Wars shouldn't immediately cancel arms control treaties

[tomthehand]

The Washington and London treaties were a big part of the era that the game covers, but in-game I don't feel like they affect much because minor wars happen often and they cancel arms control treaties. I think the game would be more interesting if treaties had more of a chance to have an effect, and one way to do that might be for abandoning treaties to be separate from declaring war.


Perhaps there could be an event where, if the war drags on, the Prime Minister could announce the abandonment of arms control treaties; this could cause a rise in tensions. Similarly, if the war is going badly for the enemy, there could be an event noting that they have abandoned the treaty, with tensions swinging in your favor. Either way, for short and low-intensity wars, I think it would be better if arms treaties stayed in effect.

[noshurviverse]

I've had a similar idea in the past, although how I imagined it was a bit different. Specifically, at the start of a war there would be an event such as:

"Hoping to improve our standing internationally, the [leader] is considering making an announcement declaring that we will continue to abide by the current arms limitation treaty despite the conflict"

•Agree (-tension among non-combatants, +prestige as you boast that your Navy is powerful enough to beat the enemy without new ships)
•Disagree (+tensions)

If one agrees, the enemy nation would either reciprocate, thus preserving the treaty, or dismiss it. This would likely be impacted by current fleet disposition. If one disagrees, there would still be a chance it occurs anyways, as the Prime Minister/President/whoever overrides you.

Finally, at any point during the war you could still design and build ships that exceed the treaty, but with a warning that doing so will cause a major prestige loss, I'm thinking something like 5-10 points, with the potential loss decreasing over time as the promise to arms limit gets forgotten.

[rimbecano]

A few points:

1) I certainly agree with regard to the stronger side in an asymmetric war, unless tensions with neutrals are very low. Britain shouldn't get a free pass on abrogating a treaty from the US just because they get into a war with Italy. (Well, as cozy as relations have been historically, they probably would, but relations aren't always that cozy in RTW).

2) For balanced wars with large alliances on either side (and particularly if the alliances encompass all powers between them), abrogations should pretty much always begin well before the shooting starts.

3) Authoritarian nations and bombastic leaders should have an easier time abrogating than democracies and non-bombastic leaders.

[dorn]

With treaties in effect, there can be effect of less tension rise.


It could be through lowering tension every some turn or any event increasing tension will have less effect on tension.

[generalvikus]

Agreed on all points. Another place we could potentially go with this is to create some mechanics which represent the potential for limited wars; for example, a war in which the shooting is restricted to one strategic region, to different kinds of battles (favouring smaller and lighter forces) and to little or no wartime budget increase. The Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War is the obvious example.


It might also be nice to introduce an even lower level of conflict below that: peacetime actions of various kinds, such as coastal bombardment and invasion support - which might spice things up a little in peacetime, and give the player a more interesting reason than arbitrary tonnage requirements to consider the special force structure requirements of colonial service, keeping gunboats and cruisers around on every station so as to be ready to respond to an occasional surprise action, which might pop up anywhere around the empire.