Democracies, naval invasions and national unity.

[Invader_Canuck]

One thing I noticed watching WWW is the ad-hoc, willy-nilly invasions carried out by Johan and the US player. Troops are shipped out, multiple invasions are launched, and almost all of them are wiped out, with seemingly very little penalty to Britain or the USA other than the material and manpower loss.

To me, this seems very odd. Historically speaking, had D-Day failed it would have been a devastating defeat for the western allies, and it would have been very unlikely that the USA would have tried another invasion of Europe. I feel that Democracies should suffer national unity hits for losing troops divisions during an invasion over seas. Perhaps this penalty should be mitigated by distance as the British losing troops invading France would be less impacted due to the proximity of the threat they faced than the USA would.

Nonetheless, losing 20 divisions for the USA while attempting to invade an overseas region should be DEVASTATING to national unity. If the USA had lost 20 divisions and the entire invasion force in France, that would have been it. There would have been no further invasions. It's even possible that the US would have opted out of Europe entirely to focus on Japan and possibly revisit Europe AFTER Japan was defeated.

I just found the spam style attacks to be very troubling in WWW. It seemed like there was zero consideration about failure, and there seemed to be no repercussions for the American player other than losing the men and equipment.

Perhaps this can be evolved into a check and balance for the United States. While being the most powerful nation, with the most potential, the USA also has very little tolerance for overseas losses. Not only has that proven to be historic, it would force American players to think a little more about their invasions.

Having a massive invasion wiped out for the USA historically could have resulted in congress ending the war with Germany, it would add something to the game-play as well.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Yup basically C&C Generals, produce -> select -> attack move -> abandon -> rinse and repeat

 

[Secret Master]

Nonetheless, losing 20 divisions for the USA while attempting to invade an overseas region should be DEVASTATING to national unity. If the USA had lost 20 divisions and the entire invasion force in France, that would have been it. There would have been no further invasions. It's even possible that the US would have opted out of Europe entirely to focus on Japan and possibly revisit Europe AFTER Japan was defeated.

This has always been an issue, but I'm not entirely sure that it is just a national unity thing.

Looking at the Allied forces committed to Overlord, a total defeat with the loss of all divisions should have been a devastating loss of men and material. If the initial landings were defeated with no one escaping, it would have resulted in the loss of eight divisions, three of which were highly trained and expensive paratroopers. I know that in terms of the Eastern Front, it looks like a drop in the bucket, but given the manpower shortage facing the US, it calls into question the feasibility of continuing the war with another invasion of Europe anytime soon regardless of how the people back home feel about it.

If the initial landings were successful, but then Rommel survived and pulled a magic rabbit out of his hat and pushed the Allies back into the sea during July, then we're looking at the prospect of losing well over a million men plus their equipment. That's even worse. But again, regardless of how the people at home feel about the situation, it's such a severe set back that invading Europe again should not be on the table for a long time.

In HOI3, these kinds of losses are not nearly as harmful to the overall war effort as they would be historically. While I understand that national unity is an issue, I think the logistics, manpower, and equipment loss should be a bigger factor. Germany would not have won the war by defeating the Allies during Overlord, but let's not pretend that the Allies had infinite manpower and time to throw at the coastline of Europe, either.

 

[Anzeginame]

I think that Naval Invasions also need to be more meaningful, making it a waste of time, effort, manpower, and equipment to do the harassment style we've seen in WWW I don't know how, especially because of how this will affect the Pacific theatre, but I'm sure there will be a good solution.

 

[Kovax]

Had Overlord failed, I suspect that the drive through southern Europe would eventually have continued, regardless of Stalin's wishes for another front further from his own ambitions. The men and materials lost would have been a hard setback, but not a permanent one, and the resolve at home would probably have seen the US through the disaster without too much trouble back at home, provided that it was the ONLY major setback. Repeated failures, like the ones seen in the beta games, would and should have negative political consequences, above and beyond the loss of men and equipment. Those men have families, and those families vote.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Looking at the Allied forces committed to Overlord, a total defeat with the loss of all divisions should have been a devastating loss of men and material. If the initial landings were defeated with no one escaping, it would have resulted in the loss of eight divisions, three of which were highly trained and expensive paratroopers. I know that in terms of the Eastern Front, it looks like a drop in the bucket, but given the manpower shortage facing the US, it calls into question the feasibility of continuing the war with another invasion of Europe anytime soon regardless of how the people back home feel about it.

It's amazing to me that Germany in-game can form up an 50 divisions like it's nothing (using less than a million manpower) while the US in reality only built 90 divisions with nearly 8 million manpower, and 8 million was the limit before they started cutting into production. There are so many tasks that required manpower and industry in real life that are free in the game.

