• 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.
That is a good point.

Attrition, especially naval attrition, should be part of strategic warfare.

I agree that manpower losses should be part of strategic warfare as is strategic air bombardment and sea-lane interdiction.

Thus,losing the carrier fleet should count as "Strategic losses", on par with with the choking of the convoy routes.

The basic Japanese rationale was sound but far,far too ambitious. Victory as Japan vs the US should be possible, but the Japanese player would need many ahistorical victories,especially naval, to induce sufficient war-weariness to the US because the US is basically a giant when compared to Japan.

I believe that a strategic victory at Midway and subsequent occupation of Pearl (both MANDATORY) would have brought the US to a white peace scenario (or effective cessation of hostilities, which would still be useful for Japan, as pearl would be at the operational edge of fleets based on the west coast, and effectively eliminate the threat of the US island hopping to Japan till after its recapture)
 
If the removal of peace negotiations is indeed true I am very dissapointed. This isn't an RTS where you fight until the other guy's base is totally destroyed. I agree that the major war participants would not accept small peace deals, and the peace deals that were brokered should have events. However, smaller conflicts, like in South America, or in the Balkans without any major power involved, should have an option to make peace!

If Argentina is played by a human, and a human player declares war on the USA prior to the outbreak of WW2, does this mean that Argentina can never sign peace with the USA? If the USA occupies Argentina, they can't dictate terms such as forced military access? If the human player somehow manages to take USA islands, they can't demand them in exchange for peace (even temporary)? Very poor.
 
Except, there were spheres of influence and unless the AI is braindead ( again !) the majors will get involved if a nation attacks another. I find it extremely hard to accept the majors simply sit things out.

P.S. : As for USA vs Argentina, Monroe Doctrine,friend. Yes, Argentina would be royally screwed.
 
Sure in war time all may happen but we are supposing that by "default" a rock will revolt. Moreover please read above about JAP.

Well, what rock didn't revolt by 'default'? And I think I gave my opinion on japan before you even asking :D
 
Still some peace negotiation function will be needed for MP at least, and the Japan vs. US case mentioned.
 
MP and all kinds of ahistorical scenarios (and hell, most of us don't plan to replay WW2 every time, so most games are ahistorical anyways) require a way to make peace by exchanging provinces etc.
Simply taking the HoI2 screen and adding a map where you can select provinces will suffice.
 
If America intended to surrender so easily then Pearl Harbour in a strategic sense would have been a 'success' in the first place and America would have stayed out of war.

Would America really piss in their pants and accept some kind of peace treaty because they lost some islands in the Pacific?
 
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.

Well then you may want to change your mind and make it valid?

Obviously theres quite a bit of disappointment that you are limiting it so much.
 
If America intended to surrender so easily then Pearl Harbour in a strategic sense would have been a 'success' in the first place and America would have stayed out of war.

Would America really piss in their pants and accept some kind of peace treaty because they lost some islands in the Pacific?

No. They would to recover Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, though.
 
exactly what negotiations were around in hoi1 and hoi2? Last time I checked the AI fought to the bitter end there.

Indeed, which forced us to settle peace against defeated powers through "acceptall". But the way Im understanding it, even "Acceptall" wont cut it here, because there wont be a peace treaty interface at all.

Same thing for multiplayer. There we could sign treaties between players. Not anymore.
 
If America intended to surrender so easily then Pearl Harbour in a strategic sense would have been a 'success' in the first place and America would have stayed out of war.

Would America really piss in their pants and accept some kind of peace treaty because they lost some islands in the Pacific?

Re-read some of my posts please.

Pearl Harbour was not the strategic victory, but a victory. Japan would need to send a lot more hardware to the bottom of the ocean to dent US morale.
 
Indeed, which forced us to settle peace against defeated powers through "acceptall". But the way Im understanding it, even "Acceptall" wont cut it here, because there wont be a peace treaty interface at all.

Same thing for multiplayer. There we could sign treaties between players. Not anymore.

sorry.. this is a ww2 game.. and if you want to cheat the game for your enjoyment, I do recommend notepad.
 
While Im going to have to accept that answer, I'm also curious on why there is this belief that WW2 could not have ended through a negociated peace.

Since the Axis lost the war; demanding total surrender was an option. However there were chances for negotiated peaces throughout the war.

Between 1941 and 1943, Stalin constantly tried to negotiated a separate peace with Germany through back channels. After losing Singapore, the British made noises for a separate peace with Japan that would close the Burma road if they could get most of their land back. Nazi conspirators against Hitler were certain that if they killed Hitler, the Allies would compromise on their Unconditional Surrender doctrine. When the British lost Tobruk and put Churchill against a no-confidence motion, it was no secret that Halifax would strongly consider peace if the terms were favorable. Finally, had the Axis scored more major victories; a negotiated peace was the logical conclusion to their victories. There's no way that victorious Axis powers would have ever occupied Washington D.C. in real life; but neither would perpetual war have been on the American agenda if they had been defeated in both theaters of operations.

Just because WW2 ended as it did, does not mean that separate or negociated peaces werent an option at many points throughout the war. So as far as I'm concerned, removing that sphere from the realm of possibility is doing an historical simulation game a disservice. Furthermore, I consider that using "Acceptall" to force realistic terms on an utterly defeated enemy was actually a workaround for a severe limitation of your game rather than "cheating the game".

While I'll accept that you disagree, I'm hoping you may wish to consider this functionality as a desirable item to add to the first expansion you will produce for Hoi3.

Thanks and bright day. :)
 
No. They would to recover Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, though.
I was responding to someone's argument that America should give away some islands via peace treaty if they were occupied which is nonsense.

You think America is not going to try and take back those said cities when they have clear strategic advantage on mainland America but instead just give the islands away?

Re-read some of my posts please.

Pearl Harbour was not the strategic victory, but a victory. Japan would need to send a lot more hardware to the bottom of the ocean to dent US morale.
I don't think you read my post properly because I never said that Pearl Harbour was a strategic victory. I merely said that that would be the case if America was going to accept a peace with Japan as easily as some people here claim.
 
It'll depend on what will happen when you are able to defeat the last one of an alliance (be it that the country isn't in an alliance or that you've taken over all of the allied countries) IMO :)
 
So will there be any events for alt history seperate peaces? What happens if the Germans sow enough discord in the USA that the America First party takes power in a coup?
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 believe that a strategic victory at Midway and subsequent occupation of Pearl (both MANDATORY) would have brought the US to a white peace scenario (or effective cessation of hostilities, which would still be useful for Japan, as pearl would be at the operational edge of fleets based on the west coast, and effectively eliminate the threat of the US island hopping to Japan till after its recapture)

In my opinion, it is more realistic to see the US still at war regardless of the loss of some islands, at least for the timeframe of HOI3 (1948).

I cannot see the US accepting any peace after only 7 years of war. Japanese strategy to winning the war was to force the US into a long, and costly war of attrition to break their "will" to keep fighting

A player that choose Japan must accept the fact that he will be at war with the US until the end of HOI3, ideally with the lowest cost possible for Japan
 
People. With the new diplomatic system focusing on the 3 main factions (communism, fascism and democracy) PI is going for the idea that these 3 could never live by each other's side during this time frame and gone to war without going for it to the bitter end.

History tends to agree with them. Were you planning to do anything else? Were you never going to be bothered by AI stupidity in peace treaties? Because there will always be those unless PI makes it a major part of the AI (and they don't have the time, manpower or will to do that apparently).

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.
 
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.