Peacedeal suggestion

[Lollardheretics]

Why have warscore in a game that is about total, unconditional war ?

Either the opponent is defeated or it's not, there's no middle ground. WW2 is not the kind of war you can opt out by making a few concession to the winning side and get on with your life.

That's why Germany surrendered after the fall of Berlin, France accepted an Armistice in 1940, Finland territorial concession in both peace with SU, Danemark...
You have to understand that quoting Games of Throne is not the best argument here.

If your Capital city is occupied and your army defeated, you lose effective control of your country and therefore have to accept a peace. If you refuse, well, the occupying country will effectively overthrown you by giving your land to the first opportunist. Do not forget the "De facto". If you do not control your country, you can claim beeing the "In Exil" but in fact, a new state is born and a new government put in place that will peace out.

Wihelmina and the Netherland was an UNIQUE counter-example.


I think we can add a diplomatic event creating a duplicated state accepting peace if the country refuse to peace out. (simulating in the reverse way what happened in France but with the same result = France refuse to peace out and become "In Exile", the French State Under Pétain accept the peace)

 

[Sid Meier]

As someone who plays a lot of multiplayer and megacampaigns at that, I want a versatile peace deal system for both border conflicts and total war scenarios. None of this "Might as well fight for annexation" total war bs unless I as the player, absolutely want it.

I want more freedom to demand single provs, a small region, medium region, large region, etc.

That's why Germany surrendered after the fall of Berlin, France accepted an Armistice in 1940, Finland territorial concession in both peace with SU, Danemark...
You have to understand that quoting Games of Throne is not the best argument here.

If your Capital city is occupied and your army defeated, you lose effective control of your country and therefore have to accept a peace. If you refuse, well, the occupying country will effectively overthrown you by giving your land to the first opportunist. Do not forget the "De facto". If you do not control your country, you can claim beeing the "In Exil" but in fact, a new state is born and a new government put in place that will peace out.

Wihelmina and the Netherland was an UNIQUE counter-example.


I think we can add a diplomatic event creating a duplicated state accepting peace if the country refuse to peace out. (simulating in the reverse way what happened in France but with the same result = France refuse to peace out and become "In Exile", the French State Under Pétain accept the peace)

What about nations that have their "official" capital near the border but in reality their principle administrative center is further away ala Harry Turtledove's TL-192 United States? I prefer versatility to WWII original timeline specific use cases.

 

[varsovie]

If they occupy Eastern Siberia and German wargoal is high enough and Moscow occupied by one or another, they will have it.

If they are alone at war with SU, well, they have to occupy Moscow.

I hope the Khalkhin Gol battle stays an event in that case...

Having the capital being of importance is understandable, having it a mandatory part of any peace deal is utterly stupid, both as a game mechanic and as a model.

 

[Kovax]

If a capital is the administrative hub of the country, it should have high "VP" value. If it's only a figurehead location, with the real administrative center elsewhere, it should have a lower VP value than the effective "capital". Just occupying the capital with a division of paratroopers should not automatically cause the country to capitulate; you should need to hold either a considerably majority of the VP locations, or have destroyed the vast majority of the army to get a full surrender.

Limited campaigns for limited goals, on the other hand, should NOT require occupying 75% or more of the country, merely that you have de facto control of the area in question and have defeated enough of the army to have a clear superiority. In a case like GER against DEN or BEL, a relatively minor battle should be sufficient to inflict enough losses to bring the smaller nation to the table for modest concessions, but their National Unity and their own national goals might limit what can be bargained without further fighting. Puppet, or ask for some resource concessions? Sure, simple Poker math: a loaded Mauser beats three of a kind. Annexation? Now it's not a game, and somebody's going to get hurt.

Granted, the final expansion of HOI3 had the same wargoal "system" as some other Paradox games, like the latest CK, but unfortunately HOI3 didn't have a complete set of wargoals available. Depending on what country you played, you might be able to ask for "region A", "region B", a puppet government, or complete annexation, but in other cases, the only options were to puppet or annex.

