• 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.
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.

Seems some people missed this ? This option accounts for most of the minor conflicts (imho its even better than eu3-style because it naturally limits exploits, too...). Especially if there will be options/events to fabricate claims...
 
I'm with the hawks on this one. HOI3 being a warGAME I don't see any point for peace until diplomatic map mode shows all green.
 
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.

That solves the problem, if you want to fight ahistorical wars (Brazil - Argentina, Peru - Chile, etc) you can still have peace options,
you just can't exploit the AI engine in the big war to have an advantage peace without significantly winning it
 
The AI in HoI2 did offer me to give up some of their provinces in exchange for peace sometimes. I know Spain did once and Hungary, too.
Since the Spain one happened just before the Anschluss event I was quite happy about it, giving me a way to attack the French from the south AND getting Austria for free.

And the peace option really fits with the entire 'allowing for ahistorical developments' approach I think.
 
I have a nice game going as Italy ATM, where I invaded Spain (who have no guarantees) and took their Mediterranean islands and fought them to a standstill in and around Madrid - I didn't have the resources to keep on fighting without alarming the French, so I accepted their peace offer; they basically gave me what I had captured, so I ended up with most of Catalonia, a bit of the south, Galicia, &c. I also got some of their subs.

It was a good peace deal, and gives me time to build up my forces before I invade again, and hopefully annex them. Nova Roma!

It would be a shame if this sort of thing would not be possible in HoI3.
 
A good practical example is the Finnish winter war. The Russians got a few territories while Finland remained a free country. Those territories would still be considered 'occupied' though.

If this wasn't done by event the winter war would go like this I guess: the Russians defeat the Fins, national unity collapses, a goverment in exile in.. where? would form, the russians get occupational control over entire finland. As russia you would then have to release finland as a country (or continue occupying it). What happens to the Karelian isn't clear yet, does Finland get it back or does Russia have cores on it and get it?

If Russia can get the provinces it has cores on then it's result is historical, although with a detour (russia occupies entire finland at some point).

Another example, germany declares war on portugal in order to get the azores.
'Free portugal' would never accept losing the azores to germany. So germany would put up 'vichy portugal', which still has ownership of the azores but gives military access to Germany, allowing it to use the islands as base.

It doesn't seem like an improvement at first, but in HoI2 you could go to war with portugal and get everything except Lissabon through a peace-deal (if they weren't in the allies yet). That doesn' seem right either.
 
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.


King, plz take a look at my post that was in the same page. There are a lot of people who would like the freedom of choice. Total wars should be the result of "historically" stubborn AI , not the result of the lack of diplomacy.

WW1 was a world war and it actually ended without an invasion of Germany.

Note: in WW2 Finland joined the Axis, yet they were not conquered or turned into puppets after the germans were defeated.
 
King, plz take a look at my post that was in the same page. There are a lot of people who would like the freedom of choice. Total wars should be the result of "historically" stubborn AI , not the result of the lack of diplomacy.

WW1 was a world war and it actually ended without an invasion of Germany.

WWI was a war that ended with total German defeat when their national unity cracked.
 
Just merge those two features and let the difference between unity_now and unity_startdate_of_war be the warscore then?
 
WWI was a war that ended with total German defeat when their national unity cracked.

Johan said that national unity is "Percentage of IC that needs to be occupied by enemy to force surrender events."

Isn't it more something like "the ability of a country to continue the war"?
 
Johan and the rest:

I understand your position and it's ok. It will be also so difficult to create an IA that would negociate like humans.

But HOI game has an important part that are MODS. And in some MODS maybe is necessary to hace the choise of peace. For that reason I ASK you to make, at least, modable that option.

Another question. Then, as I understand, if Germany conquer UK (the island only) the other part (like India) would be continue fighting against germany (ruled by exile goberment). True, isn't it? Then my question is... Will we have to conquerer EVERY PROVINCE (in Africa, India etc) to defeat Great Britain? just like in HOI1 and HOI2??

Thanks, I hope to being answered (and sorry my bad english)

P.D. Funny joke about norvegian submarines :p
 
A good practical example is the Finnish winter war. The Russians got a few territories while Finland remained a free country. Those territories would still be considered 'occupied' though.

If this wasn't done by event the winter war would go like this I guess: the Russians defeat the Fins, national unity collapses, a goverment in exile in.. where? would form, the russians get occupational control over entire finland. As russia you would then have to release finland as a country (or continue occupying it). What happens to the Karelian isn't clear yet, does Finland get it back or does Russia have cores on it and get it?

If Russia can get the provinces it has cores on then it's result is historical, although with a detour (russia occupies entire finland at some point).

Another example, germany declares war on portugal in order to get the azores.
'Free portugal' would never accept losing the azores to germany. So germany would put up 'vichy portugal', which still has ownership of the azores but gives military access to Germany, allowing it to use the islands as base.

It doesn't seem like an improvement at first, but in HoI2 you could go to war with portugal and get everything except Lissabon through a peace-deal (if they weren't in the allies yet). That doesn' seem right either.

I don't think there will be government in exile for countries outside alliances. So in the Finland example when the national unity collapses i guess the Russian just occupy the whole Finland (and can annex them). The end for the Finns

Another question. Then, as I understand, if Germany conquer UK (the island only) the other part (like India) would be continue fighting against germany (ruled by exile goberment). True, isn't it? Then my question is... Will we have to conquerer EVERY PROVINCE (in Africa, India etc) to defeat Great Britain? just like in HOI1 and HOI2??
I guess the Victory points are still there so it depends on where Great Britain has the VP.
 
Errr, I beg to differ with you here, as does History.

But yeah, their unity was pretty much at nil, I'll give you that.

Left with 100,00 man army, no tanks, no air force, virtually no navy, and a cripilling reperations bill. This was a pretty total defeat, as the French intended it to be, if the allies had just enforced that treaty there would of been no World War II.
 
Once again, a nice job, April style content or not :)
 
Left with 100,00 man army, no tanks, no air force, virtually no navy, and a cripilling reperations bill. This was a pretty total defeat, as the French intended it to be, if the allies had just enforced that treaty there would of been no World War II.

Whoaa....

You're talking about a diplomatic defeat, what Germany was left with after they'd already made peace. Very different thing.

It was a very different story on the ground before the armistice. Their army was very short of food & supplies, but was still largely intact in places, and the High Seas Fleet was still a match for the Royal Navy, until German sailors scuttled it. ;)

The military situation in 1918 was very different to that in 1945.

But this is for the History forum, so...
 
The end of WW1 wasn't exactly negotiated, it was called the "Versailles Diktat" for a reason :)

Germany was completely defeated and had no other choice but to do what the allies said. Is this option still in, that you can decide what to do with the defeated country, other then either completely occupying it, puppeting it or completely releasing it?

You said it is impossible to negotiate about peace, but can you negotiate about defeat? ;)