The only claims in the game are the ones there from the start, you can't add claims yourself ingame (you can by editing the save file or editing the scenarions of course).
-
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.
The only claims in the game are the ones there from the start, you can't add claims yourself ingame (you can by editing the save file or editing the scenarions of course).
I haven't seen that stated, but you may be right. If you are, then I would see it a natural modders' territory to add events and - especially, because they are perfect for it, IMO - decisions that will add plausible claims for every country. Adding government type as a prerequisite would be worthwhile to complete the picture, then it would make a very nice system, I think.
Keep in mind though that "claims" are not just that, diplomatic claims - they also represent "core" territories for your country, by such means IC/resource/manpower, dissent/partisans and so on.
To allow players to fabricate claims those two roles of "claims" (as "something that you can demand from other country" and "something that is basically your country part in terms of productivity/support to your politics") would have to be separated.
Otherwise, it will be quite tricky to implement - it will be always be either too powerful option (if % chance is high enough) or quite useless. It's something along the lines of old espionage system and coup option.
To allow players to fabricate claims those two roles of "claims" (as "something that you can demand from other country" and "something that is basically your country part in terms of productivity/support to your politics") would have to be separated.
Otherwise, it will be quite tricky to implement - it will be always be either too powerful option (if % chance is high enough) or quite useless. It's something along the lines of old espionage system and coup option.
Peace
It seems to me that people have not heard the comment "if there is no peace event," and concluded that you will never have a negotiated peace. What I read is that some very LIMITED cases of two combatants negotiating a peace during WWII will be handed by a sperate peace event(s). Also hypothetical peace events with Major powers could also be handled by a peace event, USSR comes to mind. But the majority of peace will be handled by the games mechanics.
The UK looks like it doesn't need a peace event because if they break the Colonies still fight on if unoccupied and the goverment goes into exile. There is some Ahistoical aspects to this sytem in that the UK goverment would never go the the US regardless if they are the leaders of the Allies. Their historical plan was to set up their goverment in exile in Ottawa, Canada. However these are MINOR changes that are not worth changing.
I think the idea of removing the negotiated peace screen is a perfectly logical choice for paradox. First it was such a rare event for WWII and second it means they don't have to waste their reasources working on an aspect of the game that will hardly ever be used by the player. Instead they can handle these issues with peace events thus allowing them to put their development dollars into other features, that are going to be used far more often than the lamment for a province negotiation peace screen.
National unity
I also noticed that people seem to have missed something important about stategic bombing and that was that a successful raid that was defended agaist provides a net shift of ZERO. So you could bomb the hell out of a nation but if they have the airforce still to defend no matter how weakly they will not break just because you send in one land unit. You need to crush their airforce first to bomb them uncontested then their national unity will fall. This makes historical sense too. Look at teh blitz and the allied bombing of germany. Even when the bombs were dropping both the people of the UK and the german people didn't break. I think people are jumping to conclusions that stragetic warfare is going to be an easy way to weaken national unity. What I read was that it is NOT an easy way to do so and that so long as you defend against the attacks you will be fine. I get the impression that if you use stragetic warfare half heartedly you will do more to strengthen national unity then reduce it. The concept of succesful raid + defender defends against it = 0 shift means that if you attack a target and fair and the defender defends then there is a good chance their is a net increase in unity. (THis may not be the case at all but there is an arguement for it) So only when an attacker attacks an undefended target and (I am guessing) succeeds does national unity drop. This does not appear to be an easy task.
It seems to me that people have not heard the comment "if there is no peace event," and concluded that you will never have a negotiated peace. What I read is that some very LIMITED cases of two combatants negotiating a peace during WWII will be handed by a sperate peace event(s). Also hypothetical peace events with Major powers could also be handled by a peace event, USSR comes to mind. But the majority of peace will be handled by the games mechanics.
The UK looks like it doesn't need a peace event because if they break the Colonies still fight on if unoccupied and the goverment goes into exile. There is some Ahistoical aspects to this sytem in that the UK goverment would never go the the US regardless if they are the leaders of the Allies. Their historical plan was to set up their goverment in exile in Ottawa, Canada. However these are MINOR changes that are not worth changing.
I think the idea of removing the negotiated peace screen is a perfectly logical choice for paradox. First it was such a rare event for WWII and second it means they don't have to waste their reasources working on an aspect of the game that will hardly ever be used by the player. Instead they can handle these issues with peace events thus allowing them to put their development dollars into other features, that are going to be used far more often than the lamment for a province negotiation peace screen.
