Can i surrender/negotiate peace? (sorry if asked recently)

[TheRomanRuler]

There is so much information about HOI4 that i am incapable of finding answer to this: but can you surrender when you want to? Say you are Italy and DOW Austria to get Italian territory. Then Germany DOWs Austria and Italy becouse they want Austria to themselves. Can Italy and Germany negotiate peace to divide Austria, or are they forced to fight to the death?
Or maybe i am France, can i negoatite peace with Germans in 1939 in exhange for giving Germans Alsace-Lorraine for example? Maybe as leader of France i reason that they are German territories and belong rightfully to Germany, but i dowed Germany becouse they invaded Poland. But now that Poland is gone it is better to just make peace with Germany and join their crusade against Soviets in upcoming invasion.

Or maybe i am Italy fighting Germany and Soviet Union DOWs Germany. In RL Fascists of Italy and National Socialists of Germany would most likely have joined forces against Soviet Union and made peace with each others. Can i do that?

Or what ever the situation is. There are countless situations. Hungary and Romania might have gotten into war with each others, but had Soviet Union attacked i think they would have joined forces against Soviets. These are just examples.

 

[Nicolas I]

You may find some answers in the DD#31 about peace conferences.

Here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...evelopment-diary-30th-of-october-2015.889096/

Also, just make a quick search with surrender+Podcat and you will find some of his recent answers notably about World War Wednesday games.

Also, from DD#43 available diplomatic actions:

Offer peace
For HOI4 it's possible to offer to surrender assuming the war has gone on long enough. Terms are set by the winners in this case, but needs to be approved by the surrendering nation. This is different from an unconditional surrender which is what happens when your nation get occupied past the limit set by its national unity.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Correct, if you are loosing (cant do it while winning) you can offer peace, which will trigger a peacedeal where the enemy can choose his demands. If he is done you have to approve of them and if you decline the war will keep going. If you are forced to capitulate they can of course demand whatever they want without you having any option to decline it.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Good, happy to hear that

 

[Anichent]

One of the systems I don't like.
Winners can't sue for peace? Why not. Surely some enemies will end up preferring to give up territory than be totally conquered.
Surely sometimes it makes sense that after long enough two sides at a standstill will be okay with a negotiated white peace or something pretty close to it.

The reason WW2 wars went on so long was because those losing would not accept peace, not because the winners wouldn't. If you think the Allies wouldn't have accepted peace wayyyyy before getting to Berlin, you don't know your history. Its the Germans who, while losing, were not open to peace.

 

[Matt the Czar]

One of the systems I don't like.
Winners can't sue for peace? Why not. Surely some enemies will end up preferring to give up territory than be totally conquered.
Surely sometimes it makes sense that after long enough two sides at a standstill will be okay with a negotiated white peace or something pretty close to it.

The reason WW2 wars went on so long was because those losing would not accept peace, not because the winners wouldn't. If you think the Allies wouldn't have accepted peace wayyyyy before getting to Berlin, you don't know your history. Its the Germans who, while losing, were not open to peace.

I'm assuming that the AI will always go with unconditional surrender. And the Allies were the ones who had the "unconditional surrender" mantra.

 

[Anichent]

I'm assuming that the AI will always go with unconditional surrender. And the Allies were the ones who had the "unconditional surrender" mantra.

Allies demanded the surrender be unconditional once they got far enough. They were willing to accept a peace deal long before reaching the German border.

But either way surrender in HOI4 is always unconditional. The difference is between being annexed and just being forced to give up territory. Same as if a loser can sue for peace early. It would be stupid if a loser sues for peace early and they still get totally annexed. The early peace must have limits in order to have a reason to exist as an option...

 

[Lifthrasil]

Allies demanded the surrender be unconditional once they got far enough. They were willing to accept a peace deal long before reaching the German border.
.

The Info I learned says otherwise. Hitler wanted to make peace with UK, but they refused.
The Allies knew that they had to beat Germany once and for all in order to prevent another "stabbed in the back" myth that glorified the Reichswehr after WW1.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

I am just going to say that students have always learned from their teachers who have always learned from their teachers who have always learned from their teachers. And in WW2 over 60 million people were killed. In some nations it is outright illegal to deny some things about WW2. Russia still does not regornise many who died during WW2, and have left many bodies on the WW2 battlefields becouse officially they were never killed. Churchill himself said that history is written by victors. On TV there are "hunt for Nazis" or something show, and of course crappy (but entertaining) history channel with alien-Hitler etc.
So i am not surprised if people are not exactly open minded about WW2, which is why there are conflicting stories and opinions. Our society is not exactly engouraging telling alternate view of WW2. Last documentary about alternate view of WW2 told me that Nazis were evil and war was brutal - not really something i have never heard before.

