Why trading provinces should be allowed.

[vertinox]

I know there is an outcry about the tab that seems to indicate you can trade provinces like in Vicky, but it is very logical and did happen in the WWII timeframe.

For example in the real war, when the USSR invaded Manchuria after declaring war on Japan, they handed it back after the war was over to China (methinks they did stick around and made damn sure that the Chinese Communists had control there).

Yugoslavia also comes to mind. Germany did most of the grunt work of the invasion but handed some of terriority to the Italians afterwards.

In HoI1, this was not possible even when they added the "liberate" option (C.O.R.E. did have quite a few events to address this though).

It would be logical if you could split up or at least negotiate with your allies on provinces that you have captured.

Ever have your units invading a province and one of your allies units arrive first from one of their adjacent properties and your massive force shows up and the enemey instantly retreats giving your Ally control of the province?

It was quite annoying and the only thing you could really do to gain control of it for yourself was to vacate the province and hope the enemy retakes it and then you reinvade (at that point I would be demanding military control over my Ally's units).

Now I don't see that Allies would trade off National provinces with each other and the AI and the players should not be able to "sell off" home provinces (like Germany selling Berlin to Italy), but it would be also logical if you could include threat of force in province trade.

Instead of having the "Danzig or War", the player (or the AI) should be able to send a diplomatic message to Poland in the trade screen showing:

You Give = Danzig

And will give in return = We won't declare war on you

If the player or AI of Poland rejects this then perhaps the nations would be in an automatic state of war.

The AI should have the knowledge to know that some provinces are worth going to war for and some are not, like Russia just waltzing into the Batlic states and Germany into Austria.

And this level of resistance would be based on the country asking since Austria would be more likely to give provinces (even all of them) to Germany, but would 100% refuse to hand over anything to Italy.

I forsee this as a way to make it unneeded to hard code HoI events to specific dates since it would give flexibility to do this at any given time.

This could also be used for "make your own bitter peace events". Instead of trying to capture specific pronvinces in the USSR hoping that the Bitter Peace Event will kick in, you could demand territory for peace and based on how long the war has gone on our, how many units you have lost, how much territory you have lost, and the current disent level.

Most smaller nations should be apt to refuse this and should not be allowed if say you've only been at war for less than a year (or depending on the nations will to resist).

Personally, I've always wanted to play as the USSR and declare war on Nat China in 1937 before Japan does and then hand their provinces over to Com China and bring them into a gigantic Commintern alliance. Just invading Nat China and annexing them did me little good since I could never take advantage of their massive manpower gains since their provinces weren't my National ones.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

1) Re: your example about Manchuria

The Japanese Kwantung Army commander was now more than ready for a cease-fire, 
and in Tokyo Japanís political leaders hoped that the Soviet government would 
be content with a re-drawing of the disputed borders. The war had embarrassed 
Japan in many ways. Beside a military defeat, where 18,000 of Japan's 60,000
 battle force were killed, and probably another 20,000 wounded, the imperial 
family was mortified by the desertion of Lieutenant Higashikuni, the 
twenty-three-year-old son of Prince Higashikuni, during the fight, a matter suppressed 
by Japanís censors.13 Stalin was also happy to call it a day. Zhukov withdrew his force 
to the Manchurian border on 31 August 1939 and received orders to immediately move his 
heavy armour to the railhead, for rail transport to Poland. The USSR's slowness in
 biting off its slice of defeated Poland, a delay of fourteen days, can be explained
 by Stalin's concern to close hostilities in the east before moving militarily 
in the west.

http://zhukov.mitsi.com/Russo.htm

No land changed hands. Peace was signed - thats not "trade". So we still dont have a single event in which huge turfs wastrade..

Anyways does anybody think you can just give away huge pieces of land - convince your government and people that thats the way it should be..?

