It's high, but the fort will get blown up in fairly short order after you begin fighting. Going straight through the Maginot line is entirely viable.
-
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.
It's high, but the fort will get blown up in fairly short order after you begin fighting. Going straight through the Maginot line is entirely viable.
Yep, that's what I did as A-H with Germany. After we polished to Russians off I sent half my army to Italy and half to Germany. We had no trouble cracking the Maginot line.
NVM, I am confusing World Wars here. Lulz.
Last edited:
Another important aspect is politics of the real world. Building huge forts, such as the Maginot line, worked as a means of deterrence against an enemy. This of course doesn't work in game.
And while it might be possible to attack a level 10 fort, the losses of manpower are very high. No government wants huge manpower losses, but losing a lot of manpower in a single battle means "nothing" in HoI2 terms (you are not going to immediately lose the game because people revolts and that kind of things).
Maybe the speed at which forts are destroyed should be decreased, so their effect in battle would be longer...
And while it might be possible to attack a level 10 fort, the losses of manpower are very high. No government wants huge manpower losses, but losing a lot of manpower in a single battle means "nothing" in HoI2 terms (you are not going to immediately lose the game because people revolts and that kind of things).
Maybe the speed at which forts are destroyed should be decreased, so their effect in battle would be longer...
BTW I think it's high time war that war weariness was introduced in HOI2...
Agreed.
War weariness would be game ruining. Sure, it's meant to be historical/realistic...but some of the choices already in DH (no choice in elections, less possibility of non historical events/alliances etc) have spoilt the gameplay aspect a bit. Freedom is decreased and replay value is lost...
Sorry, but I fail to see the connection between war weariness and lack of gameplay freedom. Making the game more realistic is one thing. Forcing historical outcomes is another.
As Czech, I basically do holding maneuvers against Germany (counteattack over and over a lost province once they arrive) and take over the Balkans. If you attack south fast enough, you avoid annexation by Germany even after losing a majority of Czechslavia proper.
I find coastal forts are useful as Nationalist China. Lets me garrison with militia.
I find coastal forts are useful as Nationalist China. Lets me garrison with militia.
I think people would rather just conquer countries than worry about the government collapsing after every bad battle...If I want to experience real life and history, I'll go into politics and read some books.
I like coastal forts on single province islands. They help to make up for the "no retreat" penalty. Put a lvl 5 coastal fort and 3 gar/art on wake, and even a human Japan has a lot of trouble taking it.
Proper war weariness would be getting extra dissent if you lose too much manpower in times of war. It would be cool from a realism standpoint, but absolutely infuriating in practice 
Proper war weariness would be getting extra dissent if you lose too much manpower in times of war. It would be cool from a realism standpoint, but absolutely infuriating in practice
Only if you're losing
Anyway, most of the major powers in both World Wars were defined by their ability to take massive losses without their governments collapsing. The Nazi regime didn't collapse or get overthrown despite disaster after disaster. The French government was in power until it surrendered. The British government made it through Passchendaele and the Somme offensive without collapsing. The Japanese government survived the war until they surrendered also.
The French morale during the WWI was low at several key points of war mostly due to war weariness. Moreover, the French still couldn't get over the losses they suffered during the First World War in the Second World War. Domestic situation in Germany at the end of the WWI was horrendous, despite the fact that the country wasn't occupied. In Russia, the tsar didn't even manage to hold power - again, a result of war weariness. The USA became isolationistic after WWI. Italian morale was terrible in WWII. I think that there are more than enough examples of war weariness taking its toll on a country's ability to fight and resist, even though war weariness doesn't always equal a revolution.
Dissent penalty to fighting capability. Extant.
Damage to national psyche. Impossible to model.Cybvep said:
Dolchstoßlegende. Irrelevant to Germany's ability to fight the war.Cybvep said:
There are events in the game that handle this. They railroad things a bit much for me, but they're absolutely there.Cybvep said:
Not as a result of casualties.Cybvep said:
Ehhh. Lots of argument about that.Cybvep said:
Industrial capacity is one thing, the morale and will to fight is sth different. For example, the French mostly produced good equipment in big quantities in 1939-1940, but their morale was poor.
What are you talking about?
Just look at the German situation in 1918.Events are nation-specific and in most cases they are only half-measures. It's much better to have specific gameplay mechanics dealing with the issue if possible. HOI3 has National Unity, which is definitely an improvement over HOI2's artificial surrender system.
National Unity, anyone? Also, if massive casualties had consequences, "damage to national psyche" could be modelled quite well.
(...) but as a result of war weariness, which is not only about casualties. Wouldn't you agree?
Maybe it had sth to do with the fact that the people weren't motivated enough for the war that they thought was pointless? It's another example of war weariness not caused by massive casualties.
I don't see what this has to do with anything. High dissent imparts a direct penalty to fighting capability. It's a modifier that you can see any time you hover over one of your units in a battle window.
German war-weariness did not lose Germany the war in 1918. That is the so-called "stab in the back" legend, which members of the army hierarchy and various right-wing political groups, especially the Nazis, perpetuated during the interwar years. The failure of the German army on the battlefield and the subsequent failure of Ludendorff's nerve lost Germany the war.Cybvep said:What are you talking about?
The events track dissent and provide a historical or historically plausible result based on the amount of dissent. If national unity were introduced, the events would track national unity and provide a historical or historically plausible result based on the amount of national unity. That is not an upgrade. A solution whereby there are no war-ending events linked to national unity would result in ridiculous ahistorical outcomes. This is not HoI3, this is HoI2; one is a sandbox game, one is not.Cybvep said:
An odd assertion, since we don't really understand how it works as it is.Cybvep said:
No, I would not, for any meaningful definition of "war weariness".Cybvep said:
No, I mean that there's lots of argument as to how crappy the Italians actually were in WWII. Plenty of people will say that they weren't, and if they were, it wasn't a result of lack of interest in the war.Cybvep said:
As Nationalist China you got unlimited manpower, it is really just more efficient to just build more militia and use them to guard the beaches when needed. The additional militia divisions will guard the beaches much better and can be redeployed somewhere else later.
The game really need to make manpower more relevant for the majors again, with less manpower forts become a more viable choice in certain situations.