Game should punish instead of not allowing

[REDDQ]

The British for example can intervene (requires fascist or communist sentiment) in Scandinavia or Benelux before the Germans start their invasion. This system is pretty strict, but it also offers a more realistic approach than allowing war for everybody against everybody. For example a british invasion of France without major ideological shift is just not realistic in the 1930's.

I agree, it is more realistic. It would basically mean "All hail Mosley! Let's support Hitler's Germany". The advantage of more open system is that it doesn't have spell out to the player that there is such possibility, it can just lurk somewhere in the shadows and kick in when stats are right and player himself is willing. Major political shit would be of course the goal here for which we would have to ideally fight.

 

[Sir Garnet]

To the OP: Paradox can't be in the business of knowingly making a mockery of themselves. That must be left in games to wild-eyed modders and in the real world to the Fates who twist a confluence of improbabilities into the manifestation of "impossibilities."

 

[Peter Wass]

Multiplayer
Just because I don't do them doesn't mean someone else won't.

Better left to house rules than to heavy handed prohibitions. Less scope for unintended consequences.

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.

The wiggle room the president enjoys also gives them a bit of a club against congress. It is harder to withdraw and/or defund, even if you didn't want the action in the first place.

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.

It isn't that I don't understand you, it is that you are wrong. Using something that does not exist is impossible. A different political opinion is improbable. Impossible and improbable do not mean the same thing, however much you insist that they do. Your example shows nothing about my logic because it is not analogous.

 

[Zaku]

It isn't that I don't understand you, it is that you are wrong. Using something that does not exist is impossible. A different political opinion is improbable. Impossible and improbable do not mean the same thing, however much you insist that they do. Your example shows nothing about my logic because it is not analogous.

Let me just steal a picture from an other poster, because it's clear that you don't want to understand my point about the necessity of such rules for gameplay reasons.

View attachment 156574
Nah, I'm done.

 

[Peter Wass]

Again, it is not that the point is not understood, it is that it is wrong.

 

[Zaku]

Again, it is not that the point is not understood, it is that it is wrong.

How can my point about game needing rules can be wrong? If it wouldn't have any rules it would be unplayable. PDS decided that one of those rules is that democracies cant go to war with each other, which is perfectly fine because that didn't happen in WW2.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

How can my point about game needing rules can be wrong? If it wouldn't have any rules it would be unplayable. PDS decided that one of those rules is that democracies cant go to war with each other, which is perfectly fine because that didn't happen in WW2.

Unless you count Great Britain declaring war on Finland, but taking no military action.

 

[Zaku]

Unless you count Great Britain declaring war on Finland, but taking no military action.

Yeah, when the finns entered a fascist(axis) faction.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Yeah, when the finns entered a fascist(axis) faction.

Yeah, after Soviet Union,(future) ally of Great Britain, had a war with Finland.

 

[Zaku]

Yeah, after Soviet Union, ally of Great Britain, had a war with Finland.

Soviet union was a dictatorship, so I don't undersand how this adds anything to the democracy vs democracy arguement.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Soviet union was a dictatorship, so I don't undersand how this adds anything to the democracy vs democracy arguement.

1. Soviet Union attacks Finland.
2. Great Britain allies with Soviet Union, that attacked democratic Finland.

 

[Zaku]

1. Soviet Union attacks Finland.
2. Great Britain allies with Soviet Union, that attacked democratic Finland.


At what date did British actually ally with Soviets?

I ask again, how does this matter in my point that democracies can't attack anybody without a reason? In game terms Finland entered the AXIS faction when they allied with Germany against USSR. (which was at war with UK).

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I ask again, how does this matter in my point that democracies can't attack anybody without a reason. In game terms Finland entered the AXIS faction when they allied with Germany. (which was at war with UK).

You said "can`t go to war", you never specified "without a reason". Had you said that, i would have agreed with you. But you did not say that, so i shortly pointed out that there was technically a war between Finland and Great Britain.
Only technically, since officially war ended something like 1960s, at the same time when Finnish government declared war time laws were no longer in effect or something like that.

There never was argument, we basically were just adding "oh and also this".

 

[Zaku]

You said "can`t go to war", you never specified "without a reason". Had you said that, i would have agreed with you. But you did not say that, so i shortly pointed out that there was technically a war between Finland and Great Britain.

Maybe then you should read my previous posts before butting in.
My whole arguement with Peter Wass, which you answered to, was about the ingame restrictions of such actions.

 

[Secret Master]

The wiggle room the president enjoys also gives them a bit of a club against congress. It is harder to withdraw and/or defund, even if you didn't want the action in the first place.

Unfortunately, I agree with you. It is political suicide to be a member of Congress who wants to defund a military action where the lives of US servicemen are at risk. The next body bag that comes home will be rhetorically laid at the feet of those who acted against the military action in question.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Unfortunately, I agree with you. It is political suicide to be a member of Congress who wants to defund a military action where the lives of US servicemen are at risk. The next body bag that comes home will be rhetorically laid at the feet of those who acted against the military action in question.

To be fair, USA did not exist when Europeans had middle age. And when people came to USA, they came from Europe, so USA did not start from scratch. So USA never had time to be medieval - they need to compensate that somehow.

 

[Death's toe]

Look at it this way. The op is saying a pig should be penalized for attempting to fly. What some of us are trying to say is pigs can't fly. They never will. It is an invalid action for a pig to fly. Designing a penalty for an invalid action doesn't make any sense.

 

[Loke]

Im quite fond of bacon...

 

[Secret Master]

Look at it this way. The op is saying a pig should be penalized for attempting to fly. What some of us are trying to say is pigs can't fly. They never will. It is an invalid action for a pig to fly. Designing a penalty for an invalid action doesn't make any sense.

Or it is a waste of man hours to develop a penalty that more or less prohibits an action when you could just prohibit the action.

 

[jamoecw]

Look at it this way. The op is saying a pig should be penalized for attempting to fly. What some of us are trying to say is pigs can't fly. They never will. It is an invalid action for a pig to fly. Designing a penalty for an invalid action doesn't make any sense.

actually the example that was given was a bit off the mark (US invading canada), but if you instead change that to nationalist china DOW any of the chinese factions (like communist china) instead of relying on the events it becomes much more plausible.

kinda like a pig jumping off a cliff, denying them works most of the time (as it would likely result in death), but sometimes the cliff isn't tall enough to justify the denial.

of course other than say turkey and china i don't know of countries that it was plausible enough or world changing enough to be worth the investment in resources.