Development Diary #22 - 1st of April 2009

[gunnergoz]

I like this new system. I play HOI3 as a war game, not an international political simulation, so some of these details like surrender negotiations, etc, matter little to me.

The amount that can be modded looks impressive - I think this potential will prove to make many of the present doubting thomases in the end quite satisfied.

[bbasgen]

FWIW, I also like the new system. The AI could never manage the surrender screen, and I suspect that is why it is gone, in addition to the historical logic. I particularly like the fact that when Germany occupies Britain it will get a real surrender of those territories.

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.

I'm hopeful that Paradox will make that decision relatively balanced such that a player is not heavily penalized for choosing not to purge.

[X=17]

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.

YES! Finally a good reason (well at least a semi-reasonable reason) for the purge!

[X=17]

I'm hopeful that Paradox will make that decision relatively balanced such that a player is not heavily penalized for choosing not to purge.

An interesting dilemma- the amount of national unity gained relative to the skilled officers killed is almost certainly not worth it, but it was an extremely important part of the war-should it be forced on the player for historical accuracy, or should we allow the player to be logical and bypass it, making for an ahistorically more powerful Soviet Union (like they needed the help).

I'm not sure...

[Friedrich2]

I like this new system. I play HOI3 as a war game, not an international political simulation, so some of these details like surrender negotiations, etc, matter little to me.

The amount that can be modded looks impressive - I think this potential will prove to make many of the present doubting thomases in the end quite satisfied.

I agree with you gunnergoz. I usually play the 36 scenario and fight the whole war out. I do try to change the outcome, but within the scope of total war, win or die.

[otacu]

An interesting dilemma- the amount of national unity gained relative to the skilled officers killed is almost certainly not worth it, but it was an extremely important part of the war-should it be forced on the player for historical accuracy, or should we allow the player to be logical and bypass it, making for an ahistorically more powerful Soviet Union (like they needed the help).

I'm not sure...

You don't know how much national unity that event will grant to SU. You can balance it out and make it into a very difficult decision...

[Fielding]

And I don't see how it cannot be simulated through surrender events.

Certainly it can - I was just answering the other guy's question about whether there were any negotiated peace settlements during the time frame of the game. Didn't mean to give offense.

[Sokraates]

to explain it in clear terms.

National Unity = Percentage of IC that needs to be occupied by enemy to force surrender events.

Interesting. So if you write a separate peace event, then this event will fire instead of the regular "occupy all that is linked to the capital" event. That way I could get any peace agreement, I desire. Correct?

Will it be possible to write separate surrender events for different amount of IC captured (e.g. at 50% I may chose to peace out for some provinces only or I may carry on for another event to fire after capturing some more IC)?

Further on this subject: National Unity of 0 means that I only have to march troops into the country, independent of whether I actually capture any IC, to make it surrender. Is this correct or is there maybe a "Base IC" which need to be occupied in any case or will I need to capture the capital?

And the final question: Will IC captured by separate nations be added, so that one nation will, so to say, break the camel's back and fire the surrender event? And which country will receive the surrendered provinces? The one with more captured IC, the one firing the event or the one occupying the capital?

[X=17]

You don't know how much national unity that event will grant to SU. You can balance it out and make it into a very difficult decision...

Ah yes, I was just trying to guess based on how much "national unity" it gave the Soviets historically: Even though Stalin was paranoid, he did have a reason for doing it, but in my limited historical knowledge the damage it did far outweighed the benefits (again, speaking historically). If they balance it out, it will probably be ahistorical, though I would support it.

[lionhead]

I find this weird. Not every country had the chance to continue as a government in exile.

If you as Germany invaded Great Britian from all sides and conquer it within a week there is no way the UK can continue on the war as a government in exile as the whole government would have been captured and probably killed. I mean, historically Denmark for example didn't continue as a government in exile. Your saying now they can?

I thought the whole idea of this game was to make it a-historical? I mean, it seems like you made all the things that need to look historical random now(like anschluss event not firing on March 1st 1938 like it did historically) while you make all the things that you should be able to come randomly now only have one option(the fact you won't be able to demand peace or beg for it, just total warfare too the end and nothing else.)

I've got a bad feeling.

[Devout]

I will be interested to see how national unity and different levels of control play out with United Kingdom. I am assuming that there is a specific level of control that matches UK-India relationship. It will be really interesting to not only see what it is, but to read some AAR games in which UK decides to modify the relationship to get more IC out of India.

I'm also hoping that the UK provinces make sense for national unity purposes. It wouldn't feel right for Germany to use subs to reduce the national unity to 20%, and then go conquor Egypt and/or parts of India and force a UK surrender.

[BiB]

I see what you're thinking, but considering that it took 25(?) years to gain a core in EU3 it would be entirely reasonable that the occupied province would continue resistance throughout the war. For example, if you conquered a province in 1936 it would not has assimilated until 1961, long after the scope of the game.

In EU3 it was 50 years even.

[KommanderKhaki]

In EU3 it was 50 years even.

The only solution is to make the war last longer, lol, jk! But yeah, I was just hoping for a way to make the ruling party popular which there probably is, so assimiliation by means of ideaology as opposed to culture, language, and religion, y'know? I don't mind what you speak as long as you believe in the common good

[Blut_und_Bier!]

What I most liked about Hoi was the ability to play what-if scenarios, to go ahistorical ways but still stay realistic. This does't mean Tibet conquer the world scenarios, but, for example, play germany with hitler assasinated 1938 or play a stalinist france etc. I think, the ability to go for limited war aims for smaller conflicts, to isolate countries and to get limeted achievements was one of hoi's most interesting features. If this is really not an april fools joke, this dev diary really makes me think again, if I should buy Hoi 3.

[j benyo]

like this much better, i never liked having to wait a yr to make a change , then forget what date was the 1yr anv. miss it and have to wait another year

[GeneralHannibal]

Note there are no surrender negotiations in Hearts of Iron 3, World War II is total warfare and is fought to the finish. We have special events for specific surrenders, like the forming of Vichy France, but in general if a country’s national unity breaks then all provinces that have been captured or are linked to the capital are occupied and remainder fights on with the government in exile.

This seems very wrong? So there is no way to have peace negotiations outside of events, for any countries? Or is it only for the major three alliances?

Because while "the war" might have been a "total war", there were other conflicts during the period (Ecuador-Peru for example) that were not. And many mods have wars between middling power that are not "total wars". Please don't say there is no way besides events/annexation to end wars (granted, peace negotiations in HOI2 weren't exactly useful, but with the new AI...). That would limit the game a whole lot mod-wise.

[FireDevlin]

Very cool. I am excited. I am unsure about the negotiations thing. I don't use it much, but it seems to free up the abiltiy for the game to include other things when some of the win or lose is hardwired?

[GeneralHannibal]

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

So they only way to demonstrate "special circumstances" like Czechoslovakia and the Baltic State is now through event? And I thought HOI3 was supposed to be less event based, but I guess they've made now made all territory changes need events. An unfortunate position to hardcode considering all its does is stifle creativity and mods...

[Talquin]

I think a lot of you guys are forgetting events. there may be events partialy through you steamrolling into russia/china/usa that may allow you to choose a partial/early peace. you don't have to accept it but it may give you the option of it.

[vota dc]

1)I broken the morale of a country:every province not occupied by enemy troops will be mine or there are other rules like land connection?
2)I just broken the country leader:the capital will be moved in the new leader of the alliance I suppose,how the game decide the new leader?By IC?
3)The remnants of the exile government will give IC to the leader?