War weariness like in Vicky2?

[seattle]

War weariness is one of the best features in Vicky2. Lost battles, high casualties etc. should contribute to war weariness which in turn triggers negative modifiers.

Let say you play the US and enter an unprovoked war on the side of the Allies. The American population wouldn't tolerate high casualties. If you enter the war after Pearl Harbour, it's a completely different story. Still the Soviets, Chinese, Japanese and Germans will have a much higher casualty tolerance than USA, Britain and France. Modelling these effects would be intriguing.

I would base the war weariness modifier on the country, political system and reason to be in that war. If you're a war weary democratic nation, you might want to abstain from a human wave approach and instead invest more in tanks and artillery pieces. The US army didn't just go the firepower route because of their industrial base.

Effects of war weariness: This is where it's getting interesting. It should raise dissent on a daily basis. It could trigger revolts at a certain point. It can lower morale, production...
Ways to combat war weariness: Win battles, conquer VC points, defeat countries, decisions, events etc. The "total war" speech from Goebbels would be such a decision to take.

HoI3 had this National Unity thing that in the end didn't work out. I've yet to see it be a deciding factor. It should be more modelled after Vicky2. What do you think?

 

[jju_57]

You do know the war only lasted from 1939 till 1945 right? The game doesn't last for 100 years but is maxed at 12 years and the first 3.5 of them are peace for the most part.

And your assumption that they wouldn't tollerate casualties is simply not true. You are using today's attitutes and trying to retrofit back to 1940.

So if high deaths were a cause of war weariness then how did the SU ever last?

This won't work for a WW2 game at all. History shows that it had no impact.

 

[seattle]

And your assumption that they wouldn't tollerate casualties is simply not true. You are using today's attitutes and trying to retrofit back to 1940.

Shelby Foote and other authors paint a picture of an enormously war weary US nation during the Civil War (with a total of 500.000 casualties). Those were 19th century standards. It wasn't caused by post-heroic age sentiments, but rather questionable casus belli. IIRC the US lost about 170.000 men in WW1 and about 250.000 in WW2. There's no indication that the American public would have tolerated millions of casualties.

So if high deaths were a cause of war weariness then how did the SU ever last?

Hence the distinction between countries, political systems, reason to be in the war etc.
Contrary to popular belief the Soviet public was fairly war weary during the Afghanistan war in the early 80s. This was mostly because nobody saw a reason for that war. In WW2 they were invaded and treated poorly by the invaders: of course they had a high tolerance for casualties (compare Edward Luttwak "Strategy", the chapter about the post-heroic age)

 

[jju_57]

The civil war was complex. War weariness there was not really due to combat deaths. And this isn't the place to go into great details about it.

Also the press and publication of deaths is a central issue. If the public doesn't know the numbers then there qon't be much. And winning or losing go farther towards weariness then anything else.

Finally, there is absolutly zero proof that the US would have war weariness if there were 500K deaths. And since it never happened we'll never know. Either way I highly doubt if this is a good thing for a 12 year war. Much better ways to simulate it by dealing with manpower and quality of MP.

 

[Biges]

War weariness, like other features, is still missing in HoI4 making the game a cartoonish parody of HoI2.

 

[Feeblezak]

Isn’t this pretty much what war support is? It could use some more nuance, but it’s there.

 

[Eh up me duck]

The problem with this is the AI. For example look at how the UK AI reacts after Germany takes over Europe, constantly doing naval invasions which result in them losing dozens of divisions. IRL this would be a national crisis and result in the resignation of the government, in game they just keep doing it again and again.

You also have the problem in evaluating the "worth" of casualties. The USA losing 100,000 men in liberating France could be considered worthwhile, but losing 100,000 men in a failed mountainous offensive against the Southern Balkans probably wouldn't be.

 

[mursolini]

War weariness is one of the best features in Vicky2. Lost battles, high casualties etc. should contribute to war weariness which in turn triggers negative modifiers.

Let say you play the US and enter an unprovoked war on the side of the Allies. The American population wouldn't tolerate high casualties. If you enter the war after Pearl Harbour, it's a completely different story. Still the Soviets, Chinese, Japanese and Germans will have a much higher casualty tolerance than USA, Britain and France. Modelling these effects would be intriguing.

I would base the war weariness modifier on the country, political system and reason to be in that war. If you're a war weary democratic nation, you might want to abstain from a human wave approach and instead invest more in tanks and artillery pieces. The US army didn't just go the firepower route because of their industrial base.

Effects of war weariness: This is where it's getting interesting. It should raise dissent on a daily basis. It could trigger revolts at a certain point. It can lower morale, production...
Ways to combat war weariness: Win battles, conquer VC points, defeat countries, decisions, events etc. The "total war" speech from Goebbels would be such a decision to take.

HoI3 had this National Unity thing that in the end didn't work out. I've yet to see it be a deciding factor. It should be more modelled after Vicky2. What do you think?

