Too bad. Never would've used the feature anyway, I always go for total conquest
Other might have liked it though, and the more people buy the game, the better you can make the next one!
Well apart from not getting limited wars right the gme is easily modded. A limtied war by a member of the Azis launched on a member of the allies leveas that Axis member at war with the Allies on it's own.
Maybe an alliance is not the best solution, but there must be a way of giving help to non-allied countries (like US did to SU), maybe just by mimicking the lend-lease to the SU we can have some form of support from Major powers in a regional war mod
thanks for your answers
There is a diplomatic option give credit.
cash only?
Credit means that you don't have to pay immediatly
Thats clear.
But the question came up cause of the lend and lease...
AFAIK the US send much more than only cash or food for credit
Will there be a way to simulate this or just through events?
The USA gives credit to the UK, meaning that the UK can get resources and supplies and licensing stuff for 'free', normally the UK would have to give cash.
Yeah, those are great examples for our new surrender mechanism. Low national unity and as soon as soviet troops show up, they surrender, and the Soviet turned them into puppets.
Yes. This is so true.What if they are American troops? Or the British? Why was Romania more likely to defect to Comintern? You see - that's why you need a system to replace the events. Even if it's not a "peace" system, but just some mechanism to allow Axis members to defect to whichever country is trying to overrun them, rather than just the Soviets.
Considering the system is doing exactly what we intend it to it is not broken. Now it's not my fault you can't grasp this rather simple concept. However it is enitrely prepared to deal with a Japanese Victory against the US as the Japan would be required to actually phisically invade the US to achieve. If Japan then wants to release the US as a puppet afterwards that's their business.
Also, in a previous post you posed the question of what we learn about 1940 from 1871. You said nothing, to which I disagree.
I also tend to agree that this "realism" that King touts has an interesting side effect of encouraging a Japanese land invasion of North America. Yeah, I buy that as a plausible outcome I'm assuming the Japanese aren't hardcoded to lose...
There is simply no way the US would still be at war with the Japanese if the latter had eliminated all of the former's means of preventing an invasion of the continent.
The US would have sued for peace the minute they realised they were completely vulnerable - essentially the game is up then.
Particularly when threatened on the other side by a Germany which executed a, eg. successful Seelowe, and Italy winning in Africa.
What really bothers me is that I cannot, after breaking someone's national unity and actually totally winning the war, draw up borders and install a puppet government after I took what colonies/provinces/etc I want.
For instance, why couldn't I take just alsace-lorraine after breaking the french national unity and winning? Does every victorious invasion of France have to end with Vichy France with the borders exactly like it has hardcoded in the event? Could I negotiate for peace with the British (before US & Soviets are a part of the war) after a successful invasion of the British isles and victory in Africa in return for, eg. a part of their African colonies and disarament? Etc.
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.