Hearts of Iron IV - 31st Development Diary - 30th of October 2015
- Thread starter podcat
- 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.
So you are saying no german reich - vatikan?
Oh I hope there's a way to intimidate Mussolini by randomly annexing a province right next to his presidential home
- 1
hmmm I only hope that this won't look ridiculous, e.g. "Radical Yugoslavia" getting that piece of Galicia. hahah
Some exceptions then
However, I hope such things doesn't happen if AI is in control. That would just ruin the game.
- 1
I like how this system is like a competition
One thing I wonder is how the peace system work across multiple factions like if the three classic factions are in a three way war, how will it work if example axis surrenders?
One thing I wonder is how the peace system work across multiple factions like if the three classic factions are in a three way war, how will it work if example axis surrenders?
- 1
yea its like a competition and theres actually a reason to invade as a minor because u might just get rewarded
Well I do want to play some games where that sort of thing can happen. That's why they have a historical game setting...Some exceptions then
However, I hope such things doesn't happen if AI is in control. That would just ruin the game.
Can we spend points to deny territory to our allies. The idea being we may want to spend more points then a territories value to deny them to an ally. An example would be enforcing the Elbe line by rejecting soviet proposals to take territory west of that. The soviets would use their points elsewhere while you have spent some of yours.
- 1
Good diary. Although I would like to point out again - military deaths and territorial conquests aren't the only things that countries contribute in a war. The lend-lease, expeditionary forces, granting resources and stuff should count too...now that money/loans and subsidizing nations are gone. If I don't fight a nation myself but have sold lots of tanks and planes to help the ally win all battles they would've lost, shouldn't I get something too?
The same problem is with the upcoming 'war contribution' in EU4. And it doesn't even work in CK2. Hopefully this time it is properly implemented.
Overall this is a nice improvement. Better diplomacy was really needed. And I love the name changes - Victoria 3 confirmed!
The same problem is with the upcoming 'war contribution' in EU4. And it doesn't even work in CK2. Hopefully this time it is properly implemented.
Overall this is a nice improvement. Better diplomacy was really needed. And I love the name changes - Victoria 3 confirmed!
Last edited:
Not really no, sweden was helping finland by such means through ww2 but we knew we wouldn't be getting any gains if they won.Good diary. Although I would like to point out again - military deaths and territorial conquests aren't the only things that countries contribute in a war. The lend-lease, expeditionary forces, granting resources and stuff should count too...now that money/loans and subsidizing nations are gone. If I don't fight a nation myself but have sold lots of tanks and planes to help the ally win all battles they would've lost, shouldn't I get something too?
The same problem is with the upcoming 'war contribution' in EU4. And it doesn't even work in CK2. Hopefully this time it is properly implemented.
Overall this is a nice improvement. Better diplomacy was really needed. And I love the name changes - Victoria 3 confirmed!
- 2
What are the limits on what you can ask for in a peace treaty? Beyond point limits. If I were playing this game in single player, I have to say I would be really upset if counties like Hungary and Romania and Bulgaria started demanding parts of Poland and France, especially parts that make no sense.
You want to talk about realistic WWII; realistically if Germany won minor nations had pretty much zero options to make demands short of the Axis leading countries (Italy, Japan), and the restoration of territory ie. Romanian Bessarabia.
On top of the fact that, as the leader of the winning faction I should be able to demand certain territories be given to certain other countries - both in my faction and not. To the victor should go the benefits of redrawing the borders of conquered nations. Lets face it, post WWII some Axis allied nations actually still managed to gain some territory and get some pretty favourable terms.
Also will countries be able to sue for peace early? Pulling out of the war if they are willing to surrender completely? If as Germany I take out Poland and they surrender, since they surrendered I should be able to annex them without them getting a seat at the table in the final peace deal unless they are liberated. There should almost be a separate peace system for this in case its a country like Yugoslavia surrendering early and my allies Italy and Hungary want to claim some territory (or better yet, I want to give them territory) in the surrender.
