• 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.
Since this is a WW2 game there have to be restrictions on what each nation can or can't do based on the historical conditions of the time. If you don't want to have these restrictions then you are not really interested in the basic premise of this game.
 
Since this is a WW2 game there have to be restrictions on what each nation can or can't do based on the historical conditions of the time. If you don't want to have these restrictions then you are not really interested in the basic premise of this game.

The problem with that sort of argument is that your ignoring the fact that there is plenty of room in the game for both play styles.

Neutrality should defiantly be limiting, especially for AI controlled countries, but it should not be so limiting that if a player wants to put in the effort to do so they can't alter events or play minor countries with territorial ambitions. Some of the best AAR's come from players playing minor countries and going a little off kilter.
 
Last edited:
The problem with that sort of argument is that your ignoring the fact that there is plenty of room in the game for both play styles.

Neutrality should defiantly be limiting, especially for AI controlled countries, but it should not be so limiting that if a player wants to put in the effort to do so they can't alter events or play minor countries with territorial ambitions. Some of the best AAR's come from players playing minor countries and going a little off kilter.


Império Novo - An Axis Portugal AAR is a shining example of this. Give me some time I'll be there with my own as well.
 
The problem with that sort of argument is that your ignoring the fact that there is plenty of room in the game for both play styles.

Neutrality should defiantly be limiting, especially for AI controlled countries, but it should not be so limiting that if a player wants to put in the effort to do so they can't alter events or play minor countries with territorial ambitions. Some of the best AAR's come from players playing minor countries and going a little off kilter.

I agree with this and I have found the game allows it. The OP seemed to be saying that the historical restrictions should only apply to the AI and players should be able to do whatever they want, which I disagree with.
 
Neutrality was fine before and I think perfectly represented the time. The lack of guarantee's from the Allies (France and UK) and European Nations can easily fix the "pre-wwII" issues of being off historical but still plausible.
 
I agree with this and I have found the game allows it. The OP seemed to be saying that the historical restrictions should only apply to the AI and players should be able to do whatever they want, which I disagree with.

I believe that the complaint is that the new neutrality system in FtM makes it even more difficult, possibly even impossible, to still play in the manner I described. Although I have yet to try it out myself as my first game in FtM has been as Germany.
 
Well, 3.03 is out, and I'd like some of your opinions on the changes. I think it's worse than the previous FTM patch, since it seems like your neutrality drops extremely slowly if you're not a major. I had 40-50 spies raising the threat of my neighbours as Nationalist China, and my neutrality dropped by about 5-7 points a year. This means you're hard pressed to declare war on anyone as a minor, since China has some advantages when it comes to declaring war that other minors don't have.
1) More Leadership. With 10+ leadership you can commit a rather large amount of it to raising spies to get your neutrality lowered via the new system. It still takes a while to get 4-5 countries maxed out with spies, but once you're there you only need 2-3 leadership points to keep your spies replenished.
2) Cores on territories of neighbouring countries, thus lowering the neutrality threshold.

I can imagine that as a different minor without claims on other countries, and with only 4 leadership, it'll take ages and ages and ages to declare a war now, without using noneutrality or editing the defines.lua. A shame, because I'd really like to play the game it was meant to be played.
 
Well, 3.03 is out, and I'd like some of your opinions on the changes. I think it's worse than the previous FTM patch, since it seems like your neutrality drops extremely slowly if you're not a major. I had 40-50 spies raising the threat of my neighbours as Nationalist China, and my neutrality dropped by about 5-7 points a year. This means you're hard pressed to declare war on anyone as a minor, since China has some advantages when it comes to declaring war that other minors don't have.
1) More Leadership. With 10+ leadership you can commit a rather large amount of it to raising spies to get your neutrality lowered via the new system. It still takes a while to get 4-5 countries maxed out with spies, but once you're there you only need 2-3 leadership points to keep your spies replenished.
2) Cores on territories of neighbouring countries, thus lowering the neutrality threshold.

