US early war entry and dual pool.

[Greywolf]

After reading a lot fo the AAR and so it seems that the US have the bad habit to enter in war really early ( sometimes even before FoF ). Even if this can be a possibility ( like massive alien brainwashing or the fact that this USA is a sequel from our EU2 game with population being mainly french-originated ) it seems to occur quite handily so it make me ask 2 question:

- Are the US entry pool dual or single: I mean did any action of the japanese or germany/italy contribute to US going to war against anyone or just this specific Axis ( Europe / Pacific ) ?

- Can the USA enter an alliance with european country before being in war ?

And I will answer those question too and make some counter proposal:

1- Yet it seems so , one entry pool so basically Japan going rampant in Pacific will help USA DOW Germany, wich is clearly not logical nor historical. I think it is time to borrow the Worl In Flammes dual entry pool with one for european and one for pacific axis. It will also have the interesting advantage of slowing up USA war entry to more credible level.

2- Again it seems that the answer is yes. Wich historically is quite sound... except that the in game alliance borrow a lot from EU2 one and too strongly tie USA with CW/FR thus once again helping them going to war earlier. Perhaps also it is due to the overfilling US entry pool. Anyway I will suggest that USA will be prohibited to enter military alliance with other country :
- If they are neutral ( not in a major war ).
- If they are at war against Facist or Commies and USA is at war too or US entry level against opponent reach some size ( 75%+ at least ).
While neutral USA should be allowed some of the tech exchange or trade exchange without allying, perhaps even tying thus possibilities to war entry level.

Disclaimer: All that assumption are just guess right now, but I will be really delighted to have some insightfull person coming here and telling me things already work that way because that not the way they sound : 1940 France up, US DOW Germany and start blitzing the Ruhr with 800+ strat bombers :|

 

[BiB]

I've never seen the US enter the war on its own. Eitehr they got attacked by Japan, either they get invited by the UK (and I tend to play either the UK or JApan )

 

[MacGregor]

Originally posted by BiB
I've never seen the US enter the war on its own. Eitehr they got attacked by Japan, either they get invited by the UK (and I tend to play either the UK or JApan )

Ditto. I've found the US to be very reluctant to get involved in the war without being attacked first.

 

[unmerged(6607)]

The Forza Italia! AAR has the US entering on its own before the fall of France and without an attack on it noted by Maxi.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Rocky Horror
The Forza Italia! AAR has the US entering on its own before the fall of France and without an attack on it noted by Maxi.

So that's one example against many

 

[Spartacii]

That's one example too many.

Even so, the US entry into the war should be dual not single. The US should be able to go to war with Germany and remain at peace with Japan or vice-versa. Especially if Japan has not joined the Axis.

With the tremendous industrial production of the United States, the best viable strategy for the Axis is to keep the US neutral for as long as possible.

If Japan has not invaded the rest of China and has kept only Manchuria, if Japan has developed good relations with Nationalist China and helped them against the Commies, if Japan has not joined the Axis or the Anti-Comitern, if Japan has not attacked any European or American territory in the Pacific or in Asia, should the US then declare war on Japan if Germany invades everybody else?

So the question is, can the US declare and prosecute a war against Germany independently of what Japan does or vice-versa?

This to me is an important issue. If so then Hurrah but if not then Houston we got a problem.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Spartacii
That's one example too many.

No it isn't.

 

[Spartacii]

Originally posted by BiB
No it isn't.

How about answering the question instead?

Can the US declare and prosecute a war against Germany independently of what Japan does or vice-versa?

Can the US declare war on an aggressive Germany, resolve that war, and NOT declare war on a pacifist Non-Axis Japan?

 

[unmerged(4735)]

Originally posted by Spartacii
How about answering the question instead?

Can the US declare and prosecute a war against Germany independently of what Japan does or vice-versa?

Can the US declare war on an aggressive Germany, resolve that war, and NOT declare war on a pacifist Non-Axis Japan?

Why would you think that the US going to war with a Germany that is not in alliance with Japan would put them at war with Japan, or vice versa. If they're not part of the Axis alliance then of course you could fight separate wars.

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by BiB
So that's one example against many

US dows Germany in 1940 due to Japans actions even though Japan is not part of the axis in war and peaceI
Still, thats only 2 examples

 

[Syt]

Originally posted by Darkrenown
US dows Germany in 1940 due to Japans actions even though Japan is not part of the axis in war and peaceI
Still, thats only 2 examples

It could also have had to do with Germany beating and partially annexing France that the U.S. joined the war in my AAR (gave that some more thought).

 

[unmerged(6105)]

In the "Forza Italia" AAR it has not been reported about the Japanese actions and USA entered the war against Germany since Japan allied with Germany. that in turn means it was unknown actionc that lead to the entry of USA in the war... If not Maximillian explains it.

what makes USA enter so early is that in most games the player and/or AI is more agressive than in reality.

 

[Greywolf]

Originally posted by Jkris

what makes USA enter so early is that in most games the player and/or AI is more agressive than in reality.

In late '39 early '40 ??? more aggressive ? HOW ???

I dont saw any too much agressive AI or player in the report, especially so early in the game.

Also the problem come from the alliance which are too straighten in game terms. In real life Japan was part of the Axis alliance but play his own war : Doesnt DOW URSS when asked, doesnt DOW CW and FR when they attacked Germany. Same for Italy.

In game the alliance work closer frm EU2 and they are far too much binding than in erality, especially for war.

Also I want to say once more than USA entering alliance with CW that put them in war with EuroAxis in '40 or '41 without France fall or Britain invaded its a mere silliness. And that is with the isolationnist governement !!!

