Democracies, naval invasions and national unity.

[Invader_Canuck]

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.



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.

I don't know if democracies having less tolerance to casualties would require a meta game balancing act.

To another poster, I don't think Britain should be considered overseas to Europe. I imagine it should work as more of a continent situation like in EU4. In EU4 the world is broken up into continents, and this creates the overseas ideas.

Germany losing 50 divisions in Iraq is going to be quite a blow compared to say losing 50 divisions in Poland. People are going to say, regardless of political affiliation "Why the hell are we losing that many men in Iraq".

Proximity is typically the best drum of war. A neighbor even if it isn't a threat, can be made to look like a threat more more easily than some third or fourth rate power half way around the world. You have to jump through a lot of hoops even as Hitler to justify the loss of a million men in a place like Iraq.

 

[Secret Master]

If factories required manpower, it would mean that building more industry would limit how much manpower you could recruit without affecting production.

Wait, isn't that what the new conscription laws are supposed to model in HOI4? The more manpower you conscript, the worse your production gets (as you move down the curve). If you are scraping the Bottom of the Barrel (one of the actual laws I saw in a DD), doesn't it hurt productivity?

 

[Qrt_La55en]

Wait, isn't that what the new conscription laws are supposed to model in HOI4? The more manpower you conscript, the worse your production gets (as you move down the curve). If you are scraping the Bottom of the Barrel (one of the actual laws I saw in a DD), doesn't it hurt productivity?

Yes it does, "Scrabing the Barrel" consription gives you a -40% factory output and a longer training time (can't remember just how long)

 

[shri]

I don't know if democracies having less tolerance to casualties would require a meta game balancing act.

To another poster, I don't think Britain should be considered overseas to Europe. I imagine it should work as more of a continent situation like in EU4. In EU4 the world is broken up into continents, and this creates the overseas ideas.

Germany losing 50 divisions in Iraq is going to be quite a blow compared to say losing 50 divisions in Poland. People are going to say, regardless of political affiliation "Why the hell are we losing that many men in Iraq".

Proximity is typically the best drum of war. A neighbor even if it isn't a threat, can be made to look like a threat more more easily than some third or fourth rate power half way around the world. You have to jump through a lot of hoops even as Hitler to justify the loss of a million men in a place like Iraq.

I agree in principle with you, also to showcase the "Costs of fielding the USA and to a lesser extent the UK/Commonwealth Armies" a "SEA TAX" can be levied on all "Powers exporting troops".

The proposal being-
You can either manufacture - continental weapons or "export weapons", only export weapons can be used on expeditionary forces, with export weapons for UK/Commonwealth, Germany and Japan costing 2.5 times the normal and 3 times for the USA.
This will automatically mean, as Japan you cannot field too many troops in the Islands (though Asia continent has to be considered as a homeland else the China game will get wrecked, but Island Attacks will become very difficult for the Japanese above a certain limit).
Similarly, Armies in Africa will carry a lot of "cost" as they historically did.
UK/Commonwealth also will have "modifiers" on troops they can mobilise and export. Similarly for USA.

The only problem is- Players will not like it, though a MOD can be made.

Eg: Germany deploys a Panzer division of 150 tanks in Russia costs 300 Oil and 150 Rubber, it will cost 750 Oil and 375 Rubber in North Africa and so on..(alongwith similar increase in MANPOWER costs to showcase the LOGISTICS issues). . so, a North Africa division will consume 50000 manpower instead of 15000 normal manpower.
This will reduce the ability to - project power overseas for all nations.

 

[Gort11]

Given the experience of WW1, I would have thought people would realise that democracies such as Britain and France are quite capable of taking casualties in the millions and continuing the fight. Propaganda is not limited to dictatorships.

That said, I would hope the losses the USA is sustaining in its tons of naval invasions all over the place would be at least convincing the US player that they're not worthwhile. They'd be better-off committing their troops to the Eastern front - at least there they'll be able to retreat instead of surrendering all the time.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

Given the experience of WW1, I would have thought people would realise that democracies such as Britain and France are quite capable of taking casualties in the millions and continuing the fight. Propaganda is not limited to dictatorships.

That said, I would hope the losses the USA is sustaining in its tons of naval invasions all over the place would be at least convincing the US player that they're not worthwhile. They'd be better-off committing their troops to the Eastern front - at least there they'll be able to retreat instead of surrendering all the time.

No one expected the losses of WW1 and once they were in they could not back down, they would lose face, but to repeat such horrid losses.... I don't think that democracies in the 40ties were up to the snuff. Take Chamberlain he threw entire nations under Hitlers rapetrain just to avoid it.

 

[Gort11]

No one expected the losses of WW1 and once they were in they could not back down, they would lose face, but to repeat such horrid losses.... I don't think that democracies in the 40ties were up to the snuff. Take Chamberlain he threw entire nations under Hitlers rapetrain just to avoid it.

