Three things that would be nice to see...

[21oliver]

1) It would be nice if the USA is drawn into the War due to the threat of someone, then it would be that someone that they DOW. Makes sense right? I mean lets say the Soviets gobble up every minor on their border, the USA jumps feet first in the Allies, fires Day of Infamy and goes to war with the Axis. Ummm aren't we forgetting the Soviets here????

2) It would be nice if there was some form of negotiation process between peace and War. Okay Germany invades and captures Denmark. The Allies threaten to DOW, perhaps Germany gets several options with one being to negotiate some sort of settled peace / land transference. as well as pull back or all in. Naturally the "brokered peace" depending on where could be a small % chance. Meanwhile if the Germans assumed the Allies wouldnt intervene they would at least get the option of pulling out.

3) Events/Decisions of transferrence of land would be pre-empted by combat, even a third party. Ok Im Siam and while im planning my invasion of Nat China to coincide with Japan's, two things happen. One the Guangxi event didnt fire and two Japan didnt invade. So change of plans i invade Guangxi, with the wargoal of Guangdong. I have them almost surrendered and bam, the event must have fired and the land im on now belongs to Nat China. There should be a check to see if there is currently a conflict in the region before that would fire.

 

[Pro_Consul]

1) It would be nice if the USA is drawn into the War due to the threat of someone, then it would be that someone that they DOW. Makes sense right? I mean lets say the Soviets gobble up every minor on their border, the USA jumps feet first in the Allies, fires Day of Infamy and goes to war with the Axis. Ummm aren't we forgetting the Soviets here????

Not really. From the US point of view, Germany and probably Japan would still have more threat by that time, or if it were much earlier and Germany and Japan didn't, then USA's neutrality would still be way too high.

2) It would be nice if there was some form of negotiation process between peace and War. Okay Germany invades and captures Denmark. The Allies threaten to DOW, perhaps Germany gets several options with one being to negotiate some sort of settled peace / land transference. as well as pull back or all in. Naturally the "brokered peace" depending on where could be a small % chance. Meanwhile if the Germans assumed the Allies wouldnt intervene they would at least get the option of pulling out.

I disagree. The Munich type gobbling that happens via event, e.g. Austria, Sudetenland, etc. all deal with nations where there was some kind of casus belli in play. Where there is none, e.g. Germany gobbling up Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Romania, etc., that should be quicker to escalate straight to war, in my opinion. In other words, I think the threat system should be MORE harsh when it comes to that kind of thing, not less.

3) Events/Decisions of transferrence of land would be pre-empted by combat, even a third party. Ok Im Siam and while im planning my invasion of Nat China to coincide with Japan's, two things happen. One the Guangxi event didnt fire and two Japan didnt invade. So change of plans i invade Guangxi, with the wargoal of Guangdong. I have them almost surrendered and bam, the event must have fired and the land im on now belongs to Nat China. There should be a check to see if there is currently a conflict in the region before that would fire.

This I agree with completely. The system has gotten better in this regard since the old days of totally scripted partitions or full land grabs/puppeting in pretty much all wars. The change to the war goal system was a step in the right direction, but there are still more steps to be taken.

 

[21oliver]

Not really. From the US point of view, Germany and probably Japan would still have more threat by that time, or if it were much earlier and Germany and Japan didn't, then USA's neutrality would still be way too high.

But in these kind of games its the Soviet threat that pushes them over the edge otherwise they could stay out of it for years. If they arent going to DOW the Soviets OK, but dont DOW the Axis immediately, because the Soviet threat makes you. Instead just use it as a step to get them to fire up the war machine. My Point is, if Germany annexing minors doesnt make the USA DOW Germany, then just because the Soviets do AFTER Germany shouldnt make them suddenly DOW Germany...

I disagree. The Munich type gobbling that happens via event, e.g. Austria, Sudetenland, etc. all deal with nations where there was some kind of casus belli in play. Where there is none, e.g. Germany gobbling up Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Romania, etc., that should be quicker to escalate straight to war, in my opinion. In other words, I think the threat system should be MORE harsh when it comes to that kind of thing, not less.

