-
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.
What is going to happen with the Molotov - Ribbentrop treaty options? There was a lot of discussion, and discussion about a poll, but now what? There needs to be a change because 1.05c penalizes the German player who chooses the historic option of ceding territories to the SU while allowing the SU more territorial claims. The other German options greatly favor the Germans or do not penalize the Germans in any way for risking a two front war.
If there's going to be a poll, I would nominate Boromir to formulate the questions/options.
As I said: currently I've added dissent commands for not proposing the pact. I'm still taking other suggestions, but no one seems to agree 
Has dissent been added to both MR events? ie. the one triggered by invasion and the one triggered by date?
Yeah well, for what it's worth, the event triggered by date should give a bigger WE drop to the USA than -10 (-15 for example) if the historical pact is proposed - I think that would give Germany some more incentive to wait for the historical date, otherwise March 1939 remains the best time to declare war.
alternative solution instead of dissent
Ok Ive read the thread and I see the problem. I have a proposal that was not mentioned in this thread however. If option c is chosen and no pact is signed. Germany should have to worry about its border to the east right? How about a -200 or even -300 manpower to reflect the extra stationary units needed to guard the border just in case the russians decide to do something about it. Maybe a heavy 3-5000 supplies to equip the guys and keep them happy. I know in most MP games the German player would hate that.
What do you guys think af that?
Ghost_dk
Ok Ive read the thread and I see the problem. I have a proposal that was not mentioned in this thread however. If option c is chosen and no pact is signed. Germany should have to worry about its border to the east right? How about a -200 or even -300 manpower to reflect the extra stationary units needed to guard the border just in case the russians decide to do something about it. Maybe a heavy 3-5000 supplies to equip the guys and keep them happy. I know in most MP games the German player would hate that.
What do you guys think af that?
Ghost_dk
I think that even with a MP and supply loss most German players would simply go for option C. While you get slightly hurt you'll hurt the Soviets even more by keeping the territory they should get from them.
With dissent the choice isn't as easy. Germany looses valuable IC and some combat efficiency which hurts them a lot more than your proposal.
Just my € 0,02.
With dissent the choice isn't as easy. Germany looses valuable IC and some combat efficiency which hurts them a lot more than your proposal.
Just my € 0,02.
Sgt. Bulldog said:
I agree with your POV Sgt., but something has to be done to make MR a choice, and not a no-brainer. I can't see any other way to do this other than using dissent.
I'm with Sgt Bulldog that dissent is the wrong way to tackle this. Instead, there seem to be two ways to go:boromir said:
1. remove the option to decline the pact so that Germany has no choice.
2. more appropriate consequences for declining the pact. These would include:
a) reduced dissent and increased IC and WE in the Allies as their communist trade unions push for solidarity against the fascists.
b) a resource hit for Germany - no oil and minerals from the east
c) Soviet Union joins the Allies
I'm not sure if the latter is available as an event command. Is there a post somewhere which explains event programming - I've just been looking and can't find one.
Andrew
Thanks. It does appear that the relevant commands are there and so the Soviets can line up with the Allies if Germany doesn't do a deal with them. The benefits for the Soviets would be:Trinitrotoluen said:
* getting tech share from the other allied countries
* going to war with Germany over Poland without having to DOW Germany and get dissent.
* reducing friction with Allied players in MP games now that SU is formally allied rather than being potential competitors.
This seems like enough incentive for Germany to choose the M-R pact so that the Soviets don't get these benefits.
Andrew
redawn said:
No, the USSR loses a huge amount of IC, (especially coupled with IC boosting techs), and a huge amount of resources (especially stockpiled), and loses the option to take over all of Finland and Romania too (potential Axis allies). The tech transfer would have to be tremendous to balance that - besides, the Soviets are ahead of the Allies in the tech race in techs most important to them already.
Although it most likely will fail. The game rules clearly states that the USSR, as leader of the Comintern, can only join the allies if it's the sole member of the Comintern. Unfortinately, in the standard scenario's, the Comintern has other members, thus prohibiting the USSR to join the allies.redawn said:
(unless this particular rule has been dropped, although I haven't found a reference regarding this)
Jan Peter
As for the main topic of this discussion:
I agree that to date it's far to profitable for Germany to go with option c), no pact at all. No negatives here, and the ability to annex Poland completely.
However, a dissent hit at the time of the RM pact proposal is not really historically accurate. We all know, with 20/20 hindsight, that Germany entered the pact to get it's hands free on the western front, to deal with France (not the UK, btw., as Germany did't really want nor sought war with the UK). Only problem is, at the time of the pact signing, Hitler had behaved reasonably peacefull. We now know that he pushed for territory in the Sudeten area, hoping that the allies would refuse so he could declare war, but that didn't happen. In the eyes of allies, Hitler responded positively to diplomacy and negotiations.
Ok. He canceled the treaty of Versailles, but only France saw that as a big problem (as France was, of course, the recipient of German war reparations payments which had now stopped). He annexed Austria, but the allies didn't see that as a big problem. Same goes for the annexation of the Sudetenland (treaty of Munich), and even to a lesser extent with the annexation of Tcech and puppeting of Slovakia.
Not signing a pact with Stalin should cause problems if war breaks out. Then, when facing a possible two front war, the dissent should rise or other nasty things should happen.
