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
blue emu said:
It seems to me that this is the only way that Paradox could possibly top HOI-3.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the current economic situation allows some marketing upside for Victoria 2. Can you develop a sustainable capitalist or state-run economy? Borrow vast sums of money to finance your dreadnought building project and hope it won't come back to haunt you. :D

I'd think we would see another Crusader Kings or a new series altogether first. The next two projects will probably be HOI3 expansions though.
 
:wacko:I mean no peace option at all... Johan you have to be kidding. I mean the pupose of all war is to gain peace... There was tremendous diplomatic negotiation before, during and after the war to assure peace. It has to be an april fool!! what time is it in Sweden?
 
In my opinion it seem silly that in order to make certain things like the Anschluss more dynamic by designing them as decisions rather than events while at the same time you straight jacket peace options by forcing them into events. I wouldn’t consider it so bad if outside of the war everything else was on rails so to speak but with all the things that can change before WWII even breaks out it seems odd to force peace settlements to be totally event driven. What happens if one of the numerous assassination attempts on Hitler were to succeed and Goering his designated successor a Wilhelmine Imperialist becomes Fuhrer? Really seems one step forward and two steps back or even one step forward and twenty back to me.
 
Balor said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Balor said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but you are going to make all the minors incredibly boring to play. Recreating historical claims and remaking the map to address past grievances is more than half the fun of HOI. No one is saying that you should make redrawing the map as cheap as it is in EU3, but the current system artificially limits the players options. Imagine if Nationalist Spain is allied with Germany, I should, as a German player, be able to demand access to the Azores from Portugal. If they refuse, I march the wehrmacht in and I demand the islands. This is a plausible scenario but the system you're proposing would force me to make Portugal a puppet or annex them entirely.

Countries did know when they were outclassed and did make deals without becoming full puppets. Finland comes to mind. (Oh that's an event because it doesn't work with the current system)
 
ive religiously read the development diary every time its come out, but never bothered to post.
Simply because i was very pleased with everything i saw. This time not so.

The idea of "no peace negotiations" with the posibility of demanding provinces seems like a big step backwards. Well can i understand that WWII was a battle of ideologies, where no quarters were given, but the net result is a more static world. No longer can smaller (those withouth spesific surrender events) countries engage in conflicts where the goal is to take controll over a smaller part of the opposing country. This i really really dont like.

if you cannot agree to this, please ( i beg you) give teh modders the option to set a flag which enables this feature.

nappy
 
Mechanism of national unity is great feature that will bring aditional realism.

However does type of polithical system or some other inherited national parameters have influence on national stability?
The most prominent example is Germany-though haevily bombed by Allies and though its army in eastern front was catastrophicaly defeated,for instance in 1944, Germany had anprecidented level of national unity.Even when both Allies and Red Army entered Germany itself still unity was,from my opinion, very high.
 
Last edited:
Interstingly enough when Goring was captured he calimed the Allied bombing lost Germany the war. He believed that the fact the German airforce was steadly withdrawn from the front lines to defend against the bombing denied German troops air cover and lost them the war. Now as chief of the German airforce he does have a slight bais in his thinking process, but he is right that bombing war and particularly ther USAF escorted daylight raids forced the German airforce into a grinding battle of attrition over the skies of Germany.

After the British bombing of Hamburg in 1943 Speer would tell Hitler that 6 more raids like that and German arms production would grind to a halt, while Milch thought that Speer was being an optimist. The reason was that Bomber Command deployed window (we now call it chaff) to blind the German air defences. For 6 weeks Bomber Command would hold air superiority over the night skies of Germany and for 6 weeks senior German leaders contemplated defeat.

Oh and convoy raids count as strategic warfare.
 
King said:
Oh and convoy raids count as strategic warfare.
Click to expand...

*drool*

Great update. I also love the fact that the old leader pictures may be kept! :cool:
 
It seems to me that a lot of people complaining about the new surrender system tend to confuse armistice negotiations or indirect negotiations in order to obtain a first negotiation meeting with actual peace negotiations.

Just remember, that peace negotiations for WW2 were closed only with the Treaty of Paris in 1947, some 2 years after the actual end of the war.
All what Romania or other countries negotiated before were armistices or surrenders, or mere access to opponent countries officials . Even Vichy France existence was due to the acceptance by some French of an armistice, Germans refusing a bilateral peace treaty in order to keep France at bay at smaller cost.

