Game should punish instead of not allowing

[Opanashc]

The USA wouldn't really be classified as a standing army anytime before WW2. In 1860, the US Army was roughly 16,000 strong, including officers. The combined might of both sides at their height was 1,500,000. Though the army was around 125-150,000 in 1936, in 1941, before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the army had skyrocketed to 1,600,000 million men. Saying that the USA was weak in 1936 because their army was the smallest of the great powers is wildly inaccurate.

Germany's army had even bigger growth, from 100,000 in 1933 to 4,600,000 in 1939.

 

[ringhloth]

Germany's army had even bigger growth, from 100,000 in 1933 to 4,600,000 in 1939.

It's more accurate to say that in 1939 they had ~150,000 troops and by 1941 they had 1.5 million. It was a large build up for a country that was not willing to fight a war just quite yet. In 6 years, the US had grown it's army to 8 million.

 

[yonderTheGreat]

You mean, like USA invaded Iraq?

Bush was playing CK2 and used Powell to "Fabricate Claims"

 

[PeterCorless]

If anyone read Churchill's own recounting of World War II, they would see that he had many plans which were later considered unfeasible: invading Norway overland to take out the Swedish iron resources that were being shipped to Germany.

As far as a U.S. plan to invade Canada, this was referred to as War Plan Crimson; an actual consideration in the 1920s-1930s. I tend to agree that players should be allowed to take history in their own directions. They shouldn't feel like the rails of history are steamrolling them to definitive outcomes. But to make certain plans should then have ramifications. Some might be set. Some might be probabilistic.

For example, what if Operation Sea Lion was occurring and Britain was losing. Might the U.S. have more of a reason to invade Canada to "protect" it from falling to the Nazis? Maybe the Canadian government might even invite U.S. intervention.

I just loathe straight-jacketing history in a game that was supposed to be a global sandbox.

 

[Loke]

Its easy....

If you want toplay HOI then theres certain rules like WWII and somewhat historical.

If you want pure fantasy I think there are many versions of Risk out there.

 

[Kapitalisti]

And of course Britain should get "The Empire Strikes Back" which is a bit disappointing at first but becomes seen as one of the best movies decisions that Britain ever made.

The yanks have no chance against those AT-AT's.

 

[Lither]

Must have been a good harvest this year, there's so much straw everywhere

I for one think soft restrictions are usually better, and if they want to tout "sandbox" they can't slap a lot of hard restrictions.

That said, exploits are a big concern, and I doubt anything save lots of expansions, playtesting and feedback from the community could ever make a workable system without hard restrictions.

 

[weaselflonk]

And of course Britain should get "The Empire Strikes Back" which is a bit disappointing at first but becomes seen as one of the best movies decisions that Britain ever made.

 

[Zaku]

A-bombs didn't exist in 1936 so that one can be added to the list of idiotic straw men.

Yep, that's my point. Because a power hungry and world conquering Canada didn't(and coundn't) exist at the time so your point can be added there as well.

 

[magritte2]

A-bombs didn't exist in 1936 so that one can be added to the list of idiotic straw men.



There is no such thing as political impossibility.
If the current president tried to order an invasion of Canada then the people could do somewhere near the square root of sweet foxtrot alpha about it.

The military command can refuse unlawful orders, and the order to invade a friendly country without any justification could be viewed as unlawful. The U.S. constitution defines treaties as law of the land, so being ordered to break a treaty is unlawful.

 

[AbbieRevo]

The military command can refuse unlawful orders, and the order to invade a friendly country without any justification could be viewed as unlawful. The U.S. constitution defines treaties as law of the land, so being ordered to break a treaty is unlawful.

This.

The real question is, if FDR went completely insane and ordered the US Army to invade Canada without a congressional declaration of war, or a very apparent reason for emergency action, would he be obeyed?

Even if some did, I doubt all would. There would certainly be a constitutional crisis.

All this could theoretically be modeled. However, the player in this game is not supposed to be role-playing as an individual. They are not FDR, they are a sort of abstracted "Spirit of the Nation" and as such it makes sense to put greater constraints on what can be logically enacted.

 

[Peter Wass]

A much better substitute then no argument at all though,.

It is no argument at all. I guess that was just a schwing moment.

The biggest issue with punishing instead of not allowing is that you have a lot of decisions that, to a veteran, are unquestionably a "never do this because it's a terrible idea", but to a newer player it's a "hey this is cool what does it do?" That's a big problem, and makes it more difficult to learn for not being any more interesting for an advanced player to play.

It isn't really a big problem at all. You gain far more experience through failure than through prohibition.

Must have been a good harvest this year, there's so much straw everywhere

I for one think soft restrictions are usually better, and if they want to tout "sandbox" they can't slap a lot of hard restrictions.

That said, exploits are a big concern, and I doubt anything save lots of expansions, playtesting and feedback from the community could ever make a workable system without hard restrictions.

Why does everyone get so uptight about exploits? Just don't do them, works every time for me.

Yep, that's my point. Because a power hungry and world conquering Canada didn't(and coundn't) exist at the time so your point can be added there as well.

