Occupation of neutral overseas territories by belligerents

[unmerged(7537)]

Agreed.

Sometimes it's best to leave anomalous cases to be dealt with uniquely via event if conditions merit rather than try to find some grand unifying rule to tie a bunch of them together on a rather weak thread.

The problem is that Paradox events have the tendency to be incredibly deterministic (in the sense that Japan will get an event for demanding Indochina no matter what) while actual game mechanics would make the engine more flexible and more capable of adapting to different situations.

 

[Radu]

The problem is that Paradox events have the tendency to be incredibly deterministic (in the sense that Japan will get an event for demanding Indochina no matter what) while actual game mechanics would make the engine more flexible and more capable of adapting to different situations.

But on the other hand it's not that hard to determine if Japan is historically aggressive, even in HOI2.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Indeed - what if the US is already involved in China and has troops near Indochinese border? Guess what, HoI2 still gives them the event, they still agree to it. Even though Vichy France would never hand it over under such circumstances. That should go, because there is absolutely no way to account for all the possibilities in this case, where Vichy France would NEVER hand over Indochina, yet does in HoI2.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

people, as far as I know, Japan never occupied Macau...

 

[Alexander Seil]

people, as far as I know, Japan never occupied Macau...

In 1943 they did.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

In 1943 they did.

some islands owned by the Chine the Portuguese Occupied in 1938.

 

[th3freakie]

some islands owned by the Chine the Portuguese Occupied in 1938.

...hm?

 

[Alexander Seil]

They were bossing the governor around, I fail to see how it's different from the type of occupation I suggested...

 

[I Killed Kenny]

...hm?

China controlled some islands near Macau, then the Portugal occupied those islands in 1938. When the Japanese invaded China they occupied those same islands.

So when the war ended, those islands were given the the Nat China and not to Portugal

 

[I Killed Kenny]

They were bossing the governor around, I fail to see how it's different from the type of occupation I suggested...

it's the difference, between having troops in Macau and not having troops in Macau.

 

[th3freakie]

China controlled some islands near Macau, then the Portugal occupied those islands in 1938. When the Japanese invaded China they occupied those same islands.

So when the war ended, those islands were given the the Nat China and not to Portugal

You mean Wanshan? I very much doubt that will even be a province.
Never heard about that story either.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

You mean Wanshan? I very much doubt that will even be a province.
Never heard about that story either.

from (pt)Wikipedia:

O Japão respeitou a neutralidade de Portugal e por isso também a de Macau. Mas, mesmo não ocupando Macau, os temidos japoneses exerceram uma enorme influência no Governo de Macau, ameaçando-o muitas vezes. Como por exemplo, em 1941, as ilhas de Lapa, Dom João e Montanha, ocupadas oficialmente pelos portugueses em 1938, foram abandonadas devido a uma ameaça emitida pelo Exército Japonês. Consequentemente, os japoneses ocuparam-nas, mas com o terminar da Segunda Guerra Mundial, em 1945, elas foram restituídas para a China, por causa da incapacidade dos portugueses em reocupá-las [5].

 

[vertinox]

Nice (@ Vertinox). But I fear still too easy to exploit. What happens to units in provinces that are overrun? What reason would an aggressor ever have to declare war using this system?

They should still fight back, but with lower org since it was a suprise attack.

Officially, Germany never declared war on USSR, Denmark, and Norway (and a few others I think) and it really was an exploit in terms of playing fair war but it was historical.

I think the best way to handle it is that when a player or AI moves into a another nation's territories without an alliance or military access, it will be considered a hostile action and units in that province will fight back.

When this happens the recipient would have three choices:

1. Stand down (Vichy France and Japan)
2. Consider the aggression an unofficial skirmish (Japanese Russian skirmishes)
3. Consider the aggression to be an act of war (Operation Barbarossa)

Considering the end result would result would be a dow, then it would
The AI should reason with the importance of choosing which to go with depending on how important the territory is to them versus the military power of the aggressor.

And democracies and nations that couldn't dow normally couldn't use this technique either.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Well, if you have to risk war, that's hardly an exploit, is it? You could still limit it to cases where the "invading" country is actually at war. COupled with the need to physically send over troops, it restricts the number of cases to consider significantly.

Besides, it would be nice if you came up with examples of how it could be exploited

EDIT: Naturally, the host country should be able to withdraw from the agreement at any time, triggering an aggressive response by its own troops in the colony.

Unless I completely misunderstood you, it could lead to a situation where, say, Germany just walks into Russia and leaves it to Stalin to declare war.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Unless I completely misunderstood you, it could lead to a situation where, say, Germany just walks into Russia and leaves it to Stalin to declare war.

Yes, you did completely misunderstand me. I refer you once more to the thread title - occupation of neutral overseas territories by belligerents. Not their mainland.

In any case, the host country gets a pop-up box that lets them choose whether they agree or not. If they don't the move is canceled (and, possibly, war is declared).

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Yes, you did completely misunderstand me. I refer you once more to the thread title - occupation of neutral overseas territories by belligerents. Not their mainland.

OK, bad example. Japan in the Pacific then. Bugger port strike, just unload in Hawaii and let the Americans try and break back in.

In any case, the host country gets a pop-up box that lets them choose whether they agree or not. If they don't the move is canceled (and, possibly, war is declared).

Meh. That still doesn't explain how the AI weighs its options faced with this tactic.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Why would the US have to break back in? If Japan moves in without permission, it's an automatic DOW from Japan.

Besides, this is quite simple for the AI to understand - if it can defend the colony, it should protect it (that is, if it has the means to ship as many troops over there as the enemy is willing to put up). Otherwise it should give in. It's a simple optimization problem, not a conceptual quagmire Radu was trying to make it out to be.

EDIT: Naturally, it should also be scaled according to relative IC - it should be practically impossible for anyone to get US islands, for example.