We need to stop this "All or Nothing" War

[Uniform764]

The game needs differentiate between majors and minors, faction members and account for separate wars.

I can totally see why some countries fought to the end and others signed minor peace treaties

 

[Carrierguy]

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.

Here is what is wrong with this thinking.
I am Japan I attack communist China. They join the commitern so now I am at war with the Soviet Union. I am marching towards the Urals, there aren't any Soviet troops to stop me.
Meanwhile Germany is attacking and driving on Moscow. I would be happy to go back to the original borders, but I can't. The only way I can win this war is to take Moscow or hope that Germany does. Are you telling me the Soviet Union wouldn't JUMP at the chance for white peace?

How about Japan taking the Netherlands colonies? Really Japan has to take Netherlands in Europe? I could cost the allies 150 million casualties and they will NEVER stop.

I hate to admit it, but I guess I will have to use console commands. That is bad.

 

[Blinckx]

Germany could only win WW2 with global domination

I don't think so.
Germany could have won if they were able to invade UK and secure the Russia border.
If London had surrendered, then the war would end

 

[sunzoner]

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.

This could be done via events. But then again, you will have a lot of minor events for minor countries just in case Germany opt for a gentle treatment of france. Imagine, 1 for each countires in the world for two or three different scenarios... on top of drafting war stopping event for allies... plus the optional countries that might be in allies vs the countries that might be in axis... plus the qa to test different scenarios...

Is it too much work for too little returns?

 

[CDFW]

I've taken Britain and the USSR so it's not impossible. However I think that Canada and British Raj should surrender or sue for peace when the major nation in the faction is defeated as there's no way that Canada could defeat Germany, so why bother fighting?

I disagree on this point, why bother fighting when you got two oceans between you and the enemy, and got the US right next door. Puppets if anything should surrender when their overlord nation (call it like it is, I am not sure what the term is in this context), but not fellow minor allies who's land is untouched and unreachable.

 

[Soranya]

I hate to admit it, but I guess I will have to use console commands. That is bad.

I am doing this all the time in my campaigns when it comes to resolving silly Peace Conference Results and Wars that would not end (or Communist Norway joining the Allies while not at war with the Soviets and both parties not at war with each other and the Axis allready defeated.)

 

[bdodig]

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.

Minor nations should not become majors all of a sudden. That is the most nonsensical part of it.

 

[Blinckx]

Puppets if anything should surrender when their overlord nation but not fellow minor allies who's land is untouched and unreachable.

I'll tell you more, puppets nations should start an immediate civil war when the master nation fall.
Think at the UK. Do you think if London surrendered, India will continue the fight or just revolt against the now week former Master ?

 

[KingNee]

I would really love to be able to negotiate surrender as well. I was fighting the Netherlands as Japan, I took their islands below Japan, Germany took all their other tiles except the one with Amsterdam in it. That was all that was left of the Netherlands, still I couldn't end the war and I had no way to get my troops to the middle of europe.. so the war just didn't end.. that's not ok.

 

[jammindonut]

Why not add a feature, similar to Vic 2, where a war evolves into a "Total war"? Like the Crisis in VIc 2 which can lead to a Great war.

This way minor wars are handled differently than the resulting WW2 with every major participating. In the latter, everyone needs to be fully defeated, in the first, peace is much easier to achieve.

 

[Quintus of Mund]

Why not add a feature, similar to Vic 2, where a war evolves into a "Total war"? Like the Crisis in VIc 2 which can lead to a Great war.

This way minor wars are handled differently than the resulting WW2 with every major participating. In the latter, everyone needs to be fully defeated, in the first, peace is much easier to achieve.

Isn't that the case already? Low World Tension wars (1938) get resolved (e.g. Ethiopia)

 

[Shadow86]

I don't think so.
Germany could have won if they were able to invade UK and secure the Russia border.
If London had surrendered, then the war would end

Would it, if the Commonwealth still stood and it were very costly for Germany to go around the world dealing with it?

Would Germany have surrendered if it had major colonies standing elsewhere in the world? And I ask this since we can't really solve this issue HoI2-style, with individual scripted events, tailored to each nation. There has to be a fluid mechanic which could reasonably work in all cases.

Here is what is wrong with this thinking.
I am Japan I attack communist China. They join the commitern so now I am at war with the Soviet Union. I am marching towards the Urals, there aren't any Soviet troops to stop me.
Meanwhile Germany is attacking and driving on Moscow. I would be happy to go back to the original borders, but I can't. The only way I can win this war is to take Moscow or hope that Germany does. Are you telling me the Soviet Union wouldn't JUMP at the chance for white peace?

Would Japan? Would Germany allow that kind of independent peace?

When entering one of the major alliances, you're committing with your partners for a total war. The system wouldn't work if anyone could just jump in and peace out independently at any time.

If you could peace out freely, then at the very least it should come with a major negative impact to your relations with your former partners. Italy only did it because it was being overrun, and could only do it because Germany had its hands full at the time. And even then the country was pulled into a civil war between pro-Allies and fascists (which is something that could be modelled, perhaps, based off national unity).

