Not sure where I should put this, if it is in the wrong place please move it to the correct place .
Will there be the ability to say, hit an intelligence agency without having to declare war? Obviously I just use this as an example but I do think this feature could add a bit of playability, and with the world as it is now and probably more so in the future this is something that does and will happen.
If this was implemented I could see it adding another dimension to what I think will be a very good game.
You don't have to be at war to do a sabotage mission. I think air strikes are also possible if you launch them from a neighbouring country which is at war with your 'victim'.
That is a proxy war, not a strike on a country that is sending spy's to your country. Also because I play with fistails mod (modern units) because I dont enjoy playing with the older units my spy's dont work. Even if they did work I think sending aircraft or missiles from a war ship/sub is more fun than putting a spy in to do a tiny amount of damage.
Scoose wrote:Not sure where I should put this, if it is in the wrong place please move it to the correct place .
Will there be the ability to say, hit an intelligence agency without having to declare war? Obviously I just use this as an example but I do think this feature could add a bit of playability, and with the world as it is now and probably more so in the future this is something that does and will happen.
If this was implemented I could see it adding another dimension to what I think will be a very good game.
If you mean kind of like a surprise attack I am totally on board. It is a good idea. But I think it should be limited to attacks by planes and the launch of missiles.
it sure is an act of war, but such acts have happened in recent decades. when was the last time war was declared? did the USA declare war on Libya? I'm not starting a political discussion, just saying modern practices. When america bombed Belgrade, the serbs didn't respond by declaring war. it's not written down in history as a war. and yet it's clearly an act of war (by United nations' standards).
though i can't really think of an efficient way of implementing this, and i certainly don't think it would be anywhere near the top of BG's priorities list (BTW i'd very much like to see the top of that list), so i suppose further discussion is futile. in fact I myself don't think this should be implemented till things are fixed, but then i would have said the same thing about the weather system. getting off topic here.
suaske666 wrote:it sure is an act of war, but such acts have happened in recent decades. when was the last time war was declared? did the USA declare war on Libya? I'm not starting a political discussion, just saying modern practices. When america bombed Belgrade, the serbs didn't respond by declaring war. it's not written down in history as a war. and yet it's clearly an act of war (by United nations' standards).
though i can't really think of an efficient way of implementing this, and i certainly don't think it would be anywhere near the top of BG's priorities list (BTW i'd very much like to see the top of that list), so i suppose further discussion is futile. in fact I myself don't think this should be implemented till things are fixed, but then i would have said the same thing about the weather system. getting off topic here.
The Serbs actually shot down an American stealth bomber, but you're right they did not formally declare war. This is something which might be possible with the current game engine:
1) It is already possible to overfly a neutral country without permission.
2) It is already possible to shoot down intruding foreign aircraft.
All that would need to be added is a way of ordering your aircraft/missiles to attack a facility or hex in a neutral region. The question would be where to draw the line. Do you allow nuclear attacks for example? Or what about bombarding civilian areas? You could receive a casus belli (sizeable) against region which attacks you like this and that aggressor could have his reputation damaged.
suaske666 wrote:it sure is an act of war, but such acts have happened in recent decades. when was the last time war was declared? did the USA declare war on Libya? I'm not starting a political discussion, just saying modern practices. When america bombed Belgrade, the serbs didn't respond by declaring war. it's not written down in history as a war. and yet it's clearly an act of war (by United nations' standards).
though i can't really think of an efficient way of implementing this, and i certainly don't think it would be anywhere near the top of BG's priorities list (BTW i'd very much like to see the top of that list), so i suppose further discussion is futile. in fact I myself don't think this should be implemented till things are fixed, but then i would have said the same thing about the weather system. getting off topic here.
The Serbs actually shot down an American stealth bomber, but you're right they did not formally declare war. This is something which might be possible with the current game engine:
1) It is already possible to overfly a neutral country without permission.
2) It is already possible to shoot down intruding foreign aircraft.
All that would need to be added is a way of ordering your aircraft/missiles to attack a facility or hex in a neutral region. The question would be where to draw the line. Do you allow nuclear attacks for example? Or what about bombarding civilian areas? You could receive a casus belli (sizeable) against region which attacks you like this and that aggressor could have his reputation damaged.
I agree with all this although I think a nuclear attack should result in an instant declaration of war. I also think that the more units involved should increase the chances that war will be declared. For example, a Pearl Harbor style surprise attack should result in a declaration of war.
