[PON] World In Conflict - General Discussion Thread

[Sir Garnet]

What time will processing occur over the next 10 days or so?

My updated 11:51PT orders were not included in the turn, so it is important to know when it is too late.

[PhilThib]

My goal is to have it run between 20 and 22 PM EST... the trouble is that I am in a business travel in Canada and Eastern USA (attending Historicon) and I never know for sure when I'll be free from public obligations, meetings and dinners

So better to consider a 20:00 EST deadline, and consider that I may be slightly late sometimes (that's +6 hrs compared to CET).

Note: on saturday 20th, turn processing will not occur as I am in the return plane from Washington...I'll either do processing on Sunday 21st upon my arrival home (in the early afternoon) and we can have another processing same day at usual time...or if too short we shall skip one day. Will advise then.

[Sir Garnet]

Ctrl-C does work to combine. Ctrl-D, however, seems to have the function of D - cycling units, meaning the Ctrl association with D was probably broken by some of the modding for this scenario. Knowing that should narrow it down - are the shortcuts coded in the exe or in a file?

Has anyone had any problem loading WIC modded save games under CIE/standard install to detach units and then switch back. I tried with an Italy 1880 save and it loaded/reloaded without any apparent errors - but might it cause latent problems?

[Sir Garnet]

I am surprised to find the engine issued a unilateral 6 turn CB against Russia on behalf of Britain. Is that just a normal side effect of border claims and/or bad relations?

[Jim-NC]

I think it is the result of the red event this turn. I would guess that your relations soured after Russians attacked the Afghanis.

[bjfagan]

Has anyone had any problem loading WIC modded save games under CIE/standard install to detach units and then switch back. I tried with an Italy 1880 save and it loaded/reloaded without any apparent errors - but might it cause latent problems?

I recently noticed that I cannot combine a leader and unit in our CIE game. I had one already combined from some time ago and now cannot split them up. As far as I am aware no changes were made to our game.

[Sir Garnet]

Whatever else may be said in-game or in meta-game, the PABEVICO Treaty The formation of the treaty and joint ultimatum is a breach of the 5 year terms and substance of the following treaties at least, each in two ways.



Treaty of Bizerte (Late June 1880 if my math is right)

Whereas, France and Italy wish to maintain peace and friendly relations, and
Whereas, Great Britain wishes to avoid a war in the Mediterranean and maintain the status quo in Europe;


All parties agree to the following:

1. Establish a non-aggression pact (NAP) between France and Italy, where neither party will take offensive military action against another party, or provide support to an enemy of either party. The NAP will be monitored, and any disputes mediated, by Great Britain. The term of the NAP shall be 5 years, with an option to renew for another 5 year term.

As consideration for initiating and maintaining the NAP, the parties shall provide the following:

2. Italy aggrees to give France exclusive rights to colonize Ethiopia,

3. France aggrees to give Italy exclusive rights to colonize Tunisia, and

4. Great Britain agrees to give France exclusive rights to colonize Mali.




Italian/Austrian Treaty of Non-Aggression

Whereas, Italy and Austria-Hungary wish to maintain peace between themselves, improve bi-lateral relations and commercial transactions;

Be it Resolved, that Italy and Austria-Hungary hereby agree to the following:

1. Establish a non-aggression pact (NAP) between Italy and Austria-Hungary, where neither party will take offensive military action against the other party, nor provide support to an enemy of either party. The term of the NAP shall be 5 years, with an option to renew for another 5 year term.


Approving Signatories,

For the Kingdom of Italy,
His Majesty King Umberto, Early September 1880


For the Empire of Austria-Hungary,
Kaiser Von Osterreich Franz Joseph I, Early September 1880

[Jim-NC]

I take the ultimatum from France to mean that he wants a free CB for giving an ultimatum, and wants to throw out a previous treaty before it's expiration. My questions to Phillipe (as the moderator of the game):

1. Are free CBs allowed and given to those who want them? Or does France have to pay the price by using forge CBs?
2. France and the Ottoman's don't currently have a DA. Do they get one by script, or do they have to go through the ingame option?
3. What is France's penalty for not honoring a treaty (in this case the treaty of Bizerte)? The treaty could not have been written as of Jan 1 1880 (as we had just started playing), so France is ripping up the treaty, and should suffer some sort of penalty.

