The Europe mechanic doesn't work right now

[Alter Native]

Finished games as both the Union and Confederacy and I don't think the European power mechanic is well implemented right now (for both sides), suggested change below.

There are two main problems imo:
First, if the union is winning early e.g. by taking Richmond in 62/63 then the union has to play a fairly dull game afterwards, because most likely the Confederation's fighting spirit isn't broken yet, but economically they are (otherwise they could have defended Richmond).
So for another year or so you try to capture as much land and FS-objectives as possible against a weak opponent without making any interesting strategic or military decisions because you are completely dominating. And this... is just not fun, you're just waiting for the victory screen.
At this point an entering European power could probably not win the war anymore, but the gameplay stays interesting because you are now fighting a "two front war".
However, this can never happen because every FS-objective taken by the Union reduces the European support for the Confederation immediately by 10-20%.

So if the Union is winning it becomes much less likely for Europe to get involved.


On the other hand, for a European nation to enter the war, the Confederation needs to do the following:
- Defend all FS-objectives due to the immediate 10-20% drop
- Keep them away from Richmond and Nashville
- Prevent the union from blocking some of the key blockade hexes
- Invade Maryland/the north

Ok.
If I manage to do all of this I'm already winning. What do I need Europe for?
Should they enter at this point it becomes a "win more" situation.

So in short, if the Union is winning early, a European nation will never get involved due to the immediate 10-20% diplomacy drops for capturing FS-points.
It's only possible for Europe to enter if the Confederation is already doing well which means they don't need any help. It's a "win more" mechanic for both sides.

The other Strategic Command titles always had mechanics that would punish you for doing too well too early. For example Germany in WWII could not attack too many small neutral nations because of Americas mobilization (or do a sea lion). The same in WWI if Germany was too aggressive with their U-Boats. It would act as a counter weight for the rapid success of the axis/central powers.
In this game the European situation is always going the way of the side that's already winning, when ,in my opinion, it should do the opposite for more interesting games.


Here is my suggested change:
Get rid of the immediate 10-20% diplomacy drop for capturing FS-objectives, instead turn them into the same mechanic as the key-navel blockade hexes. You need to capture the hex and if no Confederate unit is within a 2-hex radius then you have a chance for a 1-2% European support reduction each turn.
If the union is winning fast Europe may still enter as a counter weight, because it will take some time until you get the support reduction. But on the other hand, in a long and drawn out war with the Union only being slightly better, Europe becomes less and less likely to enter because the few captured FS-objectives prevent that over the long run. (Which would be the historic path).
Second the Confederation then has to decide if they want to commit to the European strategy by keeping units around the FS-objectives preventing the diplomacy drop or go full turtle mode giving up on Europe.

As a last suggestion, I think one could do more with the "King Cotton" decision. Assuming I do have the stockpile of cotton hoping for Europe to enter, but it becomes clear due to some successes of the Union that this won't happen.
It would be great if I could then sell that cotton for MPPs like I was offered in the beginning in order to balance the scale again and put up a better fight against the winning union. Basically every January 62/63/64 I get asked if I want to sell the cotton for x MPPs over y turns (could be less over time due to the war? Could also be more over time due to increased world market prices, depends on game balance).
The idea is to have more opportunities to play the cotton chip for MPPs and thus stop the north from winning too early should they do well.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

G'day Alter Native,

I see where you're coming from, but unfortunately the historical realities surrounding the European intervention question don't line up with having them come in when the Union is doing well.

Despite the Confederate boasts about the importance of cotton, the British (being the power that the Confederacy put the most effort into swaying) had much more to lose from trade should they go to war with the Union, than they had to gain by regaining access to the Southern market. In the 1860s about 40% of British wheat imports (and similar numbers of other food products) came from the Union, and this was a percentage that was only growing over time. Furthermore, there weren't a lot of good alternatives available if they did go to war with the Union: Argentina had just come out of a civil war and showed every indication of being about to enter another; Britain and Brazil were in a fairly tense diplomatic standoff at the time; Russia had been at war with Britain just five years before; Germany (or really, Prussia) was becoming more aggressive, and becoming more dependent on a power likely to get involved in more wars is rarely a good idea &c.

Major trading partners have gone to war before - France and Germany in 1870, or Germany and the USSR in 1941, are two examples - but they rarely do so if the side that they would be backing is clearly losing the war (why jump on to a sinking ship?), and especially not when that side they're considering backing is one that they have serious moral reservations about (the British had been one of the most outspoken forces pushing for abolition for the past 50 years, so joining the Confederacy is not something they would do lightly).

British intervention makes sense in the context of the Confederacy already winning, and then the UK jumping on board at the last moment to benefit from what is already an effective fait accompli (and that's how it usually plays out in the game, if Europe enters, the CS player gets a few turns of fun smashing the Union navy and then wins). But if the Confederacy is clearly losing, why would they join?

As a last suggestion, I think one could do more with the "King Cotton" decision. Assuming I do have the stockpile of cotton hoping for Europe to enter, but it becomes clear due to some successes of the Union that this won't happen.
It would be great if I could then sell that cotton for MPPs like I was offered in the beginning in order to balance the scale again and put up a better fight against the winning union. Basically every January 62/63/64 I get asked if I want to sell the cotton for x MPPs over y turns (could be less over time due to the war? Could also be more over time due to increased world market prices, depends on game balance).
The idea is to have more opportunities to play the cotton chip for MPPs and thus stop the north from winning too early should they do well.

I've actually been thinking along similar lines myself. Won't say anything more at this stage, except "I'm listening"

- BNC

[Alter Native]

G'day Alter Native,

I see where you're coming from, but unfortunately the historical realities surrounding the European intervention question don't line up with having them come in when the Union is doing well.

Thanks for the reply,
I understand that it is not attractive for a European nation to join the loosing side, everyone wants to be on the winning side.

My main point was, that it is far too easy for the Union to shut down the European intervention by simply taking one or two FS objectives (for example via an amphibious operation), even if they loose them the next turn again, which completely blocks a European intervention.

So either the Europeans should get a diplomacy boost when the Confederation retakes the FS-objective or, as I was suggesting the diplomatic penalty comes over time and not the turn you take the FS-objective.

It basically comes down to: how you determine which side is winning to determine if a European nation is willing to join the war?
My proposed solution would give the Confederation more counterplay should they follow the European path which in my opinion makes for a more interesting game.

I've actually been thinking along similar lines myself. Won't say anything more at this stage, except "I'm listening"

Great to hear!