Soviet effects of M-R pact

[boromir]

The treaty itself was no secret. It's importance was recognised, all over the world and the sphere's of influence decided. It was headline news those days. Papers published the text of the treaty. It did have a secret protocol that dealt with the actual partitioning, but as I wrote, the very fact that the pact was announced was very significant in itself, as it meant Hitler and Stalin had struck a deal. So yes, dissent is a reasonable way to model in HOI terms what the German population (and army) would have felt if there was no deal and Germany went to war anyway.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Resources for Germany?

Wasn't there a clause in the pact that stipulated the USSR was to send resources to Germany on a regular basis? That's also a big omission from the event as it stands.

As for dissent, I think if the Germans violate the Pact they should get a %5 hit; assuming the German player sets his CG to grant -0.01/day, that'd be 500 days before the dissent reached zero. Not unreasonable considering that while Hitler and his inner circle might have been chomping at the bit to have at the Russian Bear, the population certainly wasn't.

 

[unmerged(3221)]

Re: Resources for Germany?

Originally posted by PBI
Wasn't there a clause in the pact that stipulated the USSR was to send resources to Germany on a regular basis? That's also a big omission from the event as it stands.

== The USSR sends/losses 30k oil to Germany right away when the pact is honored. Not continuous like it really was via trade agreements, but a one time hit in the game.

"As for dissent, I think if the Germans violate the Pact they should get a %5 hit; assuming the German player sets his CG to grant -0.01/day, that'd be 500 days before the dissent reached zero. Not unreasonable considering that while Hitler and his inner circle might have been chomping at the bit to have at the Russian Bear, the population certainly wasn't. "

The Germans should have to pay at least twice that. They need to pay a high first to avoid a two front war. Then a high price if there is an option not to honor the pact after annexing Poland, but this would first depend upon how severe the choices made in August were.

I still want a 20% dissent hit if the Germans decide on "no pact with the Bolsheviks". That's a decision between a two front world war and a one front world war. Germans did not want to repeat WW1 with two fronts at the start, and there should be a massive penalty for not going along with the historical R-M pact. If no one chooses it because it's too severe, GREAT! If you want to alter history and fight a one front war, pay full price. Let's not price a one front war at discount but at full service prices.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

%20 seems a good hit for Germany to suffer if they choose no pact, sure. I don't think they should suffer any kind of dissent hit for chosing a partial pact, though. A partial pact might not be best, but to the German people, would they really know the difference? It's only a "partial" pact to us, the players. I do think, though, that if a partial pact is chosen, Germany should get reduced resources from the USSR and a %2 penalty for a German DoW against each Baltic state, to represent domestic worry of causing the ballon to go up with the Sovs.

Rethinking the dissent hit for violating the pact, though, leads me to agree with a %10 penalty. I'd miscalculated before. At a per day reduction of 0.01, dissent would be going down %3 per year, so %10 is much more of an inconvenience.

 

[Orthank]

I think that 20% hit is too high and does not represent the meaning of this pact.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by Orthank
I think that 20% hit is too high and does not represent the meaning of this pact.

What should it be, then? I thought 20% was too high for not choosing the pact at first, too. But the more I got to thinking over the arguement for a large dissent hit, the more it made more sense. As it stands right now, Germany has very little reason to choose the pact, indeed, there is a far greater incentive not to go with the pact. Making the Germans take a rather large hit like this, though, would certainly give a German player pause, at least.

 

[boromir]

Well, 20% + 10% from the DoWs against the rest of Europe gives Germany ~ 30% dissent. This is a killer in multiplayer. Any dissent costs Germany loads in terms of IC, whether they knock it down or not (and the Prince of Terror minister is crap at knocking down dissent). Simply put, the option would be a no-no against a human Russia. So a slightly smaller value may be more reasonable, to present the player with options (though I think that the sensible thing would be to sign the pact anyway - this is the option that should be favoured by the event and most beneficial to both sides).

 

[unmerged(8319)]

This is madness!!!
The parts of the treaty you want to give dissent for are the parts that were exactly secret. IT MAKES NO SENSE!

 

[boromir]

Nothing of that sort. Please re-read my previous answer to your post.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

The whole point of giving Germany a huge dissent hit for not choosing the pact is to make such a choice a rare one, in single or multi-player. True, having that much dissent would certainly hurt Germany in combat and, more importantly, economically, esp that early in the game, perhaps even fatally, but, well, nobdy said fighting a two front war was going to be easy

The overall effect would most likely be that a German player would choose to go with the pact, either a full pact or partial, most of the time. As it should be. If the German is feeling like a gambling person, they migyt just surprise folks and not go with the pact, though rarely. And that's as it should be, too.