[Sir Garnet]

I recently noticed that I cannot combine a leader and unit in our CIE game. I had one already combined from some time ago and now cannot split them up. As far as I am aware no changes were made to our game.

My CIE version is at 1.03e and I can combine/separate with Ctrl-C and Ctrl-D as of today and with the buttons in the past. Ctrl-D in WIC functions as just a D and cycles units.

[Sir Garnet]

On examining the circumstances further, it would seem that serious prestige and relations penalties should apply to the breaching countries with all countries other than the co-conspirators in the breach (i.e., each other). Even the Ottoman and German people (especially the Germans) would be repulsed by the flagrant conduct of their new allies.

[PhilThib]

Answers below

1. Are free CBs allowed and given to those who want them? Or does France have to pay the price by using forge CBs?

No free CBs in this game. If you want one, it has to be created by the game's mechanics (events, situation on map, forged CB via diplomacy). It's not because you say "I have CB" that you have one. This said, breaching a treaty signed with other parties should give CB to the breached parties against the breaching party IMHO

2. France and the Ottoman's don't currently have a DA. Do they get one by script, or do they have to go through the ingame option?.

They have to sign one by themselves, and they can do so either via the engine or via script, whatever they want.

3. What is France's penalty for not honoring a treaty (in this case the treaty of Bizerte)? The treaty could not have been written as of Jan 1 1880 (as we had just started playing), so France is ripping up the treaty, and should suffer some sort of penalty.

As per point 1, the penalty should first be a CB granted to the other party in the treaty vs France. Second, we never really discussed or implemented special penalties for breaching treatings, the only thing I recall is the house rule against fake DoWs (players maiking DoWs and doing nothing, this avoiding breach of treaties but not facing the consequences)

These points are as a moderator. See other post for comments on the diplomatic situation.

[Leibst]

Italian/Austrian Treaty of Non-Aggression

Whereas, Italy and Austria-Hungary wish to maintain peace between themselves, improve bi-lateral relations and commercial transactions;

Be it Resolved, that Italy and Austria-Hungary hereby agree to the following:

1. Establish a non-aggression pact (NAP) between Italy and Austria-Hungary, where neither party will take offensive military action against the other party, nor provide support to an enemy of either party. The term of the NAP shall be 5 years, with an option to renew for another 5 year term.


Approving Signatories,

For the Kingdom of Italy,
His Majesty King Umberto, Early September 1880


For the Empire of Austria-Hungary,
Kaiser Von Osterreich Franz Joseph I, Early September 1880

Yes, that mad Franz Joseph and his treatys.... but after that Austria had a nice change of government. The new Governement forgot to read some old papers in an old office of the old governement.

Good for us the British Empire care fore all of us.
Now we ask ourselves what kind of peace is now in the Mediterranean Milord?

[Sir Garnet]

Yes, that mad Franz Joseph and his treatys.... but after that Austria had a nice change of government. The new Governement forgot to read some old papers in an old office of the old governement.

Yes, we are familiar with the difficulties of collecting all the paperwork.

Good for us the British Empire care fore all of us.
Now we ask ourselves what kind of peace is now in the Mediterranean Milord?

We are pleased that you found our assistance helpful. In the Med, I'm sure the Ottomans could advise you in more detail, but it appears that they have stopped the Italians and forced a stalemate which would make a normal sort of peace opportune.

[Sir Garnet]

Is processing in the evening US Eastern time, meaning there is time to finish preparing orders?

[Sir Garnet]

Yahoo mail has been having problems. Any mail in the last day please resend sometime today.

[Jim-NC]

Should we end the war between the Egyptians and the Mayhdists? They are still fighting.

