World War...

[jju_57]

The largest brick wall and aggressive South American player bumps into is the American Guarantee on everything. While I understand its meant to simulate the Monroe Doctrine and prevent the US from sitting idle if the Axis do attack SA for some reason, I'm not entirely convinced that the guarantees should be there.

The US did get involved all the time in central american wars. The SU took the Monroe Doctrine and bascially said that anything going on in this hemispehre is subject to US intervention. While I agree that a single war between two South American coutnries would not have resulted in US intervention I guarantee the US would have gone nuts if one country started to gobble up two, three or more other countries down there. Especially if they thought they had Axis leanings.

Sounds like your not going to enjoy the partisans feature of FTM then. Personally I think it would add a little flavor, and it could be simply added as an increase in revolt risk in some areas or under some conditions. It wouldn't be any different than the current rebels system that exists now. And if the Rebels held out long enough they would get the country, which is all ready in the game.

FTM is an open question. I already voiced concerns about more 'whack-a-mole' type stuff. But PI says it won't be like that. Some of the issues aren't units but province related. And the other improvement is not a single militia unit popping up but a coordinated (from your enemy) effort with multiple units.

BTW - this very aspect of FTM further reinforces that it wasn't the small countries doing it but the majors directing the conflict using the resources and troops of the small countries. So that Haiti Costa Rica war wouldn't happen but UK sponsered militia units appearing in Norway would. Big difference.

 

[unmerged(304296)]

The largest brick wall and aggressive South American player bumps into is the American Guarantee on everything. While I understand its meant to simulate the Monroe Doctrine and prevent the US from sitting idle if the Axis do attack SA for some reason, I'm not entirely convinced that the guarantees should be there.

Just out of curiosity, what happens if the US is Axis and Germany were to invade, say, Canada, which the Us is both allied with and guarantees independence?

 

[jju_57]

Just out of curiosity, what happens if the US is Axis and Germany were to invade, say, Canada, which the Us is both allied with and guarantees independence?

Since Canada was already in the Allies this couldn't happen and the US upon joining the Axis would already be at war with Canada. But in reality the US would never join the Axis.

 

[unmerged(304296)]

Since Canada was already in the Allies this couldn't happen and the US upon joining the Axis would already be at war with Canada. But in reality the US would never join the Axis.

I have a game going right now in which the US is Axis and on the Diplomatic tab the US is listed as both being at war with Canada and being allied with Canada and guaranteeing it's independence. Hence my question. Guess I'l start an iteration where Germany invades Canada and find out.

Note: The US has massed forces on the Canadian border but does not invade.

 

[Danmark Rising]

I have a game going right now in which the US is Axis and on the Diplomatic tab the US is listed as both being at war with Canada and being allied with Canada and guaranteeing it's independence. Hence my question. Guess I'l start an iteration where Germany invades Canada and find out.

Note: The US has massed forces on the Canadian border but does not invade.

You MUST invade! There's a gold mine in Maple Syrup to had.

 

[Danmark Rising]

The US did get involved all the time in central american wars. The SU took the Monroe Doctrine and bascially said that anything going on in this hemispehre is subject to US intervention. While I agree that a single war between two South American coutnries would not have resulted in US intervention I guarantee the US would have gone nuts if one country started to gobble up two, three or more other countries down there. Especially if they thought they had Axis leanings.

Yeah, I defiantly agree with that. I just wonder if it could be modeled in game better so that a South American player could have that one war before the US came knocking. Of course if the player tried to start a second or third war the US should go after them as that would be entirely realistic.

FTM is an open question. I already voiced concerns about more 'whack-a-mole' type stuff. But PI says it won't be like that. Some of the issues aren't units but province related. And the other improvement is not a single militia unit popping up but a coordinated (from your enemy) effort with multiple units.

BTW - this very aspect of FTM further reinforces that it wasn't the small countries doing it but the majors directing the conflict using the resources and troops of the small countries. So that Haiti Costa Rica war wouldn't happen but UK sponsered militia units appearing in Norway would. Big difference.

From what I've read about resistance groups most of them were created without initial support from a major power. The Danish resistance as an example didn't start getting any real support from the Allies until '41.

 

[jju_57]

From what I've read about resistance groups most of them were created without initial support from a major power. The Danish resistance as an example didn't start getting any real support from the Allies until '41.

This is true but it took the majors to actually start supplying them. Till then it was mostly some guys hanging out in the basement complaining about things. Every once in awhile they did a sabatoge or two. that is all reflected in the game with a higher supply tax. I'm referring to acutal military units. These took leaders and organization and equipment. Many of the units has allied 'special forces' in or associated with them.

