Development Diary #22 - 1st of April 2009

[Friedrich2]

The new system should even be better for multiplayer, since now even if you get knocked out of the war, you can still fight on from your government-in-exile location.

[Elvis II]

The new system should even be better for multiplayer, since now even if you get knocked out of the war, you can still fight on from your government-in-exile location.

I was thinking of a more LAN with you're friends after some months of the game. When trying new thing really is cool.

I agree the government-in-exile feature looks very promising! Still, I don't see that as a replacement for no negotiation system. And thus both options could easily been featured

[Sinbuster]

So a country will only surrender / break when at least one home (core) province is occupied? "...you still need troops on the ground." to quote your DD.

If so, what would then qualify as a home province? Could Italy potentially surrender after Libya falls, or after Sicily or Sardinia was occupied, or would the mainland have to be invaded? Would the Greek government surrender if Crete were occupied - provided the rest of the country was being bombed back into the the Dark Ages (ca. 1150 BC)? Just curious of the thought process.

I'm just raising this question again because things got derailed shortly after I posted it.

Cheers

[Cammunition]

I'm just raising this question again because things got derailed shortly after I posted it.

Cheers

I'm pretty sure it's a national unity rating rather then capturing the cores per se that matters, so Italy could fight on just from Libya IF Libya hasn't been bombed or blockaded and their army evacuated there intact.

In regards to the No peace treaty controversy,
a list of conflicts in the WW2 era that did not end in total annexation:
- Slovak-Hungarian War, http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/romsics/w19.htm
- The Winter War, http://www.winterwar.com/War%27sEnd.htm#treaty
- French-Thai War, http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/history/vichyvssiam.shtml
- Ecuadorian-Peruvian War, (Text of the Rio Treaty) http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/...ppndx1_27.html
- Continuation War, (Moscow Armistice) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_armistice

[Nilmerf]

The distinction between collaboration and exploitation is cool, but it may result in the best strategy being the opposite of reality. For instance, small and rich areas like Benelux would be fairly easy to defend from partisans so you might want to gain the benefits from exploitation. Whereas parts of Eastern Europe are large and poor, so you would maybe benefit more from collaboration governments.

[hito1]

This is not a game about regional wars; this is a world war 2 game. This is not a diplomatic game; this is a world war 2 game. So please just give it a rest.

I don't see it like that. HoI2 is not a simple WWII game, it's the best game ever done. It happens to take place on the WWII and it is built around it, but it is so perfectly built that I can't remember when was the last time I've played it following the WWII events.

I'm deeply worried about this dev diary, it seems paradox has forgotten for a moment the masterpiece they have.

[Cidal]

Oh man... I can't really address each individuals so I'll just address different issues:

1) It's no fun without peace deals, I don't want to just go around annexing everyone in sight.

There will be a peace option and annexing is not the only option you have, you can also puppet the country. But, to expect a country like the US to just give up their islands because some bully occupied them is ridiculous.


2) Multiplayer will be boring without peace options.

So you mean you guys like to start wars just to take some territory and go on peace for rest of the game? Don't you try and destroy each other?


3) But there were historical examples of when war did not end in with full occupation/annexation.

I love how people use this to argue in favor of implementing peace treaty option yet at the same time say something like "just because it didn't happen in history it shouldn't be excluded in the game". The historical (and many ahistorical) peace treaties will be in the game via events. If you really want a peace treaty where you can take some of your enemy's provinces in which you have absolutely no claim on then mod it.


4) They were included in HoI1/HoI2.

HoI2 peace options in my opinion was broken. You can puppet a country and all its divisions will go from fighting against you to suddenly becoming your zombie minions in a flash (and yes, the ones that did happen: Hungary, Romania, etc will be done via events). AIs also always made silly peace offers which they would never have had made it in real life. People underestimate the degree to which many countries and people fought on despite overwhelming force against them. I'm sure leaders of Germany and Japan were as frustrated as some of you are by the fact that their enemies wouldn't accept their 'generous' peace offer.

[otacu]

The distinction between collaboration and exploitation is cool, but it may result in the best strategy being the opposite of reality. For instance, small and rich areas like Benelux would be fairly easy to defend from partisans so you might want to gain the benefits from exploitation. Whereas parts of Eastern Europe are large and poor, so you would maybe benefit more from collaboration governments.

This needs to be well balanced

[Alojzy]

The distinction between collaboration and exploitation is cool, but it may result in the best strategy being the opposite of reality. For instance, small and rich areas like Benelux would be fairly easy to defend from partisans so you might want to gain the benefits from exploitation. Whereas parts of Eastern Europe are large and poor, so you would maybe benefit more from collaboration governments.

And who said that historical policies were optimal?

I mean, I understand your point, but then it's the same issue as with V-weapons. They were useless in history and they are more or less useless in game. Is there a point to make them artificially better just to make players follow historical research routes, or we should keep them as they were?

[Alex_brunius]

Oh man... I can't really address each individuals so I'll just address different issues:

...

Good points Cidal. I think the major point to why no negotiations won't be such a major loss is the following:

It never happened between Majors in HoI or HoI2, Period. And when talking about wars between Major vs Minors your either on the autoritarian side trying to Annex or Puppet them all, or on the Democratic side trying to protect their independence. Neither of these routes need a peace treaty.

So what are we left with? Minor vs Minor conflicts and when we are playing really ahistorical and need peace for an event to trigger. But now we can trigger those event by ourselvs on another date so thats no longer a problem. And is it really that important if two minors can negotiate a peace or just get their cores from the enemy?

