Absolute MUST-HAVEs in HoI 3 - pretty please?

[Agin]

Hail to you, mighty developers of the most time-consuming game I ever had the luck to get my hands on!

Here are some thoughts on how to greatly improve HoI for the player:

(01) When sueing another nation for peace, please make a button available, that says "accept peace within the currently existing borders". That way I could avoid endlessly long clicking orgies to get what I already conquered. And who doesn't know the pain-in-the-you-know-what-feeling, if you just demanded 46 provinces from your enemy, to which he agreed, only to see, that one of the little buggers slipped your mind, so that now, within your borders, you suffer an extraterritorial province that still belongs to your former enemy.

(02) When sueing another Nation for peace, please don't make it via an alphabetical list of provinces, but rather via a little popup map, where one can simply click on the demanded provinces. Mayhaps even with a quick info on IC and resource capacity of the province. This way, I can be sure not to miss a province or confuse it with another province, which sounds similar but lies far outside my territory (especially in china, where they sound a lot alike ...)

(03) I would really like to craft my very own puppet states. Not necessarily by name or ministers (not that this wouldn't totally kick ass ...), but at least by territory. There could be a map that lets me choose the provinces I want to make into a puppet state, accompanied by a list of possible nations I could create within said territory. Not only would this be far more realistic, it would also reflect the victor's (i.e. my) power, which would be nice to see.

(04) When I hold conquered territories, there should be partisans. I get it. But when I annex the country, I think the partisans should get less. And when I hold an annexed country over many years (!), I think the partisan activity should eventually drop to near zero.

(05) I would love to see a peace scenario if I conquered all of the british isles. Really! I think it highly unlikely that with Britain in my hands some colonial troops would keep up the fight.

(06) Again with the sueing for peace. If I am at war with a large nation (say, 200+ provinces), it becomes virtually impossible for me to make peace with them, because every province is at least worth 1%, and the provinces with the goodies go easily to 5% or more. Since 100% is the maximum, my best shot would be getting half the country, otherwise they just ignorantly refuse my generous peace offers, no matter how desperately logic would dictate them. Please make that right, maybe with a threat/dread ratio

So much for now, I just had to get that off my chest. Needless to say that I love the HoI series and cannot wait to see what you guys do with HoI 3!
Keep up the good work!

Agin

 

[unmerged(44030)]

(01) When sueing another nation for peace, please make a button available, that says "accept peace within the currently existing borders". That way I could avoid endlessly long clicking orgies to get what I already conquered. And who doesn't know the pain-in-the-you-know-what-feeling, if you just demanded 46 provinces from your enemy, to which he agreed, only to see, that one of the little buggers slipped your mind, so that now, within your borders, you suffer an extraterritorial province that still belongs to your former enemy.

(02) When sueing another Nation for peace, please don't make it via an alphabetical list of provinces, but rather via a little popup map, where one can simply click on the demanded provinces. Mayhaps even with a quick info on IC and resource capacity of the province. This way, I can be sure not to miss a province or confuse it with another province, which sounds similar but lies far outside my territory (especially in china, where they sound a lot alike ...)

(03) I would really like to craft my very own puppet states. Not necessarily by name or ministers (not that this wouldn't totally kick ass ...), but at least by territory. There could be a map that lets me choose the provinces I want to make into a puppet state, accompanied by a list of possible nations I could create within said territory. Not only would this be far more realistic, it would also reflect the victor's (i.e. my) power, which would be nice to see.

I totally agree with at least these points (not that I would disagree with the others). It's really frustrating to make peace offers by clicking province names and now there's going to be even more provinces... Even just the clickable map for peace offers would be worth the 30-40 euros

 

[Shadow Master]

I would reorganize you post a bit myself, say have
#1] Peace negotiations options
A
B
C
D

etc...

