There's Democratic and democratic. Democratic is a faction, democratic (well, holding elections) is a government type. The faction can't declare war on others of their faction, but the government type isn't restricted as such.
Game should punish instead of not allowing
- Thread starter SuperZ69
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In the US focus tree War Plan Red is already a possibility and pushes you towards communism or requires communist US.
There is all the difference in the world between unlikely and using technology that didn't exist. The a-bombs bit was used as an example of an argument not being advanced, a straw man.
No, there are improbabilities.
The United States Army, but hey you're living in a world where the officers in the US army are going to impose their own foreign policy on the civilian authority and the ranks are going to stage a full scale mutiny to support them, so who knows.
Because that's definitely more extreme than future technology and reanimated dinosaurs.
- 4
- 1
I don't think so. The names are not necessarily specific events (that is to say just because the war plans were historically drafted pre-1936 you won't start with them et c.) but rather represent trends or directions of thought and serve as gate points for bonuses and actions.
- 1
- 1
I don't think you can gain useful experience by failing at useless decisions. The only experience that failing at useless decisions gets you is how to avoid those useless decisions. Which wouldn't be a problem if you didn't have those useless decisions. Besides, whoever said that failure is the best teacher was wrong. If you succeed at something, chances are you'll have more know-how to succeed than someone who failed at something.
- 1
- 1
Sure, last elections were in 1932, but this is besides the point. He used democratic structures to get to the power.
You don't have to join and as GB you don't have to invite. But they were talking about principles... like democracy doesn't do bad things.
Also that talk about historical and ahistorical things. Let me tell you one thing about historical things... Germany invades USSR, they get bended over there and then USA wins the war (tongue in a cheek, plz don't butthurt). Everything else is ahistoric. Whole point of this game is to spin things around. That is also why you have different starting dates in HoI3 because, from my humble experience, in open simulation like this it is incredibly hard to get results close to historic ones. I was playing Brasil, never set foot in Europe and still Germans couldn't get close to even Leningrad.
Oh, and I don't mind if that less strict approach would be optional. So, let other people have more fun, will ya?
- 2
If you don't have any interaction with something, which is after all the result of prohibition, you will gain less meaningful experience than if you fail.
A decision is not useless because you are not interested in making it. If options were limited to what everybody always wanted to do then there would not be many decisions to take at all.
- 1
The moment a democracy, or a republic, declares war without the consent of it's voting population, or the population's representatives, it stops being a democracy. Neither the US population or the congress would vote to go to war with Canada in 1936.
Designing and implementing a feature of the game to support this idea is a questionable use of resources. For more info about the importance of simulation boundaries you can read this.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022875/The-Interesting-Thing-About-Bishops
Designing and implementing a feature of the game to support this idea is a questionable use of resources. For more info about the importance of simulation boundaries you can read this.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1022875/The-Interesting-Thing-About-Bishops
- 2
- 1
- 1
Multiplayer
Just because I don't do them doesn't mean someone else won't.
- 1
Those weren't formally declared, either. Congress didn't need to be consulted, because as far as I know, the funding of those conflicts wasn't an issue. In the American system, at least, it's kind of hard for Congress to oppose Presidential use of military force when they can't use the power of the purse to force compliance.
Let's be honest: the system in America is, perhaps unintentionally, designed to give the President some leeway in using military assets as long as budget isn't too big of a concern. Any kind of war that requires the economic mobilization of the kind Germany practiced from 1936 until the end of the war would not be something the President of the United States could get away with in the 1930s and 1940s without Congressional approval. And I think you know that.
But in fairness to the Banana Wars, they were supported by major business interests, implying some support among the population. Or at least the population that matters.
- 2
the american people are very pro war when they feel something is wrong look at spanish american war, ww1 etc it wouldn't be hard for the government to use events of their own making, or if a u boat sinks a us ship say it was the uk.
- 2
No there isn't, at least not in this sense. Both are outside the realm of possibility and plausibility.
Besides, discovering atom bombs by some miracle in '36 had a greater chance then a democratic Canada conquering left and right.
Also, if you still don't understand my point: I brought up the a-bomb to show an other reason why the game needs rules. I was trying to show you how your logic of "if you don't like it, don't use it" is faulty.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Now this is a prime example why one should pay more attention in class.
Difference between democracy and fascism should be obvious.
Last edited:
- 3
Now this is a prime example why one should pay more attention in class. Reading and understanding would come much easier then.
- 2
Please explain then. How was Germany democratic during the game's timeframe?
*gets popcorn*
- 3