Will there be events where there have been like small encounters between border guards that could lead to more WT? Or other small events like this?
War is the continuation of politics by other means. WW2 was a total war, meaning both an economic and a diplomatic one. Without features such as this one in this DD we wouldn't have the hole experience.imho, military aspects of the game should be highly detailed
the rest should be simple
so, it think this feature is not very essential and needed
I'll see you in a month with the next diary, and after that you should be seeing weekly dev diaries leading up to release!
Excellent news. Can we expect 4 Dev diaries after that? 5?
such features will only make the game difficult to fixWar is the continuation of politics by other means. WW2 was a total war, meaning both an economic and a diplomatic one. Without features such as this one in this DD we wouldn't have the hole experience.
We shall see. my list of possible topics is over 25 anyway.
Re: the second screenshot:
I've been looking through the other dev diaries and haven't found a proper answer to this. What benefits are there to isolation as opposed to mobilization? From what I see, for an engaging game, a player would want to power level through that system, so more actions are available.
My question extends a bit into historical realism. The Allies wanted to keep tensions down, to appease, to not increase WT (from the game's standpoint), mostly because they were the "Haves" of the previous war and wanted to prosper. The Axis wanted to keep it down so they wouldn't be DoWed too early, all the while trying to change the "Have Nots" status they had from the previous war.
In EUIV the gameplay systems are set in such a way that playing to history is the way to win - Venice trades, Spain colonizes, etc... More accurately - the owner of the Venice province/trade center would win by trading, and the owner of the Spanish/Portuguese coast would win by colonising.
Does the same happen with WT? I understand the way it works for fascist countries. If you play any fascist country, your gameplay interest is to expand, and keep WT down so you can get away with it. If you do that, you win, similar to what happened historically.
But what's the gameplay interest of a democratic nation?
If I play USA, do I want to heighten WT, in order to move out of isolation and DoW the Axis early, before they get a chance to act? That would be how I would win, and that's not historically accurate.
If I play a minor country, what's my gameplay interest in WT? How does manipulating WT affect my winning?
+1This is great development; bullying mana is a welcome addition to the game, but I think we need to go further. The current party system is far too complex - it's only fair we remove all four parties and add the following:
Good guy party
everyone else
Bad guy party
germany and italy and maybe finland
This is the only system that will streamline the system ergonomically enough for it to be playable for all types of player