Okay. I think my ideas are not being interpreted correctly.
the Idea behind this is actually the opposite--that Germany can get EVEN MORE aggressive than they already are, and start going after Switzerland, Denmark the Low Countries, Italy or Poland at a time of their choosing.
Yes, Germany could show a peaceful streak. It should, however, be a rare occurence. I think it would hilarious to watch a game where Germany renounced EVERY ONE OF HER TERRITORIAL CLAIMS and sat peacefully while everyone else got bored and DOWed the Soviets. But that's a sure route to defeat--they will never have the VP to win, so they've just handed the Allies the game. That's what not expanding means, it means a thrown game, and you should be respectful that you just won the game for free.
This is the real piece of ahistory here, that Hitler could have been radically different in his foreign actions. He did, for sure, renounce some of those claims (South Tyrol, Lithuania, and Switzerland) that he definitely did not have to. You would not need to do this (but consider the impact of not doing so...) and could seize those territories for yourself if you wanted.
I think the USA will DOW the Soviets if Germany decides its content with its situation, and that Japan would be the flashpoint if Germany has done nothing. A peaceful Germany would not mean a tranquil game, just a tranquil Europe. But this is not that idea of what I had in mind.
The Idea is that the war could have an entirely different flashpoint, with entirely different players, on entirely different timeframes. The war could be started by the Geneva Crisis, or by a Union of Belgium and Germany, or Germany going after the South Tirol held by Italy. That's what I think would probably be the main effect is that you or the AI get to decide what gambles they want to take, instead of being set before hand.
You could even force a showdown over the Maginot Line from France, if you were crazy.
As for the Soviets, the lack of gains was the main reason they chose the Axis. However, standing with Poland would surely compromise Polands national integrity, and I can envision Stalin acquiring enough influence over Poland to wrestle it away from the Allies and into the Commintern.
For the trouble, the Soviets would get Poland, and anything they can grab in Germany proper. A partition of Germany, rather than Poland--but with the drawbacks of both being a very hard opponent and with the potential of gaining nothing if the Allies strike first. Versus the concrete gains from the Axis powers.
It is the choice that the Soviets should be allowed to make. Germany should drop everything if Stalin is standing behind Poland. Perhaps they go after Denmark instead of Poland. But forcing the Germans away from Poland gives the Soviets a different kind of buffer to protect themselves, and could only be a major diplomatic victory for the Allies and Commintern.
the Idea behind this is actually the opposite--that Germany can get EVEN MORE aggressive than they already are, and start going after Switzerland, Denmark the Low Countries, Italy or Poland at a time of their choosing.
Yes, Germany could show a peaceful streak. It should, however, be a rare occurence. I think it would hilarious to watch a game where Germany renounced EVERY ONE OF HER TERRITORIAL CLAIMS and sat peacefully while everyone else got bored and DOWed the Soviets. But that's a sure route to defeat--they will never have the VP to win, so they've just handed the Allies the game. That's what not expanding means, it means a thrown game, and you should be respectful that you just won the game for free.
This is the real piece of ahistory here, that Hitler could have been radically different in his foreign actions. He did, for sure, renounce some of those claims (South Tyrol, Lithuania, and Switzerland) that he definitely did not have to. You would not need to do this (but consider the impact of not doing so...) and could seize those territories for yourself if you wanted.
I think the USA will DOW the Soviets if Germany decides its content with its situation, and that Japan would be the flashpoint if Germany has done nothing. A peaceful Germany would not mean a tranquil game, just a tranquil Europe. But this is not that idea of what I had in mind.
The Idea is that the war could have an entirely different flashpoint, with entirely different players, on entirely different timeframes. The war could be started by the Geneva Crisis, or by a Union of Belgium and Germany, or Germany going after the South Tirol held by Italy. That's what I think would probably be the main effect is that you or the AI get to decide what gambles they want to take, instead of being set before hand.
You could even force a showdown over the Maginot Line from France, if you were crazy.
As for the Soviets, the lack of gains was the main reason they chose the Axis. However, standing with Poland would surely compromise Polands national integrity, and I can envision Stalin acquiring enough influence over Poland to wrestle it away from the Allies and into the Commintern.
For the trouble, the Soviets would get Poland, and anything they can grab in Germany proper. A partition of Germany, rather than Poland--but with the drawbacks of both being a very hard opponent and with the potential of gaining nothing if the Allies strike first. Versus the concrete gains from the Axis powers.
It is the choice that the Soviets should be allowed to make. Germany should drop everything if Stalin is standing behind Poland. Perhaps they go after Denmark instead of Poland. But forcing the Germans away from Poland gives the Soviets a different kind of buffer to protect themselves, and could only be a major diplomatic victory for the Allies and Commintern.
However, there was some wrong solutions in my opinion.
