(for the whole 3 years.)
It's hard to find info on this though, and unfortunately wiki didn't provide a source. Lira had pretty low value IIRC it was about 10% of a Reichsmark, so 8 billion lira is not that much.

 

[BBBD316]

Well I think it has a lot of potential and this is why the game is in beta to better balance these mechanics.

From my point of view Japan was quite diplomatically isolated, joining in the SCW with Nat. Spain, Germany and Italy maybe a way to extend feelers for potential alliance. What could be a better demonstration of your new power status than proving your troops in battle?

I hope it will be balanced so that the costs provide a real risk/reward scenario. Do I send a force which will raise WT and slow my own production/development and get extra XP and a new potential ally, but do I want war when I fire the Munich Agreement cause WT has risen too sharply?

 

[FUregistration]

This is already in, Podcat dixit.

So let's say its 1942 and I am the USA, I'm at war against the Axis because Japan attacked me, my industry is starting to pump out a ton of troops, but meanwhile my nation isn't ready for full scale war, meanwhile Germany or Japan uses its diplomatic power to topple governments in South and Central America, civil wars break out, so I am to believe that I can't send volunteers to this countries because Im at war with Germany and Japan, I mean... the level of ridiculous is just amazing, it not only doesn't make any sense I can't, its also a powerful indirect threat on the security of USA, we are talking about possible staging areas for Japan and Germany to stage their fleets and aviation and even launch an invasion on mainland USA.

Why adding such an amazing civil war mechanics into the game and then crippling with nonsense mechanics on the other side?

I don't get you now. Non-existant Spanish surplus of supplies will always be true. And both Germany and Italy struggled to supply Spain at the same time they were building their army. That should remain true for half of the war at least, before any player decision can greatly affect production.

Again this is considering an exact historic game plays out, this argument is invalid, we are talking about a game where the input and outcome can always be changed. But then we have the whole issue of game mechanics that cannot simulate this, which is a fair argument and it would be unfair from my part to say its a must have mechanic.

Yeah, about that... according to wikipedia, Italy spent 15 to 20% of their annual income supplying 75,000 Italian troops. You think that is something to be taken lightly?

Zaku answered pretty well to that.
Anyway, what I said was that it should be costly enough to be taken quite hardly and only players with a very focused plan should be equating such a costly endeavor on the other side of the world. Not that it should be taken lightly.

 

[xtfoster]

I use the terms interchangeably.

That is a problem since the game does not.
From what I got from the DD, volunteers are sent when you are NOT involved in the war. Expeditionary Forces are used when both of you ARE involved in the war (i.e., Allied and both at war). And Lend-Lease is when you just send them the equipment.

So basically you can support your allies 3 ways.
1) Volunteers when they are at war and you are not. Limited by size of your army. You also don't need to be formally allied. (You retain control of these troops)
2) Expeditionary Forces when you both are at war (and formally allied). (The DD didn't say who controlled these troops)
3) Lend Lease when you want them to handle the troops (and supply the manpower). This also seems to be the only way to give air and naval support if you aren't in the war.

 

[agus92]

I read that number too, but I don't think it's right. Italy had 500K fightning in Abyssina. That's 6-7 times more then what was sent to the SCW, so that should have bankrupted the country then.
I think what the wiki meant is that the cost of the whole Italian intervention in SCW was 6-8 billion liras, and that it was 15-20% of their yearly military budget.(for the whole 3 years.)
It's hard to find info on this though, and unfortunately wiki didn't provide a source. Lira had pretty low value IIRC it was about 10% of a Reichsmark, so 8 billion lira is not that much.

It makes sense. Still, a few more planes/tanks/ships/divisions could be ready by 1939 if that money was invested in them. Which, IMHO, is the best way to balance Volunteers.

 

[agus92]

So let's say its 1942 and I am the USA, I'm at war against the Axis because Japan attacked me, my industry is starting to pump out a ton of troops, but meanwhile my nation isn't ready for full scale war, meanwhile Germany or Japan uses its diplomatic power to topple governments in South and Central America, civil wars break out, so I am to believe that I can't send volunteers to this countries because Im at war with Germany and Japan, I mean... the level of ridiculous is just amazing, it not only doesn't make any sense I can't, its also a powerful indirect threat on the security of USA, we are talking about possible staging areas for Japan and Germany to stage their fleets and aviation and even launch an invasion on mainland USA.

Why adding such an amazing civil war mechanics into the game and then crippling with nonsense mechanics on the other side?

Because then you send Expeditionary Forces. @xtfoster just explained it above me.

 

[FUregistration]

Because then you send Expeditionary Forces. @xtfoster just explained it above me.

How can you send Expeditionary Forces if the country in question isn't your ally and doesn't belong to the allies?
Remember that its a civil war, not a conflict you are directly involved in any way, neither is Germany, therefore as far as I know you cannot send expeditionary forces, in the same example Germany can't send volunteers to help along its attempt of coup detat because... same reasons.

 

[agus92]

How can you send Expeditionary Forces if the country in question isn't your ally and doesn't belong to the allies?
Remember that its a civil war, not a conflict you are directly involved in any way, neither is Germany, therefore as far as I know you cannot send expeditionary forces, in the same example Germany can't send volunteers to help along its attempt of coup detat because... same reasons.

You're right, my mistake.