Victorious China should have an event to peace with Japan

[vinicyush]

Barbarossa extremely implausible?? Hardly. It came very close to success. How can you even compare Germany defeating Russia to China driving the Japanese off the continent unassisted before the end of 1939?

The second reason that your comparison fails completely is that if Germany does succeed in game they do so by taking enough VPs to exceed Russia's NU. There is no short cut to victory event.

I already said that the Japanese AI should be improved. At no point did I say or even imply that it should be made impossible.

Furthermore, I keep seeing those who are in favor of China's current easy victory then failing to take the Japanese islands. How can that be? It is so easy to do.

I guess I haven't expressed myself well. I agree with what the OP just said, it's easy to take the japanese home islands as China, but I don't want to do so, that ruins the game because it goes too far in logic it becomes fantasy. Also, I never said anything about winning before 1939, if anything, I would like the conflicts of the game to last longer than they currently do. But even if china fends off the japanese in 44, with lend-lease from the allies, I don't think the player should wait until the allies invade the home islands to get a peace event, that way the civil war could resume while the WW2 is still going, and make for some fun alt-story cenarios, also, wouldn't japan want to release all the troops it had tied in china if the war was going badly and the us was knocking at their door? It's impossible to know, but would be fun if we could see it in the game.

 

[Admiral Piett]

There should be an event chain for such an eventuality. The fact that China has to either build a massive navy in order to launch Operation Downfall with Chinese Characteristics, or exploit the AI to get units over to the Home Islands, so that the player can end the war and then fight the ChiComs is silly.

 

[Legionario15]

Stop the AI from doing pointless naval invasions and Japan won't lose dozens of divisions in a completely stupid way. Then, Japan will no longer be susceptible to being defeated in the continent.

 

[Vicksburg]

Stop the AI from doing pointless naval invasions and Japan won't lose dozens of divisions in a completely stupid way. Then, Japan will no longer be susceptible to being defeated in the continent.

There are people conquering the world with Luxemburg, so I hardly see how you could prevent anyone from winning as China.

Again, this is not about whether Japan should be buffed up, or if naval invasions should be fixed. This is about a concrete situation: if China wins the war, for ANY REASON, what should happen next ? In my opinion, an event should easily fix that.

 

[safe-keeper]

As others have pointed out, what we need is a mechanic that allows us to make Europa Universalis-style peace deals without having to crush our enemies. Makes sense for so many of HOI4's wars, even the historical ones. Soviets stuck in Finland, for example.

I think maybe a reason why this hasn't been implemented is that the devs were afraid of the AI using it prematurely once the war starts to go against them. Imagine Britain surrendering in 1940 because they lost lots of war score from France, Benelux, and Poland falling to the Germans. Definitely makes sense in wars in EU and CK, but certainly not in a WWII scenario.

I suppose a fix could be that against faction leaders, primarily Germany, the Soviet Union, and Britain, you should have to fight and completely occupy them, but against . This would have its obvious limitations, too, of course, if some random minors who wouldn't fight to the death start factions and all of a sudden you had to invade and completely occupy them to force them to surrender, but it's a start.

This would also allow you to force "minor allies" like Romania and Finland to leave the fight, as happened historically, while still having to pretty much raise your flag atop the Reichstag to defeat Germany.

Furthermore, I keep seeing those who are in favor of China's current easy victory then failing to take the Japanese islands.

You're jumping to conclusions. No one is saying we want peace deals because we can't successfully invade Japan. Try again.

 

[Dalwin]

You're jumping to conclusions. No one is saying we want peace deals because we can't successfully invade Japan. Try again.

So instead of an easy full victory you want an easy half victory. I can understand your view point. Now try to at least acknowledge mine, which is that the need for such events is tiny compared to the need to make the Japanese AI a proper challenge. If the Ai played as it should both in conducting its campaign on the Asian mainland and in naval defense of the home islands, then I would be all in favor of such an event.

 

[safe-keeper]

So instead of an easy full victory you want an easy half victory.

Again, this has nothing to do with us wanting easy victories or us being unable to win by occupying land. Read what we write, please.

 

[Dalwin]

Again, this has nothing to do with us wanting easy victories or us being unable to win by occupying land. Read what we write, please.

It goes both ways. A more polite way for me to have said the same thing would have been to say that the prevailing opinion here is that just because the invasion of the Japanese home islands is easy doesn't mean that the players want to have to go through the motions of doing it. That is in effect a half victory. Unless they improve the AI, it is an easy half victory. Is that seriously confusing?

So instead of attacking the once sentence that you didn't like (though it was admiteddly glib) try addressing the entire point.

 

[Vasious]

Historical plausibility is indeed what is at stake. On that we agree.

However, your examples do not make your point. They instead make mine. Vichy actually happened. The conquest of Russia nearly happened. Nothing in those events goes against the concept of plausibility.

In the China situation however, you are asking for what you see as a plausible conclusion following up on an event that was extremely implausible. China driving Japan from the continent before the Allies are even involved in the theater should not happen. That fact that if a Human plays China in SP always results in this outcome is a flaw. I don't see it as a good expenditure of development resources to put custom a-historical and extremely unlikely events on top of a flawed premise. They should instead improve the performance of the Japanese AI so that a Chinese player is struggling to survive rather than succeeding easily.

