Gaming world tension as the USSR

[Kovax]

Why twice? Start with a monarchy or other fascist government, make a few land grabs, then change (once) to a democracy. After the initial disruption, you then get to join and help the soon-to-be victorious allies, confirming your ill-gotten gains. If you're lucky, you even get to keep or administer a piece of the former Axis.

 

[potski]

Allies know Italy will declear war on Ethopia what will stop a player from guaranteeing Ethopia to knock out Italy before it even joins the Axis if world tension is inflated. Now this mechanic is mainly an axis v allies mechanic. The allies benefit from it from it being high why the axis want to keep it low untill they are ready for war. Russia from what we have seen has no direct relation to world tension, so it doesn't care wether its low or high, now thier natural enemy is hurt from it from being high so therefore they want it high.

The Second Italo-Ethiopian War began on 3 October 1935. It was already in progress when the game starts on 1 Jan 1936. It's not possible for anyone to guarantee Ethiopia in the game, because guarantees have to be made before war starts.

We have not seen at all that the Soviets have "no direct relation to world tension", only that their actions affect WT less. Specifically as they prefer puppetting over annexation, then the result of conquests produces less WT.

Why would the Soviets not care? The Allies can guarantee targets of threats by the Soviets. They will know the Soviets are fabricating a claim, before any DoW takes place, So they have plenty of time to decide whether to intervene and issue a guarantee, as long as WT is high enough.

 

[potski]

Why not grab Denmark immediately at the start as Germany and (presumingly raise WT to around 25%)? Unless there is a scripted (historic?) guarantee, this would go unchallenged. And if one assumes that someone else raises WT soon (before 1939), there is no punishment for this in the WT-mechanic.

WT is not a punishment mechanic. It is a limiting factor on democracies and neutrals. It stops them making early DoWs and issuing guarantees, sending volunteers etc.

Assuming WT wasn't high enough to allow the Allies to intervene in Denmark, then, yes, nothing would happen if Germany fabricates a claim against Denmark and DoWs at the start of the game. Exactly as intended.

But entirely wrong if WT is high enough already. The Allies AI don't need a scripted guarantee event to tell them to try to prevent Germany from attacking Denmark. Denmark is a democracy, has good relations with the Allies, is not very far away, and occupies a strategic position that can block access to the Baltic. The Allies have every reason to try to prevent Germany attacking Denmark.

 

[potski]

Bottom line: I hope there is a mechanism (maybe "relation") that tracks aggressive actions nation-wise, not only globally, as it would be somewhat reduce the possibility for unplausible results

Eh? There are individual relations between countries, that are separate from WT.

 

[kalauer]

WT is not a punishment mechanic. It is a limiting factor on democracies and neutrals. It stops them making early DoWs and issuing guarantees, sending volunteers etc.

But yes it is a punishment to aggressive nations. It is, and I quote from DD16:"For fascist expansionist powers World Tension is your enemy."

This does not even contradict what you said afterwards: The punishment for the aggressive nations is exactly the higher involvement of those bound to stop them, neutrals and democracies. In case you object to the terminology rather than the meaning; let's call it "consequence".

Assuming WT wasn't high enough to allow the Allies to intervene in Denmark, then, yes, nothing would happen if Germany fabricates a claim against Denmark and DoWs at the start of the game. Exactly as intended.

Why do you think it was intended? It works that way now:

You grab Denmark in 1936: nothing happens.
You grab it in 1937 (meanwhile Japan annexed China and raised WT): France/GB already guaranteed it -> WW2 starts.

So the effect of your actions depends very much on an event totally unrelated to the actions in the region. As stated, this incentivizes early land grabs and gamey approaches to war/ build-up approaches. Each aggressive nation would hurry to grab what they can before WT reaches guarantee-level thus yielding very ahistorical developments. This is only alleviated by the historical focus of the AI, essentially letting the AI of aggressive nations neglect WT (as far as I understand it) and do what they are scripted to do (e.g.AI Germany not getting Denmark immediately, although it would be the "smart" thing to do).

But entirely wrong if WT is high enough already. The Allies AI don't need a scripted guarantee event to tell them to try to prevent Germany from attacking Denmark. Denmark is a democracy, has good relations with the Allies, is not very far away, and occupies a strategic position that can block access to the Baltic. The Allies have every reason to try to prevent Germany attacking Denmark.

As we have seen, in Hungary WWW, democracies start guaranteeing in reaction to claims. And while I agree that relations should be relevant in this, we do not know why France guarantees. Because they don't like Germany or do like Denmark? Because they have a modifier valueing the strategic position of Denmark high? Or just because they are able to and Denmark is near?