For FTM to be more than the whack-a-mole stupid partisain stuff that HOi3 is today will require a real insurgency. I'm talking the formation and appearance of a whole corps of units, maybe more. And to do that would require sometype of coordination with the majors fighting the enemy.

 

[unmerged(198171)]

The largest brick wall and aggressive South American player bumps into is the American Guarantee on everything. While I understand its meant to simulate the Monroe Doctrine and prevent the US from sitting idle if the Axis do attack SA for some reason, I'm not entirely convinced that the guarantees should be there.

The Monroe doctrine was aimed at keeping European Countries out of South America, not preventing wars between South American states.

However I do not think there is a way to correctly model this in game. Personally I think it would just be best to drop the guarantees all together as the chances of a European Country invading South America are slim. Although if some South American Country starts grabbing the entire continent I would assume the threat lvl would be high enough for America to declare war.

 

[unmerged(304296)]

...Personally I think it would just be best to drop the guarantees all together as the chances of a European Country invading South America are slim....

With the gang of miscreants represented here on the boards I can guarantee that the chances are much better than slim.

 

[unmerged(238688)]

Its all in german til now!
The uploaded version there:
on your PM
is just the 3.3.
Really, in your case I would wait 2 weeks, than version 4.0 is coming out with much improovments and further events-decisions.

could you send me this too and possibly tell me what site in the pm?

also they should somehow make it so in SA the us guarantee only affects non american nations so as Brazil i can go on a war path.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

Hold on, first you say: "How can you predict what would happen should Britain fall?" And then you state that the empire will fall???? Talking about contradictions

If Britain would have fallen before the Japanese attack on Pearl, its not unlikely that some countries would have grabbed a chance to try to gain independence. But even that is very doubtfull, because in the eyes ofthe world that would have meant that those countries would pick the side of the Axis. Furthermore, a conquest of England wouldnt have meant that all of sudden there is no police in New Delhi or garrison troops, etc.

Sorry, I was meaning if Britain was occupied. In which case, a event which triggers if London owner is not allied for more than 1 year and a NU threshhold which causes the empire to start fragmenting.

The problem is that the timeframe and engine for HoI3 is too small to emulate large scale ahistoric events effectively.
The things you desire would better fit in an extended Vicky 2 timeline - where I had, btw, a few were nice late game events during my last games, one for example being GB succumbing to communist rebels and losing large parts of India.

So, in short, maybe you might want to give Vicky 2 a try?

I dont think so. I am not asking for huge, radical changes like the Byzantine Empire emerging out of post-war Turkey, meerly that if Russia has been thumped and Bitter Peace has fired, the -istan states would try to make a grab for independance.

Look two cousins throwing rocks at each other in some dirt backwater town does not a war make. We have a pretty firm grasp on what actually did happen. The game tries to take into consideration the political, miltary and socialeconomic situation from 1936 through 1945/47. Much of what happened from 1948 through the 1950's was due to the major's in the game battered from years of war. But it took YEARS for the other events to unfold. Resistance and independance movements sprang up because of the losses the colonial powers endured. Some of them happened due to fighting on the winning side and this reward was their demand. Others happened because the colonial lost and did not have the power to maintain their control. But in all situations the events relied upon the war pretty much being resolved.

So knock you socks off and create a 1947 to 1959 mod if you want. Or add an event to your game where Chile and Bolivia duke it out over Inca ruins. But don't force those of us not really interested in two militia brigads fighting in some jungle to be subject to it. Next thing I'll see on here is how Haiti and Costa Rica should have a naval war against each other.

Wow, surpised we lasted this long before we got one of the historical nuts wandering in.

You seem to think that it would require a great deal of work. It doesnt. A ahistoric war between Haiti and Costa Rica should happen if the conditions are right. For example, a Axis Haiti pre-empting Costa Rica joining the Allies.




We seem to have got off track concerning resistance movements. Can we please move back onto topic.

What exactly would the difference be if Germany funds, lets say the Palestine resistance movement to revolt against Britain, compared with Britain and the Dutch?

 

[Danmark Rising]

Wow, surpised we lasted this long before we got one of the historical nuts wandering in.

Personal attacks like that certainly don't help your cause.

We seem to have got off track concerning resistance movements. Can we please move back onto topic.

What exactly would the difference be if Germany funds, lets say the Palestine resistance movement to revolt against Britain, compared with Britain and the Dutch?

Independence movements and resistance movements are very much related as they are both run by people who feel their nation is occupied by an outside power. I still think that the best way to model independence movements in places like Indochina, India, or anywhere would be through revolt risk. If France falls to the Germans then the chances that rebels appear in Indochina increases. Maybe this effect could be turned on and off through the game options menu.

