I wanted to respond to this one now but it appears was already answered by others pretty sufficiently
Literally trying to conquer a European nation is by no means a minor pretext in the realities of that era. As Goldfinch rightly says, it was world war 1, not world war 23. It should be a rare thing.
Well, maybe you're right about the 1st world war being a poor example. But take the 1st world war's "proving grounds", the Crimean war.
Yeah, we had discussion about it above initiated by Al-Khalidi, I hope maybe a player Germany decided to do thatView attachment 819100
Uhhh any historical examples for this? Are we seriously going to see Germany intervene on behalf of some African tribe and lay Europe to ruin? Especially when the Sahara Niger Front has 0 versus 1 Brigade and all combat is going to happen between France and Germany how can this be called France vs Tibesti, haha.
Hmm, tbh in Crimean War reason would be even more serious - russia practically taking away sovereignty of a major power (Ottomans) holding a significant part of Europe and world's most strategic waterways.
For what I thought I knew, Russian invasion (trying really hard not to think of present day concerns) was the "second act" of a diplomatic conflict raised around the protection of Orthodox minorities. And even if this is a bogus, fabricated casus belli, it is still a minor issue. But as I said in another post, history is not my strongest point so I am more than happy to stand corrected.
Because every other time before that, one of the great powers involved in the diplomatic play backed down.
View attachment 819100
Uhhh any historical examples for this? Are we seriously going to see Germany intervene on behalf of some African tribe and lay Europe to ruin? Especially when the Sahara Niger Front has 0 versus 1 Brigade and all combat is going to happen between France and Germany how can this be called France vs Tibesti, haha.
Oh so we actually have a supporter of 36th great war in victoria 3. How lovely there are still some enthusiasts of 36th all european meat grinder before 1900Fashoda Incident - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
First Moroccan Crisis - Wikipedia
Agadir Crisis - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_Civil_War and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_crisis
Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903 - Wikipedia
Venezuelan crisis of 1895 - Wikipedia
And that's just the major ones that occurred during the time period. Any one of these and could have escalated into a full scale war between great powers. Just because cooler heads were present and prevailed in our history doesn't mean they would in different circumstances, and doesn't even mean that deescalation and someone backing down was necessarily the most likely outcome of any of these or other potential crises and plays that didn't happen, and the game should reflect that.
without being replied to by devs i increasingly see this game getting robust gameplay - replayability dynamics, also release of full game map at start incl. much art work of different nations are good signs
Nope. You're making the mistake of assuming that every diplomatic play is going to escalate to war. Realistically, both in history and in the game, not every diplomatic play, or even every diplomatic play between two great powers, is going to fully escalate to a conflict and most of the time someone is going to back down. That's the entire point of having the diplomatic plays in the first place instead of a "declare war" button, which would and did result in your alleged 36th European Meat Grinder Wars. So as you correctly point out, your assumption is absurd with regard to how the game will actually work. You just don't take the second step of what to do with that information, which is discarding that assumption as false.Oh so we actually have a supporter of 36th great war in victoria 3. How lovely there are still some enthusiasts of 36th all european meat grinder before 1900
Btw its absurd just like some stated before. 1st world war was called 1st and not 36th for a very good reason
1. You don't know this.
Who's gonna tell this one that the discussion is about war screenshot and not diplomatic play screenshot?
Yes exactly, this all would make more sense if there was some sort of "assume leadership over play" bargain thing, so Tibesti asks Germany: please support us and you can lead the whole thing. And then Germans can add as much wargoals as they want, and negotiate good peace deal.
Germany inherits war leadership and continues the war in pursuit of its own demand that it added against France after joining Tibesti's side in the diplomatic play.
No.
Thank you for the correction.
