BGForums

Is proxy warfare at the current state too much prone to exploitation? And does it create absense of war declarations in game (which eventualy causes CB never to rise therfore limiting other declarations of war to pop up)? Does it even create situations that potentialy cause "destack" bug and "waiting for safe path" issues?

Maybe we could improve and make proxy warfare more realistic (than current state) by implementing different levels of proxy warfare engagements?

I don't want to make a giantic first post so I will explain myself in following posts to make it easier to read.

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

I would suggest that when fighting in a proxy war, system should consider/check at least these things (for player and AI equally) and react accordingly:

Is there a declared war between the proxy fighter and the other party?
-YES =proxy warfare rules stay the same as now
-NO =proxy warfare rules limits the proxy fighter operations to the allies loyal hexes only!

What impact would this have to the curent game situations?
-It would prevent massive number of allies coming to assistance in expansionist wars (huge exploit at the moment where you can conquer half the world without using more than a few of your own units). If ally wants to participate in expansionist war through proxy war, they need to declare war and bear the consequences (which they don't at the current system). It would also prevent massive troop movement in colonial wars (as they don't have hexes loyal to parent nation/barer of alliance) unless the proxy fighter declares war.

I know that this suggestion rises the question is proxy war unnecessary in expansionist wars but I believe this would give an additional option (does the country want to conquer land for it self of for his ally - I admit, only human player could benefit from this option but still, maybe even AI could at some point in the future be able to benefit from this).

Proxy fighter would still be able to fight in defensive or liberation wars for his ally without declaring the war but in order conquer non loyal hexes for his ally he would need to declare war.

Now, comes the problem of loyal hexes but that will be covered in following post

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

What about countries that have mixed loyalties as default or are currently separated in two countries with different loyalties?
-There should be a way to assign more than one loyalty to one nation (only for proxy warfare purposes but this could also be considered when reunification occures; hostile or not )

*This could be done either by raw merging of loyalties
example: no more east german and west german loyalty; just german loyalty (the same could be applied to both Koreas, both Vietnams, Yugoslavia (I believe the only country in the game with no loyalty )

*Or by creating hidden info to which system would refere when questioning loyal hexes. Meaning there would still exist west and east german loyalty on the map but West Germany would have in that hidden info both loyalties (west and east) as its owns (same goes for East Germany)
example: if west germany offers possibilty of proxy war, the system could see that proxy can be fought without declaration of war in hexes with west and east german loyalty! But if the war escalates proxy fighters can't advance out of those hexes without declaring war.

I'm aware that someone might think that hidden info loyalties would make visual loyalties redundant but that is not the case if this would be used only for proxy warfare and not for economy (production penalties).

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

I'll stop now to give all of you chance to join the discussion

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

I'm beginning to think that the ultimate basis of a lot of the stacking,et al, issues is Proxy War. I did a post in this subforum on some suggestions to fix Vietnam/Korea. Ultimately, IMHO, you need a special 'treaty' that addresses colonial relationships--where it is only the mother country and colony involved (the UK in Africa, France in Indochina, et al).

As it is now, the game engine treats a colonial/independence conflict the same as August 1914--alliances kick in, and the Belgians are fighting in southern China.

I think there is no real need for a 'proxy war' special conflict--in the RL CW, proxy wars were fought by sending $$ and weapons to a client state, which is covered in the current diplo rules. Korea, in contrast, wasn't a proxy war at all, but a multinational alliance/police action, only limited by the PRC intervention in Dec 1950. Again, the current diplo rules (Alliances, Mutual Defense) allow for that to happen as well.

Fix the colonial warfare issue and I think you'll fix the rest as well. Not a real fan of the current proxy war setup--too open to abuse or other weirdness.

As I said in you thread, French allies have every right to come and help as France is in war with North Vietnam (France is not fighting proxy war). So, I still think the best and easiest way to improve this is by enhancing the proxy rules because what you are suggesting would conflict with the current way alliances work and would probably cause even more problems.

I believe the proxy was implemented to increase allies coming to assistance in wars and to stop that jigsaw conquering of a country when multiple parties are at war. Now, all they have to improve is the rules how this works (in what situations do allies come to assist, in what number do they come, to what extent do they help, how long should they stay after the war is over, etc.)

P.S. I am glad someone took interest in this thread even though we don't agree

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

Don't get me wrong--I think you have a lot of great ideas!

