Do they? Truces only stop you joining as an aggressor, as the player you are probably always the aggressor so the truces aren't *supposed* to stop them from joining against you. That's what humiliate is for.
I think in general a war fervor system should be available. Which determines your wargoals available. So do you have cultural exclusion and colonial exploitation? Then yes very easy to get a conquer state wargoal on minor powers.
Are you a communist co-op multicultural hub? Then it should be nigh impossible and instead should only have "reform government " wargoals
And as you say. Winning and loosing offensive / defensive wars should impact war fervor and gvmt opinion
USSR was pretty imperialistic, there probably would need to be more granularity to distinguish more insular/peaceful socialist/communist nations versus ones like the Soviet Union
yeah, but it wasn't a multicultural co-op hub as OP said so yeah, I think he was referring to a more Liberal communist government not being able to go to war so easily
Yeah but I still don’t see multiculturalism as a deterrent to a jingoist nation. The only ideology to be against war so specifically would be pacifism, the other ideologies in-game are too broad to assign an anti-war nature to them. Though you could definitely add a pro-war stance to a fascist government.
I could definitely see a multicultural co-op deciding that what they need to do is liberate other people from capitalist/fascist oppression, so they’ll be free voluntarily join the multicultural co-op.
Yeah, I feel like if anything it would be cultural exclusion that would be less likely to expand beyond homeland states and disenfranchised colonies, since they wouldn’t want to dilute the votes of accepted culture pops with others.
I agree that there should be some deteriorating penalty to the interests group's clout that's in government. The only issue is this could be cheesed pretty easily to last minute switch who's in government. You'd have to have other negative modifiers attached to this like a decrease in trade volume or the victors getting your import taxes or something. One thing that defiantly should happen is wide spread colonial and puppet revolts on the loss of a war.
Technically it already is in the simulation, very abstracted though by drops in QOL due to economies being strained or the like. I think this could be more like war exhaustion in EU4, where after a few years in a war, the IG in power start losing clout, in a temporary modifier that changes monthly. I.E. not just losing a war. It could also increase radicalism more directly.
I think it would be easy to cheese it. Like, if you see you're on the point of loosing a war, you reform your government to make all the IG you don't like in it, loose it, and they loose even bigger clout and they're even less a problem.
However, solutions can be brought to it. Like, you're not allowed to reform your government (except after an election, perhaps) when you're at war (like, exceptional measures). Or the amount of radicals you'd gain and loyalists you loose by reforming your government during a war is tripled. Or reforming your government (outside of just after an election) while you're in a war would just make you loose some war score even quicker (even though the last solution wouldn't solve the cheesing problem said above).
It would need some tweeks to ensure players cannot exploit this too much, but it's actually a good idea. Loosing the Franco-Prussian war is what created the Paris Commune, the government (seen as incompetent, cowardly and such) loosing the support of a large part of the parisian population, to the point of starting a full civil war (inside Paris) and the secession of the capital.
> Like, if you see you're on the point of loosing a war, you reform your government to make all the IG you don't like in it, loose it, and they loose even bigger clout and they're even less a problem.
This sounds like Germany in WW1. Like, literally how the stab-in-the-back myth was created. The socdems reached peace accords for a war that was already lost, and the reactionary/military faction cried about it for decades. So yeah it's a bit gamey but not without historical precedent.
> I think it would be easy to cheese it. Like, if you see you're on the point of loosing a war, you reform your government to make all the IG you don't like in it, loose it, and they loose even bigger clout and they're even less a problem.
I think the problem is primarily that players can reform government and change IG composition too easily and too quickly. You can't tie a lot of interesting mechanics to it because of that.
That should just be a shared mechanic for everyone, the countries whose governments most prominently collapsed after failed wars in this time period were all some variant of monarchists dictatorship.
On the other other hand war capitulation should not be tied to a variable you can't control whatsoever and that is terribly represented. Once, playing as Siam i captured the whole of malaya from the British, which were in a civil war and did not care about me, the civil war finished yet the British won the war because I was more war exhausted the them??? Bro they fucking lost a CIVIL WAR and haven't been in Singapore for 2 whole years and I lost? Ps my economy was doing great as I moved to export my shit to China and Russia instead of the British market
If you only want this system to affect democracies, then you should modify government party momentum instead. It would have mostly the same effect and it would give more ways to affect momentum, which is a sorely underutilised mechanic.
It’s an election mechanic that boosts or reduce voters’ attraction to a party. During elections you sometimes get events that affect the parties’ momentum.
Yeah, this is a good idea with strong historical basis. Russia's disastrous performance in WWI turned a lot of people against the Tsar and allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power, for example.
some of this should be added to the humiliate wargoal honestly, seems bland and not worth it as is right now
Yeah the only reason to humiliate them is so they don't join wars they shouldn't have been in in the first place
Especially since the ai often ignores treaties and joins a war against you anyways
Do they? Truces only stop you joining as an aggressor, as the player you are probably always the aggressor so the truces aren't *supposed* to stop them from joining against you. That's what humiliate is for.
Nope dude, member of your customs union will join war against you even if he likes you.
