Peacful Expansion

[SkittlesKeeper]

As I was playing Hearts of Iron IV, I had the idea of allowing nations to form treaties with one another as a way to prevent going to war. The following is an example: Playing as Japan, you conquer all of the Chinese nations. You now want to remove the European influence from continental Asia without going to war with France, Portugal and the U.K. Currently it is not possible to acquire land without war. My proposal is to reach a diplomatic solution by creating a treaty. In this situation, you could request a province in exchange for military supplies, usage of civilian factories, etc. In this game, I would attempt to obtain Hon Kong from the U.K. by offering them “X” number of factories for “X” months. If the Treaty is accepted, Hong Kong becomes a Japanese city and I would be closer to removing the European influence in Asia.

Other things that could be asked for in a treaty are:

-Territorial exchange
-Use of X amount of civilian factories for X amount of years
-Transfer of military supplies
-Nonaggression Pledge
-Allow them to broadcast their ruling parties propaganda which would add .10 influence for that party for X amount of months
-Revoke diplomatic relations with other nations
-Embargo a nation
-Release puppet
-Give military access
-Request of demilitarization of a state
-Transfer of resources for X amount of time
-Provide expeditionary for X amount of time
-Declare war on a nation
-Release territory

I feel that most of the game mechanics is already in place and a simple patch could be done to improve game play.

 

[Mutagen_Prime]

This has relatively little historical prescedent and seems overly complex. I'd prefer a national focus to attain this affect, personally.

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

This has relatively little historical prescedent and seems overly complex. I'd prefer a national focus to attain this affect, personally.

While I realize this may be suited to game improvement more than historical accuracy you could also argue that treaties would more accurately allow you to represent the terms the U.S.A. gave to the U.K. for their lend lease. As for national focuses the issue is you will always see the same treaties and only major nations have custom national focus.

 

[Homer2101]

Territorial concessions for military materiel isn't unprecedented per se -- Destroyers for Bases comes to mind, but it wouldn't work for Japan. The Japanese home islands are notoriously poor in industrial resources, and the ostensible practical purpose of Japanese expansion across the Pacific was to secure those resources. In practice, Japan could have aligned itself with the USA and traded for those resources, and plausibly could have done so as late as February 1936.

The assassination of Prime Minister Okada Keisuke, who opposed war with the United States, and of finance minister Takahashi Korekiyo, who got Japan out of the Great Depression through sound expansionary fiscal and monetary policy and a large debt-financed infrastructure program, basically ended any chance of that by putting aggressive expansionists into power and consolidating military control of the Japanese government. Korekiyo's 'error' was in reducing the military's budget in response to a growing economy.

That said, it might be an interesting mechanic to allow countries to give core territory or abandon claims in return for considerable resource contributions or materiel. LEndlease would have to be fixed first, though.

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

Territorial concessions for military materiel isn't unprecedented per se -- Destroyers for Bases comes to mind, but it wouldn't work for Japan. The Japanese home islands are notoriously poor in industrial resources, and the ostensible practical purpose of Japanese expansion across the Pacific was to secure those resources. In practice, Japan could have aligned itself with the USA and traded for those resources, and plausibly could have done so as late as February 1936.

The assassination of Prime Minister Okada Keisuke, who opposed war with the United States, and of finance minister Takahashi Korekiyo, who got Japan out of the Great Depression through sound expansionary fiscal and monetary policy and a large debt-financed infrastructure program, basically ended any chance of that by putting aggressive expansionists into power and consolidating military control of the Japanese government. Korekiyo's 'error' was in reducing the military's budget in response to a growing economy.

That said, it might be an interesting mechanic to allow countries to give core territory or abandon claims in return for considerable resource contributions or materiel. LEndlease would have to be fixed first, though.

I only used Japan as an example anther place I could see a treaty being useful is if Ireland wanted to secure Northern Ireland from the U.K. If Ireland really wanted it they could potentially offer the U.K. a nonaggression pledge military supplies and provide a expeditionary force to the U.K. This offer of course would be much more likely to be accepted if the U.K. was at war.

 

[Homer2101]

I only used Japan as an example anther place I could see a treaty being useful is if Ireland wanted to secure Northern Ireland from the U.K. If Ireland really wanted it they could potentially offer the U.K. a nonaggression pledge military supplies and provide a expeditionary force to the U.K. This offer of course would be much more likely to be accepted if the U.K. was at war.