 

[unmerged(8319)]

Originally posted by boromir
Nothing of that sort. Please re-read my previous answer to your post.

I did read it and it doesn't make sense.

The heavy parts of that treaty was kept secret. What ppl outside the USSR or Germany thought about things cannot possibly influence the dissent in Germany. Only the german popular opinion about breaching the treaty should matter.

Obviously they did not know about the pertioning so breaking that promise CANNOT yield dissent. What else was in the treaty? Deals about ressources and tech that are NOT simulated by HOI. Ie. that cannot influence the dissent either.

Last part, breaking the na-treaty was hardly something that would make the germans cry themselves asleep. On the contrary, they had been used to hear Hitler roar his anti-bolshevism propaganda.

It was expected. NO DISSENT!

 

[boromir]

@Sgt. Bulldog: Ok, you obviously have a different view, which to me, makes absolutely no sense either. So let's just leave it at that.

 

[Orthank]

RMpact - the part that was officially known gave Germany guarantee for not having a war on two fronts (with major powers such Allies and SU at once). So it actually reduced dissent all those that was affraid of such situation. Also it gave some important resources and food (grain).

But it increase dissent in all those that belived that comunists (SU) were the worst enemy and Lebensraum was the main target in foreign policy.

No pact, bove situations looks vice versa.

The question is how to balance RM pact?

Perhaps not signing the pact should reinforce SU's IC (Hitler is taking all Europe so we have to mobilize all our people to work for military industrial, producing tanks and guns). Also SU territorial demands should looks the same (I mean, Baltic States, part Finland, part Romania) - to represent securing Russia's west borders against eventual assault.

So SU is the key to right balance.

Germany should have no dissent hit for not proposing the pact.

 

[boromir]

Orthank, that's reasonable enough. Still, Germany gets dissent now for honoring the pact, no reason why it should get no dissent for not proposing the pact, for the very reasons you mentioned. Anyway, that still leaves the issue of Poland - Russia has to be compensated much much more in IC, so as to make the pact proposal the obvious choice for Germany. You also have to be careful with IC, at normal/normal levels, with the right upgrading and techs Russia can run into severe resource problems, with its IC close to 1000 by 1941. So giving them more IC is a double-edged sword.

The most important issue is game balance. If this can be achieved through dissent, that's fine, if it can be achieved through other means, that's fine too.

The argument for dissent is simple - Germany wanted to avoid a two front war at any cost, they learned that they couldn't win a 2 front war in WWI. Any actions that could lead to a repetition of that situation would be viewed as crazy.

 

[Trinitrotoluen]

Germany didn't want a repeat of WW I and signing the M-R pact made sure that Germany could concentrate its forces in the west after Poland was defeated. Giving it a dissent hit is simply a game balance measure. Otherwise how would you make sure that the human player prefers the historical action? Right now there is no penalty to simply screw over the SU without any negative effect.

If Germany doesn't propose the pact however it shouldn't be surprised if the Red Army crosses the border in late 1939/early 1940 when the Wehrmacht is occupied in France. Maybe claims on eastern poland and the baltic states should be given to the SU.

 

[unmerged(8319)]

What is dissent?

Forget your own ideas. Forget history. Forget what your mom said.

What does Paradox say, and what was it supposed to reflect in the game? THAT is the crucial question and unless Paradox actually declares dissent as an undefined general, political situation, then all this is pointless.

IF dissent is - a I understood it - the way private Max, standing in the trench with mudboots and in pouring rain, is feeling about the prospects of winning the war, then abstract political protocols are irrelevant. What matters to private Max is: is he starving or freezing? Is he out of ammo or not? All this is simulated. Did his superior officer get executed for no reason? Did his country ceede land? (partly simulated).

 

[Orthank]

Yes IC is not a good idea because of lack of resources - that's true.

My idea is to give SU chance, possibility and strength to attack Reich in begining of 1940 if will be not included in participation of Eastern Europe.

 

[boromir]

Well, dissent remains the easiest way out of this, and quite reasonable too, its just a question of how much.

 

[jgbaxter]

Why not 15 for no pact and 5 for limited pact, I think Germany without the pact should face severe consequences and if only poland is offered then a minior hit of 5, maybe even less than 5... 3 dissent for just offering poland.

 

[boromir]

Offering just Poland would give Germany quite a bit of an advantage if the dissent hit is small - the Soviets don't get their Baltic, Finland and Romania claims which is loads of IC, as these are counted as their core provinces. The values have to be set, so as to make signing the full pact the most often choice. So having 15 for no deals would probably mean something like 8-10 for Poland only - currently ceding Poland gives an extra 3.