Churchill was not Chamberlain.

 

[shri]

Churchill was not Chamberlain.

The British Cabinet was mostly the same as in Chamberlain's time period. If- the British had lost all their troops at Dunkirk and further lost a lot in North Africa, start of talks would have happened despite the "Bluster" of Churchill. Since, at that time, the chances of the USA entering the war was minimal.
Also, if the USA loses some 10 divisions invading Turkey, 10 invading Sweden and a further 5 in useless para-drops, the USA would have pulled back to its shores and made a peace treaty. 25 divisions lost is more than the total US casualties in the entire War.

 

[Count Drew]

(probably been covered)

Since Ike wrote this speech in case of failure:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

*He accidentally dated the letter July 5. It should have been June 5. We're sure he had a lot on his mind.

http://www.businessinsider.com/d-day-in-case-of-failure-letter-by-general-eisenhower-2012-6

This would have hurt America's ability to fight. This is just a game though and in a multiplayer context knowing that all the Japanese and Germans need to do is bleed the Americans to force terms it will be manipulated.(what our last 3 wars of attrition were?) I would put an option in realistic losses. 100,000 dead and wounded in a short period would have put America into panic. 1 Million!? These would have been lost on foolish beach campaigns in unimportant Theaters with no strategic value. Even taking Japan? What value is that an isolated and weak nation in WWW. That would have been something I cannot imagine. I do not think an Invasion would be allowed again but I do not think terms would have been reached. I think that America would have had a constant state of war similar to The Cold War with the Germans. Germany and Japan together isolating the entirety of the Americas? A fear... Probably not...until Nukes and were developed and both sides would have had them.

Few understand the mindset of the American Mind being the forefathers of Modern Warfare. The American Civil War post Napoleonic I feel is the defining war of the 19th century. With 600k dead and many more wounded plus the total war upon the people. You can still feel to this day. So Americans do not have the stomach for total war if they don't have to have it in my opinion.

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.

 

[EntropyAvatar]

Wait, isn't that what the new conscription laws are supposed to model in HOI4? The more manpower you conscript, the worse your production gets (as you move down the curve). If you are scraping the Bottom of the Barrel (one of the actual laws I saw in a DD), doesn't it hurt productivity?

The effect of the laws is broadly similar but not the same as requiring manpower for factories. For one thing, if running factories cost manpower, then you could easily reach a point where building more factories doesn't help you. With a global malus, you always want as many factories as you can cram in, even if all factories are running at lower efficiency because you putatively don't have enough people to run the factories you already have.

Probably reality is something like a mix of the two. Normally you would always be able to find *someone* to work in the factory, but they might not have much experience or motivation.

 

[Denkt]

The aggressors get a pretty heavy buff because they can use alot of the occupied nations industry. Do the democracies really need a nerf?

 

[RVallant]

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.

So HoI3 allowed far too many divisions to be built?

 

[shri]

The aggressors get a pretty heavy buff because they can use alot of the occupied nations industry. Do the democracies really need a nerf?

Yes, a NERF is needed and the below post is the reason-

shri said: ↑

@@Da9L

A few things-
1. How bad is "Scrapping the barrel" with those 8 million new bayonets hitting you in Industry terms?
2. How much Factories and Manpower is your conquests contributing in % terms vis-a-vis your homeland? In short- is conquest paying you well?
3. With your armies stretched from Brest to Vladivostok and Helsinki to Suez, how easy/difficult is the "click-fest?", at the speed that you guys play it seems too fast to properly co-ordinate production, armies, micro-management and research.

Also, all the best, i do hope you manage to pull off the conquest of Asia.

Daniel Replies-

1. I'm not at scraping the barrel yet, only at "all adults serve". At Scraping i got 12 million. The hit for that is pretty bad. 40% reduction on all kinds of production and construction, longer training time and you loose more experienced soldiers.
2. Very little. When they have surrendered to me, (with peace conference not only capitulated), you got the possibility to recruit 5% of what they would have received, but at my current conscription law I get 40% out of the 5% (I think, not actually 100% sure about the design, podcat knows this bettter).
3. It takes time. I have a little bit of a hard time now, partly it is because we don't pause but also from the all the talking I do Much hard to play and talk than I thought. (but also quite fun).

And thanks


I like Daniel because he behaves like he's the Last Boss of HoI IV. You have to defeat him one day, in order to save the world.
- Standstill
Da9L


As we can see, he is getting negligible manpower, about 2% and very little Industries from the occupation of those countries without a "peace conference".

 

[Gort11]

The British Cabinet was mostly the same as in Chamberlain's time period. If- the British had lost all their troops at Dunkirk and further lost a lot in North Africa, start of talks would have happened despite the "Bluster" of Churchill. Since, at that time, the chances of the USA entering the war was minimal.
Also, if the USA loses some 10 divisions invading Turkey, 10 invading Sweden and a further 5 in useless para-drops, the USA would have pulled back to its shores and made a peace treaty. 25 divisions lost is more than the total US casualties in the entire War.

