No incentive for Allies to avoid war

[Theodorian]

As far as multiplayer goes, there is no incentive for the Allies not to go to war over the Rhineland or the Sudetenland.

In real life, the people of France wished to avoid another war because they had literally lost an entire generation of people in the last war. The people of the United Kingdom were similarly wanting to avoid sending their boys off to die on the continent again.

However, the longer you wait the stronger the Axis gets.

The Axis have an incentive to wait to grow until you're ready for the war. The Allies have no incentive to stave off war.

I think there should be a National Unity bonus maybe for every year (January 1st, 19XX) that World Tension is under a certain percentage, maybe?

This thread is for discussion about this. Go for it.

 

[Surimi]

I think you're onto something.

I also realized as the Soviets its remarkably easy to just attack Poland as soon as you can and then go straight through them into Germany, completely halting the German buildup. The purge is not a big enough obstacle in this sense.. I managed to remove the penalties only a few days into the war with Germany.

I mean, I'm pretty sure player Germany can hold out against player France pretty much from the beginning if the Westwall is built. Neither side is going to be strong enough to actually break through each other's fortifications for a while, but I think you're right in that, while the UK is at least restricted by the "War to end all wars" debuff, France's debuffs tend to have a more long term impact rather than being a short term limitation.

 

[Theodorian]

As UK/France, oppose the "Remilitarization of the Rhineland" and its GG Germany. The sooner you go to war with Germany, the faster you win.

 

[szmik]

Balance for MP game is non-existent. It's just gg Axis off the bat.

 

[uishax]

I think the PP penalty needs to more severe for democracies declaring war. And simultaneously dramatically raise the PP cost for conscription laws.
This means sure UK and France can go to war early, but they will be extremely limited in manpower. Also cannot change laws or appoint any ministers.

 

[SDAirborne173]

I think national unity modifiers could also be made contingent upon casualties. So for every 2% of recruitable core population lost, maybe 1 capitulation point, etc. That way if Allies choose to go to war earlier, you could make it so they have a lower capitulation threshhold and might even be defeated just on the basis of losses in combat.

 

[yonderTheGreat]

That's why there's often House Rules for HOI MP. 2 and 3 had "Japan can't invade Mainland America at the very beginning of the game" as a common House Rule for a similar reason. Because with the way the game is setup, it would just ruin things.

Or, to use generic videogame terminology... NO ZERG RUSH!

 

[yerm]

Going to war over the Rhineland should cause Britain's allies faction to ban going into any offensive war with them and FDR to lose his hatred of Germany, and France taking this choice should probably fire off a coup. The USSR has absurd NU which should be lowered and given instead as some sort of buff but only when the defender in a war. Leave the player agency in that lets people take these decisions, just make them risky decisions with severe drawbacks.

 

[The Insufferable]

Yeah this bothers be a lot.

In my current multiplayer game with friends, my "friend" decided to simulate a bolder Chamberlain and refuse my Sudetenland demands... And I was like...oh...now I have to fight 3 fronts instead of 2...additionally I don't get the land as annexed territory anymore...only occupied...

However, Britain and I signed a non-aggression pact (for the lol's, figured we would just break it when we needed to) but to his horror realized that I could not be broken so I did invade the Czech's, Netherlands and France and concluded that war in a peace conference, all while Britain sat helplessly.

But yeah I don't like how he had no reason to let me grow... Kind of ruins that portion of the national focus tree...

 

[Jaapje]

A simple, and realistic, solution would be a hit to NU and a severe hit to the popularity of democrats.

 

[Warmagon]

In real life, people in GB and France also held the hope of avoiding war through appeasement. If they had the foreknowledge HoI players did, they probably wouldn't have been so quick to give Germany tons of stuff either.

 

[Telenil]

France taking this choice should probably fire off a coup.

It does.
The game implies the war over Rhineland chain of event (including said coup) will only start if the British support the French, I'm not sure what happens if they don't.