For all the What If you can do in this game, this is the line you draw.

 

[Dalwin]

For all the What If you can do in this game, this is the line you draw.

I actually draw many such lines, beginning with my refusal to acknowledge he Dutch Gambit as a legitimate strategy. I mention this one here only because it is the topic of the thread.

I also do not like the unfeasible empire building made possible by the fascist branch of the generic focus tree. The most implausible campaign I have played was to conquer the US as Mexico and that was mainly to test just how bad that country was at defending itself.

 

[DropTheFPS]

I see no reason for Japan to not fight on. TBH if the AI were a little better this situation would not even arise very often. The Chinese should not be able to drive them from the continent. However, not only is it currently easy to do so, it is also easy to follow up with an almost immediate invasion of the Japanese islands and take the whole thing.

"I see no reason for Japan to not fight on."
Even if there was no reason for Japan to not fight on in real life, it doesn't matter, as this is a game, discussing these kinds of things is, frankly, completely pointless.
But if you really wanted to get into it, with historical focuses turned off there could be a 50% chance of Japan agreeing to peace you out, and 50% chance of them not doing that. And with historical focuses turned on they would always continue fighting on.

"TBH if the AI were a little better this situation would not even arise very often."
There are people doing world conquests with Albania and Luxembourg. Try to stop them from winning against Japan as China. Seeing how Paradox has to give the AI cheats, and nerfs to you the player, to make the AI even competent at all, tells me that your imaginary amazing HoI4 AI... isn't going to get implemented. At all. So, it's completely useless to even think "WHAT IF AI GOOD!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! THEN NO PROBLEM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"
And in AI vs AI situations (AI China vs AI Japan), your better AI would work both ways, remember that. So, this situation could actually arise maybe even very often.

"The Chinese should not be able to drive them from the continent."
Not in real life maybe, but in the player's hands, in a *game*, yes, they should. It's not like HoI4 is a 100% authentic ww2 simulator.

"However, not only is it currently easy to do so, it is also easy to follow up with an almost immediate invasion of the Japanese islands and take the whole thing."
Yes, it's easy. But do some people want to do that? No. I'd rather just take the mainland provinces and not even worry about Japan, because why should I? If I wanted to roleplay a semi-peaceful, democratic China, surely the Chinese wouldn't be all like "YEAH LET'S GO CAPTURE JAPAN HELL YEAH NATIONALISM F YEAH", right? And it's not like the Chinese would want to do that anyway, seeing as how they are, you know, like... in a middle of a civil war, or something. Go figure.

It's not about real life history here. If it would only be about real life history, then HoI4 might as well be a movie. Why make any decisions when the game will make them for you?

Also, how does it hurt you in any way that people want an event that has two options: Make a fair peace deal with Japan, ending the Sino-Japanese War, or continue fighting Japan, until they capitulate.
How does it hurt you? You could still do your tedious naval invasions to capitulate Japan, while others could, you know, *not do tedious naval invasions, and actually have a time of their life playing this game, instead of it being more like a tedious task that you'd rather not do*.
I'm genuinely curious. Why should you be able to dictate how others who have bought this game with their own money want to play this game? Instead of everyone going the way you want them to go, why not give them actual options to do as they wish?

 

[Dalwin]

"I see no reason for Japan to not fight on."
Even if there was no reason for Japan to not fight on in real life, it doesn't matter, as this is a game, discussing these kinds of things is, frankly, completely pointless.
But if you really wanted to get into it, with historical focuses turned off there could be a 50% chance of Japan agreeing to peace you out, and 50% chance of them not doing that. And with historical focuses turned on they would always continue fighting on.

"TBH if the AI were a little better this situation would not even arise very often."
There are people doing world conquests with Albania and Luxembourg. Try to stop them from winning against Japan as China. Seeing how Paradox has to give the AI cheats, and nerfs to you the player, to make the AI even competent at all, tells me that your imaginary amazing HoI4 AI... isn't going to get implemented. At all. So, it's completely useless to even think "WHAT IF AI GOOD!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! THEN NO PROBLEM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"
And in AI vs AI situations (AI China vs AI Japan), your better AI would work both ways, remember that. So, this situation could actually arise maybe even very often.

"The Chinese should not be able to drive them from the continent."
Not in real life maybe, but in the player's hands, in a *game*, yes, they should. It's not like HoI4 is a 100% authentic ww2 simulator.

"However, not only is it currently easy to do so, it is also easy to follow up with an almost immediate invasion of the Japanese islands and take the whole thing."
Yes, it's easy. But do some people want to do that? No. I'd rather just take the mainland provinces and not even worry about Japan, because why should I? If I wanted to roleplay a semi-peaceful, democratic China, surely the Chinese wouldn't be all like "YEAH LET'S GO CAPTURE JAPAN HELL YEAH NATIONALISM F YEAH", right? And it's not like the Chinese would want to do that anyway, seeing as how they are, you know, like... in a middle of a civil war, or something. Go figure.

