Italy was an unstable country

[blahmaster6k]

I think something like the VIchy France event for France would work for Italy. Maybe once the Allies control an Italian core state, a 30-day timer starts ticking down unless the Italians retake the state. This would stop edge cases like the British naval invading Rome and forcing a capitulation, when the invasion would have been destroyed in a week.

Once the timer hits zero, an event fires. The Italian player can choose to:

1) Keep fighting to the death as part of the Axis. The way the game currently plays out as of La Resistance.
This option would result in a weekly stability and war support penalty which will not be able to be removed unless the invaders are pushed back out of Italy. Eventually Italy will be overrun with strikes and deserters if they cannot turn the war around.

2)White peace with all countries, change government to Non-Aligned, join Allies, and join the War against Germany.

This choice would give Italy many very harsh military debuffs upon selection, including disbanding of all Italian divisions in core territory. This would enable the Germans to quickly occupy Italy as it did historically in the wake of the coup against Mussolini. A civil war tag would be created as part of the Axis, much like the Reichskommissariat decisions work for the Benelux and Norway, giving any Italian land retaken by Germany to a German puppet government under Mussolini.

AI under historical focuses would choose the second option, much like AI japan is coded to always take the surrender decision if you drop two nuclear bombs on their core territory.

A system like this would enable the war to play out as it did historically, while still enabling a determined Italian player in MP to carry on the fight while suffering a realistic penalty that represents the lack of popularity for the war.

 

[Fulmen]

I believe it's a matter of multiplayer balance mostly that without a powerful Italy a Germany player will basically be playing a lost game from day one and it will be impossible to actually win the game when you're that handicapped with such a subpar ally.

I reckon it's not so much MP that they had in mind, rather they didn't want to scare off new players by making things too difficult. Remember that they felt minors were too weak in previous HoIs to be "fun" (world conquest with them was entirely possible, just not something a rookie could do on their own), so they buffed them so that many of them are many times their historical strength in HoI4. I see no reason they wouldn't have applied this logic to Italy as well.

Now, personally I do wish they made HoI4 into a realistic WW2 game where gameplay remained at least somewhat plausible. This'd result in losing probably half the player base, but for me that doesn't matter, since the extra revenue they're getting from having a larger player base as a result of making the game into a sandbox is going into content I do not care about anyway: fantasy focus paths and focus trees for countries that did not fight in the war. But that's just my opinion, and I know they will never take that route, so I have to mod the game myself, or use mods from other likeminded people. On the bright side, at least modding the game is easy, if time-consuming.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I reckon it's not so much MP that they had in mind, rather they didn't want to scare off new players by making things too difficult. Remember that they felt minors were too weak in previous HoIs to be "fun" (world conquest with them was entirely possible, just not something a rookie could do on their own), so they buffed them so that many of them are many times their historical strength in HoI4. I see no reason they wouldn't have applied this logic to Italy as well.

Now, personally I do wish they made HoI4 into a realistic WW2 game where gameplay remained at least somewhat plausible. This'd result in losing probably half the player base, but for me that doesn't matter, since the extra revenue they're getting from having a larger player base as a result of making the game into a sandbox is going into content I do not care about anyway: fantasy focus paths and focus trees for countries that did not fight in the war. But that's just my opinion, and I know they will never take that route, so I have to mod the game myself, or use mods from other likeminded people. On the bright side, at least modding the game is easy, if time-consuming.

That's why I like the game so much. I like studying military history, but I also like the a-historical sandbox aspects of the game. Mods like ULTRA or Endsieg are great for making the game more historical, people who want the game to be ridiculously complicated can play Black Ice, people who want over the top fantasy can play road to 56 (ew), people who like realistic alternate timelines can play Kaiserreich, etc etc. The vanilla game can be a fun way to relax, and mods make the game customizable so that people with a variety of tastes can enjoy the game the way they want it.

