WW1 and the diplomatic meltdown - how is this simulated?

[unmerged(13037)]

YEah - but imagine this in multiplayer...

EU2 you needed loads of people to make it good - HOI, again you need a minimum of six or so...

With this, well you would need Turkey, Britain, France, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Russia, Germany - and BAM, imagine the fun you could have trying to recreate World War 1 - or the events leading up to it.

Hmmm... just need to find five friends who have 100+ hours spare!

 

[Caliga]

WWI presents a very interesting problem, and I was kind og hoping they would end the game in 1914 to avoid having to deal with it.

The problem is this: with historical hindsight, players won't behave in the idiotic ways that military planners/strategists did back then. Since no player would do things like order continuous frontal assaults against heavily entrenched positions, knowing the waste of resources and the slim to no chance of success, this war has always been a problem for historical boardgamers to mdoel, too.

The incredibly fun and successful boardgame Paths of Glory dealt with this problem by including a die roll that potentially forces the player to launch assaults, regardless of how fruitless they might be, or suffer severe political backlash (represented in that game by a loss of victory points). I would suggest Paradox follow an approach like that, or else a realistic WWI ain't gonna happen, unless the player isn't involved in it at all and the AI can be forced to behave stupidly.

 

[N Katsyev]

All I can say is that Germany better be praying to the god of every religion out there that Russia hasn't done better than historically in terms of modernization. Hell, even historically they were almost in the shit when the Russians mobilized much quicker than everyone thought they would. Had they used better communications, that weren't so easily read by the Germans, WWI could have been over much, much quicker, the German force in East Prussia wasn't exactly strong. I think with a bunch of humans in the seats, WWI will go very differently, or maybe not at all. If Germany sees a strong Russia, she may just want to go an ahistorical way of gaining prestige.

 

[Generalisimo]

this game will surelly have "scenarios" like all Paradox games...
i think that to represent WW1, you need to have a scenario that starts just days before the conflict, so every single part is ready to enter (or not) in the conflict.
BUT, imagine a "Full Campagin" game, that starts in 18xx, how the hell will you know which countries does exists? or even worst if Germany exists? or the Austro-Hugar empire? the player could have changed the entire map and the war could have been fought in 1850...
so, if you play a Full Campaign, i don't think that you will be able to play the WW1, BUT there MUST be a specific scenario will all the setup to play WW1.

 

[unmerged(16099)]

Caliga wrote:
----------------------
The problem is this: with historical hindsight, players won't behave in the idiotic ways that military planners/strategists did back then. Since no player would do things like order continuous frontal assaults against heavily entrenched positions, knowing the waste of resources and the slim to no chance of success, this war has always been a problem for historical boardgamers to mdoel, too.
------------------------

Yeah, that is a good point. I see the same thing sometimes in HoI. A human french player will often have ahistorical strength and fortifications due to his certain knowledge of a coming war. It is harder to go around the maginot line when it extends from sea to sea.





EnPeaSea

 

[Habbaku]

Originally posted by EnPeaSea
Caliga wrote:
----------------------
The problem is this: with historical hindsight, players won't behave in the idiotic ways that military planners/strategists did back then. Since no player would do things like order continuous frontal assaults against heavily entrenched positions, knowing the waste of resources and the slim to no chance of success, this war has always been a problem for historical boardgamers to mdoel, too.
------------------------
Yeah, that is a good point. I see the same thing sometimes in HoI. A human french player will often have ahistorical strength and fortifications due to his certain knowledge of a coming war. It is harder to go around the maginot line when it extends from sea to sea.
EnPeaSea

All the more reason for the AI to throw us a loop by having Germany suddenly promise lots of stuff to Spain just to attack from their territory.

 

[Juba]

IMO WW1 should happen by itself not through an event. If the alliances go like early EU2 then a war on the scale of WW1 should happen eventually.

 

[Killerjes]

Re: Re: WW1 and the diplomatic meltdown - how is this simulated?

Originally posted by BarristerBoy
The game has barely begun being designed yet - it isn't simulated at all right now. The better question is "how might it be simulated".