2) RE:

At the start of the war, Yugoslavia struggled to remain neutral. However,
 in 1941 the government yielded to German pressure and signed the 
Tripartite Pact, which aligned it with the Axis Powers: Germany, Italy, 
and Japan. Within days a military coup, both anti-Axis and anti-Croat in
 motivation, overthrew the regency and government and declared Petar II 
of age. [B]A week later, Germany and Italy, along with their allies 
Hungary and Bulgaria, invaded and conquered Yugoslavia in a ten-day 
war[/B], then proceeded to dismember it. The king and his government 
fled and established a government in exile in London.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567145_2/Yugoslavia.html

Yugoslavia - So all armies were involved in that - so you can hardly call that trade. Its nicely simulated in an event in CORE. The land was divided more or less how it was taken - just as it happens now in HOI1

3) Re"The AI should have the knowledge to know that some provinces are worth going to war for and some are not, like Russia just waltzing into the Batlic states and Germany into Austria."

this game is about war - total war not a empire management - the time period is short and is set for an all out war with only one winner that takes all - this is not vicky or eu2 were these things make sense.

4) "Personally, I've always wanted to play as the USSR and declare war on Nat China in 1937 before Japan does and then hand their provinces over to Com China and bring them into a gigantic Commintern alliance. Just invading Nat China and annexing them did me little good since I could never take advantage of their massive manpower gains since their provinces weren't my National ones. "

I am sure that Stalin would do something like that - wonder what his generals and party members would say if he gave all the terrain he just got... If we want an alternate history PAradox should throw out the 3 pacts + all the events and do a free for all...

Furthermore the ai cant be taught to accept logical deals its not a human - thus can lead to exploits. Its just another potential to mess up the game. Why do it?

F

 

[Darkrenown]

1) Re: your example about Manchuria

No land changed hands. Peace was signed - thats not "trade". So we still dont have a single event in which huge turfs wastrade..

That's the 39 war, land did change hands after the 45 war.

 

[vertinox]

1) Re: your example about Manchuria

No land changed hands. Peace was signed - thats not "trade". So we still dont have a single event in which huge turfs wastrade..

Anyways does anybody think you can just give away huge pieces of land - convince your government and people that thats the way it should be..?

I think you are mistaken of what I was saying. I did not say the Japanese traded land for peace, but rather the Soviets "traded" the land back to the Chinese after forcefully taking it from the Japanese.

From http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/russia/spoilsfe.html

At the POTSDAM CONFERENCE (August 1945) it was decided that Soviet troops would disarm the Japanese forces in Manchuria and on the Korean peninsula to the north of the 38th parallel, while US troops were to disarm the Japanese to the south of the aforementioned parallel. Japanese forces in Korea surrendered on August 15th, handing over government authority to Korean patriots. Soviet forces were in control of North Korea on August 15th.

And from... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchukuo

On August 8, 1945 the Soviet Union declared war on Japan in accordance with the agreement at the Yalta Conference, and invaded Manchukuo from Russian Manchuria. From 1945 to 1948, Manchuria (Inner Manchuria) was a base area for the People's Liberation Army in the Chinese Civil War against the Kuomintang and with the Soviet encouragement, the Chinese Communists used Manchuria as a staging ground during the Chinese Civil War, which ended in 1949

So indeed this land was occupied by the Soviets which they willingly handed over to the Chinese Communists without ever firing a shot and "liberated" North Korea when the nation was officially created in 1948.

With the current HoI engine, you cannot handoff existing territories without an event or they demand the territory from you.

2) RE:

...then proceeded to dismember it. The king and his government 
fled and established a government in exile in London.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567145_2/Yugoslavia.html

Yugoslavia - So all armies were involved in that - so you can hardly call that trade. Its nicely simulated in an event in CORE. The land was divided more or less how it was taken - just as it happens now in HOI1

But my point was that Germany did most of the work and handed off provinces once occupied by German soldiers to Italians forces to be integrated into Italy. When you play as Germany 9 times out of 10 Yugoslavia will be gray before Italy even puts a dent in it. Why should I not be allowed to hand off provinces to Allies to provinces I do not want.

I was really impressed with how C.O.R.E. did this, but more flexibility never hurts.

Furthermore the ai cant be taught to accept logical deals its not a human - thus can lead to exploits. Its just another potential to mess up the game. Why do it?
F

Look... (Unless you are talking about AI exploits) If a player someone wants to cheat in a single player game and water down their own experience I don't think we should stop them.

No one is stopping anyone from editing the game files and from typing in cheat codes.