Remember something, even after the invasion of Poland, the Allies gave Germany several days to pull out before they DOW'd. Germany refused. Im saying add another option in between Peace and War.

 

[Pro_Consul]

But in these kind of games its the Soviet threat that pushes them over the edge otherwise they could stay out of it for years. If they arent going to DOW the Soviets OK, but dont DOW the Axis immediately, because the Soviet threat makes you. Instead just use it as a step to get them to fire up the war machine. My Point is, if Germany annexing minors doesnt make the USA DOW Germany, then just because the Soviets do AFTER Germany shouldnt make them suddenly DOW Germany...

You are assuming a causal relationship that you have yet to establish. What makes you think it was Soviet threat that made the USA enter the war? How do you know it was not just USA's falling neutrality that finally reached the point where they were permitted to do what they had already wanted, which was to attack the nation(s) which had the highest threat from their POV?

Remember something, even after the invasion of Poland, the Allies gave Germany several days to pull out before they DOW'd. Germany refused. Im saying add another option in between Peace and War.

That equates to nothing more than an "undo" button for DoWs. Why bother? Or more to the point, why bother DoWing in the first place if you didn't have firm intentions of carrying it through despite what an opposing faction might do? As I see it that function would do nothing more than provide a risk free way for a human player to "stick his toe in to test the waters" every time he thought of making another early land grab, just to see if THIS time would be the one that was going too far.

 

[21oliver]

You are assuming a causal relationship that you have yet to establish. What makes you think it was Soviet threat that made the USA enter the war? How do you know it was not just USA's falling neutrality that finally reached the point where they were permitted to do what they had already wanted, which was to attack the nation(s) which had the highest threat from their POV?

If im roleplaying I dont..if im a player playing HOI3 i know what the deal is because it happens all the time. If it was a random occurrence fine, but it isnt. The Axis doesnt need to do much to get the USA into the Allies and at war, we know that the Soviet threat pushes them over the edge. At the very least the threat should be "seperated". The Axis threat gets the USA to say point A, the Soviets start going wild, perhaps that makes the Allies increase their war machine production but not necc DOW the Axis.

As I see it that function would do nothing more than provide a risk free way for a human player to "stick his toe in to test the waters" every time he thought of making another early land grab, just to see if THIS time would be the one that was going too far.

We have seen more then a few times in history nations have been given that chance, simply because their opposition really doesnt want to go to war.

Anyway im for anything that provides more options to choose from as well as more randomized events. As it currently stands its the same game 99% of the time. Boredom settles in easily. Life and War aren't as scripted and predictable.

 

[Pro_Consul]

The Axis doesnt need to do much to get the USA into the Allies and at war, we know that the Soviet threat pushes them over the edge.

No, we don't know any such thing. In fact, I know that this is not how it works at all.

At the very least the threat should be "seperated".

It is separated. That is the point. Each and every nation has its own relative viewpoint when it comes to threat, and each and every other nation is assessed independently when calculating threat. In a relatively historical progression of the game, USSR will never exceed Germany or Japan in threat from the viewpoint of USA, until both Germany and Japan have fallen.

Nation A may ONLY declare war on nations whose threat, from the viewpoint of Nation A, is no more than 25 points lower than Nation A's neutrality. So if USA is at 51 neutrality and Germany threat as seen by USA is only 25, then USA cannot declare war on Germany....period. If USSR then gobbles up 3 Baltic states, raising its own threat to 26, then USA could declare war on USSR, but they would still not be able to declare on Germany until either Germany's threat rose or the USA's neutrality fell. So if USSR gobbles those states and USA declares war on Germany but not the USSR, then you can rest quite assured that is was NOT the USSR's threat which triggered it, at least not directly. There are some events/decisions that may alter USA's neutrality, and something that a nation does which triggers one of those might indirectly put USA in a position where their neutrality was finally low enough to declare on someone else. But that is the only way it could happen.

