Expeditionary/Volunteer forces!

[Axe99]

No, the US really didn't get much back beyond the ships.

However...

What you may be thinking of is reverse Lend-Lease (Reciprocal Aid) where allies of the US gave the US stuff. Canada and New Zealand gave the US tons of Reciprocal Aid (in 1945, I think New Zealand gave the US more aid than she received in Lend-Lease). There were also joint projects that used US financing but allied labor to build facilities. It's Lend-Lease because the US financed it and sent the materials, but the allies in question did their part.

You may also be thinking of Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union that was financed by US banks, but was British war material. So, that's Lend-Lease from the US, but it's Churchills and Valentines going to the Soviets.

So, the US wasn't getting back used Shermans and trucks, but her allies were sometimes giving stuff to the US to help.

It was the ships I was thinking of primarily (a bunch of escort carriers and landing craft I think mainly), but I had this nagging thought at the back of my mind there was more than that, but just went a-googling and you're quite right about the rest, must have just been my brain being a bit off, thanks for setting me straight .

 

[FOARP]

You shouldn't. They're two different things afterall.

Only in-game. Historically they've been in the context of forces intervening in a civil war (e.g., the Russian civil war).

 

[Lifthrasil]

I dislike that the *sender* of volunteers gets to order them around. Volunteer divisions are part of the *receivers* army and the receiver should be able to do with them whatever he pleases, so he can fight an efficiant war. Since you can't really communicate and coordinate with the AI, concerting a consistent war effort with troops from many different countries will be impossible if I can't control foreign volunteers in my army.
I understand its cooler if the German player can influence where his troops fight in spain, but its just unrealistic and more importantly bad for the gameplay.
You get my drift?

 

[blue_yonder]

@Lifthrasil -

Your drift is got. I hate fun with a passion and feel the same about coolness, but I do like risk/reward. Volunteers offer two rewards - land XP and a valuable ally if our side wins – so it needs a counterbalancing risk; control of our forces handed over to some local incompetent warlord (aka the AI), and with that, the chance that many of them might never eat sushi or bratwurst again.

 

[fabius]

@Lifthrasil -

Your drift is got. I hate fun with a passion and feel the same about coolness, but I do like risk/reward. Volunteers offer two rewards - land XP and a valuable ally if our side wins – so it needs a counterbalancing risk; control of our forces handed over to some local incompetent warlord (aka the AI), and with that, the chance that many of them might never eat sushi or bratwurst again.

If the Spanish Civil War is balanced, and even the SU and others could send forces to fight against you. Then the risk of loosing whole divisions in a foreign war where it's hard/impossible to send more.

 

[Lifthrasil]

@Lifthrasil -

Your drift is got. I hate fun with a passion and feel the same about coolness, but I do like risk/reward. Volunteers offer two rewards - land XP and a valuable ally if our side wins – so it needs a counterbalancing risk; control of our forces handed over to some local incompetent warlord (aka the AI), and with that, the chance that many of them might never eat sushi or bratwurst again.

While you seemingly agree with me, I have the feeling that your post is kinda sarcastic :-/
It's not just that MY troops should be controlled by the AI, it's also if the AI sends ME some volunteers (spanish/italian divisions in Barbarossa), I am the highest military leader in this theatre and I want to put them were I see fit. It would be horrible if the Italian AI just wanders off randomly, uses up supply and maybe opens a gap for advancing soviets.

 

[FOARP]

I dislike that the *sender* of volunteers gets to order them around. Volunteer divisions are part of the *receivers* army and the receiver should be able to do with them whatever he pleases, so he can fight an efficiant war. Since you can't really communicate and coordinate with the AI, concerting a consistent war effort with troops from many different countries will be impossible if I can't control foreign volunteers in my army.
I understand its cooler if the German player can influence where his troops fight in spain, but its just unrealistic and more importantly bad for the gameplay.
You get my drift?

I get the reasoning behind what you're saying, but if you'd played HOI1, you'd know just how awesome this feature actually is - it basically gives you a mini-game to play whilst you're building up your economy, and helps newbies get used to commanding forces by starting small.

On your main point, well, again I get what you're saying, but there's been plenty of times when the expeditionary/volunteer forces ended up being the leading force - the Chinese "Volunteers" in the Korean war were under Chinese command, for example. The Condor legion and CVT didn't simply follow Franco's orders either.

Anyway, we have no idea how this is being implemented, and it may be perfectly possible to allow the receiver to take control.

 

[blue_yonder]

... it's also if the AI sends ME some volunteers (spanish/italian divisions in Barbarossa)..

- but that's a different scenario entirely. Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, volunteers can only be sent to civil wars, not wars-proper. Expeditionary and volunteer forces are not interchangeable terms, so we'll wait and see what differentiations are made between them.

 

[Lifthrasil]

I get the reasoning behind what you're saying, but if you'd played HOI1, you'd know just how awesome this feature actually is - it basically gives you a mini-game to play whilst you're building up your economy, and helps newbies get used to commanding forces by starting small.

Anyway, we have no idea how this is being implemented, and it may be perfectly possible to allow the receiver to take control.