 

[Theodorian]

There are some genuinely terrific ideas in this thread. Personally, I think some simple balance changes could be implemented so that house rules can be minimized. Appeasement should be a good strategy to hold off war, but in the game it has no benefits. Appeasing the Axis should boost National Unity. The population would obviously be excited that war was avoided.

Alternatively, PP costs for the Allies should be much higher.

 

[Theodorian]

Going to war over the Rhineland should cause Britain's allies faction to ban going into any offensive war with them and FDR to lose his hatred of Germany, and France taking this choice should probably fire off a coup. The USSR has absurd NU which should be lowered and given instead as some sort of buff but only when the defender in a war. Leave the player agency in that lets people take these decisions, just make them risky decisions with severe drawbacks.

I like this ideas as well.

 

[Sidetrack Nick]

I agree. The national focus trees, even if the AI avoids them, as long as they keep taking them, they will eventually be at war somewhere. It's part of what makes the game suspenseful: when is who going to kick the bucket of kittens over and get the world into war? But I agree, the Allies don't want war. I don't think the Rhineland freaked out anyone, for example. That the allies gave up Czechoslovakia so quick is another indicator they didn't want war. It's not like Neville made the decision without consulting others first. Italy might not attack places if it wasn't trying to keep up with Germany. Japan, if it had conquered China, might not have gone the next step considering how much they could exploit China and/or ignore the embargos. So many things are dictated by the national focuses, which ARE a cool mechanic.

As Germany, I'm AFRAID to ally with my traditional allies, because they'll suck me into war before I'm ready. But would Italy go to war if it didn't feel like Germany would back it up? How would American politics be affected if the war economy didn't help it recover from the depression?

There's some other issues. I allied with Poland as Germany, but Poland caved into the pressure of the Comintern, switched to communist (from non-aligned gov't), gave up half of Poland (which I would not have let Russia do if I was at the negotiations as Germany), and then quit my faction and joined the allies in one moment despite having 75% fascist leanings. This is an example of how national focuses are a bit nuts. However, it tickles me to death to think I can trade Danzig for Slovakia and avoid the war for a long time, while having reunited Germany. The National Focuses are as cool as they are lame at the same time! I'm sure Paradox was had some big debates over that feature!

 

[Hardin4188]

As far as multiplayer goes, there is no incentive for the Allies not to go to war over the Rhineland or the Sudetenland.

In real life, the people of France wished to avoid another war because they had literally lost an entire generation of people in the last war. The people of the United Kingdom were similarly wanting to avoid sending their boys off to die on the continent again.

However, the longer you wait the stronger the Axis gets.

The Axis have an incentive to wait to grow until you're ready for the war. The Allies have no incentive to stave off war.

I think there should be a National Unity bonus maybe for every year (January 1st, 19XX) that World Tension is under a certain percentage, maybe?

This thread is for discussion about this. Go for it.

I agree with this. I had a co-op campaign as the UK and we declared war on Germany early when they were trying to get Czechoslovakia. We kept France alive and despite enormous casualties on both side the war was over by 1942. When I say enormous casualties we had over 1 million dead while Germany and Italy had millions dead combined. I'll have to do more amphibious assaults in the Mediterranean next time. Head on was a meat grinder lol.

This obviously is why it they wanted to avoid such a war. Casualties are different in real life. You can't just have a million dead and say "Yay we won!"

 

[Theodorian]

I agree with this. I had a co-op campaign as the UK and we declared war on Germany early when they were trying to get Czechoslovakia. We kept France alive and despite enormous casualties on both side the war was over by 1942. When I say enormous casualties we had over 1 million dead while Germany and Italy had millions dead combined. I'll have to do more amphibious assaults in the Mediterranean next time. Head on was a meat grinder lol.

This obviously is why it they wanted to avoid such a war. Casualties are different in real life. You can't just have a million dead and say "Yay we won!"

I think this is right on with what I'm talking about. Wonder if we can get a dev to comment on this. @podcat