5 ms·

> sociopathic lunatics that would go from long term allies or trade partners to instant chain-denouncing mortal enemies based on seemingly minor changes in the

> sociopathic lunatics that would go from long term allies or trade partners to instant chain-denouncing mortal enemies based on seemingly minor changes in the player's expansion or military strength This... doesn't seem quite that unrealistic compared to how states act in the real world!

reincarnate0x14 6y ago
Not sure I've ever seen Vietnam, Ethiopia and France all simultaneously decide that Mexico is the WORST PLACE EVER and commit to its absolute destruction with poorly planned naval invasions because it demobilized a few units of archers in the Yucatan in history, but hey, that would be fun to read about :)
- nip180 6y ago
  World War I doesn’t seem to far off. A Bosian assassinates an Austo-Hungarian prince and then Japan it taking control over German assists in China.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > World War I doesn’t seem to far off. World War I, due to the prevalent myth of offense dominance that fueled the mobilization feedback loop that led to the war, is pretty much the exact opposite, so, yeah, it's pretty far off.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Never heard of this, do you have a link or a searchable phrase? TIA
      - smogcutter 6y ago
        Dan Carlin’s hardcore history podcast covers this pretty well and is a great listen. But basically the idea is that everyone knew a straight-up fight between major powers would be an ugly grind. But national armies take time to mobilize. So you want to mobilize early and try to win before everyone else catches up. This means that once it looks like things might kick off, everyone immediately goes all in. But if your sucker punch fails, buckle up for WWI.
      - watwut 6y ago
        If you want everything about WWI the "Pandora Box" book by Jörn Leonhard is the thing.
  - vkou 6y ago
    WW1 was a powderkeg that was getting matches flicked on it for multiple decades[1], that was then fanned by the incompetence of the diplomats involved[2]. [1] France wanted revenge since the Franco-Prussian wars, Germany wanted a repeat of the Franco-Prussian wars, Russia wanted revenge since its humiliation in a prior conflict (It was ready to go to war over another crisis in Serbia, but then backed down when it became clear that it would not win), and Austria-Hungary wanted to bring its unruly Balkan subjects under its heel. Everyone involved was itching for a fight for decades. [2] The British did not make it clear to the Germans that they would actually enter the war (Which probably would have dissuaded them from starting it.) The Germans gave the Austro-Hungarian empire a free hand in deciding German foreign policy. The Austro-Hungarian empire counted on the Germans bailing them out, and for a repeat of an earlier standoff with Russia. (Without taking into account that Russia, instead of standing alone, as it did in their previous conflict, picked up France and Britain as allies.) All of this played out in slow motion, over the span of a few weeks, prior to the war beginning in earnest.
  - watwut 6y ago
    That is how they teach it in elementary school, but it was all more complicated in reality.

reincarnate0x14 6y ago

Not sure I've ever seen Vietnam, Ethiopia and France all simultaneously decide that Mexico is the WORST PLACE EVER and commit to its absolute destruction with poorly planned naval invasions because it demobilized a few units of archers in the Yucatan in history, but hey, that would be fun to read about :)

nip180 6y ago
World War I doesn’t seem to far off. A Bosian assassinates an Austo-Hungarian prince and then Japan it taking control over German assists in China.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > World War I doesn’t seem to far off. World War I, due to the prevalent myth of offense dominance that fueled the mobilization feedback loop that led to the war, is pretty much the exact opposite, so, yeah, it's pretty far off.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Never heard of this, do you have a link or a searchable phrase? TIA
    - smogcutter 6y ago
      Dan Carlin’s hardcore history podcast covers this pretty well and is a great listen. But basically the idea is that everyone knew a straight-up fight between major powers would be an ugly grind. But national armies take time to mobilize. So you want to mobilize early and try to win before everyone else catches up. This means that once it looks like things might kick off, everyone immediately goes all in. But if your sucker punch fails, buckle up for WWI.
    - watwut 6y ago
      If you want everything about WWI the "Pandora Box" book by Jörn Leonhard is the thing.
- vkou 6y ago
  WW1 was a powderkeg that was getting matches flicked on it for multiple decades[1], that was then fanned by the incompetence of the diplomats involved[2]. [1] France wanted revenge since the Franco-Prussian wars, Germany wanted a repeat of the Franco-Prussian wars, Russia wanted revenge since its humiliation in a prior conflict (It was ready to go to war over another crisis in Serbia, but then backed down when it became clear that it would not win), and Austria-Hungary wanted to bring its unruly Balkan subjects under its heel. Everyone involved was itching for a fight for decades. [2] The British did not make it clear to the Germans that they would actually enter the war (Which probably would have dissuaded them from starting it.) The Germans gave the Austro-Hungarian empire a free hand in deciding German foreign policy. The Austro-Hungarian empire counted on the Germans bailing them out, and for a repeat of an earlier standoff with Russia. (Without taking into account that Russia, instead of standing alone, as it did in their previous conflict, picked up France and Britain as allies.) All of this played out in slow motion, over the span of a few weeks, prior to the war beginning in earnest.
- watwut 6y ago
  That is how they teach it in elementary school, but it was all more complicated in reality.