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
otacu said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
X=17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In EU3 it was 50 years even.
 
BiB said:
In EU3 it was 50 years even.
Click to expand...

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 :D
 
Worst news ever!

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.
 
Johan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
 
King said:
there is indeed no longer a demand proinces screen of any sort.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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?
 
vertinox said:
*snip!*
Had Valkyrie succeeded and Hitler was assassinated and the NSDAP party ousted, there might have been a conditional surrender of Germany.

Had Germany successfully repelled D-Day, there might have been a settlement with the Soviets.
*/snip!*
Click to expand...


I think the problem I see with these versions of "what-if" scenarios is that people are missing the real catch. It isn't that terms weren't offerred, it was that no one accepted any terms once they set a goal they wanted.

If Valkyrie succeeded, Germany may have offerred terms, and the Western Allies may have wanted to accept, but there is no way Stalin would have. If D-Day had failed, and the Soviets wanted a ceasefire, there is no way the Western Allies would have accepted.

Once the war got started, there was always a power that refused to stop until all of THEIR goals were achieved. The Japanese approached the Austrian embassy to negociate a peace agreement two weeks before the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Allies would only accept UNconditional surrender.

Its much better to have the game focused on complete conquest.
 
The new system is awesome, and it will represent the Battle of Britain and the Atlantic War much better. So if Sealion succeeds who will be the leader of the Allies? The logical choice would be Canada until the U.S. enters the war (which I assume a defeated Britain would bring about quickly). In HOI2 I think it went with the next on the list alphabetically which is pretty silly.
 
I enjoy an a-historical finish to the war as much as the next guy. However, just being able to exploit a system whereby you can grow without the repercussions in a time when expansion was obsolete. Once World War 2 started it was very unpopular with all nations to expand at the expense of another. Now the Soviets happened to be on the winning side and due to aggressive negotiations got what they wanted, but it was after the war and could easily be implemented by events.

Even though adding a few provinces here and there have a-historical implications, it also allows for the a-historical response of sitting there watching (granted, it took till 39 for the allies to finally decide to do something). And, again, I feel this war then quick peace with small gains allows for some exploitation and gamey play. Just my humble opinion though. On that note, if someone wants to have that sort of game, I guess they should be allowed to play it.
 
Balor said:
to explain it in clear terms.

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

This seems like a problem for China. It's national unity during the period was absolutely abysmal, by any standard, yet they would need to have a very high one in game to keep from surrendering ahistorically early.

Furthermore, Lets take the issue of the major alliances off the table. We need peace and province negotiations because those did happen. The Nationalist attack on guangxi, the Peru Ecuador war, any of the wars that might break out in the balkans all were limited wars. If a major isn't involved, we need the possibility to negotiate peace.

The Vienna dictate is going to still be an event. As Hungary, we'll still just hope that Germany wants to give Slovakia instead of being able to request it. It would be one thing if the mechanic required new coding, but IT'S ALREADY IN THE ENGINE! Why go through the work of taking it out? (too many provinces and "because country x didn't surrender," are not acceptable answers.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back