Anyway im for anything that provides more options to choose from as well as more randomized events. As it currently stands its the same game 99% of the time. Boredom settles in easily. Life and War aren't as scripted and predictable.

We aren't talking about Life or War. We are talking about a Game. And in my opinion adding an "undo" button to declarations of war would just further unbalance the game in favor of the human, when it is already too stacked in the human's favor as it is. It is also, I think, grossly unrealistic. How often in history has Nation A declared war on and invaded Nation B, only to then back off and UNinvade a few days later because Nation C told them to go stand in the corner or else? (Edit: I will grant that in recent decades one might argue it has happened once or twice by a minor nation under threat from a superpower. But up to WWII I am not aware of it EVER happening. Though I would love to read about an instance where it had.)

 

[21oliver]

No, we don't know any such thing. In fact, I know that this is not how it works at all.

Im just going based on trial and error. In TFH If Germany follows the normal route, I never see the USA enter the War early, usually its two items that tend to get them going (Italy joining the War or Germany invading Yugoslavia). When i play as the Soviet Union and go warmongering early the USA will always join the Allies early and DOW the Axis early, which helps me but seems wrong, at least to me.

It is separated. That is the point. Each and every nation has its own relative viewpoint when it comes to threat, and each and every other nation is assessed independently when calculating threat. In a relatively historical progression of the game, USSR will never exceed Germany or Japan in threat from the viewpoint of USA, until both Germany and Japan have fallen.

Thats part of the problem. The game allows you to take it off the rails, and yet the AI still follows the normal progression. If Im the Soviets and I conquer half the world and the Germans havent even invaded Poland wouldnt it make sense that I would be the biggest threat to everyone?

So if USSR gobbles those states and USA declares war on Germany but not the USSR, then you can rest quite assured that is was NOT the USSR's threat which triggered it, at least not directly.

In theory that may be correct, but in practice it isnt. As i stated above, if you do test games, and go back to former saves etc... For example Germany follows all the normal steps up until the point they form Vichy. Lets say at this point the USA hasnt entered the war. Now we go back a year to a save, play as the Soviets, gobble up several nations on our borders, meanwhile AI Germany doesnt do anything different then previously, and just about 100% of the time the USA will jump in early. Clearly its the Soviet Unions effect on the USA that brings them in, they simply DOW the Germans who they still perceive as the highest threat. But its common knowledge take the game off the rails and the USA enters early. But in truth its not from anything the Germans did.

I think adding additional levels to the Diplomatic area would only be a plus, thats my opinion. I would like to see seperate peaces, nations leaving factions, brokered deals etc... Sure we could make them rare and unlikely in many cases, but it would occasionally provide something different. IMO one of the most interesting parts of the game is when the Czechs choose to fight. At least some variation to refresh the boredom.

 

[sunsterson]

This is a war game. Leave diplomacy to Vicky and eu4 please

 

[Pro_Consul]

Im just going based on trial and error. In TFH If Germany follows the normal route, I never see the USA enter the War early, usually its two items that tend to get them going (Italy joining the War or Germany invading Yugoslavia).

Both of those have events/decisions tied to them which decrease the neutrality of USA.

When i play as the Soviet Union and go warmongering early the USA will always join the Allies early and DOW the Axis early, which helps me but seems wrong, at least to me.

Has it not occurred to you that you may be forcing the AI nations, including the Axis ones, to make choices which have ripple effects that lower USA's neutrality faster than normal?

If Im the Soviets and I conquer half the world and the Germans havent even invaded Poland wouldnt it make sense that I would be the biggest threat to everyone?

To everyone? Not necessarily. I keep telling you, every nation sees threat from its OWN point of view. One of biggest factors which affects how much threat one nation perceives in another is their proximity. If major Nation B sits in between Nation A and Nation C, then both A and C will tend to see less threat in each other than they do in Nation B, when all three nations have the exact same unmodified threat level. In addition there are other nation-specific factors in the lua files that affect this calculus, representing certain strategic interests that particular nations had historically.

