Democracies, naval invasions and national unity.

[shri]

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.

Please read what i wrote-

"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."

The USSR - 1 million or even 10 million doesn't matter maybe 25 million is their limit, for the Germans and Japanese anything less than 5 million doesn't matter, somewhere around 10 million is their limit. It was all relative, each nation had its own breaking point and this is why they - "threw in the towel".

 

[Red_warning]

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.

Neither did Finland surrender because of casualties, they surrendered because a tactical checkmate that could eventually have lead to full annexation as a soviet republic, but were given a deal where they could remain independent at the cost of territory.

 

[Cardus]

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.

For the third time you mix many things together therefore your deductions are wrong. The discussion was about crazy/random landing. It was pointed out that the losses should matter. Then you came with this peculiar idea that for Italy 1 million is the end. I have showed, instead, that this was not the case in both WWI and WWII. From my side this is the end of the discussion.

PS
Your ideas are fallacious and are based on wrong information. As I said feel free to open another thread if you need additional explanations.

 

[Dinglehoff]

They should have tied geographical losses, land, sea, and air losses; and strategic/logistic bombing damage to dissent or war-weariness (declining in severity by these types). This dissent/WW should then have also been tied into various actions, negative modifiers, or restrictions to the suffering nation, depending on the government type and policies.

 

[Cardus]

They should have tied geographical losses, land, sea, and air losses; and strategic/logistic bombing damage to dissent or war-weariness (declining in severity by these types). This dissent/WW should then have also been tied into various actions, negative modifiers, or restrictions to the suffering nation, depending on the government type and policies.

Losses can be men or land. Losses can be in Vietnam or in Europe. Losses can be over a decade or just for 2/3 years. Losses can be for defending the home country or for attacking another country. In any case, as it was pointed out at beginning of this thread, who fails an invasion and suffers the losses should be penalized.

 

[Dinglehoff]

Losses can be men or land. Losses can be in Vietnam or in Europe. Losses can be over a decade or just for 2/3 years. Losses can be for defending the home country or for attacking another country. In any case, as it was pointed out at beginning of this thread, who fails an invasion and suffers the losses should be penalized.

That's why I included geographical losses along with the manpower type losses.

 

[HerrWeltkrieg]

So lets say a percentage of population based on your ideology and laws, could be increased or decreased by cabinet members?

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

Wouldn't it be easier to reintroduce a dissent variable into the game than try to make National Unity changes as hoc?
Then you'd be able to have dissent rise due to casualties in non-core provinces as a function of government type or whatnot to provide a curb on infinite Diepe raids.

Lowering dissent should be harder than in HOI3 too, no more just cranking civilian production during a war to make the angry populous go away.
Ideally it would be a mix of achieving wargoals and a fixed monthly decrease based on government type and ministers.

The effects of dissent could be tunned to achieve a balanced effect. Such as attacking with high dissent is much worse than defending and distance from cores + government type could have modifiers as well. Finally industry at home would be affected as a modifier on the number of civilian factories required for civil goods output.

 

[Secret Master]

I don't know, folks.

It still seems to me that any invasion that fails on a scale that should have the political impacts being discussed should also cost so much men and material to make another such invasion impractical for a long time regardless of what the people back home think.

 

[keynes2.0]

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.

I'm less concerned with the consequences of a stupid invasion not being modeled as with the stupid invasion happening in the first place. Naval invasion were massive undertakings. They shouldn't be launched unless they have a very high chance of success. It's sort of like discussing the "logical" results of a fascist winning the 1936 US Presidential election. The terms of the question itself beg you to say "whoa, how the hell did we get here?"

 

[Cardus]

I don't know, folks.

It still seems to me that any invasion that fails on a scale that should have the political impacts being discussed should also cost so much men and material to make another such invasion impractical for a long time regardless of what the people back home think.

I agree

 

[Secret Master]

I agree

By the way, speaking of political impact....

Would anyone want a boost to domestic politics for a country that successfully defeated such an invasion? If Germany pushes Overlord back into the ocean, should the Nazis get a boost of some kind or a national unity increase or a dissent reduction?

 

[keynes2.0]

I think the boost is that you've won the game. Rich get richer mechanics are generally bad. The nations were in for a long hard slog.

