Perhaps they should be entitled to know that there will be some kind of pact, if not what kind of pact. But perhaps that wouldn't resolve the problem. Just thinking...
-
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.
KT2, I think you lept over the idea about 10ft in the air.
No one has to know precisely when your going to do anything.
Why not make a trade with Russia based on Historical MR (albeit if i was russia it wouldnt be my usual big deal with no guarantee of peace till 41). But a semi decent deal to at least ensure MR.. After thats its anyones game. You could even renogociate trade after MR.
The key thing here is USSR is NOT forced to trade with Germany, so if Germany doesnt want to guarantee peace till June 22nd 1941 then USSR certainly doesn't have to trade you anything.
You can do whatever you want.... Just dont make the normal trades that Aussie group does. There is nothing in our rules that forces the DOW date for Russia or the factor of trading.... How that is approached is entirely in German hands.
You dont have to wait till 41, and you dont have to reveal your planned DOW date.... just dont expect mass materials from USSR...... Prettys imple really i dont see what all the fuss is about.
Remember Aussie rules are more like Guidlines then rules. Rules must be flexible to allow things to happen.
No one has to know precisely when your going to do anything.
Why not make a trade with Russia based on Historical MR (albeit if i was russia it wouldnt be my usual big deal with no guarantee of peace till 41). But a semi decent deal to at least ensure MR.. After thats its anyones game. You could even renogociate trade after MR.
The key thing here is USSR is NOT forced to trade with Germany, so if Germany doesnt want to guarantee peace till June 22nd 1941 then USSR certainly doesn't have to trade you anything.
You can do whatever you want.... Just dont make the normal trades that Aussie group does. There is nothing in our rules that forces the DOW date for Russia or the factor of trading.... How that is approached is entirely in German hands.
You dont have to wait till 41, and you dont have to reveal your planned DOW date.... just dont expect mass materials from USSR...... Prettys imple really i dont see what all the fuss is about.
Remember Aussie rules are more like Guidlines then rules. Rules must be flexible to allow things to happen.
well Dan had this problem with anders last friday. The problem wasn't the trading, it was that anders was demanding the trade and the agreement of no war until 1941 june or he was going to declare war on germany in 1940 april.
All this talk of gameyness.... some of you are retards honestly.
You know whats more gamey then any of this.... is ALLIES not trading with AXIS no matter what happens. That is more gamey then anything.
-Read the Rules.
-Read what i have written. CLEARLY AND SLOWLY
How Germany approaches the situation is what matters. IT hasn't got a damn thing to do witht he rules.
In our current Monday Tuesday game i am USA and i am trading to Japan, 100oil 80 power 40 steel 30 rares 5cash for 37supps. The only deal we have is to keep historical DOW date but as far as im concerned (its now like june 1941) they can bloody attack me whenever they want.
-Read what i have written. CLEARLY AND SLOWLY
You know whats more gamey then any of this.... is ALLIES not trading with AXIS no matter what happens. That is more gamey then anything.
-Read the Rules.
-Read what i have written. CLEARLY AND SLOWLY
How Germany approaches the situation is what matters. IT hasn't got a damn thing to do witht he rules.
In our current Monday Tuesday game i am USA and i am trading to Japan, 100oil 80 power 40 steel 30 rares 5cash for 37supps. The only deal we have is to keep historical DOW date but as far as im concerned (its now like june 1941) they can bloody attack me whenever they want.
-Read what i have written. CLEARLY AND SLOWLY
a.d.a.m said:
I wouldnt trade either without some sort of agreement, and even then if its only a very limited and shallow 1940 agreement youll be hard pressed to get rares and oil out of me as well. Why give shit to Germany so cheap if there only going to stab you early like a chicken shit.
If USSR dows Germany early then good for them. (though suicidial at the least).
I still fail to see what allt he fuss is about. No Agreement no trade pretty simple really.
Danzig happens at the same date every game i dont here a big German sing song and dance over it :rofl: :rofl:
ADAM i just reread what you wrote on the other page..
"I think what k2 is trying to say is he doesn't want SU to have a guarantee in 1936 that there will be war in 1941 or 1940, he wants to wait until he molotov pact to decide it, like hiensen's rules and the rules I am used to playing by."
Thats is fair enough if Germany wants to be cloak and dagger about the whole thing thats fine. USSR should still do some trade with Germany i certainly wouldnt be giving them 40 oil and 40 rares a day from 36 onwards though.
