Make it close to impossible to conquer the world

[Fawr]

As a rule of thumb, when people talk about balance and challenge, they mean the default difficulty level, i.e. normal, with no bonuses to the player or the AI. It's obvious that hard should be harder and easy should be easier, duh.

I was assuming that the discussion was about very hard (as that's where most experienced players end up).

On normal I don't see why it shouldn't be easy with a player controlled US for the allies to conquer the world. They just need to be a bit earlier in their conquest of Germany/Japan, and then the only part of the world left is the soviets. Playing as Albania it should be impossible...

 

[21oliver]

I dont see why it should be possible at all. The realities are clear. All Germany controlled was europe and yet look at the massive amounts of manpower and resources it took to maintain control. Also as the war goes on more and more soldiers arent even of the same ethnic background, so that changes the equation some. I dont think any nation in that time period had even an iota of a chance to conquer the world. BUT this is a game, and some of the average gamers like to do this stuff. I just personally think there should be a sandbox type mode for it.

 

[GunslingerV]

I dont see why it should be possible at all. The realities are clear. All Germany controlled was europe and yet look at the massive amounts of manpower and resources it took to maintain control. Also as the war goes on more and more soldiers arent even of the same ethnic background, so that changes the equation some. I dont think any nation in that time period had even an iota of a chance to conquer the world. BUT this is a game, and some of the average gamers like to do this stuff. I just personally think there should be a sandbox type mode for it.

Then just wait for a historical accuracy / realism mod and play that instead

I've been able to conquer the world in vanilla HOI 1-3, I don't see why HOI4 would suddenly place restrictions to prevent this (in all likelihood it will be easier than ever to conquer the whole world since Paradox wants to cater to a broader audience now)

 

[Ratanka]

While the Axis occupied Europe resistance movements were not just existing, they were RAGING. If a couple of militaristic and nationalist countries decided to take over the world, there would simply be another war, wars of liberation after the first one has ended.

If an alliance with an internationalist ideology, however, decided to take over the world through satellite governments, it might be possible. If the objective is not to 'liberate' but to oppress under a nationalistic regime, then no, absolutely impossible.

Did you know that in China, between 37-45, the Japanese Army only controlled the cities and major railway stations? They had little or no control over the whole supposedly 'occupied' countryside, which was entirely controlled by guerrillas.

because japan wasnt on the level germany was,
there was a few lucky things, the russian winter, the american uprising, i mean look before ww1, america was weak. superweak to be honest and no danger for any nation.
also there was a lot of reasons it was so hard because we modern

but look in the ancient world, i mean the empire of rome just not went bigger because of the death of the roman empires, and the intern conflicts. they always beat themself and then everyone beat them when they was weak.
the empire was gigantic bigger anyone made after that or before that

with today knowledge (so if you play hoi it IS you there with today knowledge) damn germany would crush even america with easyymode

 

[TheRedcoat]

I agree, the only way it might be possible would be through some sort of revolutionary ideology like communism, controlling a world of decentralised puppet states.

Nationalism would be too oppressive for the 99% of the world's population that weren't from your nation, the same goes for race or culture. Logistically a centralised government would be impossible and might be misconstrued as an oppressive, nationalistic regime orchestrated by wherever the government was based.

Maybe a league of nations / UN / British commonwealth slowly incorporating states into a union before turning them into puppet states? Even in that case, it would take well more than twenty years and have to have some sort of overarching ideology (a more militant charter of human rights?). All this would require the controllers, (and to some degree the population) of these regional governments, to be enlightened enough to support a world ideology over simple nationalism and tribalism. I heard that the motivation for most of the soviet troops and people in WW2 was simple patriotic pride in Russia rather than spreading the virtues of communism. You would have to have a world enlightened enough to totally support an ideology over everything else, but not affluent enough just to be fine with the status quo and not be bothered with any revolution.

Either way, if it were at all possible by the time of HOI, twenty years would surely be too short a timespan. A mega-campaign where you have established some sort of relatively centralised UN which already controls 60% of the world might do the job.

But even if it were possible to hold the world together once you'd got control, getting there in the first place would be an impossibility in twenty years and certainly wouldn't be plausible through military conquest alone.

So yes on any realistic difficulty I would want it to be impossible to conquer or even control the world through more 'subtle' means. And you could always have a couch potato/sandbox difficulty for people who want to see the world painted one colour.

*ramble over*

TLDR version: world conquest impossible in twenty years, should be impossible on any realistic difficulty mode.

 

[Easy1]

In another thread, we spent considerable time debating the realistic possibility of an Axis victory over the Soviets. One point that came up was that even if the Germans achieved their territorial ambitions against the Soviets, a refusal of the Soviets to surrender might not ever force the Germans out of the occupied territory (as in, the Soviets are forced to accept the territorial concessions of the Bitter Peace per HOI3, but Stalin never actually surrenders and sporadic fighting continues). But would it really be victory if Germany continued to keep a large army mobilized and continued to sustain significant casualties on the Eastern Front? The Soviets don't ever "win" by liberating their territory, but it's hard to call it a win for the Germans if the annexed territory is mostly useless between famines, insurgencies, partisans, and no real peace.

