Prestige?

[Mimmmo]

In Hoi3 there is a parameter similar to the "prestige" of EU3. What would be its utility?

Determine leadership within the alliance (about driving) based on the battles won, cities and won a series of events. But also increasing the diplomatic skills of a country. In the case of a large gap in prestige between two countries may increase the likelihood of having a peace.

Suppose that Germany can not continue the Anschluss, to occupy the Sudeten and Czechoslovakia and locks in position for a war against Poland, France and the Allies. At the same time Italy could have occupied the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East. Despite this, Germany continues to lead the alliance. This is realistic?


Hoi3 should aim for a more dynamic, less static.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Suppose that Germany can not continue the Anschluss, to occupy the Sudeten and Czechoslovakia and locks in position for a war against Poland, France and the Allies. At the same time Italy could have occupied the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East. Despite this, Germany continues to lead the alliance. This is realistic?

Yes, even with those (mostly worthless in warproduction terms) areas occupied Italian Industrial and Leadership resources would still be lower than those of core Germany. And Italy would also be weaker military wise in mainland europe since alot of the troops must be stationed all over the vast Africa and Middle east.

Isn't this what victorypoints are supposed to simulate btw?

 

[Mimmmo]

The Prestige is a diplomatic value influenced by action in the country. If Germany is the most powerful must demonstrate with diplomatic and war action. If Germany does not have any success and Italy, however, it is right that this is to lead the alliance.

Another example: If the British can only defend itself and the conquest of Italy and Germany is the work of the U.S. is right that the Allied command steps to the Americans.

EDIT:

A country that has more IP usually goes to head the alliance because it shows better prepared for a conflict, but not necessarily so. If your country is not making good their potential can be seen stealing the control of the alliance.

Examples:

If France is able to organize a counteroffensive against the Germans could become head of the alliance.

If Germany gives Slovakia the Hungarians, they are growing their prestige, their diplomatic weight. Not enough to control the alliance but enough to increase its influence in the Balkans.

This value is critical to increase the dynamics alliances that otherwise are homogeneous blocks, something different from what was in reality.

 

[Biges]

...or as the prestige system in Victoria.

Great idea. Gaining provinces, allies... to gain prestige etc

 

[Panzerschiffe]

Internal conflicts inside an alliance? Thats what prestige sounds like.

The leader of an alliance shouldn't change in game unless said leader dies or leave alliance somehow. Not sure i like the idea of leader changes as it would seem to affect gameplay for little to no purpose possibly even deteriorating it. Constant leader shifts don't seem too relevant in terms of enhancing gameplay and might cause confusing situations where the leader is constantly changing because of VPs.

 

[lee1026]

Quite realistic - we need to simulate in some way the leadership of the alliance from UK to the US.

 

[unmerged(52507)]

Prestige seems a realistic concept, but your suggested practical application doesn't make much sense to me. How would a changable leader for the alliance really improve things? If you were playing the minor alliance partner, it might give you an extra military goal, I suppose. Is this the motivation?

 

[Mimmmo]

I try to correct and fix my thoughts

PRESTIGE

The justification of the presence of parameter Prestige is to simulate in the game the variability diplomatic weight of a nation. This parameter is based on successful military, diplomatic successes and events of the nation.

The Prestige should be a percentage % to continuous decay, and if the prestige of a country increases after some military gains, with the passage of time, the percentage decline in approval for further successes.

• Winning a big city like Moscow, is gaining prestige.
• Make certain events such as the 'Anschluss or employment in Iceland, raises the prestige.
• Give in to territorial demands of another country is reducing the prestige.
• Annexion or puppet a country increases the prestige
• Winning a battle increases prestige.
• The prestige may also be influenced by the internal situation in the country, such as the presence of dissent or particular social problems.
• The prestige has no connection with the industrial capacity of a country. This may, in practice, give the country more likely to stand out amongst its allies but has no direct relationship with the prestige.
  

Give in to territorial demands of another country is reducing the prestige.
Attach or puppettizzare a country increases the prestige
Winning some battles increases prestige.
The prestige may also be influenced by the internal situation in the country, such as the presence of dissent or particular social problems.
The prestige has no connection with the industrial capacity of a country. This may, in practice, give the country more likely to stand out amongst its allies but has no direct relationship with the prestige.

An increase in property results in a more efficient diplomacy of the country because the country is more respected and feared. More likely to take command of their allies. It is no longer a more static system as in hoi2, but countries within the alliance are in competition with each other.

When a country exceeds the prestige of his ally, it may pay with money and leadership to take command of the alliance. At that point the country take the directives of the covenant. He has to decide how to enlarge or shrink the alliance and take the reins of any peace talks.

