To many guarantees on minors

[Divine Order]

So I enjoyed the game while I was trying to get the hang of it in the early stages playing as a major power to learn the ropes.

Then I decided I wanted to play as minors and it’s impossible to get a head a lot of the time. As Germany, Russia, Italy, Japan, England and Canada ETC you can get ahead really fast. When I try to play as, say Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Nationalist Spain I get locked out because everything generates a guarantee.

I know it’s once it gets to 24% world tension, but most majors have focus’ that allow you to expand a bit before that kicks in.

Playing as Nationalist Spain, I wanted to grab a few client states after the civil war and engage from there. You use to be able to do this. At some point over the last year they set up a ‘fix’ that generates more world tension. Maybe it’s to balance out MP, but that isn’t my problem. Most MP servers have rules that dictate behavior.

Maybe this is just me, but making it harder to play minors seems less than ideal. It’s hard enough to deal with Germany as is, as a major who doesn’t have these restrictions. I know it wasn’t always this way, so I wonder who there came up with the idea “Minors should have a tougher time expanding in the early game. We need Britain and France to pay more attention to Spain and Iran in 1937 than it ever does to Germany”

It’s a valid point.

 

[KDEstroy]

Maybe this is just me, but making it harder to play minors seems less than ideal. It’s hard enough to deal with Germany as is, as a major who doesn’t have these restrictions. I know it wasn’t always this way, so I wonder who there came up with the idea “Minors should have a tougher time expanding in the early game. We need Britain and France to pay more attention to Spain and Iran in 1937 than it ever does to Germany”

It’s a valid point.

It makes sense that UK would pay more attention to Spain or Iran in 1937 than Germany. Part of the reason why the policy of appeasement was so popular before 1939 was because the French and British knew that any war with Germany would kill hundreds of thousands on both sides. Such a war is not politically justifiable without further aggression by the German Reich. On the other hand, UK is capable of defeating Iran without suffering more than a few thousand casualties, so of course they would be far more eager to intervene.

Also, I think the Allies' tolerance for Germany is not as high as you think. Austria voted to join the Nazis so that doesn't really count as a military invasion (even though it was a treaty violation). Czechoslovakia was an invasion, but Hitler got off with a stern warning. Then Hitler invaded Poland under the assumption that the Allies weren't willing to die for Gdansk - and it turned out they were.

If you play as a minor nation, and turned fascist ASAP, you could feasibly declare war on two countries before the Sino-Japanese war pushes world tension over 25%. Through a little diplomacy you can get away with annexing two of your neighbors, which was as much as Hitler got.

 

[kimidf]

Also, I think the Allies' tolerance for Germany is not as high as you think. Austria voted to join the Nazis so that doesn't really count as a military invasion (even though it was a treaty violation). Czechoslovakia was an invasion, but Hitler got off with a stern warning. Then Hitler invaded Poland under the assumption that the Allies weren't willing to die for Gdansk - and it turned out they were.

That who was willing to die to defend Poland was somewhat more rhetorical and hypocritical than real, since the allies did nothing to really help the Poles, even the small French offensive in the Saarland stopped suddenly and turned around despite the fact that French forces were superior in divisions and firepower than poorly equipped German garrisons on the Siegfried Line

 

[Crispin]

As long as YOUR world tension contribution is below 10% nobody will guarantee, even if the world tension is over 25%.

 

[Pitagor]

That who was willing to die to defend Poland was somewhat more rhetorical and hypocritical than real, since the allies did nothing to really help the Poles, even the small French offensive in the Saarland stopped suddenly and turned around despite the fact that French forces were superior in divisions and firepower than poorly equipped German garrisons on the Siegfried Line

I mean, the goal was not to die for the sake of dying, so abandonning seemingly doomed offensives made sense at the time. To not stupidly sacrifice your men for no real result isn't not being willing to defend Poland.

 

[kettyo]

I mean, the goal was not to die for the sake of dying, so abandonning seemingly doomed offensives made sense at the time. To not stupidly sacrifice your men for no real result isn't not being willing to defend Poland.