Which thread was that?

The time frame of any HOI3 game means that you don't have to live with the consequences of your empire building. So, the associated problems of world conquest aren't really there to model. And I think this is something the game can't really model. Do you honestly think the German people would have continued to support the regime for forty years if they had to stay mobilized in a war-time economy (rationing, lack of consumer goods) the whole time and cope with the widows and orphans effect, just to hold on to an empire? I don't think so; but HOI3 doesn't have any kind of economic or war exhaustion, and it shouldn't, either.

Why shouldn't HOI IV have any kind of economic or war exhaustion?

Although, I just thought of a brilliant idea for a cyberpunk themed novel. A novel set in a future where the Axis powers won WWII, but globalization of the world economy and the Information Age still happen at roughly the same historical points. You'd have Krupp industries acting as a multinational corporation making billions of dollars a year while the Nazis are in decline, losing control of their empire. Jewish hackers change their ethnic certifications in Gestapo databases to avoid imprisonment while Yakuza crime lords blackmail prominent members of the Yamato family into giving them special business concessions in Indochina.

Globalization itself was and is very much facilitated by political liberalism though. Had liberalism not won the war, we would not have seen globalization as we now do.

Pics/AAR please.

Tons of AAR's of minors conquering the world

Impossible? Tell that to Alexander.
In vanilla anything should be possible.

*The world

I was assuming that the discussion was about very hard (as that's where most experienced players end up).

On normal I don't see why it shouldn't be easy with a player controlled US for the allies to conquer the world. They just need to be a bit earlier in their conquest of Germany/Japan, and then the only part of the world left is the soviets. Playing as Albania it should be impossible...

The question is if the US would have any allies if it was close to achieving world supremacy, and the answer is that it is dubious. States become allies because they have a common threat. If that threat goes away, so does the incentive for being allies.

I dont see why it should be possible at all. The realities are clear. All Germany controlled was europe and yet look at the massive amounts of manpower and resources it took to maintain control. Also as the war goes on more and more soldiers arent even of the same ethnic background, so that changes the equation some. I dont think any nation in that time period had even an iota of a chance to conquer the world. BUT this is a game, and some of the average gamers like to do this stuff. I just personally think there should be a sandbox type mode for it.

I agree, it really shouldn't be possible. But I don't wanna piss of the utopianists too much.

 

[GunslingerV]

Which thread was that?
Tons of AAR's of minors conquering the world
.

I have yet to see a minor like Costa Rica take over the world.

And some of the larger minors use "nonneutrality" or "debug yesmen" cheat to push things along initially. Therefore, they couldn't have conquered the world without cheating.

 

[21oliver]

I've been able to conquer the world in vanilla HOI 1-3, I don't see why HOI4 would suddenly place restrictions to prevent this (in all likelihood it will be easier than ever to conquer the whole world since Paradox wants to cater to a broader audience now)

I made a point of saying, dont take it out of the game, just have different modes. I think easy-norm-hard-vh is almost obsolete. It seems most play on Norm or VH. Id make the game historical/plausible/sandbox. If they play sandbox they can conquer the world if they want. Just a suggestion.

 

[21oliver]

I have yet to see a minor like Costa Rica take over the world.

You also shouldnt be able to conquer the world playing simply. In the past few weeks i conquered the world both as Germany and the Soviet Union using nothing but INFx3 and TPs. Nothing else. Ive seen players do it with Turkey with nothing but CAV units.

The game isnt about IC, Resources or Military might. Its about grabbing VPs. The main focus is lowering neutrality, org and supply. Everything else you can do without.

 

[GunslingerV]

You also shouldnt be able to conquer the world playing simply. In the past few weeks i conquered the world both as Germany and the Soviet Union using nothing but INFx3 and TPs. Nothing else. Ive seen players do it with Turkey with nothing but CAV units.

The game isnt about IC, Resources or Military might. Its about grabbing VPs. The main focus is lowering neutrality, org and supply. Everything else you can do without.

Then maybe the issue is to make vanilla more like BICE in terms of unit diversity. INFx3 would get murdered in BICE by just most tanks b/c INF receive lower hard attack and piercing values from upgrading their anti-tank weapons.

Need more diverse unit compositions to win battles = need more techs = slower progress = minors have much tougher time conquering world.

 

[Cpack]

Need more diverse unit compositions to win battles = need more techs = slower progress = minors have much tougher time conquering world.

That's what I also would like to see. But therefor, some more variables may be good. The first good inplementation was the armor and piercing value

 

[AmpsterMan]

I imagine the battleplan system would mean we need to plan offensives and defenses in advance. As it is, setting your units on AI control already somewhat represents this.

