Victory via unconventional methods

[Tuscan]

One thing that I felt is lacking from HOI is the ability to defeat your enemies via unconventional methods. In HOI2 (never really played much of HOI3) the only way to really beat your enemy was to conquer them, but in real life we know it is also possible to defeat an enemy via bombardment, blocking supplies or even economically.

Winston Churchill said the only thing that truly terrified him was the war against the u-boats. If for example you were playing as Germany, is it possible in HOI4 to force Britain into conditional surrender by starving the country of supplies using fleets of U-boats, without landing a single unit on the British isles?

 

[Daelyn75]

One thing that I felt is lacking from HOI is the ability to defeat your enemies via unconventional methods. In HOI2 (never really played much of HOI3) the only way to really beat your enemy was to conquer them, but in real life we know it is also possible to defeat an enemy via bombardment, blocking supplies or even economically.

Winston Churchill said the only thing that truly terrified him was the war against the u-boats. If for example you were playing as Germany, is it possible in HOI4 to force Britain into conditional surrender by starving the country of supplies using fleets of U-boats, without landing a single unit on the British isles?

It sort of seems like it hasn't changed from HOI III, the national unity thing. Britain starts out at 70, while Germany has 90. I'm sure there will be tweaks and or possible changes to how it works in HOI IV, but I think that sinking a lot of convoys would lower Britain's national unity. Would it be enough to make them surrender? I don't know, but I rather doubt it. It could bring national unity lower, and make them easier to defeat I suppose.

 

[Sleight of Hand]

I realize that numbers in a game like this are fairly arbitrary by nature, and are likely just thought up for balance's sake, but what is the justification for Germany's national unity being 90 and the UK's 70?

Just curious, really. I get why France's national unity might not be too high during this era (does anyone know what it is?) but for Germany's to be so high seems strange.

 

[Daelyn75]

I realize that numbers in a game like this are fairly arbitrary by nature, and are likely just thought up for balance's sake, but what is the justification for Germany's national unity being 90 and the UK's 70?

Just curious, really. I get why France's national unity might not be too high during this era (does anyone know what it is?) but for Germany's to be so high seems strange.

I can guess that a lot of the big allied nations would have it lowered because of the depression perhaps? I did see some national focus for Britain to raise their national unity by 10%.

 

[Victor Cortez]

I realize that numbers in a game like this are fairly arbitrary by nature, and are likely just thought up for balance's sake, but what is the justification for Germany's national unity being 90 and the UK's 70?

Just curious, really. I get why France's national unity might not be too high during this era (does anyone know what it is?) but for Germany's to be so high seems strange.

I think it's a combo of historical and gameplay reasons.
Historical meaning that a police state as Germany should have a higher level to represent censorship and propaganda, and also to enable it to fight on until Berlin is taken, on the other hand, the USSR can't be that high otherwise it's never defeatable.

Makes sense?

 

[Caesar15]

Well in Hoi3 Submarine Warfare aka getting your convoys sunk reduced national unity.

 

[elpibeuruguayo]

If you are a democratic country and you loss a lot of men your people would force you to end the war.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Well, in HoI III you actually could lower the national unity significantly with strategic bombing and convoy raiding. In HoI IV the UK is dependant on its colonizes and trading when it comes to resources. With that even if you cut off the resources completly, which is unlikely but thats not my point, production will still go on, just very slowly.

In HoI IV damaged/destroyed factories dont repair for free anymore, aswell. They have to be repaired by your civilian factories, which cant build any improvements or new factories during that time.
Lend-lease equipment can also be intercepted by convoyraiding, which makes it even more valueable.

I need to admit that i personaly didnt do that much convoy raiding in HoI III because i never really saw an huge impact that would justify the time and resources for me. In HoI IV however it seems to be much more valueable since you actually cripple the enemies economy by doing it and sending their tanks and rifles etc they recieve from their allies to the bottom of the sea.

Overall, looking at history the USSR recived tons of desperatly needed trucks and other equipment for their army by the western allies. Historicaly they took the long, but mostly safe route. If you as germany or an axis member now manage to cut off those routes and sink most of that equipment you can heaively influence the war on the eastern front that way, since most of the russian factories are in western russia.

Another example would be the Tiger tank which germany gifted to japan for them to study, but didnt manage to ship to japan. In the end it stayed in germany and fought with them.


In theory it would even be possible to win that way. The UK for example could actually trigger the peace conference. They then need to accept the demands however, or the war keeps going on untill the attackers overwhelm the UK and force whatever they want on them without them having any saying.

 

[BBBD316]

I understand that a way of winning without conquest would be good, but this was total war, no defeat till we have lost everything.

I can't see Germany surrendering unless Hitler is gone and their are armies pushing towards Berlin, in this case why would you stop? Russia, if Stalin starts a war of aggression and it goes wrong, then perhaps the people/generals may have united for peace, but once they were under attack again no. Probably not until up to the Urals were taken and even then, maybe.

The UK may have sought peace if things looked too bleak. A landing on British soil or continued loss of colonies may have caused them to come to the table, especially if Germany was making a big issue of trying to make peace.

I would like you to be able to offer a palatable peace though and have it seriously considered.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

The first thing that came to mind with "unconventional methods" was victory from the entire world being engulfed in nuclear fire.