I don`t know if it is best to stop this discussion and wait until teachers actually realize that Napoleon was short on modern standards and when you used English measurements, as opposed to French ones which made him taller than average, becouse at the time people were shorter, AKA Napoleon was not short, but tall. His bodyguards just were giants, making anyone look short.
But i do know that discussing about WW2 is hard, and this thread may get locked soon, so maybe it is better to leave discussion for later date? I don`t know, after all nothing changes if we don`t talk about it...
Maybe i should just grab popcorn and let the battle commence, i am curious to see which side wins: Allies being willing to accept peace and trying to make peace multiple times vs 30 German peace offers. Or maybe it is a tie? Maybe truth is not black and white, and both Germans and allies tried to make peace with each others, just failed for various reasons.

 

[Nicolas I]

Allies demanded the surrender be unconditional once they got far enough. They were willing to accept a peace deal long before reaching the German border...

Never heard of the Casablanca declaration and the doctrine of unconditional surrender ? This was in january 1943.

 

[LordOfWar16]

One of the systems I don't like.
Winners can't sue for peace? Why not. Surely some enemies will end up preferring to give up territory than be totally conquered.
Surely sometimes it makes sense that after long enough two sides at a standstill will be okay with a negotiated white peace or something pretty close to it.

The reason WW2 wars went on so long was because those losing would not accept peace, not because the winners wouldn't. If you think the Allies wouldn't have accepted peace wayyyyy before getting to Berlin, you don't know your history. Its the Germans who, while losing, were not open to peace.

Germany wanted to negotiate peace for a very long time with the british and wanted them out of the war as soon as possible, since they werent interested in a war with the western allies and hitlers goal was to destroy communism from day 1, not a conflict with western european nations. He thought the allies were bluffing with danzig just as they did with czechoslovakia, austria and memel aswell. The british refused any peacedeal tho, since they still hoped the USA would join and come for their rescue.

Hitler was the one refusing to surrender after things went south. Rommel told him to surrender as long as he could before the allies even landed on the beaches, since he and basicly every other german general knew that they cant win. Thats why they had several attempts to assassinate Hitler and negotiate peace with the allies before it was too late, but hitler survived all attempts by sheer luck. When germany was on full retreat Hitler lost it completly and interfered and took charge in basicly everything, making it impossible for his generals to do anything propperly. Ironicly the opposite is exactly what saved stalin by giving up total controll and letting his generals do their thing.


That stuff out of the way, i agree with you on that the aggressors should be able to send peace offers aswell, not only the defenders. Maybe we can, since you only cant surrender if you are winning as seen in WWW. They never said you couldnt send a peace offer to the enemy.

 

[zyphial]

That stuff out of the way, i agree with you on that the aggressors should be able to send peace offers aswell, not only the defenders. Maybe we can, since you only cant surrender if you are winning as seen in WWW. They never said you couldnt send a peace offer to the enemy.

PDS has been pretty clear that there are no limited wars in this period, and that basically every nation will fight an absolute total war. That's not too far off from history, all things considered. Or, at least where the majors are concerned.

I believe Daniel did say that peace is impossible for an aggressor to negotiate during the WWW, but I can't recall if it was as Germany or Japan let alone which specific video/timestamp. Of course that's subject to change, but realistically 1) the clautzwitz AI has fought total wars in every recent iteration, so there's no reason to think this time the AI will suddenly be "reasonable" during a time period where reason took a backseat to AAARGH MOTHER/FATHERLAND!!! 2) PDS has indicated that they really want to capture the "spirit" of WW2, including the intransigence of some of it's leaders and 3) it's really hard to make an AI smart enough to know what's a good deal or when to the fold 'em, so either they'll almost never accept or accept way too easily. The "sweet spot" is a hard target to hit.

Personally I'm just fine with until absolute victory for all wars. Yes, I can see where limited wars would be handy or even possibly historical, but the limits of the simulation kinda trump both.