Seems like a pretty fair trade. Be cloak and dagger and dont get as much resources. Be Transparent and get tonnes of materials.
IT works in both Axis and Commitern Favour.
Anyway i still fail too see what the exact point of all of this is. It is entirely upto the German how he approaches the situation and Entirely upto USSR how he reponds No Group has ever had a rule on dimplomacy between 2 nations............ Just seems like a good rant thread at the most i really am missing the poin i guess.
Last edited:
KngTigerII said:
gamey???
Perhaps you didnt notice that it is by 'consent'. That is, that germany agrees to it in return for a preferential trade agreement, it is not forced upon either party.
If Germany wants to attack in 1940 they are more than welcome but why would the SU wait for that when they can attack in 39 when Germany faces France.
A simple concept. Sounds like you want to have your cake and well you know.......
My two cents
Lets face it everyone knows history, if we didn't how many of us would find this game so much fun?
For me, a strong German is expected. Danzig is demanded.
What would happen if Germany waited say until 1941 to take out Poland? By that time it's army would be massive and the best in the world.
We are playing a historical re-enactment to a degree and rules need to be set and followed to allow for a fair German fight.
It would be no fun if there was no Vichy Government, if Norway, Denmark, belgium and Luximberg did not fall...
After that we can begin with the what-ifs...
I am sure as a human player I do not need German's help to beat the British in Africa. That is mainly because I have blooded most of my top generals in Ethiopia. They will give me the combat bonus I need to defeat the 8th army although I doubt Britain will get it there in time.
Is this historical, no. But I am sure I can do it.
Just as I am confident I can snatch Greece and Yugoslavia without German help.
So rules should also be seen as guidelines as well.
Both the Soviet Union and Germany knew war was coming.
But they had to trade. That is historical.
It is clear that some rules such as not guaranteeing another country's independance keep the game fair.
The trade should also be fair.
Russia gains by being given a free split of Poland and a free hand in Finland.
Fair trade I say. But the word of the likes of Hitler and Stalin should count for nothing.
It was in Russia's interest to stay out of the war and the game mechanics make this very profitable to the Russian player to do just that.
But hey I am preaching to the converted.
The end result is important rules like this need to be discussed in the lobby before the game starts.
And if there is a major problem then the game should be stopped, saved and everyone exit to the lobby and discuss the issue.
I am sure in this case as in many other a concensus could have been reached.
Lets face it everyone knows history, if we didn't how many of us would find this game so much fun?
For me, a strong German is expected. Danzig is demanded.
What would happen if Germany waited say until 1941 to take out Poland? By that time it's army would be massive and the best in the world.
We are playing a historical re-enactment to a degree and rules need to be set and followed to allow for a fair German fight.
It would be no fun if there was no Vichy Government, if Norway, Denmark, belgium and Luximberg did not fall...
After that we can begin with the what-ifs...
I am sure as a human player I do not need German's help to beat the British in Africa. That is mainly because I have blooded most of my top generals in Ethiopia. They will give me the combat bonus I need to defeat the 8th army although I doubt Britain will get it there in time.
Is this historical, no. But I am sure I can do it.
Just as I am confident I can snatch Greece and Yugoslavia without German help.
So rules should also be seen as guidelines as well.
Both the Soviet Union and Germany knew war was coming.
But they had to trade. That is historical.
It is clear that some rules such as not guaranteeing another country's independance keep the game fair.
The trade should also be fair.
Russia gains by being given a free split of Poland and a free hand in Finland.
Fair trade I say. But the word of the likes of Hitler and Stalin should count for nothing.
It was in Russia's interest to stay out of the war and the game mechanics make this very profitable to the Russian player to do just that.
But hey I am preaching to the converted.
The end result is important rules like this need to be discussed in the lobby before the game starts.
And if there is a major problem then the game should be stopped, saved and everyone exit to the lobby and discuss the issue.
I am sure in this case as in many other a concensus could have been reached.
KngTigerII said:Should Germany be forced to disclose to SU in 1936 their plans to attack SU in 40 or 41 just to guarantee resource trades with SU?
You know i just should have read the 1st post properly rather then the lengthy debate under it all..
The answer to this is NO. Germany is not forced to disclose anything. (Doesn't mean the Ruskis have to accept it either).
Case Closed.
Next Question?
Mighty G said:
Can Italy attack a Republican Spain before the fall of Paris? say in 1939...
