Neutral Mobilization and the Strategic Situation

[mdsmall]

Further to my previous post, does the AI take into the situation on the board when calculating if neutrals will shift in a given turn by a certain percentage towards one side or the other?

For example, in my last game, in 1916 Romania suddenly lurched 15% towards the Entente (as played by the AI) even though Bulgaria had joined the Central Powers the year before and Russia had just surrendered. What could have triggered that? Surely Russia's surrender would have strongly discouraged Romania from moving any closer to the Entente?

A more extreme case in the same game was with the USA. It had been progressively moving towards 100% mobilization, even though there were no German subs on the UK National Morale hexes. But it finally joined the Entente and entered the war on exactly the same turn as France surrendered and the Central Powers won a Major Victory. Surely, the USA would have paused before finally entering the war, given that it was evident on the board (one German corps next to Paris and an artillery unit already bombarding it) that France was about to fall?

Michael

[BillRunacre]

It's very hard to build into the scripting or diplomacy feature an understanding of what might be about to happen, so there will be times when this sort of thing will happen, and others when they join at exactly the right time.

On the other hand look at Romania in 1916. If it had entered the war in 1914 or 1915 then things might have gone a lot better for the Entente in the east and Balkans, but instead they waited too late, and became more of a burden to the Russians than an asset.