Democracies, naval invasions and national unity.

[Kovax]

The fascist and communist (authoritarian) governments should find it easier to recruit or conscript military manpower, but harder or more expensive to expand their industry until/unless there is sufficient excuse to do so by decree (during war). Democracies should find it easier to build up their industry and hard to dredge up manpower until/unless there is a "just cause" that entices people to sign up. No need to boost or nerf one or the other, because each of them should have a strong benefit and a strong drawback. The balance is determined by the time and effort it takes for the country to force a war or delay one, and it's STILL a tradeoff.

It should not be a "no brainer" for EITHER side to start the war as soon as possible, because it should have some serious down sides to it. The progression of laws in HOI3, where it was almost always "better" to enact the harsher ones, was highly unrealistic.

 

[Secret Master]

So HoI3 allowed far too many divisions to be built?

Kind of.

It's closer to "there are ways to economize manpower to the point where combat efficient divisions are also manpower efficient thanks to how manpower and support brigades work." There's also the issue where air and naval forces don't actually require as much manpower as they really should. So building air forces was super efficient in terms of manpower, providing smart players with a force multiplier.

I actually kind of wish that in HOI3, support brigades had all their benefits (more firepower, no width) but cost more manpower to represent the logistical tail of things like TDs and ENG and ART. Instead, building super efficient divisions with low width and high firepower also cost less manpower than going with something like 4xINF. I understand why the Devs did it the way they did, but it has its down sides.

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.

I see your point. It seems like the manpower limitation is similar to the way HOI3 does it. You can recruit 100% of your manpower and have no effect on production, because the game assumes that you man your factories and farms at some specified level. In HOI4, it seems like there are consequences for mobilizing additional manpower (in the form of production penalties) which is an improvement.

I think I can live with a production penalty across the board as an abstraction. Anything more detailed would require a Vic2 POP solution, which I think is overall incompatible with HOI (for multiple reasons).

 

[safe-keeper]

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?

Good points. I suppose there are balancing features in place to "punish" democracies trying to go facist or communists, like civil unrest.

 

[Abadon777]

Elections & Public support The nations in Hearts of Iron which hold democratic elections will find themselves in some special situations. If the public is concerned that the administration doesn't handle the current situation adequately, they may voice their dissent, making the rulers choose between facing lower public support and a nation that stands less unified against outside threats or making changes to policies or the administration to appease the voters. Although exceptions can be made in times of war, an administration that handles conflict poorly may see itself replaced.

This is from the Internal Politics diary. There is a feature that punishes democracies.

 

[Denkt]

The minor national focuses diverges for democracies and dictatorships. Like dictatorships can get more manpower from the national focues they get access to.

Yes if you nerf democracies you have to nerf the dicatorships as well like low productivity and poor technology advancement because of corruption these goverments bring with them.

I rather keep the balance to the laws instead of goverment types.

Should for example Germany be limited to tech II ships (no dual purpose guns), anti air technology at 1936, medium level encryption and decryption technology and so on because that is what they managed to do in real life.

 

[ZanderD]

The main issue I see with the naval invasion is that there does not seem to be a range limit. The US player landed in Japan without the need to do any island hopping!!!
Then there was the invasion in the Crimea, the invasion force passed through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straights unnoticed ,how is that possible. The invasion preparation times seem to short.

 

[Red_warning]

It may make logical sense but from a gameplay perspective I think it would just lead to premature endings of games.

 

[asdfsadf]

While it may be unrealistic for a democracy to throw millions of men into the meat grinder on another continent, this is a war game and from a player's perspective, it would just take away control from the player and add an unneccessary mechanic.

Picture this: you are USA and are trying to crack a tough nut. Then you get a pop up saying something like "Congress has voted to withdraw from the war". Great, so now you lose all the occupied territory and can't launch any invasions for 12 months (or whatever). Would that be fun in any capacity?

 

[Secret Master]

Picture this: you are USA and are trying to crack a tough nut. Then you get a pop up saying something like "Congress has voted to withdraw from the war". Great, so now you lose all the occupied territory and can't launch any invasions for 12 months (or whatever). Would that be fun in any capacity?

Is that any different from losing the game?

Seriously, I'd just be like "Oh crap, that didn't work. I guess I better try a different strategy in the future."

 

[Gort11]

But where do you draw the line, exactly? We don't really know where the "breaking points" for countries like the UK and USA actually were since they fought both world wars to their end-point with no sign of even being near to surrendering.

Also, can congress even vote to withdraw from a war? The President is the commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, so isn't it down to him?

 

[Zoob]

We don't actually know whether massive combat casualties would have ended the US or UK's ability to continue waging a war because they didn't happen. We know the Russians could absorb them because they did and that the germans could too. Drawing conclusions based on what didn't happen is nonsense.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

We don't actually know whether massive combat casualties would have ended the US or UK's ability to continue waging a war because they didn't happen. We know the Russians could absorb them because they did and that the germans could too. Drawing conclusions based on what didn't happen is nonsense.

The US were considering using A bombs in Korea due to massive casualties and Chinese involvement, that or withdrawing. Only because of poor Chinese logistics and US air supremacy they were able to stop them and regroup. Everything can balance on a tip of knife given right circumstances.

 

[Cardus]

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.

If I am not mistaken we had a similar conversation about the USA war effort and according to my calculations the number of divisions could not be increased because that would have hampered the industrial production. This, together with my calculations and sources, says exactly the same. Thank you for posting it.

 

[Cardus]

Continuing from @Opanashc


For a minor- inc. Italy it is GAME OVER.

