Slyloki said:
Completely irrelevant to the period of Victoria. I don't recall Disraeli unleashing WMD on anyone :wacko:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Completely irrelevant to the period of Victoria. I don't recall Disraeli unleashing WMD on anyone :wacko:
Derek Pullem said:
Derek, you are a smart guy, why do you have to act stupid by intentionally missing the point every single time in this case?!
They didn't really field fighting units of 10,000 man strong either, the logistics alone of shipping such a unit from the UK to India would be madness.
Not to mention the instant reinforcements (paratrooping) half a world away.
But you don't have a problem with that do you?
Would what we are proposing here really spoil the game more than the current obstinate refusal of the AI to do anything about having sand kicked in it's face?
And, sly, as long as you're taking potshots here, I'll point out that DEFCON 5 is actually the most relaxed, peaceful DEFCON.
Chris1959
Victoria is a GAME based upon a period of history. This is it's great strength and weakness.
We want to see history changed, France win in 1870, Mexico beat USA, Russia colonise the Pacific, whatever is our particular fantasy.
Trouble is once one thing changes so does all that follows. All that one can do is to ensure that your basic mechanics are reasonably historical. Breech loaders, Ironclads, Railways etc appear within in say + or - 10 years of when they actually happened. The mechanics of colonisation should mirror history in how it happened, the fun is that it should not be restricted to who actually did it. If Bavaria wants Ironclads OK, if the Papal States want an African colony OK. What should not happen is a breaking of the realities of C19th technology and politics. And one fact is that there were perceived ways that the "Family of Nations" behaved and how they saw themselves in the eyes of the world, and the nature of alliances and relationships that existed.
Claimed colonies of civilised nations could not be targets of attack for another nation without a general war between them and their allies. Attacking and seizing land from uncivillised nations was acceptable, especially if they had no friends.
The Spanish -American war is touted as being a colonial war it wasn't, it was a war between Spain and the USA it was just fought in the colonies, America got what she wanted because Spain's "war exhaustion" was such she could not hope to win, and American victory did not upset the perceived European balance of power.
To use Syloki's argument the Cuban missle crisis shows how you can't just have a colonial war. The USSR wanted to make Cuba a "colony", for the US this was unacceptable and they were willing to go to all out war to prevent it, the USSR backed down because in the terms of the cold war they had not got a high enough war score on the US to succeed.
As for the American War of Independence it was the war exhaustion caused by foreign intervention as well as colonial defeats that convinced Britain they could not win ( I'm a true blue Brit but the smartest thing the Yanks ever did was kick George III's butt, so I've no axe to grind). Theoretically she could have continued against the colonists on their own indefinately.
Holland beat Spain because outside help meant Spain couldn't win.
Colonial war should only be possible against claims, war against colonies is war against the owning power, and if they are big enough and determined enough they will not give in. Perhaps the problem is that AI nations can't tell each other to pack it in it is not worth it, were sick of all that shooting noise it's frightning the horses, I guess any game with that level of subtle programming would be something else.
Victoria is a GAME based upon a period of history. This is it's great strength and weakness.
We want to see history changed, France win in 1870, Mexico beat USA, Russia colonise the Pacific, whatever is our particular fantasy.
Trouble is once one thing changes so does all that follows. All that one can do is to ensure that your basic mechanics are reasonably historical. Breech loaders, Ironclads, Railways etc appear within in say + or - 10 years of when they actually happened. The mechanics of colonisation should mirror history in how it happened, the fun is that it should not be restricted to who actually did it. If Bavaria wants Ironclads OK, if the Papal States want an African colony OK. What should not happen is a breaking of the realities of C19th technology and politics. And one fact is that there were perceived ways that the "Family of Nations" behaved and how they saw themselves in the eyes of the world, and the nature of alliances and relationships that existed.
Claimed colonies of civilised nations could not be targets of attack for another nation without a general war between them and their allies. Attacking and seizing land from uncivillised nations was acceptable, especially if they had no friends.
The Spanish -American war is touted as being a colonial war it wasn't, it was a war between Spain and the USA it was just fought in the colonies, America got what she wanted because Spain's "war exhaustion" was such she could not hope to win, and American victory did not upset the perceived European balance of power.