--The current system is such that if you overfly a target country (but neutral) it may trigger a war.
--Don't confuse the Western system of 'officially' declaring war with a "state of war" between two powers. Ex: UK vs. Germany in 1939 was a declared war, but a state of war as well. Serbia vs. NATO was a state of war, but not a declared war. Post 1945, most conflicts with the major (esp. nuclear-armed) powers have been undeclared wars.
--Should attacking another country be "ok" but not "war"? The SR system leans less toward the idea of a 1939 version of a declared war and more toward, IMHO, the 'state of war' model. Consequently, I think it should be a player decision to go to war when they attack someone. This helps prevent abuse of the system (e.g., you are playing the USSR, and want to set the USA's research back. You shouldn't be allowed to toss cruise missiles at the US research lab in Washington DC without causing a war.)
Maybe part of the problem is the reality of the post-WWII world. What superpowers and their allies could do (invade Hungary or Czechoslovakia, or fight in Korea and Vietnam--no declarations of war), was not allowed by non-superpower countries (ex: Iran-Iraq 1980-88; both sides formally declared war).
I think, for simplicity across the SR system, it is better just to give a war/peace option--if not, you soon would get into some countries being allowed to attack at will without a war, while others could not.
Whether countries are 'allowed' to conduct illegal attacks is irrelevant in the real world. You have pointed out that the United States (and others) gets away with undeclared acts of aggression. What determines whether these attacks lead to outright war is the relative strength of the powers involved. In recent history, the United States has had an 'I could squash you like a bug' military advantage over all the countries against which undeclared acts of war have been carried out, consequently no sane government would see any sense in officially declaring war.
The reason the SR engine might be well suited to allow such attacks is that there is already a Casus Belli system in effect. With the exception of scripted DoWs in SR1936, the AI seems to weigh up relative military strengths before committing to a declaration of war.
Pearl Harbor is good example here. The Japanese didn't actually declare before the attack and this meant the Americans had even more of a Casus Belli against them in the eyes of most Western countries. Furthermore, it was the Americans who delivered the official declaration of war against Japan (Roosevelt's speech).
The main complication that I seen with implementing undeclared acts of war would be that the AI might need to know how and when to consider launching them (otherwise it would be a cheat for the player)
I wonder if the solution would be additional levels of declared conflict.
Example:
Peace
Cold War: Allows for use of friendly forces to support another country but w/o war (ex: US vs. N. Vietnam). Units will not attack each other in neutral (sea, air) territories but will over allied territory. Big hit on relations.
Limited War: Allows for use of friendly forces to attack into another country w/o allies but no Annexation possible (you can make them a colony; EX:US in Panama 1989). Units will attack each other in neutral territory and does not require Allied land to operate from. Example: US declares Limited War on Cuba in 1962. Invades and conquers the country using paras and marines launched from US territory. US wins; only option is Liberate (e.g., put a pro-US govt in place; small UN displeasure) or Colonize (pro-US govt in place and US gets all resources; big UN displeasure w/o Casus Belli)
Declared War: Allows for Annexation; massive UN displeasure w/o Casus Belli
Aragos wrote:I wonder if the solution would be additional levels of declared conflict.
Example:
Peace
Cold War: Allows for use of friendly forces to support another country but w/o war (ex: US vs. N. Vietnam). Units will not attack each other in neutral (sea, air) territories but will over allied territory. Big hit on relations.
Limited War: Allows for use of friendly forces to attack into another country w/o allies but no Annexation possible (you can make them a colony; EX:US in Panama 1989). Units will attack each other in neutral territory and does not require Allied land to operate from. Example: US declares Limited War on Cuba in 1962. Invades and conquers the country using paras and marines launched from US territory. US wins; only option is Liberate (e.g., put a pro-US govt in place; small UN displeasure) or Colonize (pro-US govt in place and US gets all resources; big UN displeasure w/o Casus Belli)
Declared War: Allows for Annexation; massive UN displeasure w/o Casus Belli
Good ideas, but would take years to code. Especially adjusting the AI to three different models of war, adjusting diplomacy to decide when a full-out war would be declared by the AI versus a cold war for example. So many different ways to do it too. It's just too hard to develop at this point and there are higher priorities I think. Still I'm all for some kind of a system for some minor action without DOW.
. 
