Halve relations matrix

[Wiggy]

I saw in garrisonchisholm 's AAR a handy new table of relations between nations is going to be added. Assuming that relations are mutual, i.e. Britain can't simultaneously love Spain while being hated by them (which appears to be true as the table has diagonal symmetry), then I'd like to suggest reducing this matrix to the upper triangle only, as pictured, to make it easier to read.

I don't know what you could put in the empty space - maybe a picture of bickering diplomats, their anger changing depending the level of world tension.

[garrisonchisholm]

I'd like to suggest waiting until you actually use the table before dissecting it for renovation. The table is not confusing at the moment, as whether you approach it with state A or B in mind your cross reference will provide for you the current tension state.

I'm not saying the table as is is immutable and perfect, but I don't think we need to subject it to excoriating exegesis quite yet.

[Wiggy]

Nov 21, 2021 17:48:45 GMT -6 garrisonchisholm said:

[…] as whether you approach it with state A or B in mind your cross reference will provide for you the current tension state.

Ohh, I see what you mean. With my idea, if I said "I wonder how France and Britain are getting along" and went to the column for France, then I'd be wasting my time because the relevant square isn't there, its on the France row. The current design avoids this by giving all rows to all columns.

[TheOtherPoster]

Looking at the table, does it mean that Spain is in alliance with Italy, Austria, Russia, Germany and USA all at the same time?
It looks a bit strange to me. Wouldn't it be better if there were some kind of incompatibilities among nations regarding the tension levels?
Set up a maximun of 2 alliances at the same time and up to 3 or 4 countries in each alliance. But the countries would be changing over time. If let's say Germany and Italy both are in the same alliance but over time Germany gets in bad terms with one or more of other members of the alliance so Germany will leave it. Maybe later, France, with low tension with all members of the alliance would decide to join it. Having low tension should not mean to join an alliance automatically. Also, ideology should be a factor in joining alliances, (fascist state, liberal democracy, autocracy...), and military strength or perceived threats and of course some random etc

[nimrod]

Yes the table is indicating that Spain is in an alliance with those countries.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the need to have like governments / ideology for an alliance. Lots of historical "alliances" wouldn't happen - in WWII Britain and the USA allied with Russia (sent supplies, ships, technical support and orchestrated strategy as well), USA did the same with the Taliban in resisting the Russians during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan... I guess the historical point is that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend; until they become my enemy..."

Likewise communist Russia and China while close early on, almost came to war in 1969 and relations have been very frosty since then - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict. Italy / Germany and Japan had a mutual defense pact / alliance in WWII (which is why Japan didn't declare war on Russia) and Italy ultimately turned and fought against the Germans...

So, just because countries share an ideology / government type, doesn't mean they are truly compatible. Its really about the caliber of the people involved and the common cause that the alliance is built around; rather than a common culture or view on a few subjects...

My take on the game "tension" rating is that it is more about diplomatic relations than straight tensions; so a zero tension would certainly suggest a "mutual defense pact" during a conflict (which would be the common cause as in the case of the Allies and the Cominterm in WWII vs the Axis, or even the tripartite alliance of Italy / Germany / Japan). And yes I have been at war with a country with zero tensions and they didn't join my side...

[w2c]

I agree with Nimrod here. Let's not forget that prior to WWI Germany strongly desired an alliance with Britain to counter the French and Russians, and while it obviously didn't go that way, I don't think it's that far fetched that things could have if they had played out differently. Alliances prior to the Cold War really were relatively fluid and based largely on geopolitical need rather than ideological alignment.

[TheOtherPoster]

My post was just in regards the way AI could form alliances in a more meaningful way. And ideology could obviously be a factor to take into account among many others I listed (including randomness to keep some unpredictability). None of them, including ideology can be decisive. I think 1930s is a good example of what I mean. We know that conservatives in the UK, fiercly anticomunist, were much more willing to come to terms with nazi Germany than with Soviet Russia. Hence the 1935 naval treaty that destroyed Versailles or Munich in 1938 that gave them Czechoslovakia. Just a few months later they were making deranged plans to send troops to help the Finns in their winter war in 1939 against Russia, including ruthless preparations to occupy parts of Norway and Sweden (at a time when they were already at war with Germany!). It didn't happen because the Germans occupied Norway first. But after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union they too overcame their revulsion for that regime and made an alliance with them. As famously put by Churchill: "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons." So what I meant is that ideology of course is a factor in history, but may be overruled because there are other considerations too.
Now, how will RTW3 set up alliances? I do not know. It may be only a random process and I guess it would be OK too. My post was just in case they want to revamp the whole alliance system to make it a bit more meaninful. That does not mean than a liberal democracy could never find themselves in alliance with a fascist state.