There is a difference between a technology that didn't exist, and a political opinion.

The military command can refuse unlawful orders, and the order to invade a friendly country without any justification could be viewed as unlawful. The U.S. constitution defines treaties as law of the land, so being ordered to break a treaty is unlawful.

rather ds
Armed forces in general, and the US armed forces more than any, tend to leave the politics to the politicians. The argument that a course of action is too improbable because the US Army might have decided to overthrow the commander in chief and unilaterally impose their own foreign policy on the civilian government is interesting, but it does rather undermine any claims for realism.

This has however just become a thinly veiled repeat of the Rhineland remilitarisation discussion where increasingly desperate attempts at showing any alternative possibilities to be "impossible" are wheeled out against anyone who suggests that in a GAME you don't necessarily need for everyone to be bound rigidly. Stop worrying how other people might enjoy themselves and live your own lives.

 

[Peter Wass]

There would certainly be a constitutional crisis.

Not even close to it. There is a slightly convoluted but clearly laid out mechanism by which congress could act if it wished. It would or it wouldn't and what happened would happen, but at no point would there be any crisis.

 

[jamoecw]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

"Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is, that if it shall become necessary, to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country; and that whether such necessity exists in any given case, the President is to be the sole judge. ... But Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and allow him to make war at pleasure. … If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood."

The Korean War was the first modern example of the U.S. being taken to war without a formal declaration,[8] and this has been repeated in every armed conflict since. Beginning with the Vietnam War, however, Congress has given other various forms of authorization to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

War Plan Red was developed by the United States Army following the 1927 Geneva Naval Conference and approved in May 1930 by the Secretary of War and the Secretary of Navy and updated in 1934–35; it was not presented for presidential or Congressional approval. The United States can only declare war in congress.

so there were plans laid out for it, and there is precedent for invading a country without congressional support via a declaration of war. now some other plans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#U.S._threat_of_atomic_warfare

Both the Pentagon and the State Department were nonetheless cautious about using nuclear weapons because of the risk of general war with China and the diplomatic ramifications. Truman and his senior advisors agreed, and never seriously considered using them in early December 1950 despite the poor military situation in Korea.

so do i think that america invading canada is ahistorical? yes. however it seems a (remote) possible alternate history, which is shown from time to time in the HOI games. overall i think that there is plenty of better options and such for america to take alternate paths (and could open up gameplay issues), but to say the idea is pure bunk (as in T-Rex units and 1936 era a-bombs) is way off the mark.

 

[safe-keeper]

A-bombs didn't exist in 1936 so that one can be added to the list of idiotic straw men.

How polite and respectful -_-.

You also seem to misunderstand the meaning of the term "strawman". No one is saying you proposed a-bombs in 1936. We're trying to illustrate to you how unlikely your proposition is.

There is no such thing as political impossibility.

Yes, there is.

If the current president tried to order an invasion of Canada then the people could do somewhere near the square root of sweet foxtrot alpha about it. Congress would say no if he asked them first, but he arguably has a months wiggle room before he needs their permission, and the current president is nothing if not an extractor of the mictuted fluid when it comes to overstepping his bounds. He might conceivably be impeached, although it is tricky to know on what charge, and it is quite possible that it wouldn't happen due to the extreme improbability of the senate convicting.

He and what army? The generals would probably laugh in his face, and I strongly doubt he would get the soldiers of an isolationist military to suddenly invade Canada without reason.

It is rather telling that the arguments in favour of locking everything up are couched in opposition to such extreme examples that nobody has even come close to proposing.

Extreme examples like the USA invading Canada?

 

[Silas60]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red


so there were plans laid out for it, and there is precedent for invading a country without congressional support via a declaration of war. now some other plans:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#U.S._threat_of_atomic_warfare


so do i think that america invading canada is ahistorical? yes. however it seems a (remote) possible alternate history, which is shown from time to time in the HOI games. overall i think that there is plenty of better options and such for america to take alternate paths (and could open up gameplay issues), but to say the idea is pure bunk (as in T-Rex units and 1936 era a-bombs) is way off the mark.

In the US focus tree War Plan Red is already a possibility and pushes you towards communism or requires communist US.

 

[REDDQ]

+1 to the OP, I like the idea very much.

In HoI 3 you can take USA for a spin and attack Canada, Great Britain and pretty much anyone as soon as Adolf starts his march across the Europe. No penalty whatsoever, the only thing to stop you that far is neutrality meter. I wish I could lower it with my spies and have to fight with opposition to my actions instead.


Lol, democratic countries do that do this... Germany was a democratic country. Nuff said.

 

[safe-keeper]

Lol, democratic countries do that do this... Germany was a democratic country. Nuff said.

wut.

 

[REDDQ]

wut.

German federal elections?

 

[Silas60]

German federal elections?

After the Enabling Act of 1933 Hitler outlawed Non-Nazi parties on 14 July and the Reichstag had to abdict its democratic powers. Even before that law non-Nazi parties were harrassed.