We need to stop this "All or Nothing" War

[Thund91]

This is a game about the Second World War. I don't want to spent countless hours gearing up my forces, organizing my land, air and naval forces so that in the end, I can push a few buttons in the peace conference screen and "win". To my mind, there is absolutely nothing broken with the terms under which a peace conference can take place in the game.

So you don't think it's foolish how if I, as France, completely capitulate Germany and Italy they don't sign a separate peace just cause Japan is still fighting halfway across the world?

edit- Italy also had a separate peace with the Allies in the war while the German-controlled north still fought on.

 

[bklement]

"The use of the term was revived during World War II at the Casablanca conference in January 1943 when American President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) sprang it on the other Allies and the press as the objective of the war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan.[5] And, when President Roosevelt suddenly announced this surrender condition at Casablanca, he did so referencing U.S. Grant and the fact that the famous general's initials, since the Civil War, had also come to stand for "Unconditional Surrender".

The term was also used at the end of World War II when Japan surrendered to the Allies. Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin disapproved of the demand for unconditional surrender, as did most senior U.S. officials.[citation needed] It has been estimated that it helped prolong the war in Europe through its usefulness to German domestic propaganda that used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies, and its suppressive effect on the German resistance movement since even after a coup against Adolf Hitler."

So this game supposed to be about rewriting the ww2 history, at least in ahistorical mode, except the decision of a single US president, who may have died ingame before the Casablanca conference. And don't forget, the conference was AFTER a victory in North Africa, when the Germans were losing the battle for Stalingrad. It seems very unlikely, that given different circumstances the same declaration would have happened. The same stands for Churchill, he was the proponent of "never surrender". It seems that a kid who never learned history before randomly opened a ww2 book at the Casablanca conference, then designed a game around it. A game, where the USSR can go democratic, the USA can go fascist, but you Australia would never consider peace even against the whole world. Is it only me who finds it utterly ridiculous?

 

[bdodig]

I find it ridicilous, if you defeat France and the UK (with US still out of the war), that you cannot make peace with Canada/Australia/Raj/whatever, because they somehow became a major.

Also, the very high N.U. of countries should be possible to somehow reduce through bombing and such. As it is now, knocking out many places becomes a cheesefest due to high national unity, not to mention that you have this situation where you can, as a minor, basically build forts around the capital and never surrender although you hold like three provinces which are totally encircled. So you have situations like Denmark holding out for years in a desperate fight vs Germany and the like. Yeah... no.

Also it would be nice if somehow the wars on separate parts of the globe were treated, well, separately. If you're playing a neutral and help defeat Germany, you are stuck in limbo until someone invades Japan.

 

[REDDQ]

HOI4 is the only game among CK2,EU4 and Stellaris that nations need to fight till one side complete lose the war.
And after that, the peace conference concludes the lose side completed lose everything.

Why it is broken?
1, China must completely conquer Japan to win the war and possibly just take all states.
2, South Africa must invade Portuguese in Europe to take those 2 nearby provinces in Africa. But, why take only provinces while you can completely annex them?
3, AI German never be able to win as they cannot invade Britain island. They cannot get into Canada or US either...Thus, Allies always never loses!
4, Empire of Kiwi and Empire of Kangaroo almost never get touched. (In history, they are supposed to be threaten by potential Japanese invasion. )
5, Whoever fight Soviet, either got beaten or end up take entire Russia.

Possibly we need a "What if real world run based on HOI4 rule" thread.

True

In the game we have "offer peace" option but it is for loosing side only and computer never asks. Also wars merge like crazy and although there is some good reason to it actually ending warfare is very difficult. AI should ask for peace somewhere 10% above the level it surrenders automatically. In HoI3 for example, you did not have to take whole USSR, "let's end it" pop-up appeared much earlier.

Both Japan and Germany belonged to Axis but this wasn't one war, the alliance mechanic is a bit heavy handed in this case.

 

[moridin84]

Removing total war from a World War 2 game is rather strange.

In the real World War 2, the war didn't end for the allies until Japan lost. As such, I don't think there is any reason for the game to be different. And I don't believe that a white peace is really appropriate for world war 2. At least between major powers.

It's true there are some problems. China should be able to force a white peace with Japan if it manages to kick Japan off its mainland. Countries should not change to major countries in the middle of a war. There's almost no way that Austrailia would have been a major power before the war after all.

 

[Blinckx]

Same with a lot of other nations that join alliances they shouldn't and and expand the war way too fast for historical play

You mean something like that ? Finland joined allies against SU
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/finland-joined-allies-against-su.950682/

 

[Quintus of Mund]

WW2 was a total war. So... HoI4 being around WW2 makes sense as well.

By the time of conflicting ideologies any sort of "conditional surrender" peace was gone.

This is not EU IV and you cannot get the Treaties of Westphally once people are exhausted of fighting.

 

[Meglok]

The possibility of a peace conference between Soviet Union and Germany in 1942 ist not totally SiFi.
So I would like the option, that war endings without total defeat is possible.

Russia and Germany actually held talks in 1942 and 1943. Stalin was very suspicious that the West was letting the Germans and Soviets kill themselves while sitting back and making excuses for not invading France. The Soviet offer was basically a return to 1941 borders. Germany wanted more, and Germany supposedly wanted to see how Kursk turned out to see if they could get a better deal. After Kursk Stalin saw no reason to negotiate. If necessary he would clear the beaches of France himself.

