• 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.
Secondly, what would happen if a Russian player wanted more then what it got historically? Those provinces Russia took weren't exactly provinces Russia had legal claims on. They wanted those to be able to protect Leningrad and some islands in the Baltic Sea for safety. So they were actually occupying those lands.
The Fins gave away that much (it was a fairly industrialized part of Finland), how much more would they have given in return for peace?
I admit the system is not perfect and has limitations but if you want more of Finland I guess you have to annex them. And in my opinion it isn't likely that they would have gave up more provinces than they already did.

You could say that Finland would never have given away provinces on which Russia didn't have claims. But they didn't exactly have claims IRL on the ones they did get, they have claims on them ingame because that is what they got IRL.
One can argue that the entire Finalnd was 'claimed' by Soviet Union because they were part of Russian Empire before (same as the way USSR gets core on all the baltic countries with M-R pact). I really don't see a problem here, Finland is already small enough, so if you want more of Finland you might as well just annex them.

What happens when the allies don't guarantee the independance of Poland? This can be done too with the engine, you can get a white peace and still get the provinces you got claims on.
It works as long as the winning country has claims on the losing country, the winning country is able to get those claims.
Why would German player or AI get a white peace with Poland?

What happens when you go to war with a country (without allies) on which you have no historical claims but go to war because you want to capture only certain strategic provinces? (Finland is actually an example of this)
Only about 4 countries went to war to take over provinces and nations they had no claims on: The 3 Axis members and USSR. As these are major countries I'm sure they'll have events associated with them if they don't just outright annex and puppet other countries (which is mostly the case). But if you want to play some S.American minor and take strategic provinces from your neighbour with no claims and justification you are in for a rude awakening.
 
mmm i dont know if i understand well.... all this means that I, as russia, dont need to rech berlin to defeat germans?? (if i break their national unity before)... i want to fight in berlin!!
 
mmm i dont know if i understand well.... all this means that I, as russia, dont need to rech berlin to defeat germans?? (if i break their national unity before)... i want to fight in berlin!!

It depends how you do it:

1. If you adopt a combined land, sea & air approach then you will probably only need to invade a relatively small amount of territory to break them (I'm assuming).
2. If you go for land steamroller approach - as it based upon IC "captured" - you could probably get quite a historic approach. Don't forget by the time the Russians reached Berlin Germany still controlled Norway, most (if not all) of Denmark, parts of Holland, a good remaining proportion of "Greater" Germany, a few small hold outs on the coast of France and not forgetting the IC powerhouse collectivity of the Channel Islands.
 
Last edited:
mmm i dont know if i understand well.... all this means that I, as russia, dont need to rech berlin to defeat germans?? (if i break their national unity before)... i want to fight in berlin!!

You saw that Hitler himself got a positive bonus for National Unity? He'll help you fight in Berlin.
 
THAT I believe you are making totally up! :rofl:

"They also gain combat bonuses when fighting for provinces that they consider their cores."

Bah, I think I just misremembered this.
 
I guess national unity will be a modifier for ministers then?

Churchill and Hitler could have a positive effect on it, seeing as their respective nations eventually rallied around them.

And then maybe a few of the Third Republic ministers could detract from it?
 
What happens when you go to war with a country (without allies) on which you have no historical claims but go to war because you want to capture only certain strategic provinces? (Finland is actually an example of this)

From what has been said so far, you can't keep only those provinces but leave them with the rest.

For example you are Chile, and you want to have a port on the Atlantic ocean. So you attack Argentina. But you have no cores on them except for some worthless province in Patagonia. What can you do then? If you sign a peace you will get that Patagonian province, but none of the Argentinian port cities that you actually wanted.

So you would probably need some sort of peace treaty events that conclude a peace between Argentina and you, and give you ownership of whatever it is that Chile is supposed to keep (beyond their cores in Patagonia).

It is a bit sad, but then on the other hand, regular peace treaties in HoI2 were usually weird and crappy, the AI would offer you a load of random provinces that are arranged across the map without any sense or meaning. It is no loss to no longer have this option.