 

[Dinglehoff]

By the way, speaking of political impact....

Would anyone want a boost to domestic politics for a country that successfully defeated such an invasion? If Germany pushes Overlord back into the ocean, should the Nazis get a boost of some kind or a national unity increase or a dissent reduction?

No, I would not want that. Germany pushing Overlord back out should suffer the political hit from whatever losses they suffer while doing it. That the Western Allies may have suffered more is their problem.

It still seems to me that any invasion that fails on a scale that should have the political impacts being discussed should also cost so much men and material to make another such invasion impractical for a long time regardless of what the people back home think.

Whether more such invasions are practical shouldn't negate the consequences of failure.

 

[Commissar Yossarian]

By the way, speaking of political impact....

Would anyone want a boost to domestic politics for a country that successfully defeated such an invasion? If Germany pushes Overlord back into the ocean, should the Nazis get a boost of some kind or a national unity increase or a dissent reduction?

I think a dissent penalty would be enough. As long as dissent couldn't just be bought off like in HOI3 then I see no problem. The significant hit in dissent would already make attacking on other fronts very tough as well as peanalizing the IC output of the oposing country.
Think about it this way. Overloard fails and America/UK eat a 20-40% dissent penalty. They eat an attack penalty and industrial output penalty for a whole bunch of months that allow the Axis to focus on Russia un-impeded for an entire season, or the Axis can turn on the remaining Allied troops in Italy/NA and kick them out. That's more than enough for the Axis as a benefit.

I would like to see the completion of war goals lowering dissent and war weariness increasing it though. This would help alleviate the silly "Mraww" I attack everything expansionist wave of Germany, even against closely aligned countries simply because it's expedient. Also it would give Germany/Japan a real way to fight out a victory against a human opponent. Do a good enough job of holding onto fortress Europe and Germany can force the Allies into a white peace or what not.

 

[Secret Master]

I think the boost is that you've won the game. Rich get richer mechanics are generally bad. The nations were in for a long hard slog.

You do make an excellent point, but I am reminded of Hitler's approval ratings after the Battle of France.

I was thinking that if Germany defeated Overlord completely, it might prevent crumbling of the regime despite losses on the Eastern Front.

No, I would not want that. Germany pushing Overlord back out should suffer the political hit from whatever losses they suffer while doing it. That the Western Allies may have suffered more is their problem.


Whether more such invasions are practical shouldn't negate the consequences of failure.

Maybe, but there would seem little point to adding an extra mechanic that does little or nothing.

"Mr. President, we took so many losses during Overlord that we cannot be ready for another invasion like it for years. Perhaps as late as 1948."

"Damn the Germans! What else could go wrong?"

"Mr. President, the American people will no longer support invasions like Overlord. They are tired of the losses."

"Damn the..... wait. We aren't going to launch an invasion any time soon. Can we mollify the American people for a few years while we build up for Overlord again through actions that increase national unity and decrease dissent?"

"Sure thing, Mr. President."

"Whew. I thought we were in trouble for a second."

Also it would give Germany/Japan a real way to fight out a victory against a human opponent. Do a good enough job of holding onto fortress Europe and Germany can force the Allies into a white peace or what not.

Yes, completion of war goals should have practical political effects. Countries with borderline politics should feel better after completing goals. (I'm looking at you, Axis minors.)

 

[keynes2.0]

You do make an excellent point, but I am reminded of Hitler's approval ratings after the Battle of France.

Okay but if the German invasion of France goes horribly, the game isn't going to represent dissent there. The game isn't going to represent the agriculture situation which forced Germany into an attack. The game just assumes that Germany is in for the long slog. The much more important thing is that the AI shouldn't launch really stupid invasions willy nilly.

 

[Invader_Canuck]

When I started this thread, I wasn't really sold on national unity as the topic of the thread. Mechanically it doesn't really make sense because it covers too many factors.

There are many facets of war fighting. Is it an offensive war? Is it a defensive war? The United States could certainly lose enough troops in Europe to sign peace with whoever they were fighting. However, in the face of an invasion the USA would be an entirely different animal. You could see 10-20 million losses and the country is going to keep fighting.

A dissent mechanic should probably be introduced, and national unity if it isn't already tracked on a per-conflict basis should be.

