• 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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.

Johan

Studio Manager Paradox Tinto
Administrator
Paradox Staff
Moderator
15 Badges
Dec 14, 1999
19.193
80.146
  • Diplomacy
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Magicka
  • Starvoid
Well with GDC over for another year so it is once back to sunny Stockholm, not missing the weather in San Francisco at all, honest. We on to the subject of today’s dev diary, or more exactly we have two separate subjects. One is decisions and laws and the other is national unity and strategic warfare. However we have touched on these subjects already so we couldn’t make a full developer diary out of them so now you get one big one.

Laws and Decisions is a concept we have taken from the EU3 expansion In Nomine. For those of you who have played In Nomine the next bit will seem slightly familiar. Decisions are historical events with a difference. Instead of the event simply firing the player can choose when to enact the decision. Secondly a decision has a double trigger block, called potential and allow. Once the potential triggers have been satisfied the decision will appear in the decision interface, but it won’t be possible to be enacted until the allow block is also satisfied. However the decision interface will tell the player exactly what is required of them to be able to enact the decision. This has two distinct game play advantages; firstly the player doesn’t have to search though hundreds of event files just to find out how to annex Austria, the game will tell them. Secondly major historical event no longer will fire on a certain dates. Although this doesn’t prevent historical hindsight it does remove the more obvious predictability of the event system. No longer will the Anschluss event fire on the 1st of March 1938 there is now a certain amount of uncertainty. Not to say that all events have been shunted into the decision system, but the key ones have been.

Laws are like decisions, but they differ in the regard that they are not country specific, however like decisions certain conditions need to be satisfied. We use things like government ideology to influence these. For example as the world becomes a more dangerous place countries can start increasing their level of military mobilisation, which increases the total amount of manpower available and also reduces the amount of manpower units lose each day as men finish their service. However democratic states find this harder to do during peacetime. Each law has 5 separate levels but there is no restriction in when you can change a law. To give an example here, Germany overruns Poland, because of this Belgium feels more threatened by Germany and increases its mobilisation levels. A few months later Germany invades Belgium and then Belgium mobilises its manpower to the maximum level. Now this probably isn’t going to save Belgium but it does feel more realistic than Belgium having to wait another year regardless of what is happening.

Onto National Unity, this is a concept we described in the Paradox newsletter as the ability for countries to continue the fight when the war is being lost. Note there are no surrender negotiations in Hearts of Iron 3, World War II is total warfare and is fought to the finish. We have special events for specific surrenders, like the forming of Vichy France, but in general if a country’s national unity breaks then all provinces that have been captured or are linked to the capital are occupied and remainder fights on with the government in exile. Allies can help prop up countries by sending forces to support them in the fight. Basically surrender is a race between overrunning a countries provinces and allied troops arriving.

That brings us to the final piece of the puzzle, Strategic warfare, we already mentioned that strategic warfare can be used to lower national unity. It is now perfectly feasible to bomb Rotterdam and induce the Dutch to surrender. Basically uncontested strategic warfare will lower national unity. Note with the surrender logic being what it is bombing a country that still holds all its provinces (say like bombing Ploesti in Romania) won’t actually make the country surrender, you still need troops on the ground. However it will make the country become more vulnerable to surrender, meaning it won’t hold on as long once things start to go bad. Basically strategic warfare sort of works like this, each successful attack reduces national unity, each defence increases national unity. If there is a successful attack that is still defended the net effect is 0. Nukes are like really big strategic attacks and have a large hit on national unity.

Here’s a screen shot for you to discuss.

beta_apr1.jpg


Here is a part of a file for modders to look at.
common\minister_types.txt
Code:
# If you add types, and use those tags, do not change them without changing everywhere they are used.
# Uses all 'modifiers' possible thats exported as a Modifier.

apologetic_clerk = {
	drift_speed = -0.05
} 
administrative_genius = {
	global_ic = 0.1 
} 
battle_fleet_proponent = {
	decay = { naval_engineering = -0.25 }
}
 
So the national unity breaks. All provinces linked to the capital and occupied provinces surrender. Does the national unity of the remainder of the country reset?

Say I invaded England and their unity broke and the whole island surrenders, the capital moves to one of the overseas colonies. This would still be Great Brittain, could I break it again?

No, a country can only surrender once. The British government in Exile is based in the capital of the leader of the allies.
 
re overrunning a country's provinces after a surrender...

Will a conquoring nation need to move a division through every every individual province to gain control? Will there be someway to easily take over a region if there is no opposing force?

If they are overseas then you need to take them one by one.
 
