For this Hoi, can troops defect and fight along side with another country?

[unmerged(61232)]

I think this topic is merging with the topic about "picking sides in the Spanish civil war". That playable "civil war" aspect of HoI3 has endless potential for the entire game. The Spanish Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the situation in Romania/Hungary/Bulgaria as divisions choose sides, as well as any number of althistory national disintegrations, have an entirely new and completely intriguing aspect to them.

Troops defecting and fighting alongside their former enemy, besides isolated occurences (like the previously mentioned RLA), really only occur in civil wars. This "defection" suggestion can just be incorporated into national civil war situations.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

Loyality- depending on national unity would be fine for that job - there is nothing like that in HoI3 (at least we dont no about that) but that would be great.
It could be also nice for sorrounded divisions that are going to be deastroyed and in normal situation would just shatter. Shattering into opposing forces pool - Russians under Vlassov (for Germany or better under some Russian Liberation Army - which could work like gov in exile), NT China under Commies or in SCW.

 

[PIT_AMERO]

Loyality- depending on national unity would be fine for that job - there is nothing like that in HoI3 (at least we dont no about that) but that would be great.
It could be also nice for sorrounded divisions that are going to be deastroyed and in normal situation would just shatter. Shattering into opposing forces pool - Russians under Vlassov (for Germany or better under some Russian Liberation Army - which could work like gov in exile), NT China under Commies or in SCW.

Nah, I don't think that such thing is realistical, especially if we didn't put "national unity" into the account.

 

[Vasious]

Civil Wars atleast Rome:VV has commnaders that can swtich sides with thier Armies

 

[Porkman]

Civil Wars atleast Rome:VV has commnaders that can swtich sides with thier Armies

This exact mechanic would be the right one to use for China. But no other nations in the period had the same warlord situation.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

Nah, I don't think that such thing is realistical, especially if we didn't put "national unity" into the account.

? I didnt quite understand - I said about unity... Maybe my Eng isnt as good as I want it to be
National unity and government type (especially treatment of opposition - so police laws, banning parties and represions) should affect loyality of generals and divisions. And then there should be a % of chance to defect.
Higher for units sorrounded and "deastroyed" (which could work in a similiar way like shattering) than regular divisions switching sides - those only in civil wars and not to the foreign opponents.

Thats IMO how it could work - but I doubt we will see any kind of defecting except in the beginning of civil wars - and that will rather simulate split betwen fightind sides at the begining than later switching sides by units.

EDIT:
i hope you understand what I mean - my english is really terrible :wacko:

 

[bz249]

This exact mechanic would be the right one to use for China. But no other nations in the period had the same warlord situation.

Vichy and Free France is quite similar... so defection to Free France should be an option too.

 

[unmerged(131221)]

And when allies are loosing and being beaten badly to Vichy

 

[Porkman]

Vichy and Free France is quite similar... so defection to Free France should be an option too.

That's not what I meant, Vichy and France, if they went to war would definitely need some sort of defection system.

The point about Rome is that in China, the warlords were essentially feudal lords with personal armies, territories and loyalty. They all had designations under the nationalist military, but they functioned like medieval princes.

This is why the Rome mechanic would work perfectly for China.

It doesn't work as a good defection model for the European nations where divisions switching sides was based more on ideology and less on personal loyalty. These were professional militaries and while personal considerations were important, they weren't paramount. No Bulgarian division commander was thinking about how committing their troops to the Soviet side would affect their future personal revenue from taxing the opium trade in Pleven. Charles De Gaul wasn't going to tell Petain that switching sides would make him the de facto ruler of Marseilles.

In China, a warlord's troops were the source of tax revenue, influence, and personal power. Nationalist sentiments and ideology came after the first three considerations. They were feudal lords as well as military commanders, a situation that was not true anywhere else. This is why China would be perfectly modeled by a defection system from one of Paradox's earlier games, but such a system would not really fit the rest of the world and thus I would argue for a different defection system for HOI3, based on national unity, dissent, and the state of the divisions on the ground.

 

[Punderland]

Hey man! Isn't it intriguing! It is gamey and make more excitment! When you are low on reserve and fighting stength, you can desperately try to persuade or capture to strengthen yrself, or die trying!!!. I know Lativia and Estonia has the same stituation as Nat. China forces when Germans marched in their countries. They thought Germans were liberator and they switchs side from Red to facist.

 

[Porkman]

Hey man! Isn't it intriguing! It is gamey and make more excitment! When you are low on reserve and fighting stength, you can desperately try to persuade or capture to strengthen yrself, or die trying!!!. I know Lativia and Estonia has the same stituation as Nat. China forces when Germans marched in their countries. They thought Germans were liberator and they switchs side from Red to facist.

Did the Latvian army just slap a swastika on their armbands and go march into the Soviet Union? no.

The Latvian army had ceased to exist after the Soviet occupation in 1940.

I am talking about defections of division size formations when in militarily hopeless situations during civil wars.

The Latvian situation is related to manpower from captured territory.

Even if we are talking about nations switching factions, that's more of a diplomatic issue. Only after the nation had split via some sort of diplomatic mechanic, would the civil war/defecting when surrounded mechanic come into play.

Not really the topic of this thread.

 

[Punderland]

Did the Latvian army just slap a swastika on their armbands and go march into the Soviet Union? no.

The Latvian army had ceased to exist after the Soviet occupation in 1940.

I am talking about defections of division size formations when in militarily hopeless situations during civil wars.

The Latvian situation is related to manpower from captured territory.

Even if we are talking about nations switching factions, that's more of a diplomatic issue. Only after the nation had split via some sort of diplomatic mechanic, would the civil war/defecting when surrounded mechanic come into play.

Not really the topic of this thread.

Maybe we can say defecting cause a civil war. We have to fight the defected unit!