 

[Fulmen]

That's why I like the game so much. I like studying military history, but I also like the a-historical sandbox aspects of the game. Mods like ULTRA or Endsieg are great for making the game more historical, people who want the game to be ridiculously complicated can play Black Ice, people who want over the top fantasy can play road to 56 (ew), people who like realistic alternate timelines can play Kaiserreich, etc etc. The vanilla game can be a fun way to relax, and mods make the game customizable so that people with a variety of tastes can enjoy the game the way they want it.

I see what you're saying, even if I think all of those mods are in some way flawed (and KR btw is definitely not a "realistic" mod, even given the premise of the Central Powers winning WW1). The answer to my dilemma tends to be "if you don't like it, mod it yourself". Unfortunately a lot of the realism-oriented mechanics I'd like to see can't reasonably be modded, especially by one man. For instance I'd love to see a more realistic supply system and infrastructure map mode à la HoI3, but trying to do that in HoI4 would require splitting every province into a supply region of its own, which just isn't feasible, especially when taking the AI into account. I'd love to see more realistic research balance across nations à la HoI3 leadership points, or officers as their own resource, again like in HoI3 (boy, that game ended up getting a lot of things right). Those mechanics could probably be emulated to a degree by creating new national modifiers, equipment/mana types (not sure it's possible to mod in new mana) and/or buildings and whatnot, but it's a lot of work, in some areas perhaps for little gain. And then there's still the AI to consider.

Anyway I should probably stop rambling about HoI4 and just go play HoI3, that too with mods of course.

EDIT: Realised this contradicted with my statement of "at least modding the game is easy, if time-consuming"; by that I meant "easy" more in the sense of "accessible". It's "easy", up to a certain degree, i.e. if you want to make relatively simple changes.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

I think it could go one of two ways.

Either one, have it as a focus for Italy (“Dismiss Mussolini”) that is an “emergency eject button” for if you are losing the war. It would ideally start a civil war (enabling you to potentially join the opposing faction). Basically what “Michael’s Coup” was supposed to be for Romania and what you can already do manually by launching a civil war when you start losing. Might need to make it so you give up non-core territory to prevent abuse to keep your empire though.

That or, as others have suggested, it’s a “mission“ (better equivalent would be disasters from EUIV) and certain factors make it progress faster towards failing. Like Losing East Africa, Losing Libya, Losing Sardinia, and especially losing a continental core state or Sicily.

Either way, you could have a way for any (bordering?) major in Italy’s faction to establish a loyalist Italian puppet state in response. Speaking of, didn’t Paradox add a spy mission to rescue Mussolini? Has anyone ever seen it or what it requires/does?

Perhaps so it isn’t too unfair you could make it like France’s “disjointed government” - you can eventually remove the risk by focus, but it takes a fair bit of time and you have an awful lot of their things to fix (and Italy, like nearly every country that has gotten a new or revamped focus tree, will likely start with negative spirits/modifiers it needs to fix).

 

[kettyo]

"They already did something like this with Japan surrendering if they suffer two nuclear attacks."

A pretty bad game design i'd say. It makes the Japanese look like weaklings which isn't correct.

It should be generalised so that the last non-surrendered major of any faction or any factionless country would surrender if the war is going very badly for them, lost some core state and a required amount of VP gets nuked.

 

[kettyo]

Germany in ww1 sued for peace when it became obvious that victory was utterly impossible and their territory was about to be invaded. In ww2 it behaved the way that it did because of the "stab in the back" theorists in power....

Not related to the stab in the back sentiment at all. It's almost entirely influenced by the fact that the German leadership knew it very well that most of them will be hanged in case of a surrender so they have fought essentially for their existence.

It was the same in the Soviet Union. Surrendering was not an option for the very same reason.

 

[Mr_Dimento]

Yeah, comparing Italy's debuffs to France's debuffs is... Interesting considering Italy was weaker industrially and militarily then France.. but that is not represented in HOI4.