I like the mini-map in-peace-negotiations idea, as well as the option for 'as is.'
I'm ok with the partisan's stuff.
I definitely want more options when it comes to puppet'ing a nation.
Some good info here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380552

I would want to be able to extract 'tribute' from a puppet, to be collected as control over a percentage of their IC's (Say 20% normally, 35% with PoT minister), that I could choose on a slider between supplies/consumer goods. These IC would still belong to the puppet, but would be forced to produce for my war effort.

Say as Germany, I puppet Spain. Spain has 41 IC's, but if their sliders, ministers, and techs match mine, they will be getting a 60% bonus (on very emu/furious), so their actual IC's would be something like 66/41. This would mean that:

41 X .20 = 8.2 plus 60% (or 4.92) for a total of 13.12 IC's without the prince of terror minister, and
41 X .35 = 14.35 plus 60% (or 8.61) for a total of 22.96 IC's with him.

Looking at your production screen, and imaging your CG being reduced by that amount! No reason in the world not to be able to extract tribute, and it would make things far more enjoyable and realistic. This would also reduce the amount of units that a puppet could crank out, so that you couldn't go WC'ing with just puppets troops guarding your homeland.

Dissent
I have never approved the concept that my own nations workers, realising that their government, through military might and skillful diplomatic negotiations, has succeeded in turning a foreign nation from an enemy, to a conquered and occupied possession, and finally into a valuable ally, should suddenly throw down their tools and walk off the job in protest by the 100,000's.

Instead, they should be motivated that their sons and brothers and husbands are going to be able to come home rather than be tied down in other countries having to suppress the partisans (who now will be the problem of the puppet govt instead). Never mind that the puppet is using 100% of it's resources, manpower, TT, and 65-80% of it's IC's for free rather than wasting 90% of the MP and 50-60% of the resources and all it's TT and the remaining 65-80% of their IC's. Making a puppet is by far and away the better choice, and your own workers should realise that.

So PI, get rid of the need for me to f12 "event 1005 or event 1009" to get rid of dissent I should have never gotten, and give me tribute!:rofl:

 

[Bullfrog]

About UK surrender, they had every intention of basing their government in Canada and continuing the fight from the fringes of the world if Germany had pulled off a successful invasion. I believe the event could use some reworking, but there should be a great chance of "no surrender" if the rest of the empire is intact.

 

[Amallric]

"Make puppet" does not increase the dissent. "Liberate puppet" does, and it's normal since the most radical/nationalist citizens will always be against any territory losses...The algerian war brought France near to a civil war because for some military leaders the politicians were "trading the Empire away".

 

[unmerged(127904)]

1. 2. 3. Ok
4. Annexing hostile territory doesnt decrese their hate and will to fight. The game period is IMHO simply tooshort for partisants and dissent too get as low as u would like too see.
5. Job for modder community
6. Didnt read whole - im at work

 

[HMS Enterprize]

But when I annex the country, I think the partisans should get less.

And why would that be? The recently conquered population suddenly feel all warm and fuzzy about their new overlords?

 

[Shadow Master]

"Make puppet" does not increase the dissent. "Liberate puppet" does, and it's normal since the most radical/nationalist citizens will always be against any territory losses...The Algerian war brought France near to a civil war because for some military leaders the politicians were "trading the Empire away".

I guess some people regularly use 'make puppet' in peace negotiations, while I always annex and release, for the bel reduction.

As far as 'liberation' being normal/realistic/right, no way.

Lets say WWII Germany has 6,000,000 industrial workers (or about 10% of their population). If I was going to get 5% dissent, that would mean that:

300,000 workers walk off their jobs, and refuse to go back to work until
many times as many are assigned to "bribe production" (otherwise known as CG), which also produce nothing for the war effort. Can even one historical example be shown where 100,000's of workers walked off the job during wartime (and only returned after months of bribes) because the government enforced a puppet government of a formerly independent foreign nation? I think not.