To use Syloki's argument the Cuban missle crisis shows how you can't just have a colonial war. The USSR wanted to make Cuba a "colony", for the US this was unacceptable and they were willing to go to all out war to prevent it, the USSR backed down because in the terms of the cold war they had not got a high enough war score on the US to succeed.
As for the American War of Independence it was the war exhaustion caused by foreign intervention as well as colonial defeats that convinced Britain they could not win ( I'm a true blue Brit but the smartest thing the Yanks ever did was kick George III's butt, so I've no axe to grind). Theoretically she could have continued against the colonists on their own indefinately.
Holland beat Spain because outside help meant Spain couldn't win.
Colonial war should only be possible against claims, war against colonies is war against the owning power, and if they are big enough and determined enough they will not give in. Perhaps the problem is that AI nations can't tell each other to pack it in it is not worth it, were sick of all that shooting noise it's frightning the horses, I guess any game with that level of subtle programming would be something else.
Derek Pullem said:
Does it mean, it is something that has been addressed since 1.02 ?
yes - ai nations should offer a white peace if no combat except naval for two years
Derek Pullem said:
Man: Doctor, it hurts when I do this (raises arm)
Doc: well then don't do that.
As a joke it's funny. As for a proper solution, you'd probably go to another doctor that actually fixes your arm.
Preferably one that doesn't needlessly amputates it like you're suggesting.
Bluff, intimidation and sabre rattling are all valid strategies of diplomacy (war being simply an extention of diplomacy).
(Mustard)Gas wasn't used in WW2, but any decent simulation on the scale of Paradox' intent that allows for 'what if' scenario's that doesn't include the option to, is IMO lacking.
And lets reverse sides here for a second.
There have been cases where the AI declares colonial war on a human player and that player is unable to attack the AI because they have no colonies, by your arguments the human player would stomp on the offender and grind them to dust, but we all know we can't because we are unable to escalate the war. Yet for the duration of the war we must expend money better used elsewhere to keep our troops in readiness for what ever this upstart feels like doing for however long it feels like doing it. This is not acceptable!
dmshewchuk said:
I'm not taking potshots, I am arguing/debating why I think escalation should be an option and why I think colonial wars should be allowed.
If it seems like I am attacking Derek then I appologise as this is not the intent. In the past Derek has put up some great advise and some excellent opinions, I just happen to not agree with him on this one and feel that he is dismissing the genuine gripes people have about it far too easily.
Now you mention it you are of course right on the defcon states, my excuse is that it was late at the time of writing.
There are a lot of people on this board that value historical accuracy well above playability and fun factor. You can see them over on the HOI board demanding that the player be able to build V-weapons while at the same time demanding that they be usless, ineffective, and a huge waste of money. It blows my mind.
The other way round?
I actually think the opposite problem may exist - colonial wars as an exploit .
As Scandinavia (a merge of Denmark and Sweden, quite nice event) i easilly took more than half of the colonys from the "North German Federation" (about half of 19'th century Germany + most of Holland and Belgium) in a colonial war. I could do this because they hadn't got much of an navy (=less than the 2 existing Swedish cruisers) despite being very much stronger on land (in tech and numbers).
As Scandinavia and North German Fed. shares borders in The Sleswig/Holstein-area a landlocked war was quite possible and would probably have been won by the North German Fed. Problem is they didn't escalate the war to the European theatre; In the peace (proposed by them) they instead had to give up all their colonys in the entire world .
To solve this i have 2 possible solutions: 1/ Remove the possibility for civilised states to declare "colonial wars" on other civiliced states (easy solution). This dosen't in any way take away the possibility for ex USA to rip cuba and the Phillipines from the weakend Spain but it would have made made it a bit tougher for my Scandinavians above .
2/ Add a "button" in the diplomatic window to warn the opponent of the consequenses if he don't withdraw immidiately; If he doesn't a declaration of war should be able without any prestige-loss (perhaps even a gain in prestige?). /Mattias
I actually think the opposite problem may exist - colonial wars as an exploit
.As Scandinavia (a merge of Denmark and Sweden, quite nice event) i easilly took more than half of the colonys from the "North German Federation" (about half of 19'th century Germany + most of Holland and Belgium) in a colonial war. I could do this because they hadn't got much of an navy (=less than the 2 existing Swedish cruisers) despite being very much stronger on land (in tech and numbers).