[PhilThib]

Should we end the war between the Egyptians and the Mayhdists? They are still fighting.

Are you sure of this? Because the end of the Mahdist was triggered by an event which made for peace between them...

[Soulstrider]

Due to health reasons, I'll have to take an hiatus from a couple of weeks from both this game and the CiE, I would be thankfull if someone could take care of my nations while I am away

[Sir Garnet]

This said, breaching a treaty signed with other parties should give CB to the breached parties against the breaching party IMHO

As per point 1, the penalty should first be a CB granted to the other party in the treaty vs France. Second, we never really discussed or implemented special penalties for breaching treaties, the only thing I recall is the house rule against fake DoWs (players maiking DoWs and doing nothing, this avoiding breach of treaties but not facing the consequences)

Giving a CB as the remedy for breach of a non-aggression pact is ironic at best.

I don't know if this can happen with the AI in SP games in the 19th C part of the game, but from CIE and WIC it seems that a dominant strategy and shrewd gameplay is to pile up alliances and then opposing alliances and get to ensuing Great Wars well before the turns of events into the early 20th C allowed it, which short-circuits the whole balance of powers system era.

The real-life domestic and foreign constraints that presented impediments or made such demarches impossible in a century of nationalism (vs. the 18th C0 are tenuous if present (not to harp on the lack of true defensive-only agreements in the engine, which is analyzed the Paradox PON MP forum alliances thread). Violation of international law and norms had serious consequences but, as you say, nothing is present in game to constrain it.

Is it possible for this kind of blobbing to happen in the SP game before the 20th C?

[Sir Garnet]

Due to health reasons, I'll have to take an hiatus from a couple of weeks from both this game and the CiE, I would be thankfull if someone could take care of my nations while I am away

I suggest you solicit someone and give guidelines/instructions, particularly as to peace/diplomacy/war issues that are being teed up now so they know your intentions and priorities. Secondary power players have a lot less to do and are less likely to have conflicts. It is also more reassuring to other players to know that with a viceroy there is a continuity of national behavior etc.

[Soulstrider]

I suggest you solicit someone and give guidelines/instructions, particularly as to peace/diplomacy/war issues that are being teed up now so they know your intentions and priorities. Secondary power players have a lot less to do and are less likely to have conflicts. It is also more reassuring to other players to know that with a viceroy there is a continuity of national behavior etc.

Well Citizen X said he was interested but also said he was going on holidays soon, so if none volunteers I will talk to him

[coolbean]

Gentlemen, I'll be out of reach of personal internet this week, although I should still have e-mail. Sir Garnet has been kind enough to take over Russia for the week, to reply to in-game diplomatic actions and such.

If you need to contact me or Russia, please feel free to e-mail me at the address in the details file. Many thanks to Sir Garnet for taking his time to help me out!

[Jim-NC]

Are you sure of this? Because the end of the Mahdist was triggered by an event which made for peace between them...

I was checking the F9 screen, and it said that Egypt was still at war with the Mahdist faction (I believe it was a total war as well).

[Soulstrider]

It seems Citizen X will only take care of Italy in the other game, any volunteers for this one? At least until the war ends?

[Sir Garnet]

It seems Citizen X will only take care of Italy in the other game, any volunteers for this one? At least until the war ends?

The only disinterested parties would be the US, China and Japan - Jim, Matto, and Ech - and there is also neutral Belgium (jtabler - who also has Ottoman caretaking experience in the other game).

[coolbean]

Back!

Thanks to Sir Garnet for submitting turns in my absence.

[bjfagan]

Many of the new players need to update the "WIC-Details" file in Dropbox with their information.

[Jim-NC]

I will be going on vacation Monday and Tuesday (my son will be submitting turns for me). I will submit for Wednesday as normal.

[Sir Garnet]

The turn up is early Sep but the folder has a late Sep title.

[PhilThib]

The turn up is early Sep but the folder has a late Sep title.

Fixed