As an example: In HOI3, Hungary can demand the thin strip of its "cores" in CZE which were historically granted by 1st Vienna, or for all the German areas (all of CZE except Slovakia), but it can't ask for all of just Slovakia, or for its historical pre-Trianon Treaty borders (most of Slovakia). In essence, it can demand almost every combination EXCEPT what it actually claimed. It can puppet or annex Romania, but I don't believe it can even ask for its cores in ROM as a wargoal, and it has no way of asking for the rest of its pre-Trianon (and pre-WWI) regions within ROM back. The situation with Yugoslavia is no better, where you can't even ask for your cores, much less the previous borders. It's better for the majors, but still not great, since GER can't ask Poland for its pre-WWI borders, only for a paltry few "core" provinces provided around Danzig, or else they have to puppet/annex the whole country (they can get a few additional "cores" of limited value via the M-R Pact). The frequently disputed Alsace-Lorraine region is not included as a German core. On the other hand, Italy gets a ton of "cores" along the coast of YUG, merely because they wanted them.

Yes, HOI3 got a wargoals "system", but without most of the wargoals.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

New versions of a game are always built upon the last expansion of the last one.

Hard to know what podcat was referring to with the "sometimes they are." It may be that a new release incorporates some features of a previous version - it's hard to imagine they wouldn't - but one would be hard pressed to say that either CK2 or EU4 were very closely related to the last expansion of the previous releases. Same with HOI4 - from what we've seen it will look very little like HOI3.

 

[illathid]

Just use the EU4 system. In my opinion it's the best of all the paradox titles.

 

[Karl244]

Here is my suggestion for a good sandbox peacedeal as proposed on another thread :

PEACEDEAL

- You can only offer a peacedeal to a country when you occupy their Capital
- IA ALWAYS accept peacedeal offer if their capital is occupied and at least 75% of their armed forces destroyed
- Region with rightfull claim (you own core) cost half the price
- 100% occupation and 100% destruction of armed forces equal a 100% wascore allowing full annexation
- Leader in the war can ask region for their allies if they occupy the main city of this region or have core in it
- IA WILL ALWAYS do that when war leader
- Asking the target to become a puppet cost 40%, thus allowing the player or IA to ask for other region in the peacedeal
- Democratic power can't annex, only ask for releasing country


What do you think about this ? Can we release the lollard heretics in sweden to enforce our demand for a real peacedeal mechanic ?

Wot? "only offer a peacedeal to a country when you occupy their capital" That is a bit weird now isn't it?

 

[ingwe]

I hate getting sucked into a faction in HOI3 and then being at total war for the entire game. A more manageable and flexible peace system needs to be around to accommodate more sandboxing as well as modding.

 

[Epicduke]

I would like to see some EU4-esque peace system.

 

[Darkath]

You have to understand that quoting Games of Throne is not the best argument here.

Did I ? If so that was not intended.

If your Capital city is occupied and your army defeated, you lose effective control of your country and therefore have to accept a peace. If you refuse, well, the occupying country will effectively overthrown you by giving your land to the first opportunist. Do not forget the "De facto". If you do not control your country, you can claim beeing the "In Exil" but in fact, a new state is born and a new government put in place that will peace out.

Wihelmina and the Netherland was an UNIQUE counter-example.


I think we can add a diplomatic event creating a duplicated state accepting peace if the country refuse to peace out. (simulating in the reverse way what happened in France but with the same result = France refuse to peace out and become "In Exile", the French State Under Pétain accept the peace)

And yes I agree with you that losing your capital city often means defeat, but it was not the case for China which has relocated many times their capital city and to a lesser extent moscow who moved many critical operations away from moscow in case they lost it.

What i find odd is people mentionning warscore system (especially a ticking warscore syste) for a game like HOI. In most case there is not a single thing that will bring your country to the peace table unless you're completely utterly defeated in a WW2 scenario.

China and Russia never surrendered even when their situation was really dire, Germany fought to the last man, and Japan had to deal with the terror of a nuclear weapon before surrendering. I can't think of a major power that got away with a few concessions during the war, except maybe france that was replaced by a puppet regime + military occupation (which is kinda a total defeat).


Ideally i think the game should have some kind of "peace conference" mechanic where all the winning side can negociate with each other and the losing side to see how the defeated power is dismantled. The more total the defeat, the less the losing side can negociate.