I understand your reference to France's situation, but how long had they controlled Algeria? How much time, effort, and money had been spent on industry, infrastructure, and various public works in Algeria by the French? How much French land and property were handed over without compensation?
Germany, on the other hand, finishes the conquest, and installs the puppet regime the same day, so the Germans are out nothing, they get to disguise themselves a bit longer in a sheep's clothing, they are free of the burden of occupation, and those lands are much more productive as puppet than as even annexed territory. Where is the beef?

That said, if I had to choose between not getting the dissent, or getting tribute, I would still choose the tribute, as at least this way I am getting a somewhat better return for my time.

 

[unmerged(76922)]

I guess some people regularly use 'make puppet' in peace negotiations, while I always annex and release, for the bel reduction.

As far as 'liberation' being normal/realistic/right, no way.

Lets say WWII Germany has 6,000,000 industrial workers (or about 10% of their population). If I was going to get 5% dissent, that would mean that:

300,000 workers walk off their jobs, and refuse to go back to work until
many times as many are assigned to "bribe production" (otherwise known as CG), which also produce nothing for the war effort. Can even one historical example be shown where 100,000's of workers walked off the job during wartime (and only returned after months of bribes) because the government enforced a puppet government of a formerly independent foreign nation? I think not.

I understand your reference to France's situation, but how long had they controlled Algeria? How much time, effort, and money had been spent on industry, infrastructure, and various public works in Algeria by the French? How much French land and property were handed over without compensation?
Germany, on the other hand, finishes the conquest, and installs the puppet regime the same day, so the Germans are out nothing, they get to disguise themselves a bit longer in a sheep's clothing, they are free of the burden of occupation, and those lands are much more productive as puppet than as even annexed territory. Where is the beef?

That said, if I had to choose between not getting the dissent, or getting tribute, I would still choose the tribute, as at least this way I am getting a somewhat better return for my time.

I've never looked at it as 300,000 workers walking off the job - I've looked at it as 10,000 workers walking of the job... and doing their best to blow up the factory behind them. I'm not sure the CG is the best method to have for reducing dissent, but I've never had an issue with dissent itself.

 

[hansnery]

Ministers pics and hoi2-japanesespirit.mp3

 

[Alexander Seil]

And don't forget the Raj!

 

[unmerged(83190)]

I totally agree with number 1, 2 and 3.

 

[Markusw7]

For those who want 3 i hope you don't want this "nation" you make to have all the terriotry you give them national territory as that would be very unrealistic.

 

[King of Men]

About UK surrender, they had every intention of basing their government in Canada and continuing the fight from the fringes of the world if Germany had pulled off a successful invasion. I believe the event could use some reworking, but there should be a great chance of "no surrender" if the rest of the empire is intact.

Well. Churchill's inspiring rhetoric was not always identical with actual planning, and actual planning was almost never identical to what really happened. I don't think it's unrealistic to at least make a negotiated-peace event if, say, London falls, and have the AI choose peace maybe 50% of the time.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Indeed, negotiated peace in fact happened multiple times in World War II. Notably with Italy, Axis European minors and, take note, Japan.

While Japan's surrender entailed unconditional surrender as per Allied doctrine, in practice that's not really true, since the Japanese monarchy and civil government remained intact (with much the same people running them). The Allies in Germany, by contrast, effectively abolished all levels of government. So, realistically, Japan's peace with the Allies qualifies as a limited one. The only similarity to Germany is the disbandment of armed forces.

So, I do not believe that the Allies would fight to the death as Churchill wanted the British people to believe. If the Japanese did not (despite massive propaganda efforts and a radical fight-to-the-last-drop-of-peasant-blood mentality in the officer corps) fight to the death, neither should the British.

 

[The_Carbonater]

Indeed, negotiated peace in fact happened multiple times in World War II. Notably with Italy, Axis European minors and, take note, Japan.

While Japan's surrender entailed unconditional surrender as per Allied doctrine, in practice that's not really true, since the Japanese monarchy and civil government remained intact (with much the same people running them). The Allies in Germany, by contrast, effectively abolished all levels of government. So, realistically, Japan's peace with the Allies qualifies as a limited one. The only similarity to Germany is the disbandment of armed forces.

