|
Post by tortugapower on May 27, 2019 18:09:45 GMT -6
- If you have much more VP than enemy - give additional prestige to player - Gross-Admiral won HIS war, though his country did not, so Navy is the main hero of nation. - All possessions, occupied during war, may have status "temporary occupied". If there is big difference in VP, "winner" is allowed to hold all occupied territories, "loser" return their trophies. If it is less than 1:3, both should hold their own. I like both ideas, especially the last one, which is partly why I think this peace resolution doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 27, 2019 18:14:14 GMT -6
I think a lot of people are going to disagree with you on that one, me included. For the Russians the loss of Port Arthur, the subsequent loss of the Far East Squadron, and the final nail in the coffin of Tsushima was nothing short of shattering, to the point that it put them on the verge of a revolution (and planted the seeds of what happened 12 years later during WW1). It was a catastrophic defeat, and who had dealt with made it even worse. Still Japan got next to nothing in material terms that they had not taken themselves beforehand (like Port Arthur). The russians aknowledged the japanese ascendancy over Korea, and withdrew from Manchuria, but neither of them were awarded to Japan after the war (Manchuria they took by force in the 30s, Korea they anexxed in 1910, both were anexxed in something that in-game would be an event, neither was won as part of the peace treaty). Furthermore, the russians paid no war indemnities at all. Japan kept Porth Arthur, but they had taken it already by the force of weapons, it wasn't as much a peace concession as an aknowledgement of the statu quo. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Peace_and_aftermathThere even were riots in japan after the peace treaty had been anounced because both of the lack of territorial concessions and of any kind of war reparations after such a crushing victory. So, in practical terms, you just got "Roosevelt'd" in your peace treaty. Too bad...but it doesn't mean it isn't realistic, immersive or historical .
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 27, 2019 18:26:29 GMT -6
...For the Russians the loss of Port Arthur, the subsequent loss of the Far East Squadron, and the final nail in the coffin of Tsushima was nothing short of shattering, to the point that it put them on the verge of a civil war (and planted the seeds of what happened 12 years later during WW1). It was a catastrophic defeat, and who had dealt with made it even worse. Still Japan got next to nothing in material terms that they had not taken themselves beforehand (like Port Arthur). The russians aknowledged the japanese ascendancy over Korea, and withdrew from Manchuria, but neither of them were awarded to Japan after the war (Manchuria they took by force in the 30s, Korea they anexxed in 1910, both were anexxed in something that in-game would be an event, neither was won as part of the peace treaty). Furthermore, the russians paid no war indemnities at all. Japan kept Porth Arthur, but they had taken it already by the force of weapons, it wasn't as much a peace concession as an aknowledgement of the statu quo. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Peace_and_aftermathSo, in practical terms, you just got "Roosevelt'd" in your peace treaty. Too bad...but it doesn't mean it isn't realistic, immersive or historical .
I think you're actually agreeing with me.
Japan -- a minor in the world's view at that point -- can be given the territory in the peace agreement and get Russia to surrender its claims on areas, and this is considered a terrible agreement for them. It's obviously much worse that Germany, after doing similarly to the British navy, would not get something in way of concessions.
If I had gotten terms as "favorable" as the Japanese aftermath (by comparison), despite playing as Germany with a cut-throat diplomatic corps at the time (if you read Massie's Dreadnought you will really get a feel for it!), I think I would be fine.
I'd say the peace term I received is more tantamount to Port Arthur being returned to the Russians, and them not ceding claims on Korea. It's even worse, because Germany should carry more prestige in international dealings. So if we think that the Japanese got a historically poor agreement, this one is beyond historical -- which is my point. It's a game so it can happen, but I wonder if it should.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 27, 2019 18:34:37 GMT -6
It's obviously much worse that Germany, after doing similarly to the British navy, would not get something in way of concessions.
Considering how willing the russians and french would be to throw themselves at the throat of the Kaiser if Germany won too much in such a peace treaty I find that debatable. In fact I'd dare say they'd only be too happy to jump besides the UK in the war if Germany didn't settle for something more or less acceptable for them. They would hardly be too happy from an outcome that made Germany the indisputable power leader in europe, and those kind of pressures I'm sure would've weighed a lot in any hypotetical peace agreement to end such a war. So I'm not that sure about that assertion being very accurate.
Japan won a crushing victory and had noone looking at their back waiting for the proper moment to stab. Yet accepted the peace treaty Roosevelt put over the table, because they understood the implications of not doing so.
Pre WWI europe was more or less a collection of envious cousins who didn't like each other at all (not even their allies) and were waiting for the proper moment to get the upper hand. Throw in an angry republic bent on revenge (France), a dysfunctional double-country-empire with some serious ethnicity problems and the need to keep their prestige to avoid dissolution, a recently born nation with inferiority complex and who equally hated the two nations they could ally with (Italy vs AH and vs France), and the whole picture is even more volatile. Everybody was keeping everybody else in check so they didn't get too far ahead from the rest...and was ready to act if that would seem like a possible outcome.
