It didn't, but it does not matter. It's outside the span of the game. After all, I noticed you have not mentioned the Vietnam war. Yes, there are mods, but the topic is the game as published by Paradox.
Social Unrest Should be a thing.
- Thread starter yellownes
- 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.
Actually the coup and armistice talks happened before the Allies landed on the mainland, so yeah.
I think in the broader sense of "industrial warfare" the WWI point is valid. It was close enough to the timeline and deals with many of the same countries, so it is certainly a relevant consideration as you yourself have pointed out:
Whether or not it happened (it did) is one thing, whether or not it was plausible (it was) is another thing entirely, and the answer to both is a resounding "yes." The WWI point was simply to illustrate that these same countries had recently succumbed to public opinion turning against the war, and there really wasn't anything qualitative holding them back from doing it again, only quantitative factors.
Bullet hits 2 inches away from your face. Miss, but close enough, right?
Sorry, couldn't resist.How did the topic start?
So lets talk about HoI4, and not what is not in the game timeframe.
We agreed, that public opinion (or at least opinion of those who matter), turned at least a couple countries in WW2 - Italy, Romania, Finland.
Bullet hits 2 inches away from your face. Miss, but close enough, right?
How did the topic start?
So lets talk about HoI4, and not what is not in the game timeframe.
We agreed, that public opinion (or at least opinion of those who matter), turned at least a couple countries in WW2 - Italy, Romania, Finland.
Again I don't see how things that are generally within the same historical time period should be excluded. At what point do things stop being relevant to strictly the Hoi4 timeframe? 1935? Of course not. What about 1934? 1933? You see where this is going. The point is that you're hung up on quantitative rather than qualitative differences, and factors that allowed public unrest to cripple nations in WWI were still in place in WW2.
Is WW1 included in HoI4 as released by Paradox? Yes? Then it is relevant to the GAME. No? Not relevant to the GAME.
Finland didn't quit the war because of social unrest. They quit it because it was obvious the Germans had lost while still capable of edging out a reasonable peace deal.
Actually, it depended.
The Strategic Bombing Survey done after the war found a couple of salient points regarding the bombing of Germany and Japan.
1) While the Luftwaffe was visibly contesting the skies, resolve stiffened or stayed the same in Germany.
2) With no visible Luftwaffe contesting of the skies over most major cities (late in the war), absenteeism at work and dissatisfaction with the regime increased. AA guns, even when killing bombers, didn't have the same morale effect. The effect was not nearly enough to overthrow the regime, but it still had an impact.
3) In Japan, when the bombers started hitting the main islands and there was no real counter-attack in the skies, the people started seriously questioning the propaganda they were hearing. Again, not even close enough to overthrow the regime, but it had an impact on willingness to work and political affiliation.
What I'm saying is that, based on the results of the bombing campaigns in WWII, social unrest to the point of giving up the war is out of the question. It wasn't going to happen. But there were negative effects beyond buildings actually being blown up. And I think those effects are abstracted into the "damage" done to infrastructure and factories.
Now, if strategic bombing could also hurt resource output, I'd be a happy man.
For reference.
Strategic Bombing Survey (Europe)
Strategic Bombing Survey (Japan)
Isn't this handled by national unity? I think countries like Italy should have a major event where a coup takes places and it switches sides to the allies or even Comintern if they are coming from the north, due to low national unity and that their country is being invaded.
Perhaps a second Italy could be a German puppet after Mussolini is rescued, and then AI Germany will come in and defend it. But then again, that is an AI issue. I know Japan AI sends soldiers to help in Manchukuo against the Soviets and in puppeted China, but I am no expert on that since I just passingly look at it now and then, and haven't analyzed how well the AI does there.
Perhaps a second Italy could be a German puppet after Mussolini is rescued, and then AI Germany will come in and defend it. But then again, that is an AI issue. I know Japan AI sends soldiers to help in Manchukuo against the Soviets and in puppeted China, but I am no expert on that since I just passingly look at it now and then, and haven't analyzed how well the AI does there.
I guess we can agree to disagree then, either way there are sufficient examples of public unrest causing early exit from the war (or at least early surrender) in WWII itself so that we don't have to reference anything outside the strict timeframe.
