Bring back the ability to sue for peace

[gossamer]

I really enjoy what HOI4 has brought to the table in terms of construction, production and the general way you can order your troops to be semi-autonomous.

My major gripe is that once you're in a war, unless there's a scripted event, there's no way at all to get peace. This basically ruins the game unless you are only playing historical WW2 and nothing else.

I miss the ability to fight wars with larger countries just to take a core back, to claim strategic provinces or even force a disbarment.

I don't understand why they took this out. It's in every single game in the series and adds a lot to the ability for replayability and ahistorical possibilities.

Does anybody else want this back or am I alone on this one?

 

[Oddb@ll]

It would make the justification for a specific province actually make sense. Right now it's "justify province X---> declare war---> annex all"

 

[George_VI]

This would be very useful for retaking small far away territories too. As it is you have to fight a way to the very end, even if you're just China trying to take Hong Kong back or something like that. China shouldn't need to actually cause the UK to capitulate, it should be able to sue for peace and take back Hong Kong once it's got Hong Kong.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

So much this. Heck, have the AI set to always refuse I don't mind using tag switches and yesman to get sane results.

 

[Link2edition]

I was playing as Poland in my own faction. I helped the Allies beat Germany so I could get danzig back, Danzig was my war justification against Germany.

Britain took Danzig in the following peace conference before I had a chance to...

Now I took danzig from BRITAIN and I am having to make the allies capitulate one by one to end the war. It is ridiculous.

 

[gossamer]

Glad to see other people are sharing my thoughts on this.

Hit me hard the other day. I was playing a 1936 campaign as Nationalist China. Fought off Japan and then helped finish off the rest of the Axis by running through soviet territory using military access. Lost around 2 million troops just fighting the germans/european axis.

Not 3 months after the peace conference, the Soviets justify against me and declare war. I initially lose some holdings, but end up pushing them back to the original borders. They lose much more men than I do. At this point, it'd be good to sue for peace -> white peace, but instead I cannot. So my options are to restart my campaign, beat the soviets or let the soviets puppet me (more or less).

 

[GeorgieBest]

+1

I also hate the war merging mechanic. Say World War 2 has already started, and I as Italy decide to declare war on Iraq to access more oil. Regardless of how they felt about me or the allies before, they instantly are now part of the allies, wars merge. Now I cannot technically finish my war with Iraq until I've made Britain and the US capitulate. It's completely stupid.

 

[hkrommel]

I was playing as Poland in my own faction. I helped the Allies beat Germany so I could get danzig back, Danzig was my war justification against Germany.

Britain took Danzig in the following peace conference before I had a chance to...

Now I took danzig from BRITAIN and I am having to make the allies capitulate one by one to end the war. It is ridiculous.

Off-topic but I would recommend using a player-run peace conference mod. Just make sure to have some house rules so you don't go overboard

 

[ForsakenSoldier]

You should also be able to force a "separate peace" on a nation that you forced to capitulate. This goes along with the idiocy of every single existing conflict getting merged into 1 war.

 

[davej]

EU4 minded people in this thread.

 

[gossamer]

EU4 minded people in this thread.

The ability to sue for seperate peace was in HOI2 and its many standalone expansions/third party games (I didn't play HOI3 much at all, so I don't have anything to say about that). It allows for much more replayability and a much more realistic view of WW2.

 

[ProtoAES256]

EU4 minded people in this thread.

If it's good, then why bother?

 

[safe-keeper]

Also, not even WWII itself neccessarily needed to have been a fight to the death. If things went badly enough for the Allies or Soviets, at some point they might have agreed to some kind of peace treaty other than total capitulation. Might be a plausible outcome in-game, if not in reality.

And yes, please allow us to force individual nations out of the war. In reality, the Axis minor nations "defected" from the Axis one by one as the Allies and Soviets gained more and more ground.

 

[CharlieFox]

I dont mind this feature being added as long as don't interfere with a semi historical WWII. That is to say I don't want to see the WWII ending on because Poland agreed to cede Danzig to Germany.

 

[C-Breeze]

Also, not even WWII itself neccessarily needed to have been a fight to the death.

Good point. One of the best examples of this was exploratory peace talks between Germany and Russia. There are numerous reports to his effect, one by British historian Liddell Hart who went so far to claim a clandestine meeting between Molotov and Ribbentrop near Kirovograd in June of 43.

 

[davej]

If it's good, then why bother?

why bother with what?

 

[davej]

I dont mind this feature being added as long as don't interfere with a semi historical WWII. That is to say I don't want to see the WWII ending on because Poland agreed to cede Danzig to Germany.

Here's the problem with the diplomacy. I'll give you an example.

Let's say you are Facist Brazil wanting to take communist Paraguay, a minor 2 state nation. You declare war on it, it joins Comintern for help. Fine. But now, to win this war you have to capitulate the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin is willing to give up his entire nation for Paraguy, without any compromises, extremely realistic.

 

[bitmode]

Joseph Stalin is willing to give up his entire nation for Paraguy

Replace Brazil with Germany, Paraguay with Poland and SU with UK. I don't see a big difference except that Paraguay is harder to reach for the SU.

 

[Riekopo]

Yeah I definitely think this needs to be in the game in some form.

 

[CharlieFox]

Here's the problem with the diplomacy. I'll give you an example.

Let's say you are Facist Brazil wanting to take communist Paraguay, a minor 2 state nation. You declare war on it, it joins Comintern for help. Fine. But now, to win this war you have to capitulate the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin is willing to give up his entire nation for Paraguy, without any compromises, extremely realistic.

Replace Brazil with Germany, Paraguay with Poland and SU with UK. I don't see a big difference except that Paraguay is harder to reach for the SU.

That is the problem, a system similar to EUIV tickling warscore or length of war modifier that might allow Brazil to end the war with Paraguay without defeating Russia would hardly work with a historical WWII.

In your example of Soviet Union joining your war against Paraguay ,a simpler fix would be to make the AI not want to join a war if it has no way of reaching the aggressor or the defendant .

Also, maybe make the AI majors reluctant to intervene in minor to minor wars (Although this would not help in your case as your Brazil is likely a major).

However, for major to minor wars (e.g Italy vs Ethiopia) there should definitely be a mechanism that allows the minor to force peace if they hold long enough without needing to have to make the major capitulate)

Edit: Also National focus could be used for common cases that do not fill any of the above. For instance allowing China and Japan to make peace if China holds all the mainland