 

[Vedinu]

❶- You can only offer a peacedeal to a country when you occupy their Capital
❷- Democratic power can't annex, only ask for releasing country

❶I don't agree with this. I can imagine at least a few cases where peace might be made without occupation of capital.
◆if there is a long war between two equal minors, and both are having heavy losses, neither of them winning.
◆Germany's government changes before Berlin is occupied and they wish to surrender.
◆if you, as say Japan, want to conquer an European colony from a non-major power, maybe peace could be made before the destruction of that country in Europe.
◆some country makes a good defence and only has to give some of its areas. Such as Finland in Winter War.

❷I agree that Britain or the US should not be able to go and annex France. But they should be able to annex Germany, and a democratic minor should definitely be able to annex.

---
I strongly agree that if you have completely won a country, you must be able to demand unconditional surrender (and annex it all).

 

[BillyBlaze]

Why have warscore in a game that is about total, unconditional war ?

Either the opponent is defeated or it's not, there's no middle ground. WW2 is not the kind of war you can opt out by making a few concession to the winning side and get on with your life.

I disagree. For playing the game more sandbox like, which means rewriting history, making peace deals with other nations is important.
Especially for Germany, USSR and Great Britian. Seperate peaces weren't too unrealistic at all.

 

[Mamluke]

Why have warscore in a game that is about total, unconditional war ?

Either the opponent is defeated or it's not, there's no middle ground. WW2 is not the kind of war you can opt out by making a few concession to the winning side and get on with your life.

winter war anyone?

and before you say, "that is not ww2" this game is about the time period covering 1936-1948 and NOT JUST ww2, or the only start date you would get would be set 1 1939.

seriusly, how would want just that!?

ho BTW.

Continuation war anyone?

 

[Drewbdu]

A separate peace should be possible. If Halifax became PM in Britain, a separate peace with Germany was a very real possibility. A less extreme Hitler and Stalin could have proposed a separate peace a la Brest-Litovsk. Things like this could have happened OTL, and they should be able to happen occasionally in HOI4.

 

[Gargtholomew]

Just use the EU4 system. In my opinion it's the best of all the paradox titles.

+1

 

[misterbean]

Big difference between EU4 and HOI 4: 376 years versus 12.

 

[Le_Carabinier]

I want a peace system that would make it possible for Japan to win a war against the USA without having to actually conquer America.

 

[Lollardheretics]

I have read very good points about how taking the capital should not be a condition to suggest a peace, actually it was for making the coding easier and avoiding silly situation, glitch and bug. Didn't though really about China.

I agree that Britain or the US should not be able to go and annex France. But they should be able to annex Germany, and a democratic minor should definitely be able to annex.

Well, it never happened and i think that other democratic power won't be happy about Denmark annexing Sweden, won't they ?


After reading everyone, i actually though about casus belli and the whole EU4 war system. It is what we want.

A separate peace should be possible. If Halifax became PM in Britain, a separate peace with Germany was a very real possibility.

I can't think of a good mechanic for that, except civil war OR putch if very nice peace term are offered (Like Germany asking for white peace with England in 1940 AND leaving France without condition -> If England refuse, massive trouble for them)

 

[ringhloth]

Hard to know what podcat was referring to with the "sometimes they are." It may be that a new release incorporates some features of a previous version - it's hard to imagine they wouldn't - but one would be hard pressed to say that either CK2 or EU4 were very closely related to the last expansion of the previous releases. Same with HOI4 - from what we've seen it will look very little like HOI3.

EU4 used many of the same events and other mechanics. At release, there weren't a lot of things that were incredibly, widely different, at least from an outside perspective. Now, HoI3 didn't have a lot of these events or mechanics like the ones we saw in EU3 that could be ported easily. A lot of the things we saw in HoI3 are blatantly missing (most of the missing features didn't work well, and I'm guessing peace deals is one of these missing features).

Again, though, because there are very, very few peace deals that matter (France, Finland, maybe China are the only ones I can think of that would have a measurable effect on the rest of the war), I wouldn't mind a system that handled the outstanding ones via event (or special wargoal, in HoI3 terms), and the rest being sort of banal, but not wonky (HoI3 puppeting was wonky in that, say, Winston Churchill was serving under Adolf in a democratic country).

 

[Kadanz]

Big difference between EU4 and HOI 4: 376 years versus 12.

Yes but EUIV ticks by days and HOI IV ticks by hours.