Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

On Neutrality

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
I had a similar issue. I started as turkey. I sent spys into greece and bulgaria to raise thier threat. I waited and watched for nuetrality to tick down to the point when i could declare war. Once it hits that point the DoW button stays grey....wont let you Declare war, and wont tell you why.

I played for a year like that, no change. Once i joined a faction i could DoW to my hearts content....i just couldnt at all unless i was in a faction.
 
colakki said:
i did not do ANYTHING except replacing divisions and reorganise leaders. it was multiplayer. i didnt want to go down my neutrality, and UK was able to activate war eco in may 36, we all did NOTHING except japan and italy aligned to axis. so what happened? why did my threat go up and my neutrality go down?
Click to expand...
2 words: Rhineland Event.
 
I wish there were events that increase your neutrality (or decrease your threat). Theres no fun looking at every diplomacy to see "highest threat: Persia 56", even if the country is miles away and I'm definitely no threat
 
MY neutrality is 0 by may of 1936 and I can't declare war on anybody but Germany. If I have 0 neutrality I should be able to declare war on anyone in the name of my highest threat. IE US getting high threat on USSR thus invades Korea because of said threat.

Switch the system back. It's utter crap and makes no sense.
 
Germany's threat is 200 in 38' I can't declare war on anybody but Germany. That's just dumb. What if I want to be the threat? Pretty sure the Polish weren't a threat to Germany. Threat makes no sense half the time anyways. If 5 countries do threat then its insta win. A neutral country (Norway) would never do anything no matter what the threat. There has to be a point either when nations don't care (90-100) and won't care no matter what unless attacked. This is better represented in the previous system where you can just tell the AI not to join a faction when that high of neutrality. Much Much Easier. You have two variable changing. Neutrality (off a base) and Threat. What was so wrong about the previous system? I don't think anybody complained.
 
I have tried playing as Sweden and getting involved on the side of the axis but i couldn't. Even though i aligned towards Germany from the start and could ask them to allow me to join the axis Germany refused so i was stuck in neutrality with no way out. It was the same when i played as Spain.
 
Board_Marshal said:
-Nations are made up of people, people who have their own desires, culture, history, societal cohesion, values, motivations, etc. With the end of the feudal system, governments could no longer be force the people to do anything the king/emperor/oligarchy wanted done; the people had to be manipulated and not all goals could be accomplished. Few governments have the capacity to motivate a nation into an unprovoked, conventional, conquering, subjugating, exploiting war and many historians can attest to the presence of a "right mix" of circumstances which allowed the governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan to lead their nations to do just that.
-Since it would be difficult and tedious to model this politicking into a strategy "war" game the abstraction is what you get instead. An improper game abstraction would be to permit you as a sovereign leader (elected or pseudo-elected) to arbitrarily mobilize any nation to war against any other nation for no reason other than "Germany and Japan are doing it". A system built on "I want to do what I want, when I want, with whatever nation I want) is so far from even coming close to the process for leading a nation to war that it's silly to even think about it that way (yes, that's what Hitler did, but can't you see that's the exception to the rule because of the circumstances which put him in power). You can't run Chile or India like Germany, the people of those nations would have never stood for it. A-historical shouldn't mean completely contrary to what was even remotely possible.
-This isn't Risk.
-Rules or game mechanics clarifications, yes, I like those too, especially in a single source, downloadable, "official" format. JMHO

The Marshal
Click to expand...

i agree with you that a-historical play is different to a un-historical one. But about your history explanations try to re-read books XD
 
I haven't got far with FTM, playing Japan '36 and about to kick off the Marco Polo incident. I did notice that my relations with USA were at 200, Germany 15, even though I've been aligning myself to Axis since day one. Trade seems to be a bigger factor in relations. These issues with DOW and neutrality are troubling, but I think the devs have tried hard to satisfy those wanting a more historical game and may have gone too far. That said, I have no problem forcing players to run their countries historically, just like you cannot build super battleships until you research them, you shouldn't be able to DOW on another country until you've put in the effort in preparing your nation for that diplomatic event. Otherwise just play RISK as someone has suggested...
 
Okay. Then how can Communist Countries join the Axis?! Whats the point of installing communism via war goals if they join the axis regardless? The whole system is FUBAR. It's a half-assed devlopment that they didn't even test themselves. These are amateur mistakes.
 
The real problem with neutrality and threat before FTM was that you had to use spies to do it. They should have been government & diplomatic policies.

Now the system is getting really messed up. Haven't tried the grand campaign in FTM yet, but it doesn't sound like neutrality works anymore.
 
Starting playing a Nat. China game. Raised the threat of Com. China and Yunnan, and was able to declare war on Com. China in the start of 1937. Main problem was that the button was grayed out. Even after hitting 0 neutrality somewhere around June I couldn't declare war. This is kinda lame, hope this gets fixed soon. I could live with the vanilla/SF far-east theatre despite the obvious problems, but this is a pretty large disappointment.

