Hearts of Iron IV - 29th Development Diary - 16th of October 2015**Read OP before posting**

[misterbean]

Yes but the democratic invasion of Iceland or the democratic occupation of Norway (which didn't happen just because Germans were quicker) was not a matter of cores.

Iceland was part of Denmark. Denmark was, at best, a puppet of Germany by that point. So Iceland no longer counts.
I don't have an answer for Norway, though, unless WT was already so high that it didn't matter anymore, in which case there would be modifiers we are currently not aware of.

 

[safe-keeper]

Iceland was part of Denmark. Denmark was, at best, a puppet of Germany by that point. So Iceland no longer counts.
I don't have an answer for Norway, though, unless WT was already so high that it didn't matter anymore, in which case there would be modifiers we are currently not aware of.

Norway will probably be handled by national focus.

 

[Zoob]

Drawing up a plan to deny German access to Norwegian iron ore is not the same as invading and as misterbean has stated, Denmark was a German Puppet.

 

[Cardus]

Iceland was part of Denmark. Denmark was, at best, a puppet of Germany by that point. So Iceland no longer counts.
I don't have an answer for Norway, though, unless WT was already so high that it didn't matter anymore, in which case there would be modifiers we are currently not aware of.

That is propaganda not history as Iceland was a full sovereign state since 1918

The Danish–Icelandic Act of Union, an agreement with Denmark signed on 1 December 1918 and valid for 25 years, recognised Iceland as a fully sovereign state in a personal union with Denmark

Regarding the invasion see below

The invasion of Iceland, codenamed Operation Fork, was a British military operation conducted by the Royal Navy and Royal Marines during World War II. The invasion began in the early morning of 10 May 1940 with British troops disembarking in Reykjavík, capital of neutral Iceland. Meeting no resistance, the troops moved quickly to disable communication networks, secure strategic locations, and arrest German citizens. Requisitioning local means of transportation, the troops moved to Hvalfjörður, Kaldaðarnes, Sandskeið, and Akranes to secure landing areas against the possibility of a German counterattack. In the following days air defence equipment was deployed in Reykjavík and a detachment of troops was sent to Akureyri.

In the evening of 10 May, the government of Iceland issued a protest, charging that the neutrality of Iceland had been "flagrantly violated" and "its independence infringed" and noting that compensation would be expected for all damage done.

PS
I don't say that Paradox is wrong with this rule (i.e. democracies cannot declare war "easily"). I just say that it is not historical nor realistic (even though from the gaming point of view it makes sense).

 

[safe-keeper]

That is propaganda not history as Iceland was a full sovereign state since 1918

Did you read what you quoted? Iceland was "in a personal union", not a 100% free country. They declared full independence when Denmark was occupied.

 

[Cardus]

Did you read what you quoted? Iceland was "in a personal union", not a 100% free country. They declared full independence when Denmark was occupied.

You don't get it, don't you? Have you a clue about what personal union means?

A personal union is the combination of two or more states who have the same monarch while their boundaries, laws, and interests remain distinct

 

[Kovax]

I suspect that a major key to making the system work in a "plausible" manner will be to insure that the historical claims, historical cores, and historical animosities which drove the events are properly represented. Countries like the US and UK with a long history of peaceful cooperation aren't going to go at it for some trivial excuse, but countries with long-disputed borders and a bloody mutual history won't need much incitement.

WT alone doesn't cut it, there really needs to be some variable measure of relations between individual countries that affects how WT is acted upon, whether it's better military cooperation against a mutual threat, independent military and industrial buildups, or increased security on a shared border. The later versions of HOI3 increasingly removed "cores" as a mechanism for generating conflict, and unfortunately never distinguished between "cores" and "claims", which then required all AI wars to be fully scripted and repetitive from one game to the next. The initial release of HOI3 didn't take Relations and other mitigating factors into account (or not even close to strongly enough), so silly wars were generated more frequently than plausible ones. All I can hope for is that the developers have learned from the mistakes and come up with a better way of implementing it, rather than replace it with something even more unrealistic.

 

[misterbean]

I'm not up on Icelandic history. All I know about it, comes from PDX games

 

[Cardus]

I'm not up on Icelandic history. All I know about it, comes from PDX games

That can be very dangerous

 

[Secret Master]

Yes but the democratic invasion of Iceland or the democratic occupation of Norway (which didn't happen just because Germans were quicker) was not a matter of cores.

So it would fall under nation focus mechanics. Or they might even run it as a decision or something like that.

 

[misterbean]

That can be very dangerous

That's what makes this community so great. When someone makes a mistake, someone else is more knowledgeable or smarter and sets him straight.

 

[FOARP]

Yes but the democratic invasion of Iceland.

