Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Development Diary #22 - 1st of April 2009

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Show only dev responses
Great work'! ;)

Knowing it is alpha, I'd still would like to say that the DVP (which was a Liberal-Monarchist party) and the DNVP (Which was Reactionary Monarchist) should swap positions, also the DVFP and DDP were dissolved long before the Nazi's gained power due to internal struggles altough the latter was succeeded by the DSP (German State Party).

Is it possible to leave out certain ideologies for certain countries (it would be strange if the Soviet Union for example could become Nazi without falling apart).
In the first 2 HoI games, an alliance wouldn't dissolve if its leader would suddenly turn into another ideology. Is this still the case in HoI3?
I wouldn't like it when Germany would still be an axis power while it is Communist!

Update on political parties: The KPD was despite it was founded by Rosa Luxemburg and her followers pro-Stalin during HoI's timeframe while the KAPD was council communist for most of its existence, so the KPD should be Stalinist and the KAPD Left-wing Radical.
 
Last edited:
Kaiserguard, good point re a Nazi USSR, but I'd imagine there'll be a system not too dissimilar to HoI2's, whereby you could make sure that if a nation ever becomes a certain ideology it changes tag.

So, a fascist/Nazi USSR would have to become Russia, or let's say you're playing a mod as Nazi Germany with the Swastika flag (GER tag) - ie, a Germany fundamentally associated with Nazism - then it would become the DFR tag when liberated by the Allies, and so on.
 
Van der Gent said:
It makes me really sad that there won't be any negotiated peace. It's strange I think. In Hearts of Iron there's room for hundreds a-historical scenarios that can happen. This really removes the ability for two minor nations to make war with each other. If you play as a minor nation and you want to take your claims by force you just want your claims and not the entire nation...
Click to expand...
This is definitely not how it will work for "minor wars". Johan has already said that there will be a "sign peace" option where provinces that are both claimed and occupied by a side go to that side. This seems to me to fit the treaty at the end of the Winter War (for example) pretty well - maybe not perfect but close enough.

How claims can be generated has not been described, but in EU3 it is possible to "manufacture" new claims on provinces that you want, so the engine is clearly capable of handling such a system. Even if it is not supported by vanilla, I would imagine that mods will add in decisions or missions that allow the "staking of claims" to rivals' territory; then you just have to go to war and occupy it before offering peace...
 
Balesir said:
This is definitely not how it will work for "minor wars". Johan has already said that there will be a "sign peace" option where provinces that are both claimed and occupied by a side go to that side. This seems to me to fit the treaty at the end of the Winter War (for example) pretty well - maybe not perfect but close enough.

How claims can be generated has not been described, but in EU3 it is possible to "manufacture" new claims on provinces that you want, so the engine is clearly capable of handling such a system. Even if it is not supported by vanilla, I would imagine that mods will add in decisions or missions that allow the "staking of claims" to rivals' territory; then you just have to go to war and occupy it before offering peace...
Click to expand...

Ah, okay, I forgot that. Hope the starting scenario will be more generous with claims though. :)
 
Van der Gent said:
Ah, okay, I forgot that. Hope the starting scenario will be more generous with claims though. :)
Click to expand...
Well, presumably all the wars that actually happened will have claims to "explain" them, at the very least - plus others justified by history, I hope :)
 
King said:
No we dilberately scripted the HoI 1 & 2 peace AIs to fight total war and as such it didn't really want to negotiate. We've taken exactly the same ethos, that you all loved so much, into HoI3 but have taken it to the next level.
Click to expand...

No offense, but a cursory examination of the actual course of the war shows that every defeated Axis power, and France (in 1940), reached a negotiated agreement with the opposing side that allowed for some form of internal autonomy, with Germany being the sole exception where total occupation resulted.