I guess on its own, sure. However in Italy's case it seemed to be the decisive factor, the "500 kg bomb that broke the camel's back" as it were. It's effects are therefore not insignificant as far as this discussion is concerned.
NU has zero effect other than affecting surrender process that I'm aware of. Public dissent affects conscription avoidance rates, worker absenteeism, overall productivity, regime political capital, overall zeal for the war among soldiers and civilians, loyalty of generals, and a host of other things. Italy's historical capitulation would be basically impossible to achieve under the current NU system. The NU system is also rather static, it would need to become vastly more dynamic if it were to be linked to any of these.
The problem with these points is that they cannot clearly be attributed to the bombing. The whole situation in late war Germany didnt lift spirits up.
Also, the air attacks on Japan surely proved that things were going sideways for them, but that point could have been made by something else than carpet bombing.
In my opinion, it's not possible to make a clear cut decision whether it worked or not. I think it's good the way it works now.
On social unrest in general, I think the coups already handle Italy pretty good. Lacking support for the regime is already modelled by the parties and their support. But, this surely could be improved somehow.
I've never seen party support react to how the war is going, let alone the course of the war cause a coup or other event via a drop in public support. Public support is currently modeled in an incredibly cursory manner, and even then isn't relevant to coups or capitulation (you can support a party other than the one in power and still not want a coup/surrender), or productivity, loyalty, passive resistance, etc. The simple fact is that the course of the war up to the point of total conquest and surrender has little to no effect on public support or governments. If the British send 2 million men to die of thirst in the Sahara, nobody bats an eye, nevermind vote Churchill out.
Last edited:
Exactly this. Just that something didn't happen historically, doesn't mean it couldn't have. WWI and WWII aren't far apart, so unless someone can tell me how the time difference is relevant, ie. what changed during those years, simply saying "but this is 36-48!" is pretty irrelevant.
Probably the assumption since the situation never got as far as it did in WW1 + assumption you could submit a country just like that (after all, even in WW1 it did not happen overnight) is it necessarily relevant to the game and whether it turns into bizarre case to model. If social unrest is too easy to inflict and game around will the game become more sillier or not yet if it serves no purpose why have it in the game in the first place?
Not working as intended is not necessarily reason for exclusion but HoI3 saw early on cycle of "national unity finally allows x to happen" followed by "national unity doesn't allow x to actually happen wtf.", I predict similar result occurs with HoI4 if someone implemented just now.
Do you not think that national unity was put in the game to simulate that nation's fighting spirit? If it's low that country surrenders, if high they won't. Yes, it is simple, and perhaps NU should should also have dissent incorporated into it as well. Maybe a better scale than just upwards of 95. 1-100, with nations like Germany and Japan getting a bonus up to 120 when war breaks out if all the proper focuses have been chosen. As an idea, say below 80 NU, then dissent kicks in at 1% per.
Pretty much.
I'm not sure how one would implement that in the game. Without careful balancing, you'd end up with Fascist or Communist Britain every game when they send their troops to die in the Sahara. Or Italy would just randomly fold for no reason despite German troops sitting in all major cities.
Social unrest &/or the reaction to it cause the Spanish Civil war. Social Unrest I would say caused the coup that flipped Yugoslavia from the Axis to the Allies. Social Unrest with large parts of Romania being giving to other countries cause a major change in Government. Social Unrest was a major thing in France & I think kept France from acting on is own, with out Strong British support, to support Czechoslovakia. Social Unrest, with Quisling, made Norway a mode divided nation. Continuing Social Unrest made China difficult to govern. As mentioned before Social Unrest made Italy ready for a major partisan uprising when the Italian government fell. Social Unrest in places like Palestine & India before & during the war made Britain keep major troop numbers away from the from the front lines. Social Unrest in the U.S. (blacks allowed to get jobs in Northern cities that before the war were whites only jobs) caused the U.S. Army to deploy troops to occupy major city (cities?) during the war. Argentina had major ongoing Social Unrest problems. The Soviet Union had major Social Unrest that was kept in check only with an Iron Fist.