It's like demanding that someone force you to play a computer game of solitaire, because you don't think you can trust yourself when you play with a real deck of cards because of the ability to peak and cheat while you play a single player game.

No one is holding a cash contest to who plays the best single player HoI!

(online multplayer cheats is another thing)

Otherwise, if you don't want the AI to accept bad deals then don't offer them. :rofl:

This is not empire managment, but giving the freedom to make things more flexible in game but instead of having to whip out a text editor just make your own event for each situation. I like C.O.R.E events as much the next person, but I don't want to be tied down to things set in stone.

Besides... If WWII wasn't about re-drawing maps on a global scale, then I don't know what was.

 

[N35t0r]

Just a couple of thoughts:

First, why should we have to stick to events to achieve something that can be done in-game? Besides, evnts are set in stone, while the new way will allow greater freedom, especially for MP games.


Also, i've seen a lot of discussion about the AI, claiming that the AI this, and the AI that... They seem to think that the AI is inherently stupid, while in reality it is inherently programmed... It can be easily made so that an AI Poland would hardly agree to trade it's western provinces...

 

[Orthank]

Give me some examples of large territories that were trade in period of 1936-1947.
If there were such it means that territory in trade screen have some reason.

 

[boromir]

All the examples given above by "pro-land trade" proponents above were the result of war peace deals (and they were pretty minor in the entire WW2 context), not run of the mill trades, "oh I'll give you Ethiopia for the Late War Experience Analysis doctrine".

And about events (they were brought up in this thread as potentially unncessary) - events are necessary to give the game some historical context. Can you imagine a WW2 without Anschluss, Munich, MR Pact? This is what gives the game flavour. Look at CK and its lack of events ... a poor model reminiscent of CIV, very loosely associated with history. A 1936-1948 free for all is not really what I want to see.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

events are merely a patch on things the gameengine can't handle. I would prefer that you could "bully" any nation to give up provinces you desire - it should be hard but not impossible. Russia should be able to do an "anschluss" on its small western neighbours. it should be possible that it is russia that is the badboy of europe (first that is) and not nessesarily Germany. it should be dependent on how each country behaves and not set in stone "oh hey Germany is about to declare war on Poland in a month, lets mobilise our army so that it is at full org. when they attack". I personally prefer that not all is set in stone. of cause the totalitarian states should be the most warlike and be the ones that initiate hostilites but it should be left open as to who and when will be the peacebreaker.

my 2 cents.

 

[boromir]

So you prefer a game in a 1936-1948 setting, not a WW2 grand strategy game ...

Events in some cases are "a patch", in other cases they are not. Russia can do an Anschluss of its Western neighbours in HOI1 already.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

only after the german/russian agreement over Poland that quickly sets of WW2.

I prefer if you are not forced to go down the historic path but can choose (as Germany) to claim your colonies back if you want. ally with poland taking out russia, or waiting until 42 to launch your war, ally with nat. china instead of japan, or a number of other combinations. I like a freedom of choice not beeing led by the nose into situations not of my choosing, but in conformitiy with history.

don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of history (I'm a historian so i kinda have to be ) but i prefer a historical start in '36 but from then on deciding where to go.

 

[Darkrenown]

Give me some examples of large territories that were trade in period of 1936-1947.
If there were such it means that territory in trade screen have some reason.

Don't forget we won't be playing an exact copy of WWII, there are all sorts of situations (although mostly for the Axis players) I can think of where you might want to give you allies certain land.

What if the Czechs fight you (Germany) rather than give up the Sudaten land and after you annex them you ally with Hungary and Romania and want to give them some of the land? What if you puppet/coup Greece and want to give them some annexed Balkan land? Same goes for if you get Turkey in the Axis etc.

 

[herm]

I think that it should be a possibility to at least give away land, a common problem for me, as Germany, is that when I annex France I tend to get some scattered provinces in Africa... It's mostly an esthetic thing, I'd like Africa to be green , although I agree with Darkrenown and Lasse Nielsens reasons also.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

I dont understand why so many people are intent on making a system that is so prone to exploits. I mean so many issues come to mind like after invading and conquering poland then giving the territory to brazil so that the soviets have to declare war against them before attacking german - thus bringing the wrath of usa and uk upon itself. Or worse the soviet ai will never even be able to reach germany..