Dissent would function as a penalty to industry/logistics etc.

So the way I see this working is, casualties impact national unity and dissent. Dissent is universal, national unity is per conflict. Casualties taken on home soil cause zero, or next to no national unity and some degree of dissent. Casualties taken on foreign soil (neighbor) cause some dissent and some national unity penalties to THAT specific conflict. Casualties suffered overseas cause significant dissent and significant national unity penalties to that specific conflict.

In the case of a massive world war, the USA losing a million men in India is going to be a lot different than the USSR losing a million men in Moscow. The repercussions for both of these situations are radically different. Likewise, the USSR losing a million men invading Japan, versus the USA losing a million men defending Boston. Again, the USSR would have internal problems with such losses, whereas the USA would have virtually no problems internally as a result of defending Boston.

Whether or not these suggestions are realistic additions, I think the depth of game-play would be expanded greatly by looking at some way to involved these ideas in the strategic layer. It's just wrong for the USA to lose 50 divisions or so in failed invasions and go about business as usual.

 

[Axe99]

When I started this thread, I wasn't really sold on national unity as the topic of the thread. Mechanically it doesn't really make sense because it covers too many factors.

There are many facets of war fighting. Is it an offensive war? Is it a defensive war? The United States could certainly lose enough troops in Europe to sign peace with whoever they were fighting. However, in the face of an invasion the USA would be an entirely different animal. You could see 10-20 million losses and the country is going to keep fighting.

A dissent mechanic should probably be introduced, and national unity if it isn't already tracked on a per-conflict basis should be.

Dissent would function as a penalty to industry/logistics etc.

So the way I see this working is, casualties impact national unity and dissent. Dissent is universal, national unity is per conflict. Casualties taken on home soil cause zero, or next to no national unity and some degree of dissent. Casualties taken on foreign soil (neighbor) cause some dissent and some national unity penalties to THAT specific conflict. Casualties suffered overseas cause significant dissent and significant national unity penalties to that specific conflict.

In the case of a massive world war, the USA losing a million men in India is going to be a lot different than the USSR losing a million men in Moscow. The repercussions for both of these situations are radically different. Likewise, the USSR losing a million men invading Japan, versus the USA losing a million men defending Boston. Again, the USSR would have internal problems with such losses, whereas the USA would have virtually no problems internally as a result of defending Boston.

Whether or not these suggestions are realistic additions, I think the depth of game-play would be expanded greatly by looking at some way to involved these ideas in the strategic layer. It's just wrong for the USA to lose 50 divisions or so in failed invasions and go about business as usual.

I like the sound of these ideas, but they could be a little tricky to balance out in terms of impact. For example, Germany lost however many people in one hit when the Sixth Army was surrounded, and another 200,000+ when Tunisia was taken, and however many hundreds of thousands on the grind of the Eastern front, but the regime remained relatively robust (there were a few assassination attempts though, so I guess there was some dissent). Maybe you could get around it by a national spirit (as I'm not sure a Government-based approach would cover it, as I doubt Italy would have been near as persistent in the face of similar losses)? I still like the general gist of it .

 

[Dinglehoff]

Maybe, but there would seem little point to adding an extra mechanic that does little or nothing.

"Mr. President, we took so many losses during Overlord that we cannot be ready for another invasion like it for years. Perhaps as late as 1948."

"Damn the Germans! What else could go wrong?"

"Mr. President, the American people will no longer support invasions like Overlord. They are tired of the losses."

"Damn the..... wait. We aren't going to launch an invasion any time soon. Can we mollify the American people for a few years while we build up for Overlord again through actions that increase national unity and decrease dissent?"

"Sure thing, Mr. President."

"Whew. I thought we were in trouble for a second."

The wars in HOI can last all game, for years and years, so it isn't pointless to include a mechanic that won't do little or nothing, which shouldn't be designed impotently and incompetently like the one you are narrating. You are also choosing to pretend that there is no way conditions in history or the game circumstances won't force a years long wait to continue the war. I believe you have acknowledged that hypothetical DDay failures would be a drop in the bucket and virtually meaningless compared to the Eastern Front, and compared to all of the United States available power; so it wouldn't be a 4 year wait until operations resume, and it wouldn't be a simple matter of bribing the voters while the world war gets put on hold.