The issue here though is the medium. Because it is a game and we can give direct orders not as the head of state but rather some semi omnicient diety, we can change things on a whim. If, for example, the different generals wpild have personality traits that determined their willingness to go along with some plan (i.e. Something that modified their ai), if there were an org penalty for changing orders from the top (ie, you, the player) then I cam see this being a more realistic prospect.

Example. Imagime ypu draw up a plan that has Army A go through provinces x,y,and z to capture a victory point and set up a line. If you put an the personality of your commander, plus doctrines, etc, should determine the likelyhood of him retreating or pursueing the battleplan. If you decide to change orders afterr you have "executed" the plan, then their should be an org penalty proportional to the magnitude of the change.

Furthrmore, imagine if you had a little bar that filled up as the order cam to fuller fruition. When you hit certain player defined "checkpoints" ypu would get a notice from your general letting ypu know when to activate the next phase. Everytime uou complete a checkpoint your units get a small temporary org regain. However, to initialize the next phase requires a "readiness" meter to be buolt up. If you execute the phase with less tjan optimal readiness you lose prpportional org (this also applies to phase one)

 

[AlexLifeson]

World conquest should ALWAYS be possible. It gives an entirely new avenue as to how the player plays. Starting from a small country and making the entire world that colour is a fun and rewarding experience. Gameplay over historical plausibility is the name of the game.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I imagine the battleplan system would mean we need to plan offensives and defenses in advance. As it is, setting your units on AI control already somewhat represents this.

The issue here though is the medium. Because it is a game and we can give direct orders not as the head of state but rather some semi omnicient diety, we can change things on a whim. If, for example, the different generals wpild have personality traits that determined their willingness to go along with some plan (i.e. Something that modified their ai), if there were an org penalty for changing orders from the top (ie, you, the player) then I cam see this being a more realistic prospect.

Example. Imagime ypu draw up a plan that has Army A go through provinces x,y,and z to capture a victory point and set up a line. If you put an the personality of your commander, plus doctrines, etc, should determine the likelyhood of him retreating or pursueing the battleplan. If you decide to change orders afterr you have "executed" the plan, then their should be an org penalty proportional to the magnitude of the change.

Furthrmore, imagine if you had a little bar that filled up as the order cam to fuller fruition. When you hit certain player defined "checkpoints" ypu would get a notice from your general letting ypu know when to activate the next phase. Everytime uou complete a checkpoint your units get a small temporary org regain. However, to initialize the next phase requires a "readiness" meter to be buolt up. If you execute the phase with less tjan optimal readiness you lose prpportional org (this also applies to phase one)

I really Like this idea...

Some traits could be like:
Aggressive: High chance of continuing on attack and moving to next phases without direct orders. (an example would be Patton )
Defensive: Much more likely to stop units and wait for supplies (An example would be Montgomery )

We could add in things like General's don't like be assigned to "Guard" Duty for protecting Norway/France, they want to be in the battle on the front lines.

Also Changing an Army's commander should have heavy consequences, as the officers will have to adapt to the new general and his strategies. I dont' know of any instances where A general was moved to control another Army. Exception might be General Patton leading the "Ghost army" in Britain (which he hated doing), but he was later reassigned back to his old Army in the invasion if I remember.

However they have mentioned they are redoing commanders and their roles. I'm not sure what they are doing yet.

 

[Secret Master]

Which thread was that?

I don't have it handy now. If I find it, I'll link it.

Why shouldn't HOI IV have any kind of economic or war exhaustion?

I think that dissent, NU, and party popularity can cover that sort of stuff. The length of time covered by the game makes me think that war exhaustion, as modeled in other Paradox games, wouldn't really work. You'd have to account for situations where major combatants weren't really facing problems with war exhaustion until they were either their cities were leveled to the ground via B-29 strikes (Japan) or until manpower ran dry and the country started to be physically occupied by the enemy (Germany). Those are very different situations than Italy (partially occupied, but was never that excited about the war in the first place), Finland (wanted security, wanted territory back), and so on.

Unlike other Paradox games, which can last for centuries, you'd have to be really careful about including a war exhaustion mechanic, in part because the game doesn't model the post-war world. (If it does model it in some way, then we are going to have a whole other thread to chat. )

Globalization itself was and is very much facilitated by political liberalism though. Had liberalism not won the war, we would not have seen globalization as we now do.

Yes, this is true, but the fun would be exploring what globalization would look like under those conditions. Including, but not limited to, "The world economy is shattered into mercantilist blocks because Germany and Japan are in a Cold War and refuse to trade with each other, causing slower technological development and a drop in living standards, meaning that 'globalization' is limited to 'militarily-enforced Euro-Zone like areas that refuse to trade with one another, creating the conditions for a second, and worse, Great Depression.'"

 

[Invader_Canuck]

The thread was about US not having enough IC or something. It is about 5 or 6 pages back and it is locked.