Surely it would not be in Italy's interest to have a pro-communist state so close. Historical an event has occured that has changed history.
I am sure historically Italy would have sent troops in support of nationalist spain had they been losing and might even have launched a full scale attack had they lost.
Just wondering
Bobb4 said:Can Italy attack a Republican Spain before the fall of Paris? say in 1939...
Surely it would not be in Italy's interest to have a pro-communist state so close. Historical an event has occured that has changed history.
I am sure historically Italy would have sent troops in support of nationalist spain had they been losing and might even have launched a full scale attack had they lost.
Just wondering
If it is After Danzig, by Rule Yes.
I would expect Allies to DOW over such a move (no different to Italy DOW'ing Greece prior to joining Axis).
Next?
Mighty G said:If it is After Danzig, by Rule Yes.
I would expect Allies to DOW over such a move (no different to Italy DOW'ing Greece prior to joining Axis).
Next?
I agree it should mean a DOW but if in support of Nationalist Spain rather than Italy on its own? Invading via National Spain provinces and leaving after Nationalist win?
Without a Nationalist spain nothing stops either Germany or Italy grabbing Gibralter through the back door so to speak.
The only thing that prevented this was a non-aggression pact between Spain and the Axis.
Just a thought...
Will let Spain become a republic and then DOW at Danzig or at a time shortly thereafter.
I close Gibralter and seal my little pond tight...
Just seems too easy to do it like that.
Your plan is ok but not so great, you get Spain what bout N Africa and Suez?
And can you deal with France, UK and SPain all at the same time whilst Germans are not through France yet..... ?
And can you deal with France, UK and SPain all at the same time whilst Germans are not through France yet..... ?
Having looked at this, I really think one has to consider that even if people are used to the way Hiensen's rules are put together, one has to recognize that each set of rules is a set of checks and balances within itself. So, what adds to balance in Hiensen's rules, may not also do so in the Aussie rules. Each set of rules follows its own course, and for its own reasons.
It seems to me that the idea here with having this negotiation process start early, is part of the game balance for this rules set. Trade is one of the only ways that SU can put any kind of limit on Germany's ability to prosecute a war in 1940, because they can force Germany to spend supplies getting basic raw materials from minors, as opposed to new divisions.
How this actually plays out in terms of game balance is beyond me, but I guess one has to accept that since these guys have hashed this all out over a period of time, that their rule provide a reasonable balance. At some point, balance is about the quality of play, not just the rules, one would hope.
I am personally keeping the K2 version of Hiensen rule about SU and German trade in the EIR games for the time being, but that is not to say that the Aussie concept is flawed, but just to say it is different. Right now, based on Predator's suggestions, we are experimenting with reducing the "cancel_deal_threshold" for minors in the EIR mod, to try make supply exploiting more or less impossible (it is now basicly impossible to get a minor nation to agree to and not cancel a trade under 50% ). How this will play out in the long run, in terms of game balance, is anybodies guess.
The main thing is to keep the games going...
It seems to me that the idea here with having this negotiation process start early, is part of the game balance for this rules set. Trade is one of the only ways that SU can put any kind of limit on Germany's ability to prosecute a war in 1940, because they can force Germany to spend supplies getting basic raw materials from minors, as opposed to new divisions.
How this actually plays out in terms of game balance is beyond me, but I guess one has to accept that since these guys have hashed this all out over a period of time, that their rule provide a reasonable balance. At some point, balance is about the quality of play, not just the rules, one would hope.
I am personally keeping the K2 version of Hiensen rule about SU and German trade in the EIR games for the time being, but that is not to say that the Aussie concept is flawed, but just to say it is different. Right now, based on Predator's suggestions, we are experimenting with reducing the "cancel_deal_threshold" for minors in the EIR mod, to try make supply exploiting more or less impossible (it is now basicly impossible to get a minor nation to agree to and not cancel a trade under 50%
). How this will play out in the long run, in terms of game balance, is anybodies guess.The main thing is to keep the games going...
Last edited:
Ultimately, this nonsense is going to lead me to create a new rule set which combines several rule sets to make one really good, well rounded HISTORICAL game ruleset. Your opinions on this thread are greatly appreciated so thanks!
KngTigerII said:
Hey, that sounds like a great Idea, Keep us posted. I would be interested in it.
Just out of curiosity how do you intend to devise a rule based on a situation of player diplomacy?
For every Carrot there must be a Stick.
For every Carrot there must be a Stick.