Soviet effects of M-R pact

[unmerged(12544)]

Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact

Can anyone explain to me why there is the war entry difference in event 2050(MR in Aug 1939, triggered by date) and 2051(MR triggered by war against Poland)? I mean 2051 the war entry of the USA is simply not affected in all choices. Is this difference intended?

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact effects

Here is my suggestion

Pact___German dissent -> cede eastern Poland
Full______-2_________________-2
Limited___+5_________________-2
None____+12

so 12;3;-4. Why?
No pact ->possible 2 front war ->worst case for public opinion.
Limited pact ->simply worse for the Soviets
Full Alliance ->no more threat in the east ->people are more confident about a German diplomatic or military victory.

I can not understand, why German dissent should rise, when they cede eastern Poland. The Soviets were moving their troops already into the area. So for the German propaganda it would have been easy to create the picture, that the Soviets did contribute to the victory over Poland and therefore got their share of the booty. A -4% dissent bonus is a huge incentive to sign the pact. And what many players forget, a full pact means, that you do not have to DOW Lituania, Estonia and Latvia, what saves you +6 dissent and can make your ally Romania a little smaller.

 

[Rob Miles]

Hello everyone

I'm coming late to this thread, so apologies, but here goes anyway....

The purpose of the M-R pact was to assure the Soviet Union that Germany posed no threat to the USSR in pursuing its claims in the East. Before the pact, the balance between Germany and USSR more or less ensured the survival of Poland. Signing the pact made WW2 possible. The natural response to 'no deal with the Bolsheviks' should be several fold:

a) The penalty for going to war with Poland is increased through fear of Russian intervention.

b) High chance of Russian intervention in the form of Finlandising the Baltics and DoW Germany if they advance to within two provinces of the USSR.

c) Reduction of dissent in all allied countries- particularly France.


I'm not too interested in the need to reproduce historical events in strategy games- the whole point of them is 'what if...?'. However, there were reasons for the Pact- and as with most such deals, they were based on mutual distrust, fear and opportunism in various measures. Germany did not want to get embroiled in a larger war. It did not believe Britain and France would fight, but it did not know how effective its army would be in battle. A long war of attrition in the East could have been assured if Russia had intervened in Poland.

Rather than penalising not taking the M-R pact, some historical benefits could ensue:

a) Increase in dissent in allied countries, particularly France.

b) Mild exchange of techs (although both sides tried to keep secrets, some technology was inspected on both sides).

c) Russia does not attack Germany unless attacked first- historical as Stalin's denial of the German invasion clearly shows.

My preoccupation with dissent in France and to a lesser extent in Britain is due to the Communists in both countries working against anti-German feeling whilst the pact existed. Of course, once Russia was invaded, even German communists made sure Stalin knew what Hitler had for breakfast...

Rob "Sledgehammer" Miles

 

[boromir]

Re: Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact

Originally posted by Ögedei Khan
Can anyone explain to me why there is the war entry difference in event 2050(MR in Aug 1939, triggered by date) and 2051(MR triggered by war against Poland)? I mean 2051 the war entry of the USA is simply not affected in all choices. Is this difference intended?

That's interesting. I could swear that the pact triggered by war also shows that it affects US WE when you move to select an option. On the other hand, I remember an MP game where I made a choice and the US WE was unaffected ...

Looks like this might be a bug ...

 

[boromir]

Re: Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact effects

Originally posted by Ögedei Khan
Here is my suggestion

Pact___German dissent -> cede eastern Poland
Full______-2_________________-2
Limited___+5_________________-2
None____+12

so 12;3;-4. Why?
No pact ->possible 2 front war ->worst case for public opinion.
Limited pact ->simply worse for the Soviets
Full Alliance ->no more threat in the east ->people are more confident about a German diplomatic or military victory.

I can not understand, why German dissent should rise, when they cede eastern Poland. The Soviets were moving their troops already into the area. So for the German propaganda it would have been easy to create the picture, that the Soviets did contribute to the victory over Poland and therefor got their share of the booty. A -4% dissent bonus is a huge incentive to sign the pact. And what many players forget, a full pact means, that you do not have to DOW Lituania, Estonia and Latvia, what saves you +6 dissent and can make your ally Romania a little smaller.

