Neutrality/Threat

[Yarhammer]

Does anyone know if the neutrality/threat system, that prevented or allowed you to go to war, from Hearts of Iron III will be in Hearts of Iron IV?

 

[scroggin]

Does anyone know if the neutrality/threat system, that prevented or allowed you to go to war, from Hearts of Iron III will be in Hearts of Iron IV?

I hope not I thought it was daft the way you had to increase the threat of a neighbouring country in order to attack a totally unrelated country thousands of miles away.

 

[FOARP]

Does anyone know if the neutrality/threat system, that prevented or allowed you to go to war, from Hearts of Iron III will be in Hearts of Iron IV?

I really hope not. The whole thing stunk of numerical game-play, lacked transparency, was frustrating since you felt you it was hard to influence directly and the way in which you were supposed to influence it seemed back-asswards (I mean seriously, the way of doing it was to send spies to another country to make them look more threatening? so you can attack a totally different country?)

 

[scroggin]

I really hope not. The whole thing stunk of numerical game-play, lacked transparency, was frustrating since you felt you it was hard to influence directly and the way in which you were supposed to influence it seemed back-asswards (I mean seriously, the way of doing it was to send spies to another country to make them look more threatening? so you can attack a totally different country?)

Yes it didn't pay to attack the country whose threat you had raised with your spies because when you defeated them the threat would disappear and you could no longer declare war also it always paid to raise the threat of a neighbour because that would have a greater effect on your neutrality than on other countries neutrality.

 

[FOARP]

Yes it didn't pay to attack the country whose threat you had raised with your spies because when you defeated them the threat would disappear and you could no longer declare war also it always paid to raise the threat of a neighbour because that would have a greater effect on your neutrality than on other countries neutrality.

Try saying that three times fast

 

[Yarhammer]

I agree with all of you, I also don't think they should bring the old system back. What I'd like to see is a modified version of the fabricate casus belli system from Victoria II. Or some sort of casus belli system.

 

[nikssims]

Try saying that three times fast

Why? I tried reading it very fast but just couldn't get into what i was reading.

 

[scroggin]

Englis was always my weakist subject at shcool

 

[mattyh1995]

I agree with all of you, I also don't think they should bring the old system back. What I'd like to see is a modified version of the fabricate casus belli system from Victoria II. Or some sort of casus belli system.

If there's a casus belli system then the addition of more war objectives must be implemented. It'd be a great feature for diplomacy. It'd mean you could offer Gibraltar to Spain if they join.etc

The only thing I would like changed from existing casus belli systems would be the removal of 'war score', if you have every single province of a country occupied then you should be able to demand any amount of things from them not being limited by war score.

 

[NapoleonComple]

Englis was always my weakist subject at shcool

Ah dnt sea teh problem.

 

[Yarhammer]

If there's a casus belli system then the addition of more war objectives must be implemented. It'd be a great feature for diplomacy. It'd mean you could offer Gibraltar to Spain if they join.

That would be absolutely brilliant! I believe that in March of the Eagles war was much less restricted and doesn't have any system from restricting warfare aside from treaties (this couldn't be implemented in a Hearts of Iron game, I don't think. Playing through a March of the Eagles game is far quicker than a Hearts of Iron game). You could join one of the opposing coalitions, occupy the territory you wanted, and peace out for that territory. But in March of the Eagles that was mostly player-driven.

The only thing I would like changed from existing casus belli systems would be the removal of 'war score', if you have every single province of a country occupied then you should be able to demand any amount of things from them not being limited by war score.

I'd be careful about removing the war score system entirely. For instance, Japan demanding the entire annexation of China in the first war shouldn't be possible, and even if it was it wouldn't be feasible. In Europa Universalis IV, getting a 100% war score and having all of the enemy's territory occupied, you could take almost everything from them, make them your vassal, give up trade, annul treaties with other countries...but you could only annex an amount of territory that you could feasibly take without overextending yourself. I don't know how an over-extension system would work in a Hearts of Iron game. Or maybe I'm just so used to the war score system I couldn't imagine anything different.