Very disappointed by the lack of terrain modifiers on the new tank designer

[--Yigito123--]

I think in the case of the British Empire having something like Hong Kong or Gibraltar taken from them in the 30s or 40s—yes, the only way you keep that is if you capitulate the British or make it completely untenable for them to fight1930s Spain and 1930s Maoist/Narionalist China weren’t exactly capable of projecting their will in any serious way upon the British...there’d be no reason for the British to not remain at war even if their first attempt at “liberating” their former possessions failed.

Now obviously, if we were playing a modern day mod and the CCP, for some reason, took Hong Kong by force prior to the proscribed handover date I don’t think the British are in a position to fight an amphibious urban land war with a major power 1/2 way across the world. And HoI4 should absolutely be able to model that.

but as it stands in “historical” 30s/40s I don’t see a way that the pro imperialist sentiment doesn’t win out in Britain and there isn’t a major war for retention of Crown Jewels of their empire being taken.

given it’s going to realistically be China taking Hong Kong , an Indian/Egyptian revolt, or Spain taking Gibraltar who takes their territory (after all when the Italians and Germans came for the Suez in real life we got the pro imperialist Churchill essentially calling for a Japanese level of fanatical defense of the home island of if came to that) I don’t see why the British surrender or sign a peace.

On the flip side, I do see a world where the Spanish take Gibraltar, get beaten back and sue for peace and the British accept, returning Gibraltar and earning concessions. Similar to, from what my understanding of the Japanese warplan v America was(except the Japanese were hoping for beneficial concessions like some of their conquered territory and resuming of trade particularly oil), take as much as you can early, defend vigorously and sue for peace assuming the Americans wouldn’t be willing to only accept unconditional surrender (I’m not a historian, I could totally be wrong on the Japanese strategy bit). However obviously the sneak attack rubbed Americans the wrong way and dramatically exacerbated racial hatred (which isn’t simulated in hoi4, but really ought to be in a game about 1930s/1940s geopolitics).

Well yes, Britain wouldn't just officially hand over places like Gibraltar and Hong Kong, but there would eventually come a point where they would stop trying to take the land back through direct force of arms for a while if they suffered enough lopsided defeats during the attempts. They wouldn't sign a peace treaty, but there would eventually come a point where the two nations are no longer "at war" as far as HoI4 is concerned. Economic embargoes and blockades? Sure. Literally organizing five D-Day level operations and sacrificing millions of soldiers? I doubt it.

As it currently stands in the game, if a competent Spanish player declares war on Britain, takes Gibraltar and defends the mainland successfully, the British will proceed to kill off a quarter of their male population bashing their armies against the Spanish coast taking 1:200 casualties, and will never stop until either they literally run out of people to throw across the sea, or the Spanish raise a flag over London. The government will never be destabilized, the people will never be tired of losing family members in a war directed by incompetents, and the military leaders will never consider if maybe there is a point where taking Gibraltar back is no longer worth it.

 

[Pitagor]

Well yes, Britain wouldn't just officially hand over places like Gibraltar and Hong Kong, but there would eventually come a point where they would stop trying to take the land back through direct force of arms for a while if they suffered enough lopsided defeats during the attempts. They wouldn't sign a peace treaty, but there would eventually come a point where the two nations are no longer "at war" as far as HoI4 is concerned. Economic embargoes and blockades? Sure. Literally organizing five D-Day level operations and sacrificing millions of soldiers? I doubt it.

As it currently stands in the game, if a competent Spanish player declares war on Britain, takes Gibraltar and defends the mainland successfully, the British will proceed to kill off a quarter of their male population bashing their armies against the Spanish coast taking 1:200 casualties, and will never stop until either they literally run out of people to throw across the sea, or the Spanish raise a flag over London. The government will never be destabilized, the people will never be tired of losing family members in a war directed by incompetents, and the military leaders will never consider if maybe there is a point where taking Gibraltar back is no longer worth it.

But then those have nothing to do with diplomacy, but with a war AI... somewhat lacking in certain aspects... and with the lack of tying the war dynamic and domestic situation (and considering Germany had to basically be fully occupied to capitulate IRL it's kinda hard to get it right).

