The Destruction Of The United States of America

[LiamRiordan]

The USA is the most underworked nation in the entire Hearts of Iron series to me, why? Because everyone expects their industrial and naval capacity to come riding into World War I & II like a drunken madman on a white horse, stealing the show and pride from everyone.

Let's make the USA a challenge not only to play, but to destroy.

To my limited knowledge prior to WWI & II, the US of A had very little experience of mass conflict apart from their own civil war. To me, this left the USA at a catastrophic disadvantage in land warfare compared to their European and Asian counterparts, USA needs land/dissent penalties.

USA was a very difficult nation to control in war at the time, lets make it so, as in, is it possible to add in dissent penalties if x amount of manpower is lost in battle? My assumption is that the USA expects a quite and 'clean' victory compared to their European counterparts due to their technological advancements and naval supremacy in the Atlantic and Pacific. The USA citizens in my mind were incredibly fickle without clever government intervention.

Imagine a USA player having to further micromanage their units, fight even more dissent and even face at worst case revolts in the nation if things go really bad.


To me currently, all the peace treaties are USA-pro, yes, USA likely in the hands of an ok player will win. That much IC cannot be laughed at.

However, a skilled 'underdog' player can destroy a larger nation at will, I've seen it happen and I applaud it.

The need for the destruction of USA is needed, in both events and devestation of the scenario. Imagine, Texan rebels grab a USA nuke during the German-USA peace treaty and decide to smuggle it into Germany? It's these kinds of things that I truly would like to see, to mix things up.


The United States of America is one thing, and one thing only. A Farm. Its a tech farm.

UK can and DOES perform better in Navy terms.
China/Soviets performs better manpower terms
Germany performs better everywhere else.

USA NEEDS massive improvements to make it fun/challenge to play.

This has been a drunken rant from Liam, enjoy.

EDIT:

I haven't read all of this page yet, but its an interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

The USA has a tough time domestically raising manpower, while its somewhat shown in the 'special mobilization' events, I'm unsure if its properly shown.

USA needs massive penalties domestically, unless there is massive aggression/belligerence from overseas nations.

 

[von Sachsen]

The danger though was not of the destruction (not to say there shouldn't be some sort of dismantling if the Germans somehow manage to invade), but rather that public opinion would swing against the war and the US would withdraw. Even in the worst case scenario, its unrealistic to have the US come apart just because the war goes badly. What would be more realistic would be dissent or MP/IC penalties if some bad things happen, like an invasion being thrown back, or London or N. Australia falling. This would defiantly add more incentive to be careful.

 

[LiamRiordan]

The Germans somehow invading USA is a bit much, but shouldn't be ignored. Imagine a Germany 'tactical' invasion of New York, Philadelphia and Washington. The Germans would likely never hold onto them for long, but the sheer audacity of the Germans would spark major questions towards the USA handling of naval and land defences. Likely involving Congress in moving towards pulling the current administration, or military staff from office, resulting in a huge breakdown of the armed forces via ORG or MOR penalties.

German 'total' invasion of USA is... too much, but 'Terror' invasions or attacks is VERY much their style in the time period. Could you imagine for instance a Soviet landing in New York just for even a day in the Cold War period? It would shatter everything in the USA.

 

[rosseau]

I would welcome a scenario where the Japanese have a fighting chance. Anyone can easily buff them up and go, but a plausible "what-if" with some events would be interesting. I agree that Uncle Sam is sort of a non-player in all HOI games. thanks.

 

[Vanguard44]

Basically this is an IC thing. USA should have next to none IC (like 40 or 50) before the war. Then a series of events trigger IC buildups (i.e. reductions in negative modifiers.) USA shouldn't take dissent hits, but it should be possible for Japan to beat USA by controlling a section of VPs in the pacific. Suppose that by December 1942 Japan has all its IRL gains plus the rest of the Pacific islands and some other modifiers, perhaps an indication of naval strength (I don't think thats possible, however,) a negotiated peace event should fire.

 

[Limith]

VP victories are bugged afaik. Would have to be territorial.