Pretty much the entire Wehrmacht fought in Poland so a prepared invasion had been a walk in the park. But... there was no invasion prepared as well as intel regarding German force positions and strength was uncertain.

 

[Pitagor]

Pretty much the entire Wehrmacht fought in Poland so a prepared invasion had been a walk in the park. But... there was no invasion prepared as well as intel regarding German force positions and strength was uncertain.

It seems to me that the french High Command at the time was rather... too certain when it shouldn't have.
It would have been stupid for the Wermacht to commit so much force in Poland that the Siegfried line could be easily taken.
It would have been stupid to commit tanks to fight in terrain where some well positionned infantery can easily stop them.
But, seeing how awful was the intel at the time, the decision not to senselessly attack made sense.

 

[kettyo]

But, seeing how awful was the intel at the time, the decision not to senselessly attack made sense.

Yes, awful intel is very much to blame.

Also everyone thought Poland will survive MUCH longer than it did IRL so there is enough time to mobilize for a proper counterstrike.

 

[Secret Master]

Then I decided I wanted to play as minors and it’s impossible to get a head a lot of the time.

Said 90% of leaders of minor powers throughout world history.

 

[mursolini]

That who was willing to die to defend Poland was somewhat more rhetorical and hypocritical than real, since the allies did nothing to really help the Poles, even the small French offensive in the Saarland stopped suddenly and turned around despite the fact that French forces were superior in divisions and firepower than poorly equipped German garrisons on the Siegfried Line

Well, Allies needed time to mobilize, unlike Germans whom started fully mobilized. Their mobilization probably took closer to 2 weeks, at which point Polish army was largely done for, and Soviets also started their invasion. The reason for Allies not providing support is probably at least half - just institutional inertia, thinking that German invasion would take several month, thus rushing head on before troops were ready was just unnecessary.

Also, do remember how badly blooded French army was in WW1, and it`s lack of appetite for quick unprepared charges deep into prepared enemy defenses will be even more apparent.

It seems to me that the french High Command at the time was rather... too certain when it shouldn't have.
It would have been stupid for the Wermacht to commit so much force in Poland that the Siegfried line could be easily taken.
It would have been stupid to commit tanks to fight in terrain where some well positionned infantery can easily stop them.
But, seeing how awful was the intel at the time, the decision not to senselessly attack made sense.

French command was probably just unprepared that German offensive would be this fast, and wasn`t particularly willing to hastily throw their army into enemy defensive line. Even if German defenders weren`t particularly numerous, terrain and defensive line would probably prove to be quite a challenge for hastily mobilized French.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

Two points on Poland. As others have said, the Poles were expected to hold out much longer. They were nominally the replacement for Russia in the Entente alliance and, to be fair, had demonstrated they were capable of defeating a neighbouring Great Power invasion in the Polish-Soviet War.

The other point is that the Allies thought WWII would be like WWI. WWI had been won against Germany in large part by a combination of attrition and blockade, so the Allies felt they had time on their side and would win if Germany didn’t act quickly.

As to guarantees, it is notable that there really weren’t that many actual wars that provoked no Allied intervention and certainly not full annexation wars by minors (German expansion was largely through diplomacy and strong-arm tactics/military threats, but when they actually declared on Poland Allies intervened, besides that there’s Ethiopia and China, both also attacked by major powers). It’s a tough balance on how/when intervention should be allowed, both on gameplay and history grounds.

 

[Meglok]

@Divine Order
Sucks to be small fish in big pond. Large nations are going to be willing to accept pressuring a much smaller nation to keep it out of their club.

As long as YOUR world tension contribution is below 10% nobody will guarantee, even if the world tension is over 25%.

Which means you get probably 1 country to attack before you cross 10 per cent.

What most people try to do is to get a claim on your second target and declare war before you annex your first victim.
And hope you can do it fast enough before Germany and Japan drive up world tension. The cut off date is usually before Japan does Marco Polo Bridge.