Increasing the Allies threat - still a valid tactic?

[Normalguy]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=418374&page=8

I was re-reading the above thread about the use of Diplomacy and Intelligence to 'manage' relationships with such as the USA by Germany. In simple terms this is by a) influencing them and b) raising the Allies threat levels (with spies) to 'force' the USA away from the Allies.

Sounds good to me but then I noticed the comment that in 1.2 the use of spies to increase threat seems ineffective.

Is it confirmed that neutrals dont move so easily to the Allies? Is it therefore a waste of Leadership (spies) to raise the Allies threat levels?

Thoughts?

 

[Darlor]

Setting up a few good trades with the USA is just as effective and frees up spies for more useful tasks. Check the effectiveness of relationships, which trading raises, on the drift.

 

[Rithral]

Raising threat on Poland for example helps get ROM, HUN into the Axis.

Raising France and ENG threat helps get Nat. Spain into the Axis

Raising SOV helps get TUR and FIN into the axis.

This happens by crossing the Neutrality vs Threat line.

The side effect of raising threat is that it slows down neutrals shifting to COM and Allies.

 

[joeenochs]

Raising thread of democratic countries feels like a gamey tactic.

Nobody would have bought it, if Hitler did it with the USA or Switzerland. It might work, if there is a "real" thread like for a Stalin lead Sowjetunion.

I think, the game mechanics should reflect that.

 

[jaxpac]

I agree. And I think the problem might be the fact that there appear to be general "threat" levels and then also mutual "threat" levels between countries. So raising threat of USSR should increase the threat to Finland a lot more than the threat to Brazil. It may already do something like this but it is hard to know the exact mechanics.

 

[JimboOmega]

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=418374&page=8

I was re-reading the above thread about the use of Diplomacy and Intelligence to 'manage' relationships with such as the USA by Germany. In simple terms this is by a) influencing them and b) raising the Allies threat levels (with spies) to 'force' the USA away from the Allies.

Sounds good to me but then I noticed the comment that in 1.2 the use of spies to increase threat seems ineffective.

Is it confirmed that neutrals dont move so easily to the Allies? Is it therefore a waste of Leadership (spies) to raise the Allies threat levels?

Thoughts?

I think it is useful to give the allies enough threat to keep neutral countries (like USA) stuck in the middle, bouncing of allied and German threat, even once the war is going and German threat is high.

I imagine diplomacy will be rworked again in the next patch though

 

[bbasgen]

I did a raise threat game right after 1.2 came out as Germany for France and England. It resulted in absolutely no tangible benefit that I could notice. In other words, the threat level they had in 1939 (with 10 spies doing threat since 1936) was tiny, and did not bother any of their neighbors.

 

[JimboOmega]

I did a raise threat game right after 1.2 came out as Germany for France and England. It resulted in absolutely no tangible benefit that I could notice. In other words, the threat level they had in 1939 (with 10 spies doing threat since 1936) was tiny, and did not bother any of their neighbors.

This is true - it should be noted that spies will never come close (even with 10 spies in multiple allied countries) to the threat Germany generates with historical warmongering. Nor will spy-generated threat overwhelm diplomatic influence.

Of course they *can* overcome drift due to ideological similarity, or good relations, in some cases. Which can be very important, since the AI doesn't do much diplomatic influencing. They thus create just enough push to keep someone from sliding into the allied corner very easily.

 

[Normalguy]

The sense I am getting is that in versions earlier that 1.2 increasing threat levels was an effective, even essential tactic. In 1.2 it is still a valid tactic but the effect is much less and more of a 'nice to have'.

I take the point about it not being very historical to make out that the UK is the Great Satan in order to 'frighten' the US towards Germany. The reality was that the only thing stopping the US getting involved in the war earlier was the US itself ie their own internal political situation. Having said that both Axis and the Allies used overt and covert means to influence US opinion via Diplomatic and 'other' means. Perhaps the use of Influence (diplomats) and Propaganda = Changing threat levels (spies) in the game is quite a good way to model things?

This is even more true when one looks at the Anschluss not to mention the Sudetenland events. Germany used many methods to stimulate the situations including supporting 'their party', propaganda and general diplomatic obsfucation (not only in the target country but throughout Europe and the world generally). In fact the more I think about it, what's wrong with using the non-military forces (diplomats and spies) available to us in the game more to get people on our 'side'?

 

[Forgiven]

Raising thread of democratic countries feels like a gamey tactic.

Nobody would have bought it, if Hitler did it with the USA or Switzerland. It might work, if there is a "real" thread like for a Stalin lead Sowjetunion.

I think, the game mechanics should reflect that.

I think, the game mechanics reflect that closely enough, the threat spies can cause is nothing like what starting a single war causes (From what I remeber getting france to 20 (50% of a war) took at least 2 years). On to your 'nobody would have bought it' .. Really? France and Poland were holding 'German territory', everyone was building military on some level in europe, assigning it as threath wouldn't be that hard... History books give very one sided view, sure I don't mean to imply they are wrong as such, just that it's never as one sided as it is painted by victors. And especially that 'Nobody would have bought it' part, really, you seem to neglect how controlled and easy to 'manipulate' flows of information were back then, there was no internet for alternative source of news for example.

