Needs rebalancing: France Rearmament Decision

[Lifthrasil]

In the WWW we saw that France has a decision where it can choose to go into the war industry or not.
This are the two choices:
A) Yes, people have the right to be protected (switch to Early Mobilisation)
- 10% civil factory building time, -10% military factory building time and something about consumer goods. (thats MINUS 10%)
B) Many people still favor diplomatic solutions
- 5% NU (thats MINUS 5%)

So alternativ A) is always and objectively better then B). Especially because the player has hindsight and knows that the war is coming. This is not a meaningful choice but a no-brainer.
I think this needs to be changed, so that both sides have a pro and contra, in order to give the player a meaningful choice to make.

EDIT: inserted the (MINUS) to make it clearer

 

[SteffenXXX]

yep i agree, else you dont need that decision, how about more political power generation since you strengthen your political ambitions?

 

[Amadís de Gaula]

You need B to become commie, is it not?

 

[dandrill]

You need B to become commie, is it not?

That's how it appeared to me.

 

[Liquid Sky]

It's only a no-brainer choice when you don't understand the choices.

 

[GeBuch]

We don't know the requirements for that event nor wether picking option A (wich is obiously better in every way, i agree on that point) will cause other events to fire.

 

[Lifthrasil]

You need B to become commie, is it not?

That's how it appeared to me.

Can't be, because they picked A) and still became communist. I think this event is unrelated to the political parties in France and more to the foreign political situation.

It's only a no-brainer choice when you don't understand the choices.

How would you know? From the information given to us, I listed the choices above. There was not more information afaik. So that's what we have to base our decision on.
If you have special knowledge on how the game works, I'd suggest you tell us instead of giving wiseguy comments.

 

[linen]

A should cause more national unity damage obviously. Good luck getting The French public onboard at the time.

 

[mursolini]

It would be logical if option A had an NU hit, as not every one wanted military solution.

 

[Lifthrasil]

Honestly they should have picked option B though since they went communist. After their government changed they switched to war economy. And they are at 25% unity. Instead they could be at 30% unity and war economy now. They still are a ways from war and the small 10% boost didn’t do to much for them during that time.

I wouldn’t call this a non-choice, and I could see me picking option B as well if as long as I am not joining the allies and going to war in 39.

I think you misinterpreted my OP. I edited it to make it clearer:

A) Yes, people have the right to be protected (switch to Early Mobilisation)
- 10% civil factory building time, -10% military factory building time and something about consumer goods. (thats MINUS 10%)
B) Many people still favor diplomatic solutions
- 5% NU (thats MINUS 5%)

 

[TypicalRain]

I think you misinterpreted my OP. I edited it to make it clearer:

O you are quite correct. Reading can be hard. I rewatched the video and can not see how option B is a good option, unless it really does later down the line increase ‘radical’ support. That isn’t made very clear to the player though so this event defiantly needs work.

Maybe option A should lower opinion with commonwealth countries as well?

 

[Denkt]

It probably should be +5% national unity for choice b but somehow it have been set at -5% instead.