Invite Your Ally To War or Mutual Attack
Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators
- StrikeForce20
- Captain
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Aug 01 2008
- Location: Paris, France
Invite Your Ally To War or Mutual Attack
so we have Mutual Defense yea yea but it rarely works at least with me. Example, Iran doesnt like the US and many European countries and vice versa. So now im France and I want to take out Iran but I need a coalition so I ask my allies through the diplomacy tool individually UK, USA, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada rest of NATO and ANZAC to declare war on Iran. When we do this it will not lower our UN standings because naturally in the game Iran is very hostile and usually gets out of UN so we would have a high CB against them. What do you think amigos?
-
- Sergeant
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Jun 05 2009
- Human: Yes
Re: Invite Your Ally To War or Mutual Attack
that would be awesome.
-
- General
- Posts: 3604
- Joined: Dec 11 2008
- Location: Turunmaa/Turunseutu, Suomi
- Contact:
Re: Invite Your Ally To War or Mutual Attack
I like the Idea, though I think that the leader of a coalition sould bear the most(if not all) political hits, since it's the leader. Then again the leader would have the most to say how things goe.
Happy Linux user!
Links: List of Mods
Links: List of Mods
-
- Warrant Officer
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Oct 05 2008
Re: Invite Your Ally To War or Mutual Attack
I like the idea but I have some suggestions to add.
When NATO or even UN forces are deployed, other nations just allocate troops, equipment and/or bases and typicaly one nation takes the lead on combat operations. If you were spearheading it, and allocating the majority of troops (like the US, UN and Afghanistan operation, the US has the most forces and is top command for combat operations).
I would look to see something that represents that, "ok, allies who's going to pony up what resources?" *select units like in trade menu but for a "JSF - NATO Command" or something* and then go to a strategic support screen interface where you choose sea, land and air supply routes (if you don't have access can you ask for support (via giving back financial aid) to the country allowing use of its air base (maybe that nation also loses the ability to use that airbase while you're "renting" it, and when the agreement is up, either you get out or renegoitate a new agreement (better plan wisely, but not too much otherwise you're renting a base you no longer need).
I would also look to see a non-military conquest for this action. NATO/UN would not sieze the territory, in fact, who would get it? What nation would benefit from that? Would a nation like Portugal be ok with the US taking up more territory? so...what about a peace keeping mission/install new government (I know this has been mentioned before in threads). This is the logic conclusion, install a more friendly govenemtn and you (like today) have to withdrawl troops/personell and help the new country rebuild (which also means you want to limit damage to infrastructure (i.e. more accurate artillery and bombing from the air, you're going to need that airbase or power plant, etc)
When NATO or even UN forces are deployed, other nations just allocate troops, equipment and/or bases and typicaly one nation takes the lead on combat operations. If you were spearheading it, and allocating the majority of troops (like the US, UN and Afghanistan operation, the US has the most forces and is top command for combat operations).
I would look to see something that represents that, "ok, allies who's going to pony up what resources?" *select units like in trade menu but for a "JSF - NATO Command" or something* and then go to a strategic support screen interface where you choose sea, land and air supply routes (if you don't have access can you ask for support (via giving back financial aid) to the country allowing use of its air base (maybe that nation also loses the ability to use that airbase while you're "renting" it, and when the agreement is up, either you get out or renegoitate a new agreement (better plan wisely, but not too much otherwise you're renting a base you no longer need).
I would also look to see a non-military conquest for this action. NATO/UN would not sieze the territory, in fact, who would get it? What nation would benefit from that? Would a nation like Portugal be ok with the US taking up more territory? so...what about a peace keeping mission/install new government (I know this has been mentioned before in threads). This is the logic conclusion, install a more friendly govenemtn and you (like today) have to withdrawl troops/personell and help the new country rebuild (which also means you want to limit damage to infrastructure (i.e. more accurate artillery and bombing from the air, you're going to need that airbase or power plant, etc)
-
- General
- Posts: 2548
- Joined: Dec 08 2007
- Location: Tipton, UK
Re: Invite Your Ally To War or Mutual Attack
perhaps the land would be handed back over, but to a government set up by the invaders, like iraq where they have a 'democratically' elected government, for example. The nation would then become really freindly with the nations perhaps, like US and iraq, and maybe provide them with some kit to rebuild them, like US and Iraq with iraq now having m1a1's (according to DID)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
- mfisher12
- Lt. Colonel
- Posts: 223
- Joined: Aug 23 2008
Re: Invite Your Ally To War or Mutual Attack
I second this. Right now, once you subjugate a country, it's just basically added territory (albeit with less efficient production). The political options end after war is declared and that goes against the Clauswitzian notion of war as "continuation of politics by other means".SGTscuba wrote:perhaps the land would be handed back over, but to a government set up by the invaders, like iraq where they have a 'democratically' elected government, for example. The nation would then become really freindly with the nations perhaps, like US and iraq, and maybe provide them with some kit to rebuild them, like US and Iraq with iraq now having m1a1's (according to DID)
There should also be insurgencies, far beyond the end of the actual war, requiring constant garrisoning and pacification.