Sorry it's a little long, I got carried away.
One thing that I found with HOI3 was that it was very frustrating playing as any Allied nation. Unlike the Axis or Commintern the Allies were never as dominated by any one country in their alliance. However inter-allied co-operation is pretty poor across all alliances. And to all intents and purposes the human player can't rely on the AI doing anything useful and I generally am just happy if it doesn't ruin my logistics.
I am wondering what people think would be a good way to solve this and make alliances work together and particularly the allies work well?
I think that shared theatres and Army Groups would be a good start(this would require army groups having spheres of operations similar to how theatres do in HOI3). Rather than having loan units, the allies (and the other alliances) can appoint a head of theatre's and army groups. If the army group is run by a human player units assigned to it are human controlled regardless of nation and vice versa. How it is decided who gets control I will come back to.
Sharing diplomacy and planning for the allies would be good too. In HOI 3 axis powers can declare limited wars keeping their allies out of trouble if they choose to go to war. However if the AI US decides that Vichy must go, the UK human suddenly finds themselves at a loss about where to get the troops to take North Africa. Or as a human US I have been conducting overlord then Canada attacks the Germans in Norway and the British/Canandian's send 30+ divisions to what is a sideshow. Having some form of allies planning committee which would incorporate war plans and where commitments of troops and ships would be decided could end this. The ability of a human player to influence this should be related to economic and military strength. With the AI knowing what forces the human player has and expecting a contribution for suitable theatre's from a human player. In this way I hope to end piecemeal invasions by the allies before a significant force is ready. Making playing Germany more interesting as you will have a real threat of European invasion in force. It would also end the problem of co-ordination with Germany's allies during Barborossa creating a real full front as opposed to the narrow one confined to Poland as is so common in HOI 3.
Like I say the ability to influence a decision should be dependent on military and economic strength. How I I see this would work in real terms would be; an alliance is given a number of options dependent on which territories are currently held, current diplomacy and date. You accumulate votes over time and can put these into the various options. These options will be defensive, offensive and others diplomatic. Examples being, if Strasbourg and Arras are held by France in 1940, you could have options like; hold Maginot line in strength or concentrate mobile forces in the north or hold the whole line. Or if Tunis is held by the Allies after a set date (summer 1942) and they are at war with Italy then the options exist for an invasion of either Sicily or Sardinia or both or Greece or all of them. Finally diplomatically once the US and UK are in alliance you could have an option for taking North Africa back for the Free French, which will result in some form of DOW on Vichy once the forces are ready. In the last case the council's decision for invasion will create a decision option as per the current politics screen if the human player is the one who makes the decision and they can trigger the war when they feel ready, if it is the AI then it will DOW when it thinks appropriate.
How I see this is the spending of political capital within your alliance to shape the war to your desired end. For any project to be passed it would require a certain number of votes, the US/Uk would get a lot of votes enabling them to influence the course of the war throughout the world. Canada/Australia would get less, meaning they have to think where they want to spend their votes to influence the alliance to achieve their goals. As to who controls the theatres and army groups that should be something that is voted on too, it will become increasingly difficult for the British to maintain control of the war as the US becomes increasingly dominant and the balance of votes changes. US commanders will begin to replace British ones (frustrating as a Human British player). However British led army groups could continue to give the player something to do, even if it is at the behest of the AI. But if the human player really wants to see something happen they can spend their votes in such a way as to make it occur, but it has a cost that they don't get as much influence elsewhere.
You should be able to vote for or against a plan. As in real life Churchill wanted an invasion through Greece which the US consistently opposed. It all links back into the shared theatre's and army groups. If the inter-allied council says to Canada, you need to have six divisions in the Overlord theatre and the human Canada doesn't do it, they get less votes as they are seen as an unreliable ally. Again to achieve this the AI has to know what the human player has available and where these forces are to make requests reasonable. Consistent failure of an army group to achieve agreed goals should also have a negative effect (as your allies view you as incompetent) as happened to various nations in both alliances through the war.
Please note, I think the axis should function a little differently. Germany, Japan and Italy all quite happily initiated wars during this period without really consulting with their allies. This should remain possible for them. Just to keep you on your toes.
