Yes. And I am saying there is this ruleset and that ruleset, and they all have their good features. Combining them is also a good idea, however, I really doubt that it is possible to create a "perfect" ruleset that covers all of the little holes and exploits available through the game system, unless it was extremely long.
However, in doing some modification we have discovered a few things. One of the most interesting being that we can eliminate a lot of supply exploiting by lowering the "Cancel_Trade_Threshold" for all minor countries at start. This (we hope) will elminate all kinds of resource reselling, and that kind of thing. It seems to work on first examination.
For one thing it is nearly impossible, unless you have no army at all, to have zero daily supply expense.
Another thing is that we can eliminate a lot of exploits simply by re-organizing the events.For example I pointed out before, Italy can not take advantage of Danzig, and invade the Balkans without consequence, as it is in most rulesets.
So really, I am not so much interested in rules which define what countries (and when) can be attacked, but trying to set it up so that those kinds of things happen as a function of the AI. I am interested in issues of game mechanics, such as influencing. For one thing because I am trying to make it so that US war entry is entirely based on sliders, and belligerence, not by a a set date, however modified.
For example, USSR allies Brazil, and the USA gets an Isolationism slider move. Germany attacks Republican Spain or makes an alliance with Nationalist Spain, USA gets an interventionism slider move. USA can not join Allies until it could naturally DOW both Italy and Germany, but it could DOW Japan independently, if Japan was rampaging in the Pacific.
In a perfect world the game would be defined by events, a simple rule like no war till Danzig, no breaking NAP's and peace treaties, and the rules covering combat and diplomatic mechanics.