 

[Songhai Dawn]

There is so much information about HOI4 that i am incapable of finding answer to this: but can you surrender when you want to? Say you are Italy and DOW Austria to get Italian territory. Then Germany DOWs Austria and Italy becouse they want Austria to themselves. Can Italy and Germany negotiate peace to divide Austria, or are they forced to fight to the death?

OK so this hits upon something there hasn't been much about yet, which is multi-factional peace deals. So say the Allies and Comintern both have separate wars (within the game mechanics) against Germany, and Germany capitulates. The two wars will presumably both end, but do both factions have the same peace conference or is it two separate ones? (I would assume it would be the same, as the DD mentioned Yalta and other such peace conferences)

The problem is what if the Allies and Comintern were in a separate war against each other? Would they still share a peace conference?

 

[zyphial]

OK so this hits upon something there hasn't been much about yet, which is multi-factional peace deals. So say the Allies and Comintern both have separate wars (within the game mechanics) against Germany, and Germany capitulates. The two wars will presumably both end, but do both factions have the same peace conference or is it two separate ones? (I would assume it would be the same, as the DD mentioned Yalta and other such peace conferences)

The problem is what if the Allies and Comintern were in a separate war against each other? Would they still share a peace conference?

This was mentioned, but never shown: When a faction capitulates, all nations who are at war with that faction are brought to the peace table. How many VP's you have against that nation is I believe what determines your "currency" (not sure what to call the "points" you use to claim things from defeated enemies).

 

[LordOfWar16]

PDS has been pretty clear that there are no limited wars in this period, and that basically every nation will fight an absolute total war. That's not too far off from history, all things considered. Or, at least where the majors are concerned.

I get that, yes. Then again, why can the loosing side surrender early on if thats the case. It makes sense to have both sides being able to offer peacedeals. Dont get me wrong, this shouldnt be something that basicly turns war into EUIV wars, where you occupy a few forts and then take a couple of provinces and let the truce run out and repeat it of course. It should be really hard for you to get an peacedeal through as the winning side, unless you beaten them up alot.

If things are going really south for the enemy and they refuse a peacedeal that is considered good by their population, they should be punished for it a bit like in EUIV tho with maybe a little national unity penalty or something like that.

 

[Caesar15]

One of the systems I don't like.
Winners can't sue for peace? Why not. Surely some enemies will end up preferring to give up territory than be totally conquered.
Surely sometimes it makes sense that after long enough two sides at a standstill will be okay with a negotiated white peace or something pretty close to it.

The reason WW2 wars went on so long was because those losing would not accept peace, not because the winners wouldn't. If you think the Allies wouldn't have accepted peace wayyyyy before getting to Berlin, you don't know your history. Its the Germans who, while losing, were not open to peace.

I thought that at first but then I realized that it isn't too bad. Yes, you can't offer peace as a winner, but, assumingly, if the AI wants peace they will send you an offer, and if they don't, well, they don't send you anything.

 

[canthinkofaname415]

One of the systems I don't like.
Winners can't sue for peace? Why not. Surely some enemies will end up preferring to give up territory than be totally conquered.
Surely sometimes it makes sense that after long enough two sides at a standstill will be okay with a negotiated white peace or something pretty close to it.

The reason WW2 wars went on so long was because those losing would not accept peace, not because the winners wouldn't. If you think the Allies wouldn't have accepted peace wayyyyy before getting to Berlin, you don't know your history. Its the Germans who, while losing, were not open to peace.

The Allies wanted terms that were unacceptable. Why bother NOT fighting if your enemy demands unconditional surrender? Try to win, if not, at least make them pay for it with blood.

 

[Nicolas I]

The Allies wanted terms that were unacceptable. Why bother NOT fighting if your enemy demands unconditional surrender? Try to win, if not, at least make them pay for it with blood.

The only thing you seem to forget is that by doing so you are also making your people pay with blood...but that never bothered the nazis.

 

[canthinkofaname415]

The only thing you seem to forget is that by doing so you are also making your people pay with blood...but that never bothered the nazis.

They actually managed to bring down way more Allied soldiers than the Allied ones could bring down of German. F*** the Allies, damn Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin straight to hell.

 

[Caesar15]

The Allies wanted terms that were unacceptable. Why bother NOT fighting if your enemy demands unconditional surrender? Try to win, if not, at least make them pay for it with blood.

You think the allies were going to negotiate with hitler? Gimme a break.