After all, as Stalin said later, Czar Alexander got to Paris.

More historical White Peaces please.

 

[Phaex]

France divided itself into exiles and Vichy France. Italy separate peaced into a non-Fascist country. Plenty of Germans wanted to come to a negotiated peace, Hitler wouldn't allow it, so a non-Hitler Germany likely would have sued for peace long before Berlin fell (whether Allies would have accepted is up for debate). Germany surrendered and ended that war and the war against Japan continued (two separate wars with only minor diplomatic and material exchanges). Denmark didn't join the Allies as it does in game if/when Germany declares war, it had its own negotiations and situation.

There are enough real life examples that the current all or nothing approach just leads to tedious gameplay and not an attempt to stay true to history.

 

[Quintus of Mund]

When France capitulates, which is a separate peace, doesn't the game already allow for that?

 

[Phaex]

When France capitulates, which is a separate peace, doesn't the game already allow for that?

Why wouldn't there have been a "Vichy" Great Britain if Germany had managed to pull off Operation Sealion?

 

[Soranya]

When France capitulates, which is a separate peace, doesn't the game already allow for that?

It does kind of b.c. its manually scripted to do so.
As its nearly impossible to manually script such events for every possible constelation there NEEDS to be a mechanic that covers such treaties like the French armistice and Vichy France on a general level.

Also resitance in Conquered Provinces after a peace deal should NOT go automatically to zero. This makes early Warfare far far too powerfull as a tool. (Esp. since almost no Army in Europe was ready to wage an offensive War in 1936/37)

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

I see reason to both arguments. It wouldn't be a world war if the World wasn't at war, right?
On the other Hand, I suppose separate peace deals do have a reasonable historical justification.
The thing is, occupation itself just "isn't worth it" compared to annexation. That's why early wars are so useful. But like others said, this is no EU4. If there ever is an expanded timeline changes to peace and surrendering would make more sense.
I actually miss improved research by conquering even more

My conclusion: If the Axis totally dominated europe and Asia for example, the allies should over peace depending on the alliance compositions. It's just a slugfest of unnecessary death.

 

[krios41]

I just wish i could offer peace early.
as Brazil i once declared war on Libia who then promptly joined the allies.
"fine, i'l fight them too" i tought.
but
Once i took over Libia and half of Brittain i tought i could ask for peace an only take Libia.
Nope
seems i had to invade France and the USA and finish of the Brits before that -would happen.
I already had the wargoal, why should they keep fighting? especialy when they all combined lost more then 2 million manpower in it while i only 3K. It is clear that they would never be able to win, it just bogged down to "who has the biggest manpower pool" in the end. If i would offer to peace out and only Take Libia they should be happy about that in my opinion.

 

[Mario-Kun]

I completely agree with the OP and shall give my very own example of how the 'total war' and peace conference mechanics broke my game.

I was playing as an ahistorical Japan with the aim of going just against the USSR. After many years of a slow painful slog in the siberian land, russia capitulates. However, i notice this doesn't end my age old war as it should. It turns out that Republican Spain joined just a couple of months earlier and the game decided to count them as a GP making it so that to end the war i'd have to somehow invade them even though none of us have the naval range to do so.

Good job paradox, good job. Now my campaign is ruined.

 

[greengriffon]

In my current game as Italy, Japan beat China, then took half of British Raj while simultaneously moving east to take all of the Pacific islands, up to and including Hawaii.

Then to my even greater surprise, somehow Germany successfully invaded the UK. So far they've conquered about a third of the island.

While I'm seeing each of these things for the first time out of the four full games I've played so far, no one can say AI Germany invading the UK is impossible. Or that Japan never bothers with the US (they're now at their doorstep in early 1943). Perhaps unusual, and perhaps they should be a little more viable or likely, but clearly not impossible.

Your AI mileage may vary.

More to the OP's point, in my last game the Axis powers beat each of the Allied nations by 1948 - yes, US, USSR, and the UK all capitulated.

Only Canada, Australia, and New Zealand remained, none of whom had done anything the entire game. And still the war would not end.

I'd say that's a little ridiculous.

 

[sunzoner]

France and everyone was surprised by the terms Germany demanded to accept french surrender.

After that who would surrender? Germany? Soviet? Uk? At the risk of total humiliation?

 

[Ukkelsson]

France and everyone was surprised by the terms Germany demanded to accept french surrender.

After that who would surrender? Germany? Soviet? Uk? At the risk of total humiliation?

Wouldn't this make an interesting gameplay mechanic though? Like instead of Vichy being an event you would get to negotiate the armistice and depending on how harsh your terms were other nations would be either more or less likely to make peace with you.

 

[angelosnau]

Germany could only win WW2 with global domination. On the other hand the Allies wouldn't come on any sort of agreement with NSDAP Germany (with Hitler or his successors). So from that point of view it is realistic.

 

[Quintus of Mund]

However -- The War That Came Early from Turtledove got me thinking. Would there be any way for a truce, or alliances reversal? (Spoiler alert -- sometimes communism can seem a bigger menace!)

Maybe question for "off the rails, mildly" DLC!