And I list -

France (from the perspective of Petain's government and common sense)
Romania (with USSR)
Bulgaria (with USSR)
Finland (with USSR)
Italy (this is just a textbook case, frankly - a coup overthrows the Fascists, the "fight-to-the-death," major-allianced Fascist Italians suddenly switch sides. The event in HOI2 never worked correctly, by the way.)
Japan (it's not really an unconditional surrender if you get to keep your entire government structure - in HoI2 terms it would be a puppet regime + disarmament. Compare and contrast with Doenitz and his buddies getting arrested two weeks after Germany's unconditional surrender.)

However, you chose to take Germany, the exception, as the rule. I really don't understand the reasoning there - didn't you also have a philosophy that events are inherently inflexible and likely to result in implausible weirdness? Yet the one mechanism that could get rid of a whole slate of badly designed surrender events didn't make it in. Go figure.

Sorry for stewing, but the absence of a meaningful peace interface in a game that models internal-political aspects of war is just...odd.

At the very least, it should be possible to exchange overseas territories, not just claimed provinces, in these peace treaties. I don't see why the victorious Japanese have to annex the whole USA instead of just taking Hawaii and enforcing disarmament terms.
 
Alexander Seil said:
No offense, but a cursory examination of the actual course of the war shows that every defeated Axis power, and France (in 1940), reached a negotiated agreement with the opposing side that allowed for some form of internal autonomy, with Germany being the sole exception where total occupation resulted.

And I list -

France (from the perspective of Petain's government and common sense)
Romania (with USSR)
Bulgaria (with USSR)
Finland (with USSR)
Italy (this is just a textbook case, frankly - a coup overthrows the Fascists, the "fight-to-the-death," major-allianced Fascist Italians suddenly switch sides. The event in HOI2 never worked correctly, by the way.)
Japan (it's not really an unconditional surrender if you get to keep your entire government structure - in HoI2 terms it would be a puppet regime + disarmament. Compare and contrast with Doenitz and his buddies getting arrested two weeks after Germany's unconditional surrender.)

However, you chose to take Germany, the exception, as the rule. I really don't understand the reasoning there - didn't you also have a philosophy that events are inherently inflexible and likely to result in implausible weirdness? Yet the one mechanism that could get rid of a whole slate of badly designed surrender events didn't make it in. Go figure.

Sorry for stewing, but the absence of a meaningful peace interface in a game that models internal-political aspects of war is just...odd.

At the very least, it should be possible to exchange overseas territories, not just claimed provinces, in these peace treaties. I don't see why the victorious Japanese have to annex the whole USA instead of just taking Hawaii and enforcing disarmament terms.
Click to expand...

I like your definition of negotiation.
 
King said:
I like your definition of negotiation.
Click to expand...

My definition of negotiation is irrelevant. Whether the Soviets or anyone else dictated the terms to Romania, the fact is that you need an event for that, even though a peace system (that could be named "Conditional Surrender" or "Seek Armistice Terms" if you're so opposed to terming this negotiations) would perfectly absorb all of these peculiarities and spare you the need to fix a buggy surrender event in every single patch (never getting it to work quite right).

Now, beyond these armistices, we have the hypothetical Japanese victory against the Allies. I don't think anyone in his sane mind would claim that Japanese war aims were to annex the United States, or even Australia and New Zealand for that matter. Your system is incapable of handling this situation. I suppose you could argue that Americans would fight on to the bitter end no matter what, but that is laughable in a naval war where one of the belligerents has no means of power projection. As I always like to point out in these discussions about fighting to the bitter end, even the Japanese eventually surrendered. Germany still stands as a freak exception (probably attributable to a particularly rabid totalitarian system). I suppose USSR would behave likewise, but not any other country.

Although, I'll grant you one thing - you don't have to have a full-blown peace interface to handle the latter, just the ability to annex overseas territories much like you would claimed provinces, via a "Sign Peace" button.
 
Last edited:
Alexander Seil said:
My definition of negotiation is irrelevant. Whether the Soviets or anyone else dictated the terms to Romania, the fact is that you need an event for that, even though a peace system (that could be named "Conditional Surrender" or "Seek Armistice Terms" if you're so opposed to terming this negotiations) would perfectly absorb all of these peculiarities and spare you the need to fix a buggy surrender event in every single patch (never getting it to work quite right).