I don't think so as in 1943, after the loss of almost 1 million of soldiers between Africa and Soviet Union, as far as I can remember the Italian Army was at its peak with more than 3 million men.

 

[shri]

I don't think so as in 1943, after the loss of almost 1 million of soldiers between Africa and Soviet Union, as far as I can remember the Italian Army was at its peak with more than 3 million men.

The Italians casualties by the end of War were 325000 dead and another 100000 odd civilians dead. The rest were mainly POWs in British Camps.
Though the main reason why Italy switched sides, was not only the losses in terms of manpower but the overall all round losses in all theaters of War. Now if you seriously consider the Italian Army of 1943 to be the "peak" achieved, you are entitled to your opinion, but the facts point out that they were not an effective fighting force.
Italy had suffered disproportionate losses to their- Paratroopers (Folgore), Bersaglieri and Alpini Formations, which were the only "Good Formations" fielded by the Italians alongwith the heavy losses suffered by their "XX Motorised Corps - Ariete and Trieste etc".

 

[Cardus]

The Italians casualties by the end of War were 325000 dead and another 100000 odd civilians dead. The rest were mainly POWs in British Camps.
Though the main reason why Italy switched sides, was not only the losses in terms of manpower but the overall all round losses in all theaters of War. Now if you seriously consider the Italian Army of 1943 to be the "peak" achieved, you are entitled to your opinion, but the facts point out that they were not an effective fighting force.
Italy had suffered disproportionate losses to their- Paratroopers (Folgore), Bersaglieri and Alpini Formations, which were the only "Good Formations" fielded by the Italians alongwith the heavy losses suffered by their "XX Motorised Corps - Ariete and Trieste etc".

When you mix up things the results are confused. If the point is how many losses the country had before the surrender, then the number is about 1 million (Africa, Balkans and Soviet Union). This number includes dead, prisoners, wounded unfit for service and so on. Notwithstanding this losses the Italian army reached its peak in 1943 with more than 3 million men.
If you want to open a thread about the effectiveness of the army or the Italian surrender happy to do so but bear in mind that is NOT what we were talking about.

PS
In WWI Italians had 1 million losses as well and they were able to defeat on the field their opponent whilst all together the French, Americans and British didn't achieve that result (even though they were close).

 

[shri]

When you mix up things the results are confused. If the point is how many losses the country had before the surrender, then the number is about 1 million (Africa, Balkans and Soviet Union). This number includes dead, prisoners, wounded unfit for service and so on. Notwithstanding this losses the Italian army reached its peak in 1943 with more than 3 million men.
If you want to open a thread about the effectiveness of the army or the Italian surrender happy to do so but bear in mind that is NOT what we were talking about.

PS
In WWI Italians had 1 million losses as well and they were able to defeat on the field their opponent whilst all together the French, Americans and British didn't achieve that result (even though they were close).

On 3rd Sept 1943 they surrendered. As per your own calculations they had crossed the 1 million mark. So, where is the problem? and how is my -
"For a minor- inc. Italy it is GAME OVER." remark wrong?

Your WW1 remark really stretches the point of victory and we are NOT discussing that here.

 

[Cardus]

On 3rd Sept 1943 they surrendered. As per your own calculations they had crossed the 1 million mark. So, where is the problem? and how is my -
"For a minor- inc. Italy it is GAME OVER." remark wrong?

Your WW1 remark really stretches the point of victory and we are NOT discussing that here.

No, once more you mix up things and therefore you are simply wrong. I explained you that 1 million loss was not a game over in both WWI and WWII. The reason why the country surrendered was NOT because of losses. In 1943 the country was invaded, lost Sicily and therefore only those that didn't want to see and that had nothing to loose didn't realize that it was game over. The same happened for all Axis countries: Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Can you see that?

PS
WWI example stresses the point that 1 million loss was not enough to kick out the country from the war. The opposite happened: the Italian army, instead, quickly recovered and defeated its opponent.

 

[shri]

No, once more you mix up things and therefore you are simply wrong. I explained you that 1 million loss was not a game over in both WWI and WWII. The reason why the country surrendered was NOT because of losses. In 1943 the country was invaded, lost Sicily and therefore only those that didn't want to see and that had nothing to loose didn't realize that it was game over. The same happened for all Axis countries: Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary. Can you see that?

PS
WWI example stresses the point that 1 million loss was not enough to kick out the country from the war. The opposite happened instead: the Italian army, instead, quickly recovered and defeated its opponent.

Well, in your opinion the losses didn't matter, let us assume that the Italians managed to escape with most of their forces intact from North Africa and the resulting losses were far less severe, will the Italian response have been stronger or the same?
They wouldn't have surrendered on the 3rd day of Invasion for sure.
The AXIS minors also wouldn't have surrendered so easily had their losses in previous years not been so high. For tiny countries like- Finland, Romania and Hungary, a million was a huge figure to lose.

P.S.: In WW1 too Italy was close to collapse following Caporetto and the Allies had to shoulder them up with men and material, the Germans did not have the "spare" men and material to shore up Italy initially, though later Germany did contribute an Entire Army Group under Kesselring and fought for over 18 months.

P.P.S:- The Finns unlike most others, retained almost the whole "post winter war" borders after their treaty with the USSR.

 

[Kovax]

The million man mark really doesn't fit as an "across the board" measurement. Note that the SU suffered FAR more than a million casualties. Hungary did not capitulate to the Soviets because of casualties, it surrendered because it had essentially run out of country to defend, even despite not wanting to be in the Axis in the first place.