Concerning relations between nations you have the system from EU / EU2.
This models relations and alliances pretty well.
If you add the War Entry (WE) from HoI, like some kind of thermometer if you like, for "world tension" (WT ?).

Different events and AI / player actions can add or subtract from the different countries (and maybe alliances) WE or WT.

Then you have a build up, or break down as the case may be to a total war, where maybe one event is the final straw before one or more alliances DOW each other, maybe drawing more into the fray - kind of like a domino effect?

 

[Generalisimo]

Re: Re: Re: WW1 and the diplomatic meltdown - how is this simulated?

Originally posted by Killerjes
Concerning relations between nations you have the system from EU / EU2.
This models relations and alliances pretty well.
If you add the War Entry (WE) from HoI, like some kind of thermometer if you like, for "world tension" (WT ?).

Different events and AI / player actions can add or subtract from the different countries (and maybe alliances) WE or WT.

Then you have a build up, or break down as the case may be to a total war, where maybe one event is the final straw before one or more alliances DOW each other, maybe drawing more into the fray - kind of like a domino effect?

no thank you, remove that WE idea, if not you will end up in a war between Austro-Hungar empire and UK in 1835 because Argentina conquered south america...
Like it happens in HoI if you attack countries, the allies suddenly attacks Germany because of the 100% WE, no matter if they are in 1937 and Germany hasn't do anything...

 

[unmerged(16099)]

In another thread someone mentioned using scenarios to better focus on historical events like WWI.


Maybe have a start time of 1910 for a fairly historical world war one scenario. Or have a scenario that starts around 1860 to run the American civil war.



This would help take the pressure off having a historical WWI and ACW in the 1835-1920 scenario.







EnPeaSea

 

[unmerged(6657)]

I assume it will be very difficult for the AI to unify Germany and Italy, especially if the Human plays a European country. As a result, historical WWI is very unlikely to occur.

 

[unmerged(16099)]

Whew, my thread got merged with this one. I thought it had got deleted for a sec.













EnPeaSea

 

[crazy canuck]

I don't think there will need to be an event to trigger the war nor do I think that the game should end if war breaks out.

As I understand it the game will be simulating industrialization and the race to secure strategic resources to fuel that industrialization. The tensions regarding acquisitions of colonies and competition for resources will inevitably lead to conflict. I think the potential for having a war involving all the major powers will be built into the game, particularly considering the game will likely have a robust diplomatic system which will create the type of alliances that lead to the outbreak of WWI in the first place.

In fact it is likely that the game will create situations where "great wars" will be fought sooner and maybe even more than once within the time span of the game.

 

[Generalisimo]

Originally posted by crazy canuck
I don't think there will need to be an event to trigger the war nor do I think that the game should end if war breaks out.

As I understand it the game will be simulating industrialization and the race to secure strategic resources to fuel that industrialization. The tensions regarding acquisitions of colonies and competition for resources will inevitably lead to conflict. I think the potential for having a war involving all the major powers will be built into the game, particularly considering the game will likely have a robust diplomatic system which will create the type of alliances that lead to the outbreak of WWI in the first place.

In fact it is likely that the game will create situations where "great wars" will be fought sooner and maybe even more than once within the time span of the game.

i agree with you.

And i think that for the ones that want to play specifically the WW1, a scenario must be made with the corresponding setup just days before the start of the war.

Because if you play a Grand Campaign, you will surelly not see WW1.

 

[unmerged(5588)]

The most important t aspect of the entire game is IMHO that the diplomacy is accurate. AI countries should enter alliances to safeguard themselves against countries that are perceived as threats.

What about encouraging two powerful alliances to appear among the great powers of the late 19th. and early 20th. centuries? I would like to see some gentle hardcoding influencing the formation of two roughly equal alliances as this would be a prerequisite for a World War.

 

[Rundris]

There should be lots of ways the war could be triggered.

The war really could have started in 1905 or so, I think there was some sort of naval crisis off the coast of Morroco, I can't remember the details.

France and Germany were on a collision course. They were going to go for it sooner or later.

England though may not have gotten involved. They were actually not that interested in honoring the alliance with France. They entered the war because of the attrocities committed by the Germans in Belgum. If the Germans had not gone through Belgum, or had not shot civillians, England would have sat it out.