 

[Mr_Dimento]

That would make the game not only pro-Allies, but terrible to play. Would be like throwing 2 nukes on Japan and make them surrender, even though they conquered all Asia.

A player would naval invade Sicily, and trigger a civil war that would divide half Italy, that at the time had 100% war support and more than half stability.

What the game need is a better system of war support and stability. We shouldn't gain war support with ACES, nor permanent gains with focuses. That should be something built under diplomatic and war achievements (capturing war points) during the game.

Isn't this literally already the case if a German player takes Paris? Or any player in that case? Why does it matter then?

You can have 95% WS as France and still instant-surrender if someone takes Paris.

 

[Happy Trigger]

Isn't this literally already the case if a German player takes Paris? Or any player in that case? Why does it matter then?

You can have 95% WS as France and still instant-surrender if someone takes Paris.

I'm not sure about that. Anyway, that is why i think this system of war support, and stability need to be improved, like, a lot. Unfortunately, the devs continue giving permanent bonuses through focuses.

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

That would make the game not only pro-Allies, but terrible to play. Would be like throwing 2 nukes on Japan and make them surrender, even though they conquered all Asia.

A player would naval invade Sicily, and trigger a civil war that would divide half Italy, that at the time had 100% war support and more than half stability.

What the game need is a better system of war support and stability. We shouldn't gain war support with ACES, nor permanent gains with focuses. That should be something built under diplomatic and war achievements (capturing war points) during the game.

I’d bet my balls japan would have surrendered irl after two nukes even if they conquered India, if not after Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would have been after Tokyo.
Nukes are almost useless ingame thats why theres a scripted event for Japan.

 

[kettyo]

I’d bet my balls japan would have surrendered irl after two nukes even if they conquered India, if not after Hiroshima and Nagasaki it would have been after Tokyo.
Nukes are almost useless ingame thats why theres a scripted event for Japan.

I'm almost sure about the opposite.

 

[safe-keeper]

I'm not sure why Mussoline declared on the USA, I have no idea what kind of drug he was taking to do that. But indeed, after the USA joins the war, then yes. Capturing cores in Italy should bring a civil war, but not before. I'm quire sure people in Italy knew that the USA was much more powerful then they.

I think Italy does need a system like this. 'Europe Engulfed' (board game) has a Collapse of Italian Morale mechanic that gives Italy some severe, permanent penalties if they lose their holdings in North Africa. 'No Retreat! The Italian Front' has a mechanic where there is a random chance of an overthrow of Mussolini if an Italian town on the mainland or Sicily is taken by the Allies. Hearts of Iron IV should have a similar system.

To counteract this, maybe there could possibly be costly and/or time-consuming national focuses or decisions to make the country more stable over time. You would have to take them at the expense of other decisions or focii you might want more, but it will make you less vulnerable against invasion. Don't know how much basis in history there is for something like that, though.

That would make the game not only pro-Allies, but terrible to play. Would be like throwing 2 nukes on Japan and make them surrender, even though they conquered all Asia.

A player would naval invade Sicily, and trigger a civil war that would divide half Italy, that at the time had 100% war support and more than half stability.

?

Why would it have to be that unforgiving? I can envision a system that takes into consideration how well the Italians/Axis are doing in the Mediterranean and perhaps also elsewhere, and I highly doubt @sekelsenmat was envisioning a situation where Italy, for example, had surrendered the Middle East and was making significant gains in the Soviet Union, and had 30 divisions in Italy, but automatically surrendered just because a single American paratrooper battalion landed on Sicily and snuck into some tiny village. HoI3 had weird super-specific triggers like that, which would lead to things like Germany invading England, but making sure not to capture London, as its capture led to the USA automatically entering the war.

Then again, the Mediterranean and Mare Nostrum being Italy's main objective, and the Mediterranean being so strategically important to Italy, the fall of Italian North Africa and Allied landings in Sicily should weigh very heavily against them, morale wise.

