Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Development Diary #22 - 1st of April 2009

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
I'm actually curious how this effects cores and deployment if there is never "ownership" change.
i.e.
Germany has a core on Danzig, it takes it from Poland, is it ever considered 'owned' by Germany?

Same note: Vichy fires, and N. France and the Bay of Bascay coast becomes German controlled. Does that mean no direct deployment there? But then what about 'controlled Danzig (if it is considered controlled and not owned), can the Germans not deploy there either (this is a moot point if cores become owned upon a gov't falling though)

Im loving all the tidbits, but all you do is make me hungry for more info and detail!

Side note: I was actually expecting this dev diary to be in Swedish
 
Haha, it's a splendid piece of irony. The joke is that it's not a joke, but it's obviously very much something that ought to be.

So, in that respect, it is a big joke, and we're all laughing. :p
 
Kikaider said:
I'm actually curious how this effects cores and deployment if there is never "ownership" change.
i.e.
Germany has a core on Danzig, it takes it from Poland, is it ever considered 'owned' by Germany?
Click to expand...

Well, I think Danzig was absorbed into the Reich, as Alsace-Lorraine was as an imperial territory, whereas the rest of France was simply an occupation zone.

So I guess it'll work like that. Germany's cores will become part of Germany, and the rest of France, Poland, &c. will simply be occupied.

Poland had a national government zone I think anyway...
 
King said:
These are occupation policies, the lighter your occupation policy the more manpower you draw, but you get less resources, IC and partisans you get. You can change them at any time but the partisans take a while to adjust to the new occupation policy. So this means that resistance takes time to organise itself and just because you stop exploiting the people won't mean all the partisans suddenly decide to go home and be good people.
Click to expand...

This is one of the best dev diaries ever. I am drooling over my keyboard here. I was just thinking of this a few days ago and I wanted to start a thread about this but I was too tired to. Now I see that is already in the game. KUTGW is the only thing that can be said.

About governments in exile, it makes sense there is no bargaining anymore since now there are occupation policies and I suppose "complete exploitation" has similar effects to annexing non-national territory in HoI2 terms (of course ownership is different, but in terms of IC, MP etc). I have a few questions though:

1- Is there an exception for core territories? i.e. is the revolt risk or IC gain the same from core or non-core territories when a country shatters, its government flees into exile and all linked territory occupied by the agressor? I think core territory could change ownership too. Though that depends on how you define "coreship of territory".

2- how many levels of exploitation are there?

3- when it is a minor vs minor fight (i.e. no alliances or factions involved) where does the defeated nation's government flee to? I understand there is not even a screen for negotiation, so how will minor conflicts be resolved?

Well thought of system. Congrats.
 
mandead said:
Haha, it's a splendid piece of irony. The joke is that it's not a joke, but it's obviously very much something that ought to be.

So, in that respect, it is a big joke, and we're all laughing. :p
Click to expand...

Im quite sure its like that - but still cofused and depressed. :( That would be the worst thing about HoI3... Nooooo!
 
mandead said:
In effect you're severely limiting playability and interesting ahistory - not to mention mods, as I'm assuming this is a hardcoded feature.
Click to expand...

Considering there will be events to have Vichy (as noted above by Johan) form at a certain point depending on the condition of France, I would hazard to guess that it would likely not be all that difficult for players/modders to use that as a template to design their own events for other nations for any kind of ahistorical game they themselves might want to try. If France can have a Vichy form and stop fighting, then it should be possible to do exactly the same for Poland, Norway, Yugoslavia, China or any other nation via events that individual modders/players might create for themselves or a mod.
 
Johan said:
For example as the world becomes a more dangerous place countries can start increasing their level of military mobilisation, which increases the total amount of manpower available and also reduces the amount of manpower units lose each day as men finish their service.
Click to expand...

This is great news! I always thought it was quite weird in HOI2 that manpower was always increasing and only decreased by building new divisions or by reinforcement.
 
I personally am fine with the new "no negotiations" system.
For me it's really a "total war", because I'm always playing with US+ maybe UK, Australia or some other allies.

So the system is good, especially if you are playing as part of the big three camps. As to the historical examples- the solutions are in game events.

But I definitely can understand the guys who want such a system and love to do something a historical, regionally and as independents.
 
OHgamer said:
Considering there will be events to have Vichy (as noted above by Johan) form at a certain point depending on the condition of France, I would hazard to guess that it would likely not be all that difficult for players/modders to use that as a template to design their own events for other nations for any kind of ahistorical game they themselves might want to try. If France can have a Vichy form and stop fighting, then it should be possible to do exactly the same for Poland, Norway, Yugoslavia, China or any other nation via event.
Click to expand...
Quite, but you're rather skirting around the point.

The surrender system in HoI2 was flawed, admittedly, but why, instead of building upon it and improving it in order to create a better, more dynamic system would you simply choose to drop the entire system in favour of one which required pre-constructed scenarios?

It just strikes me as being rather absurd. Why should we have to script an event or decision for every possible type of surrender scenario, when clearly a working, flexible generic system would work better? It would certainly be time better spent, IMO.

Finally, yes, I agree scenarios like Vichy may be considered unique, but there's no reason they shouldn't be able to be replicated as part of an in-game system, in the same manner as accepting peace with Italy in exchange for taking/releasing Libya, or some sort of bitter peace with the Soviets.

A good idea mentioned throughout the past few months has been a drag & drop selection process for provinces, which with 15,000~ would be the only real solution. A list would clearly not work here, nor did it in HoI2 really.

It may well be in, and this may be in vain, but it does seem a missed opportunity.
 
King said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well even better! :cool:
 
Very nice. Love the way you can decide on occupation policies and how national unity is used.

This game was excellent months ago, and is only getting better :)
 
Personally, I'd like the negotiated settlement feature re-intro'd.

I understand that its VERY awkward when we're talking the USSR here re # of provs, but still, a peace settlement would surely have been possible in many situations, and was given to the nations as listed previously by others. Not to mention Italy's half-surrender.............
 
Is the "liberate country" and "create puppet" distinction something new?

On balance, i very much like the update. i suppose for modding purposes the territorial cession option might be nice and on that grounds alone it'd be nice. Though i think it's not outright necessary... though it does lead one to venture the risky question of the resolution of the Winter War?

(As a limited instance versus "let me swipe provinces, EU style".)
 
and what about the winter war? the fins are broken and they get annexed:confused:, and their capital moves to the capital of their allies:confused: the germans? americans maybe?

not to mention the serries of quite possible wars: ROM vsHUN& BUL, ROM vs USSR, USSR vs JAP (pre 1940), BOL vs PAR, BOL vs CHI, etc

and another thig IF USA is nuked by GER and the player(playing as GER) sends an airborne division to an isolated prov of USA just to get a homeland prov, USA surrenders ALL her homeland provinces, but they move their capital to, let's say' Rio de Janeiro, and continue to fight in Haway?:confused:
 
Tskb18 said:
Is the "liberate country" and "create puppet" distinction something new?

On balance, i very much like the update. i suppose for modding purposes the territorial cession option might be nice and on that grounds alone it'd be nice. Though i think it's not outright necessary... though it does lead one to venture the risky question of the resolution of the Winter War?

(As a limited instance versus "let me swipe provinces, EU style.)
Click to expand...

I think you create puppets out of your owned territories but liberate countries out of occupied lands. I might be wrong though but I suppose that distinction was already in HoI2. There also is freeing of a puppet country to complete freedom but I think that was in the diplomacy tab with that country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back