However what is sad is that having no peace treaties means also no peace treaties beyond total annexation in multiplayer. Or in custom games that are ported over from Victoria, where you do not have the historical total war setup ut just some alliances.
 
If, and I repeat if because we do not yet know for sure, the system remains as Johan has hitherto described it; mark my words: it shall be changed in an expansion.
 
From what has been said so far, you can't keep only those provinces but leave them with the rest.

For example you are Chile, and you want to have a port on the Atlantic ocean. So you attack Argentina. But you have no cores on them except for some worthless province in Patagonia. What can you do then? If you sign a peace you will get that Patagonian province, but none of the Argentinian port cities that you actually wanted.

So you would probably need some sort of peace treaty events that conclude a peace between Argentina and you, and give you ownership of whatever it is that Chile is supposed to keep (beyond their cores in Patagonia).

It is a bit sad, but then on the other hand, regular peace treaties in HoI2 were usually weird and crappy, the AI would offer you a load of random provinces that are arranged across the map without any sense or meaning. It is no loss to no longer have this option.

However what is sad is that having no peace treaties means also no peace treaties beyond total annexation in multiplayer. Or in custom games that are ported over from Victoria, where you do not have the historical total war setup ut just some alliances.

Why would anyone want to play as Chile just to 'steal' few provinces from Argentina? This isn't EU3 where you can play and enjoy all countries somewhat equally. If you want to create a Scandinavian empire with democratic Norway or recreate the Mexican empire as democratic Mexico then you are unforunately mistaken.

How often did borders change during this time besides the major belligerants and the ones that were considered disputed?
 
Why would anyone want to play as Chile just to 'steal' few provinces from Argentina?

For the same reason the Germans allowed the creation of Vichy France I guess :)

Vichy France is an example of something impossible to do without an event. If they allow you to decide which territories NOT to give a puppet but instead keep occupying yourself it would be better. Then Vichy wouldn't need an event.

It wouldn't work in the Chile-Argentina example though, since that wouldn't be where Chili sets up a new puppet Argentina with less provinces, but where Argentina agrees to give up some provinces.
 
I think the main issue here is that HoI3 is an obvious opportunity to improve/fix the peace system present in HoI2, whereas it seems that Paradox are simply scrapping it in favour of something altogether more simple, and I dare say a lot easier on the AI.

The problem of course is that by doing so we are restricted to event-driven peace treaties, instead of player-driven peace treaties.

As such, yes, we will see the likes of Vichy France (if the player so wishes to form her, as I presume the event/decision will be a choice), but similar and equally plausible scenarios involving other nations will not be possible unless they have been pre-thought up and implemented by mods.

In my opinion, and others' it seems, this drastically reduces the likelihood not only of complete ahistory but also plausible 'what if?' situations, which is a shame. One hoped that the idea of a sequel would be to improve a previously problematic aspect of the game, not simply to do away with it in favour of a seemingly inferior system.

And I reserve the right to say all this because I haven't tried the game and nobody has showed us any screenshots of what exactly will happen at the peace table - if anything. ;)
 
This no-peace-agreement thing is definitely the worst news in HOI3 development so far. With only one catastrofic decision Paradox has destroyed its reputation in my eyes. And not because it is a bad thing for the game, but because Paradox treats us like idiots with this. Freedom has been the best thing in HOI2 for me, in fact I played only one historical campaign so far (and even that ended ahistoricaly). The beaty in HOI was that I was able to play as Netherland in war for colonies, or resurgent British Empire fighting with the US. And the goal there was taking Ceylon, Malaya, Hawaii or Panama in peace agreement. You have now completely taken that freedom from us. In HOI2 we could use acceptall if we wanted some ahistorical peace with one of the major alliances, and that peace doesn`t have to be an exploit, but something that considered plausible. Paradox, thank you for thinking that we are cheating idiots. :mad::mad::mad:
 
I'm assuming when you say 'sow enough discord' that you'll be doing it without actually landing troops in America. If that is the case it'll simply be impossible. That's like Soviet Union collapsing and anti-Communist government taking control after 4 months into Barbarossa.