You merely assume that all these factors are included. And I do hope they are. But as far as we know, France's actual guarantee may very well depend on whether Japan annexed China yet or not. Their willingness has no influence on their action unless WT raises high enough. And it also seems unrelated to who raised WT, once it is high enough (unless relations among the involved countries really do matter, which, again, I hope very much; and actions raising WT harm these relations) .

Eh? There are individual relations between countries, that are separate from WT.

Yes there are. But it is unclear whether they are influenced by actions raising WT. And whether they are included in the calculation of e.g. a guarantee-decision (so France guaranteeing against Germany more likely if Germany was aggressive before).

 

[Kovax]

One of the biggest issues I have with HOI3 is that Relations, Trade, Threat, and various other key factors play no part in a lot of the decisions and events. Too many of the triggers are strictly "If A, then B", or a random chance of B with no modifiers, or occur randomly no matter the situation. Having modified random chances (little or no chance if the modifiers are against it, very likely or inevitable if everything points toward it) helps keep the game making sense for the current situation, rather than always doing the same things for exactly the same single reason, regardless of everything else saying that it's stupid.

Case 1: Czech refusal for First Vienna. There is a random (10%?) chance in the later expansions of HOI3 that the Czechs will refuse. That 10% chance is not affected by Germany's troop strength versus Czech, nor by the current Relations between Germany and Czechoslovakia, or even whether or not France, the UK, or the SU have a guarantee on the independence of Czechoslovakia. The current situation simply does not affect the odds of the event occurring. That, in my opinion, is the WRONG way to program an event.

Case 2: Various dissent and political strength events. Other than a few specific cases, it doesn't matter whether your National Unity is 90 or 30, whether the ruling party is revered by the masses or treading on thin ice, most of the random events will still occur at the same frequency. Countries on the brink of civil war or mass uprisings should be hit by such events far more frequently than those with stable and contented populations. Removing Dissent should be important, not just as a negative modifier to productivity; coupled with low National Unity, it should result in occasional revolts or other issues even in your core lands, if left unchecked.

The same goes for WT and the response to it. There needs to be more to it than just high WT causing an Allied buildup and guarantees. We don't know the details, but if it's a simple formula, then it's probably not going to accurately reflect the current political and military situation in the campaign.

 

[R1ob7]

If you look at the end of www the axis defeated Hungry by declearing war on Greece. These are the sort of shenanigans I am talking about. Or how about getting the USSR at war with the allies by invading Lithuania. I am just going to infer what happened there, Germany declares on Lithuania putting the with the allies Russia takesNI to annex the baltic states. It fires before Germany conquers Lithuania so Russia conqueers Lithuania which is in a war with the allies putting them at war with the USSR. This is the sort of gaming the system I was talking about you are able to get people fighting your enemies by declaring wars on third parties is that really working as intended, and it might be because some one can make the argument that it was a smart move by a.i Germany to bring Russia into the war nominally on thier side. I just think its a bit gamey.

Edit: btw Germany declears war on lithuainia because imho of the high WT they couldn't claim memmel

 

[Dalnar]

Is it really gamey, or it just ahistorical for you? I think from MP point it's pretty neat that surprises like this can happen. Knowing the focuses of your opponents, denying requirements for important foci and such is more of a strategy than gamey gameplay to me.

I personally like it very much, because it will make FFA MP games really interesting.

 

[R1ob7]

The issue isn't that its ahistorical the issue is its gamey to get alllies by declaring wars on second or third parties. The italy thing I think isn't that bad and actually if it wasn't because of national ideas I would say was a smart move. The thing with Russia I can see to be open for abuse, Germany declares war on a baltic state and sits and watches the fireworks instead of trying to conqueer them.

Edit think of it this way would a country stay at war with a nation to get 2 other nations to go to war, it really doesn't make sense.

 

[GrafKeks]

You only need to take one country as Russia, and that's Romania, if you take it you have won. I am sure this can be done even without raising world tension against you, and you won't need to raise it either since you'll have all the oil of europe pretty much.

Except for the tonnes of oil Germany has in storage already

 

[kalauer]

The issue isn't that its ahistorical the issue is its gamey to get alllies by declaring wars on second or third parties. The italy thing I think isn't that bad and actually if it wasn't because of national ideas I would say was a smart move. The thing with Russia I can see to be open for abuse, Germany declares war on a baltic state and sits and watches the fireworks instead of trying to conqueer them.

Edit think of it this way would a country stay at war with a nation to get 2 other nations to go to war, it really doesn't make sense.

Italy was a problem, as fas as I am concerned: There where australian troops (allies), fighting together with axis against hungary, while their faction members fought each others. All because Italy was not called into the axis-allies war. Very weird. Maybe faction members should be called automatically when fighting against another faction? Although that would open other Problems. But factions members should definitely not fight on the same side when the factions are at war.