In a winning context, the AI wouldn't likely make peace independently, and I'm not sure whether the proposed relations impact would be lesser for dropping out. Maybe, maybe not. Either way it would just be better to wait till the final peace conference. "Oh, but I have to take all their territory everywhere," you might say, but that's less a flaw of the peace requirements than the AI. Normally, you should be able to sit tight, defend your borders and wait till your AI allies win the war, if you don't want to fight anymore.

 

[Nuklearius]

I disagree on this point, why bother fighting when you got two oceans between you and the enemy, and got the US right next door. Puppets if anything should surrender when their overlord nation (call it like it is, I am not sure what the term is in this context), but not fellow minor allies who's land is untouched and unreachable.

This might strike you hard but Canada is no major power. It wasn't one back then and it isn't one today.

And now just think one time: WHY WOULD CANADA FIGHT AGAINST GERMANY ALONE???
Seriously it's retarded. Neither Canada nor Australia had the manpower or industry to support a large scale war. When even Great Britain had trouble to field 40 divisions just think of how fucked Canada would have been. They couldn't even go for strategic warfare because they don't have any airfields near Germany anymore and even their Navy is smaller then the German one. So why would they continue fighting, just to sacrifice more men? Because as I see it, Germany invading Canada or destroying it in Strategic Warfare would be 100x more likely than the other way around
And I doubt the US would have entered a war that was essentially lost already, sooo...

 

[Nuklearius]

Isn't that the case already? Low World Tension wars (1938) get resolved (e.g. Ethiopia)

The only reason why Ethopian war gets resolved is because neither Italy nor Ethopia are in a faction. If they'd start the war at 80% world tension than Italy would join the Axis and Ethopia the Allies one day later and then it would be World War all over again

 

[Exterous]

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.

You can at some point. I took France, the UK, British Raj, Netherlands and like 2 Australian VPs and Canada and Australia surrendered. I think its a bit odd that I could annex all of Canada and Australia without actually attacking their mainlands.

 

[Quintus of Mund]

The only reason why Ethopian war gets resolved is because neither Italy nor Ethopia are in a faction. If they'd start the war at 80% world tension than Italy would join the Axis and Ethopia the Allies one day later and then it would be World War all over again

That's what makes sense to me. Individual nations can fold and capitulate. Factions fight on. How many governments took refuge in London in 1940? The French, the Poles, etc.?

 

[Blinckx]

Would it, if the Commonwealth still stood and it were very costly for Germany to go around the world dealing with it?
Would Germany have surrendered if it had major colonies standing elsewhere in the world? A.

Why the Germany would go around the world to fight against a colony ? They don't care at all about places so far away.
Honestly, with the fall of UK ( and the rest of Europe already out from the war ) no one else would stand against the Reich. Colonies across the globe ? They won't stand a chance against Germany or even Italy. Even the Soviet Union was about to surrender to the Reich, do you really believe that countries like Barbados, Belize, even Canada would do something ? Don't get me wrong, their effort it was great during the war, they lost men like everyone else but only because the UK was still there that the Germany was unable to conquer everything. So yes, one of the reasons ( if not the main reason ) why Germany lost the war was because they were unable to take the UK.
Without UK, there it will be no D-Day, Operation Torch, a massive non stop bombing over German factories, a huge fleet blocking convoy and other supply through the English channel, no able to crack enigma, and more.

 

[saturn7]

Maybe once the faction leader capitulates, you should be able to force peace.

 

[Quintus of Mund]

Sounds like this is actually more a question of minor powers becoming majors. I believe this is currently linked to a hard number (20 factories?), but could make more sense that it be linked to a percentage of your opponents (any nation having at least 25% factories of total enemy faction?)

 

[Shadow86]

This might strike you hard but Canada is no major power. It wasn't one back then and it isn't one today.

And now just think one time: WHY WOULD CANADA FIGHT AGAINST GERMANY ALONE???
Seriously it's retarded. Neither Canada nor Australia had the manpower or industry to support a large scale war. When even Great Britain had trouble to field 40 divisions just think of how fucked Canada would have been. They couldn't even go for strategic warfare because they don't have any airfields near Germany anymore and even their Navy is smaller then the German one. So why would they continue fighting, just to sacrifice more men? Because as I see it, Germany invading Canada or destroying it in Strategic Warfare would be 100x more likely than the other way around

It's less a case of fighting on with hope of victory than refusal to surrender, because Germany would be hard-pressed to launch an intercontinental invasion or strategic bombing campaign.

Churchill advocated never surrendering. Whether it'd have happened or not, we can only speculate. But as long as Nazi Germany stood, it'd have remained a threat, peace treaty or no peace treaty. Why bother signing a piece of paper that provides no guarantees? Perhaps Germany would've demanded Canada (or Australia, for that matter) to become a Reichskommissariat. Would they have agreed to that without bleeding Germany out at least some, forcing them to maintain the extremely difficult aforementioned campaigns? And such operations would become exponentially harder if the US decided to get involved to defend the continent.

Just because you can't reach the enemy capital doesn't mean you should give up fighting and submit. Especially if you're in a highly defensible position and said enemy would have a lot of trouble forcing your surrender.

The scenario would change with nuclear weapons and especially ICBMs in the picture, but then the US would probably get involved for its own sake, and you'd have another major war. Or at the very least a cold war in which Germany would have to leave Canada alone for fear of triggering an atomic war with the United States. A peace treaty would make more sense in that context.