US wartime modifiers should have a high malus (due to reluctance by the industry to convert and general free market economy), that decreases through a series of legislation and public policies (whereby >30% reduction results in war weariness after a while), say -60% flat and after a year or so of events -40%. It should not be an immediate shift in IC. Further policies can reduce this malus another 20% so it will be possible for the player to short term achieve ~ 500 IC (20% wartime IC malus + 19%+ from tech and ministers = ~ 0%) but if the war goes bad, there will be repercussions. Lend-lease should also decrease US IC efficiency to simulate domestic supplies being loaned out.

 

[Lord Finnish]

Meh, I'd settle for a more aggressive America. Now they just hop a few islands in the pacific and abandon their European friends. And total incompetence when the homeland itself is invaded.

 

[Otacon]

US needs massive dissent hits on own cities falling, like Russia has in WW1 Scenario. On the other hand - it can't be that a German mechanized unit can drive from texas to california and conquer all the land without problems. I'm no American, but given the ubiquity of weapons and stuff, the whole place should be crowded with militia and "national guard"-style fighters. The Americans aren't Danes. The problem would then be... how to balance that?

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Balance? Well, if the US lose any of their homelands in my personal mod, they spawn 100 militia in the force pool. If they get it back, all US militias are set to 0 strength (i.e. disbanded). This is all done outside their manpower pool and I'm not sure if I included Alaska. The US AI is set to not build any. I also have the same for the UK and Japan, only with 50 militias each (or maybe 40 for UK).

I'm playing a promising Soviet Union '33 right now, maybe I'll get a chance to butt heads with their 100 militia, and whatever tanks and other goodies they will have stacked up in the Homeland before then.

...though I am at 301 IC before even conquering anything, and I have 20*20 infantry all with various double brigades.

100 militia is only some 1-1.5 million men though. Need more do you think?

 

[Limith]

Locked divisions that are garrisons which the player can than upgrade to militia (Go 1.02!) and are unlocked via event or upgraded via event for ai (only since ai won't upgrade them to militia according to the devs).

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Locked divisions can get destroyed and then not be replaced. My solution is a flag-based persistent event duo which allows for the (remote) possibility of the US mainland being invaded more than once. And it's also easy to add this line:

not = { exists = CSA }

to the triggers, and a second Civil War that will last more than 2 weeks is possible
...now if I could only find them!

 

[Otacon]

Doesn't sound too bad with the militias. 100 should at least stop the typical 30 division landing that's needed to kill the US in vanilla.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Hmm, then maybe I need more. IRL, conquering the USA at the time would have required a titanic and completely implausible effort involving an army of millions of regular soldiers with at least decent equipment, leadership and armoured, naval and air support, and the correspondingly huge military-industrial complex that builds and maintains this super-army.

 

[son of liberty]

You are confusing the strong self reliant Americans of the 1930s and 1940s with the spoiled useless sheeple populating our nation today. There is no comparison between the two. The population of today are exactly what you describe. The Americans back then would put a boot in your anal orifice and then keep on kickin'.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Am I? I did say "at the time," meaning the game's timeframe, most importantly the '30s and WWII.

As for sheeple, it's not just a problem there. All of the Big Six nations at the time were filled to the brim with badasses, and not only them (Finland certainly showed the world as much). Even France, which continues to be one of the most important countries in the world despite taking the equivalent pretty much continuously for over 150 years prior to WWII, culminating in their 1940 defeat.

The Europe of our time would probably need a hundred years or more to recover if it took a beating as ugly as WWII again.


....


Back on topic: the problem described by the OP is also a lot more pervasive. Starting in 1933 as Romania, I was able to almost double my base IC from 32 to 60, including losing Basarabia (62 otherwise) since I couldn't fight the Soviet Union alone, obviciously, especially since I'd ignored my army until rather too late to get the 5 tech teams (4 for unmodded games).
This was done in a little over 5 years (needed to chew down the 20 dissent first), which is completely ridiculous.

At the time, as is the case today, Romania was rife with corruption and the huge sums of money earmarked for the modernization of the army ended up in the pockets of unscrupulous politicians. This is why the Romanian 3rd and 4th Armies were so badly equipped, and the Soviets curb-stomped them horribly in late '42, resulting in the Stalingrad disaster.

