Why isn' t it an act of war? ...and

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Why isn' t it an act of war? ...and

      Why isn't it an act of war if another country (non ally, not currently at war, no open borders) starts unloading troops in one of your ports? I had this happen to me in a previous game, so I attacked them and it was deemed a Deceitful Act of War on MY behalf??? I attacked invaders, and I'M deceitful???

      Which brings me to my "and"

      And, is there any difference (morale, global popularity) if you sneal attack and get Deceitful Act of War, or if you declare war first by changing status?
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Units will start unloading but will not technically be on your soil until a certain point during the disembarkation process. Once they reach that point, war will be triggered by them. I remember it being that as soon as they start the disembarkation process, war was declared. I'd love to see that brought back because I agree: foreign and uninvited troops should not be permitted to commence disembarkation without a war declaration.

      In terms of the moral penalty caused by war, the AI will regard "sneak attacks" as worse than "formal wars". The details of this is above my pay grade.
      "Any of you *uckin' pricks move, and I'll execute every mother*uckin' last one of ya!" - Honey Bunny
    • It reminded me that when war happens is more than issue with unloading itself (after all after finished disembarking, your units will fire). So using this opportunity I'll tell you a story as a warning: it's also with RoW itself, it can be easy used to invade player country from inside (also if you kick someone from coalition). It should be done like in EU series: after removing RoW, any units on former RoW partner need to withdraw on friendly territory to be able to attack that former RoW partner (those units can't be attacked either before leaving non RoW territory). Or at least (that should be doable fairly easy for devs if they would only want) that you can't break RoW for certain amount of time - that would give invaded player time to organize defense (alto it would be still far from balance). Of course official explanation is: be aware to whom you give RoW/ally with. But that's not solving issue. Once I had guy in coalition, he went AFK on his own, he didn't believed me when I told him that, he didn't believed in logs or newspaper and wanted to sneak attack me - I was an hour of real time from losing that map...
    • Unlike EU4 and HOI etc we have human players mostly. Also please note that what you are asking for is basically an extension of the coalition timers and features in right of way.
      ... and we deliberately do not want that. For good reasons. If you ROW with someone he can easily backstab you - and that's EXACTLY how we want it.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • People play multiplayer in Paradox games series, you know? Their system is working in MP very well.
      I'm saying coalitions/RoW isn't balanced. It's easier to backstab player, than defend against it. Another example 128 players map: kicking player take 24 real time hours (4 days in game), leaving coalition by player takes 6 real time hours (24h of in game time), while usually people sleep 8h of real time (not counting working and so on). Is it as you want it too? I had that case in this 128 map. I'm not asking for anything (especially not extension of coalition timers - you clearly didn't understood my idea in that regard; simply making it longer isn't changing mechanic and mechanic is reason here), just throwing ideas. Also I don't believe you will ever change it, but who knows?
    • It's not a solution. It's reductio ad absurdum. The same with happened with direct trade: some people were abusing it to cheat, devs couldn't handle it so they removed this feature. So I await them to remove RoW from game as it's abused and badly designed IMO. Of course it will not happen: it works as intended by devs ;) Meaning people backstab each other. Also if other players are never to be trusted, I await removing coalition feature - after all it's easier to betray fellow coalition members, than for them to protect against such a betray.
    • Eternus wrote:

      It's not a solution. It's reductio ad absurdum. The same with happened with direct trade: some people were abusing it to cheat, devs couldn't handle it so they removed this feature. So I await them to remove RoW from game as it's abused and badly designed IMO. Of course it will not happen: it works as intended by devs ;) Meaning people backstab each other. Also if other players are never to be trusted, I await removing coalition feature - after all it's easier to betray fellow coalition members, than for them to protect against such a betray.
      they should just remove everything from the game since it all can be abused!!! /s