It could be an interesting system, sure. Although historically such things were incredibly rare during the time period, from what I recall.

Also, the UK threatened to invade Ireland if they sided with the Axis, and Germany bombed Dublin as a demonstration when Ireland made gestures of support toward the United Kingdom.

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

It could be an interesting system, sure. Although historically such things were incredibly rare during the time period, from what I recall.

Also, the UK threatened to invade Ireland if they sided with the Axis, and Germany bombed Dublin as a demonstration when Ireland made gestures of support toward the United Kingdom.

While almost all examples I can come up with have a potential historical counter argument I feel I have to bring up in the German national focus tree they can get Dazing in exchange for Slovakia. While this to my knowledge isn't historical the game allows Germany to do it. This is just one example of the game attempting to change history with nations national focus trees. In addition this would easily be possible my proposed treaty system. Finally the game has a non historical game mode that a lot of people prefer playing on.

 

[onlysane1]

It would be interesting if, based on the war goal of the attacking nation (conquer such-and-such state), the defending country could choose to simply give in to demands and cede that state to the aggressor to avoid war, giving them a temporary peace treaty and giving a bit more time to prepare. It would make choosing what state to declare against a bit more strategic.

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

It would be interesting if, based on the war goal of the attacking nation (conquer such-and-such state), the defending country could choose to simply give in to demands and cede that state to the aggressor to avoid war, giving them a temporary peace treaty and giving a bit more time to prepare. It would make choosing what state to declare against a bit more strategic.

I fully agree at times it makes no sense for a nation to resit anther nation invading them. That could also be implemented into the treaty system I mentioned. Where you chose to offer nothing to the nation and if they accept you demand you get a peace treaty. If they refuse though you would become the aggressor against them in a war. However, when making demands you would have to have a cause for demanding something like you would need to declare war normally.

 

[dannyevilcat]

Christ, people, I know you want sandbox, but it's a war game. It doesn't need extra features which dilute this focus.

 

[Anichent]

Transfer territory while at peace seems like something that is quite normal and should be in the game. At the very least.

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

Christ, people, I know you want sandbox, but it's a war game. It doesn't need extra features which dilute this focus.

I'm not proposing that we try to prevent world war II or even war in general. This idea with treaties is that you can acquire something you need/want diplomatically. As for land exchange I'm not proposing taking over a nation with treaties but just getting a small area in exchange for something you don't need. If anything this could make WW II more interesting by allowing nations to get supplies they need to help them in the World War. As an example France could give Indochina to Siam for a ton military supplies and some factories that could aid France in the World War.

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

Transfer territory while at peace seems like something that is quite normal and should be in the game. At the very least.

I agree and I don't see why this wasn't in the base.Hopefully this forum will grow big enough to attract some devs attention.

 

[wright1331]

As I was playing Hearts of Iron IV, I had the idea of allowing nations to form treaties with one another as a way to prevent going to war. The following is an example: Playing as Japan, you conquer all of the Chinese nations. You now want to remove the European influence from continental Asia without going to war with France, Portugal and the U.K. Currently it is not possible to acquire land without war. My proposal is to reach a diplomatic solution by creating a treaty. In this situation, you could request a province in exchange for military supplies, usage of civilian factories, etc. In this game, I would attempt to obtain Hon Kong from the U.K. by offering them “X” number of factories for “X” months. If the Treaty is accepted, Hong Kong becomes a Japanese city and I would be closer to removing the European influence in Asia.

Other things that could be asked for in a treaty are:

-Territorial exchange
-Use of X amount of civilian factories for X amount of years
-Transfer of military supplies
-Nonaggression Pledge
-Allow them to broadcast their ruling parties propaganda which would add .10 influence for that party for X amount of months
-Revoke diplomatic relations with other nations
-Embargo a nation
-Release puppet
-Give military access
-Request of demilitarization of a state
-Transfer of resources for X amount of time
-Provide expeditionary for X amount of time
-Declare war on a nation
-Release territory

I feel that most of the game mechanics is already in place and a simple patch could be done to improve game play.

HOI4 is not a diplomatic simulator!

