The "faction Surrender" system needs changes

[Gowte]

Whenever I play as the axis, there is is always one thing that annoys me: the allies are so easy to defeat. TOO easy, if you ask me. France is mostly run over by germany around 1939/40, and invading the UK Isn't too hard, so the UK is mostly crushed by 1940/41. In most cases, the rest of the allies surrender unconditionally at that point, as the UK (often) is the last major power at that point in time. This is very unrealistic, as I doubt that countries like Canada or Australia would've surrendered, as they were at a "safe distance" from the axis (I also think that Curchill was planning to continue the fight from Canada in case Britain fell)., and "countries" like the Raj or the east indies would've probably declared themselves independent. I don't like that the entire factions surrenders just because all majors have surrendered, as some minors are pretty damn powerful as well, and I dislike that these minors are deemed "irrelevant". Don't get me wrong: I think it's good that you don't have invade every. Single. Country. In a faction, I just dislike that big countries like the Raj drop their weapons once the UK on the other side of the globe surrenders. The faction surrender system is flawed, and I therefore have some ideas how to improve this:

Alternative 1: surrender based on total amount of factories
Instead of deciding if a faction surrenders or not based on a few majors like Germany or the US, the faction surrenders once they have lost a certain amount of the combined amount of factories they own*. This makes majors less important, so that you A) don't have to defeat all majors to win a war (So no more pushing through The USSR just to get that last victory point somewhere in central asia, at least if you can get enough of their allies to capitulate, or take enough factories from The USSR), which is more realistic if you consider that Japan capitulated without being really being "defeated" and B) makes sure that powerful minors like the Raj or the Guangxi clique don't just surrender because a number in a game says that they're not major powers ("You need one more factory to be considered a major power, so you have to capitulate now!)". The fact that the surrender of a minor country might end a war might seem strange, but please do consider that besides the nukes, the invasion of Manchuoku was the main reason that Japan surrendered in WW2.

I would say that a faction has to lose 70-80% of the factories its members own to get it to surrender, but I honestly don't know what the ideal amount would be. National focuses and events could possibly also affect this limit.

Alternative 2: Surrender based on total amount of VPs
Basically the same as Alternative 1, just with victory points instead of factories. This would be very different from Alt.1, as the amount of VPs doesn't change that much. Is that good or bad? Tell me what you think.

Alternative 3: Same system, but with changes
I think I'll explain this one with an example: Let's imagine a war between the axis and Comintern, which consists of the soviets (major power), Mongolia, Sinkiang and Tannu what? (Puppet of the USSR). Let's just say The USSR surrenders, and the war ends, At this point in time Mongolia iss partially occupied, whilst SinkiangTannu What? are still not occupied. As the USSR is the last major faction member the peace conference starts: The axis now gets to divide the Territory of the soviet union and Mongolia, but not Tannu what? And sinkiang, As they are still ”untouched”. Tannu what? No longer is a soviet puppet after the peace conference. Germany (the faction leader) now gets a choice: 1) A white peace with Tannu what? And Sinkiang (”they're harmless!”) or 2) Continue the war (”Kill the communist scum!”). Let's say Germany chooses to continue the war against Tannu what? But signs a white peace with Sinkiang. Sinkiang will be kicked from Comintern, and should not be able to rejoin (at least not for a while). In this way, the axis can continue their war against Tannu what? But do not have to invade Sinkiang.

I'm not very fond of this idea, but it would still be better than the current system.

Alternative 4: point system
In this system, each country gets a certain amount of points based on the amount of factories they own*, and possibly some other stuff (such as nukes, stability, access to the sea etc.). In this way, each faction gets a certain amount of points. If a country capitulates, the faction loses the points from that country. If a faction loses a certain percentage of its points, it surrenders. This system i very alike alt.1 and .2, but it would be more diverse (but also more complicated), and it would require the countries to capitulate, which neither alt.1 or .2 require.

Alternative 5: MOAAAR MAJJJORS!
I don't think this would be a good idea, but: make it easier to become a Major. This way, Factions won't surrender that quickly. But it would probably screw the balancing, so I wouldn't do this.



So, what are your thoughts? Please tell me.
(Oh, and if there are mods that implement any of these ideas, please tell me)


*not "control"
**I once had a game where Italy only had 70 factories by 1941. Yeah. 'Twas a weird game.

 

[Reman]

I personally think faction surrendering needs to be made easier in some places, not harder.

As it stands, when a faction surrenders any minor nations you don't have warscore on will not be included in the peace deal. For more integrated puppets like the Raj, East Indes, and Malaya you get the option to puppet them yourself. Less integrated puppets like Australia, NZ, South Africa, and Canada go independent.

France + GB completely surrendering to total annexation might be ahistorical, but if you get them before 1941 it's before the Casablanca conference when things really became about national destruction. I could easily see France+GB surrendering early if they were both occupied before the US got into the war, but there would likely only be minor territorial adjustments in Europe along with some colonies changing hands or going independent, not total annexation like what you can do in the game.

