True. Just a couple of comments:
1) URSS paid cash
2) USA developed the ultimate weapon that would end the war anyway.
Last edited:
-
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.
- Status
True. Just a couple of comments:
1) URSS paid cash
2) USA developed the ultimate weapon that would end the war anyway.
Well that sounds like a much better set up to me than the vanilla one that is for sure.
Thing is, there are a couple of issues about changing the whole system for everyone, right now. For one thing it is a pretty major decision to make about a game design choice that is now four or five years old, and I think the people who are doing the patch are concentrating more on getting rid of hard errors in the game system, not correcting what may, or may not have been a good game design choice, based on the opinion of a few people like you and I, so, I don't think its going to float.
Also, it would require substantial playtesting for balance, and other potential issues, and that could take 3 or 4 months, and they are already doing pretty much the same thing with the subs.
The air system, for all its faults, is at least working within the design parameters, whereas many things are not. So, I think such a change is probably not within the scope of this patch, despite the fact that I agree it sounds far superior to what we have now. But superior and functioning are two different things.
"Functioning" is the mandate of most patches.
That said, it looks like a good modification to me, and one that I hope encourages future P-dox designers, such as those working on HOI III to carefully consider their design decisions in regards to the air system overall.
Thing is, there are a couple of issues about changing the whole system for everyone, right now. For one thing it is a pretty major decision to make about a game design choice that is now four or five years old, and I think the people who are doing the patch are concentrating more on getting rid of hard errors in the game system, not correcting what may, or may not have been a good game design choice, based on the opinion of a few people like you and I, so, I don't think its going to float.
Also, it would require substantial playtesting for balance, and other potential issues, and that could take 3 or 4 months, and they are already doing pretty much the same thing with the subs.
The air system, for all its faults, is at least working within the design parameters, whereas many things are not. So, I think such a change is probably not within the scope of this patch, despite the fact that I agree it sounds far superior to what we have now. But superior and functioning are two different things.
"Functioning" is the mandate of most patches.
That said, it looks like a good modification to me, and one that I hope encourages future P-dox designers, such as those working on HOI III to carefully consider their design decisions in regards to the air system overall.
I have tested it and it's working pretty well. The AI is using the airplaines as usual because for the AI it doesn't make any difference. It's just a matter to change some statistics preserving the game design.
Yes i did read it.
It is an interesting proposal.
But as Cueball said it is a major design change that we cannot consider for the 1.3 Arma patch.
There are others who are not limited by madate like we are that are reading these posts. Perhaps they will consider this in thier expansion projects.
Well, yes I am sure it is working well enough at the tactical level. But such a change brings into consideration all different kinds of other things that have to be adjusted for overall playability. For example, have you gone through all of the AI build parameter set ups to accomodate the new design, so that all the countries build the proper number of the right units?
This then moves into an issue of the overall strategic balance of what individual countries should be producing, to reflect both historical paterns of production, but also balance (at least) the major powers, or is USA suddenly going to have new overwhellming type of air superiority over its Japanese competitors.
See what I am saying? Such small changes (and its not really that small actually) can have pretty large impacts. Many of them that can not be seen at first glance.
This then moves into an issue of the overall strategic balance of what individual countries should be producing, to reflect both historical paterns of production, but also balance (at least) the major powers, or is USA suddenly going to have new overwhellming type of air superiority over its Japanese competitors.
See what I am saying? Such small changes (and its not really that small actually) can have pretty large impacts. Many of them that can not be seen at first glance.
Welcome to the world of HOI modding. It is as much fun, if not more, than actually playing the game I find.
The mods are great but it would be better to have a plain vanilla game that sounds fine.
I have another proposal I hope within the mandate:
Monroe said "America for the Americans" but everybody knows that in USA people consider Americans just the UnitedStatiansofAmerica
So to avoid exploits I would suggest that USA should guaranty the indipendence of many countries in America.
This should apply as well to some stategic country like Persia. For UK and USA that country was strategic so they managed to convince URSS to leave it.
What should be clear to the Axis that any trial to Persia or worse to America will automatically trigger a war respectively with UK+USA and with USA.
I have another proposal I hope within the mandate:
Monroe said "America for the Americans" but everybody knows that in USA people consider Americans just the UnitedStatiansofAmerica
So to avoid exploits I would suggest that USA should guaranty the indipendence of many countries in America.