One thing that I found with HOI3 was that it was very frustrating playing as any Allied nation. Unlike the Axis or Commintern the Allies were never as dominated by any one country in their alliance. However inter-allied co-operation is pretty poor across all alliances. And to all intents and purposes the human player can't rely on the AI doing anything useful and I generally am just happy if it doesn't ruin my logistics.
I am wondering what people think would be a good way to solve this and make alliances work together and particularly the allies work well?
I think that shared theatres and Army Groups would be a good start(this would require army groups having spheres of operations similar to how theatres do in HOI3). Rather than having loan units, the allies (and the other alliances) can appoint a head of theatre's and army groups. If the army group is run by a human player units assigned to it are human controlled regardless of nation and vice versa. How it is decided who gets control I will come back to.
Sharing diplomacy and planning for the allies would be good too. In HOI 3 axis powers can declare limited wars keeping their allies out of trouble if they choose to go to war. However if the AI US decides that Vichy must go, the UK human suddenly finds themselves at a loss about where to get the troops to take North Africa. Or as a human US I have been conducting overlord then Canada attacks the Germans in Norway and the British/Canandian's send 30+ divisions to what is a sideshow. Having some form of allies planning committee which would incorporate war plans and where commitments of troops and ships would be decided could end this. The ability of a human player to influence this should be related to economic and military strength. With the AI knowing what forces the human player has and expecting a contribution for suitable theatre's from a human player. In this way I hope to end piecemeal invasions by the allies before a significant force is ready. Making playing Germany more interesting as you will have a real threat of European invasion in force. It would also end the problem of co-ordination with Germany's allies during Barborossa creating a real full front as opposed to the narrow one confined to Poland as is so common in HOI 3.
Like I say the ability to influence a decision should be dependent on military and economic strength. How I I see this would work in real terms would be; an alliance is given a number of options dependent on which territories are currently held, current diplomacy and date. You accumulate votes over time and can put these into the various options. These options will be defensive, offensive and others diplomatic. Examples being, if Strasbourg and Arras are held by France in 1940, you could have options like; hold Maginot line in strength or concentrate mobile forces in the north or hold the whole line. Or if Tunis is held by the Allies after a set date (summer 1942) and they are at war with Italy then the options exist for an invasion of either Sicily or Sardinia or both or Greece or all of them. Finally diplomatically once the US and UK are in alliance you could have an option for taking North Africa back for the Free French, which will result in some form of DOW on Vichy once the forces are ready. In the last case the council's decision for invasion will create a decision option as per the current politics screen if the human player is the one who makes the decision and they can trigger the war when they feel ready, if it is the AI then it will DOW when it thinks appropriate.
How I see this is the spending of political capital within your alliance to shape the war to your desired end. For any project to be passed it would require a certain number of votes, the US/Uk would get a lot of votes enabling them to influence the course of the war throughout the world. Canada/Australia would get less, meaning they have to think where they want to spend their votes to influence the alliance to achieve their goals. As to who controls the theatres and army groups that should be something that is voted on too, it will become increasingly difficult for the British to maintain control of the war as the US becomes increasingly dominant and the balance of votes changes. US commanders will begin to replace British ones (frustrating as a Human British player). However British led army groups could continue to give the player something to do, even if it is at the behest of the AI. But if the human player really wants to see something happen they can spend their votes in such a way as to make it occur, but it has a cost that they don't get as much influence elsewhere.
You should be able to vote for or against a plan. As in real life Churchill wanted an invasion through Greece which the US consistently opposed. It all links back into the shared theatre's and army groups. If the inter-allied council says to Canada, you need to have six divisions in the Overlord theatre and the human Canada doesn't do it, they get less votes as they are seen as an unreliable ally. Again to achieve this the AI has to know what the human player has available and where these forces are to make requests reasonable. Consistent failure of an army group to achieve agreed goals should also have a negative effect (as your allies view you as incompetent) as happened to various nations in both alliances through the war.
Please note, I think the axis should function a little differently. Germany, Japan and Italy all quite happily initiated wars during this period without really consulting with their allies. This should remain possible for them. Just to keep you on your toes.