Development Diary #22 - 1st of April 2009

[unmerged(104627)]

Suppose I am equador and go to war with peru. After taking one province, neither side has the manpower nor industry nor military strength to do anything at all. Basically, this dev diary is saying that we must now be in an eternal war (e.g., no white peace or the ability to negotiate peace for that one province?)

Just cast my vote with the lot, I was not happy to read about the removal of peace negotiations (at least the way it seems to be explained here).

 

[The Great Duck]

The new peace negotiations system doesnt look so good...And you should also think of ahistorical possibilities as well as mods,e.g. what if I play with Brazil and want to conquer only a province of Argentina?Annexation doesnt seem as the only realistic option here...

 

[unmerged(19967)]

you need to read the dev diary again. and specifically the part you quoted.

I read it a few times... what qualifies as uncontested strategic warfare? How many troops on the ground are necessary (number of provinces I would assume)? Which provinces would qualify (Okinawa, Iwo Jima, or only the Home Islands)?

Germany and Japan did not capitulate until the bitter end as we all know.

The requirements/design is sparsely covered in the Dev Diary, and I assume that is intentional, but it naturally leads to questions such as the ones I posed.

 

[unmerged(52476)]

As I understand it, you can lower national unity with strategic warfare, e.g. bombing. A nation with lowered national unity will then easier surrender when it is invaded by ground troops.

What I do not understand is the part that a successful attack reduces national unity, a successful defense increases it. To what refers attack and defense, or what determines the success?

I.e., when A bombs a province of B, but during that more of A's planes are shot down than infrastructure of B is destroyed, it would count as successful defense or what?

Maybe I miss something obvious, but can someone please explain this to me? Thanks!

 

[unmerged(52476)]

I read it a few times... what qualifies as uncontested strategic warfare? How many troops on the ground are necessary (number of provinces I would assume)? Which provinces would qualify (Okinawa, Iwo Jima, or only the Home Islands)?

Germany and Japan did not capitulate until the bitter end as we all know.

The requirements/design is sparsely covered in the Dev Diary, and I assume that is intentional, but it naturally leads to questions such as the ones I posed.

I think Johan referred to the "you still need troops on the ground" part.

 

[unmerged(1823)]

to explain it in clear terms.

National Unity = Percentage of IC that needs to be occupied by enemy to force surrender events.

 

[zeekater]

I'm sorry because I don't get it. If a country rules even small islands it will not be beaten until the very last piece of rock will be conquered?

Poland was completely taken and a goverment in exile still existed in england

When you 'beat' england by invading, why would you get control of all the colonies as well? It's not because you've beaten the english that their colonies will suddenly start working for you and shipping resources to you, you need need to land some troops to gain control

Belgium and Holland both got beaten senseless, but Germany never gained control of their colonies.

 

[kstanb]

Suppose I am equador and go to war with peru. After taking one province, neither side has the manpower nor industry nor military strength to do anything at all. Basically, this dev diary is saying that we must now be in an eternal war (e.g., no white peace or the ability to negotiate peace for that one province?)

Just cast my vote with the lot, I was not happy to read about the removal of peace negotiations (at least the way it seems to be explained here).

Maybe a solution would be that only neutrals countries can get peace treaties, while the 3 factions fights unitl the bitter end (or until an event finish the war)

 

[dpdlc]

to explain it in clear terms.

National Unity = Percentage of IC that needs to be occupied by enemy to force surrender events.

So uncontested strategic bombing reduces, both the national unity and IC of provinces bombed this seems like a double win....

Bomb the distant factories to reduce IC, while capturing undamaged ones near the front to trigger peace...

 

[unmerged(19967)]

to explain it in clear terms.

National Unity = Percentage of IC that needs to be occupied by enemy to force surrender events.

Do some states have a much higher threshold of percentage required than others?

 

[unmerged(52476)]

So uncontested strategic bombing reduces, both the national unity and IC of provinces bombed this seems like a double win....

Bomb the distant factories to reduce IC, while capturing undamaged ones near the front to trigger peace...

But if the system is similar to HoI2, you will destroy most of the IC when you capture a province anyways... so the clever part would be to bomb the near ones, then capture them and get peace with the factories further away intact.

 

[Meanmanturbo]

Do some states have a much higher threshold of percentage required than others?

I guess some laws (purges and so on) are only availeble to dictatorships, and the effects of these laws are reducing unity loss. Only a guess though

 

[unmerged(138740)]

to explain it in clear terms.

National Unity = Percentage of IC that needs to be occupied by enemy to force surrender events.

Ok. Easy to understand - the lower unity the less part of country must be taken.
And how about wars like USSR - Finnland? Will it be always required one country to be defeated (surrender) to negotiate peace? How will it look? Is the Soviets good will that will decide that only Karelia will be taken from them and not whole country occupied? Will they have nothing to say? It looks little weird... I thought that engine should solve as much as possible problems and I see that we need to go back to the events system (or decisions in this case: 'take Karelia')...
Or am I gettin something wron here?

 

[PIT_AMERO]

One more question: what about the unpredictability of the history that you wanted to bring in the game/engine? Maybe a more realistic (less fanatic?) Churchill would surrender after the French defeat.

And what is the "realistic" about that to surrender only because one country (even not the whole) on the continent did it?

 

[unmerged(122939)]

All the happiness that I had while reading this DD turn into a complete sadness because of this mentionated inability of reaching a peace treaty, that will mean the end of all the joy that I had playing with Chile in HoI2, hell, I even play more with my country that with all the majors powers together.
This is worst than my worsts fears about this game . I have no words to show my extreme dissapointment .

 

[unmerged(38794)]

Can espionage / coups be used to impact unity?
Like the Germans spreading fake Nostradamus prophecies in France to make them surrender, for example.

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Can espionage / coups be used to impact unity?

Yes, I think that's possible.

 

[Metz]

I think Goebbels should be added in as Minister of Propaganda. He was a important figure in all of this.

 

[vertinox]

And how about wars like USSR - Finnland? Will it be always required one country to be defeated (surrender) to negotiate peace? How will it look? Is the Soviets good will that will decide that only Karelia will be taken from them and not whole country occupied? Will they have nothing to say? It looks little weird... I thought that engine should solve as much as possible problems and I see that we need to go back to the events system (or decisions in this case: 'take Karelia')...
Or am I gettin something wron here?

I think the total war issue needs to be taken a look at a bit more. It should really be based on ideology and war exhaustion.

Japan and Germany might really have been exceptions rather than the rule because of their systems of government led to unreasonable exceptions on how the war would end.

Had Valkyrie succeeded and Hitler was assassinated and the NSDAP party ousted, there might have been a conditional surrender of Germany.

Had Germany successfully repelled D-Day, there might have been a settlement with the Soviets.

Either way... Perhaps this would be a moot point if the AI is smart enough to know when it is beaten and stops playing offensively and focus on holding on to their gains and delaying any more losses. (Yes Germany had a historical problem with this)

Rather than the AI's being suicidal and constantly attacking, there needs to be a point at which they know they are beat and are act accordingly.

 

[unmerged(37697)]

Rather than the AI's being suicidal and constantly attacking, there needs to be a point at which they know they are beat and are act accordingly.

Hear, hear!