As I think about it it maybe easier to list the countries (country?) that didn't have Social Unrest that required troops or major Police deployments of some type and that would be Denmark and....? Can someone help me out here????
Get my point?
So something like National Unity &/or Dissent levels should have an effect on things like manpower, production efficacy, party support, Building building times and other things.
As I think about it it maybe easier to list the countries (country?) that didn't have Social Unrest that required troops or major Police deployments of some type and that would be Denmark and....? Can someone help me out here????
Get my point?
So something like National Unity &/or Dissent levels should have an effect on things like manpower, production efficacy, party support, Building building times and other things.
Can't agree more. I don't understand why it's not the case already honestly. I doubt it's hard to implement.
I think that social unrest did change in those 20 years, prior to ww1 peace terms were often alot softer, but following ww1 people saw nations ripped into shreds, new nations conjured out of thin air in their place, crippling economic repurcussions, the European map vastly changed over night.
Given the potential for their nations to be irreversibly fractured, I think people would have been a lot less inclined to call for surrender, and rightly so evidently.
Given the potential for their nations to be irreversibly fractured, I think people would have been a lot less inclined to call for surrender, and rightly so evidently.
I think that social unrest could influence production efficiency and building time, maybe morale of troops.
Can you be more precise please?
I have problems understanding which event are you (and other users) precisely referring to with the word "coup".
I can agree with the definition of "coup" about the deposition of Mussolini voted by the Gran Consiglio del Fascismo, but that had nothing "democratic" in it: it was an initiative born inside the Fascist Party (Dino Grandi, Galeazzo Ciano...), realized inside a fascist institution with the aid of the Crown.
In other words, a sort of "palace manouvre" happened when the gerarchi realized the war was over, I don't think it can be easily modeled into the game.
Different things are the uprisings in major cities in the south (just an example, the Naples uprising [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_days_of_Naples]) or the partisans acting in the north of the country (With the shapes of a civil war in the RSI zone, not in the south as you stated ). In the south the events were more popular, with less political caracterization, instead in the north the partisans organized themselves on a political basis (for example, the partisans in the Garibaldi units were communists, in the Matteotti units were socialists, in the Osoppo units were catholic, and so on). In these two cases, you can talk about "pro-democratic" feelings.
I think that both events (southern risings and northern resistence) could be well represented with the partisan units used in old HOI versions, but since these are gone I don't know what to suggest : )
Returning to the topic subject, a drop in production efficiency and similar things could represent the morale problems of a nation's working class caused by bombings, military-like discipline in the factory, lack of trade unions representation, and so on. This kind of problems were common at least in the fascist regime.
I hope my English is understandable, I'm an Italian history student
Can you be more precise please?
I have problems understanding which event are you (and other users) precisely referring to with the word "coup".
I can agree with the definition of "coup" about the deposition of Mussolini voted by the Gran Consiglio del Fascismo, but that had nothing "democratic" in it: it was an initiative born inside the Fascist Party (Dino Grandi, Galeazzo Ciano...), realized inside a fascist institution with the aid of the Crown.
In other words, a sort of "palace manouvre" happened when the gerarchi realized the war was over, I don't think it can be easily modeled into the game.
Different things are the uprisings in major cities in the south (just an example, the Naples uprising [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_days_of_Naples]) or the partisans acting in the north of the country (With the shapes of a civil war in the RSI zone, not in the south as you stated
). In the south the events were more popular, with less political caracterization, instead in the north the partisans organized themselves on a political basis (for example, the partisans in the Garibaldi units were communists, in the Matteotti units were socialists, in the Osoppo units were catholic, and so on). In these two cases, you can talk about "pro-democratic" feelings.I think that both events (southern risings and northern resistence) could be well represented with the partisan units used in old HOI versions, but since these are gone I don't know what to suggest : )
Returning to the topic subject, a drop in production efficiency and similar things could represent the morale problems of a nation's working class caused by bombings, military-like discipline in the factory, lack of trade unions representation, and so on. This kind of problems were common at least in the fascist regime.
I hope my English is understandable, I'm an Italian history student
Last edited: