While in the "common history" WW2 is portrayed as a kind of all or nothing affair with everyone on their side fighting at their best,
in reality, it was not. Within factions there was fight for influence. Countries tried to take less casualties and material loses to be stronger later after war, or tried to win big fights to futher their diplomatic position after war, like the Rush for Berlin and such.
HOi3 doesn`t provide anything similar to such mechanics. Player can take all the spoils of war for themselves, nobody would mind. Player can win absolutely horrific victory after which the country is "victorious" but so bled out, it is actually far worse then before the war. There is no historic rivalry, no point in jokeying about when to invade Europe as USA, to make sure that you both get a great chunk of war spoils, and ensure that USSR bleeds itself enough to not try anything funny with you.
Having a kind of "score" mechanics would be great. Let the "score" determine the status of a country, so even when you play as GB, you might be in a good position in HOI3 as your chances of a loss are quite low, but ideally what you should want, is not only to sit at the conference table smiling about victory, but to ensure that your country actually became stronger and more influential, relative to other countries.
It would provide an incentive for UK to try to play their historic policy of balancing France with Germany, that IRL went horribly wrong, but why not make it an option to try and achieve that?
If France and Germany would bleed themselves, you become stronger. Then, if you manage to finish the war with one swift hit, you basically won anyway, but the magnitude of your victory is much, much greater as you don`t become indebted with huge war loans and crippled with huge casualties.
USSR would have the incentive to behave more historically as well. Cooperation, and arguably supporting Germany would bring USSR wealth, and weaken their other competitors.
As USA, there would be incentive to not jump into war immediately and start throwing the national treasure away. US should wait, vastly improve their position with British having to borrow money and eventually giving out huge political concessions to US, that made US the superpower.
You would also prefer to provide every one willing to fight for your cause with equipment, to reduce your casualties.
IMO, let there be at most 3 super-power ranks, and at the start, let UK to be the only super power, as US was too isolationist and with too small military, and the third slot be a large contest of USSR, Germany, France, probably Japan.
Then, even larger states would want to make sure, they not only win, but they become the sole superpower, and suddenly, the entire build up to war and war would make sense, you would be incentivised to make historical decisions.
It would also provide a plausible peace, as a large and costly war against the last 2 superpowers, can potentially drop both of them from the status, making those just mere mortals like everyone else, hence if one of the super-powers arrived to conclusion of the war way superior than the second or third one, the WW3, may start, to knock that one out, and instill dominance, and if not, then the cold war can begin.
What should, IMO give score:
economy
overall manpower level, the higher, the better
gold reserves
money that other countries own you
your influence outside of country, both ideological and political
strategic resource supplies
Army/navy strength
Score reduction should come from:
loans
cassualties
any loss of land, either by selling or losing in peace treaty
having your provinces occupied or damaged by fighting or air raids, some of it would go back if the infrastructure is repaired, but not all.
losing your merchant marine should hurt your score noticeably
In this case, countries that are not at war fast, can actually invest into economy, and accumulate money, loans and influence, winning the competition without having to fight. And you`re always incentivised to kick both your opponents and your allies in the butt to ensure they don`t get too powerful.
Any thoughts?
in reality, it was not. Within factions there was fight for influence. Countries tried to take less casualties and material loses to be stronger later after war, or tried to win big fights to futher their diplomatic position after war, like the Rush for Berlin and such.
HOi3 doesn`t provide anything similar to such mechanics. Player can take all the spoils of war for themselves, nobody would mind. Player can win absolutely horrific victory after which the country is "victorious" but so bled out, it is actually far worse then before the war. There is no historic rivalry, no point in jokeying about when to invade Europe as USA, to make sure that you both get a great chunk of war spoils, and ensure that USSR bleeds itself enough to not try anything funny with you.
Having a kind of "score" mechanics would be great. Let the "score" determine the status of a country, so even when you play as GB, you might be in a good position in HOI3 as your chances of a loss are quite low, but ideally what you should want, is not only to sit at the conference table smiling about victory, but to ensure that your country actually became stronger and more influential, relative to other countries.
It would provide an incentive for UK to try to play their historic policy of balancing France with Germany, that IRL went horribly wrong, but why not make it an option to try and achieve that?
If France and Germany would bleed themselves, you become stronger. Then, if you manage to finish the war with one swift hit, you basically won anyway, but the magnitude of your victory is much, much greater as you don`t become indebted with huge war loans and crippled with huge casualties.
USSR would have the incentive to behave more historically as well. Cooperation, and arguably supporting Germany would bring USSR wealth, and weaken their other competitors.
As USA, there would be incentive to not jump into war immediately and start throwing the national treasure away. US should wait, vastly improve their position with British having to borrow money and eventually giving out huge political concessions to US, that made US the superpower.
You would also prefer to provide every one willing to fight for your cause with equipment, to reduce your casualties.
IMO, let there be at most 3 super-power ranks, and at the start, let UK to be the only super power, as US was too isolationist and with too small military, and the third slot be a large contest of USSR, Germany, France, probably Japan.
Then, even larger states would want to make sure, they not only win, but they become the sole superpower, and suddenly, the entire build up to war and war would make sense, you would be incentivised to make historical decisions.
It would also provide a plausible peace, as a large and costly war against the last 2 superpowers, can potentially drop both of them from the status, making those just mere mortals like everyone else, hence if one of the super-powers arrived to conclusion of the war way superior than the second or third one, the WW3, may start, to knock that one out, and instill dominance, and if not, then the cold war can begin.
What should, IMO give score:
economy
overall manpower level, the higher, the better
gold reserves
money that other countries own you
your influence outside of country, both ideological and political
strategic resource supplies
Army/navy strength
Score reduction should come from:
loans
cassualties
any loss of land, either by selling or losing in peace treaty
having your provinces occupied or damaged by fighting or air raids, some of it would go back if the infrastructure is repaired, but not all.
losing your merchant marine should hurt your score noticeably
In this case, countries that are not at war fast, can actually invest into economy, and accumulate money, loans and influence, winning the competition without having to fight. And you`re always incentivised to kick both your opponents and your allies in the butt to ensure they don`t get too powerful.
Any thoughts?