 

[KRBLACK]

We might still do flamethrowers though, people seem to really want those. I think there are ways to do it without having to touch the modifier system itself.

I was under the impression flamethrowers would not be included in the game, due to being ''on the edge'' of being a warcrime.

Not that I am for or against including them, but now I am wondering what is and isn't banned from the game.

 

[Ridan Krad]

I was under the impression flamethrowers would not be included in the game, due to being ''on the edge'' of being a warcrime.

Not that I am for or against including them, but now I am wondering what is and isn't banned from the game.

Flamethrowers already exist in the game, albeit somewhat abstracted. The engineer company currently in the game provides bonuses to attacking forts/urban. If they were added, then I guess that flame tanks would probably be a more expensive, stronger form of engineers.

 

[KRBLACK]

Flamethrowers already exist in the game, albeit somewhat abstracted. The engineer company currently in the game provides bonuses to attacking forts/urban. If they were added, then I guess that flame tanks would probably be a more expensive, stronger form of engineers.

Well I thought PDX's stance was not to include stuff that models/symbolizes/resembles warcrimes. I don't think technically flamethrowers are in the geneva conventions, but still.

Not complaining, I was just confused regarding PDX's stance on this matter.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

Well I thought PDX's stance was not to include stuff that models/symbolizes/resembles warcrimes. I don't think technically flamethrowers are in the geneva conventions, but still.

Not complaining, I was just confused regarding PDX's stance on this matter.

Its covered under The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III if you are interested

UNODA Treaties

UNODA Treaties database

treaties.unoda.org

TL;DR
Not banned, but limited to avoid civilian casualties with the main use to target military objectives

 

[KRBLACK]

Its covered under The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III if you are interested

UNODA Treaties

UNODA Treaties database

treaties.unoda.org

TL;DR
Not banned, but limited to avoid civilian casualties with the main use to target military objectives

Interesting. I was under the impression that anti-personnel incendiary weapons are indeed prohibited.

I will now feel slightly less guilty when laughing maniacally when using flamers in warhammer 2.

Also, good luck with your rehabilitation from bear attack.

 

[CraniumMuppet]

I will now feel slightly less guilty when laughing maniacally when using flamers in warhammer 2.

I feel like if a madman tries to open another portal to superhell and tries to rip the known world asunder while ratmen spill forth from the sewers you are all within your right to grab the nearest flamethrower, protocols be damned

 

[Froozigiusz]

he isnt underestimating the effort of having to essentially redo the unit modifier system from the ground up

A small price to pay for salvation – especially if not my work

 

[King Of Heroes]

An Armored Engineers support battalion like some people have suggested seems to be the obvious way around it to me, we already have Armored Cars for Recon so extending that to Engineers seems like a decent idea.

 

[LordSkorpio]

But then those have nothing to do with diplomacy, but with a war AI... somewhat lacking in certain aspects... and with the lack of tying the war dynamic and domestic situation (and considering Germany had to basically be fully occupied to capitulate IRL it's kinda hard to get it right).

Sorry but I have to disagree. Germany planned several times to sign peace with the Western Allies (indeed that was the whole point of the Ardennes Offensive), but they would not accept anything but inconditional surrender, that's why the Allies ended up occupying almost all of Germany. War with USSR is another story.

Another example is Japan nontheless, which capitulated before the mainland invasion began.

 

[Pitagor]

Sorry but I have to disagree. Germany planned several times to sign peace with the Western Allies (indeed that was the whole point of the Ardennes Offensive), but they would not accept anything but inconditional surrender, that's why the Allies ended up occupying almost all of Germany. War with USSR is another story.

Another example is Japan nontheless, which capitulated before the mainland invasion began.

Well yeah, Germany had to be occuppied before they accepted to surrender unconditionally. That's my point. Japan and Italy more wisely surrendered before full ennemy occupation. Germany, clearly losing the war and badly enough that unconditional surrender was a better option that no surrender, didn't.

