Guarantee is dumb

[rust95]

Czechoslovakia was one of very very few (two, to be exact) countries that factually had Western guarantees, AND it was in a position to really contribute should the West have decided to stop Hitler early on - but the future Allies preferred to go Munich instead. So, yes, I personally do have a problem with UK and France jolly jumping into wars over Estonia or Bolivia.

USA guarantee the independence of Bolivia at games opening, as they did in real life.

You seem to be stuck between saying the games not realistic for adding guarantees whilst advocating a minor expanding to world dominance in the space of 10 years, in which case ask yourself what is more problematic? I can't imagine how you'd have felt on HoI 3 where it was really difficult for minors to aggressively expand as it was in real life!

 

[rust95]

Therefore the Allies guaranteeing China very early on still counts as a problem and turning a blind eye to the issue putting the blame on the players doesn't solve the issue. Sure people are free to blame the OP but I'm certain that he is not the only one abusing said mechanic so I believe that it is time for a fix.

No it doesn't. It means the axis haven't managed WT properly, which is part of the game. If there had been mass fascist expansionism in a single year prior to the Japanese invasion of China, is it really unfathomable that the allies would vow to defend the integrity of China, considering that the USA basically caused war with Japan by embargoing them for China in our timeline?

 

[Misaka_Complex]

No it doesn't. It means the axis haven't managed WT properly, which is part of the game. If there had been mass fascist expansionism in a single year prior to the Japanese invasion of China, is it really unfathomable that the allies would vow to defend the integrity of China, considering that the USA basically caused war with Japan by embargoing them for China in our timeline?

Doesn't have to be Axis, any fascist or Communist country can rush one of its neighbors early on and you can easily get over 25% WT. I've seen the Soviet Union rush Poland/Romania/Turkey in 1936 which has nothing to do with Axis or fascists expanding. The USA embargo didn't happen in 1937 when the 2nd Sino Japanese war started, and to be fair USA needs Japan to cause certain amounts on the world tension meter for them to be able to embargo Japan. They would not embargo Japan simply because another nation in Europe decided to expand their lands, so yes it is dumb for any Allied power to guarantee China just because another country decided to expand in Europe. Your case would be true if Japan or any country in an alliance with Japan had entered a phase of aggressive expansion prior to the 2nd Sino Japanese War but let's not forget that neither Japan nor Italy was in a faction with Germany before the 2nd Sino Japanese war.

 

[rust95]

Doesn't have to be Axis, any fascist or Communist country can rush one of its neighbors early on and you can easily get over 25% WT. I've seen the Soviet Union rush Poland/Romania/Turkey in 1936 which has nothing to do with Axis or fascists expanding. The USA embargo didn't happen in 1937 when the 2nd Sino Japanese war started, and to be fair USA needs Japan to cause certain amounts on the world tension meter for them to be able to embargo Japan. They would not embargo Japan simply because another nation in Europe decided to expand their lands, so yes it is dumb for any Allied power to guarantee China just because another country decided to expand in Europe. Your case would be true if Japan or any country in an alliance with Japan had entered a phase of aggressive expansion prior to the 2nd Sino Japanese War but let's not forget that neither Japan nor Italy was in a faction with Germany before the 2nd Sino Japanese war.

Okay. So your point is if you're playing in a public game where fascist Iran is DoW the entire ME and Communiust Yugoslavia has annexed the Balkans in 1937 the allies shouldn't be able to guarantee anyone because those nations arent in a faction. Fair enough. I guess at that point the WT mechanic is pretty useless though.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

Okay. So your point is if you're playing in a public game where fascist Iran is DoW the entire ME and Communiust Yugoslavia has annexed the Balkans in 1937 the allies shouldn't be able to guarantee anyone because those nations arent in a faction. Fair enough. I guess at that point the WT mechanic is pretty useless though.