So, I do not believe that the Allies would fight to the death as Churchill wanted the British people to believe. If the Japanese did not (despite massive propaganda efforts and a radical fight-to-the-last-drop-of-peasant-blood mentality in the officer corps) fight to the death, neither should the British.

The allies actually had to reinstall 30.000 low-level nazi officials in order to prevent a total breakdown of order (one of the main reasons for the roote arme fraktion to fight AFAIK). Also, I believe that Japan was bombed by the Americans because an invasion was deemed to costly in American lives due to the fighting spirit of the people

 

[HMS Enterprize]

If the Japanese did not (despite massive propaganda efforts and a radical fight-to-the-last-drop-of-peasant-blood mentality in the officer corps) fight to the death, neither should the British.

Indeed. People collaborate, its a given.

 

[Shadow Master]

For those who want 3 i hope you don't want this "nation" you make to have all the terriotry you give them national territory as that would be very unrealistic.

I have never heard this before, and so must ask, how so?

 

[Lascars]

Indeed, negotiated peace in fact happened multiple times in World War II. Notably with Italy, Axis European minors and, take note, Japan.

While Japan's surrender entailed unconditional surrender as per Allied doctrine, in practice that's not really true, since the Japanese monarchy and civil government remained intact (with much the same people running them). The Allies in Germany, by contrast, effectively abolished all levels of government. So, realistically, Japan's peace with the Allies qualifies as a limited one. The only similarity to Germany is the disbandment of armed forces.

So, I do not believe that the Allies would fight to the death as Churchill wanted the British people to believe. If the Japanese did not (despite massive propaganda efforts and a radical fight-to-the-last-drop-of-peasant-blood mentality in the officer corps) fight to the death, neither should the British.

You're comparing two incomparable situations:
Japan in 1945 has already lost:
1. most of their former colonies (among the most important Manchuria and not far of losing Korea)
2. a part of their national territory- Iwo Jima and Okinawa were considered "sacred" japanese land.
3. a huge amount of the fleet with a large part of the remaining army trapped in China or other places from where they could not be extracted.
4. all his former allies
Briefly, the japanese Empire was in mid august 1945, totally isolated and in brinks of total collapse.
If some of the people involved in the japanese government were still there, after war, let's not forget that a lot of the military leaders were judged or committed suicide, a new constitution was imposed, and the emperor lost most of his former power, remaining just a mere symbol. In the immediate after war Japan's leader was MacArthur. The peace was in fact an unconditional surrender (not in Hirohitos speech of course), the regime and the rules of the political game was completely changed.

Now, the British case: Logically from a false premise (a successful german landing in Britain, false as it never happened) anything could be inferred (true as false).
Lets take the "what if" scenario a step further: If the germans manage to occupy the British islands (with how many losses for the ones and the others?) how will they manage it -will they obtain a peace, or, more probably, an armistice with some puppet government as in France? If a harsh occupation is imposed, as in Russia, what will be the amount of resistance?
As for Britain- they're still conserving a large part of their empire, which will take years to the Axis to reduce, all of their existing allies -and Canada wasn't Manchuria (eventually gaining another one - the US), a large part of their fleet and army.

There is a case were the germans occupied the metropolitan area of a colonial power (France) signing not a peace, but an armistice and even with a puppet at their orders (the Vichy state which kept control for a while of their colonies and their fleet) there still were some French fighting and their numbers were growing.
I don't think that the British, with larger resources, would have done less.

 

[Markusw7]

I have never heard this before, and so must ask, how so?

Alot of the time when people want to make custom puppets with their own made up name, made up borders, etc they seem to think they will work as the do in HOI2 where they get no partisans because all the land puppets are given when created are national provinces for them. If for example i conquered europe and made half of spain, france and Italy into a puppet called west roman empire is it at all releastic that that puppet shouldn't have any partisan activity in its provinces. I mean who really who lives in it could identify with this new country?