Its not quite that bad but it is bad. What is worse is this game has been out for 18 MONTHS....If I was cynical, I'd say it's kind of like having a car with a broken rear axle while gushing over the shiny new ashtray. But I'd never be so cynical.
Does USA always join Allies after Sealion, also Sea Lion was too easy
- Thread starter Gefallener_Held
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Why would Sealion make a difference in US public oppinion? The point of Pearl Harbor was that the USA was attacked. When you get attacked it's natural to defend yourself. The UK knew what was coming when they stood with Poland against Germany. The USA didn't want that. WW2 was almost the same conflict as WW1 territorially speaking. I bet some people guessed it might just turn out better if the Germans win this time. Since the Germans are famous for their diplomatic finesse they didn't leave the Americans guessing for long.
It makes no sense to me, but I am Charles Lindbergh sort of guy. I believe there are public polls showing that a majority of AMericans did support getting involved if Germany invaded the British Isles. Britain does have close ties to the States as we were former colonies of the British Isles, and many Americans, especially then, were of Anglo or Celtic descent.
The "Shiny ashtray" means no one has smoked in the car, so you still have the new car smell!
Seriously, though, the US should suffer a bit of a penalty to NU if they declare war themselves, and get a huge boost to it if they get attacked - especially by way of a "surprise attack", but that's impossible to do in game unless you're betraying an alliance. As soon as you start justifying, or start a focus that gives a war goal, you [or the AI] get a warning about it. Focus war goals should be kept secret - unless the player or AI can learn of it by way of decryption - at least it should if the nation is at war [the German assault on Poland was preceded by a lot of aggressive anti-Polish rhetoric]. The current focus being done should be a secret till finished, unless one's decryption is better than the other side's encryption. Ideally, there should be no warning about such surprise attacks. It is a nation's sovereign responsibility to protect their own borders against mounting threats, and to keep track of those mounting threats. The AI can count what a neighbor has on the border, so an increase in force would indicate possible hostile intentions. And anything I can "see" about another nation, the AI should be able to "see" as well, and make judgements therein.
Seriously, though, the US should suffer a bit of a penalty to NU if they declare war themselves, and get a huge boost to it if they get attacked - especially by way of a "surprise attack", but that's impossible to do in game unless you're betraying an alliance. As soon as you start justifying, or start a focus that gives a war goal, you [or the AI] get a warning about it. Focus war goals should be kept secret - unless the player or AI can learn of it by way of decryption - at least it should if the nation is at war [the German assault on Poland was preceded by a lot of aggressive anti-Polish rhetoric]. The current focus being done should be a secret till finished, unless one's decryption is better than the other side's encryption. Ideally, there should be no warning about such surprise attacks. It is a nation's sovereign responsibility to protect their own borders against mounting threats, and to keep track of those mounting threats. The AI can count what a neighbor has on the border, so an increase in force would indicate possible hostile intentions. And anything I can "see" about another nation, the AI should be able to "see" as well, and make judgements therein.
Last edited:
It's the absoluteness of it that bothers me. At best the enemy should get an inkling that something may be amiss, rather than a 'ya no doubt about it - they're preparing for war' notification.
Having said that, it is a bit of a grey area. Much like you referenced in the Poland example, the act of 'justifying' often involves getting your own populace ready to accept what you deem as inevitable. Which in turn often requires acts of public propaganda citing just how bad the other guys are so it doesn't seem like such a hideous act when you declare on them.
Beyond these issues are the often hard to disguise troop buildups. I often chuckle when I recall how Hitler attempted to dupe Stalin by explaining the pre-Barbarossa buildup as nothing more than an attempt to protect the Heer from RAF bombing. He simply had to move them as far east as possible to keep them safe, or so the story went. The point being, Stalin was certainly aware the build along the border was taking place but you can never be a hundred percent certain the hen will actually fly the coop. Which brings us back to Hoi4 where the certainty is - you guessed it - a perfect hundred percent. Hence my issue.
I doubt Stalin was duped. I've read sources - some online, some printed - that indicate Barbarossa was pre-emptive; Stalin had a lot built up there, too, and most now seem to believe it was just a matter of time. Stalin is said to have once told a class of officers at Frunze - wrt the Non-Aggression Pact with Germany - that "...it is the stage curtain behind which we can work!", meaning he had no illusions about the inevitability of the two nations clashing in the near future. I have often wondered if Stalin's initial shock over the attack was more of a "Shit, I thought I had more time" combined with the combined worries about how poorly his forces fared against Finland, whether the reforms had been enough, and then there was the rep the Wehrmacht had gotten by then. In a nutshell, maybe his shock was at how his plans were upset. His forces are said to have been way too forward deployed for a proper defense.
I'm reading "Blitzkrieg" by Lloyd Clark; fascinating read. In a way, he finally explains that infamous "Halt Order" that held the panzers back, allowing the BEF to escape. Sort of a mix of worries about everything going too well, and too quickly; the fear of an Allied attack into the flank materializing [Arras]; and Rommel's ego - he may have inflated the size of the forces assaulting him in his report, and once that made it way up the chain... However, even Hoth - or maybe it was Guderian - realized after, that they really did need the rest. Two weeks with little to no sleep, running on fumes and the "candy" they had - and early form of amphetamine [then, who would have known what that stuff could do to a person].
I'm reading "Blitzkrieg" by Lloyd Clark; fascinating read. In a way, he finally explains that infamous "Halt Order" that held the panzers back, allowing the BEF to escape. Sort of a mix of worries about everything going too well, and too quickly; the fear of an Allied attack into the flank materializing [Arras]; and Rommel's ego - he may have inflated the size of the forces assaulting him in his report, and once that made it way up the chain... However, even Hoth - or maybe it was Guderian - realized after, that they really did need the rest. Two weeks with little to no sleep, running on fumes and the "candy" they had - and early form of amphetamine [then, who would have known what that stuff could do to a person].