Eh no, that's what the OP wants not me. My point as I have posted earlier is that the Allies shouldn't be able to guarantee China and trigger World War 2 in 1937. Unlike the Asian theater the Allies would actually be more interested in Balkan affairs and the Soviets are more likely to intervene in the Middle East as opposed to the Allies. The main question here is would the Allies really be willing to wage war against Japan on the sole basis that they have expanded their empire into China? If that was the case WW2 would've started in 1937 so it clearly shows that the Allies had no interest in engaging in a direct armed conflict with Japan solely for China.

 

[cat013]

USA guarantee the independence of Bolivia at games opening, as they did in real life.

Your understanding of how it worked seems to be flawed. In 1941 Peru declared war on Ecuador and occupied part of its territory without any US intervention. Because declaring a war and threatening some country's independence are very different things.

This is not to mention that we are talking British-French guarantee spam here, not US.

You seem to be stuck between saying the games not realistic for adding guarantees whilst advocating a minor expanding to world dominance in the space of 10 years, in which case ask yourself what is more problematic? I can't imagine how you'd have felt on HoI 3 where it was really difficult for minors to aggressively expand as it was in real life!

And you seem to be assuming too much about my feelings. I believe that Albanian WC should be inherently difficult, as opposed to some lame crutches and flawed mechanics.

 

[hkrommel]

Czechoslovakia was one of very very few (two, to be exact) countries that factually had Western guarantees, AND it was in a position to really contribute should the West have decided to stop Hitler early on - but the future Allies preferred to go Munich instead. So, yes, I personally do have a problem with UK and France jolly jumping into wars over Estonia or Bolivia.

You ever hear about the Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt Corollary? Yeah you don't mess around in the Americas unless you want the USA involved.

And Munich was waaay more complicated than you as Turkey going "hey Bulgaria I'm gonna annex you ok?" It was between majors, to begin with, involved a German ethnic majority in a region of a country where they were a minority, etc. Chamberlain still shouldn't have appeased Hitler but you're talking about blatant "I want this country now" aggression. I don't see how that's remotely comparable.

 

[Dalwin]

Eh no, that's what the OP wants not me. My point as I have posted earlier is that the Allies shouldn't be able to guarantee China and trigger World War 2 in 1937. Unlike the Asian theater the Allies would actually be more interested in Balkan affairs and the Soviets are more likely to intervene in the Middle East as opposed to the Allies. The main question here is would the Allies really be willing to wage war against Japan on the sole basis that they have expanded their empire into China? If that was the case WW2 would've started in 1937 so it clearly shows that the Allies had no interest in engaging in a direct armed conflict with Japan solely for China.

I have to disagree. It is not balanced to deny this to the democracies while allowing the fascist and communists free reign for early expansion.

WT and guarantees are part of the game. Playing MP with no house rules is a valid option, but there are good reasons why many choose instead to have house rules.

 

[Dalwin]

Your understanding of how it worked seems to be flawed. In 1941 Peru declared war on Ecuador and occupied part of its territory without any US intervention. Because declaring a war and threatening some country's independence are very different things.

This is not to mention that we are talking British-French guarantee spam here, not US.

The Monroe Doctrine was to prevent outsiders, primarily Europeans, from taking aggressive acts in the Western Hemisphere. It was not designed to stop all nations in the Western Hemisphere from being able to settle their own disputes.

 

[cat013]

Yes, I totally expected somebody to answer that it was because US government hadn't completed Pax Americana NF yet.

 

[Dalwin]

Yes, I totally expected somebody to answer that it was because US government hadn't completed Pax Americana NF yet.

Sorry if I disappointed you.

There is only one time that I recall, at least during my lifetime, seeing the Monroe Doctrine put to the test. That was during the Falkland conflict between Britain and Argentina. In this case Britain was not the aggressor, but if they had tried to expand the conflict to the Argentine mainland, things would have gotten complicated.

During my military service I had the somewhat unique experience of having delivered briefings to the top military commanders of both sides in that particular conflict (separately of course.) Both sides were our allies.