 

[Timewalker102]

HOI4 is not a diplomatic simulator!

OK then, let's remove:

- Non-agression pacts
- Trade
- The diplomacy screen
- Peace conferences
- Ideologies
- Every single peaceful annexation focus (i.e, half of the German tree)

 

[SharpNomo]

I would definitely find this useful for getting bordergore territories like Belize or the Middle Eastern possessions from the UK without having to fight all the allies.

 

[palomer]

I will just say that I think this only makes sense in a few circumstances where one nation controls a territory which historically belonged to another. France would never give St-Nazaire to the USA, it just wouldn't make any sense. These uncommon situations I think would best be handled by National Focus Trees.

The specific condition brought up in the OP I think should be in Japan's focus tree. If Germany can unilaterally annex Yugoslavia with it's focus tree, Japan should be able to expel the westerners without war with it's focus tree, provided Japan has managed to annex China that is.

I think it does not really make sense that Japan would allow the western nations to control strategic ports on the Chinese coast after annexing China and I doubt the western nations would be willing to go to war with Japan over them in that event either. They should have the option to choose to go to war with Japan if they want to though, just as Austria can refuse the Anschluss.

I also think the same option should exist for a unified China as well, for the same reasons. In addition to unification. An additional requirement of minimum number of factories and/or military strength could also apply.

I think this should not be a general diplomatic option for all countries because the AI has no chance of using it sensibly, and really it makes no sense except for a few isolated situations.

 

[Incompetent]

It'd be nice if things like the annexation of the Sudetenland could be done dynamically instead of being a fixed unilateral decision, but it would be difficult to get right. And if historical examples of 'peaceful' expansion aren't implemented in such a way, it's not a good idea to let everyone annex bonus territories without a shot fired on top of the concessions they were historically granted.

The National Focus trees are deliberate 'railroading' by the devs to push a somewhat historical sequence of events (the alternative paths are meant to offer a few well-known counterfactuals rather than completely freeform diplomacy).

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

I will just say that I think this only makes sense in a few circumstances where one nation controls a territory which historically belonged to another. France would never give St-Nazaire to the USA, it just wouldn't make any sense. These uncommon situations I think would best be handled by National Focus Trees.

The specific condition brought up in the OP I think should be in Japan's focus tree. If Germany can unilaterally annex Yugoslavia with it's focus tree, Japan should be able to expel the westerners without war with it's focus tree, provided Japan has managed to annex China that is.

I think it does not really make sense that Japan would allow the western nations to control strategic ports on the Chinese coast after annexing China and I doubt the western nations would be willing to go to war with Japan over them in that event either. They should have the option to choose to go to war with Japan if they want to though, just as Austria can refuse the Anschluss.

I also think the same option should exist for a unified China as well, for the same reasons. In addition to unification. An additional requirement of minimum number of factories and/or military strength could also apply.

I think this should not be a general diplomatic option for all countries because the AI has no chance of using it sensibly, and really it makes no sense except for a few isolated situations.

The issue with making this possible through focus trees is that only certain nations would have access to treaties. One idea with treaties is to allow to nations to prevent small wars with other nations for small colonies or provinces in general. If Paradox chooses to just add this through focus trees you will also only see the same treaties as well a game more locked to playing the same way every game.

 

[SkittlesKeeper]

It'd be nice if things like the annexation of the Sudetenland could be done dynamically instead of being a fixed unilateral decision, but it would be difficult to get right. And if historical examples of 'peaceful' expansion aren't implemented in such a way, it's not a good idea to let everyone annex bonus territories without a shot fired on top of the concessions they were historically granted.

The National Focus trees are deliberate 'railroading' by the devs to push a somewhat historical sequence of events (the alternative paths are meant to offer a few well-known counterfactuals rather than completely freeform diplomacy).

While I have only made a few minor mods for games and have not taking a game design class I do not think this would be hard to implement. They could port the already existing peace treaties interface into the diplomatic treaties interface. Then all they would need is to add some new things you could ask for. They could make it where when you ask for something it cost points the same way as peace treaties have points. Then the person you are trying to establish a treaty with would take the amount of points took and would calculate how many points they would want in return. If someone hates you treaties would be impossible to get. However, if someone is loosing a war they would like military supplies more so they would be more likely to make a treaty where they get supplies.