What would then make the UK surrender some land to Spain or China when it can commit limited forces to aerial or naval campaigns without fear of impactful repercussions? Maybe losing the land war in Asia or Africa? Losing many soldiers in fruitless landings? Well, I'm not so sure... (see: sunken costs)

 

[LordSkorpio]

Well yeah, Germany had to be occuppied before they accepted to surrender unconditionally. That's my point. Japan and Italy more wisely surrendered before full ennemy occupation. Germany, clearly losing the war and badly enough that unconditional surrender was a better option that no surrender, didn't.

What would then make the UK surrender some land to Spain or China when it can commit limited forces to aerial or naval campaigns without fear of impactful repercussions? Maybe losing the land war in Asia or Africa? Losing many soldiers in fruitless landings? Well, I'm not so sure... (see: sunken costs)

I think the main reason would be popular opinion. UK was a democracy and Germany a dictatorship, that means the British government can't ignore a huge amount of losses like Germany. If you are the Spanish player and you are continuously pushing back the enemy, there should come a time when popular opinion in UK turns to seek peace because they are being beaten and their familiars are dying in a losing war. I just don't see a democracy committing mass suicide because you took one province from them.

 

[Pitagor]

I think the main reason would be popular opinion. UK was a democracy and Germany a dictatorship, that means the British government can't ignore a huge amount of losses like Germany. If you are the Spanish player and you are continuously pushing back the enemy, there should come a time when popular opinion in UK turns to seek peace because they are being beaten and their familiars are dying in a losing war. I just don't see a democracy committing mass suicide because you took one province from them.

I mean, that's the opposite, really.
Your family dying to defend the mighty British Empire against wannabe conquerors was admissible to many. Having your family dead AND the British Empire nonetheless defeated on the other hand... That's the dynamic we see in WWI and WWII, and to me is a sunken cost fallacy: the more blood have been spilled, the more the nation has been ruined, the more it need to win, for the people themselves don't easily accept defeat after so many sacrifices.

Yes, ingame it makes no sense because the AI suicide itself. But IRL?
Look at the Falklands War and the Suez Crisis. In both cases the UK escalated the conflict, because it didn't really fear any repercussion (or so it thought). In one case popular support was with the war, and I don't think huge losses would have change that, quite the contrary. In the other, the fait accompli, several months old, meant that the war, now considered an offensive one, was unpopular from the start (though not in France).

 

[LordSkorpio]

I mean, that's the opposite, really.
Your family dying to defend the mighty British Empire against wannabe conquerors was admissible to many. Having your family dead AND the British Empire nonetheless defeated on the other hand... That's the dynamic we see in WWI and WWII, and to me is a sunken cost fallacy: the more blood have been spilled, the more the nation has been ruined, the more it need to win, for the people themselves don't easily accept defeat after so many sacrifices.

Yes, ingame it makes no sense because the AI suicide itself. But IRL?
Look at the Falklands War and the Suez Crisis. In both cases the UK escalated the conflict, because it didn't really fear any repercussion (or so it thought). In one case popular support was with the war, and I don't think huge losses would have change that, quite the contrary. In the other, the fait accompli, several months old, meant that the war, now considered an offensive one, was unpopular from the start (though not in France).

After WWI, there was a huge crisis about all the patriotic death thing, specially after many soldiers saw the "glory" of dying in a muddy trench infested by rats. There were numerous poems and books questioning that after the Great War was finished and many of those people were still alive during WWII so I don't think people would go all fanatical win so easily. Many would firstly start by questioning "is this worth it?".

We are talking about a scenario where a foreign country has claims and manages to conquer a part of the colonial empire, not mainland UK. Of course there would be war, but I don't see the popular opinion so eager to keep fighting after years of defeats. It did not happen in the totalitarian countries during WWII, and it was no different in the democratic countries where popular opinion was not so easily controlled. Indeed, Axis knew that was the weak point of democracies, that was the objective of the u-boats against UK and of a big part of the propaganda effort.

This is why I think there should be a way to sign a peace deal, specially if we are talking about a limited war, not a total war.