When USA enter war Axis are doomed at short or longer terms. All that really depend is the time. In 1940 they have no hope to struggle any kind of satisfying peace terms. All they can expect is to surrende all gain and pray that USSR doesnt back stab them. So basically even in a gamebalance terms things are wrong.

Also remeber that actually nearly everybody is satisfied because they perceive the inbalance as challenging or no problem because of AI weakness. Just think what will happen i an MP game so...

Germany under strat bombing from 1940 on , before they can actually attack and seize enough of Russian industrial potential to last. Italy fleet complety destroyed by combined CW/US fleet and ressorting to heavily garrison and a mere trunk state. Japan stuck to his island because he doesnt get enough time to seize the all valuable Rubber an Oil ressource before the US subs and bases in Philipinnes or CW start crippling his economy.

Of course we all know that in SP things wont be as much changed. Axis player could probably defeat early US entry, and it will probably even produce a more interestingly challenged game. Allied player will just not care so much too as it make them active sooner or greatly help them anyway. Playing Minor is far more bad as Axis minor are in minor direr straits and allied minor completly unusefull...

In fact keeping things that way game need to be extended to 1950+ because when the WWII will finish in early '44 or even '43 it will be time for the hot-cold war.

 

[MacGregor]

Originally posted by Jkris
what makes USA enter so early is that in most games the player and/or AI is more agressive than in reality.

Correct. If the Germans, Italians and Japenese move faster than historically (something new players can't help but try ) the chances are greater that the US will enter earlier. War entry levels for the US are affected each time a country is attacked by an Axis (or Japenese if not yet part of the Axis) player, or a demand for territory and several other agressive acts, including some random and historical events. I tend to play "historically," that is building up my tech and forces before going to battle. In those types of games, the US is a very reluctant participant. Further, if Japan is not part of the Axis and attacks the US, the US is not automatically at war with Germany. Just like in real life. (US only declared war on Japan on Dec 8, '41. It was Germany, three days later, that declared war on the US, silly buggers).

 

[unmerged(6105)]

Originally posted by Greywolf
In late '39 early '40 ??? more aggressive ? HOW ???

The game starts in 1936 and most players I seen have started things earlier in some way or made demands on countries at early date, like MacGregor said.

 

[unmerged(3352)]

Originally posted by Greywolf
I think it is time to borrow the Worl In Flammes dual entry pool with one for european and one for pacific axis.

The way WiF works is dual entry pools and dual tension pools. But dont forget that half the tension between US-Jap would be added to the US -Ger tension and vice versa. Personally I think that is reasonable as it simulates a more active/agressive US public opinion. "Damn Japanese invaded NEI, we must stop them; and look, they are allied with those crazy Germans too".

IMO WiF has a very well thought out US entry mechanism, and I especially like the fact that the US is not allowed to take certain actions unless a certain level of entry/tension has been achieved. For example, the US is not allowed to lend lease stuff to the UK unless the tension with Germany is high enough.

I dont know how this works in HoI (since there is no US aar yet), but from what I have understood so far, there are no such limitations in place yet.

A good way to simulate this would be to close certain research options for the US until certain variables have been met. (i e no advanced carrier research until war with Japan or something like that).

 

[InnocentIII]

Originally posted by BiB
I've never seen the US enter the war on its own. Eitehr they got attacked by Japan, either they get invited by the UK (and I tend to play either the UK or JApan )

Entering due to attack by Japan makes perfect sense, of course. However, entering the war due to being invited by the UK is an order of magnitude too small as a trigger IMHO.

US joining the Allies in response to Axis belligerence is great, and if Axis players bring that about earlier through greater belligerence, so be it.

US joining the Allies because the Allies want the US to join is just wrong. That is much to easy for the Allies, historically they'd have asked the US as early as they could.

 

[unmerged(6607)]

Historically, they did. Reynaud *BEGGED* the Amis to enter the war in May-June 1940 after Paris fell. We didn't. In HoI, dollars to donuts says we would.

 

[unmerged(349)]

Originally posted by InnocentIII
Entering due to attack by Japan makes perfect sense, of course. However, entering the war due to being invited by the UK is an order of magnitude too small as a trigger IMHO.

US joining the Allies in response to Axis belligerence is great, and if Axis players bring that about earlier through greater belligerence, so be it.

US joining the Allies because the Allies want the US to join is just wrong. That is much to easy for the Allies, historically they'd have asked the US as early as they could.

I would suggest that if joining alliance is like in EU2 where it was primarily related to the relationship between the alliance leader and that state being asked to join, then it probably won't work well in HoI, precisely because the US might have great relations with Great Britain, but not be interested in joining the war. So the AI agrees to join the alliance and finds itself at war.

However, if Paradox is clever, and I believe they are, they found a way to have the AI consider the prospects of going to war if they join an alliance when they don't want to go to war. One easy way to do it would be to simply make it impossible for the US to join an alliance until their war-entry reaches a certain level.

This sounds like one of those problems that crops up occasionally but will not do so often enough to ruin a game. Like my current EU2 game in which for the first time in dozens of games Spain has annexed to Aragon before 1500, and at the same time, a united France and Spain in 1510 have a +200 relationship and a strong alliance. This makes life difficult for EVERYONE else in the game because it will be nearly impossible to break that alliance and it has far more power than anyone else. Does this make EU2 a crap game? Nope, because this is the first time I have seen this happen.

 

[BiB]

Originally posted by Darkrenown
US dows Germany in 1940 due to Japans actions even though Japan is not part of the axis in war and peaceI
Still, thats only 2 examples

And I played about a zillion games in which historically the Axis did not romp over the continent by 1937 and the US did fuck all bar waiting for Japan to attack.

IF u want to as a player evidently u can speed this up severely but those cases shouldn't be used as a measuring stick.