I can imagine that as a different minor without claims on other countries, and with only 4 leadership, it'll take ages and ages and ages to declare a war now, without using noneutrality or editing the defines.lua. A shame, because I'd really like to play the game it was meant to be played.

Neutrality drop in SF seemed to be 5 or less in SF the times I tracked it. The combination of reduce neutrality and increasing threat caused 7 - 8 total change so I don't see much difference. I tracked USA attempting to get to where it could DoW Canada and it took almost 4 years. This was SF 2.04D.
 
Last edited:
I for once do like the new neutrality system. It´s not really a new system per se, though. There´s just two things about it:
a) You cant lower your own neutrality anymore, at least not by a spy mission
b) Everywhere not your base neutrality gets displayed, but your effective neutrality, which is base neutrality - highest threat (does it even help to raise the threat of various nations?) and that value has always been the relevant AFAIK - so it just saves you some math there, by displaying what actually matters... you look at any nation´s neutrality, and it shows you at a glance, how close they are of entering the war.

As for the people who dont like it: How about it all being a soft limit occuring a harsh cost (dissent and or unity?) when broken. E.g. you could dow (but the AI never would) for 5% dissent and -1%NU for each precent of neutrality?
 
Last edited:
Neutrality drop in SF seemed to be 5 or less in SF the times I tracked it. The combination of reduce neutrality and increasing threat caused 7 - 8 total change so I don't see much difference. I tracked USA attempting to get to where it could DoW Canada and it took almost 4 years. This was SF 2.04D.

I haven't played vanilla/SF in a while, but I'm pretty sure you were able to declare war on the warlords in China somewhere around mid to late 1937, which is pretty much impossible now.
I don't really know how much time it took for Neutral countries to declare war on other Neutral countries, but there a significant change to the situation in China: and one for the worse, I might add.
 
Have not played China so I cannot comment. The change may be in something other than the overall speed in neutrality change is what I was trying to imply.
 
I haven't played vanilla/SF in a while, but I'm pretty sure you were able to declare war on the warlords in China somewhere around mid to late 1937, which is pretty much impossible now.
I don't really know how much time it took for Neutral countries to declare war on other Neutral countries, but there a significant change to the situation in China: and one for the worse, I might add.

Without cheating or modding I used to be to declare war on Sweden as Denmark by early '39. I'll have to try and check it out this weekend and see how long it takes me in FtM. Same goes for Turkey vs Greece (and vice verse). Could almost always DoW by late '38 or early '39 which was fine in my opinion.
 
I am no expert and not played the game extensively but just tried Ireland and it did not me take long using spies, to allow me to start a war with the UK. Whats the problem with the current system?
 
So tried to increase threat of Bulgaria as Italy for half a year, 10 spies. Got an awesome 0.5 (only very slightly better with Yugoslavia). So I need about 60 years in order to declare war.

Yeah!

These "features" are completely useless. They could as well remove entirely these choices as they have zero effect in the game.

Just make it a game where you move counters, decide production and technology. That's it. The rest is so much on railroads that it's like having a bunch of fake buttons to press.
 
In SF threat was much easier to develop against a country you shared a land border with. I had much the same result as you did vis-a-vis italy and Bulgaria when I tried to build threat against Cuba as the US but was able to build enough against Canada to be able to DoW them...took almost 4 years though.
 
Well, thanks Paradox for complicating things even more :(

They don't really seem to know where they are going with all the changes. It appears to be completely random, and each over the top change in mechanics brings about a plethora of oddball occurrences. Simplicity has gone out the window in favor of random and senseless "tweaks."

The changes to threat and neutrality illustrate the point perfectly.
 
So tried to increase threat of Bulgaria as Italy for half a year, 10 spies. Got an awesome 0.5 (only very slightly better with Yugoslavia). So I need about 60 years in order to declare war.

Yeah!

These "features" are completely useless. They could as well remove entirely these choices as they have zero effect in the game.

