Guarantee is dumb

[hkrommel]

To prevent majors interfering in minor actions around the world, you could set the threshold at 25% if a major is involved, 40% if it's a minor fabricating on a minor. It wouldn't help with the China issue, but a Saudi Yemen war or a Peru versus Ecuador fight could work, at least early in the game.

edit - Sorry, the US still has guarantees on the Americas. For the Peru-Ecuador thing to work, Monroe Doctrine would probably have to be restricted to externals-only until WT gets higher.

p.s. (Neither helps historicity THAT much, since the Ecuador-Peru war happened after the world war was raging hot already, but a change like this should help with your particular problem playing no-rules multiplayer.)

Technically the Monroe Doctrine was aimed at external (non-American) nations only, but I'm not sure how this works in-game as I've never looked closely at it. I'm assuming the US just blanket-guarantees all American nations, which is a problem since historically the US only cared about European intervention, not internal American affairs.

 

[browd]

If you play as an American minor, you will see that, notwithstanding the guarantees, the U.S. does not intervene in intra-American wars until it takes the Pax Americana focus. So, as Mexico, for example, you can flip fascist and usually gobble up the Central American minors (although Panama can be tricky because of the way naval invasions around the canal zone work) without U.S. intervention. Of course, you have to monitor WT carefully because the U.S. may justify on you and invade once they shed their various maluses.

 

[hkrommel]

If you play as an American minor, you will see that, notwithstanding the guarantees, the U.S. does not intervene in intra-American wars until it takes the Pax Americana focus. So, as Mexico, for example, you can flip fascist and usually gobble up the Central American minors (although Panama can be tricky because of the way naval invasions around the canal zone work) without U.S. intervention. Of course, you have to monitor WT carefully because the U.S. may justify on you and invade once they shed their various maluses.

That actually makes a lot of sense then if the US doesn't get involved until you build an aggressive Fascist empire. That's good balance.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

If you play as an American minor, you will see that, notwithstanding the guarantees, the U.S. does not intervene in intra-American wars until it takes the Pax Americana focus. So, as Mexico, for example, you can flip fascist and usually gobble up the Central American minors (although Panama can be tricky because of the way naval invasions around the canal zone work) without U.S. intervention. Of course, you have to monitor WT carefully because the U.S. may justify on you and invade once they shed their various maluses.

Thanks for the info. I wondered about that, it was the reason for my original edit.

 

[cat013]

Specifically relating to the 1939 scenario, Stalin wouldn't be under obligation to attack Poland if he hadn't signed the MR pact. Basically he wouldn't be obligated to engage in unjustified aggression without it.

The pact contained no such obligation. Srsly - read it, it is very short text.

 

[hkrommel]

The pact contained no such obligation. Srsly - read it, it is very short text.

It's almost like secret agreements are kept secret . It took the Soviet government until 1989 to acknowledge the secret protocols.

 

[cat013]

Secret protocols contain no such obligation either. Read them, they are even shorter.

 

[hkrommel]

Secret protocols contain no such obligation either. Read them, they are even shorter.

Additional protocol 2 states that "further political developments" would answer the question of whether independent Poland was desirable, immediately preceded by dividing up Polish territory. It's not explicitly stated (and wisely so) but heavily implied that the Soviets and Germans agreed to divide up Poland by force, and given that there are no recordings of verbal communication such assurances likely were given, but cannot be proven.

At this point, however, I am going to cease replying to you. Though, to your credit, you brought up a new argument, it was one of little substance since your burden of evidence is an explicit formal agreement between the Germans and Soviets. The nature of the agreement (that of the forced partitioning of Poland) was that it was not explicitly written, and even if there was no such agreement, that would actually help my argument and hurt yours since then Stalin invaded Poland simply out of a desire to invade Poland, not any sort of obligation. At this juncture you're arguing a point that weakens your case.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Before starting to talk about Poland in 1939 we again need to return to Munich crisis and joint German-Polish aggression against Czechoslovakia.
Poland before it's intervention got the message from Soviet Union that in case of Polish aggression against Czechoslovakia in one form or another Soviet Union considers Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact as dissolved. Poland made it's choice.

 

[cat013]

At this juncture you're arguing a point that weakens your case.

Apparently you have no idea what my case is.

Anyway, now that we have established that your opinion of me is about as bad as my opinion of you, please ask some independent party to explain to you what "non sequitur" is. Using your interpretation of "blah-blah-blah can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments" as a practical example. Because on my planet no court would interpret "in the event of X" clause as an obligation on either party to bring that event about.

 

[Celdur]

More than guarantees being the problem, Total War is the real problem.

Minor vs Minor, if a Major guarantees and joins the war, there has to be a time limit on their intervention, if they cannot dislodge the aggressors then there should be a peace conference like in every other Pdx game.

 

[Slimmins]

Garauntees are fine, its the diplomacy beyond the garuntee that is not. There need to be events beyond the garuntee that require you to maintain a relationship with that country, rather than just having the other country like you like some kinda buffoon. Say Britain is in WW2, losing to Germany. If it goes to war for a country that it guaranteed that isnt being attacked by a member of say the axis, then there should be a drop in national unity whilst that war is being fought. To me this scenario is the other side of the coin, when it comes to the axis randomly opening new fronts when it's losing

The trouble with doing this I suppose is you could just abuse it as a fascist country and simply not join the axis, getting huge before joining and eventually tipping the war in the axis favour much more easily than it would be otherwise

 

[Dalwin]

Garauntees are fine, its the diplomacy beyond the garuntee that is not. There need to be events beyond the garuntee that require you to maintain a relationship with that country, rather than just having the other country like you like some kinda buffoon. Say Britain is in WW2, losing to Germany. If it goes to war for a country that it guaranteed that isnt being attacked by a member of say the axis, then there should be a drop in national unity whilst that war is being fought. To me this scenario is the other side of the coin, when it comes to the axis randomly opening new fronts when it's losing

The trouble with doing this I suppose is you could just abuse it as a fascist country and simply not join the axis, getting huge before joining and eventually tipping the war in the axis favour much more easily than it would be otherwise

The main problem I have with that is that NU is almost meaningless unless you are losing a defensive war. It has no affect other than determining surrender. There would be more teeth to your proposal if it took the form of a national spirit giving -5% to factory output or some such.

 

[Slimmins]

The main problem I have with that is that NU is almost meaningless unless you are losing a defensive war. It has no affect other than determining surrender. There would be more teeth to your proposal if it took the form of a national spirit giving -5% to factory output or some such.

mmm, I don't mean necessarily an NU. But some kind of maintenance and penalty has to go along with guaranteeing other countries