The distinction may seem technical but is not. Until a peace treaty is signed all the territorial/population/reparation issues are open, and countries can win the war or be on the winning side militarily but still loose, in their eyes, the peace.
Or there were no peace treaties during WW2 proper. Now, a part of the players may think that will put some hard limits in their goals of achieving a, say, Salvadorian World Conquest (no contempt implied about El Salvador's historical achievements) but, without prejudice about the final Paradox solution, I think Paradox has the right approach of the issue as it is right now. It seems to me that an hypothetical conflict between Nepal and Tibet is out of a WW2 wargame range of issues and should stay there. The game, as it appears right now, seems a lot more complex than HOI 2 and should give a lot of playtime to any armchair strategist.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
I'm quite positive of this change. No more peace negotiations by the alliance leader losing you all that hard earned territory. Instead you can use alternate means to make these territories productive for your country. Much more realistic if you ask me, while still allowing ahistorical outcomes. Now they just need to fix the fact that if I, with my safas, conquer territort adjacent to UK territory, or while attacking from UK territory, immediately hand that territory to them. I know it's historically correct for North Africa, but I severely doubt the safas would have given the brits any territory they conquered in southern/central africa, which is what happens at the moment.

Nilmerf said:
The new system is awesome, and it will represent the Battle of Britain and the Atlantic War much better. So if Sealion succeeds who will be the leader of the Allies? The logical choice would be Canada until the U.S. enters the war (which I assume a defeated Britain would bring about quickly). In HOI2 I think it went with the next on the list alphabetically which is pretty silly.
Click to expand...

"(Jan) Smuts' importance to the Imperial war effort was emphasised by a quite audacious plan, proposed as early as 1940, to appoint Smuts as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, should Churchill die or otherwise become incapacitated during the war. This idea was put by Sir John Colville, Churchill's private secretary, to Queen Mary and then to George VI, both of whom warmed to the idea."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Smuts#Second_World_War

Though Canada would be a good place to base the resistance from... as the Safas didn't really have much love for the UK/Commonwealth, with many (including a future SA PM) from the Ossewabradwag (pro-Nazi) being arrested for sabotage and subversion throughout South Africa. There were also several plots to overthrow Smuts and institute a National Socialist regime (Robey Leibbrandt being one such example), or at least force neutrality.
 
blue emu said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prussia Rules View Post
... Or Vicky 2...
It seems to me that this is the only way that Paradox could possibly top HOI-3.
Click to expand...

whole heartily agree.
The potential of Victoria and the almighty POPs is simply on another level.

I'm shocked about the no negotiation decision too. But to think about it, I played Argentina a lot and I always went for annexation as multiple DoWs is too costly.

And peace negotiation has always been a pain for paradox games, both player vs AI and AI vs AI. The map is always clustered by terrible peace deals and I have used peace cheats and exploits many times out of frustration and annoyance.

I think I'm happy now that paradox took this unique opportunity to get rid of the baggage altogether.
Until they start developing Vicky2 I guess ......
 
King said:
Interstingly enough when Goring was captured he calimed the Allied bombing lost Germany the war. He believed that the fact the German airforce was steadly withdrawn from the front lines to defend against the bombing denied German troops air cover and lost them the war. Now as chief of the German airforce he does have a slight bais in his thinking process, but he is right that bombing war and particularly ther USAF escorted daylight raids forced the German airforce into a grinding battle of attrition over the skies of Germany.

After the British bombing of Hamburg in 1943 Speer would tell Hitler that 6 more raids like that and German arms production would grind to a halt, while Milch thought that Speer was being an optimist. The reason was that Bomber Command deployed window (we now call it chaff) to blind the German air defences. For 6 weeks Bomber Command would hold air superiority over the night skies of Germany and for 6 weeks senior German leaders contemplated defeat.

Oh and convoy raids count as strategic warfare.
Click to expand...

This brings the question,for which I will most certainly must wait the answer for months,still let me try:
How will be represented fighter escort of bombers in the game?
Its obvious that this now will be very important part of the game.
In real world(Battle for Britain,Strategic bombardment of Germany...) fighter escort of bombers were the main tool, the key ,to try to break enemy capacity to defend its skyes by forcing him to accept battle of attrition in the skyes or face annihilation from bombardment.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back