One could also turn it around, and have good things happen to Germany and the USSR if both agree to sign the historical pact. After all, both Hitler and Stalin benefitted tremendously from the pact. It gave Hitler free hand to actively pursue the war option, and bought valueble time for both sides to prepare for the German - USSR war, of which both Hitler and Stalin assumed would be inevitable. Both just didn't want it in 1939. Hitler, because he wanted to deal with the western front first, and Stalin because he needed time to rebuild and prepare the Red Army. IRL, the sovjets supplied Germany with lots of raw materials. In fact, the last sovjet shipment railed to Germany just 1 day before the start of Barbarossa. Stalin kept to the letter of the pact in spite of countless warnings that Barbarossa was imminent.
In the original design there is evidence of an attempt to hit Germany with a negative in case of annexation of Poland without a (partial) pact, which is USSR event 2650. However, this event is inactive and will currently never be triggered.
If the current solution, to hit Germany with dissent when going with option c) in the RM pact event to represent the risk of two front war, then that dissent should be lowered again when France is defeated and Germany installs the Vichy regime. With the defeat of France, the big risk of a two front war is (largely) gone. Same goes the other way around. If the USSR is taken out of the war first (bitter peace event), dissent should be lowered again.
Jan Peter
I agree that to date it's far to profitable for Germany to go with option c), no pact at all. No negatives here, and the ability to annex Poland completely.
However, a dissent hit at the time of the RM pact proposal is not really historically accurate. We all know, with 20/20 hindsight, that Germany entered the pact to get it's hands free on the western front, to deal with France (not the UK, btw., as Germany did't really want nor sought war with the UK). Only problem is, at the time of the pact signing, Hitler had behaved reasonably peacefull. We now know that he pushed for territory in the Sudeten area, hoping that the allies would refuse so he could declare war, but that didn't happen. In the eyes of allies, Hitler responded positively to diplomacy and negotiations.
Ok. He canceled the treaty of Versailles, but only France saw that as a big problem (as France was, of course, the recipient of German war reparations payments which had now stopped
). He annexed Austria, but the allies didn't see that as a big problem. Same goes for the annexation of the Sudetenland (treaty of Munich), and even to a lesser extent with the annexation of Tcech and puppeting of Slovakia.Not signing a pact with Stalin should cause problems if war breaks out. Then, when facing a possible two front war, the dissent should rise or other nasty things should happen.
One could also turn it around, and have good things happen to Germany and the USSR if both agree to sign the historical pact. After all, both Hitler and Stalin benefitted tremendously from the pact. It gave Hitler free hand to actively pursue the war option, and bought valueble time for both sides to prepare for the German - USSR war, of which both Hitler and Stalin assumed would be inevitable. Both just didn't want it in 1939. Hitler, because he wanted to deal with the western front first, and Stalin because he needed time to rebuild and prepare the Red Army. IRL, the sovjets supplied Germany with lots of raw materials. In fact, the last sovjet shipment railed to Germany just 1 day before the start of Barbarossa. Stalin kept to the letter of the pact in spite of countless warnings that Barbarossa was imminent.
In the original design there is evidence of an attempt to hit Germany with a negative in case of annexation of Poland without a (partial) pact, which is USSR event 2650. However, this event is inactive and will currently never be triggered.
If the current solution, to hit Germany with dissent when going with option c) in the RM pact event to represent the risk of two front war, then that dissent should be lowered again when France is defeated and Germany installs the Vichy regime. With the defeat of France, the big risk of a two front war is (largely) gone. Same goes the other way around. If the USSR is taken out of the war first (bitter peace event), dissent should be lowered again.
Jan Peter
This is a wonky constraint - the other members of the comintern should follow suit. But the event can arrange to break up the Comintern first and then get its individual members to join the Allies.jpd said:
Andrew
I like the M-R Pact as is. The AI usually chooses the choice with less Dissent penalty. Therefore, many events are specifically designed to end up historical.
I do enjoy a historical war more than non-historical. The event makes sense, as GER and Hitler had serious concerns about SOV and Stalin reaction to GER conquering POL. The MAR 30th ENG/FRA 'guarantee' to POL was also a factor to the German High Command in their concerns.
As SOV, I stop playing after GER is defeated, since there is no way to avoid conflict with the Allies ... I generally decide not to fight allies as SOV, since the whole point of the conflict is to 'defeat the Nazis'. Sure, I play GER from time to time ... but as an exercise in strategy. When I play non-GER, it is a tad more emotional since I loath everything Hitler and his CRAPPY Nazi's did. I like championing the world cause against GER when I play SOV (get all that coolio armor) and Take Out the Third Reich. I mean, Russia did more in WWII than most realize - and they seldom get credit these days for it.
I do enjoy a historical war more than non-historical. The event makes sense, as GER and Hitler had serious concerns about SOV and Stalin reaction to GER conquering POL. The MAR 30th ENG/FRA 'guarantee' to POL was also a factor to the German High Command in their concerns.
As SOV, I stop playing after GER is defeated, since there is no way to avoid conflict with the Allies ... I generally decide not to fight allies as SOV, since the whole point of the conflict is to 'defeat the Nazis'. Sure, I play GER from time to time ... but as an exercise in strategy. When I play non-GER, it is a tad more emotional since I loath everything Hitler and his CRAPPY Nazi's did. I like championing the world cause against GER when I play SOV (get all that coolio armor) and Take Out the Third Reich. I mean, Russia did more in WWII than most realize - and they seldom get credit these days for it.
As of 1.06, the pact triggered by date does give dissent if not signed, but if you invade a couple of days earlier then the pact triggers by invasion, and does not give Germany dissent if they choose something ahistorical. Why dissent was added to only one of the "events" is beyond me though.