Additional Options in Peacedeals

[LordOfWar16]

I was thinking about it for quiet a while and want to know what you guys think about it and if you think it would be a valueable addition to the game. Check your irony and sarcasm detectors before reading.

Sometimes you maybe dont want to be the World conquerer and mind your own buisness as poor little germany. But suddenly, the evil frenchmen decide to attack you for absolutely no reason, but you manage to push them back with your great friends in the UK and USA. You have only modest demands in that you demand Elsass-Lorraine, formerly named Elsass-Lothringen by its former rightfull owner germany.

You also want them to pay for the damage they did of course, so you demand war reparations from them, giving you like 10% of their civilian factories for a couple of years to repair the destroyed factories and infrastructure etc.

You are also concerned that they might try it a second time and want to retaliate. You remember what the T. Entente did after the missunderstanding a few years earlier in 1918 and decide it is the best for everyone to create a de-militarized zone in the french borderstate.​

After my little ironic and sarcastic story is over, lets get to the point.

If you dont want to simply conquer the world and rather be modest with your demands, i feel like you are missing out alot and basicly reward the enemy and get no real option to let them pay. War Reparations could work for example, in that the enemy is forced to give up x% amount of civilian factories to you to rebuild what they destroyed during the war.

Another interesting thing would be to have the de-militarized zones as an actual demand in peace deals for example, that would last a certain amount of time but could be broken by the enemy and gives you the option to react or let them be, similar to what france can do with the rheinland.

Especially since we can now keep playing afer 1948 by default without modifying a settings file, it would actually be interesting to play around with those things, instead of basicly annexing or puppeting everyone around you as the only options.

 

[Lifthrasil]

I STRONGLY AGREE. (capslock needed to express feelings)

Very good idea!

PDX should implement these if feasible, since this is also a great preparation for the "extended timeline DLC" that will undoubtedly come at some point and for better roleplay purposes.

 

[D3m0]

I also missed the option to force the "Disarmed Nation" law that is already in the game.

 

[Kevonfor]

Yep, I strongly agree with your ideas ! (Not with your example, though )

 

[Hikuran]

A very good idea indeed.
I want add something more
-One can force other nation to not build certain kinds of units like Battleships or tanks like what they did to Germany after WW1. A breaching of this treaty will lead to rightfully invasion (with limited world tension) and lower chance of other nation intervening.

-One can force other nation to give up all his current technology to the victor, like what USA and SU do to Germany after WW2, granting all existing technology to victors and a temporary modifier to research

 

[potski]

I quite like the idea of reparations as getting a proportion of a country's factories. But this and a DMZ only make sense if the defeated country continues in existence as an independent nation.

In the example given, it assumes that Germany neither annexes nor puppets France, and that there is some possibility for France to negotiate a peace settlement before there are German troops in Paris and most other states in France. There isn't.

This isn't EU/CK, wars are total. So the Soviets will demand Karelia, but they can't negotiate a peace settlement with Finland to end the Winter War, unless there is some heavily scripted event to force that on the two countries. The normal mechanics would be for Finland to capitulate, probably when Helsinki falls, then the Soviets can take what they like. And this includes puppetting Finland. Unless Finland joins the Axis or Allies, then no decisions can be made about Finland until the faction is defeated. Finland would remain occupied by the Soviets and any discussion about DMZs and reparations is pointless.

 

[Lifthrasil]

This isn't EU/CK, wars are total. So the Soviets will demand Karelia, but they can't negotiate a peace settlement with Finland to end the Winter War, unless there is some heavily scripted event to force that on the two countries. The normal mechanics would be for Finland to capitulate, probably when Helsinki falls, then the Soviets can take what they like. And this includes puppetting Finland. Unless Finland joins the Axis or Allies, then no decisions can be made about Finland until the faction is defeated. Finland would remain occupied by the Soviets and any discussion about DMZs and reparations is pointless.

iirc there ARE ways to make a white peace. Complete and conditionless capitulation is NOT necessary in this game.

 

[LordOfWar16]

I quite like the idea of reparations as getting a proportion of a country's factories. But this and a DMZ only make sense if the defeated country continues in existence as an independent nation.

In the example given, it assumes that Germany neither annexes nor puppets France, and that there is some possibility for France to negotiate a peace settlement before there are German troops in Paris and most other states in France. There isn't.

This isn't EU/CK, wars are total. So the Soviets will demand Karelia, but they can't negotiate a peace settlement with Finland to end the Winter War, unless there is some heavily scripted event to force that on the two countries. The normal mechanics would be for Finland to capitulate, probably when Helsinki falls, then the Soviets can take what they like. And this includes puppetting Finland. Unless Finland joins the Axis or Allies, then no decisions can be made about Finland until the faction is defeated. Finland would remain occupied by the Soviets and any discussion about DMZs and reparations is pointless.

iirc there ARE ways to make a white peace. Complete and conditionless capitulation is NOT necessary in this game.

The loosing side can surrender if they want to. That will trigger an peacedeal, of which the surrendering side has to agree on. If they decline the war will go on, until france (in this example) gets defeated. In that case i might not want to annex or puppet them, but rather leave them independant. That would be great for pacifist runs for example and also to keep World Tension very low. Installing an DMZ and demanding War Rep would have much less impact on World Tension than puppeting or annexing of course. I might not be interested at a war with france and the uk or in their land and want it to be over as fast as possible, but want to concentrate on the communist threat in the east.