It's not about real life history here. If it would only be about real life history, then HoI4 might as well be a movie. Why make any decisions when the game will make them for you?

Also, how does it hurt you in any way that people want an event that has two options: Make a fair peace deal with Japan, ending the Sino-Japanese War, or continue fighting Japan, until they capitulate.
How does it hurt you? You could still do your tedious naval invasions to capitulate Japan, while others could, you know, *not do tedious naval invasions, and actually have a time of their life playing this game, instead of it being more like a tedious task that you'd rather not do*.
I'm genuinely curious. Why should you be able to dictate how others who have bought this game with their own money want to play this game? Instead of everyone going the way you want them to go, why not give them actual options to do as they wish?

Yes. it is a game. Every other country has its surrender determined by comparing national unity to the victory points lost, even France gets that benefit of the doubt. What makes Japan deserve to be singled out to be the only country in the game, major or minor, who will surrender regardless of NU with almost all of the VPs still intact?

Now you will say that it is not actually surrender because they get to keep their homeland, but what other country is forced to peace out after losing some territory? Finland is the only case of which I am aware where this even occasionally happens and that is to parallel history. They also lose no VP or even production if the white peace fires.

People are calling for Japan to accept peace not because it fits what any other nations do in game or because it is right. They call for it because it is convenient.

Change the request to a general game system that allows for conditional peace under certain conditions instead of simply singling out Japan and then I would take a different stance.

 

[bitmode]

Why should you be able to dictate how others who have bought this game with their own money want to play this game?

You are asking for a feature to be added to the game (which is available in mods) while Dalwin "[doesn't] see it as a good expenditure of development resources". He/she is not dictating anything, neither can they. I think

From the perspective of HoI4 being a world war simulator, I would also rather have the devs instead spend (a bit of) time on a more generic solution where AI country X realizes it's better off making a conditional peace with faction Y to reach its other goals. The Axis defeating the Allies in the European theater and potentially making a peace with the USA is a similar example.

Seeing how Paradox has to give the AI cheats, and nerfs to you the player, to make the AI even competent at all,

Which nerfs/cheats are you talking about?

tells me that your imaginary amazing HoI4 AI... isn't going to get implemented. At all. So, it's completely useless to even think "WHAT IF AI GOOD!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! THEN NO PROBLEM?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"

The Japan AI got significantly better during the last patches in using its productivity advantage against China. So no, it is useful to imagine a situation where China can't expect to push Japan from the continent.

I'd rather just take the mainland provinces and not even worry about Japan, because why should I?

What would Japan gain from this deal?

PS: and welcome to the forums

 

[Stug_Life]

Once Japan's colonial/puppets fall during the Sino-Japanese war, an event should trigger for Japan where they can sue for peace, players as japan can choose to sue for peace and continue the fight and AI can be set to always sue for peace. Boom problem solved.

 

[Råttan]

Well, limited peace should really be an option in more wars.
When I played Japan first time, I didnt plan on walking to Washington and annex US when I attacked Pearl Harbor - I just wanted to limit US navy capabilities so I could conquer the pacific, philipens and australia and fortify it - and then sue for peace when US realised it would be to costly to take back.

 

[Vicksburg]

I think we all agree at this point that:

1. There should be a limited peace mechanism unless both belligerants are members of factions, maybe even to anyone except faction leaders.

2. In the meantime, an event should fire to make peace and give China Mandchouria, freeing or pupetting Korea. Chinese civil war would automatically resume.

As Dalwin pointed out, Japan should also be buffed up, particularly by preventing unambitious landings (a dozen of divisions) against the player.

 

[Misaka_Complex]

freeing or pupetting Korea.

I don't think this was one of Chiang Kai Shek's goals during his war with Japan, would China really care about Korea? Makes more sense if they just annexed Korea instead or left it to Japan but that also depends on whether if the Chinese would be able to push Japan out of Korea as well.

 

[Lord of Beer]

By the way, an easier way to invade islands like this is just to use paratroopers - spamming fighters first of course. You can build airbases in Korea that are in range.When Japan has no access to resources, about 400 planes total should be enough.

 

[Temudhun Khan]

I don't think this was one of Chiang Kai Shek's goals during his war with Japan, would China really care about Korea? Makes more sense if they just annexed Korea instead or left it to Japan but that also depends on whether if the Chinese would be able to push Japan out of Korea as well.

Maybe he wouldn't be interested in annexing Korea, but he would certainly NOT be inclined to let Japan keep territories on the continent. However, I think he might have been more insistant on retrieving Taiwan.

 

[Liquid Ghost]

I get that you are trying to develop historical plausibility mechanics for the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and that's great, they should be developed certainly. In the meantime, there is a way to successfully invade Japan and have them submit to Chinese power, I use it routinely myself: Paratroopers.

Depending on how many divisions Japan has left on the Home Islands -like you mentioned by the time you take Korea they are often left with nearly nothing- you only need a few divisions to take a port and a VP then you work your way around. Developing a viable Chinese airforce is easier than developing a Chinese Navy. But to reduce idle time, I suggest you plan ahead. By the time you are steadily pushing them back on Manchuria, you should start researching paratroopers and more up-to-date fighters.