As Scandinavia and North German Fed. shares borders in The Sleswig/Holstein-area a landlocked war was quite possible and would probably have been won by the North German Fed. Problem is they didn't escalate the war to the European theatre; In the peace (proposed by them) they instead had to give up all their colonys in the entire world
.To solve this i have 2 possible solutions: 1/ Remove the possibility for civilised states to declare "colonial wars" on other civiliced states (easy solution). This dosen't in any way take away the possibility for ex USA to rip cuba and the Phillipines from the weakend Spain but it would have made made it a bit tougher for my Scandinavians above
.2/ Add a "button" in the diplomatic window to warn the opponent of the consequenses if he don't withdraw immidiately; If he doesn't a declaration of war should be able without any prestige-loss (perhaps even a gain in prestige?). /Mattias
It certainly seems immensely pointless to have the option of declaring colonial war (against civ. nations) if you are not supposed to gain anything from it (as Derek argues).
Why have the option if it is irrelevant or even possibly can be an exploit? Why not just do as suggested by Mattias and make so you can't declare colonial war against civilized nations or at least major powers.
If the 'proper' argument is that if you want colonies you should declare a normal war (as Derek claims it is), then why have the option? Why make the game even more obscure? If you haven't read this thread you would automatically assume that there would be a POINT in declaring colonial war ... but there is isn't. So any logical train of thought would lead to the conclusion the option to declare colonial war should be removed.
Why have the option if it is irrelevant or even possibly can be an exploit? Why not just do as suggested by Mattias and make so you can't declare colonial war against civilized nations or at least major powers.
If the 'proper' argument is that if you want colonies you should declare a normal war (as Derek claims it is), then why have the option? Why make the game even more obscure? If you haven't read this thread you would automatically assume that there would be a POINT in declaring colonial war ... but there is isn't. So any logical train of thought would lead to the conclusion the option to declare colonial war should be removed.
Sikker, that's not what Derek's saying; he's saying that colonial war is not the way of getting colonies from the UK or Russia, but also that it can work against other power; lots of other civilized powers besides those two.
Rafiki
Rafiki
well, you COULD read my post as well. As you can see I AM suggesting to limit the colonial war to NON-great-powers.
Also, it can be abused. Obviously NGF should be able to DoW freely when Denmark abuses the colonial war option.
Besides, so what if Russia or GB has a great army even after the colonies are taken. If they are not using it, it must be because they can't defend their claims. If they can't defend their claims, they must give them up. Anyway, that is the only conclusion that I can come up with.
Also, it can be abused. Obviously NGF should be able to DoW freely when Denmark abuses the colonial war option.
Besides, so what if Russia or GB has a great army even after the colonies are taken. If they are not using it, it must be because they can't defend their claims. If they can't defend their claims, they must give them up. Anyway, that is the only conclusion that I can come up with.
Derek Pullem said:
Is seiging and taking provinces without actually fighting any enemy combat troops counted towards this. And what about partisans popping up and taking over a previously taken province?
I would suggest that a guarantee of independence should not trigger a DOW if you declare colonial war on a civilized nation - after all their independence is not threatened if you cannot attack their core territories.
Tel said:
Yes - occupying provinces does count as combat!
Well - you are guaranteeing all of their independence. Not just the capital
. So i'd have to disagree with you in my opinion.
Derek Pullem said:Yes - occupying provinces does count as combat!
Well - you are guaranteeing all of their independence. Not just the capital
I see it more as guaranteeing their continued existence as a nation.
It seems to be likely in real life if say the UK told Germany not to mess with the Netherlands that they would care if Germany invaded the Netherlands proper, but wouldn't care too much if they were burning down or taking over some tradings posts in the South Pacific.
But I guess I'm just frustrated that in my current Japan game The UK and Prussia both declared war on me when I went to take the Dutch claims in Borneo. They never attack, but I fear that their combined military will cause the Dutch to never accept peace.
Fortunately when Russia declared their every five years war on me it was only a colonial war, so I can ignore them. :wacko:
Tel said:
No I'm with Derek on this one, Guaranteeing someones Independence as a (sovereign) Nation guarantees them of the rights that entitles too, such as having colonies and overseas claims.