This should apply as well to some stategic country like Persia. For UK and USA that country was strategic so they managed to convince URSS to leave it.
What should be clear to the Axis that any trial to Persia or worse to America will automatically trigger a war respectively with UK+USA and with USA.
I see this point and it is a good one. Thing is though that the US strategic dominance over British and French interests in Middle East did not really become explicit until about 1948, after the capital of the British empire moved from London to Washington. But, in Doomsday, I think that would be great ai suggestion, and Persia, and Iraq and so forth should go on the USA "protect" list, if, and when Germany is defeated.
UK was under the protectorate of USA after the WWI. The lend and lease and the Roosevelt's order to sink all subs were a declaration of war without a formal act that it would be rejected by the Senate.
The same applies to the oil's embargo to JAP. It was a clear humiliating diktat for the Japanese, a clear declaration of war. In HOI terms it was an exploit!
I think that is over-simplified, even if it does reflect some aspects of the reality.
Yes it is, the issue is that I have a simple mind so I'm refractory to the freedom fighters stuff rhetoric. ...
This is getting a little OT. But, for example, the Japanese decision to declare war was a little more complex than an issue of honour or humiliation, or FDR's goading. There were some pretty powerful geo-politics in play, and it was not as if Japan was above ambition. Wether or not their ambitions were more or less noble than those of the people that they fought is not really an issue, I think, for this thread.
The humiliation I'm talking about is not the Japanese's nobility but it is about the power and the interests of Japan. Essentially USA said to them that
1) they cannot move a finger in Asia without their approval
2) they should give back all conquests made
Essentially USA asked for a protectorate on JAP.
Try this book if you please: Roland H. Worth, Jr.. No Choice But War: the United States Embargo Against Japan and the Eruption of War in the Pacific
Last edited:
Have you ever read anything written by the Japanese themselves on this subjects? It is interesting. It's a mistake to think that everyone else is ignorant of the material.
In anycase, the idea that there was "no choice but war", overlooks the moral dilema of the fact that the Japanese were already "at war", and presently invading and destroying large parts of China at the time the US began its interventions, diplomatic or otherwise. To assert that the US and FDR is not innocent, is not the same as to say that the Japanese were innocent, either -- they chose war in China. These are the ambitions which I referred too.
Sure, if you assert that the Japanese had some essential right to conquest in Asia, that others did not, the basic premise upon which the empire predicated its propaganda, then you might argue that the US intervention was immoral. But my view is that once one asserts that the "right of conquest" is the essential moral principle of foreign policy you are opening yourself up to the exact same moral principle, from those who are stronger and more able.
Regardless, even in Tojo's cabinet, there were several who actually disagreed with the idea that there was "no choice but war". The members of Japanese Liason Conference were not mere stupid pupets of FDR's guile, but cold calculated hard nosed imperialists (that is why they called it an "empire") who thought they might be able to slip up the middle, while everyone else was engaged elsewhere and assert Japanese interests over the European powers in the Pacific, China especially.
There was also the question of who to war against. This was a far from simple decision. And an even more hotly debated topic in the Japanese war cabinet than wether or not to go to war, for many, in particular the army were opposed to a direct strike against the US. These Generals would likely have won the day, had it not been for the fact that Admiral Yamamato, insisted on threat of resignation, that any Japanese war plan against the European powers, must include a pre-emptive strike against the US fleet at Pearl Harbour.
They thought, perhaps, that FDR was bluffing. Of FDR's brinksmanshp, they believed that he had perhaps overplayed his hand, and that domestic considerations, and the war in Europe would prevent the full commitment to a war against Japan, and that some kind of limited conflict might be fought, in which reasonable terms favourable to Japan would result. They imagined a protracted island guerilla war, which they thought the US would find to costly, if fought on the behalf of the British or the Dutch. If they were right in this regard, when they decided that war was the only choice, they made themselves wrong by choosing to attack the US directly.
Even when wrong, they were not idiots. They gambled, knowing full well the risks and they lost.
In anycase, the idea that there was "no choice but war", overlooks the moral dilema of the fact that the Japanese were already "at war", and presently invading and destroying large parts of China at the time the US began its interventions, diplomatic or otherwise. To assert that the US and FDR is not innocent, is not the same as to say that the Japanese were innocent, either -- they chose war in China. These are the ambitions which I referred too.