 

[Dojo704]

If a largely failing invasion has an impackt on national unity? Yes maybe it has but mostly it has on the leadership (They are replaced, whether secretly or not) in WW1 gallipoli for example -> was it a fail for Britain? Well certainly yes but did Britain felt tendencies to stop fighting or even give up? -> no way.
In both the world wars, most of the people were convinced that their country was fighting for the right thing or at least they believed that their side winning was the smalest evil to happen considering their own future. And if they weren´t convinced that their fight was for the right thing, then they also didnt have a choice in a communist or facist country u cant just say "no i quitt". I mean ofc it can happen but not just because of a lost naval invasion.
I think u are right in the point that the US public had/(has?) a verly limited tolerance for oversea losses. But this would most certainly have resulted in people wanting a change in tactics and not surrendering or some kind of peace conferrence. Did the US- american people would agree on peace with japan because of failed naval invasions? they would not because they know in the end they will most certainly win and japan in history was the attacker (from the american view ofc)

 

[Secret Master]

It's amazing to me that Germany in-game can form up an 50 divisions like it's nothing (using less than a million manpower) while the US in reality only built 90 divisions with nearly 8 million manpower, and 8 million was the limit before they started cutting into production. There are so many tasks that required manpower and industry in real life that are free in the game.

I'm assuming that the new manpower laws will make this a bit more realistic in HOI4.

Also, one of the issues in HOI3 was that in-game divisions never correlated well to historical formations, either in terms of manpower or capability. And optimal formations in the game never bore that much of a resemblance to historical formations. With so many ways to conserve manpower through careful division building, it's a wonder we didn't have enough divisions to put one in each province as Germany.

Actually, I bet I could do that if I tried....

 

[bkuepers]

National Unity is only tied to territory held which only partially makes sense. Perhaps an easy fix to all of this would be to make national unity 50% tied to home territory held and 50% tied to total manpower and losses. This way you lose unity for losing ground and people.

You would think twice about sacrificing men then and have to make tougher decisions.

 

[Nelfe]

And it could be linked to your regime : Hitler and Staline cared more about territory than their people, so NU could be 75% tied to home territory and 25% tied to manpower or losses.

 

[Abadon777]

This has always been an issue, but I'm not entirely sure that it is just a national unity thing.[/QUOTE\

Troop morale would also have taken a awful hit. Soldiers are better fighters when they believe in a cause where there is hope they can win. High morale is the reasoning why some soldiers fight harder even though they know they may lose the battle. Organization and unity should take a hit for large troop loses.

 

[adam_grif]

It's amazing to me that Germany in-game can form up an 50 divisions like it's nothing (using less than a million manpower) while the US in reality only built 90 divisions with nearly 8 million manpower, and 8 million was the limit before they started cutting into production. There are so many tasks that required manpower and industry in real life that are free in the game.

I'm hoping that factories will take manpower at some point in a future DLC expansion focusing on industry/logistics, and daylight bombings might even result in minor losses of that manpower. Might also be cool to have a generic "baggage train" that basically takes manpower to keep up logistics, which is higher for overseas or naval stuff than it is when you have a direct land bridge, and gets bigger the further you conquer. Not something where manpower is modelled per province or something, but the requirements of each division would increase in certain ways and there would be a central logistics screen to see how much you're using and where the logistically challenging areas are.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

Had Overlord failed, I suspect that the drive through southern Europe would eventually have continued, regardless of Stalin's wishes for another front further from his own ambitions. The men and materials lost would have been a hard setback, but not a permanent one, and the resolve at home would probably have seen the US through the disaster without too much trouble back at home, provided that it was the ONLY major setback. Repeated failures, like the ones seen in the beta games, would and should have negative political consequences, above and beyond the loss of men and equipment. Those men have families, and those families vote.

Yes, I think everything would have shifted to Italy, but the blow to the national will to launch ANOTHER invasion would be all but gone.

I almost feel like National Unity isn't the right mechanic, because the United States could lose 100 divisions in an invasion of Europe, and if it was invaded, those 100 divisions wouldn't matter. It would fight tooth and nail to the bitter end.

But it should have some sort of impact.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

National Unity is only tied to territory held which only partially makes sense. Perhaps an easy fix to all of this would be to make national unity 50% tied to home territory held and 50% tied to total manpower and losses. This way you lose unity for losing ground and people.

You would think twice about sacrificing men then and have to make tougher decisions.

What about, if 50% of national unity in a Democracy is tied to OVERSEAS casualties, and in a dictatorship 25% of national unity is determined by overseas losses.

Germany and the USSR certainly wouldn't be immune to dissent at home if their boys start coming home from say the americas in body bags by the millions.

 

[Axe99]

What about, if 50% of national unity in a Democracy is tied to OVERSEAS casualties, and in a dictatorship 25% of national unity is determined by overseas losses.

Germany and the USSR certainly wouldn't be immune to dissent at home if their boys start coming home from say the americas in body bags by the millions.