In-game, there are 2 things this could play out: the player could be plagued with corruption events which would send the country's global IC modifier into low decimals, and keep its dissent at double figures (we had a fair share of strikes and other shenanigans) OR if the player wants to take control of Romania's large-ish industry and army, and use and expand them to their potential, they'd have to first take drastic measures and start lopping off the heads, thus becoming a hardline authoritarian regime, most likely fascist, although it could have a nice chance to backfire spectacularly into a communist one for added lulz.

In the event, the authoritarian path was attempted, beginning with king Carol, continuing with the Legionaries (they thought of themselves as Fascists, Romanian flavour but were more like Mobsters, Romanian flavour) and Antonescu. Marshal Red Dog (seriously, that was his nickname, now adopted in the plural by a soccer side) but it only got off the ground slowly; the Legionaries were as corrupt as the democratic politicians, and by the time Antonescu tried to pull off his own Führer-reign (again, seriously, his title was Conducator = Führer) Romania had lost 1/3 of its territory and was stuck on the losing side in a freaking world war.

After all, national socialism is how Germany thought to escape the disaster of the Weimar Republic.

Disclaimer: As far as Real Life is concerned, I am well aware that a dictatorship is a horrible idea.

I'm sure other countries wrestled with problems of similar gravity, whether or not they are also due to corruption and, in our case, apathy and sheepishness of the population at large.

 

[Otacon]

Disclaimer: As far as Real Life is concerned, I am well aware that a dictatorship is a horrible idea.

I'd be a good dictator.

 

[123xyz8]

Balance? Well, if the US lose any of their homelands in my personal mod, they spawn 100 militia in the force pool. If they get it back, all US militias are set to 0 strength (i.e. disbanded). This is all done outside their manpower pool and I'm not sure if I included Alaska. The US AI is set to not build any. I also have the same for the UK and Japan, only with 50 militias each (or maybe 40 for UK).

Mind telling us how you did that? That sounds pretty good. Does it always spawn or is it just a one time thing? I'd assume as more cities fall, more and more militia should spawn to simulate Americans flocking to defend their homes

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Well, spawn 100 militia was a misnomer, they get them at the top of the build queue for -0.2 IC apiece and they finish in one day, whenever they lose anything in the contiguous states. Then all militias strength is set to 0. The events are persistent, but they are interdependent and they only fire once per crisis, so the US have to regain control of all of their homeland and consequently disband the home guard before they can get it again.

Edit: Also, Antonescu's regime was rife with corruption too, though to a lesser extent, but the idea is the same - lots of events detailing the politics for every nation are needed to make what OP wants work.

 

[vcgetdown]

Could you imagine for instance a Soviet landing in New York just for even a day in the Cold War period? It would shatter everything in the USA.

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea? Since when did the occupation of an american city shatter everything in the USA? Is it because of, like you said in the OP, the lack of US's experience in the world wars? If it's experience, the US has a lot more experience with having core terriroties occupied in relatively recent history than the UK. The white house has been burned down, but merely having the soviets land would have shattered the US? I think that is a real stretch and completely unbased in reality.

 

[LiamRiordan]

I'm not sure where you are getting this idea? Since when did the occupation of an american city shatter everything in the USA? Is it because of, like you said in the OP, the lack of US's experience in the world wars? If it's experience, the US has a lot more experience with having core terriroties occupied in relatively recent history than the UK. The white house has been burned down, but merely having the soviets land would have shattered the US? I think that is a real stretch and completely unbased in reality.

I am talking in the sense of the confidence in the Naval power that the USA is, and still is. If an invasion fleet could slip through the net it would shock the citizens in my mind.

Your argument about 'recent battles' doesn't hold much water with me, since it was in 1814, many wars and naval actions have occurred in Asia and Europe since then. Many more times than the American military can attest to prior to WWII.

Even in WWII, the British land experience was pretty behind due to the fact they relied so much on indirect conflict, via naval warfare and attritional artillery warfare, the French and Germans are much more experienced in land warfare since they practically grew up brawling with each other and other nearby states.

The Americans only grew up in military and industrial terms (again for the latter), due to WWII experience. It's unfortunate that the war economy can be beneficial in one hand.