In theory that may be correct, but in practice it isnt. As i stated above, if you do test games, and go back to former saves etc... For example Germany follows all the normal steps up until the point they form Vichy. Lets say at this point the USA hasnt entered the war. Now we go back a year to a save, play as the Soviets, gobble up several nations on our borders, meanwhile AI Germany doesnt do anything different then previously, and just about 100% of the time the USA will jump in early. Clearly its the Soviet Unions effect on the USA that brings them in, they simply DOW the Germans who they still perceive as the highest threat. But its common knowledge take the game off the rails and the USA enters early. But in truth its not from anything the Germans did.

Did? Yes and no. Germany "did" things which raised their threat enough that USA sees them as the single greatest threat on the planet. At that point the only thing holding USA back from declaring war on Germany is their own neutrality, i.e. their people don't want to go to war...against anyone. But as different events and time itself lower USA's neutrality, eventually it gets low enough that they are finally permitted to swat at the threats that have been bothering them. At that point it is only to be assumed that they will want to swat whomever they feel most threatens their interests, i.e. whomever has the highest threat from their point of view. It won't matter whose decisions made their people start to turn away from isolationism and take note of troubling events abroad; it will only matter that they DID take note, and now perceive the threat as important enough to act upon.

You keep conflating threat and neutrality as if they were the same thing, but they are not. Here is a slightly simplified way to look at it. Neutrality governs whether a nation can go to war at all. Threat, as perceived by a given nation, determines against whom they can go to war. Both things together influence how matters will proceed, but neutrality is global while threat is very, very nation-specific.

 

[21oliver]

This is a war game. Leave diplomacy to Vicky and eu4 please

You like things so simple all the time, why not stick to chess? WW2 likely had more Diplomacy involved than any war the world has ever seen, it was integral to all the moving parts and what set things in motion. This is a strategic level game, it would be remiss not to include it. If your just interested in war, play FPS...

Did? Yes and no. Germany "did" things which raised their threat enough that USA sees them as the single greatest threat on the planet. At that point the only thing holding USA back from declaring war on Germany is their own neutrality, i.e. their people don't want to go to war...against anyone. But as different events and time itself lower USA's neutrality, eventually it gets low enough that they are finally permitted to swat at the threats that have been bothering them. At that point it is only to be assumed that they will want to swat whomever they feel most threatens their interests, i.e. whomever has the highest threat from their point of view. It won't matter whose decisions made their people start to turn away from isolationism and take note of troubling events abroad; it will only matter that they DID take note, and now perceive the threat as important enough to act upon.

You keep conflating threat and neutrality as if they were the same thing, but they are not. Here is a slightly simplified way to look at it. Neutrality governs whether a nation can go to war at all. Threat, as perceived by a given nation, determines against whom they can go to war. Both things together influence how matters will proceed, but neutrality is global while threat is very, very nation-specific.

I understand thats how the game operates, im not necc in agreement that the world always behaves that way. But still the game is set up for the USA to "view" Germany, then eventually Japan as the highest threat, if not by drift, the decisions will make it so. The game as i stated is setup to allow you to take it off the rails and yet not prepared to respond. For example what would it take for the USA to DOW the Soviets, if the Axis does nothing. How many nations would the Soviets have to conquer before they would be seen as the premier threat? I dont know, im just asking. If The Soviets conquer Japan, does that make them a bigger threat then Germany? I havent done so in ages and dont remember.

 

[Pro_Consul]

You like things so simple all the time, why not stick to chess?

If you find it reasonable to suggest that someone play a game which matches what they like in a game, why do you keep wanting to morph this game into something else?

I understand thats how the game operates, im not necc in agreement that the world always behaves that way.

It behaves a lot closer to that way than to what you are suggesting be done instead. People don't go to war with whomever is objectively the most at fault. They go to war with whomever they most fear. And fear is subjective in the extreme, and is enormously mitigated by distance.