There was no war or fighting between the UK and Iceland, and therefore no invasion in the sense that occurs in-game.

or the democratic occupation of Norway (which didn't happen just because Germans were quicker) was not a matter of cores.

As has been discussed multiple times, there was no serious plan to invade and occupy Norway in sense that occurs in-game. What there was, was a plan to lay mines off the Norwegian coast and respond if the Germans invaded in retaliation.

Find some new talking points.

EDIT: I guess I should add that occupying Iceland is a favourite gambit of mine when attacking in the west as Germany - it is an excellent base for bombers and submarines attacking the UK's Atlantic convoys.

 

[obisquirrel]

@podcat
I feel my only purpose on this board is to repeatedly post about the Oberbayern and Niederbayern mix up.
If that somehow survives until release I will cry manly tears or play the game in lederhosen.

 

[misterbean]

@podcat
I feel my only purpose on this board is to repeatedly post about the Oberbayern and Niederbayern mix up.
If that somehow survives until release I will cry manly tears or play the game in lederhosen.

If it does survive, I'm sure it would be easy enough switching the names around.

 

[podcat]

@podcat
I feel my only purpose on this board is to repeatedly post about the Oberbayern and Niederbayern mix up.
If that somehow survives until release I will cry manly tears or play the game in lederhosen.

ok, swapped them <3

 

[Cardus]

There was no war or fighting between the UK and Iceland, and therefore no invasion in the sense that occurs in-game.

Your ideas about what is an invasion is true just your mind. I already said that it was an invasion and I quoted some "facts". Here it is written INVASION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland.

So it would fall under nation focus mechanics. Or they might even run it as a decision or something like that.

It can be managed in the way you/paradox/any modder may like. My point is that democracies sometimes goes for war without any problem (and very often without any war declaration).

 

[FOARP]

Your ideas about is an invasion is true just your mind. I already said that that was an invasion and I quoted some "facts". Here it is written INVASION https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Iceland.

Yes. The title of a wiki article says invasion. Meanwhile, back in the real world, people actually read the article and note that it describes the occupation taking place peacefully, and the Icelandic police co-operating with the British during the invasion.

Again, you need new talking points.

 

[Cardus]

Yes. The title of a wiki article says invasion. Meanwhile, back in the real world, people actually read the article and note that it describes the occupation taking place peacefully, and the Icelandic police co-operating with the British during the invasion.

Again, you need new talking points.

Yes, then the Italian invasion of Albania was a peaceful promenade.

 

[Secret Master]

It can be managed in the way you/paradox/any modder may like. My point is that democracies sometimes goes for war without any problem (and very often without any war declaration).

And my point is that I am not an advocate of the Democratic Peace Theory. I'm only worried about getting results that are rational in the context of foreign policy between 1936 and 1948 (and the modders can worry if the engine can handle foreign policy in other eras not covered by the game).

Part of getting those rational results might mean putting restrictions in place that limit the wars of democracies. As long as the exceptions are accounted for with cores, national focuses, or some other mechanism, that's fine by me.

The last thing I want is the United States, without a massive change in politics and culture, launching a crusade to annex Latin America. Or the United States and Britain saying, "You know, who gives a flying fart about Communism and Japanese imperialism in our respective spheres of influence in the Asia-Pacific zone? Let's fight a world war against one another cause Congress and Commons are totes okay with wasting our time and money and lives with that kind of crap." Or even worse, France launching a war of annihilation against Spain before the Civil War even starts, because why not dredge up a rivalry that should have ended a century or more ago? "Louis XIV and Napoleon are dead, but let's get our 18th Century on like Donkey Kong and try to annex Spain."

 

[Cardus]

And my point is that I am not an advocate of the Democratic Peace Theory. I'm only worried about getting results that are rational in the context of foreign policy between 1936 and 1948 (and the modders can worry if the engine can handle foreign policy in other eras not covered by the game).

Part of getting those rational results might mean putting restrictions in place that limit the wars of democracies. As long as the exceptions are accounted for with cores, national focuses, or some other mechanism, that's fine by me.

The last thing I want is the United States, without a massive change in politics and culture, launching a crusade to annex Latin America. Or the United States and Britain saying, "You know, who gives a flying fart about Communism and Japanese imperialism in our respective spheres of influence in the Asia-Pacific zone? Let's fight a world war against one another cause Congress and Commons are totes okay with wasting our time and money and lives with that kind of crap." Or even worse, France launching a war of annihilation against Spain before the Civil War even starts, because why not dredge up a rivalry that should have ended a century or more ago? "Louis XIV and Napoleon are dead, but let's get our 18th Century on like Donkey Kong and try to annex Spain."

Personally I have no problem at all with what you are saying. I said the same stuff earlier.