France in WW1 is a good counter example. It held very high casualties, much better then monarchist side of WW1. In fact France lost larger % of it's population in soldiers than Germany or Austo Hungary.

WW1 Central Powers collapsed due to blockade and shortage of food, and Russia collapsed due to failure of it's logistical network and administration, that caused, shortages of food, fuel and other goods in cities. Casualties should trigger collapsed of ability to fight, but that is about it.

Impact of economic blockade is harder to quantify. It should be possible to starve out German army if France wasn't conquered, and proper submarine and air campaign should be able to put GB and Japan to surrender.

 

[Vlad123]

France in WW1 is a good counter example. It held very high casualties, much better then monarchist side of WW1. In fact France lost larger % of it's population in soldiers than Germany or Austo Hungary.

WW1 Central Powers collapsed due to blockade and shortage of food, and Russia collapsed due to failure of it's logistical network and administration, that caused, shortages of food, fuel and other goods in cities. Casualties should trigger collapsed of ability to fight, but that is about it.

Impact of economic blockade is harder to quantify. It should be possible to starve out German army if France wasn't conquered, and proper submarine and air campaign should be able to put GB and Japan to surrender.

Obviously, all of this has to be put with a NEW peace system. In case of PH for the US they would have a strong resistance to fatigue against Japan, not against the rest of the axis. If hypothetically the USA fails to land in Africa, they are driven back after the D-day (or the D-day fails, indeed it came very close because Rommel was on vacation with his wife that day because the German meteorologists said storms for those days) American public opinion would be in favor of a peace with the axis (perhaps even with Japan if this does not go well, or stagnates for too long).
Vice versa, if the Germans succeeded in landing in the UK, panic would arise which would lead to a government crisis and a surge in war weariness which would lead to an automatic (or almost) peace. Because the UK had predicted that it would not be able to resist the wermacth for a few days and the partisan cells it had already prepared would have been active for 6 months. NB: the French partisans were so "active and strong" because they were funded by the UK through shipments of weapons etc. Without that foraging the French partisans were in very bad shape (and not just them!).

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

Isn’t this pretty much what war support is? It could use some more nuance, but it’s there.

Both stability and war support is sort a decent concept. I think it's enough just to add more modifiers to it rather then adding a new type of modifier.

Losses sure should be a something that affect war support.
Being occupied on core territory should have an effect.
The cassus belli should affect war support.
Surrendering progess should have some effect.
Also the Total Mobiliation should have a negative weekly affect on maybe stability that starts ticking after X days? Being at TM over a year or two, should maybe have a negative effect.

 

[mursolini]

Obviously, all of this has to be put with a NEW peace system. In case of PH for the US they would have a strong resistance to fatigue against Japan, not against the rest of the axis. If hypothetically the USA fails to land in Africa, they are driven back after the D-day (or the D-day fails, indeed it came very close because Rommel was on vacation with his wife that day because the German meteorologists said storms for those days) American public opinion would be in favor of a peace with the axis (perhaps even with Japan if this does not go well, or stagnates for too long).
Vice versa, if the Germans succeeded in landing in the UK, panic would arise which would lead to a government crisis and a surge in war weariness which would lead to an automatic (or almost) peace. Because the UK had predicted that it would not be able to resist the wermacth for a few days and the partisan cells it had already prepared would have been active for 6 months. NB: the French partisans were so "active and strong" because they were funded by the UK through shipments of weapons etc. Without that foraging the French partisans were in very bad shape (and not just them!).

I just don't get where the sentiment that US was that sencetive about casualties comes.
Maybe Vietnam? But Vietnam was a very long partisan was for most part. US fough in Korea alright. US marines(?) also performed admirably in defences of islands in Pacific. There is literally no evidence that US couldn't put up with ~6m dead, similar percentage to WW1 France, considering improvement in propaganda and psychology knowledge.

For UK, similar issue. When Germans came close to Paris in WW1, what happened, was remarkable organization for counter attack, not panic and collapse. Why wouldn't UK perform similarly, instead of panic and dissaray?

UK's criteria for surrender should be connected to naval warfare going against them. Major losses in navy and merchant marine could force surrender.

US - maybe loss of most European and Asian bases, since invasion over ocean without staging area close by was largely logistically impossible.

 

[eastcoastceojam]

Right before Christmas, I just finished the book "Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific 1944-1945" by Waldo Heinrichs and Marc Gallicchio.

It goes into tremendous detail how "war weary" the USA was in the final year of the war against Japan. Before the A-Bomb, many were reconsidering the policy of unconditional surrender for Japan. It's worth a read if you have the time to time to plough through the 750 pages.

Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945: Heinrichs, Waldo, Gallicchio, Marc: 9780190616755: Amazon.com: Books

Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945 [Heinrichs, Waldo, Gallicchio, Marc] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Implacable Foes: War in the Pacific, 1944-1945

www.amazon.com

 

[FrancescoT]

It's an almost 7 years old thread..

Closed.