cpdeyoung
Posts: 5368
Joined: 7/17/2007 From: South Carolina, USA Status: offline
|
These techniques have been explored and exploited for quite awhile. See my various RtV and ToW Soviet AARs, for example. Chocolino explored the Winter War ramifications quite awhile ago. The war economy going up when a nation is at war is the phenomenon being modeled, and this is not such a bad model. The AI needs all the help it can get, so if it goes to war with Finland, let it wage the war, and get the increase. The AI will not declare war on Persia, or the Baltic States for that matter. If you are playing the USSR and do not like the effect then don't wage the war. If you want to wage the war, but don't like the production points gained then use F11 and zap them. If you are in a PBEM game then you could use a house rule, if all agree, which limits the bellicosity of the Soviets. Or, if you are playing against Stalin and he is too active - slap him down, let the Soviet player know that attacking Estonia, or Persia is going to get a prompt declaration of war from the Axis. Stalin certainly could have historically been more agressive, but he was restraned by possible consequences. In the game you can provide the consequences. The player who tries a war with Persia probably will think twice if it means a prompt attack from Germany. Given all that, perhaps it is time for the developers to reconsider that there are wars, and Wars, and that a war with Germany is not the same as a war with Persia. The Soviet people accepted great sacrifices to wage war on the Axis, but the would not accept the same to wage a war with Estonia. By the way, in a recent PBEM whenI invaded Persia, the UK player promptly did also, and we ended up partitioning the country. The Soviets will not send a mere two divisions to the border if troops are pouring in from Kuwait. The little wars give the Soviet player something to do while waiting for Armagedon, but the other powers should make sure that he has to think of consequences. Chuck
|