Fanatic defence of capitals. (Random militias for countries?)

[unmerged(25612)]

Countries with strong youth organizations (Germany, USSR) and overall strong feelings of national unity (Finland, UK, France...) should in my opinion recieve troops when defending key areas.

Paris is an exception. (The generals of both France and Germany gave it up without a fight, because they wished to keep the city for future generations.)

I was most amused when I read from someone`s AAR, how he had captured all of Japan`s mainland, while the Japanese armies were busy fighting in China. The issue that amused me most greatly was that he had done this with only one infantry division.

Shouldn`t countries such as Germany or Russia recieve fanatic defenders, when say Berlin or Stalingrad are at stake? Perhaps something similar to "partisans" of Victoria, but these units would pop up when defending a city. They would work with some sort of co-ordination with the dfeneding army, if there is one.

I found it most odd that one can attack and take control of large areas without meeting any resistance if no official army is defending. Could Latvia go on and take control of Turku, Tampere and Helsinki without meeting any resistance, just because the main Finnish armies are defending the Karelain Isthmus? Would Berlin be taken by a surprise attack of one lonely American paratrooper division in 1942, midst of unbeliveable axis success on all fronts?

The easiest representation that I can think of is giving all victory locations random "Defence forces".

Also during a liberative attack these "defence forces" would work as an opposite, giving the attackers a hand. (Stalingrad gives defence bonus for Russians, but if the Germans capture the city, and the Russians attack the territory, then the citizens of Stalingrad will help the Russians in liberating the area.)

It seems most terribly odd that one can so easily take control of large areas. Also their occupation should not be as easy and free as it is now, as I stated on my other thread: Occupation should not be free.

These two suggestions, if implemented, will make the game more realistic and will reduce the illogical world conquest made by small nations. (Estonia, Haiti...). Also the representation of the downsides and difficulties of war of conquest will be better represented.

 

[SecondReich]

I agree with this. But, the better solution would just to make the AI better at defending their provinces than to give them extra help.

 

[unmerged(27215)]

I would say that one of the reasons that cities were defended well was because of this 'help'

 

[unmerged(18043)]

I understand your point. It should be a AI rebuild not adding magical defenders.

 

[unmerged(26228)]

I think that the developers should research into which countries had resistance groups, and have those countries get the resistance group divisions. They wouldn't be magical defenders though, as they would maybe not be able to capture provinces on their own and were not as powerful as normal divisions. They would be like a militia, except at no cost of IC. The fix would work well with the new combat model where the fighting goes through the province, taking part of provinces.

 

[Orthank]

Not sure if resistance goups are the solution for the problem. These may (if ever) appear after annexation of country, like it was in Norway, Poland.

The problem is with AI. For example, Rome is almost always undefended, Singapur, Gibraltar very often stays without any units. If enemy units come to capital all defender units should try to reach it and help to secure.

 

[unmerged(16031)]

Raising temporary militia units would be a good addition(reduces manpower from province?)

 

[J.J.E.]

This is already somewhat portrayed through events in CORE!

 

[unmerged(25612)]

This is already somewhat portrayed through events in CORE!

Please for Christs sake understand this statement in all of its forms:

Events exist only to represent issues that can not be represented by the game engine. Events are temporary and bad fixes.

Also everything else hardcoded fit the same bill.


The game is about changing history not reliving it!

Sure that 50% of the time when Germany attacks Poland and then Denmark, Norway, France and then goes East... But what about when Germany becomes a democracy and allies with France? What about when the biggest monster of the 20th Century becomes the allignment of Switzerland, Haiti and Mongolia? What about when Paris is taken without a fight by the separatist nation of Kurland? What about when the Cola markets are monopolized by the Fun-O-Cola of the Dominican republic?

ALTERNATIVE HISTORY means changing issues, playing out the games that never happened. I do not want to see my Fascist Poland suffer from some obsecure maluses that were coded for Germany`s conquest of Poland. I want a good engine that allows me to play out various outcomes.

Infact after meeting so much of this "resistance" to good ideas, I am going to begin a new thread.

 

[Therlun]

i completely agree with idealist here.
events can be fun the first time you get them.
they may be boring the 5th time.
they ARE disturbing the 10th time when you try to play a "different" game.

 

[Prufrock451]

Please for Christ's sake:

Calm down.

You're talking about how events are bad, and hardcoding is bad... but you want automatic miracle units to spring up whenever keypoints are threatened?

Guess how that would be implemented?

"March 20, 1941: Germany received Partisan Units at Breslau!"
"March 20, 1941: Germany received Partisan Units at Danzig!"

 

[Semi-Lobster]

I agree, a better AI is what's needed, units magically popping up out of nowhere is not the best way to go about it. If the AI is losing by that much already that their capital is threated then they should already be in 'panic mode' and should be pumping out militia. It's just a matter of the AI

 

[unmerged(25612)]

No, not units popping out for free.

In a city like Leningrad there were 3 million RUSSIAN people. Do you think that these RUSSIAN people were just going to watch by when a small FINNISH regiment comes up and says: "You are, like I don`t know, occupied, or something..."

No they are not!!!!

In Leningrad alone the firemen, police, militias (Soviet union, kolhoses, police state, remember?) would equalize a whole division! And they are just gonna watch by, only because the organized army happened to be 3 kilometres South?!?!?!?

I am not saying that some soldiers should magically spawn here and there, but it would be nice if there would be some resistance in major cities. This all with a certain randomity.

Also if the Germans happen to take Stalingrad and a month later the Russians attack the city, are the people just going to watch by? Not help their brothers and sisters helping to free the city?



Oh and my resistance twoards events is already discussed in another thread. I will not continue that conversation here.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

Guess how that would be implemented?

"March 20, 1941: Germany received Partisan Units at Breslau!"
"March 20, 1941: Germany received Partisan Units at Danzig!"

No. Why would the civilians pop up in Danzig in 1941? They are occupied and furthermore they are national provinces of Germany.

I only said that when attacked by a small force, big cities should be able to defend themselves, and the population of these cities should participate to help their own soldiers during ddefences or attacks in the vicinity of the city.

 

[Prufrock451]

*snort*

If you're playing the Soviets and you're not at Danzig by March of 41 under 1.06, you're doing something wrong.

I know what you said. And it's a hardcoded solution that would be represented by an event. It'd be worse spam than the "Sphere of Influence Threatened" message.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

*snort*

If you're playing the Soviets and you're not at Danzig by March of 41 under 1.06, you're doing something wrong.

I know what you said. And it's a hardcoded solution that would be represented by an event. It'd be worse spam than the "Sphere of Influence Threatened" message.

First of I would like to quote yourself with the words of "Calm down!".

And secondly I`d like to state that I am not playing HOI at the moment.

And thirdly I would like to remind that this is just as "hardcoded" as is the fact that you can order units to be built units and they will be built.



Danzig, Paris, Berlin, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Wien, Tokyo, London, New York, Washington DC... Just to name a few of the cities that in my opinion should be able to defend themselves from the attack of one lonely unsupported infantry division... This is not only realistic, logic, fair and a bunch of other things, but also very easy to implement. Furthermore I see no objection for it, and as majority of the people who have responded to this thread support this motion, I see really no point in this "argument" with you as long as you fail to back up your opinion in any way.