Well, Germany has a lot of dissent reducing events already, and usually Poland is the first on the hit list, so at this time Germany usually has 0 dissent anyway. Besides, this would be a situation ripe for exploit, with a Germany player declaring war on everybody around and then signing the pact to get dissent down.

You do not have to DoW all the Baltic states. It's enough to DoW Latvia, which gives you +2 dissent. Russia loses a lot more IC for not having the Baltics than Germany does by dowing Latvia (and all the Baltics for that matter imho).

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Re: Re: Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact

Originally posted by boromir
That's interesting. I could swear that the pact triggered by war also shows that it affects US WE when you move to select an option. On the other hand, I remember an MP game where I made a choice and the US WE was unaffected ...

Looks like this might be a bug ...

Not neccesarily. Selecting the pact before Germany goes to war with Poland should affect US war entry because the signing of the pact arguably had a huge effect on accelerating the start of the war. Once Germany was already at war, well, the pact wouldn'y have made such a huge difference then, since there already was a war.

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Originally posted by boromir
Well, Germany has a lot of dissent reducing events already, and usually Poland is the first on the hit list, so at this time Germany usually has 0 dissent anyway. Besides, this would be a situation ripe for exploit, with a Germany player declaring war on everybody around and then signing the pact to get dissent down.

I think they would deserve this exploit, because there is no event to celebrate the fall of France. There should be one with dissent -20 or even more, because Hitler's popularity was at it's peak after that victory.

Ok, 0 dissent for the cede of eastern Poland, would also be acceptable, but certainly not +3.

 

[boromir]

Originally posted by Ögedei Khan
I think they would deserve this exploit, because there is no event to celebrate the fall of France. There should be one with dissent -20 or even more, because Hitler's popularity was at it's peak after that victory.

That would probably be more suited for the Vichy event.

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Yes, this would be the perfect place.

 

[Vulture]

Ok so... Do we have a new conclusion? What do you want changed?

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Vulture, it is dangerous to ask this way

I want changed...

MR-pact (GER dissent)

Pact___German dissent -> cede eastern Poland
Full______-2_________________0
Limited___+4_________________0
None____+16 or +20 (see Vichy)

Vichy France (event 2021)
for choice
a)dissent = -16 or -20 added ->Vichy
b)dissent = -8 or -10 added ->total conquest
remove random = 25 to make sure it fires more often

Claiming Memel
-remove addcore = 711; do not give 711 to GER
-lower dissent = -1

 

[unmerged(8319)]

*raises hand*
There's no consensus on this...

 

[boromir]

All but one posters on this thread support dissent changes, its just not agreed by how much - so maybe the exact amount should be determined by the game designers. Keeping the game balance should be the major issue here, and the MR full pact option should be made so as to be selected most of the time by a human player.

 

[Vulture]

Ok I'll leave it as it is for now... Should you leave a concensus, let me know

 

[unmerged(12544)]

Poll

I will give options to vote on:

A)NO MR pact should give at least +10% dissent for GER
B)More changes wanted
C)Things should stay as they are

I vote for B)

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Originally posted by Vulture
Ok I'll leave it as it is for now... Should you leave a concensus, let me know

Like we will ever have a concensus ... maybe a poll with a list of suggestions would be the best way out this like Khan wrote..

F

 

[jgbaxter]

Consensus on a new poll. *raises hand*

Let's vote some options.

 

[boromir]

Don't really think this is good for a poll as there are many possible solutions, including the fact that its not only dissent that can be an issue here.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Originally posted by boromir
Don't really think this is good for a poll as there are many possible solutions, including the fact that its not only dissent that can be an issue here.

since its obvious there will not be a consensus the only way we can get anything done is a poll, but if we cant even get a consensus about a poll it seems we might as well drop the subject.

it would be better is we just worked out a couple of versions 3-4 of what we can do and vote on that...

F