Breaking alliances

[Daaraa]

Is it possible to break an alliance after one has been set?

Conditions:
No negotiations permitted between anyone
Germany and Japan are allied
I am using the 2194 Days scenario as a template.

What I want to achieve:
After Germany takes Vladivostok they turn thier eyes toward Japan.
OR
After Japan takes Moscow they turn on Germany.
PERHAPS
After Soviets take Berlin they go after Britian, USA, Japan or China or maybe all of them.

Would adding a line in the events file to make agression between Germany and Japan work?
Do I need to create a spy unit to do something against the victim?

EDIT : Also can you add more units than the number available in the Units editor?

PS This is my first attempt at a scenario.

 

[insurgent]

Yes, the makeaggression would work fine to break the alliance, despite of the negotiation ban.

No, you cannot add more units than permitted in the units file. Try going to the directory of the scenario and opening the UNITS file and you will see the slots of the units.

Some scenario makers have made scenarios with multiple units files and therefore also multiple rules files, that are switched during the game, but it doesn't allow more units at one time...

 

[Daaraa]

Thank you very much.

Making an addition to make aggression is a lot simpler than picking a unit to replace with Spy. Thanks.

 

[dropkick]

you should also make it where if the US captures berlin first, they turn on the USSR, as i recall that was a part of the plan

 

[Daaraa]

That is a good idea as well. I'l add that too. Thanks.

 

[insurgent]

dropkick: What plan? I know it can't have been a part of the original plan, at least not the ratified one. Patton advocated a such attack, but it never came beyond that, even he came to his senses in the end and dropped it. Berlin was left for the Russians to take, no contest there.

 

[kobayashi]

If I'm not mistaken, the make agression is not a sure fireway to cause war among allies (say A and B) as you still need an external trigger, like someone else during negotiations suggesting that A attack B. If negotiations are completely banned (like C - G cannot contact A or B), then a 'sneak attack' might not be possible.

 

[insurgent]

I've used it in scenarios, are you sure it doesn't work?

 

[kobayashi]

No I can't guarantee its true.

It just based on my understanding of how the declaring war works for human players (maybe it doesn't apply to AI) and also the fact that I've never seen allies attack each other in a no diplomacy game(doesn't mean it can't happen).

So if you've seen it with your own eyes that it works, I guess you're right.

 

[insurgent]

The makeagression event should do it without negotiation, I don't know about the human player, though...

I used it in the Reich scenario...

 

[dropkick]

the west always had strong anti-communist sentiment, the alles did have the intention of getting to berlin before the russians, and continuing the advance into the USSR to bring communism to a halt then and there. gladly they did come to their senses and realize attacking a mutual ally was rather bad on their part. but for a scenario, if the west alles had enough momentum to reach berlin and parts of eastern europe before the russians, i believe there would have been no doubt as to continue into the USSR when they had the chance. just as russia probably would have continued into france and italy if it conquered all of germany first.

it would make for a really interesting event in a scenario, for the western alles to invade russia.

 

[insurgent]

Yeah, it would make an interesting variable at least, but dropkick, there were never any plans, there were thoughts and debates and already before June 6th 1944, the Western Allies had dropped the thought. Eisenhower had banned any further discussion about it, unless new orders came from the politicians...

But some of the officers and politicians did consider it, yes...