 

[hkrommel]

The Monroe Doctrine was to prevent outsiders, primarily Europeans, from taking aggressive acts in the Western Hemisphere. It was not designed to stop all nations in the Western Hemisphere from being able to settle their own disputes.

Quick addition: the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine states that, in effect, if a European nation has a legitimate issue with an American country (at the time it was mostly nationalistic leaders stating that all debts are null and void/seizing assets of foreign investors) then the US will negotiate and enforce a settlement. The goal was to avoid European forces occupying any nation in the Americas where they weren't already present.

 

[rust95]

Sorry if I disappointed you.

There is only one time that I recall, at least during my lifetime, seeing the Monroe Doctrine put to the test. That was during the Falkland conflict between Britain and Argentina. In this case Britain was not the aggressor, but if they had tried to expand the conflict to the Argentine mainland, things would have gotten complicated.

During my military service I had the somewhat unique experience of having delivered briefings to the top military commanders of both sides in that particular conflict (separately of course.) Both sides were our allies.

...You delivered briefs to Argentine Command during the Falklands War?

 

[Dalwin]

...You delivered briefings to the Argentine command during the Falklands War?

Yes I did. Specifically to the Argentine Minister of Defense, but my briefing was not about the war itself. It was more about the situation regarding US preparedness in general. Mine was also not a classified briefing. It was given to all incoming staff officers at ForceCom HQ as well as to civilian groups such as the American Legion. It was a public affairs presentation.

 

[rust95]

Yes I did. Specifically to the Argentine Minister of Defense, but my briefing was not about the war itself. It was more about the situation regarding US preparedness in general. Mine was also not a classified briefing. It was given to all incoming staff officers at ForceCom HQ as well as to civilian groups such as the American Legion. It was a public affairs presentation.

Interesting that you view the Fascist Argentine Military Junta under Galtieri in the same light as you hold the UK. "Both allies" eh.

With friends like those.

 

[Dalwin]

You assume a lot there friend. For one thing I do not make foreign policy at the state level. For another, as a soldier I do what I am told. Thirdly both being allies in no way makes them the same or implies that I or my country has the same attitude toward the two. It did mean that we had to go out of our way to not take sides in that conflict.

This was also about the time the Wall was coming down. Even you would likely admit that regime was anti-communist.

I could add another dozen reasons to the list about how you are just plain wrong, but as it is the thread is probably headed toward lock now. That is unfortunate. I suppose haters gotta hate.

 

[rust95]

You assume a lot there friend. For one thing I do not make foreign policy at the state level. For another, as a soldier I do what I am told. Thirdly both being allies in no way makes them the same or implies that I or my country has the same attitude toward the two. It did mean that we had to go out of our way to not take sides in that conflict.

This was also about the time the Wall was coming down. Even you would likely admit that regime was anti-communist.

I could add another dozen reasons to the list about how you are just plain wrong, but as it is the thread is probably headed toward lock now. That is unfortunate. I suppose haters gotta hate.

Perhaps I was incorrect to assume and misconstrued what you meant when you stated:

"Both sides were our allies"

To refer to a fascist Argentinian dictatorship which waged a war of aggression against a member of NATO leading to the death of 600 servicemen of that member as an equal ally of one of the USAs oldest military partners can come across as insulting, is all.

 

[Dalwin]

I will accept that as an apology.

If it means anything, his British counterpart, Sir General (whatever his name was specifically, Michael Grey, IIRC) was the much more personable of the two. I was not the briefing officer, I was the enlisted technical wiz behind the screen running the multi-media presentation to make the officer look good. The British general went out of his way to request to come back and meet me. Few do that.

 

[rust95]

I will accept that as an apology.

In doing so you accept that you did not mean to equate the British and the Fascist Argentines who waged a war of aggression against your ally in the process killing 600 of that allies servicemen. In which case, i'm glad this misunderstanding was cleared up.

 

[Opanashc]

Interesting that you view the Fascist Argentine Military Junta under Galtieri in the same light as you hold the UK. "Both allies" eh.
With friends like those.

Whose words were "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch"?