Suggestion: Better alliances and defensive treaties

Have a feature request for SRGW? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

Post Reply
amynase
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 212
Joined: May 02 2014
Human: Yes

Suggestion: Better alliances and defensive treaties

Post by amynase »

For the start of the Great War, the alliance systems of europe were absolutely key. Right now, alliances in SR:U usually just mean that one country is going to send an expeditionary force to support an ally under attack. That does not reflect how alliances should work during the Great War era.
I think it would be a great improvement if, instead of hard coded declarations of war, we could have a more dynamic start of the war like this:

Austria-Hungary is allied to Germany. If Austria hungary declares war on Serbia, Germany is automatically also at war with Serbia.
Russia has a defensive traty with serbia. If Serbia is attacked by Austria-Hungary, Russia is also automatically at war with Austria Hungary and its ally Germany.
Russia is allied to France, calling them in.
Belgium has a defensive treaty with the British Empire, which calls them into the war against the central powers if Germany attacks belgium
Britain is allied to portugal, and so on.

However, if Russia attacks Germany first, France is called in but Serbia isn't, because thats only a defensive treaty.
This change would make the start of the war more dynamic, if Britain wont just join the war by event, a German player has to make a real decision if he wants to attack through belgium or not, while no such decision has to be made if britain will just join the war in a hardcoded way.

This would also greatly improve the Cold War scenario, because Nato would be truly threatening if you would be at war with all of them for declaring war on any of them.
Basically, alliances and defensive treaties would be as potent as they are irl, making them a much more intresting tool for the player, and making it possible for smaller nations to stay alive by allying bigger nations.

So please consider implementing this change to how alliances and defensive treaties work :D
JollyGoodBork
Captain
Posts: 108
Joined: Feb 17 2016
Human: Yes

Re: Suggestion: Better alliances and defensive treaties

Post by JollyGoodBork »

Indeed, the realtively weak power of the alliances was already a bit awkward in the ww2 scenario, but it considering how ww1 played out, keeping the alliance system as is does not sound plausible.
way2co0l
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 687
Joined: Nov 29 2010
Human: Yes

Re: Suggestion: Better alliances and defensive treaties

Post by way2co0l »

Good points here. The problem seems to me to be how to create the rigid alliance system found here while still allowing for proxy wars in the future.

Perhaps my best suggestion would be based on threat. The Korean war for example. The north and south being at war with each other would draw in their allies, but due to the fact that they don't generate any threat beyond the peninsula, wouldn't pull those allies into a genuine war, fighting a proxy war instead. But within Europe, Austria-Hungary getting drawn into a war with Serbia wouldn't immediately draw in Germany. Serbia would represent no threat to them. But Serbia's ally Russia would consider AH to be a major threat and treat it like a real war, which in turn would pull Germany in and everyone else.

When the war participants aren't a genuine threat to allies, those allies participation should be more limited, but when they're a bigger threat to those allies they should be pushed directly into a formal war.

This should allow the cold war era proxy wars to continue the way they currently do. The French allies won't view North Vietnam as enough of a threat to actually declare war, and even if China gets involved, it should be too far away to generate enough threat to bring them in. North Korea also shouldn't generate enough threat on the US to bring them fully into the Korean war either. If China were to ally with any of them, South Korea and south vietnam likely wouldn't generate enough threat to make them declare a formal war, so they'll fight it through proxy as well. The only time it could potentially explode is if either the US or Russia declares a formal war against one of the participants, because each would be threatened enough by the other to reciprocate. But since the actual participants don't generate enough threat on either of them, neither of them should actually do so.

But that wouldn't be the case in europe where all the major powers are so close to each other and threatened by each other. AH going to war in the Balkans would set Russia off, in turn bringing in Germany, the Ottomans, and the Western Allies as a result. All of them would likely generate too little threat to bring America in, even if they're allied with anyone involved, so at most they'd contribute via proxy. Which really isn't all that realistic outside of limited volunteers, but considering America should have very little in terms of an armed force (especially if my ideas from the other thread are used) then that issue is minimal.
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRGW”