BGForums

tkobo wrote:How about limiting the areas a visiting regions units can "stage" /travel thru with the treaty ?

Use the games land trade feature to select and assign hexs that allied units are allowed to travel thru and stage on .
And make it so ONLY those hexs selected can be traveled upon by visiting units.

This sounds excessivly micromanagy to me...

If you limit what can be transported under a transit treaty, I think it'd be simple to split it like this: without an alliance, you can transport troops but they cannot have ammunition, and air or naval units can only path to a base; and with an alliance, it's more of a NATO, full-featured agreement. Because I don't like being attacked by my enemies from "neutral" land they have a transit agreement with, so that solves that too.

Maybe you can do something with the -mutual defense- treaty:

Leave everything as it is now except when you place your troops
on allied ground you've to put them as reserve into an allied base
and there is just ONE way to deploy them:

Signing a -md- treaty which will lead automaticly to a DOW to your
ally enemies.

You can still DOW to your ally but your troops should then be considered as -prisoners-.You've to cap the bases to free your units...

I do agree to the "surrender" option. At least units in a city or close to enemy units in their territory, like when you use nuclear weapons. At least, such a declaration is also surprising to your own troops too, and this would be more realistic, in my opinion.

Also, maybe units should surrender when they can't retreat.. Even if they don't "join" the enemy, there's no need for that much of violence, i guess..

George,
I thought I read where one couldn't declare war upon an allied region if one had units in that allied region. I would make it impossible to station units in another region and then declare war on it. That's just plain cheating and unrealistic if one can move in units into an allied region and then declare war and steal a quick victory by capturing the enemy capital quickly. If allied one should be able to move units around an allied region's area to get to an enemy area to attack but that alliance should not be so easily broken that one could station an army around an allied capital and then say "Surprise".

I'd make it impossible to break an alliance while there are units of some region in another region's area. I'd make it so that if you want to break an alliance and go to war with an allied region then one must pull back all units from that allied region before being able to break that alliance.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

George chose a different route. For update 5, if you declare war on an ally, all your units in the former ally's territory loose their ammo and their efficiency takes a massive hit. We've done some testing of this and it seems to work quite well as a deterrent.

Does this loss of ammo include cargo ?

If not, what would stop people from just putting a large supply unit in each stack ?

tkobo wrote:Does this loss of ammo include cargo ?

If not, what would stop people from just putting a large supply unit in each stack ?

Actually, nothing stops them. But we've tested that and found it is very difficult to achieve effectively. Usually the supply units get attacked and often killed before the combat units are able to protect them. Remember that a combat unit without ammo does not fit the stand-off requirement. A supply truck in the same hex as 6 infantry is attacked without protection if all 6 infantry are out of bullets.

Balthagor wrote:George chose a different route. For update 5, if you declare war on an ally, all your units in the former ally's territory loose their ammo and their efficiency takes a massive hit. We've done some testing of this and it seems to work quite well as a deterrent.

Chris,
No problem since I don't "cheat" by taking advantage of alliances in that way. I still think that units should be completely withdrawn before war can be declared. My only concern now is will the AI foul itself up with this new change? I sure hope that the AI doesn't station units in allied territory.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

Would not matter if it did, he AI does not declare war on allies. The intent is to have it request to cancel alliance when it dislikes you too much and to break if you refuse and they continue to hate you but that is not currently the case.

And I do think that if you and the AI have very good relations and are both threatened by one region it garrison some of your key points if it thinks you're not guarding them enough, particularly if it borders no other regions. We have been writting up detailed rules to try and achieve some of this in future improvements.

Balthagor wrote:And I do think that if you and the AI have very good relations and are both threatened by one region it garrison some of your key points if it thinks you're not guarding them enough, particularly if it borders no other regions. We have been writting up detailed rules to try and achieve some of this in future improvements.

Thats really great news. I was doing same thing to AI allies when they didn't have sufficient forces in key region. Nice to know that they will back you up when needed too.

Just to be clear, that is still being worked on...

Balthagor wrote:And I do think that if you and the AI have very good relations and are both threatened by one region it garrison some of your key points if it thinks you're not guarding them enough, particularly if it borders no other regions. We have been writting up detailed rules to try and achieve some of this in future improvements.

Chris,
I actually do not like this concept of AI's thinking they need to help me guard my territory. The AI's are rather pathetic at guarding their own territory and this merely makes them worse at fending for themselves. I'd much rather leave defense of my territory to myself and let the AI's pay attention to defending their own territory. Who's to say what's important to guard or not? I think that's the province of us humans to decide and not the AI or the programmer. What might seem important to the AI usually isn't so I say keep the AI's nose in it's own business and territory. I certainly don't need or want any AI troops guarding my bridges in my rear areas.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen

Personally i think this is a great addition to the game IF done right.

I will be extremely happy to see AI regions that are not under any real near threat of attack by my region sending its units into the AI regions that they are allied with, that ARE under direct attack from me.

The AI allies simply dont help each other militarily as much as they can or should atm.

This could change that nicely.

I have seen units from as many as three other regions in one AI opponents territory. I've been attacking as Germany into Poland and seen Hungarian and Austrian troops move through Czech/Slovak territory to attack me (5-8 hes from their border maybe?) but we do still hope to expand this further and make it a more coordinated effort.