How many nations would the Soviets have to conquer before they would be seen as the premier threat?

Two. Germany and Japan, aka the two unfriendly but still major powers which stand squarely in between the USSR and its ability to harm any US interests. Like I said, nations are concerned first with protecting their own national interests. Punishing the most aggressive nation around falls way far down the priority list, while protecting one's own interests pretty much always remains at the top, except perhaps occasionally when matters of national pride and revenge overcome rationality. Now if the USSR attacked the US directly or invaded a nation of direct strategic interest to the US, e.g. a nation in the Western Hemisphere, then you would see a very different kind of war unfold.

Edit: meant to respond to this:

I dont know, im just asking. If The Soviets conquer Japan, does that make them a bigger threat then Germany?

Only if we are talking about a very "kinder, gentler" Germany than usual. But it is possible in that case, yes.

 

[21oliver]

Well, did you know that Geico can save you 15% or more on your Car insurance?

 

[Pro_Consul]

I heard that you were in good hand's with Allstate, but that only Nationwide is on your side. Funny how warm and fuzzy people can be when selling tickets in a numbers racket, isn't it?

 

[21oliver]

Lol

 

[sunsterson]

Wait a minute, instead of playing a strategic WARgame. I should play chess?
Maybe thats why I like hoi over vicky or eu is because theres less diplomacy?
That argument makes 0 sense.

Also ai diplomacy is never a problem with me

 

[21oliver]

You know how to be Diplomatic? You? Really? c'mon lol your teasing....

 

[sunsterson]

You know how to be Diplomatic? You? Really? c'mon lol your teasing....

Aien't no diplomacy in MP.

 

[21oliver]

Lucky for you huh? all the subtlety and nuance of a rock going through a glass window!

 

[claydulaney]

Three things I would like to see in HOI4:
1. Naval or Air commanders should be able to command theatres - think Nimitz. At that level, commanders gain traits of all the services. Enough said.
2. PLEASE make it possible for one supreme commander to command ALL the allied forces In a theatre or front. There is no way to really do a Normandy type invasion without an Ike as El Supremo. The same with Rommel in the Afrika Korps scenarios, Alexander in Italy, the list is endless.
3. There needs to be some method for the primary player to direct the efforts of the rest of their allies. GB MUST be able to give some direction to the rest of the commonwealth. I'm not talking about micromanagement, but things like getting Canada to send an army to GB for use in Overlord, and then being able to load a corps or whatever onto ships and take to Italy or wherever needed to bolster their armies. 8th Army had divisions from all over the commonwealth, but this cannot happen under the current system. Similarly, Rommel could command his Italian forces, in Russia the Hungarian and Romanian armies were integrated into the German army groups, and not just a herd of divisions moving helter-skelter about the Russian Front.

Lastly, PLEASE remember that there are a lot of folks like me that play solo, without any sort of modding. That is a whole, different scope of the game, which is great for those that desire to do so, but is not for me and a lot of folks like me. I like the game [mostly] as it is designed. Also, I HATE having to buy and rely on downloading the game! I WANT THE WHOLE THING AVAILABLE ON A DVD [WITH PDF MANUALS]!! THIS INCLUDES UPGRADES SUCH AS FTM AND TFH. When my computer takes a dump, I want to be able to put in a disk and reload - although a direct download from Paradox of an upgrade like TFH similar to a windows service pack would be acceptable. An extra $10 plus shipping is acceptable to have a hard copy of the game, and not to have to rely upon remembering what company I bought/downloaded which version from. I HATE THAT!

Thank you!

Clay
who used to be a board game designer and playtester for the old Avalon Hill games a long time ago in a far away world!

 

[Sachaztan]

About that first point, yeah it's ridiculous that threat from a 3rd country can make USA join allies and declare war on Germany. Spies raising threat in Mexico to push USA into allies and then USA just ignores Mexico, or like you said USSR declares war on every single neutral and non-guaranteed minor in the world thus prompting US declaration of war against Germany and just never mind the soviets wtf?