Now, beyond these armistices, we have the hypothetical Japanese victory against the Allies. I don't think anyone in his sane mind would claim that Japanese war aims were to annex the United States, or even Australia and New Zealand for that matter. Your system is incapable of handling this situation. I suppose you could argue that Americans would fight on to the bitter end no matter what, but that is laughable in a naval war where one of the belligerents has no means of power projection. As I always like to point out in these discussions about fighting to the bitter end, even the Japanese eventually surrendered. Germany still stands as a freak exception (probably attributable to a particularly rabid totalitarian system). I suppose USSR would behave likewise, but not any other country.

Although, I'll grant you one thing - you don't have to have a full-blown peace interface to handle the latter, just the ability to annex overseas territories much like you would claimed provinces, via a "Sign Peace" button.
Click to expand...

Well at least you understand why Japan had effectively lost the war before a shot was fired. Japans war aims was to sieze a bunch islands build up a permiter and wait for the US to see sense and negotiate, it didn't happen in real life and it's not happening in Hearts of Iron 3. We do our best to be historically accurate. I hope you appreciate the ammount of thought and effort we put into desinging the peace system with realism in mind.
 
King said:
I like your definition of negotiation.
Click to expand...

True, those examples aren't negotiations, they are 'giving in to the demands' of the other country.

Right now a country can 'offer a white peace', 'completely surrender' or 'go into exile' (postponing the complete surrender ;)).
This works if the attacking country's aim is to completely take over the defending country (completely surrender), or if the defending country still has allies (go into exile), or if the attacking country has claims on the defending that he's captured (so called 'white' peace), or the attacking country starts to lose (white peace).

It doesn't work if the attackers demands are limited, the defender doesn't have any allies and the attacker wins. Which only really happened IRL in the case of Finland.
Hypothetical cases that fall into this category: axis winning and a war between 2 countries not in any alliance in which the attacker wins. Which is why events for Finland and the bitter peace with Russia are needed :)

So you'd have to design a system to deal with ahistorical results, which isn't easy I recon :D
 
King said:
Well at least you understand why Japan had effectively lost the war before a shot was fired. Japans war aims was to sieze a bunch islands build up a permiter and wait for the US to see sense and negotiate, it didn't happen in real life and it's not happening in Hearts of Iron 3. We do our best to be historically accurate. I hope you appreciate the ammount of thought and effort we put into desinging the peace system with realism in mind.
Click to expand...
It did happen in real life, take a look at the war between Spain and USA of 1898. This is a solid example of what Japan aimed to acomplish.
None of these major naval powers ever though of or aimed to annex the other part or take its capital. It was a pure fight over islands and bases that Spain lost without a single american soldier on the soil of the Spanish mainland.
"With defeats in Cuba and the Philippines, and both of its fleets incapacitated, Spain sued for peace."

Another example would be the Russo-Japanese war (1905) where defeat of the fleet resulted in handing over naval bases and far away land with no troops near anyones capital.

These are the two other large related naval conflicts between major powers of the industrial age.


Edit: Another example could be that Japan were able to sieze German pacific holdings after WW1. If they had no fleet their influence here would be very limited and these islands would have been English or American.
 
Last edited:
King said:
Well at least you understand why Japan had effectively lost the war before a shot was fired. Japans war aims was to sieze a bunch islands build up a permiter and wait for the US to see sense and negotiate, it didn't happen in real life and it's not happening in Hearts of Iron 3. We do our best to be historically accurate. I hope you appreciate the ammount of thought and effort we put into desinging the peace system with realism in mind.
Click to expand...