Being democratic is no reason not to be viewed as a threath, just look what is happening at this moment, if I'd have to assign most threatening countries, I'd probably rate USA right after Russia, and that's just because I happen to be neighbor to one and not across ocean, ask Iranian and I bet USA comes first on that list (now that Iraq ain't there anymore, really).

If anything in threath system should still be changed, it would be to remove the ability to raise 'global' threath of neutral countries that are too small to threathen anyone (Denmark with division or two can't really be painted as jingoist agressor to .. well, anyone that lives anywhere with atleast one free newspaper.)

Another Quote; "The reality was that the only thing stopping the US getting involved in the war earlier was the US itself ie their own internal political situation." -->> As in beeing isolationist and seeing (all) europeans as warmongers consider that as threath effect from france/brits?

 

[GLENN]

I feel that raising threat to Denmark is now a detriment as Sweden and Norway and Finland move into the Allied camp too fast.

When I don't raise Denmarks threat I can make the game close to historical.

 

[Kovax]

The toning down of the effects of Threat and Influence in the 1.2 patch were a good thing, and at least now it has the "feel" of diplomacy rather than a rat race to grab the most countries for your faction. At most, I could see a little more tweaking to allow countries with a strong set of historical ties to be more heavily influenced by each other, so Australia and Canada for instance don't go racing toward the Axis corner with just a little bit of prodding. The effect of Threat, mainly by making it just a bit harder to overcome that "close" penalty, isn't a dramatic one, but can be important in an otherwise close situation where Influence and Relations aren't enough.

The present configuration has Canada becoming a diplomatic Influence "tug of war" object for UK, GER, and SU, usually pulling it somewhere half-way to the middle of the triangle by 1940. It's not so much a matter of Influence not working well as it is a matter of priorities. The SU AI shouldn't be trying to pull Canada away from the Allies, because it's outside their sphere of influence and historically not closely tied in the first place. If the starting Relations were a little closer to realistic, it could be used to modify Influence.

 

[Normalguy]

The toning down of the effects of Threat and Influence in the 1.2 patch were a good thing, and at least now it has the "feel" of diplomacy rather than a rat race to grab the most countries for your faction. At most, I could see a little more tweaking to allow countries with a strong set of historical ties to be more heavily influenced by each other, so Australia and Canada for instance don't go racing toward the Axis corner with just a little bit of prodding. The effect of Threat, mainly by making it just a bit harder to overcome that "close" penalty, isn't a dramatic one, but can be important in an otherwise close situation where Influence and Relations aren't enough.

The present configuration has Canada becoming a diplomatic Influence "tug of war" object for UK, GER, and SU, usually pulling it somewhere half-way to the middle of the triangle by 1940. It's not so much a matter of Influence not working well as it is a matter of priorities. The SU AI shouldn't be trying to pull Canada away from the Allies, because it's outside their sphere of influence and historically not closely tied in the first place. If the starting Relations were a little closer to realistic, it could be used to modify Influence.

Well put I know the game is about letting alternate histories play out but the starting point does need to be believable.

 

[unmerged(3221)]

As Germany, I use threat on about every other European country in an effort not only to keep them out of the Allies, but also to break up those annoying minor alliances. Last game Greece and Romania allied, Greece DoW Italy, Italy never took out Albania, and I could not get Italy or Romania into the Axis later on [by then my warmongering was the real threat]. This game I got a few minor countries up to 20+ threat [Hungary, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden] and then switched them to another Intel mission. The only Allies are France, UK, Poland [GiE], and South Africa in Aug 39, and Italy is in the Axis fighting with me.

 

[joeenochs]

Being democratic is no reason not to be viewed as a threath, just look what is happening at this moment, if I'd have to assign most threatening countries, I'd probably rate USA right after Russia, and that's just because I happen to be neighbor to one and not across ocean, ask Iranian and I bet USA comes first on that list (now that Iraq ain't there anymore, really).

You have some point with USA and Iran. But notice we talk about the threat exerted by a democratic country (USA) on a non democratic country here (and vice versa).
Name two truely democratic countries which view each other as a threat and I think you will see, it is not so easy to support the kind of anything goes view you seem to be proposing.

 

[rommel7]

Has anyone tried upping Italy's threat level as Germany in a '36 start? That could make it easier to get E. Europe into the Axis (or just make it easier to invade Italy after Anschluss).

What about trying to go way ahistorical and upping Russia in an effort to get Poland into the Axis?

 

[unmerged(152940)]

Name two truely democratic countries which view each other as a threat and I think you will see, it is not so easy to support the kind of anything goes view you seem to be proposing.

Here's some food for thought: Paquisha War
There's also the long history of tension between more or less democratic Ireland and Great Britain.
The US has overthrown elected democratic governments it felt threatened its interests, such as Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran.
Serbia and Croatia had elections in 1991 that were free, yet they were both involved in the chaos that resulted from the collapse of Yugoslavia.
The Kargil War between India and Pakistan happened when both were democracies.

Short version: democracies can and do go to war with one another. Is it more rare? Could be. But it does happen.