Sorely disappointed and frustrated to the point of quitting.

sorry that you don't enjoy the game as I do

This game was not made to be 100% historical .

The reason countries “go crazy” and attack everyone is because of popularity. If your popularity is low, AI declares war on you.

TheGreatYouyou; if you read my entire post, you will notice that I acknowledge that fact already. I'm not expecting the game to be completely historical. in fact, I said it would be boring if it were, because you could predict the outcome. But I was hoping for a bit more historicity where neutrals are concerned.

DoctorDR1 I realize that, but I find the popularity factor to also be both completely arbitrary, and a silly thing to factor in. popularity shouldn't figure into a strategy game. I think the devs should rethink the concept. A nation doesn't send it's young people to die just because a national leader is unpopular. If that were the case, the real world Switzerland should have joined the Allies, because of Hitler's sudden attack on Poland on September 1939. Popularity is not a reason for war. That's stupid, and belongs in high school, not world events.

Don't think about it as popularity, think about it as a measure to prevent world domination. For example, when Germany made territorial demands in Europe, Britain and France drew the line at Poland. That is what "popularity" is in a nutshell.

Okay, but by that logic, everyone should have declared war on Germany in the real world, but they didn't. I'm just saying that, whatever you want to call it, this is a totally arbitrary factor in the game. I was playing UK, and I think the goal of the UK, and any Allied power, should be liberation, not world domination. The devs need to rethink this game. They've made it too similar to CON, in which world domination is the goal of all nations. This game should have different goals, depending on the historical doctrines of the nations involved in WWII. To make the Allies and Axis essentially the same, as far as the goal of world conquest, when this was clearly not the case historically, is to ignore the premise of setting a game in an historic context.

I am currently playing the UK; the UK's goal should not be to conquer, not in the 1939 map, at least, but to liberate. Liberating a country should raise one's popularity. But the computer algorithms don't see it that way. The computer sees no difference between Germany invading Poland and the UK invading Germany. There's no sense of what the allies sacrificed. Their blood, sweat, and tears have been reduced to, and cheapened to, a mere game of grab what territory you can. This doesn't fit in with the context of a WWII game.

They need to implement protectorates and a more diplomatically interactive AI as well as allow conquered provinces to produce more than whatever abysmally, pathetically low percentage it is.

The VP system is sloppy and not intelligent enough for me, but I don't blame Bytro at all. AI is always finicky and cumbersome, and there's no other measure of Victory besides conquered provinces.

Also, even though the AI does have prescience and ability to attack unoccupied provinces, magically, it's still kind of lame that people complain about how OP the AI is, because it's NOT, lmao. It's stupid and is unable to deceive. Having an issue with AI means that you're reckless and underestimated how much of a thorn an unnecessary war is, yet then ironically overestimating them after you neglected to take them out.

Micah, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I'm not complaining about the strength of AI, and I made some mistakes which rightfully ticked off a couple of nations, before realizing my errors, which is my fault entirely. I do agree that there needs to be a way to negotiate diplomatically with AI. I just would like a little more historicity with neutrals who never went to war during WWII. They need to be somehow kept neutral, unless someone attacks them, whether deliberately, or by early game blunders. If you wake a sleeping giant, that's your own damn fault, and if I had attacked Switzerland, for instance, well, I should pay the price. I don't mean that neutrals shouldn't go to war; I just mean that the context of why they go to war should make more sense, and be less arbitrary.

DoctorDR1 wrote:

The reason countries “go crazy” and attack everyone is because of popularity. If your popularity is low, AI declares war on you.

We all understand how totally unrealistic 'popularity' is:

Every week, it seems, in the real world, yet another minor liga country declares war against

the USA, since the USA is the most hated country in the world.

From a marketing perspective, emphasizing 'popularity' is a major win, since the intended customer base is

grade school students, with access to their momma's debit cards.

Low morale provinces revolting and switching allegiance to remote governments is another fiction.

Just yesterday, the population of Alto California decided to return to Spanish dominion!

cycle9 Yes, I agree 100% with you, especially in regards to rebellions due to low morale. Yeah, that happened about how many times during WWII? Yes, there were underground resistance movements throughout Nazi, occupied Europe, but no rebellions ever totally succeeded in overthrowing an entire region of an occupied country, let alone arbitrarily decide to join foreign country.