Yes I see and agree that it makes a fun mini game to lead a mini-war during peacetime. I hope that what you said is true and that the player can A) decide if he wants the receiver to take control and B) that the receiver/player can decide if HE wants to take control over AI-volunteers.
With humans, there is less trouble if every player controls his own volunteers, because you can coordinate with humans better. It would also make for some fun negotiations if you have to negotiate with several parties who applies his troops where and who has to take the greater losses/risk

 

[FOARP]

- but that's a different scenario entirely. Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, volunteers can only be sent to civil wars, not wars-proper. Expeditionary and volunteer forces are not interchangeable terms, so we'll wait and see what differentiations are made between them.

It's far from clear that the game distinguishes in this way, and logically there's no reason why it would do so. Spain sent a division of volunteers (División Azul) to fight in Russia, for example, and the Americans sent a volunteer air-unit to fight the Japanese in China. A more logical set-up would be volunteers being used where the country concerned is not yet at war with the enemy that will be fought by the volunteers.

 

[Caesar15]

I dislike that the *sender* of volunteers gets to order them around. Volunteer divisions are part of the *receivers* army and the receiver should be able to do with them whatever he pleases, so he can fight an efficiant war. Since you can't really communicate and coordinate with the AI, concerting a consistent war effort with troops from many different countries will be impossible if I can't control foreign volunteers in my army.
I understand its cooler if the German player can influence where his troops fight in spain, but its just unrealistic and more importantly bad for the gameplay.
You get my drift?

If the sender of the volunteers basically gave them to Spain then wouldn't they just he expeditionary forces?

 

[Lifthrasil]

If the sender of the volunteers basically gave them to Spain then wouldn't they just he expeditionary forces?

Yes. I don't really see the difference in those 2 concepts in the game. Divisions sent over in a civil war are called "volunteers" while in a war you call them "exp. forces".
The only determant here would be the number of troops you can send, but it doesn't seem to be a big difference other than the name change...

 

[FOARP]

Yes. I don't really see the difference in those 2 concepts in the game. Divisions sent over in a civil war are called "volunteers" while in a war you call them "exp. forces".
The only determant here would be the number of troops you can send, but it doesn't seem to be a big difference other than the name change...

Probably both the number limitation and the increase in world tensions are the important distinction here - expeditionary forces (in game terms) are deployed openly in a war that has already been declared, whereas volunteers are essentially a subterfuge, albeit a fairly transparent one, and hence increase tensions.

 

[13Patrick]

What is the difference between volunteers and expeditionary forces? Both of them can be controlled by the sender-state.

 

[FOARP]

What is the difference between volunteers and expeditionary forces? Both of them can be controlled by the sender-state.

In real terms, no great difference. In game terms there appear to be limitations on volunteers that do not apply to expeditionary forces, but this is not clear yet.

 

[FUregistration]

This is proof, if proof were needed, that yes, the Devs definitely listen to the discussions on the forum since this is exactly the kind of thing a lot of people have been interested in seeing.

Like you I'm very happy to see this new mechanic in HoI4, but saying that this is proof of the devs listening... what about all the other issues people been saying and pointing out that were never addressed/fixed/implemented? And your point devours itself, you say that this is a feature that wasn't seen since HoI1, so the devs only listened to the need for this mechanics after 2 games in the series after the original one?

Anyway, I'm glad this mechanic is implemented.

 

[jamesd]

No, the US really didn't get much back beyond the ships.

However...

What you may be thinking of is reverse Lend-Lease (Reciprocal Aid) where allies of the US gave the US stuff. Canada and New Zealand gave the US tons of Reciprocal Aid (in 1945, I think New Zealand gave the US more aid than she received in Lend-Lease). There were also joint projects that used US financing but allied labor to build facilities. It's Lend-Lease because the US financed it and sent the materials, but the allies in question did their part.

You may also be thinking of Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union that was financed by US banks, but was British war material. So, that's Lend-Lease from the US, but it's Churchills and Valentines going to the Soviets.

So, the US wasn't getting back used Shermans and trucks, but her allies were sometimes giving stuff to the US to help.

You missed Australia, which supplied more reciprocal aid to the US than it received in lend lease over the course of the entire war.

 

[LordOfWar16]

- There doesn't seem to be a hard-cap for expeditionary forces. I'm guessing the world-tension increase is the controlling factor that stops you redeploying the entire Wehrmacht to Spain, right?

- The SCW seems to finish pretty quickly.
​

Like I said, it looks like it's going to be awesome!

You can see that germany can only send 2 divisions to spain and not more. It is capped how many troops you can send.

For the Spanish civil war ending so fast, its because germany and japan sent pretty strong divisions fighting weak malitia units. If you would send lend lease instead it would take longer but also increases world tension less.

 

[Caesar15]

Yes. I don't really see the difference in those 2 concepts in the game. Divisions sent over in a civil war are called "volunteers" while in a war you call them "exp. forces".
The only determant here would be the number of troops you can send, but it doesn't seem to be a big difference other than the name change...

Expeditionary forces are your guys under command of the guys you're giving it to them. Volunteers are people you get to control as seen in the video and expeditionary forces are just divisions you lend to the country in question.

 

[rjohansen]

Japan sending volunteers to Spain would be a joke, sure it's not in the game? Where do you find this info? And 4 divisions? What is going on. Isn't this game trying to be even a tiny bit realistic?