I like the general ideas here of allowing the allies not to be able to lose troops indefinitely, but a couple of thoughts:

- I'm not sure "overseas" is the best way to characterise it. Why would Germany get in trouble from losses it incurred slogging through Britain, but not from those in the USSR? Similarly, if the US invaded Mexico and suddenly found itself in trouble and losing truckloads of people (granted, unlikely, but for the case of the argument), I still think it'd have trouble with drumming up support for further offensive action.

- I think the distinction between offensive and defensive is important. The UK would probably be willing to lose more people defending India than it would be invading China, for example. Same story with the US and the Philippines, say.

- I'm also not sure national unity is the best way of looking at it. You can be united as a nation in deciding that further offensive action is silly, but be tough as nails if someone invades you. I think NU is a bit broad brush for this, and perhaps would be better in terms of two measures, one for offensive and defensive perspectives. For example, a US that remained isolationist may have very low 'offensive' NU, but very high defensive. I'd call them something different, can't think of a name off the top of my head though.

- 'Defensive' NU works as it does in-game now - it's the measure of whether you surrender or not. "Offensive" NU would be a quite different mechanic geared around what proportion of your forces could be deployed outside of allied boundaries, say.

Just thoughts, not entirely happy with 'em, but throwing them around in case they help.

 

[agentgb]

I have the feeling what were really getting at, especially in how @Alex99 put it, is how "just" the war is, and the ability to justify an offensive war, with less penalty depending on goverment type, the mechanic in victoria 2 (i believe) has an aggressor you would take more war exhaustion for losses, less so if your the defender, on top of the usual infamy that would slow the rate at which war exhaustion recovered. In the case of world war 2, that was very much a fight to the death, dissent or war exhaustion would perhaps not be a huge factor unless it was a side war like invading mexico that wasn't in a faction and then went wrong for the attacking side, that could force a truce or minor concessions like that of the winter war. If such a mechanic could be replicated, in essence of a cold war mod, if replaying the vietnam war, and the US white peaced and had to withdraw due to huge war exhaustion/dissent in order to stop the US imploding, the north vietnamese could occupy south vietnam promptly here after without fear of reprisal of another war with the US. This could make the whole proxy war aspect quite interesting instead of painting the globe your faction colour and more about coups/protecting alligned goverments.

For the sake of a cold war mod, this has it uses. Saying that is dissent in HOI4 like that of HOI3? I guess a modder could replicate that into war exhaustion.

 

[Opanashc]

It's amazing to me that Germany in-game can form up an 50 divisions like it's nothing (using less than a million manpower) while the US in reality only built 90 divisions with nearly 8 million manpower, and 8 million was the limit before they started cutting into production. There are so many tasks that required manpower and industry in real life that are free in the game.

US had a LOT of units tied in non-division commands. Also, German divisions were much smaller.

 

[shri]

Continuing from @Opanashc

The "TAILS" of the USA and even the UK/Commonwealth were huge, we are looking at 1:7+ ratios for USA and 1:6 ratios for UK/Commonwealth.
For USSR this was very very less, something like 1:2.5 from what i recollect, Germany also had something like 1:3.
All this means - that 1 Million manpower was not equal for all states, however i have a eerie feeling we have discussed all this before and no conclusions or agreements came out.

What about, if 50% of national unity in a Democracy is tied to OVERSEAS casualties, and in a dictatorship 25% of national unity is determined by overseas losses.

Germany and the USSR certainly wouldn't be immune to dissent at home if their boys start coming home from say the americas in body bags by the millions.

Your idea is excellent in theory, but the problem is in execution. For this, we need - separate "divisions and abilities" for all majors giving each major its own advantages and dis-advantages.
Also, the casualty threshold is different for each major and this needs to be showcased, unfortunately such hard-coded rules will result in a lot of opposition and also "restrict gameplay".

Eg: Losing a million+ for the USA/UK or Western Allies is an absolute catastrophe which will result in wholesale change in outlook, for Germany and Japan it is a disaster which can be salvaged, for the USSR it is a tragedy which can be overlooked.
For a minor- inc. Italy it is GAME OVER.

 

[amalric de g.]

US had a LOT of units tied in non-division commands. Also, German divisions were much smaller.

Depends on the year, in 1939 until mid 1944 a german infantrie Division had 15.000 - 17.000 soldiers (depending on the recruitment wave). In 1945 the german Infantrie Division had only around 11.000 soldiers.

A early war US Inf. Division had 15.000 soldiers. Later on they got bigger. So the difference was only late in the war.

 

[Kovax]

If convoys required manpower, that would help tie up additional manpower for overseas operations. If factories required manpower, it would mean that building more industry would limit how much manpower you could recruit without affecting production. If units required more manpower the further they got from their source of supply, to represent the rail and road aspects of the logistical tail, it would limit how far you could advance overland with a large army. The key word is...."if". That means programming a lot of "If statements", and programming is expensive.