Do you people not realize how badly the US wanted revenge after Pearl Harbour and the propaganda the US put out. I am therefore arguing if the Axis declares on the US they should get an NU boost if its the other way around they don't.
US National Unity; why is it so low?
- Thread starter ltccone
- 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.
Good thought
I think the low NU is in part to reppresent the lack of a willingness to get in another war, but when they are attacked, that spirit arises
The comparison to Spain, is a false one I think, as the high national unit of both factions in the war represent they are going to fight tooth and nail agains the other side, which is an attitude that causes a civil war to begin with, rather than Span being unitied.
So Spain has a low national unity per se as there are two sides leading to a civil war, but each internal faction has a high unity as they are so committied to their cause and villifying tghe other side that they will not only fight a civil war, but fight a bloddy one.
Still national unity is removed from Prodcution and Manpower, where as it should probably be tied to it is if it is willingness to fight or continue the struggle.
If different Factions in a country each has a Unity the contributed to the National unity, based on their power an infuence, but better represent it, but this is more off target for a WW2 game but maybe for if the time frame was longer.
Indeed the US population DID NOT WANT another war but the attack on Pearl Habour changed minds from isolationism to exacting revenge very quickly.
Keep in mind that NU in HOI4 affects one thing and one thing only, surrender. It has zero affect on any other aspect of the game. It is almost a useless stat that barely belongs in the game and most of the NFs or events that adjust it are a waste of time.
If someone is actually going for US conquest, they are off on a com stomp, crushing the hapless AI. Why drag it out and make it take the extra hours? The game is already as good as over by the time Germany is invading the US. They are just going through the motions.
If someone is actually going for US conquest, they are off on a com stomp, crushing the hapless AI. Why drag it out and make it take the extra hours? The game is already as good as over by the time Germany is invading the US. They are just going through the motions.
Nationals unity for the united state in HOIV is largely irrelevant if here enemies have been able to land an take a strong beach head then they probably have defeated all other opponents and thus making the US have high national unity will just add a couple more months to the conflict.
National unity for the united states in real life however should be just as high as Britain or France. Fighting a foreign war for zero gain is completely different then fighting a war for survival. the united states was not "Directly threatened By WW1 , "WW2 to an extent", the Korean War , Vietnam and pretty much every war she has fought in since the civil war. Yet American troops still bleed for there country.
France in all regard should be punished in regards to national unity they did have a strong enough faction to quickly collaborate with the axis. compare that to Poland which planned to continue the fight all the way to the Romanian border , and would have if it didn't get invaded by the soviets...
National unity for the united states in real life however should be just as high as Britain or France. Fighting a foreign war for zero gain is completely different then fighting a war for survival. the united states was not "Directly threatened By WW1 , "WW2 to an extent", the Korean War , Vietnam and pretty much every war she has fought in since the civil war. Yet American troops still bleed for there country.
France in all regard should be punished in regards to national unity they did have a strong enough faction to quickly collaborate with the axis. compare that to Poland which planned to continue the fight all the way to the Romanian border , and would have if it didn't get invaded by the soviets...
To be honest its probably because the/a plant is a bit too far from you for the drain being placed on it.
Yeah, Red Army entered Poland. AFTER Polish government fled into Romania. But sure, lets shed a tear for "hyena of Europe" (c) Churchill.
Sure. France - has a low unity, even lower than US. Rich and poor, left and right...
USSR - repressed and dispossessed classes, infighting in the top echelon on who gets to be the leader...
Now, you can argue, that US has little in the way of raising its unity as the game progresses, in comparison with other countries, and I will agree with you there.
While being quite nicely paid and pampered, compared to most others.
In the 1939 start date the USA get 80% NU while following the historical path from 1936 up to 1939 only results in 70% afaict.
Area to capture from west with 55% NU (1936 start + new deal - 3rd term):
Area to capture from west with 80% NU (1939 start):
Area to capture from west with 55% NU (1936 start + new deal - 3rd term):
Area to capture from west with 80% NU (1939 start):
This already shows how pointless is to increase NU. If you took everything from california to Texas USA is already broken and without oil to keep fighting.
if you go from the other side. USA will lose 80% of its factorys and again, its over and the only thing we can discuss is how boring its gonna be as the one to take it now have enough factorys to fight the whole allies by himself. (as germany have no such problem using the whole USA production).
Are the majority of your posts simply political comments that have almost nothing at all to do with the game?
Your experience is similar to mine. You can capitulate the US without capturing their capital. And it makes no sense the the US has a higher NU in the '39 scenario.
And the Soviets can get a NU of 90%, where you have to capture all the way to north of Mongolia to get them to surrender. Now THAT is pointless.
The Soviet union (former Russia) was a country with careworn and indoctrinated people after a civil war with several tens of millions dead, the Holodomor and much suffering in general.
It took a lot to bring them down in WW1 (they were afterall the strongest Triple-Entete power) and they are hard in taking in general.
I dont see any other people suffer the same losses, fight a total war like they did several times in history (Napoleon 1812, burned their own, centralistic capital!).
The US did aside from the civil war never really have high losses. Neither were they indoctrinated or united or repressed. And ofc they were a democracy, not as total to the public, so they should not have the NU to fight a Total-War with losses of the USSR.
Aside from Napoleonic France and Hitler Germany i see no major country to fight so desperately throughout their history with so little care about the common people.
They are hardened as steel.
Instead of all of the guessing based upon questionable facts and personal biases, how about we ask someone who should know?
@podcat Why the heck is the US unity so low relative to other nations?
@podcat Why the heck is the US unity so low relative to other nations?
Two wrongs dont make a right.
In most MP games is not even allowed for Soviets to go the 90% NU.
And even in the cases of 90% NU soviets the war is over the moment you take and hold moscow +Stalingrad. There is just no more industry to keep fighting and most units will be dead or lacking equipment.
Sure, you might still need to cross a hundred+ provinces but the result is already set.
the point is. The capital sure need to be important in the process for a country to give up.
But its not a requisite.
Specially because countrys have different capitals with different importances.
Moscow outside of being capital is also a Huge logistical complex. Without moscow the axis would have broken the spine of the soviet logistics.
Washington is just a administrative city. Its by no means essential for USA to keep fighting in WW2.
Places like the great lakes and texas where much more important.
Washington don´t even have a huge population density like Paris.
Washington had 700k people in 1940
Paris win 1940 already had 5 Million.
Last edited:
No, only 40% or so.
What can I say, I cannot leave others in the dark, when they say something that is ignorant.
Highest estimates are of 14 million dead in Civil War, of them 10+ million due to disease and hunger. Considering, that Russian Empire had regular hunger with 1-1.5 million dead due to malnutrition every 4-5 years, it is hardly surprising.
If resistance to occupation was more difficult to deal with, it might matter more.
Occupying the Soviet Union just to the Urals should be an immense drain on the German army. Occupying New England, New York, and a strip of land to Ohio should also be a significant drain on any Axis power.
And occupations themselves are very profitable, further making it a pointless pain to drag out surrender in the case of either the Soviet Union or America.