Page 2 of 2
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:33 pm
by ahauschild
Hmm. that is interesting. So in order to keep turkey out of the war with me, all I have to do is get them to delare war on England, and then myself declare ware on England. Since ussually Turkey and England end up with a stale mate, unless Turkey is forced to Surrender to other Countries, then as long as we both maintian war status against England we will be protected from each other.
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:07 pm
by jstransue
Ah, that explains something in my British game then. I've been trying to declare war on France again after the mandatory peace had expired. They kept sending little bands into my territory on the continent and I'd "declare war" on them at the pop-up screen. I'm also fighting the Turkish in Egypt. It appears that Turkey and France are also at War, so that explains the problem I've had the last few turns.
Thanks
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 3:41 pm
by Jordan
Yes, now I'm wondering how this little known rule could be gamed in an mp session.
Could Britain protect the continent by letting the continental powers declare (a phony) war on her?
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:57 am
by Ralegh
Yes. I agree this rule is open to some abuse. Got a better idea?
Historically, the wars always seemed to fall into two sides, usually with everyone on one side being at war with everyone on the other side. I think the intention in COG is to preserve that character.
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:29 am
by Jordan
Yeah, I agree with the intention. Maybe it could be disabled in mp games?
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:55 am
by jchastain
ORIGINAL: Jordan
Yeah, I agree with the intention. Maybe it could be disabled in mp games?
I could see a case for a multi-player game allowing one human player to declare war on any other human player regardless of war status with other nations. But I could also see some downsides as there are precious few diplomatic options that matter in MP and this is one of the ones that do. So, while a change may prove to be warrented, I would wait until some evidence arises that this is being abused before rushing to make a change to the system.
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:27 am
by Jordan
Not sure I quite understand your point.
The intention of the rule is to maintain a kind of coalition like atmosphere and to keep the game from degenerating into a mish mosh of wars - France fighting Britain who is fighting Austria who is fighting France. And Turkey is fighting Britain and Austria. So the rule works to keep the AI in order. In a solo game, yes you could figure out a way to game the system (as above) to your advantage but so what? Bully for you.
In an MP game any AI controlled nations would still follow that rule but the human players know what they're doing. In fact it would make the game more interesting. The possibilty of Spain and Turkey going to war could give the French player headaches as he's trying to get them to concentrate on Austria, etc. I'm not sure how options are being limited - I think they being expanded in addition to taking away a cheat.
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:40 am
by jchastain
ORIGINAL: Jordan
Not sure I quite understand your point.
The intention of the rule is to maintain a kind of coalition like atmosphere and to keep the game from degenerating into a mish mosh of wars - France fighting Britain who is fighting Austria who is fighting France. And Turkey is fighting Britain and Austria. So the rule works to keep the AI in order. In a solo game, yes you could figure out a way to game the system (as above) to your advantage but so what? Bully for you.
In an MP game any AI controlled nations would still follow that rule but the human players know what they're doing. In fact it would make the game more interesting. The possibilty of Spain and Turkey going to war could give the French player headaches as he's trying to get them to concentrate on Austria, etc. I'm not sure how options are being limited - I think they being expanded in addition to taking away a cheat.
Let's me give you an example of the potential for abuse. Britain and Turkey are close friends. Britain and France have an enforced peace that is about to expire and it is obvious that the French are building up for a massive attack. So, right before the expiration, Turkey declares war on both Britain and France. Now France suddenly finds herself "allied" with Britain and cannot declare the war that she wants. Turkey will not accept a cease fire and France cannot really mount much of an offensive against Turkey with the British fleet trying to stop her in the western med and the Turkish fleet patrolling the eastern med (but the two conspicuously staying away from one another despite their supposed state of war).
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:48 am
by jchastain
Doh! Nevermind. You were saying how could it be a bad thing to let them fight it out. Well, let's throw out an example in the other direction...
What if Turkey is allied with Britain and France wants to be able to take out Britain but can't fight a two front war and the Turkish forces have been approaching from the South and are looking ominous. France could approach Turkey and attempt to strike a treaty where they agree to both declare war on Austria and each take a big piece. That might prove very tempting to Turkey. And yet, as soon as the war begins, France would then declare war against Britain and begin focusing her efforts in that direction having tied Turkey up in a war with Austria. In that case, I think using the diplomacy option to ensure a potential rival is otherwise occupied is a plus for the game.
RE: Declaring War
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:50 am
by Jordan
I think you have misinterpreted the exchange between Raleigh and I above...we're talking about the same thing