Liberation

[unmerged(38925)]

Any clues as to how it works? There are a lot of problems with it as is.

Example: I'm playing as Italy currently. Syria joined me. Syria was annexed before I could reach them. But about a month later I did a surprise flanking move and landed a bunch of troops in Suez and grabbed the western middle east. But, to liberate my allies who were only defeated 2 months ago I have to take a dissent penalty and have a Syria with 0 IC. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It comes into play in a lot of likely scenarios. Playing as the US I can't recapture Australia and allow them to reestablish their own government without having my own people rioting and refusing to work?

Hopefully the government in exile works out in some way for these cases. But, then what about liberating Armenia as the Germans, or Jordan as Italy, India as Japan, or even Korea as the US? As far as I understand it, liberating a country from enemy territory that your people have no interest or claim in shouldn't do anything but make them and the rest of the non-enemy world happy. Surely belligerence should go down if you invade your neighbor only to liberate an oppressed people.

Puppeting seems to all but have disappeared too. In HOI1 there was always a tough strategic question on if you should puppet or annex. Both had advantages and disadvantages but in HOI2 I can almost never force a puppet government on my enemy. The 2 times or so that I have been able to I had to completely conquer every bit of their territory. So, if I want to puppet Australia instead of unrealistically granting them citizenship in the Japanese Empire I have to annex them, and then turn around and liberate them, which apparently will send the Japanese population into a rage.

Liberation and puppeting instead of annexing should be politically positive things. I can understand the homeland political troubles for the Brits giving up Scotland, or the USSR just giving up Belarus, but other people's territory isolated half-way around the world?

 

[baelthazar]

I agree, this is a huge thing and needs to be dealt with well. Liberation in many games (Making History, for example) is a mess, forcing you to fight the country that you are liberating or take the territory into your ownership, then give it back to the other country.

I'm a huge fan of Puppet governments and I hope there is a way to use spies to install such a government (or at least install a government that will be close to allying with you).

Bael

 

[unmerged(132658)]

I don't understand the liberation penalty neither. Its really stupid in my opinion. And the penalty depands on what nation you liberate. For example, if you liberate Flanders you get hit with a 5% dissent penalty. If you liberate Wallonia, you get hit with a 2.5% penalty. Why?

 

[unmerged(78582)]

the thing I suggested many times before, autonomy

 

[Taillesskangaru]

Puppeting seems to all but have disappeared too. In HOI1 there was always a tough strategic question on if you should puppet or annex. Both had advantages and disadvantages but in HOI2 I can almost never force a puppet government on my enemy. The 2 times or so that I have been able to I had to completely conquer every bit of their territory. So, if I want to puppet Australia instead of unrealistically granting them citizenship in the Japanese Empire I have to annex them, and then turn around and liberate them, which apparently will send the Japanese population into a rage.

This happened to me. My war score with Australia was 100% but twice they rejected my peace offer which will make them a puppet. Apparantly any country in the three main alliances (Axis, Allies, Comintern) can never be puppeted through a peace deal. I had to annex Australia and then release it (gaining 5% dissent). I agree that the liberation dissent penalty doesn't make sense. Perhaps the population would be angry about giving freedom to the people they just conquered, but the new country is a puppet anyway. If anything liberation should lower dissent not increase it.

 

[talin]

I don't understand the liberation penalty neither. Its really stupid in my opinion. And the penalty depands on what nation you liberate. For example, if you liberate Flanders you get hit with a 5% dissent penalty. If you liberate Wallonia, you get hit with a 2.5% penalty. Why?

The penalty is reduced if the nation have less than five victory points.

 

[talin]

I agree that the liberation dissent penalty doesn't make sense. Perhaps the population would be angry about giving freedom to the people they just conquered, but the new country is a puppet anyway. If anything liberation should lower dissent not increase it.

It does makes sense if you look at it from a game balance perspective. If I recall correctly the penalty was implemented in DD1.3 Before that releasing nations was a painless way of dealing with the effects of partisans on your transport capacity.

 

[Premu]

It was for balancing as puppets were really powerfull, especially larger ones.

The better way to balance it would be to weaken puppets. Puppets should also have partisan activity, reduced IC-efficency and less menpower than free states. The penalities should be dependent from the popularity/organisation of the leading party. A communist puppet USA should definitely not be a very efficient one.

These penalities would disappear if you liberate them totally. But well, in this case there is the possibility that they become neutral or even join the enemy side, if they hate your ideology enough.

 

[unmerged(38925)]

I think the political parties could work out here where you could force a minority party into power and then give them (probably through a law) a certain advantage over the other parties in political influence or whatever it's called. I haven't really seen it in action but maybe the political system would work out okay to trigger resistance and other issues for the hostile puppetry of the country. Liberating a country from an enemy (say, Basques in Spain for example) could result in a different balance in the political persuasions of the people thus creating a very healthy state that does not have the problems that a pure puppet government would have.

In fact, it would be nice to have this play out for the various empires as well. If the puppetry system worked out really well we could divide up the British empire for example and have places like India dealing with political problems with the threat of resistance or even revolution depending on how things play out and yet still providing the proper contributions to the Brits.

I really think the earlier proposed puppet autonomy slider concept would go a very long way toward the advancement of the game. A simple slider with different levels of control and contribution to the master nation would do wonders in including the wide range of imperial situations in play at the time of the game and open up another aspect to the strategic game-play. Countries like Britain and France would have a very distinct extra level of game-play options available to them that countries like Finland or Greece would not. It would also help properly work out events like the vichy vs. free france alignments of the colonies.

I fear it's likely too late to add such an option in its full depth though. They've apparently already set up one of the scenarios and it would require a lot of work to do it again with colonies and such as a level of puppetry.

 

[fbaker4]

I never understood why a puppet govt would produce troops for their conqueror. In SP, (and MP) one has to adopt 'house rules' that require F12 dissent reduction for releasing puppets, and a no-outside use of the puppet's troops. So a Japan releasing India can't use any Indian troops outside of India, and a puppet UK's troops have to stay inside UK borders. In both MP and SP though, I (not alone in this) make exceptions for Hungarian troops for the Axis, etc. But IRL, just because the USA releases Japan before fighting the Russians, doesn't mean that the war-weary Japanese armies will ever leave Edo.

On the plus side, a simple adoption of a house rule can mitigate this situation...

 

[vertinox]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume governments in exile will have a key factor in liberation in HoI3.

Hopefully we'll get a DD on it.

 

[Black Lotus]

An issue that needs to be adressed, hopefully we'll get a Dev response in some way.

 

[unmerged(52507)]

I think the dissent is just game balance. Perhaps they can come up with something that feels more realistic