Sure, if you assert that the Japanese had some essential right to conquest in Asia, that others did not, the basic premise upon which the empire predicated its propaganda, then you might argue that the US intervention was immoral. But my view is that once one asserts that the "right of conquest" is the essential moral principle of foreign policy you are opening yourself up to the exact same moral principle, from those who are stronger and more able.
Regardless, even in Tojo's cabinet, there were several who actually disagreed with the idea that there was "no choice but war". The members of Japanese Liason Conference were not mere stupid pupets of FDR's guile, but cold calculated hard nosed imperialists (that is why they called it an "empire") who thought they might be able to slip up the middle, while everyone else was engaged elsewhere and assert Japanese interests over the European powers in the Pacific, China especially.
There was also the question of who to war against. This was a far from simple decision. And an even more hotly debated topic in the Japanese war cabinet than wether or not to go to war, for many, in particular the army were opposed to a direct strike against the US. These Generals would likely have won the day, had it not been for the fact that Admiral Yamamato, insisted on threat of resignation, that any Japanese war plan against the European powers, must include a pre-emptive strike against the US fleet at Pearl Harbour.
They thought, perhaps, that FDR was bluffing. Of FDR's brinksmanshp, they believed that he had perhaps overplayed his hand, and that domestic considerations, and the war in Europe would prevent the full commitment to a war against Japan, and that some kind of limited conflict might be fought, in which reasonable terms favourable to Japan would result. They imagined a protracted island guerilla war, which they thought the US would find to costly, if fought on the behalf of the British or the Dutch. If they were right in this regard, when they decided that war was the only choice, they made themselves wrong by choosing to attack the US directly.
Even when wrong, they were not idiots. They gambled, knowing full well the risks and they lost.
Last edited:
1) In 1936, or even in 1939, the USA could NOT have taken on the German Reich AND the Japanese Empire by itself. It was still in the middle of the Great Depression, which was partly ended by WWII.
2) The USA CAN be at full IC (i.e., totally eliminating the IC penalty) almost from the start...all you have to do is start a war. What you want is to be able to AHISTORICALLY overpower the USA without any penalties.
Just few comments because we said almost everything on this off topic!
1) Please don't interpret my thoughts. Just ask if you want to know them I will never think that you ( or somebody else) is ignorant. On the contrary I think that you (as well as the great majority of people that are in this forum) well know the WWII.
2) Japan was obliged to fight or to loose its right to the autodetermination. Japan decided to fight and lost everything.
3) I will never talk of morality regarding a war. Morality to me is just for propaganda or for Hollywood's movies. USA strangled Japan because the Japanese expansion was against their interests not because Japan was at war. On the other side I cannot see any morality in the Japanese behaviour. They tried to become a greater power at expense of weaker countries (like every country has always did in the history) but they hurt USA. Because of that USA decided to submit Japan.
4) Finally with the oil embargo USA made a educated guess. The outcomes would be:
4.1) Japan surrenders to the threat (to this threat as well as to all future threats) and it will become a USA puppet
4.2) Japan goes for war
In the latter case USA would enter in a patriottic war against the aggressor and in a short time Japan would be defeated (becoming a puppet). This case had the appeal that, finally, USA would formally enter in the war against Germany.
1) Please don't interpret my thoughts. Just ask if you want to know them
I will never think that you ( or somebody else) is ignorant. On the contrary I think that you (as well as the great majority of people that are in this forum) well know the WWII.2) Japan was obliged to fight or to loose its right to the autodetermination. Japan decided to fight and lost everything.
3) I will never talk of morality regarding a war. Morality to me is just for propaganda or for Hollywood's movies. USA strangled Japan because the Japanese expansion was against their interests not because Japan was at war. On the other side I cannot see any morality in the Japanese behaviour. They tried to become a greater power at expense of weaker countries (like every country has always did in the history) but they hurt USA. Because of that USA decided to submit Japan.
4) Finally with the oil embargo USA made a educated guess. The outcomes would be:
4.1) Japan surrenders to the threat (to this threat as well as to all future threats) and it will become a USA puppet
4.2) Japan goes for war
In the latter case USA would enter in a patriottic war against the aggressor and in a short time Japan would be defeated (becoming a puppet). This case had the appeal that, finally, USA would formally enter in the war against Germany.
Last edited:
- Status