I think National Focuses are the right place for this like with Danzig for Slovakia. I would like the current Focus trees to be expanded so in any given playthrough you are only doing like half of the focuses.
- 1
Peacful Expansion
- Thread starter SkittlesKeeper
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I agree Paradox should expand the existing focus trees and make more. However to me once I'm on my 15th game and see the same things happening that I've seen happening in the past 14 games it starts to become repetitive. The whole idea idea of focus trees in my opinion make the game feel to rigid and not enough like a sandbox.
When I am talking about more of a sandbox style I mean more like EU IV.
- 1
Since the game you are looking for is a 20th century version of Europa Universalis, your suggestions make sense.
However, that is not what this game is, or will ever be. Respectfully disagree all you want, it doesn't change the fact that this is a WW2 strategy game, and the suggestions you are making are ways of mitigating the need to go to war in a wargame, and dont add to the focus of the game.
- 1
While I would love to see Vichy 3 which would be a mix of Hearts of Iron IV(HOI IV) and EU IV I am not trying to turn HOI IV into that game. With territorial exchange the idea is that you could get land that you would normally never be willing to go to war for. I fell the ideas for diplomatic treaties would allow for a more dynamic game flow. In addition if treaties were added to the game I think it would make WW II more inserting. It would add a whole extra element to the war because you never know when the nation you just invaded may mange to get anther nation to declare war on you.
Last edited:
- 3
May I ask if you what parts of this system hurt the game being a war game? I am interested on the feedback I get so I can better refine my idea.
Peaceful annexation? I don´t remember a single case in history where a civilized country gave a single meter of ground to another on it´s free will! Sudetenland and Danzig where taken with a gun under a the table. The Anschluss is the nearest thing to that, but that one worked because the government was extremely weak and the Hitler forced a National socialist government in Austria beforehand.
From which countrys are you talking exactly?
USA and Mexico? After US took Texas?
Japan and anyone? Japanese thought every non-Japanese is a lowlife!
Italy and anyone? Mussolini wanted his new Roman empire under Italian control!
USA and anyone? They don´t start as Isolationist country for no reason!
UK and anyone? okay, maybe, but after how they treated their colonies? I don´t think anyone would volunteer.
USSR and anyone? Purge, gulag, any other reasons not to needed?
Germany and anyone? Would you really want to join a country which has the state doctrin that you a less worth then everyone else?
There is a good reason why different countrys are different countrys, if two countrys would be close enough to just unite, they would have already done it. Every single country on the world formed because the people or the government wanted this piece of land for themselves so why would they suddenly ( even 10 years for two countrys to merge is still sudden) just give it to someone else?
From which countrys are you talking exactly?
USA and Mexico? After US took Texas?
Japan and anyone? Japanese thought every non-Japanese is a lowlife!
Italy and anyone? Mussolini wanted his new Roman empire under Italian control!
USA and anyone? They don´t start as Isolationist country for no reason!
UK and anyone? okay, maybe, but after how they treated their colonies? I don´t think anyone would volunteer.
USSR and anyone? Purge, gulag, any other reasons not to needed?
Germany and anyone? Would you really want to join a country which has the state doctrin that you a less worth then everyone else?
There is a good reason why different countrys are different countrys, if two countrys would be close enough to just unite, they would have already done it. Every single country on the world formed because the people or the government wanted this piece of land for themselves so why would they suddenly ( even 10 years for two countrys to merge is still sudden) just give it to someone else?
- 3
Examples of World War II era where a nation gave away territory to anther nation and that could be represented by my treaties system are:
-The German Reich gave eastern Poland to the USSR to get a non aggression pact
-The U.K. gave islands in the Carbine to the U.S.A. in order to revive military supplies
-U.K. gave independence to Canada, New Zealand, India, and South Africa
-China to U.K. and Portugal
-Panama to the U.S.A
In more modern times you have:
-The U.K. offered the people of Scotland independence if half the Scottish people were willing to vote in favor of separation
-Panama channel to the Panama
These are just a few examples that came to mind. So there is historical pretense for this being a feature in HOI IV.
- 1
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, I'll give you that one.
Destroyers for Bases, wasn't giving land for supplies. It was allowing the US to use military bases, (for 99 years) in return for outdated and decommissioned Destroyers.
I don't think we were in any state to refuse independance to The Colonies, especially The Raj.
I wouldn't call the many wars against China "Giving away territory".
You mean where the US seized land, not to mention a strategically (and economically) vital location?
The Scottish Referendum, wasn't really offered, more begrudgingly allowed, after it was demanded.
You mean where Panamanian land was returned, including a strategically (and economically) vital location, after 96 years?
- 1
- 1
Pretty much all of this:
Also, the M-R Pact was not the peaceful transfer of territory between two nations. It was the opportunistic carving of a sovereign nation between two hungry neighbors, which would be totally fine. Unfortunately, I don't see a way of implementing something like that which couldn't be used as a total exploit against the AI.
- 2
- 2
So, just from american history - the purchase of Alaska, and the purchase of Louisiana. You could argue the annexation of Hawaii, I'd say it qualifies as peaceful as far as the game is concerned (its a coup then an annexation request, in game terms). USA had also promised the Philippines independence by 46, and it followed through on its promise. So 4 examples of peaceful (by the game standards) territory transfer - and one of them was even in the exact time frame of the game! I'm sure there are several examples in history of situations similar to Hawaii at least, where a coup could be followed by annexation request.
And some other poster mentioned that France would never give away part of its mainland to the USA in a peaceful transfer - true, but how about Guyana or some of its Caribbean property? What about that island up by Canada? its asian and african holdings? Sell those to protect its mainland? Sure, that's perfectly plausible. Playing a full on mercenary USA that sells war equipment and favorable trade status in exchange for land would be fun.
- 1
- 1
.png){kind=avatar}
Zanzibar for Heligoland. There was (or might have been) also the offer for Germany to buy back the Königsberg area from Russia.
It might be nice to have to option to purchase some naval bases from other countries and not just the destroyers for bases focus.
- 1
I have tried to think of more examples of the peaceful transfer of territory during the WW II/ Cold War era they are:
-French occupied Germany to West Germany
-British occupied Germany to West Germany
-American occupied Germany to West Germany
-Taiwan to China
-U.S.A. occupied Korea to South Korea
-Soviet occupied Korea to North Korea
-Cyprus to Turkey
Is focus tree supposed to be the new railroad? It does seems that when we play historical focus, things pans out the same way.
But using treaty may be messy as there could be many scenarios.
Yes the focus trees are the new "railroad". However, because of them you still see games in a historical mode pan out very similar to history.
As for treaties would have many scenarios that is why I think we should have treaties instead of or with focus trees. The game can have different things happen and focus trees can't adapt. A example that could happen in a historical mode is Republican Spain wins the Civil War. The U.K, takes coerce Spain and Republican Spain becomes democratic. Then Republican Spain joins the allies and decides it wants Gibraltar. Now that the U.K. no longer needs Gibraltar a treaty could be established where the the U.K. gives it to Spain.
Historical mode is supposed to be 'historical'.
So is the proposed treaty system for non historical play through? I see the usefulness for treaties. Just that im wondering, should it be used in historical or ahistorical node?
To the OP; while the system you described would be more realistic, I think it would be too much work to implement for relatively minor effects. Givin the time scale most treaties like this involved I really think this mechanic is more suitable to a game like Victoria.
- 1
I think this mechanic would work well in Victoria 3 as well. However I still think this could be an interesting mechanic added to HOI IV.
- 1
I imagine if they added treaties to the game they would be in a historical mode. I do not know how they would implement the mechanic in historical mode.