Just make it a game where you move counters, decide production and technology. That's it. The rest is so much on railroads that it's like having a bunch of fake buttons to press.

Uhem, maybe try it with a nation bordering yours? This is not the 21st century where germans can be made believe that their freedom must be defended at the hindukush...

If you really want more effective threat-raising by spies, all you have to do, is to change a single value in the /common/defines.lua.

Again: I find the ´new system´ quite beutiful. In my czech game, somewhere in ´38, out of curiosity, i just checked the diplo screens for Germany, the UK, and the US. Their neutrality values were: 10%, 20% and 83% respectively. It doesnt get much clearer when it comes to indicating how close their are two start/join a war/faction. It is as clear as strategic command II´s ´war-readiness´ just the opposite of it.

And guys - seriously: Those pre-war conquests by minors - how realistic are they? Denmark attacking sweden in ´38? Really? Romania conquering the whole balkans? Sure? Well, greece attacking turkey might have been possible - idk. But that would be a matter of giving greece a core somewhere on the turkish coast, maybe, not altering the entire system.
 
Ok, I'm going to be start historical then go gamey when it comes to the "new neutrality system".

Italy, january 1936.
Meet Benito Mussolini, Duce and Head of Government, a dictator. Dictator means he has ABSOLUTE POWER, right? Well, history books written by the Allies say so. He came to power with a simple agenda:
1- Restoring the "Empire on the fate-bound hills of Rome"
2- Cancel the shame of the "Maimed Vicory" of WWI, that is the mis-respect by UK and France of the "London Agreement" wich promised territories of Yugoslavia to Italy if she joined the Triple Entente, as they did.
3- Gaining the "Sunny Spot", wich translates into having a decent colonial empire as other majors did. With no approvation from the Society of Nations about it, Italy decided to take by herself her colonies and so the Ethiopian War. So Italy was already enugh non-neutral to declare a war to a country in another continent, in fact game starts with at war with Ethiopia.
4- Break the trade isolationism forced upon Italy by UK, France, USA and BeNeLux because of the Ethiopian War, isolationism that had the only effect to reinforce trade relations with Germany and lead to the Pact of Steel and the Rome-Berlin Axis, from wich the faction takes the name.

Explained this, to be grief I summarize.
I have a war ongoing. I have territorial claims supported by the people of Italy towards Yugoslavia. I am a dictator so I don't care, let them eat cake.

SF:
- Use domestic espionage to lower my 60, yes SIXTY, neutrality and get the approvation of the "citizens"
- Ask the Germany to join their faction, the Rome-Berlin Axis...
- Use foreign espionage to depict Yugoslavia as a threat and spread word of massacres of Italian-speaking people in their country.
- Declare war on Yugoslavia in first half of '37.

FtM
- Use foreign espionage to depict Yugoslavia as a threat and spread word of massacres of Italian-speaking people in their country.
- Join Axis.
- ...do nothing because even with 16 threat on YUG + 20 territorial claims + 25 axis member = 61 which is greater than 60 my neutrality my DoW button is still grayed out.

Now, I was comfortable with SF system, it was not so historical but I could live with it...now, what should I do....sit there for 4 years hoping Greece to join the allies and start the war against all of them?
Is it right or at least understandable that with, dictatorship+casus belli I can't declare a war against YUG?
 
They don't really seem to know where they are going with all the changes. It appears to be completely random, and each over the top change in mechanics brings about a plethora of oddball occurrences. Simplicity has gone out the window in favor of random and senseless "tweaks."

The changes to threat and neutrality illustrate the point perfectly.

No, in fact the changes to threat and neutrality have made the system more simple than before. It´s just that it is (or, for the most part, rather: seems) new to you, is what makes it appear more complex at first. In fact, it just eliminates one option (lowering ones own base-neutrality) and compiles the math into more accesible stats (by showing the effective neutrality, instead of the base, from which you´d have to deduct the threat to reach to the former, actually mattering, number).