I'm just trying to think of a way that accurately reflects the fact that Luxembourg would have come to France's aid if the Soviets would have invaded, but never if France is fighting a colonial war in Algeria or Vietnam. As the rules stand now, you get every French ally in Vietnam. Historically, France would have loved it

Maybe there should be some way to "call allies" (sort of like in Victoria I or HOI)--that way the human player (and the AI) could pick and choose which countries to call on in war.

Example:

--The US signs a mutual def treaty with South Vietnam in 1962. In 1964, North Vietnam DoW's SVN. The US comes to SVN's aid, and calls on the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines and South Korea to come as well. The AI controlled countries respond like this:
--UK does not join the war, but sends $$ to SVN and a random unit design; no hit in US & SVN relations
--France refuses to join war; small hit to US and SVN relations, but much smaller than if it was a non-colonial (e.g. US vs USSR) war
--Australia sends a small detachment of ground, air and naval forces (3:2:1 ratio--3 ground bns, 2 Air squdns, 1 Frigate) to SVN
--New Zealand refuses to join war but sends small amount of $$ to SVN; no change in relations
-- Philippines and South Korea send troops (like Australia above)

This, I think, would give a bit more nuance to the system, vice a horde of German, Belgian, Italian, et al, troops running around Vietnam in 1950.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that you could tie which allies are called based on region. If a war started in Honduras (Hondo vs. Nicaragua), then the engine would limit the 'call allies' for the AI to only those allies in the region itself (North America). Example--AI Honduras (US leaning) is invaded by AI Nicaragua (USSR leaning). Honduras has a MD with the USA. Nicaragua has an alliance with Cuba. Hondruas will call on the US, but not any US ally (since it is not technically allied with them). Nic would call on Cuba, but not any Cuban ally (e.g. the USSR) for the same reason. The AI USA could send troops, aid, etc. up to a full DoW on Nicaragua (depending on DEFCON and relations--high DEFCON would act as a limiting factor, as the goal of the game is to NOT start WWIII; poor relations would encourage more aggressive actions).

You could even get more nuanced than that. High CB for Honduras would further reduce US aid (an overly aggressive country would be faced with the "well, you brought this on yourself" attitude).

Yes that would be a MUCH better setup then the current one and I agree with you on your statements.

I'm puzled as I'm not sure to whom you responded

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

Hmm, I like this "response" system (mentioned in your example) of yours...but I would rather tie that response system to "hex loyalty" system than limiting allies actions to regions you mentioned in your EDIT. Because even though I like your proposals, limiting allies help to specific regions would be a huge step back.
For example, if player is an asian based country and gets attacked, even if he has 20 allies all over the world, your suggestion would limit the number of allies able to come to his assistance and his chances of defending his country would deteriorate immensely.

Hex loyalty system would at the same time make offensive wars more difficult and defensive wars more easy and in generaly make it more realistic (as far as a computer game can be ) as it is more probable your allies will come to help defend your country than helping you conquer the world (current exploit I mentioned).

_________________

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
In Brazilian IAAR as Pascoal Humberto de Souza Branco

Personally.. I would be happy if allies only got a free pass for proxy war in a defensive situation. A NATO country declaring war on another nation isn't necessarily guaranteed the support of the rest of NATO. But another country declaring war on a NATO nation.. would invoke article 5. (Also worth noting is that Colonies are not covered by article 5)

_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum
my Supreme Ruler Cold war mods Site
Redistribution of my mods is prohibited. By downloading them you agree to not redistribute the file(s) without expressed permission.

sorry, my mistake, i was replying to aragos

I find the CB generated among proxy participants a bit odd. Destroying a unit gives the losing nation CB against the nation that destroyed the unit, regardless of which side is the initiator of the war, which side is acting offensively, etc.

I think a simple fix to start things off would be this:

When sending any units into a proxy war situation, the default pathing is to not enter countries it does not have a transit agreement with.

This way, you can still turn on the ability to enter enemy territory - but you'll still be facing the problem of forcing a DoW by doing so. This will essentially force the AI (or you) to be limited more to a "Police Action" by fortifying the allied's territory, but won't advance into the enemy's territory unless the ally presses forward.

Of course, this is a small step that only solves one small aspect, but, is a step none-the-less.

that is sort of what happens now. At least in Korea and Vietnam, as I see it. Problem comes when other powers (China, USSR) DoW powers, then it is real war, etc.