Whatever happened to the two stages of US Isolation?

[=XIII=Wedge]

I've been playing a lot of the USA recently and recall in the past having two stages of isolation - Undisturbed Isolation and then Isolation.

I also noticed that in the '36 you start in the former and then '39 in the the latter.

Also note that Undisturbed Isolation has a 50% War support requirement to replace it whilst for Isolation this is 75%.

Despite this it is impossible to move to Isolation from Undisturbed Isolation in the 1936 start.

The consequences are one of pacing of the USA on the historical path.

I can have a fully mobilized economy and in the Allies in early '40.

Historically after Pear Harbor it still took the USA until November '42 to launch Operation Torch in North Africa and August '42 to launch Operation Watchtower in the Pacific.

Popular history has attributed a quote to Japanese Admiral Yamamoto regarding his fear of “awakening a sleeping giant,”. The Japanese attack is what historically woke the sleeping giant yet following the Neutrality Act path you can be on Civilian Economy with a mere 30% war support by taking the 'Giant Awakes' - only the next focus on from the Arsenal of Democracy.

Was this change intentional or is this a mistake? Am I missing something here?

 

[GrandVezir]

Was this change intentional or is this a mistake? Am I missing something here?

The change was intentional; it gives the player more choices to mobilize early. The USA AI does not pursue the early mobilization/join the Allies in 1939 strategy, but a human player can.

 

[=XIII=Wedge]

The change was intentional; it gives the player more choices to mobilize early. The USA AI does not pursue the early mobilization/join the Allies in 1939 strategy, but a human player can.

Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If the player wants to intervene earlier they can take the alternative democratic - limited intervention focus path.

The president can't just declare war without the consent of congress (unless you go slightly fascist and take the War Powers Act focus (not possible with FDR))

'Limited intervention' has the Intervention Mandate decisions where you can protest events and prepare interventions.

This was how it was designed to work. Rather than give the player more choices as you say it actually reduces choices.

Limited intervention path (where you can go to war sooner, but at the cost of a slower mobilization of a potential super power economy) verses the Neutrality Act path (which mobilizes the arsenal of democracy, but limits interaction until a full blown world war and the POTUS manages to win the argument against continued domestic isolation.)

FDR was nearly there, but Tojo shot first.

If we take away that choice, we reduce the understanding of the decisions that confronted these historical figures, the compromises and the consequences of war. It becomes a non-choice, which reduces the utility of the player.

For if you are correct then, I would be extremely disappointed after they put in the effort to developing the US focus tree in the Ironclad patch.

 

[GrandVezir]

For if you are correct then, I would be extremely disappointed after they put in the effort to developing the US focus tree in the Ironclad patch.

If you find that disappointing, then don't look too closely at the Panay decision. One button, war with Japan. Can force them to capitulate before mid-1940.

 

[bitmode]

Despite this it is impossible to move to Isolation from Undisturbed Isolation in the 1936 start.

The consequences are one of pacing of the USA on the historical path.

I can have a fully mobilized economy and in the Allies in early '40.

I think the intention was that 30% war support translates to roughly 100% world tension, while allowing for any special effects that move the needle for the US in particular. But due to abysmal game balance in an effort to sell more DLC, hey let's just hand out 10% war support for an attaché, thank you for your purchase.

 

[=XIII=Wedge]

If you find that disappointing, then don't look too closely at the Panay decision. One button, war with Japan. Can force them to capitulate before mid-1940.

If you go neutrality act and go to take the war goal over Panay, you will get a 30% stability and a 10% war support de-buffs. Actually go to war and you will add an extra 30% stability and 20% war support for an offensive war. Limited Intervention this event de-buffs don't apply.

This will likely cause strikes and potentially draft issues, you will struggle to get to War economy.

That's what I mean about choices and consequences.

 

[GrandVezir]

Stability and war support are not hard to raise to 50%.

 

[brainiac1530]

If you really want to cheese the mobilization of the U.S., there's the Intervention in the Americas path that has you going to war with Venezuela IIRC, bypassing almost all of the usual time gates for mobilization by being at war. (Like the others of this kind, it simply starts a war when the timer expires, bypassing any restrictions on wargoal generation, etc.) This probably wouldn't be worthwhile for other countries who are "merely" stuck in Civilian Economy, especially as it doesn't do anything about the Great Depression, but Isolation is really punishing and getting rid of it is therefore quite valuable. This isn't even from one of the DLC branches of the focus tree.

 

[blahmaster6k]

If you guys want to talk about mobilizing early as the USA, may I interest you in having full mobilization, 100% war support, and Japan annexed in 1937?

First USA game...holy cow...so much industry...so many resources...and so much more

After several long slogs as Axis powers, playing first game as the USA, wow, just wow. If I can just get the Senate and the House to pass the two Ocean Navy Bill, it looks like it will be time to bash the fascists. I can't get over how...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[el nora]

If you guys want to talk about mobilizing early as the USA, may I interest you in having full mobilization, 100% war support, and Japan annexed in 1937?

That's a nice looking strategy. I give top marks to the one who came up with it. ;p

 

[blahmaster6k]

That's a nice looking strategy. I give top marks to the one who came up with it. ;p

Was it by any chance you? I know I get inspired by reddit a lot and it's usually you or lobster haha. I don't remember if I found this one there originally or already found it myself and refined it by looking it up on reddit.

 

[el nora]

Yes it was me. I was inspired over a year ago (actually probably two now) by a post on reddit of someone getting invaded by the allies for leaving the naval treaties. I knew about HDEA and saw the meme potential of a 1936 defensive war as USA.

 

[blahmaster6k]

Yes it was me. I was inspired over a year ago (actually probably two now) by a post on reddit of someone getting invaded by the allies for leaving the naval treaties. I knew about HDEA and saw the meme potential of a 1936 defensive war as USA.

Nice, glad you came in to take credit lol. In my defense, I knew about most of that strat before I ever saw anything about it on reddit since naval treaties have always been a clown fiesta, and when I wrote that guide I tried to find the original that had inspired me and couldn't find it anywhere. I wrote it up from experience of doing it quite a few times, not because I was stealing an old reddit post. I don't exactly know how much of the strat came from you aside from the releasing the tiny states, rest of it is just naval treaty abuse + half-communist USA strat. But you probably wrote the original thing that got me to put them all together.