Development Diary #22 - 1st of April 2009

[Alexander Seil]

Everything looks good.

However, taking away the ability to negotiate a peace is a terrible idea. Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, Italy and Japan did it. In other words, almost all belligerents on the losing side reached a negotiated settlement. Hardly a "special situation" warranting half-broken surrender events!

 

[King]

Why did you decide on such a system? I have yet to play it, of course, but it does somewhat seem a step backward. For example, why should a German player not be allowed to simply take her cores by peace treaties (Danzig, Memel, A-L) and then spend a year or so building up before attacking the Soviets?

Clearly Poland would have gladly accepted defeat if most of her armed forces had been smashed and her country defeated, particularly if it only meant losing the Danzig corridor and a good chunk of prestige.

Likewise, I don't see why France would feel the need to ensue total occupation and humiliation if Germany only wants to re-take A-L. Why, with the game's increased overall dynamism, have you chosen to remove any such scenarios? Sure, there's the Vichy event, but it's pre-defined and we all know the outcome. Something a bit different would be nice.

I like the idea of a slightly more lenient Germany giving the Allies a fair deal, so as to secure their tacit consent to Barbarossa.

Just one example...

Can none of this be simulated?

Considering that Germany did try to offer the allies terms several times and were rejected I think our solution is the more historically accurate. World War II is total war, a fight to the finish, a clash of ideologies where there is no quarter given.

 

[Crookback]

Everything looks good.

However, taking away the ability to negotiate a peace is a terrible idea. Romania, Finland, Bulgaria, Italy and Japan did it. In other words, almost all belligerents on the losing side reached a negotiated settlement. Hardly a "special situation" warranting half-broken surrender events!

Indeed, this does seem a step backward.

 

[vertinox]

This is awesome!

One question... Will conditional surrenders and peace be possible between minors and majors? And minors and minors?

Like Finland and the USSR?

[edit]

And does when a country does surrender how are the occupied provinces handled as far as annexation and puppet regime go? Lets say France occupies southern Germany and UK/USA occupies the North and Soviets in the east at time of Germany's surrender?

 

[Impi]

there is indeed no longer a demand proinces screen of any sort.

at least, not until the expansion.

it's total omission does seem a bit silly, especially with the possibility of 3 large ideological power blocs being reduced to being in a war of all against all, without the historical plausibility of a cooling down a hot war (like korea, for example), and all of the ahistorical and modded potential for a series of small scale wars for limited aims.

I suspect that the new features lend themselves to modding the earlier cold war brushfires quite well (korea? cuba? even decolonisation wars which could use SCW features to model breakaway colonial regimes), so some kind of peace treaty system may be implemented later.

at least, i hope so.

 

[talin]

Or the impact of national unity by getting bombed or lost convoys?

No, I believe that it is connected to the winning and or losing of battles that Johan mentioned. This feature could become somewhat problematic for the historic fan boys. Especially the ones that argue that their nation would fight harder if they loose land.

 

[zeekater]

What if through some magical happenstance you succesfully invade England as Germany in 1940, before the US or Russia is in the war? England being the faction leader at that point I guess. Would canado or some other country become the new faction leader and the goverments in exile go there?

What if there are no countries left in the faction and you make that last one surrender?

 

[Crookback]

Considering that Germany did try to offer the allies terms several times and were rejected I think our solution is the more historically accurate. World War II is total war, a fight to the finish, a clash of ideologies where there is no quarter given.

That's a very historiographical approach, but fair enough, you're the guys making it.

I strongly disagree with you, though.

In effect you're severely limiting playability and interesting ahistory - not to mention mods, as I'm assuming this is a hardcoded feature.

 

[Mrdie]

In effect you're severely limiting playability and interesting ahistory - not to mention mods, as I'm assuming this is a hardcoded feature.

Agreed.