The problem with how faction surrendering happens now is it can drag out far too long in many instances. I still think there should be a limited peace conference if you occupy France+GB after the US has joined to signify the war has entered a new phase. Invading the USA is a very arduous process and there's nothing they can really do to unseat you to win the war themselves, so it's meaningless wrist exercise before the war can "properly" conclude. There's also the nonsense of India, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and even New Zealand becoming great powers if they get enough factories. If you take too long the game will basically necessitate a world conquest to win the war. Some of your suggestions might be useful then to determine when a war is "properly" won. Maybe if one side has capitulated at least 2 great powers and has more than 5 or 10 times the factories of the remaining sides, a limited peace conference could happen.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Major wars ending up in full annexations is easily the worst thing in this game. I'm actually so disgusted by the lack of plausible peace options that I don't have the stomach to play till the end of the game.

 

[caedussl]

In general, surrender and peace should be more dynamic. For example, I think Britain should also surrender if nuked twice (like Japan). Imagine if the Nazi’s nuked Manchester and Birmingham, there is no way Britain wouldn’t have surrendered.

You could also have a situation where minors are offered armistice when the last major falls, and some sort of limited peace conference happens. In specific cases (like the Commonwealth), you can have event chains that deal with the UK losing, like a gov. in exile being established in Canada, South Africa and India having the potential to go independent and sign an armistice with the Axis, and Australia and NZ joining a Canada-led allies.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We really need to see who gets control of land fixed before we start talking about peace deals. It doesn't work and it breaks them.

Also, being forced into war merge with a faction is bad form. There's more reason than ever before not to join them now, since they arbitrarily steal land you take, bleed awful casualty ratio for phantom war score, and rarely do more for you than you'd do in your own faction.

 

[Gowte]

We really need to see who gets control of land fixed before we start talking about peace deals. It doesn't work and it breaks them.

Also, being forced into war merge with a faction is bad form. There's more reason than ever before not to join them now, since they arbitrarily steal land you take, bleed awful casualty ratio for phantom war score, and rarely do more for you than you'd do in your own faction.

I didn't really get that last part about faction merging. Please explain.

 

[MrDziurkacz]

I think the game needs a conditional surrender option. Stalemates are a common thing and they are still not properly handled. Also i think that ths current peace conference mechanic needs some changes. For egzample you should have seperate warscores for each country. I think that the peace conferances should be divided into several parts. First of all countries that had not capitulated in moment the conference started. You should only make demands to your current warscore on this country. Then core states of defeated countries. Here you could do pretty much the same as you do now with exeption that you can demand your core or climed states from countries that had civil war and cost of provinces would rise depend on how far from your capital it is. Last part would be colonies. There everybody can take anything for the same cost and countries that were defeated but not annexed in the 2 part would gain warscore with each round making it possible for them to recover some of colonies. Also if there was any major left on the defeated side that have not capitulated it would also gain warscore witch each conference round and it could try to save their faction members from annexation or dependence.

 

[Gowte]

I think the game needs a conditional surrender option. Stalemates are a common thing and they are still not properly handled. Also i think that ths current peace conference mechanic needs some changes. For egzample you should have seperate warscores for each country. I think that the peace conferances should be divided into several parts. First of all countries that had not capitulated in moment the conference started. You should only make demands to your current warscore on this country. Then core states of defeated countries. Here you could do pretty much the same as you do now with exeption that you can demand your core or climed states from countries that had civil war and cost of provinces would rise depend on how far from your capital it is. Last part would be colonies. There everybody can take anything for the same cost and countries that were defeated but not annexed in the 2 part would gain warscore with each round making it possible for them to recover some of colonies. Also if there was any major left on the defeated side that have not capitulated it would also gain warscore witch each conference round and it could try to save their faction members from annexation or dependence.

Not what I was actually talking about, but this is a good idea.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I didn't really get that last part about faction merging. Please explain.

Let's say I declare on Axis as Iran:

1.4.2: I join Comintern briefly to pick up 5th research slot, then leave the faction.
1.5: I join Comintern, can't leave faction because we're "part of the same war" (no call to arms).

The problem with the 1.5 implementation is that being in same war/faction breaks the game. It gives territory and capitulations to the wrong nation. Until that is fixed, this is a degenerate change that further discourages the player from ever actually joining a faction, because doing so will give land the player takes from his own territory to the AI arbitrarily, all while the AI gets bogus amounts of WC from that broken mechanic.

It costs 10x as much to take land that non-faction members hold, so the war merger thing is death to even joining factions in SP in most cases. Joining one will now give your "allies" one tenth of the cost to take stuff from you with their 2x war contribution for taking fewer victory points and inflicting fewer casualties.

And thus I reload the game and the "came from behind" faction is born for that tech slot :/.

Long story short, my point is that right now the peace conferences as-is straight up don't work, and I would like that and surrounding mechanics rectified before we start layering on additional peace deals that don't work (and with current interactions, even a theoretical perfect conditional peace mechanic will fail).