Impossible to start a war as a small nation without great powers interfering.

[SacremPyrobolum]

What you want is making small nations unplayable.

Well what do you mean by playable? You don't always have to shoot to be the world's number 1 undisputed power. In this game especially you can pursue a number of goals whether it be having the highest quality of life or preserving and modernizing old autocracies to survive and thrive in the modern day.

 

[GrounchoVilla]

It would help if logistical problems were more acute and transparent. Britain getting involved in itself isnt unrealistic, but its unlikely Britain could field a large enough army in that part of the world to be entirely decisive on its own. Colonial wars often didnt have massive armies because border areas lacked the logistical capacity for large foreign armies and because the countries weren't interested in paying a large cost (financial or human) for such causes.

 

[Atossa]

Sure, but the great powers propably couldn't care less if one small kingdom goes to war with another.

GP should bully minors, but I might think in a more meaningfull way that actually adds to their goals in the area. An obligation from buganda aint worth much to the brits.

Eh, this actually happened in real life. Two small countries are fighting, someone would ask Britain to join in exchange for concessions. In this case, the Brits share a border, and get something out of it. This seems reasonable of the British if sucky for the minors.

 

[Woifee]

Eh, this actually happened in real life. Two small countries are fighting, someone would ask Britain to join in exchange for concessions. In this case, the Brits share a border, and get something out of it. This seems reasonable of the British if sucky for the minors.

Okay, but at least let UK check if it acutally can add to the war. Makes no sense to jump in a war at victoria lakes but with no connection to any of the war parties.

 

[Atossa]

Okay, but at least let UK check if it acutally can add to the war. Makes no sense to jump in a war at victoria lakes but with no connection to any of the war parties.

That would make sense. In this case though, both parties are next door neighbors to the Brits.

 

[Woifee]

That would make sense. In this case though, both parties are next door neighbors to the Brits.

Sure, but I had this in my Buganda game. Was kinda anoying to wait for UK being ready to make white peace.

 

[Atossa]

That does sound annoying. There should probably be a check to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[Eddie121]

Yes.

Well, WW1 technically was over Serbia, not that huge of a difference.

It was started over Serbia, but once it was won, the Entente were able to draw victory conditions commensurate with the expense in men, treasury and material.
With V3, there is a good chance to have a 40m causality war that ends with Serbia annexing Bosnia, and that's it.

As I said, it is a bit hard to get AI to the point where it`s view on when it should interfere would match everyone`s expectations, but in principle it`s decisions are sound here. If Brits want africa for themselves, they absolutely should interfere in every conflict there, as long as they can get a freebie.

i) There should be limited wars and lesser degrees of intervention, such as sending advisors, sending volunteers, sending part of your army as an expeditionary force.
ii) If a war gets total, the peace should be total and world-transforming too. Ethiopia taking not just Burundi, but a significant share of British possessions in the Middle East.

 

[mursolini]

It was started over Serbia, but once it was won, the Entente were able to draw victory conditions commensurate with the expense in men, treasury and material.
With V3, there is a good chance to have a 40m causality war that ends with Serbia annexing Bosnia, and that's it.

Well, it was paradox decision to do war goal system like that, regardless of how many states join, and size of war. Why not allow multiple wargoals and addition in process is slightly beyond me, but probably the system of "diplomatic plays" didn't work then.

i) There should be limited wars and lesser degrees of intervention, such as sending advisors, sending volunteers, sending part of your army as an expeditionary force.

There "should" be, but there are none, paradox couldn't even copy volunteer mechanic from HOI4. Besides, the lovely building based warfare system can't support providing arms and advisers.

ii) If a war gets total, the peace should be total and world-transforming too. Ethiopia taking not just Burundi, but a significant share of British possessions in the Middle East.

Sure, but we will probably get that in Great war DLC.

 

[Oglesby]

Well, it was paradox decision to do war goal system like that, regardless of how many states join, and size of war. Why not allow multiple wargoals and addition in process is slightly beyond me, but probably the system of "diplomatic plays" didn't work then.

There "should" be, but there are none, paradox couldn't even copy volunteer mechanic from HOI4. Besides, the lovely building based warfare system can't support providing arms and advisers.

Sure, but we will probably get that in Great war DLC.

Does the Great War need to play out as a singular diplo-play - war or could it be multiple (overlapping) diplo-plays progressing to several military actions?

Note: We are straying from the original OP.

 

[mursolini]

Does the Great War need to play out as a singular diplo-play - war or could it be multiple (overlapping) diplo-plays progressing to several military actions?

Note: We are straying from the original OP.

Well, if the intended outcome is Germany capitulates to UK and France, then turns around and beats the crap out of Italy, fighting USA to standstill, then yes, otherwise - no.