Can you describe the difference between a collaboration government and total explotation? Does that choice need to be made during surrender, or can a country change the status at a later point?

These are occupation policies, the lighter your occupation policy the more manpower you draw, but you get less resources, IC and partisans you get. You can change them at any time but the partisans take a while to adjust to the new occupation policy. So this means that resistance takes time to organise itself and just because you stop exploiting the people won't mean all the partisans suddenly decide to go home and be good people.
 
And the overseas territories? Do we get those automatically because Johan wrote all provinces connected to the capital will surrender. Or will the unity of GB simply not break after taking England?

my guess will be this

remainder fights on with the government in exile.
 
let me get this straight.
1) you bomb the shit out of england, they have no IC, infra etc left in the mainland.
2) you invade them and take londen.
3) they surrender (since they have no national unity left) and you get all there colonies? unlike in HOI2 where you needed to grab all the VP to do so.

edit: i was kinda expecting a April joke :p

From the dev diary

remainder fights on with the government in exile.

I somehow doubt you are going to get all the colonies.
 
but a country can only surrender once,



would the leader of the allies get control of the Colonies in that case? (that you first bomb england and drop there national unity to virtually 0)

No they still remain the property of the government in exile.
 
In hoi2 terms: who is the owner, who is the occupier?

If they are owned by the goverment in exile, how can you get ownership over them?
Or are they owned by the attacker (Germany) but "occupied" by the goverment in exile so that when you drop divisions on it as germany you get ownership over it?

Ownership doesn't flip, only control. So for example Norway remains owned by the Norwegian government in exile while control flips to Germany. This is how the game knows what provinces are picking up the Norwegian occupation policy.
 
I'm not sure I like the sound of this. Does this mean I can't thrash France and just demand Alsace-Lorraine from them? Or, if as France I manage to occupy northern Italy and destroy their fleet, I can't just ask for Sardinia?

Is there no longer a demand provinces screen of any sort?

I understand the reluctance of certain nations (Britain, Japan, &c.) to surrender, but other nations were of course far more likely to - mainly as a result of national unity, which sounds like an idea that will be well implemented, but I don't see why traditional peace treaties can't be drawn up. They were historically, and of course every game is different, so it seems rather strange that you've chosen to remove this facet of the game.

Can someone elaborate?

there is indeed no longer a demand proinces screen of any sort.
 
Why did you decide on such a system? I have yet to play it, of course, but it does somewhat seem a step backward. For example, why should a German player not be allowed to simply take her cores by peace treaties (Danzig, Memel, A-L) and then spend a year or so building up before attacking the Soviets?

Clearly Poland would have gladly accepted defeat if most of her armed forces had been smashed and her country defeated, particularly if it only meant losing the Danzig corridor and a good chunk of prestige.

Likewise, I don't see why France would feel the need to ensue total occupation and humiliation if Germany only wants to re-take A-L. Why, with the game's increased overall dynamism, have you chosen to remove any such scenarios? Sure, there's the Vichy event, but it's pre-defined and we all know the outcome. Something a bit different would be nice.

I like the idea of a slightly more lenient Germany giving the Allies a fair deal, so as to secure their tacit consent to Barbarossa.

Just one example...

Can none of this be simulated?

Considering that Germany did try to offer the allies terms several times and were rejected I think our solution is the more historically accurate. World War II is total war, a fight to the finish, a clash of ideologies where there is no quarter given.
 
I suspect Soviets (or maybe even the entire Comintern members) have high national unity thresholds and the ability to even move their capital.

I suspect that the Soviets willl probably want to purge your army first to remove the last possible centre of opposition if they were to want high national unity.
 
IMHO the no peace negotiation is the Aprils Fools :D I cant imagine any game without that option. Its ok for majors like Reich, USSR, UK, USA, Japs but not minors. Finland, Romania, Bulgaria etc The nr of countries which negotiated peace is biiiig. Its impossible IMO to throw that out - that must be a joke! Is it?

No
 
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.
 
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.
 
All you peace lovers..

Isn't the point of Hearts of WAR to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women? Only with frigging tanks!

We should put this on the box.
 
No, the point is crushing the enemy to a point where he(and his woman) begs for negotiations and THEN DICTATE the peace.

Seriously Paradox, who came up with that over simplifying idea?:confused:
That takes away so much of the atmosphere and of my incentive to buy your game.

The fact that so many folks around here thought it was a joke speaks for itself.

exactly what negotiations were around in hoi1 and hoi2? Last time I checked the AI fought to the bitter end there.