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

I'm almost sure about the opposite.

It is kinda hard not surrender if your country does not exist anymote because they are all dead, the people who respectfully disagree can do so if they wish but it does not change the fact that Hirohito and his cronies would have literally run to firm a peace treaty if a nuclear damocles’ sword was hanging above their heads, no matter what.
An exception would be Hitler since he did not really care about seeing his nation burning.

 

[SophieX]

It is kinda hard not surrender if your country does not exist anymote because they are all dead, the people who respectfully disagree can do so if they wish but it does not change the fact that Hirohito and his cronies would have literally run to firm a peace treaty if a nuclear damocles’ sword was hanging above their heads, no matter what.

We can't look into their heads or ask them anymore.
There were many decision in that WW2, we can't understand / reproduce with our concepts in our times
- of right/wrong,
- good/bad or
- reasonable/unreasonable
So please, don't speak about facts, if you can only assume.

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

We can't look into their heads or ask them anymore.
There were many decision in that WW2, we can't understand / reproduce with our concepts in our times
- of right/wrong,
- good/bad or
- reasonable/unreasonable
So please, don't speak about facts, if you can only assume.

They wabted to surrender when the war was lost. Historical fact.
If you think they would not have considered the war lost after half of japan biggest cities are literally evaporated then ehhhh
One bomb, one bomber. A medium sized city razed to the ground, with most of its inhabitants evaporated in an instant.
In hoi4 you drop the bomb and the effect is barely felt.

 

[safe-keeper]

They wabted to surrender when the war was lost. Historical fact.

It's far from that simple, of course. Japanese leadership was divided over surrender. They had clearly lost the Pacific war, the Soviet steamroller was advancing from the north, the Japanese mainland was being bombed, and the people didn't have enough food. I personally don't believe they would have held out long.

If you think they would not have considered the war lost after half of japan biggest cities are literally evaporated then ehhhh

Oh, this is an easy one. They did lose at least half their cities, to strategic bombing (quite the euphemism for levelling whole cities, by the way), and they didn't surrender.

One bomb, one bomber. A medium sized city razed to the ground

Oh, the city's gone. HoI4 represents whole provinces that are typically bigger than cities, though, mostly they seem to represent whole municipalities, at least. Industry isn't neccessarily concentrated in a city's downtown area.

, with most of its inhabitants evaporated in an instant.

Also quite possible, but fortunately for HoI4 Japan, the game doesn't feature civilian deaths, so once the smoke clears you'll find they're quite okay, if possibly quite ruffled.

In hoi4 you drop the bomb and the effect is barely felt.

WAD.

 

[pheonicia]

"They already did something like this with Japan surrendering if they suffer two nuclear attacks."

A pretty bad game design i'd say. It makes the Japanese look like weaklings which isn't correct.

It should be generalised so that the last non-surrendered major of any faction or any factionless country would surrender if the war is going very badly for them, lost some core state and a required amount of VP gets nuked.

The japan event requires them to have less than 10 ships afloat. If there's a japan player in the world who could win after being reduced to below 10 ships and being nuked twice I'd eat my hat. It's perfectly reasonable to surrender at that point.

 

[DystopianAlphaOmega]

It's an interesting debate. One thing to consider is that the Japanese didn't know how many atomic bombs the United States had. We know it would have taken time to get a fourth atomic bombing, but for all the Japanese knew, America could start mass nuking Japanese cities instead of just firebombing them.

If Japan has taken India but the Pacific War is going historic, they will probably still surrender, especially if the Soviets have also joined the war. They might be more willing to hold out a little longer for a conditional peace, but not much longer.

 

[kettyo]

They did lose at least half their cities, to strategic bombing (quite the euphemism for levelling whole cities, by the way), and they didn't surrender.

Yes it is a lovely euphemism and it lived on as huge nuclear bombs designed later to destroy a major city altogether got to be called as strategic warheads