The system works accurately for what happened IRL, true :)

Thinking about it made me realise that the peace system is accurate even in the case of the axis winning, the axis only could've really WON if the allies had surrendered unconditionally. But, what happens AFTER the unconditional surrender?
Finland surrendered unconditionally but the Soviets didn't take everything, just a few provinces.. so you need an event.
If the Soviets had surrendered, Germany wouldn't have taken everything, just a lot of provinces... so you need an event.
If Japan somehow succesfully invades the US (and forces it to its knees), they wouldn't have occupied everything, they'd settle for free reign over Asia... so you need an event.
 
zeekater said:
The system works accurately for what happened IRL, true :)

Thinking about it made me realise that the peace system is accurate even in the case of the axis winning, the axis only could've really WON if the allies had surrendered unconditionally. But, what happens AFTER the unconditional surrender?
Finland surrendered unconditionally but the Soviets didn't take everything, just a few provinces.. so you need an event.
If the Soviets had surrendered, Germany wouldn't have taken everything, just a lot of provinces... so you need an event.
If Japan somehow succesfully invades the US (and forces it to its knees), they wouldn't have occupied everything, they'd settle for free reign over Asia... so you need an event.
Click to expand...

We had events for those examples in HoI2 and we'll have events for those examples in HoI3.
 
Alex_brunius said:
It did happen in real life, take a look at the war between Spain and USA of 1898. This is a solid example of what Japan aimed to acomplish.
None of these major naval powers ever though of or aimed to annex the other part or take its capital. It was a pure fight over islands and bases that Spain lost without a single american soldier on the soil of the Spanish mainland.
"With defeats in Cuba and the Philippines, and both of its fleets incapacitated, Spain sued for peace."

Another example would be the Russo-Japanese war (1905) where defeat of the fleet resulted in handing over naval bases and far away land with no troops near anyones capital.

These are the two other large related naval conflicts between major powers of the industrial age.


Edit: Another example could be that Japan were able to sieze German pacific holdings after WW1. If they had no fleet their influence here would be very limited and these islands would have been English or American.
Click to expand...

Well all your examples are outside the game's time frame.
 
King said:
Well all your examples are outside the game's time frame.
Click to expand...
Yeah ofcourse they are. There is only one pacific naval war in your games time frame and that can only have a single result. Im simply saying that alot of other conflicts had other results.

One easy way to make such results possible in HoI3 is decisions with claims on related islands. Shouldn't as hard to implement as a fully negotiation system. I know Im going to mod them in my copy if you don't include them. All im looking for when playing as Japan is something to fight for in the pacific, just a slight possibility of cease fire. If Japan somehow mircularlly manage to sink everything USA throws at them during 2-4 years Im fairly sure they would contemplate peace.

King said:
We had events for those examples in HoI2 and we'll have events for those examples in HoI3.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming this.
 
Alex_brunius said:
Yeah ofcourse they are. There is only one pacific naval war in your games time frame and that can only have a single result. Im simply saying that alot of other conflicts had other results.

One easy way to make such results possible in HoI3 is decisions with claims on related islands. Shouldn't as hard to implement as a fully negotiation system. I know Im going to mod them in my copy if you don't include them.
Click to expand...

We could take a whole bunch of wars from outside the game's time frame and show that they did indeed have different results. Take the Franco-Prussian war, two continental European industral powers who fought a war that ended in negotiated settlement, but what does this tell us about the peace that was signed in 1940? Nothing.
 
King said:
We could take a whole bunch of wars from outside the game's time frame and show that they did indeed have different results. Take the Franco-Prussian war, two continental European industral powers who fought a war that ended in negotiated settlement, but what does this tell us about the peace that was signed in 1940? Nothing.
Click to expand...
I do agree with your decision to not include negotiated peace in mainland conflicts.

But not when the cost to continue is so high and the loss of (valuable) territory is so small as in overseas "colonial" naval conflicts. Event will probably be a great way to solve these though. Thx.
 
Well, I think it seems pretty clear: WW2 as a total war is not much suitable for negotiations (if the other side don't want to negotiate, you have neither nothing to negotiate, nor with whom to negotiate).

So the message looks to me like this - if you (players) want negotiations and province bargaining, go get some other game (e.g. EU3?).;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back