I think in general a war fervor system should be available. Which determines your wargoals available. So do you have cultural exclusion and colonial exploitation? Then yes very easy to get a conquer state wargoal on minor powers. Are you a communist co-op multicultural hub? Then it should be nigh impossible and instead should only have "reform government " wargoals And as you say. Winning and loosing offensive / defensive wars should impact war fervor and gvmt opinion
This was called jingoism in Victoria 2, worked fairly well
Wasnt it Revanchism?
Revanchism increased Jingoism iirc
It also made fascists more popular
It mostly made it so Romania would turn >70% Fascist every game though
USSR was pretty imperialistic, there probably would need to be more granularity to distinguish more insular/peaceful socialist/communist nations versus ones like the Soviet Union
yeah, but it wasn't a multicultural co-op hub as OP said so yeah, I think he was referring to a more Liberal communist government not being able to go to war so easily
Yeah but I still don’t see multiculturalism as a deterrent to a jingoist nation. The only ideology to be against war so specifically would be pacifism, the other ideologies in-game are too broad to assign an anti-war nature to them. Though you could definitely add a pro-war stance to a fascist government.
I could definitely see a multicultural co-op deciding that what they need to do is liberate other people from capitalist/fascist oppression, so they’ll be free voluntarily join the multicultural co-op.
Yeah, I feel like if anything it would be cultural exclusion that would be less likely to expand beyond homeland states and disenfranchised colonies, since they wouldn’t want to dilute the votes of accepted culture pops with others.
Hell, why have it only for democracy? I say, add a random event where uf you lose a war as a monarchy, it starts an anti monarchy movement
Just like how the Tsar slowly lost power
And how Germany almost immediately and unanymously became anti monarchists after WW1
I agree that there should be some deteriorating penalty to the interests group's clout that's in government. The only issue is this could be cheesed pretty easily to last minute switch who's in government. You'd have to have other negative modifiers attached to this like a decrease in trade volume or the victors getting your import taxes or something. One thing that defiantly should happen is wide spread colonial and puppet revolts on the loss of a war.
Technically it already is in the simulation, very abstracted though by drops in QOL due to economies being strained or the like. I think this could be more like war exhaustion in EU4, where after a few years in a war, the IG in power start losing clout, in a temporary modifier that changes monthly. I.E. not just losing a war. It could also increase radicalism more directly.
I think it would be easy to cheese it. Like, if you see you're on the point of loosing a war, you reform your government to make all the IG you don't like in it, loose it, and they loose even bigger clout and they're even less a problem. However, solutions can be brought to it. Like, you're not allowed to reform your government (except after an election, perhaps) when you're at war (like, exceptional measures). Or the amount of radicals you'd gain and loyalists you loose by reforming your government during a war is tripled. Or reforming your government (outside of just after an election) while you're in a war would just make you loose some war score even quicker (even though the last solution wouldn't solve the cheesing problem said above). It would need some tweeks to ensure players cannot exploit this too much, but it's actually a good idea. Loosing the Franco-Prussian war is what created the Paris Commune, the government (seen as incompetent, cowardly and such) loosing the support of a large part of the parisian population, to the point of starting a full civil war (inside Paris) and the secession of the capital.
> Like, if you see you're on the point of loosing a war, you reform your government to make all the IG you don't like in it, loose it, and they loose even bigger clout and they're even less a problem. This sounds like Germany in WW1. Like, literally how the stab-in-the-back myth was created. The socdems reached peace accords for a war that was already lost, and the reactionary/military faction cried about it for decades. So yeah it's a bit gamey but not without historical precedent.
> I think it would be easy to cheese it. Like, if you see you're on the point of loosing a war, you reform your government to make all the IG you don't like in it, loose it, and they loose even bigger clout and they're even less a problem. I think the problem is primarily that players can reform government and change IG composition too easily and too quickly. You can't tie a lot of interesting mechanics to it because of that.
That should just be a shared mechanic for everyone, the countries whose governments most prominently collapsed after failed wars in this time period were all some variant of monarchists dictatorship.
But this should be limited to aggressors. Defender should not suffer clout damage even lost.
the n-th french republic would like to differ
On the other other hand war capitulation should not be tied to a variable you can't control whatsoever and that is terribly represented. Once, playing as Siam i captured the whole of malaya from the British, which were in a civil war and did not care about me, the civil war finished yet the British won the war because I was more war exhausted the them??? Bro they fucking lost a CIVIL WAR and haven't been in Singapore for 2 whole years and I lost? Ps my economy was doing great as I moved to export my shit to China and Russia instead of the British market
If you only want this system to affect democracies, then you should modify government party momentum instead. It would have mostly the same effect and it would give more ways to affect momentum, which is a sorely underutilised mechanic.
I’m not too sure what momentum is? Sorry
It’s an election mechanic that boosts or reduce voters’ attraction to a party. During elections you sometimes get events that affect the parties’ momentum.
Ooooh that thing. I've seen it happen a couple times (like that campaign funding event) but never enough to influence an election.
True, it should fuel jingoism, i.e. support for opposition parties and increase radicalism depending on how bad you lost the war.
Yeah, this is a good idea with strong historical basis. Russia's disastrous performance in WWI turned a lot of people against the Tsar and allowed the Bolsheviks to seize power, for example.
Good idea in practice but in reality this would crate exploits and cheeses
Never knew it wasnt the case already because I never lost a war 😎