Examples

• If the British can only defend itself and the conquest of Italy and Germany is the work of the U.S. is right that the Allied command steps to the Americans.
• If France is able to organize a counteroffensive against the Germans could become head of the alliance.
• If Germany gives Slovakia the Hungarians, they are growing their prestige, their diplomatic weight. Not enough to control the alliance but enough to increase its influence in the Balkans.
• Suppose that Germany can not continue the Anschluss, to occupy the Sudeten and Czechoslovakia and locks in position for a war against Poland, France and the Allies. At the same time Italy could have occupied the Balkans, Africa and the Middle East. Despite this, Germany continues to lead the alliance. This is realistic?

 

[unmerged(135152)]

Prestige? :wacko:

I think Uncle Joe said something quite to the point on the subject: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

I mean really. The reason why the Germans were the head of their alliance, and the United States a head of theirs wasn't because they were more succesful in their campaigning and because they took the "Patron of arts" national idea. It was because they fielded twice the amount of divisions than anyone else in their "alliance". If anything the leader of the alliance should be the one with most base IC. Otherwise the player controlled Hungary rush teching and rush annexing minors with VP points and never losing a battle with their ultra mega plasma-rifled mechanized armoured paratrooper-marine-commando division would end up calling the shots.

 

[ddudee]

The original poster is right. The concept of prestige is sorely missing in HOI3. Some people just have to contest whatever someone says.

 

[unmerged(131989)]

I think the idea of prestige is still quite relevant for this game. Moreover, there would be many acts enhancing the 'prestige' of a nation (such as glorious victories, etc...). In Vicky if you lose a Dreadnought you lose prestige; perhaps if in HoI3 you lost so many units you would lose prestige??

 

[unmerged(135152)]

The original poster is right. The concept of prestige is sorely missing in HOI3. Some people just have to contest whatever someone says.

Well the game is about to enter beta stage and judging from the screenshots it isn't there. So instead of feeling this urge of contesting whatever some chum suggested, I'll simply ask you whether you consider that they left it out intentionally or not?

Prestige simply, in my opinion, has no place in a world war two game where there wasn't any other candidate to be the head of the axis but Germany, or any other candidate for the allies but the US of A. And the less said about the "alliance" of USSR, Mongolia and Tannu Tuva, the better. And since the countries are locked in a war for most of the game, prestige has even less of a function in the game (The USSR won't be any more or less willing to accept a German peace deal, just because the Germans won a few great victories on the Atlantic).

So tell me, is it plausible for Canada to become the leader of the allies, just because it is led by a tech-rushing, system-abusing human player? Is it plausible for Hungary with its industrial capacity being a quarter and army an eight of the Germans to call the shots in the Fascist camp? I say it isn't. World war two was a war of attrition, one that was decided more by industrial output and technology than by valour and deciseveness on the field. It wasn't the goal of the Germans, Russians or Americans to win over hearts and minds. All sides wanted nothing short of unconditional surrender and world domination. Prestige doesn't begin to fit this picture.

 

[unmerged(61331)]

I think a better example of the Importance of prestige in the modern era would be how important Italy and the UK were as members of their alliance. The Finns and maybe the Hungarians were more useful allies to the Germans then the Italians were, yet they were always treated as the second member of the Axis. And even before the Axis, Italy was a major player in Europe, given a seat at Naval Conferences and treated like a "major power" even though it probably wasn't much stronger then Poland.
Similarly by the end of the war, the UK was just about running on empty (I seem to recall Monty being told there simply were no reinforcements left) and were completely dependent on its allies for military support. Yet never did Britain's diplomatic standing dip quite as low as it's military capabilities.
Even after the war, it was common in the press to refer to Britain and France as "Great Powers". The DDR was, with the exception that it hand chunks missing from it, not much worse relative to the rest of Europe then Germany had been back in the 1930s. Yet it certainly wasn't regarded as a "great power."
I think there certainly can be something said for the Vicky prestige system still being relevant. After all, Italy didn't annex Ethiopia for the 6 IC points.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

While I can see the importance of prestige in the 30's and 40's as a political element, I can't see how it is relevant for a world war two game, one where everything you do is preparing for the ultimate biblical show-down between the three alliances. I mean, compare it to HOI2. Everything you do as Italy before the war is either A.Gaining resources/IC or B.Useless. The game does very poorly even at rewarding areas with geopolitical interest (Suez channel, Yemen, Gibraltar, Malta, Singapore just to name a few). I shred to think how it would portray areas of political interest, spheres of influence and that sort of thing.

If the game was an open ended political simulation set between 1900 and 1950, it should definatly have prestige, no question about it. But since it is a war game, that pretty much tells you straight from the start, that unless you can field dozens of divisions you are useless, I can't see any reason to implement prestige. It is not a bad idea per se, but you have to have a somewhat different view of the HOI series than most people do. That being said, I would rather see a political simulation set on the first half of the 20th century myself, but I know that HOI3 won't be it.