We're going a bit off topic here, though, but the whole thing I'm trying to convey is that peace treaties were signed for many reasons, and being winning or losing was only one of them. One of the most important, no debate, but still one of many.
In any case and once again, you control the navy, not the politics, and victorious nations in overwhelming victories not getting much from the subsequent peace treaty is neither unhistorical, nor, quite frankly, specially strange.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on May 27, 2019 18:36:14 GMT -6
I think a lot of people are going to disagree with you on that one, me included. For the Russians the loss of Port Arthur, the subsequent loss of the Far East Squadron, and the final nail in the coffin of Tsushima was nothing short of shattering, to the point that it put them on the verge of a civil war (and planted the seeds of what happened 12 years later during WW1). It was a catastrophic defeat, and who had dealt with made it even worse. Still Japan got next to nothing in material terms that they had not taken themselves beforehand (like Port Arthur). The russians aknowledged the japanese ascendancy over Korea, and withdrew from Manchuria, but neither of them were awarded to Japan after the war. The russians paid no war indemnities. Japan kept Porth Arthur, but they had taken it already by the force of weapons, it wasn't as much a peace concession as an aknowledgement of the statu quo. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Peace_and_aftermathSo, in practical terms, you just got "Roosevelt'd" in your peace treaty. Too bad...but it doesn't mean it isn't realistic, immersive or historical . By all means this is true, but it also can feel empty, because there is little to no reason given in-game. Perhaps we could see some events such as, in the example given in the OP Russia has expressed concerns about German aggression that threatens their interests and suggested that they may intervene in the current war unless hostilities cease. The Kaiser wishes to know your opinion.• We cannot back down now, victory is within our grasp! (+P,+T, small chance of peace) •The current situation is favorable and good grounds to negotiate from. (Moderate chance of peace) •Another nation backing our enemy would threaten what we have achieved so far, we should seek out peace. (-P, High chance of peace)
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 27, 2019 18:39:21 GMT -6
That I can agree with - feedback is a bit poor. A bit of behind-the-scenes story explaining the outcome would help rationalizing it and would go a long way in making it a lot more acceptable for people who haven't wasted half their lifes between history books XDDDDD.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 27, 2019 19:07:17 GMT -6
another problem is the VERY low amount of vp given when you win a war or make them capitulate the HIGHEST vp you can get from capitulating someone is 10 This is actually now 12, though from what I have seen in a couple hundred games it feels like about a 1 in 20 event.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 27, 2019 19:55:21 GMT -6
Others have already pointed out that the fact of the matter remains that Germany have multiple neighbour more than happy to jump you even if you totally trashed the british Navy. The situation with japan is actually some what different to, while no one wants to see it get too much out of the war, I doubt any majors at the time actually would consider go to war to make japan throw up what it took. The contrary is true for German at this time period. That said I wholly support the idea that any land taken in a war should be given “occupied” status and returned to owner unless the war as a whole is won. Though rather than immersion breaking, I’d say being forced to give up land after winning at sea calls makes good RP from a “stabbed in the back” perspective. Maybe consider your loyalty next time a regime change event pops up. Just imagine as doing it all for your country only for all the European major to band up and force your nation to accept this humiliating farce of a peace. (Though as I said earlier, would make much more sense for this to be tied to tension)
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 27, 2019 20:03:40 GMT -6
Maybe I'm looking for a nation-specific solution. Great Britain has the modifier "global naval power" (or such), and I imagine the game is trying to represent their foreign trade and international standing relied (almost entirely) on their powerful navy. A huge loss to the British navy would have huge consequences to them, and anyone at war with them. Much more so than, say, Russia or Austria-Hungary. (That's part of the reason why I can't imagine a realistic world where the British, losing their navy, can bring anyone to the peace deal without concessions. Their bargaining power is gone.) ramjb "people who haven't wasted half their lifes between history books XDDDDD" I don't find it a waste; it's worth it. Wikipedia is great for surface understanding, but the details and the personalities come off better in history books. I encourage you to read them! There's a nice thread on books related to RtW here.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 27, 2019 20:18:21 GMT -6