US public opinion was very strongly pro-Allies throughout the war and even before. It just was also "we really don't want to get involved in Europe again; let the Brits/French handle it." There was also a great fear that if Hitler was successful in controlling Europe, he would use that as a base to threaten the US. It's why Congress unanimously passed a major naval expansion bill when France was overrun, because it looked like Hitler was getting closer to achieving that goal. If Hitler conquered the UK, he would be at that point, and look like an even bigger threat.
There's this image of isolationists as wanting to keep their heads in the sand, but in reality, the isolationist view was to fortify the US as Fortress America and let the Europeans sort out their own affairs. The suddenness of the German victories was undermining the idea of Fortress America as viable, and causing people to drastically overestimate German abilities and the resulting threat. Isolationism was already rapidly collapsing as a political force, and more and more Americans were seeing a war with Germany as inevitable. Ironically, one of the major anti-interventionist forces in 1940-early 1941 were the various American communist groups, who were condemning interventionists as warmongers (in large part under orders from Moscow, which was still operating under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and thus effectively pro-Axis). Barbarossa caused these groups to switch to interventionism instead, furthering the growth of pro-war sentiment.
1) Users aren't going to be able to mod this.
2) This kind of problem has existed in every HOI game - AI invasions and defence against invasions is poor. If they've been working on this game-series now for 15 years or so and the AI still can't do this well, possibly that suggests that this is a difficult problem to solve?
3) The people who are "adding stuff in China" aren't AI programmers and having them not working on that wouldn't solve any AI issues.
Again, why would the USA declare war on Germany when their major allies UK and France have just capitulated? The pro Allies sentiment is good and all but it didn't make them join the war when France fell and things looked dire for the British. What cause the USA to join the war was Pearl Harbour. I'm surprised there are no conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbour being a false flag operation (this is batshit of course) because it was so convenient for the US leadership to rile the people up. If Sealion went through the UK would have capitulated and that's the end of WW2. The USA might think about declaring war on Germany when Barbarossa starts. You don't know what Hitler's plans for after the war would have been.
Pearl Harbour was not a false flag operation--how could it be. But there is evidence that FDR and friends knew it was coming and let it happen: a gambit to get the US in the war.
The idea either in world war ii or world war i that Germany could somehow pose a threat to the United States is lunacy. Germany never had the naval power to overtake North America and probably never could
Why do you put words in my mouth I explicitly did not say - unless batshit has a different meaning to you? The problem of the USA going to war with Germany without the UK severly hinder them. They need a base of operation closer than 4000 miles.
My comment was not addressed to you specifcally, or was not characterizing your comment like you think. I was correcting you that it is credible to suggest that Roosevelt adminstration knew Pearl Harbor was coming but chose not to take preemptie measures. While not a false flag per se, it is pretty shady. Of course Hitler was stupid enough to fall into that trap while neck deep in the Russian Winter.
Actually, in previous versions of HOi2 and Hoi3, Britian could defend the English Channel and Suez canal. Although if I recall correctly, it took a couple patches. Not 18 months though.
It's true that Germany never had the naval power to threaten North America. It also never came close to having the naval power to be able to pull off Sealion, but that didn't stop the British from freaking out about it (and deploying tons of soldiers to defend Great Britain against an invasion, instead of deploying them in places like Southeast Asia where they might have actually done some good). Again, the rapid fall of France made people at the time grossly overestimate German capabilities and the threat they posed. If the UK fell as well (which should require a significantly more powerful German navy than historically, and result in German control of a good chunk of naval capacity), the US would likely feel compelled to act while it still had some allies remaining.
And the "FDR let Pearl Harbor happen" thing is absolutely a conspiracy theory with little evidence. There certainly were intelligence lapses (and Japanese-American relations had deteriorated to the point that the US assumed war was imminent), but there is zero evidence that the US government allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to go through (not least because allowing the cream of the Pacific fleet to be sunk at the opening of a major naval war would be stupid, and indeed it seriously crippled the American ability to oppose the Japanese advance in the beginning of the war).
I do not opine one way or another about whether FDR and Co knew about Pearl Harbor. I just know that itis a theory that has enough credibility to be believed by increasing numbers of people.
I am doubtful about SeaLion being able to work, but am not 100 percent convinced it could not have succeeded. I know Manstein wrote it was feasible althoughhigh risk if initiated simultaneously with the effort to gain air superiority. You also have Student's plan.
Be that as it may, American hysteria about Germany being a threat across the Atlantic is far fetched and a result of our propaganda or yellow journalism.
If you check my post, you'll see I said "attempted to dupe." I wasn't passing any judgment as to whether Stalin was or was not duped, merely stating it was Hitler's intention to attempt to dupe him. And yeah, it is kind of hard to imagine anyone falling for such a cockamamie excuse.
Sounds like a good read, and based on my own studies I'd agree that fear of too much success too quickly did indeed play a large role in the decision. Other historians also reference the fact that Hitler himself fought in the area during WWI and likely had a lingering fear about the terrain and how it could play havoc with the mobility of the panzers. Plus there was the boastful Goering who many say wanted a bigger share of the glory for his Luftwaffe, hence he reportedly reassured Hitler (with great insistence on several occasions) that he could finish them off.
And I won't even mention the face saving theory.
I've pulled off easy invasions of islands in every edition of HOI right back to 1. Typically the problem is the AI just doesn't keep enough forces at home and it's possible to slip past AI navies.
Of course it was unrealistic and farfetched. It didn't change that people thought that way, which is what FDR needed for political cover.
Easy is different than undefended. It could require some care in hoi3, which it does not now.
Last edited: