Player Influence on Naval Treaties

[dott]

So I bought RTW2 earlier this month, and I've been having a blast with the game. However, I'm a little confused by the players ability to influence politics and tension in the game world.

I only really encountered naval treaties when I first started the game, as I didn't really understand all the restrictions. I also find it is quite easy to manage tensions. I know that sometimes the politicians don't listen to you during peace conferences, but I don't think I've ever witnessed a naval treaty being signed without my agreeing to it, or at least being indifferent. I can always seem to avoid them. Is this simply because my experience with the game is limited? Or will this trend continue? I like the idea of the player being forced into the occasional naval treaty, as it forces innovation and decision making.

[jwsmith26]

Welcome to the forum, dott. In my experience refusing to agree to an arms limitation treaty will always prevent the treaty from happening.

[rs2excelsior]

I pretty much always tell them not to agree to any restrictions, and I have gotten one before--but it was just a submarine ban (actually helpful for me--the French had an idiotic number of subs). Anecdotally I think I've read of people who got treaties even after telling their government not to agree with one, but I'm not certain.

[garrisonchisholm]

Jan 31, 2020 15:24:44 GMT -6 dott said:

So I bought RTW2 earlier this month, and I've been having a blast with the game. However, I'm a little confused by the players ability to influence politics and tension in the game world.

I only really encountered naval treaties when I first started the game, as I didn't really understand all the restrictions. I also find it is quite easy to manage tensions. I know that sometimes the politicians don't listen to you during peace conferences, but I don't think I've ever witnessed a naval treaty being signed without my agreeing to it, or at least being indifferent. I can always seem to avoid them. Is this simply because my experience with the game is limited? Or will this trend continue? I like the idea of the player being forced into the occasional naval treaty, as it forces innovation and decision making.

You may be able to always decide to avoid them, but it is definitely possible that you will find yourself in a situation where you have not been able to adequately manage tensions, and that 1 point will push you too close to a war for your liking.  In a game like my current run, if you were delaying fleet-wide refits because you were waiting for a key technology, getting forced into a war with a ton of obsolete hardware is not an attractive prospect.

I rather think there should maybe be some accrued benefit for the player if they tell their delegation to go but not agree to anything, so the player would have a carrot (other than simply no malus) to more tempt them into being drawn into an agreement they may have not entirely desired.

[JagdFlanker]

outside of a RtW2 1920 start as Germany with the Versailles Treaty in effect, i havn't accepted a Treaty since my first couple games of RtW1 in 2015

the reason being is i always have capital ships building, and accepting a new treaty almost always scraps all ships being built that go against the treaty - nothing is worse than having a ship that's been building for 30+ months get scrapped a couple months before it's due to be launched

[dorn]

Feb 1, 2020 7:07:24 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

outside of a RtW2 1920 start as Germany with the Versailles Treaty in effect, i havn't accepted a Treaty since my first couple games of RtW1 in 2015

the reason being is i always have capital ships building, and accepting a new treaty almost always scraps all ships being built that go against the treaty - nothing is worse than having a ship that's been building for 30+ months get scrapped a couple months before it's due to be launched

But nothing is best that you scrap just 2 ships as some most modern were commissioned several months ago and all other nations scraps many of their ships.

[iasach]

Feb 1, 2020 7:07:24 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

outside of a RtW2 1920 start as Germany with the Versailles Treaty in effect, i havn't accepted a Treaty since my first couple games of RtW1 in 2015

the reason being is i always have capital ships building, and accepting a new treaty almost always scraps all ships being built that go against the treaty - nothing is worse than having a ship that's been building for 30+ months get scrapped a couple months before it's due to be launched

Sometimes when I am not building any capital ships (focusing on cruisers, for example), I give my full support to a proposed treaty, since it severely hits almost every other nation but mine. Still, at times it force-scrapped some of my larger CAs regardless.

[cabalamat]

Feb 1, 2020 7:07:24 GMT -6 JagdFlanker said:

outside of a RtW2 1920 start as Germany with the Versailles Treaty in effect, i havn't accepted a Treaty since my first couple games of RtW1 in 2015

the reason being is i always have capital ships building, and accepting a new treaty almost always scraps all ships being built that go against the treaty - nothing is worse than having a ship that's been building for 30+ months get scrapped a couple months before it's due to be launched

I very often have capital ships building since I usually play on very large.

However, if your ship has just started building, it may be worth it. A treaty will also scrap your opponents' building ships (which may be near to completion) and more importantly it will make them build new smaller ships. So, negotiate a treaty, wait a few months, start a war, and your dangerous opponents (Britain, Germany, etc) will be stuck building crappy ships while you start building 60,000 ton monsters. Guess who'll win the next war?

[director]

If I am playing a lesser power it is good strategy to agree to all treaty requests. I might lose a BB or two but I get to watch the long, long lists of British, American, German and French warships get scrapped.