 

[omnib]

This isn't EU/CK, wars are total. So the Soviets will demand Karelia, but they can't negotiate a peace settlement with Finland to end the Winter War, unless there is some heavily scripted event to force that on the two countries. The normal mechanics would be for Finland to capitulate, probably when Helsinki falls, then the Soviets can take what they like. And this includes puppetting Finland. Unless Finland joins the Axis or Allies, then no decisions can be made about Finland until the faction is defeated. Finland would remain occupied by the Soviets and any discussion about DMZs and reparations is pointless.

I disagree, that all wars in HOI should be total. It is not historical and not fun. Winter War is a great example, where Soviet Union decided to stop before full occupation, to reduce world tension and save manpower. Japan should also be able reach some settlement with China. It is really fun to play as a minor and fight for some minor gain, lets say Argentina - Brazil, without need to occupy everything.

Another thing that I always found annoying in HOI, that you can never leave Axis or Allies. Many countries switched sides or made separate peace deals when came close to loosing war. Basically all countries left Axis, before Germany surrendered. Now it is only solvable by events, but that is not sandboxy at all.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Another thing that I always found annoying in HOI, that you can never leave Axis or Allies. Many countries switched sides or made separate peace deals when came close to loosing war. Basically all countries left Axis, before Germany surrendered. Now it only solvable by events, but that is not sandboxy at all.

As far as i know they actually spoke about that internaly a few days/weeks ago if they should implement leaving factions or kicking people out of factions. Atleast Daniel mentioned something around those lines. I agree that this should be possible. Leaving a faction should result in an massive penalty in relations with anyone in a faction of course, since you cant be trusted. If you kick someone out of your faction it should also result in some relation penalty with the other faction members, in my oppinon.

 

[Bennyy]

Its a nice idea, but once the war is over, HOI is kindof done. What happens in the peace can be left to the players imagination imo

 

[omnib]

Its a nice idea, but once the war is over, HOI is kindof done. What happens in the peace can be left to the players imagination imo

That is the case if you play only historical path with Majors. With all the sandboxy nature of HOI you could crate as many factions as you want and keep the war/fun going even when you make peace with one of the faction. I am pretty sure there will be HOI extensions reaching into beginning of Cold War scenarios, were initial peace deal is super important.

I dont see the reason why only peace deal should be White Peace or full occupation. Based on your logic also White Peace should be out of game.

 

[Kevonfor]

A very good idea indeed.
I want add something more
-One can force other nation to not build certain kinds of units like Battleships or tanks like what they did to Germany after WW1. A breaching of this treaty will lead to rightfully invasion (with limited world tension) and lower chance of other nation intervening.

-One can force other nation to give up all his current technology to the victor, like what USA and SU do to Germany after WW2, granting all existing technology to victors and a temporary modifier to research

Those are some cool ideas, but I fear that it might be a bit broken. Maybe replace that with modifiers ?

Like, instead of forbidding a nation to build certain kinds of units, give them a production penalty for those types ? And for your second idea, just a bonus to technologies already researched by the loser ?

 

[LordOfWar16]

Those are some cool ideas, but I fear that it might be a bit broken. Maybe replace that with modifiers ?

Like, instead of forbidding a nation to build certain kinds of units, give them a production penalty for those types ? And for your second idea, just a bonus to technologies already researched by the loser ?

so basicly to simulate them building them in secret on a smaller scale?

 

[Hikuran]

so basicly to simulate them building them in secret on a smaller scale?

Good Points, easy to implement and not op

 

[fabius]

Agree with OP. For me this sort of thing would really enhance the sandbox and replay value.

I would add though, some mechanics to break these treaties that ratchet up tension; reduce world opinion. Like re-occupy the DMZ and stop paying

 

[Kovax]

Then again, it's all irrelevant if the AI is as stubborn as in EU3. Let's see, I've got their capital and three other provinces occupied, their army now consists of one depleted brigade hiding in a forest somewhere while it recovers, all of their allies have deserted or surrendered, there are four more provinces being besieged by my fully intact and victorious army, and now they're demanding that I turn over provinces and money? Seriously?

At some point, LONG before a country reaches its breaking point, it should be looking for a way to at least minimize the loss, or hopefully get out of the war without any further damage. Some national leaders should affect the will to keep fighting, but in most cases where a country is clearly losing, if offered an "out" with little or no penalty, they should take it.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Then again, it's all irrelevant if the AI is as stubborn as in EU3. Let's see, I've got their capital and three other provinces occupied, their army now consists of one depleted brigade hiding in a forest somewhere while it recovers, all of their allies have deserted or surrendered, there are four more provinces being besieged by my fully intact and victorious army, and now they're demanding that I turn over provinces and money? Seriously?

At some point, LONG before a country reaches its breaking point, it should be looking for a way to at least minimize the loss, or hopefully get out of the war without any further damage. Some national leaders should affect the will to keep fighting, but in most cases where a country is clearly losing, if offered an "out" with little or no penalty, they should take it.

Yea, like an "fanatic" personality that keeps fighting untill the bitter end. The early surrender mechanic is already in, so stuff like war reps and dmz wouldnt be that harsh if the enemy decides to minimize damage. Those deals could of course be broken, with an penalty to world tension and oppinion in the world. It wouldnt be like an DMZ being an unaccessable wall that prevents any movement at all, making it impossible to reach the former enemy directly in case of a war without going over neighboring countries..