Uhhh, when I was talking about people who wasted half their lifes between history books...I was talking about myself XDDDDDDDDD. Obviously I was joking,I think is obvious I love history. Though one has to admit that for practical day-to-day life knowing history doesn't pay the fees . (That's part of the reason why I can't imagine a realistic world where the British, losing their navy, can bring anyone to the peace deal without concessions. Their bargaining power is gone.)Their own bargaining power would be gone...to a point. Your screenshot still shows a nation with 33% more budget than yours, with a lot of cruisers, a sizeable battlefleet (counting the predreds), and with enough swing to build a whole new generation of ships if needed. You got them beaten, for sure, but they weren't dead. Anyway, that's counting the british bargaining chips only...because we're yet to talk about the non-british ones. Those of Germany's most immediate and powerful neighbors (France and Russia), that's a whole different thing. And in peace negotiations you use whatever chips you have to play, even if they don't belong to you. Threat of an immediate two-front war against France and Russia to be added to the already existing one with the UK wouldn't be purely british, or carry St.Andrew's cross, but would be very real, and could very well have induced Germany to accept peace in those terms. In the immediate years after it's creation Germany was seen with envy by some, hate by others, fear by all of them, even their own allies were so reluctantly. A peace treaty that crippled the UK would immediately make Germany the undisputed powerhouse in continental europe. That would've never flown for nations as Russia, or, specially, France, that before allowing for something like that to happen would've been quite likely to jump in the war alongside the UK to prevent such a surrender from happening. And *that* would've been a very powerful bargaining chip in the peace negotiations between the UK and Germany in the scenario your game depicts.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on May 27, 2019 20:47:43 GMT -6
Also don't forget England had been "the Banker of Europe" for a long while- they didn't break their economy until the Dreadnought race had been won. If I were England's Prime Minister in (1910-ish?) and Germany had just soundly defeated me, I would instruct my Foreign Secretary thusly;
"Right, we'll need time to make good our losses of course, so we need to wrap up this little niggle promptly. Meet with Otto in Copenhagen and remind them that we have global ports of call that could be opened to German merchants without tarifs. Additionally drop a few hints about your "secret meeting with the Czar" last month. Of course you didn't, but they won't know, and fretting about East Prussia being overrun will give him something to think about."
Don't get me wrong- "losing the peace" like this would SUCK. I would be Horribly disappointed, and would probably take a breather for a bit. However, given the very 'hazy nature' of the abstracted diplomacy system I am afraid that this type of thing is exactly possible.
Remember that William and Fredrik wanted to make a game about Ships and Navies. Every other factor in this global game has been filled in to the most required state and no farther so as to not distract from that. I thought of repeatedly simpler and simpler army systems to employ, only to finally realize that to do so with anything greater than an Event would depart from what their vision for this game was. With RTW, you need to keep a shot-glass of abstraction on hand and toast your ships.
|
|
|
Post by ramjb on May 27, 2019 21:05:49 GMT -6
Don't get me wrong- "losing the peace" like this would SUCK. Finished tonight my last playthrough so far of RTW2, playing Japan. That kind of peace happened to me me twice. One vs France (When I was licking my chops with all those tasty south asian bits I was about to take), another years later with Germany. At least the 2nd I was able to invade and capture Tsingtao so I walked away with something tangible, but against the french I got nothing at all. All I could say was "Damned politicians", and move on. Still finished the game with 105 prestige points, so I guess I didn't do that bad after all (Most of the rest of the game I spent smashing russian ass all across the Far East, and boy they did have a lot of ships to throw to the grinder and for me to collect prestige from won battles XD).
|
|
snwh
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by snwh on May 27, 2019 21:41:47 GMT -6
Gotta admit tho tortuga, that made for great youtube. I was grinning like a Cheshire cat when I saw the peace deal. It was just way too perfect.
I realize its pretty low of me to take solace in other's suffering, but it was great :3
|
|
|
Post by director on May 27, 2019 23:10:38 GMT -6
tortugapower - I'll just humorously say that you seem to be expecting logic and sanity from a German government that, historically, was a little light on both. Re-do the turn even if you are making a video; explain to your viewers and I doubt they will have a problem.
|
|
|
Post by tortugapower on May 27, 2019 23:51:48 GMT -6
director (et al.) Probably I'm thinking about this from a game standpoint, as in logical rewards in a personality-less game, and using historical information to prop that. Hopefully I wasn't influenced too much by the multitude of comments were outraged. (I was upset when this happened but I have never considered reloading -- I've dealt with worse peace deals, and it's good drama to have a vendetta from something like that) I also know this was a pretty bad spot of luck. First UK had to invade the colony in only one month at war. Second they had to defeat the defending forces on the next month. Third this outrageous peace deal had to fire in the third month. I'm guessing (and hoping) that's a four-sigma probability... Lastly, it seems people are relatively happy having the possibility of such peace deals there. There are historic grounds for having bad deals. This game is intending to be about role-play and not about "painting the map your color" like a grand strategy title. I will convey all these things to my viewers, and I think they will come to the same understanding that I am coming to -- peace deals like this are WAD. Regards to all, thanks for the sensible discussion.
|
|