I guess SU was already at war with Lithuania? And then, when Germany declared war on Lithuania, it joined the allies. This does seem weird also. Maybe the allies should have had a negative modifier in this case, regarding taking Lithuania in, for getting dragged into another big war. I mean, going to war with SU when one has the entire Axis already to take care of; just to save Lithuania? Seems unreasonable.

 

[potski]

I haven't seen the latest WWW, which sounds very interesting

If the sequence of events in the Baltic States is what you say, then that would be a bug. The Soviet NF to take the Baltic States should only be available if:
- SOV have signed M-R Pact
- BS are not in any faction
- BS exist
- BS are not in a war

Before seeing the video I don't understand the references to Italy, Greece etc. But what I will say is that Daniel has gone all ahistoric. In the sandbox mode that then occurs, if the responses of the Allies are plausible, then there is no issue. It was entirely plausible for France to guarantee Yugoslavia, and so enter the war. If the UK later guaranteed Greece, when threatened by Hungary, and so entered the war, then I find that very plausible. And the fact that they didn't operate in tandem, but made their decisions separately based on different factors, proves that there is no automatic knee-jerk reaction to the next aggressive country once WT passes a certain level.

 

[R1ob7]

I am making a lot of assumtions on what happens but Germany goes to war with Lithuaia, I assume because of claims on memel you just get the notifaction of war. Then you see The USSR goes to war with the allies when he scrolls up to that region you see Russia has the baltics but alsona Russia enclave in German held territory while they are at peace, I could be wrong but from that what I am inferring that the Russain focus firef before Germany conqeered Lithuania. They never went into why this happened they were just reveling in the chaos. I don't even think they noticed this seris of events.

 

[R1ob7]

Also I just thought this what happened in ths WWW is the exact senario I was talking about Germany did nothing to raise world tensions execpt occupy the Rhineland and send some expeditionary forces and the first agreesive action they take gets the allies to declear war on them. And for those of you who haven't watched it they reverted back before the war with Romania and he didn't join the axis.

 

[Dalnar]

Perhaps Germany was making claim against Danemark (we didn't see it) and thanks to the WT, UK guaranteed it ?

 

[kalauer]

Also I just thought this what happened in ths WWW is the exact senario I was talking about Germany did nothing to raise world tensions execpt occupy the Rhineland and send some expeditionary forces and the first agreesive action they take gets the allies to declear war on them. And for those of you who haven't watched it they reverted back before the war with Romania and he didn't join the axis.

Perhaps Germany was making claim against Danemark (we didn't see it) and thanks to the WT, UK guaranteed it ?

Germany declared war against poland, which was guaranteed by UK (quoting Daniel @ 30:00 ), although it Looks to me, France was guaranteeing. This raised WT to 100%, making some other nations join factions, among them Romania (which hampered Daniel's efforts, and then Poland itself).

So yes, this is an instance of whatwe talked about: Due to the raised WT, Poland was guaranteed, which started WW2 effectively (though ahistoric). If Hungary wasn't going aggressive, WT might have been low enough for Germany to DOW Poland before it was guaranteed. (Nevermind here, that if going historic, WT should be high enough in 1939 to guarantee Poland.)


edit: Update on Lithuania: They joined Allies after got DoW by Germany @34:25. My best guess is that SU somehow got into war with Allies shortly before the Polish Occupation Event of the MR-Pact fired, when poland capitulated. This is the Moment Daniel noticed it. And by the look of Lithuania at this Point, they have not been at war with SU for long. In fact, I guess the SU did not even want Lithuania, as the only battles going on there are from german territory.

 

[Dalnar]

Ok, but this was caused by player behaviour, not the AI. So how would you solve that?

 

[kalauer]

Ok, but this was caused by player behaviour, not the AI. So how would you solve that?

In SP, it is Kind of the player's decision whether he wants to exploit that, so one can live with it for release. But in General, the global stat WT should be accompanied by a close connection to who raised it. So SU or Japan raising WT does not make it significantly (maybe somewhat) harder for Germany to attack its neighbors (or vice-versa).

But this , as stated several times already, would mean getting back to the individual threat-System of HoI3. Which is obviously not intended.

 

[Dalnar]

The problem is, we see a single player game and its events, but would the game look same in MP ? What if someone controlled Germany or SU ? Would they have a chance to intervene to keep WT in check ?

 

[kalauer]

The problem is, we see a single player game and its events, but would the game look same in MP ? What if someone controlled Germany or SU ? Would they have a chance to intervene to keep WT in check ?

Besides doing nothing themselves? No. You can not stop anyone declaring war, only declare war on them, which would also raise WT. Maybe make them capitulate and release the nations they annexed but I guess it would not matter anymore by then.

In MP, this can be abused. But then again, MP are hardly going historical anyhow.