 

[LordOfWar16]

I understand that a way of winning without conquest would be good, but this was total war, no defeat till we have lost everything.

I can't see Germany surrendering unless Hitler is gone and their are armies pushing towards Berlin, in this case why would you stop? Russia, if Stalin starts a war of aggression and it goes wrong, then perhaps the people/generals may have united for peace, but once they were under attack again no. Probably not until up to the Urals were taken and even then, maybe.

The UK may have sought peace if things looked too bleak. A landing on British soil or continued loss of colonies may have caused them to come to the table, especially if Germany was making a big issue of trying to make peace.

Hitler and his generals wanted an quick british defeat which in their eyes could only be archived in the air and under the sea. Due to the sudden break out of the war Plan Z couldnt be fullfilled. Plan Z, for those who dont know it, was the plan to build up an strong navy. Their plan was to starve them out, overall they were highly dependant on pretty much everything from overseas and demoralize them with the nightly air raids. In theory that could have actually worked, but in all reality germany simply had not enough submarines for dönitz's plan to work and due to the british radar advantage and some poor tactical decisions by the german luftwaffe command and the prioritarisation of the eastern front let to the failure of the battle of britian.

Infact the british were very desperate and requested that the US joined on their side over and over again and were reliefed when germany declared war on the US, which refused to take any active part in this "european war". With the declaration of war against the US he lost the war, since only then the US really ramped up production and lend lease.

 

[Alliegorical]

Hitler and his generals wanted an quick british defeat which in their eyes could only be archived in the air and under the sea. Due to the sudden break out of the war Plan Z couldnt be fullfilled. Plan Z, for those who dont know it, was the plan to build up an strong navy. Their plan was to starve them out, overall they were highly dependant on pretty much everything from overseas and demoralize them with the nightly air raids. In theory that could have actually worked, but in all reality germany simply had not enough submarines for dönitz's plan to work and due to the british radar advantage and some poor tactical decisions by the german luftwaffe command and the prioritarisation of the eastern front let to the failure of the battle of britian.

Infact the british were very desperate and requested that the US joined on their side over and over again and were reliefed when germany declared war on the US, which refused to take any active part in this "european war". With the declaration of war against the US he lost the war, since only then the US really ramped up production and lend lease.

After the Pearl Harbor attack (and before it, for that matter), FDR had already planned to focus on Europe first before the DoW from Germany, which only mattered in that it made it more politically convenient to sell this plan to the American people.

 

[LordOfWar16]

After the Pearl Harbor attack (and before it, for that matter), FDR had already planned to focus on Europe first before the DoW from Germany, which only mattered in that it made it more politically convenient to sell this plan to the American people.

I know that. But joining the war would have been political suicide for roosevelt since the vast majority saw the war as an european conflict in which they shouldnt take part in. Thats the main reason why propanganda was so heaviely used, since the civilian population simply didnt share the oppinion of the gouverment, so they needed to create an enemy they are willing to fight against. Hitlers declaration of war speeded up the whole progress of course.

 

[joe9594]

Historical meaning that a police state as Germany should have a higher level to represent censorship and propaganda, and also to enable it to fight on until Berlin is taken, on the other hand, the USSR can't be that high otherwise it's never defeatable.

Wait? A police state like Germany as opposed to the USSR under Stalin?

 

[Victor Cortez]

Wait? A police state like Germany as opposed to the USSR under Stalin?

I think it's a combo of historical and gameplay reasons.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Wait? A police state like Germany as opposed to the USSR under Stalin?

Stalin actually had quiet some trouble with the trotsky plot, which was the point of the whole great officer purge. Thus is makes sense that the Soviet Union starts with low national unity and needs to build it up with said national focus for example.

For the democratic countries it actually makes sense since alot of people were against the war. Thats pretty much what prevented Franklin D. Roosevelt from declaring war on germany in the first place. They need to do alot of convincing (and propaganda as they did) to change the general publics oppinion.

For germany it actually kinda makes sense for them having an good national unity, because hitler actually was popular initialy and seen as an very capable strong leader that rebuilts germany to its former glory. Propangada left out the unimportant details, of course and if you werent for them you were against them and thus an enemy of the country.

 

[Adonnus]

So the question I am thinking of is, can you reduce theoretically the UK's unity to surrender point with U Boats alone, and how is this supposed to work? In HOI3 you needed to occupy a certain number of cities for their "surrender progress" to be high enough, but let's say you reduce UK's unity to 1% with submarine warfare and bombings and they are dying to surrender but you haven't seized any major cities yet. Is that not a problem?

 

[LordOfWar16]

So the question I am thinking of is, can you reduce theoretically the UK's unity to surrender point with U Boats alone, and how is this supposed to work? In HOI3 you needed to occupy a certain number of cities for their "surrender progress" to be high enough, but let's say you reduce UK's unity to 1% with submarine warfare and bombings and they are dying to surrender but you haven't seized any major cities yet. Is that not a problem?

Well, they controll Egypt, so if you take that you actually occupy an british VP. In HoI III (WW1 mod) i actually managed to make them surrender without landing a single troop on mainland UK by strategic bombing and convoy raiding only. Turns out zepplins are very effective if the enemy doesnt have an airforce nor any anti-aircraft to speak of.