From this perspective the peace treaties will actually be more realistic since only cores can be demanded. Nations will actually get what they have claims on and not some random stuff. That means that the winterwar most likely can be done even without events.

[Cardus]

It never happened between Majors in HoI or HoI2, Period. And when talking about wars between Major vs Minors your either on the autoritarian side trying to Annex or Puppet them all, or on the Democratic side trying to protect their independence. Neither of these routes need a peace treaty.

never happend but, as mentioned earlier, it could be happened. Regarding Major vs Minors the Winter War and the following end of WWII shows the SOV (autoritarian side) never annexed Finland.

[Alex_brunius]

never happend but, as mentioned earlier, it could be happened.

I guess it could happen if you cheated and edited the gamefiles or used the acceptall cheat. Youll be able to cheat and edit notepad files in HoI3 too. And it will probably be almost as fast as finding all those separate provinces without a map in earlier versions of the game :P Or you you can just mod the game with your own event/decision.

Regarding Major vs Minors the Winter War and the following end of WWII shows the SOV (autoritarian side) never annexed Finland.

But ask yourself this, was this because they didn't want to, or because they couldn't/didin't dare too? I belive it was still one of Soviets goals to annex Finland, but for many reasons it wasn't possible for them to do it.

[Cardus]

I guess it could happen if you cheated and edited the gamefiles or used the acceptall cheat. Youll be able to cheat and edit notepad files in HoI3 too. And it will probably be almost as fast as finding all those separate provinces without a map in earlier versions of the game :P Or you you can just mod the game with your own event/decision..

I like some realism so I mod what I deem is needed. With HOI3 this will not be anylonger possible

But ask yourself this, was this because they didn't want to, or because they couldn't/didin't dare too? I belive it was still one of Soviets goals to annex Finland, but for many reasons it wasn't possible for them to do it.

I don't think so. But, intention or not, they didn't and this is an actual fact that countradicts the current setup of HOI3.

[Alex_brunius]

I don't think so. But, intention or not, they didn't and this is an actual fact that countradicts the current setup of HOI3.

No it doesn't, If the territory gained from the peace are Soviet cores it will be very possible to get them with the kind of peacetreaty that have been mentioned.

[Fulmen]

Indeed, this does seem a step backward.

I concur.

In real life the Soviets no doubt wanted to conquer all of Finland, as they tried this twice and had been preparing to do so since the mid-30s. The only reason they didn't do so was because the Finns kept defeating them until they gave up the idea of total conquest and went for a far less steep approach. The result was a some war reparations and a bit of territory ceded to the Soviets with Finland keeping her independence and ideologies.

Though this may be the only direct such case in WWII (other countries that ended up ceding territory became puppets of the aggressor - or totally occupied), I still think the traditional way of demanding territory via peace deals etc. should be kept in.

[jpr123]

Ive never played any HOI game before, but after reading the dev diaries and watching previews Im really excited about this game! But I have to say that leaving out peace negotiations isnt a very good idea. Sure there will be events that give peace, and these sound really cool, but surely there wont be events for every eventuality?

Say you are playing as finland, and you manage to repel the russian invasion. If the russians are also fighting germany, you might actually be able to advance into russian land without much opposition. As finland it must be immposible to fully annex or even set up a puppet government in the SU just because you wouldnt have enough men to enforce it, so all you can hope for is mabey annexing some of the russian provs that border finland. As for the russians, they dont want to pull their armies away from the front lines against germany, or they could be overun. So surely its in both countries interests to cede a few provinces? As I understand it, there wouldnt be peace until the finnish had occupied loets of SU provs and seriously reduced their national unity... So surely peace negotiations would really help in this situation?

Like I said Im a complete noob to HOI, so if Ive misunderstood anything please correct me, but this is just how I understand the system will work from what I've seen.

[Alex_brunius]

Look at this clarification again:

Just to clarify.. there is a "sign peace" option that signs a status quo peace for occupied claims.. but that is basically not valid in the big ww2 war.

Soviet will be able to get their cores/claims from Finland via peace treaties, and Finland will still be able to sign a white peace, or if they do have cores/claims on Soviet territory get those via a signed peace.

This is confirmed to be in HoI3.

[jetmcquack]

I'm new to the forum, i would like to greet everyone!

BTW
You have used a Fascist symbol (the Axe and the Grain, the "Fascio") for a National Socialist one!

[Alojzy]

As I understand it, there wouldnt be peace until the finnish had occupied loets of SU provs and seriously reduced their national unity... So surely peace negotiations would really help in this situation?

Like I said Im a complete noob to HOI, so if Ive misunderstood anything please correct me, but this is just how I understand the system will work from what I've seen.

Nope, there would be some other options available.

First, you can make white peace, bringing back the situation from before the war or, if you have under control any core (core being your national) provinces that were previously owned by your opponent, gaining them as well.

Otherwise, if such option won't work (and there is a good chance it won't, as Soviet AI might be stubborn) you can just pray for Germans to win, helping them as much as possible.

Last, but not least, if conditions around will suit historical situation close enough, there is a good chance for event to fire and give you historical choices - things like making peace, switching alliances and such.

So no, it's not as bad as some people paint it. But of course, it's somehow feeling like LESS then it was in HoI2 and most of the strategy players react alergically on any functionality reductions.

[jpr123]

Look at this clarification again:

Soviet will be able to get their cores/claims from Finland via peace treaties, and Finland will still be able to sign a white peace, or if they do have cores/claims on Soviet territory get those via a signed peace.

This is confirmed to be in HoI3.

So even if finland is managing to win the war they cant annex provinces unless they have cores on them?