Anyway, besides that, like the other improvements. While I was waiting around with my army somewhere around the border with Communist China, the Japanese landed in force in Shanghai and quickly overwhelmed my token militia forces guardian the coast. Shame I can't unite the warlords, though.
 
monfry87 said:
i agree with you that a-historical play is different to a un-historical one. But about your history explanations try to re-read books XD
Click to expand...

I'm an open minded kind of guy and I'd be more than happy to read your version of my post. I think it's better for you to state your position rather than simply imply that you've done a better job at remembering your history books than I have. I'll fully admit that I'm no professional historian and if I'm wrong I'd prefer to know where and what so I don't make the same misstatement in the future.

The Marshal
 
Have just gotten FTM, and still going through small country scenerios to see what is changed.

BTW--the Neutrality cheat is not the only means to take a small country to war. ;-)

A year ago I'd suggested more in the way of border disputes (e.g. Northern Ireland, Turkey vs. Bulgaria, etc.) as a way of taking small countries to war for a just cause. We'll see how this pans out in FTM.

Alliances are another way around Neutrality restrictions. Since alliances worked fairly well in the Far East, it's worth experimenting with in other parts of the globe. (Hint: By artfully reloading one can create alliances despite the AI.)
 
why not eliminate the triangle of ideology, pre ordered alliance and the alliance leader? allliances shouldn't be an holy marriage. of course you can join an alliance with someone who has your same ideology easier than with others and impossible alliance with someone at the opposite side. I see an ideology as a number as neutrality.
 
Last edited:
Board_Marshal said:
I'm an open minded kind of guy and I'd be more than happy to read your version of my post. I think it's better for you to state your position rather than simply imply that you've done a better job at remembering your history books than I have. I'll fully admit that I'm no professional historian and if I'm wrong I'd prefer to know where and what so I don't make the same misstatement in the future.

The Marshal
Click to expand...

i marshal, mine was only a cue for your deeper studies, if you are interested in it of course, this not an history forum so i didn't dwell. Anyway, quckly. Lots of historicians and i think that believe in an happily and peacefull europe in which a monster went out from the hell to destroy the world is a fairy and to much simplified way to look at first '900 history. If you'll want to continue this discussion i would be pleased. Sorry for my english, it's a bit rusty.
 
Board_Marshal said:
-Nations are made up of people, people who have their own desires, culture, history, societal cohesion, values, motivations, etc. With the end of the feudal system, governments could no longer be force the people to do anything the king/emperor/oligarchy wanted done; the people had to be manipulated and not all goals could be accomplished. Few governments have the capacity to motivate a nation into an unprovoked, conventional, conquering, subjugating, exploiting war and many historians can attest to the presence of a "right mix" of circumstances which allowed the governments of Germany, Italy, and Japan to lead their nations to do just that.
-Since it would be difficult and tedious to model this politicking into a strategy "war" game the abstraction is what you get instead. An improper game abstraction would be to permit you as a sovereign leader (elected or pseudo-elected) to arbitrarily mobilize any nation to war against any other nation for no reason other than "Germany and Japan are doing it". A system built on "I want to do what I want, when I want, with whatever nation I want) is so far from even coming close to the process for leading a nation to war that it's silly to even think about it that way (yes, that's what Hitler did, but can't you see that's the exception to the rule because of the circumstances which put him in power). You can't run Chile or India like Germany, the people of those nations would have never stood for it. A-historical shouldn't mean completely contrary to what was even remotely possible.
-This isn't Risk.
-Rules or game mechanics clarifications, yes, I like those too, especially in a single source, downloadable, "official" format. JMHO

The Marshal
Click to expand...

Even Hitler could not do this. Little known fact is the the German Army had a coup planned at the time of the Munich Crisis. Almost the entire high command was on board with it. The trigger was to be the declarations of war by Britain and France which would give the Army the claim that they had to act to save the nation. The Munich Agreement cut the legs out from the conspiracy. Because of the way the Allies caved and the way Hitler won on his gamble most German generals were not willing to try again until it was too late to try at all. This simply makes the "Peace in our Time" claim by Chamberlain even more ironic. If the Allies had declared war then there would have been no war at all because Hitler would have been deposed.
 
I agree with OP.

"On Neutrality
HoI 2: Can declare war on anyone. It's a world war wargame, in fact.
HoI 3: Can declare war only after bringing down neutrality to 0, using domestic spies.
HoI 3 FTM: The game decides arbitrarily the way you play."

Playing as Japan I cant join the axis if not going to war against China to lower Neutrality with - 40.
I dont want to fight china, feels bad when the games forces me into that spesific path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back