I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I don't see how its impossible. We know that strategic warfare can reduce national unity and I was under the impression that a low national unity may result in coups (maybe thats just Party organization?). If germany got ICBMs and started strat bombing American cities and beat off a few Normandy style landings, then I think they should be able to reduce American national unity. They could couple this with having their spies work to increase the organization of pro axis parties, couldn't they? I'm not talking real life, just purely in game terms wouldn't this be possible? Shouldn't this allow for a seperate peace?
 
I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I don't see how its impossible. We know that strategic warfare can reduce national unity and I was under the impression that a low national unity may result in coups (maybe thats just Party organization?). If germany got ICBMs and started strat bombing American cities and beat off a few Normandy style landings, then I think they should be able to reduce American national unity. They could couple this with having their spies work to increase the organization of pro axis parties, couldn't they? I'm not talking real life, just purely in game terms wouldn't this be possible? Shouldn't this allow for a seperate peace?

If the whole peace negotiation mechanism is supposed to be there to permit and support highly fantastical game scenarios such as the one above, then I have absolutely no problem with its absence from the game. I think PI is doing what it can to make the wargame more realistic, be it possibly at the expense of all possible what-if, far-out scenarios.
 
I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I don't see how its impossible. We know that strategic warfare can reduce national unity and I was under the impression that a low national unity may result in coups (maybe thats just Party organization?). If germany got ICBMs and started strat bombing American cities and beat off a few Normandy style landings, then I think they should be able to reduce American national unity. They could couple this with having their spies work to increase the organization of pro axis parties, couldn't they? I'm not talking real life, just purely in game terms wouldn't this be possible? Shouldn't this allow for a seperate peace?
I'm sure if you drop about 100 nukes on America dissent level will be soaring and America will just turn into a massive anarchy, but this is assuming that America won't do the same to Germany which is extremely unlikely.
 
If the whole peace negotiation mechanism is supposed to be there to permit and support highly fantastical game scenarios such as the one above, then I have absolutely no problem with its absence from the game. I think PI is doing what it can to make the wargame more realistic, be it possibly at the expense of all possible what-if, far-out scenarios.

But if the AI never accepts these ahistorical peace deals with a few provinces, how does it detract from the game?

the AI in HOI2 would never sign small peace deals, but if the player wants to do things differently, what possible good reason is there to restrict that?

Making peace by special events only is a big mistake. It forces the player to play a historical game, and lets face it, that gets boring.

Its all been done before, I thought that HOI3 would be a game of choices, but it seems I am wrong.

Its not JUST playing as minor nations that will be affected, now any attempts to go ahistorical as a major will be met in failure much like how the peace events in HOI2 made a mess of things in these situation.**

The new political system is wasted if the game is going to end in a unrealitic mess because nobody made peace events for a Communist france, or a Fascist america..

Really.. whats the point then?

**- Example: Playing as a belligerent but neutral Italy I managed to carve out an empire by invading Yugoslavia, Greece, and Vichy france. I allied Hungary, Austria, and Bulgaria, but once the Soviets steamrolled Germany, all those nations magically became Soviet puppets.

Why? Because of event based peace system. Nobody can Code an event for every possible situation, so the best solution to Peace deal in HOI3 is a dynamic one that does not rely on events or set circumstances.

At the very least keep the peace negotiation. its not like it will hurt the game, the major powers AI never accepts those peace deals anyways.
 
**- Example: Playing as a belligerent but neutral Italy I managed to carve out an empire by invading Yugoslavia, Greece, and Vichy france. I allied Hungary, Austria, and Bulgaria, but once the Soviets steamrolled Germany, all those nations magically became Soviet puppets.

Why? Because of event based peace system. Nobody can Code an event for every possible situation, so the best solution to Peace deal in HOI3 is a dynamic one that does not rely on events or set circumstances.

At the very least keep the peace negotiation. its not like it will hurt the game, the major powers AI never accepts those peace deals anyways.

Why would Hungary, Bulgaria, etc. suddenly become Soviet puppets if they're your ally? I'm sure the one prerequisite would have to be the fact that they're at war with Soviet Union.

The peace system in HoI2 and even in EU3 was pretty much broken. In EU3 I have on countless occasions survived while on the verge of total destruction by offering 10 gold or even white peace to cease hostilities.