I think the EU2 diplomacy model would handle this ok.

Germany, Italy, Austria in an alliance.

France, Russia, England in an alliance.

England guarantees the independance of Belgum.

Russia guarantees the independence of Serbia.

Random event happens, "Political crisis" Austria gains CB on Serbia.

Austria declares war on Serbia, Russia gains CB on Austria.

Russia declares war on Austria, France honors the alliance and declares war on Austria, England dishonors the alliance. Germany honors the alliance with Russia and declares war on France and Russia. Italy dishonors the alliance.

Germany invades Belgum, England gets CB on German and declares war on Germany.

The only changes you have to make to the EU2 system are these:

**If a country declares war on another country and there is already and alliance at war with that country, the country declaring war automatically joins the alliance.

**If a major nation guarantees the independence of a minor nation, and the minor nation is attacked, then if the guarantor does not declare war on the attacker they take take a massive stability / dissent hit.

The odds of the historical alliances occurring in the game probably won't be that great. At the start of the game, France will be isolated, and England, Germany, Austria, and Russia allied as Napoleon was a recent memory.

Bizmark was able to maintain this for the most part, except the Austrian part, in order to keep France isolated.

France wasn't able to break out of this isolation until Germany let it slip towards the end of the century. If Germany had been able to hold onto the Russian alliance, then France would have gotten squashed in 1914. They almost did it as it was, with the extra troops they would have done it for sure. I think in the game that Germany should have a pretty good chance of holding onto the alliance with Russia. Both countries were still monarchies and the monarchs were related.

 

[Tamas]

During the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, Austria strongly considered of taking steps against Serbia. That would had caused WWI, but with different sides for the minor Balkan powers.

edit: And after the assasination in Sarajevo, Hungarian PM Tisza tried to convince other A-H leaders not to take steps by saying "Finding a Casus Belli in the Balkans will cause no problem in the future, if we think we are ready."

I think a hard-coded WWI would be a pretty bad idea.
Paradox would turn this game from XVIII.century-EU2 to XVIII. century-HoI.

 

[unmerged(11825)]

WWI should be very likely (after all, that would be historically accurate)
however, to stick with historical realism, it should not be hard-coded.. for the very fact that many ahistorical things could happen prior to the time WWI would've happened, and it simply would not make sense anymore.

now, including events that are based on circumstances that sets the game up to run into WWI would be fine.. for as long as the circumstances are similiar, then a similiar outcome will be achieved. I believe in EU2, the AI has about an 80% chance of going with the historical choice in events.. so this would not stray too far from being historical without feeling forced.

anyway.. i'm getting back from lunchbreak at work, so little time to complete thoughts.. wanted to add this link that looks good:

World War I at teacheroz

 

[unmerged(14393)]

I just what would have happened if the US hadn´t joined the war... Oh...how I want this game!

And about the diplomatic meltdown that led to war...a huge part of the disaster was the mobilization process. Once Russia for example decided to mobilize there was no turning back since they could only mobilize fully or not mobilize at all.

 

[Killerjes]

Re: Re: Re: Re: WW1 and the diplomatic meltdown - how is this simulated?

Originally posted by Generalisimo
no thank you, remove that WE idea, if not you will end up in a war between Austro-Hungar empire and UK in 1835 because Argentina conquered south america...
Like it happens in HoI if you attack countries, the allies suddenly attacks Germany because of the 100% WE, no matter if they are in 1937 and Germany hasn't do anything...

Well I'm not saying I know exactly how to implement it, but it could be nice if the two or three major alliances in most/many/some (?) cases clashed towards the end of the grand campaign?

I don't know exactly how EU2 handles war and conflicts?

But you are right about the fact that it should not be a scripted event!
My suggestion was some kind of tension building up between the major alliances, ie. a flexible system, so that it could be any countries / alliances against each other.
But if there was some kind of factor, maybe like the one in EU2 saying "when relations reach -200, then enough is enough" - and the next hostile event will be "the Great War trigger".

You get my point?
But as I said, I don't now how EU2 handles this - I've often seen something that is more or less a world war in EU2 !