Non-aggression pact

    • I agree. Join an alliance, play with your friends, set up a defense, but don't make the game protect you from treachery. I would prefer there was a grace period BEFORE you could join or set up an alliance.
      Get to know your neighbors before deciding to partner. How quick people are to create a coalition and accept someone - no matter where they are on the map - as long as they can fog a mirror.
    • Edepedable wrote:

      The Germans breaking their agreements with the Soviet Union in WW2 did absolutely nothing to the moral of German people or their army.
      That's true, and indeed a totalitarian system could make their people do and believe a lot.
      But note that the Hitler-Stalin pact was a only a peace treaty (which furthermore was from the beginning on only a tactical manoeuvre from Hitler's side, while the "subjection of the Slavian race" was his declared goal all the time) and not an alliance in any way.

      While my variation of the proposal would only make it harder to switch from alliance to war within less than two days. Like... for example imagine the British government decided to backstab the French when they realized that France was about to get lost to the Germans. So they would take their troops based in Northern France to occupy Paris before the Germans could arrive there. Such backstabbing happens often in CoW - without any penalty for the fraudster. While in reality, it would have very badly decreased the morale of the British population.

      I agree that betrayal must be possible, cause that's adding some pepper to otherwise dull diplomatic relations. But backstabbing an ally shouldn't be all that easy and beneficial.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      That's true, and indeed a totalitarian system could make their people do and believe a lot.
      It took a few long years to the U.S people to understand what was going with Irak and its war and it's a "free" country, imagine what a totalitarian regime could do.
      Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

      Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
    • Correct.
      Similarly, many nations in history fought out wars without any negative effect on the morale of their people. Nevertheless, CoW gives you -5 morale while having war with another country. Which is good, by the way. So why not penalize declaring war on an ally from within last two days with an additional one-time morale malus (as in my variation of the proposal)? That would match the existing in-game logic.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Edepedable wrote:

      ... imagine the British government decided to backstab the French when they realized that France was about to get lost to the Germans. So they would take their troops based in Northern France to occupy Paris before the Germans could arrive there.


      The British government did decide to backstab the French! They did not take Paris, because they were unable to do so and happy that there troops were able to flee across the channel, but they sank the french fleet, murdering thousands of french sailors in the process.
    • Hans A. Pils wrote:

      Like... for example imagine the British government decided to backstab the French when they realized that France was about to get lost to the Germans. So they would take their troops based in Northern France to occupy Paris before the Germans could arrive there. Such backstabbing happens often in CoW - without any penalty for the fraudster. While in reality, it would have very badly decreased the morale of the British population.
      I did not write this, @Hans A. Pils wrote this.

      And yes, the attack on Mers-el- Kébir is a great counterexample. The british did not want the french fleet to fall into German hands and with their combined fleets threate the safety if the britisch isles. So Churchill sank the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir. Neither did it drop britisch morale though. The U.S. had doubts about Britisch rule being strong enough to fight off the Germans. With this attack they showed the U.S. that they were willing to get their hands dirty. It is one of the events that helped in the U.S. taking Britain seriously.

      Reality aside however, I still think it should not be implemented. The gains of backstabbing are not diminished by a morale drop. The gains are simply to big in any type of scenario.

      It would mean that players are going to feel even safer when having an ally then they already do now. So it might even worsen the possibility of players getting backstabbed. Anything that makes it more tempting for players to send their entire army into 1 direction will make backstabbing more likely. So its not a good idea. Just keep an eye on your allies. There are no guarantees in a WAR GAME.
    • There could be 2 relations: peace and the non-aggresion. If you sign peace, that is just like a more ceremonial ceasefire, you build up your army and prepare the second attack. But when both of you sign a non-aggresion, you should know that the person you are signing the treaty with probably has some problems and he cant manage to fight a war with you. Let me give an example:



      We have four countries: Germany, France, Japan and USSR. Japan attacks USSR, while France attacks Germany. To make sure nothing spectacular happens, USSR and Germany sign a guarantee that no aggresion will be made, and they sign a peace period of 3 days. That way it cant be overused, and only people who really have problems will be able to use it.




      Still, there are two sides to the coin, because after all-

      Edepedable wrote:

      There are no guarantees in a WAR GAME.


      This way i wanted to say that both side are basically correct and wrong.