You say dont use them (expolits) - I wont but how many mp players will do that thus only make other players angry and fed up they cant have a historic game... If you want to exploit the game I say edit the save.

Pity its taken a wrong approach to the game... then in future patches we will again need stuff like spheres of influence to balance the game and make it more historical..... ? After all either you make a game in which you agree with:

i prefer a historical start in '36 but from then on deciding where to go.

or you do it right as it was intended in ver 1.00 and dont do patches 1.00 - 1.06 to patch the silliness of invasions in brazil..... so now why do they add such a potential hole in the game... ?

I thought Paradox got it after the exp with HOI1. It seemed to me they did looking at the 1.06c evolution. It seems we have to go that road again...

F

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

I didn't meen silly invasion (as the brazil or canada invasions in '36). I was not arguing FOR provinceswaps/sales and so forth but AGAINST events that force the game in a certain direction not of the players choice. I actually like the sphere of influence thing and the limit of the range in supplylines. I would like that i could demand terretory, not trade it (maybe trade military access, that would be ok) if I manage to single a nation out politically and work them hard like Austria. I agree with you Fiendix that there should not be features in the game that the AI don't now how to use/exloit (like paratroopers). I like to have paratroopers, but it is annoying when the AI don't know to use them and thus giving me an edge that i should not have.

Semi-random events are nice to have in the game, but forcing the player to make historical choices are just a way to cover up the inability of the gameengine to handle options that would leed to the desired result (even though it is a good engine).

 

[boromir]

You are not forced to make historic decisions in HOI. Events have multiple options. You can even delete them if you want. However, those events were made (happened!) for a reason - they reflect the reality, mentality of that period. The geopolitical situation was such, that certain actions were much more likely than others (Anschluss, Munich, MR pact), in the aftermath of WW1 and the Great Depression. These didn't come just out of the blue.

That is why, after all, we still have the three alliances in the game (why not scrap those then?). I don't want a game that follows history to the letter - I want a game where we have *plausible* historical actions, and instances like the USSR being the major badboy should remain an exception, not the rule.

HOI is a great game because it has the right focus. The moment HOI2 loses its focus, it will end up like another Vicky or CK, which would be a pity ...

 

[Windmolen]

Maybe Paradox can implement a system of fixed provinces? Fixed provinces are those provinces a nation would never ever (be able to) sell or trade. These lists should also be nationspeficic. Germany can't sell/trade Munchen, but an England (or whatever) owning Munchen can. England can sell/trade Barbados, but not Liverpool.

It could just be another line in a nation's .inc file, right?

 

[unmerged(26209)]

Well...

An idea would be to make it so that a nation can't "trade" away it's national provinces, only the ones it has conquered from other nations. That way, you wouldn't see hitler giving away East Prussia to Poland, but you would see him handing over Macedonia to Italy.

 

[Windmolen]

Well...

An idea would be to make it so that a nation can't "trade" away it's national provinces, only the ones it has conquered from other nations. That way, you wouldn't see hitler giving away East Prussia to Poland, but you would see him handing over Macedonia to Italy.

Great minds think a like, also at the same time

 

[unmerged(26209)]

Great minds think a like, also at the same time

Indeed.

The only problem is that way, Poland won't give away Danzig... but that is why we have events, isn't it?

(Not having Danzig as a national province of Poland would be wrong on many levels, imho)

 

[Yaiko]

The moment HOI2 loses its focus, it will end up like another Vicky or CK, which would be a pity ...

Actually Vicky is a good game once you get to know it. Its a bit more open -ended, but Vicky does represent a good arguement for keeping timelines limited, since the main arguement to keep WWI events out are due to the fact that the situation in a Grand Campaign are different.

But yeah, people against provicne trading are mostly looking at exploits and people pro-trading are mostly looking at trying to simulate their governments.

Perhaps another idea is to force the game to do something in Vicky. Like how you can't grant statehood to states that aren't on the capital's continent. This way the South American countries won't be finding themselves owning half of africa and such problems. Y'know, those little improvements. It can be done, and people intent on exploiting to win shouldn't be limiting how I play.