This is pretty baseless speculation. We don't have any data on what might have happened in these circumstances.

 

[shri]

This is pretty baseless speculation. We don't have any data on what might have happened in these circumstances.

It is not baseless, the facts speak for themselves. The Western Allies were not ready to take WW1 style casualties. This was one of the main reasons why Roosevelt rightly agreed to Stalin's demands in the various conferences despite Churchillian bluster. Again, Alanbrooke and other British Generals were themselves extremely cautious of deploying the British Army and "fooled" the USA in 1942 and 1943 with regards to their problems, till IKE decided to put an end to it and take charge.

The USSR was ready to go all out as was Nationalist China and so were Nazi Germany and Japan, no other country was willing to "go broke". The Finns who fought a stupendous fight despite having outdated weapons signed their treaty as soon as the casualties crossed a threshold, as did the French and most others. Italy, Romania, etc flipped sides.

 

[Kovax]

Wait, isn't that what the new conscription laws are supposed to model in HOI4? The more manpower you conscript, the worse your production gets (as you move down the curve). If you are scraping the Bottom of the Barrel (one of the actual laws I saw in a DD), doesn't it hurt productivity?

I think EntropyAvatar hit the main point, but said it in a round-about way. The industrial laws penalize or boost your existing factories by a fixed percentage, no matter how many factories or military units you build. It pays to build more factories even if you're down to your last scraps of manpower, because it doesn't detract from that manpower to do so. If you have to make the choice between building another factory and building another division, because you don't have the manpower for both, then that turns it into a far more meaningful choice.

The US SHOULD be able to build an ahistorically large number of military units with its available manpower, but that means it can't do the historical buildup of industry, because it's pulling people out of the work force. It should be one or the other, not both and then the developers having to find ways to nerf the US in order to avoid them steamrolling the world in a few months time. Germany should be able to gear up for a longer-term war, at the expense of some portion of their normal early military buildup, but resulting in them being hampered by resource availability (as they were historically). The idea of a sandbox game is to have tough decisions and consequences for those decisions, rather then "no brainers" that almost everyone is going to take.

 

[Denkt]

The whole point with conscription laws is to be a choice between equipment or manpower, unlike HOI3 there you wan't to go to the bottom with pretty much every law.

In HOI4 the laws have real tradeoffs. Conscription increase your manpower both an instant boost depending on your state population as well increase your monthly gain (not retroactive so the earlier the more manpower you will get) but at the cost of production which is also not retroactive but stuff get obsolete while manpower never go obsolete.

The economy mobilization laws also reduce your monthly manpower growth.

As @Kovax say: Why should we remove choices from the game then there is real consequences to each choice. You can go with little conscription and high productivity to build a powerful air force and very well equipped divisions or you could go with massed infantry divisions.

This is a strategy game, so rules should seldom be made to reduce the possible startegies especially such strategies that have tradeoffs.

 

[Super-Soviet]

Make a special democracy expansion, which gives democracies a "war enthusiasm" rating, so if the war doesn't go well your legislature will start to demand changes in course. Consistent military failures will increase this rating. They will replace leaders, policies and demand you take so and so or do so and so. Keep disappointing them and they will force you to sue for peace.

Simple national unity malus' would just make democracies ahistorically more likely to capitulate.

 

[Denkt]

But then people will likely demand advantages for democracies as well. It is not like democracies are pretty nerfed already with the major nations start with large penalties

 

[Katarian]

I think the new manpower rules for HoI4 are the root of the problem, but I've not seen them in action enough to worry quite yet. The conscription laws giving a percentage of your total population is going to give the US, UK and Commonwealth a lot more men to throw at the enemy they they realistically could have managed. If manpower was just a number in a province unrelated to the population then it would be easy to reduce the manpower in countries that start as democracies. You then don't really need any fancy rules for high casualties democracies as running out of manpower is punishment enough. If as the UK you lose a million men in a failed D-Day you are unlikely to have enough manpower to invade again for a long time if ever.

The real problems are that being a democracy in a war like WWII is a bad option. All the benefits of being a democracy are pretty much irrelevant once war breaks out and there are significant problems that the fascist and communist dictatorships didn't have to worry about. If you try to model any of those significant problems for a democracy then that is a serious nerf to being a democracy in the game and then the obvious choice is to try and become fascist or communist and abandon democracy as soon as the game starts. From a gameplay design perspective if you are going to severally punish democracies for high casualties and other problems, then you have to add severe penalties or unique gameplay for fascism and communism as well. Even if you want to completely ignore balance concerns why should democracy get unique gameplay and the other forms of government nothing?