As a note for Paradox, how does the game know how to place candidates in elections? For example, lets say hypothetically US goes all fine and historic from 1936-1944, then Germany conquers it, puppets it, then in 1948 it is liberated by the Allies. How would the game choose ministers? Would it just put up some random candidates in elections, especially if this situation were to occur?

 

[Rommel22]

This national unity idea sounds great. So I am guessing if the French successfully evacuate their troops to England while the German occupy mainland France, as was the case historically. We should get a real representation of the Free French army.

I wonder how this would work though if I am playing as Czechoslovakia. I decide to fight Germany in 1938, I do end up loosing the Germans occupy the country, how can my army survive if the country is annexed? Or if the country is occupied, I am guessing the only way I can retain my army is if I somehow manage to evacuate it to the Adriatic coast through the Balkans or to the black sea via Hungary-Romania, correct?

Does national unity effect anything else in your country, like dissent, or the way your troops perform on the field? I would imagine if national unity is down, meaning people are much less willing to die and fight for their country, the soldiers would obviously feel the same way. So will they have some sort of a combat efficiency hit as well?

 

[Rommel22]

Considering that Germany did try to offer the allies terms several times and were rejected I think our solution is the more historically accurate. World War II is total war, a fight to the finish, a clash of ideologies where there is no quarter given.

But the fact is if the Allies accepted those proposals things could of been much different. I have to agree with mandead, I mean the game does follow history but from day one we change it by our decisions. So why not give us the option to change it further? Especially with all the dynamic features implemented so far.

And will it be possible to trade provinces with allies? Say I annex Poland and want to reward Hungary for helping me out. Say I feel like giving them some southern provinces, is this still possible?

 

[Wyrm]

Can the goverment in exile be "defeated" if you beat up the country they're exiled in?

I mean there must be SOME way to trigger a total surrender of the Allies without having to grab every single VP of every single country of the allies...

 

[Lt. Meyer]

I tend to agree with all of you on peace negotiations etc.

But, it could be an April-Fools-Day joke...

 

[Jaspume]

I've liked everything so far, and this diary is no exception. However, I have to agree with mandead. Although I can see why the demand provinces screen has been removed, I think it's a very bad idea. I won't elaborate on why, mandead has done that for me, but I thought I'd make a first post in these diaries to voice my concern.

 

[unmerged(64527)]

All I gotta say is...

I'M GLAD IT'S NOT AN APRIL FOOLS JOKE!

...or is it?

But seriously, great update!

 

[zeekater]

If you have fully occupied Norway as Germany and now want to release it entirely (not as a puppet), do you have to possibility to dictate some provinces that you want to keep occupying even though you don't have cores on them? I could imagine a Germany that would want to keep bases at strategic points, like Narvik.

 

[vertinox]

No, I believe that it is connected to the winning and or losing of battles that Johan mentioned. This feature could become somewhat problematic for the historic fan boys. Especially the ones that argue that their nation would fight harder if they loose land.

I suspect Soviets (or maybe even the entire Comintern members) have high national unity thresholds and the ability to even move their capital.

 

[King]

I suspect Soviets (or maybe even the entire Comintern members) have high national unity thresholds and the ability to even move their capital.

I suspect that the Soviets willl probably want to purge your army first to remove the last possible centre of opposition if they were to want high national unity.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

IMHO the no peace negotiation is the Aprils Fools I cant imagine any game without that option. Its ok for majors like Reich, USSR, UK, USA, Japs but not minors. Finland, Romania, Bulgaria etc The nr of countries which negotiated peace is biiiig. Its impossible IMO to throw that out - that must be a joke! Is it?

 

[King]

IMHO the no peace negotiation is the Aprils Fools I cant imagine any game without that option. Its ok for majors like Reich, USSR, UK, USA, Japs but not minors. Finland, Romania, Bulgaria etc The nr of countries which negotiated peace is biiiig. Its impossible IMO to throw that out - that must be a joke! Is it?

No