This is an improvement from the lackluster peace system of HOI3, but it seems to have some potential for the same ridiculousness that existed in EU games although at least in EU games there were ways to sell territory for free to allies to make sure they owned what you wanted them to own. I think some more explaining is called for, this DD was not clear enough.
You want to talk about realistic WWII; realistically if Germany won minor nations had pretty much zero options to make demands short of the Axis leading countries (Italy, Japan), and the restoration of territory ie. Romanian Bessarabia.
On top of the fact that, as the leader of the winning faction I should be able to demand certain territories be given to certain other countries - both in my faction and not. To the victor should go the benefits of redrawing the borders of conquered nations. Lets face it, post WWII some Axis allied nations actually still managed to gain some territory and get some pretty favourable terms.
Also will countries be able to sue for peace early? Pulling out of the war if they are willing to surrender completely? If as Germany I take out Poland and they surrender, since they surrendered I should be able to annex them without them getting a seat at the table in the final peace deal unless they are liberated. There should almost be a separate peace system for this in case its a country like Yugoslavia surrendering early and my allies Italy and Hungary want to claim some territory (or better yet, I want to give them territory) in the surrender.
This is an improvement from the lackluster peace system of HOI3, but it seems to have some potential for the same ridiculousness that existed in EU games although at least in EU games there were ways to sell territory for free to allies to make sure they owned what you wanted them to own. I think some more explaining is called for, this DD was not clear enough.
Last edited:
- 3
I am not talking about 'peacetime' allies like Sweden, I am talking about when two powers are at war with the same target, one of them fights directly and other one is actually funding the entire war and is the reason behind their victories, before they can reach the frontline themselves. Shouldn't they get contribution to that as well?
I think this 'war contribution' system will kill any chance for minors to expand and stifle them forever to stagnation or extremely slow expansion. They'll never catch up with major powers in terms of war contribution, and thus never get much out of a war.
Minors at least had chance to expand using major allies in games that didn't have this system (except Victoria 2). I think this entire war contribution system should be used only in historical mode.
Minors at least had chance to expand using major allies in games that didn't have this system (except Victoria 2). I think this entire war contribution system should be used only in historical mode.
I think the solution to that is to maybe be able to allow countries to spend their points giving territory to OTHER countries. (perhaps only allies, but perhaps even non-allies. Perhaps only if they have a core/demand, but perhaps even without it). This would actually be a really simple system to include.
So as Germany, if I attack the soviet union and then after that Romania joins the war, contributes a bit but not much, I should be able to spend my points to give Romania Bessarabia. After all, as a human player my war goals shouldn't have to be limited to expanding my own territory. It should include a desire to see certain borders change regardless of whether they are my own borders or not.
- 1
Maybe, but then the problem is that AI will never ever do that. A player who plays a minor will never manage to get anything out of the peace conferences.
?
You only need to beat the faction leader? So if GER beats ENG this means that untouched USA and FRA are forced to a conference?
True, the solution there would be to make restoration of territory (and only restoration of ethnic territory), ie. Romanian Bessarabia or Greek Izmir or Italian Corsica, a minimal cost or free to demand for that country which has that entitlement. It is perfectly logical. As someone joining a faction, it makes sense that you did so with the understanding that the alliance would pursue your interests. And an alliance should share are least some common goals.
The peace system cannot be too top-down.
Thats said, if as a minor you want to conquer massive territory....stay out of factions or make your own.
- 1
Maybe it's an additional requirement and if you don't hold enough sway in the war despite beating the leader, they can refuse a conference. In the screenshot the Allies look pretty soundly defeated. If it were as easy as landing troops in a couple British provinces then it would too easy and I'm sure that they would not make the system work that way.
That being said, if the allies in Europe were defeated and the USA the only ones left, then I can see a conference making sense.