National unity
I also noticed that people seem to have missed something important about stategic bombing and that was that a successful raid that was defended agaist provides a net shift of ZERO. So you could bomb the hell out of a nation but if they have the airforce still to defend no matter how weakly they will not break just because you send in one land unit. You need to crush their airforce first to bomb them uncontested then their national unity will fall. This makes historical sense too. Look at teh blitz and the allied bombing of germany. Even when the bombs were dropping both the people of the UK and the german people didn't break. I think people are jumping to conclusions that stragetic warfare is going to be an easy way to weaken national unity. What I read was that it is NOT an easy way to do so and that so long as you defend against the attacks you will be fine. I get the impression that if you use stragetic warfare half heartedly you will do more to strengthen national unity then reduce it. The concept of succesful raid + defender defends against it = 0 shift means that if you attack a target and fair and the defender defends then there is a good chance their is a net increase in unity. (THis may not be the case at all but there is an arguement for it) So only when an attacker attacks an undefended target and (I am guessing) succeeds does national unity drop. This does not appear to be an easy task.
I'm having my doubts about National Unity and this "total war" thing, but I'll have to see how it goes.
re the occupied claims peace idea... how does this work if both nations have claims, ie France and Germany in Alsace-Lorraine? If I'm Germany and I just want A-L from France (and maybe Morocco as a naval base) is it possible just to do that? France would (and did) accept peace after defeat at home, so I don't know why this shouldn't be able to be done.
Sorry if this has already been answered, but there are loads of threads dealing with peace and I can't read them all.
o
Sorry if this has already been answered, but there are loads of threads dealing with peace and I can't read them all.
o
Sure, but I got the impression that a country annexed its claims from a country that didn't have claims on that province. I may have this wrong, obv. I was just wondering if it worked different if both countries had a claim.
AIUI whoever occupies the claim at the time of the peace would get it.
Simple example: Germany v France (using the HOI2 provinces for simplicity). Both have claims on Metz and Strasbourg (and the other one which I forget) and both start off as French territory.
F&G go to war. The Maginot line is breached and Germany occupies Metz. F&G sign the Status Quo (occupied) peace and Germany gets Metz as they have a core on it AND they occupy it, but Strasbourg stays as part of France as it was not occupied by Germany.
Oh well, most nations are going to have cores on their provinces, at least to start with. Looking at historical examples like Finland make me belive it will work the same way regardless of if both have claims.
if its the case that peace is only concluded through event then hopefully it will be a much more inclusive and smarter event system than before with more options for different types of peace rather than just 2 or something.
seems to make more sense to have you sign a peace and then have a "historical" event fire based on the terms of the peace and what you control..
oh well :/
also the idea of ww2 as a fight to the finish with no quarter... i think it was slightly more complicated than that
Hopefully with national unity though you don't have to actually invade japan as the u.s. in order to force them to surrender.. Hopefully you do not have to nuke them either as they had actually sued for peace prior
seems to make more sense to have you sign a peace and then have a "historical" event fire based on the terms of the peace and what you control..
oh well :/
also the idea of ww2 as a fight to the finish with no quarter... i think it was slightly more complicated than that
Hopefully with national unity though you don't have to actually invade japan as the u.s. in order to force them to surrender.. Hopefully you do not have to nuke them either as they had actually sued for peace prior
This looks awesome. The decision system from IN was one of my favorite features. The collaboration governments look interesting.
the new 'Laws and Decisions' system will it come instead the original event system or complete it ?
Events will still be there
Some events from HoI2 will now be made decisions (like anschluss, molotov-ribbentrop... for Germany).
for a second there i wasnt to sure about it.
any idea if improvement have been made to the event system?
any idea if improvement have been made to the event system?
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...
Haven't read all pages, so I don't know how many of the peace treaties during 1936-1947 that have been mentioned already. But here's a list:
1938 Bolivia and Paraguay make a peace treaty that officially ends the Chaco War and recognizes Paraguyan control over the area.
1939 Slovak-Hungarian war. Hungary wins and Slovakia cedes a small strip of land to Hungary.
1940 and 1944 Finland surrendered to the Soviet Union
1941 Vichy France surrenders to Thailand, ending the Franco-Thai war.
1942 Ecuadorian–Peruvian War ends.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 starts within HoI3's timeframe.
If we go outside, but still close to the timeframe, more examples can be found.
Haven't read all pages, so I don't know how many of the peace treaties during 1936-1947 that have been mentioned already. But here's a list:
1938 Bolivia and Paraguay make a peace treaty that officially ends the Chaco War and recognizes Paraguyan control over the area.
1939 Slovak-Hungarian war. Hungary wins and Slovakia cedes a small strip of land to Hungary.
1940 and 1944 Finland surrendered to the Soviet Union
1941 Vichy France surrenders to Thailand, ending the Franco-Thai war.
1942 Ecuadorian–Peruvian War ends.
Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 starts within HoI3's timeframe.
If we go outside, but still close to the timeframe, more examples can be found.
Last edited:
You could have a look at how events are done in EU3, there will most likely be a lot of similarities
I don't own EU3 myself though...