• 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.
As the US I can gladly accept the fact that I'm fighting my opponents to the bitter end with no chance to stop the war until Allied troops are in Berlin and Tokyo.

As the Japanese or even the Germans, its ridiculous to think that the only way I'm ever going to win World War II after the US enters the war is to launch a naval invasion of the continental United States and conquer Washington DC, New York City, and Los Angelos!

The Axis never had the capability to invade the US. The whole strategy to dealing with the US was to isolate the other weaker Allied nations and defeat them, and cut the US off and end the war in a stalemate.

Germany wanted Europe and North Africa. Japan wanted the US Pacific Fleet out of its neighborhood.

There has to be some way as the Axis or even as the Allies to end the war if it turns into a stalemate.

O for pete's sake. And then? Then what? When you've taken europe and fortified the western wall. You're just going to perfect your socialist paradise? The game will change into Hearts of Theme park?

Take the frigging world, it's what the game is about. Or quit before you take the US. Anyway, there's still a peace button, just no negotiation about the provinces. I guess that after harassing their convoys and cities you'll be able to get the peace at the status quo.
 
Originally Posted by Timmetie
So just accept you're going to have to defeat your opponents. 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

What about Hoi1 and 2? Not a game about ww2? The last time I checked there were some sort of peace negotiations there...

Somehow I had the impression that the negotiation system was going to be improved. After you have played the game for sometime, doing different stuff is alot of fun.

Don't really get the dev are saying this is a ww2 game, so f ex china usually requests peace sometime after the marco polo bridge accident if you as japan have invaded and captured a reasonable amount of land... And at least for me I really enjoyed to sign the peace treaty gain some provinces and leave the future options from there.

But this is now a "ww2 game", and thing like that can't happen anymore beacuse in ww2 that didn't happen, maybe not, but me as the player would like to have that option to fight ww2 as I want.
 
What about Hoi1 and 2? Not a game about ww2? The last time I checked there were some sort of peace negotiations there...

Somehow I had the impression that the negotiation system was going to be improved. After you have played the game for sometime, doing different stuff is alot of fun.

Don't really get the dev are saying this is a ww2 game, so f ex china usually requests peace sometime after the marco polo bridge accident if you as japan have invaded and captured a reasonable amount of land... And at least for me I really enjoyed to sign the peace treaty gain some provinces and leave the future options from there.

But this is now a "ww2 game", and thing like that can't happen anymore beacuse in ww2 that didn't happen, maybe not, but me as the player would like to have that option to fight ww2 as I want.

Yet the timeframe is too short for that sort of nonsense. China would never have stood by japan taking that part of mainland. Just as noone in Europe would have excepted the new borders after 1939. It would escalate into other timeframes etc etc. This is the easiest way to stay realistic within the current timeframe and still offer the most war.

And about HOI2 and HOI1. I have never, ever, used the peace system there and I've played both with any country and tactic imaginable.
 
I'm not against the proposed system, as long as the proper precautions are put into place.

So don't get me wrong.

I just don't feel like it should be left up to me to mod all the possible ways to end the war via event.

If the Historical Goal of the Axis was to force some of their enemies into a peace through attrition or stalemate, I'd like to take the challenge and do just that, that's all.

Otherwise I'm just gonna have to invade the US in the 1930's every game and take them out before they can gear up all of their IC for war, join the allies, and become unstoppable, and that doesn't seem very fun to me.
 
Maybe some tweeks to this new all-or-nothing warfare can be:
Have an allied pact come into play when the US enters WWII that only unconditional surrenders are acceptable. Before then and for the axis, negotiated peace is an option.

Add loss of designated major capital ships as a hit to national unity.
 
I have to say, I was liking every developer's diary up to this day. If we can't have some sort of peace negotiations in this game, as it seems to be, I'm now less interested in this game.

I think there should be something akin to peace negotiations at least, since it would be fun to have that option. The implications of the non-existence of such mechanism does make the game seem a lot less fun, for me at least.
 
Yet the timeframe is too short for that sort of nonsense. China would never have stood by japan taking that part of mainland. Just as noone in Europe would have excepted the new borders after 1939. It would escalate into other timeframes etc etc. This is the easiest way to stay realistic within the current timeframe and still offer the most war.

And about HOI2 and HOI1. I have never, ever, used the peace system there and I've played both with any country and tactic imaginable.

I'm very happy for you, that you never ever used the negotiations system there... that makes everything so much better since you never ever used it.

I don't think you're very objective, that the timeframe is too short and nations would never accept the deals. That really comes down to the situation itself. I agree that when the major war had broken up, peace is a very very long way down the road.

But for wars happening outside the main war, before (or after). And not to mention multiplayer.
 
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
 
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
 
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'sEnd.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
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.