Netherlands Diplo and Hunger

[Chernobyl]

So in one of my games I believe I am losing NM each turn because the entente has Netherlands leaning their way.

Seems like enough of a NM hit every turn that it could potentially be the reason I lose the war.

What is the best way to deal with this (besides modding the game to balance diplomacy)?

As far as I can tell in the events, you keep losing NM each turn no matter whether you conquer the Netherlands or what. And since the Entente has more diplo chits there's zero chance of me swinging Netherlands back for long.

What's the smartest option (and how is this fun?)

In my mod I'm going to severely restrict which countries can influence who. Russia shouldn't be able to dump all its diplo into Netherlands that makes zero sense. Romania seems fine for Russia, but something like Ottomans having a tremendous influence over the USA is silly.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

So in one of my games I believe I am losing NM each turn because the entente has Netherlands leaning their way.

Seems like enough of a NM hit every turn that it could potentially be the reason I lose the war.

What is the best way to deal with this (besides modding the game to balance diplomacy)?

As far as I can tell in the events, you keep losing NM each turn no matter whether you conquer the Netherlands or what. And since the Entente has more diplo chits there's zero chance of me swinging Netherlands back for long.

What's the smartest option (and how is this fun?)

In my mod I'm going to severely restrict which countries can influence who. Russia shouldn't be able to dump all its diplo into Netherlands that makes zero sense. Romania seems fine for Russia, but something like Ottomans having a tremendous influence over the USA is silly.

Hmmm..I don't know if you are loosing NM points each turn if The Netherlands is pro-entente or not.(Like France does if they lose Verdun). I sure would like to know if that's so! Are you sure its not blockade effects? Your out 60 mmp a turn as you know..which is bad enough! If there's an additional penalty like a slow degrading of NM like you say, that's a double whammy....

As for the example of Russia being able to influence let's say The Netherlands...yeah its a bit of a stretch, and I'm on the fence on that.

One thing I don't like with the current Diplomacy mechanism is the ability to influence the Big Powers..like the USA in this game. Sure its a lot of mmp per chit..but if its successful, it can really wonk out a match. They call it Uber-Diplo over at WaW and WiE, and its a house rule in the tourney over there that this kind of diplo can't be done.

[BillRunacre]

If the Netherlands is pro-Entente but not fully mobilized then Germany loses 50 National Morale points per turn, due to the effect that the lost imports have in creating lots of empty bellies in Germany.

A neutral Netherlands that is pro-Central Powers is the best thing for Germany as that allows the most trade with neutral powers that can be imported to Germany.

[Chernobyl]

Was this historical? Netherlands remained neutral throughout the war but I'm not sure if food imports through Dutch hands were really a gigantic factor. Did the Dutch at any point decide to stop trading food with Germany out of principle historically? Wikipedia says there were food shortages in Holland but doesn't mention whether the trade was ever stopped.

[ThisEndUp]

The Dutch traded with the Germans throughout the war, although as the war progressed, the bulk of that trade shifted towards luxuries like tobacco, and away from foodstuff or anything the British Admiralty classified as 'war material'.

The Entente had realised early on that the Germans were avoiding the blockade by rerouting their trade through the neutral counties, so they eventually formed agreements to limit the amount that neutrals could import to pre-war levels. Further diplomatic efforts lowered that trade more, until that trickle eventually stopped with the American entry. So while the Dutch did eventually stop, it was more due to a lack of food for themselves as the blockade expanded in scope, rather than any shift in opinion. It was this reduction in imports that really turned the screws on the Germany; Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg himself thought that Germany would have been defeated in early 1916 without neutral trade.

Since the reduction in trade was not really a consequence of an improved diplomatic standing of the Entente amongst neutral nations, but rather a larger commitment to the blockade strategy, perhaps we can change this to a decision event for the Entente? An option to expand the blockade to neutral countries, lowering the amount of MPPs Germany obtains from Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark along with an increased NM hit from the blockade, all proportionate to the number of ships on the blockade line, at the cost of international opinion.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

ORIGINAL: ThisEndUp

Since the reduction in trade was not really a consequence of an improved diplomatic standing of the Entente amongst neutral nations, but rather a larger commitment to the blockade strategy, perhaps we can change this to a decision event for the Entente? An option to expand the blockade to neutral countries, lowering the amount of MPPs Germany obtains from Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark along with an increased NM hit from the blockade, all proportionate to the number of ships on the blockade line, at the cost of international opinion.

This is really an intriguing idea! It adds a nuanced approach and another kind of leverage that can be applied by the Entente at a cost for both sides if that decision is taken. A weighty decision where international opinion really could end up going to Germany's favor even while it furthers the Entente's war aims.

Even as it stands right now..I for one can see the importance of the Entente prioritizing heavy diplomatic pressure on The Netherlands even earlier than I usually do. I never noticed the small but steady NM loss to Germany if The Netherlands goes pro-Entente...just the 60mmp per turn loss, which is significant! I always thought it was the blockade effect. (not counting combat or NM site losses). Very interesting to know this now.

[ThisEndUp]

The Entente were hesitant to expand the blockade in the early years of the war because it was thought that the neutral countries like Sweden, who were very sympathetic to Germany, and the Netherlands, whose economy was tightly integrated with Germany, would declare war had they been subject to blockade. Perhaps a significant shift (40%-50%) in the Benelux and Scandinavian countries might be a good balance to this. It does not guarantee their entry, but would make it extremely easy to pull them in.