 

[unmerged(149861)]

Personal attacks like that certainly don't help your cause.

Its a well known problem that the ahistorical vs historical debate runs deep.

Independence movements and resistance movements are very much related as they are both run by people who feel their nation is occupied by an outside power. I still think that the best way to model independence movements in places like Indochina, India, or anywhere would be through revolt risk. If France falls to the Germans then the chances that rebels appear in Indochina increases. Maybe this effect could be turned on and off through the game options menu.

I agree, but it should be a hard-coded feature. Revolt risk should be low if your a unfied, strong power like Britain during the war, but higher if you are Vichy France after the French surrender and weakened by low unity.

 

[Danmark Rising]

Its a well known problem that the ahistorical vs historical debate runs deep.

Yes it does, and I'm generally on the ahistorical side, but if we want to win over people we need to civil.

I agree, but it should be a hard-coded feature. Revolt risk should be low if your a unfied, strong power like Britain during the war, but higher if you are Vichy France after the French surrender and weakened by low unity.

I don't pay attention much to revolts but I think it's all ready that way. I know when I annex Norway as Denmark I almost always end up with a Norwegian rebel or two. If I don't take care of them for a year or so then what ever provience they are sitting on becomes Norway again and I have to go Annex that one little provience again. The HPP Mod adds in the chance for other revolts like that. I've seen Indonesia do it in almost every HPP game I've played and Moroco has done it a couple of times.

 

[Jazumir]

[...]

I agree, but it should be a hard-coded feature. Revolt risk should be low if your a unfied, strong power like Britain during the war, but higher if you are Vichy France after the French surrender and weakened by low unity.

I agree. And it shouldnt be a revolt-risk of the whack-a-mole magnitude (in a stable colonial power), but of the ´it might happen one day, so better leave a div or two on the sub-continent´-magnitude.

About the historical background for independence movements after WW2 (and 1): It was said, that these countries became independent, because their european masters had been exhausted from the wars. I think, that the main reasons go deeper than that. It was more about the loss of morale superiority (or the preception therof) of the europeans and the proven ability of the colonial people to fight said europeans, coupled with reaping what was deserved during two epic conflicts (if indians are good enough to die for british interests in africa... - what´s moraly superior about a ´race´ that sends its sons to die in the muddy trenches?). Before the worldwars, an englishman could just stare a whole indian mob into submission - simply because he was an englishman, and they were not. After them, every single individual in said mob felt every bit as good and worthy as that englishman would. That is what really changed between 1914 and 1945 in that respect. Eurpean superiorty did not vanish, because there werent enough soldiers or guns or shells... there simply was no one left to accept their legitimacy to rule (even the europeans themselves doubted it at that point), because it had thoruly discredited itself during the first half of the last century.

 

[Oof]

About the historical background for independence movements after WW2 (and 1): It was said, that these countries became independent, because their european masters had been exhausted from the wars. I think, that the main reasons go deeper than that. It was more about the loss of morale superiority (or the preception therof) of the europeans and the proven ability of the colonial people to fight said europeans, coupled with reaping what was deserved during two epic conflicts (if indians are good enough to die for british interests in africa... - what´s moraly superior about a ´race´ that sends its sons to die in the muddy trenches?). Before the worldwars, an englishman could just stare a whole indian mob into submission - simply because he was an englishman, and they were not. After them, every single individual in said mob felt every bit as good and worthy as that englishman would. That is what really changed between 1914 and 1945 in that respect. Eurpean superiorty did not vanish, because there werent enough soldiers or guns or shells... there simply was no one left to accept their legitimacy to rule (even the europeans themselves doubted it at that point), because it had thoruly discredited itself during the first half of the last century.

I agree Europeans lost their “superiorty” in the eyes of the locals in the period of 1914-1945 but more likely 1900 - 1945. But as posted before there are some other triggers (especially in Asia):

1. The end of WWII and the fact that Japanese controlled territory couldn’t be occupied by the Allies straightaway certainly hastened the growth and increased the chance of independence movements.

2. The USA, now a world power, hated colonialism and didn’t support it and pressured European countries. In that respect Roosevelt, and Truman later, always said we are not sending American soldiers into combat to die for the Europeans to maintain their colonies (not an exact quote, but close enough).

Something that hasn’t been named yet is that local populace had already grown tired of European prommisses about some form of independence. European promisses were always about buying time in an attempt to pacify the population. In this matter European arragance and neglect did a lot of harm before WWII.

The Netherlands for example had already reached the conclusion before the war that nowadays Indonesia would have to become independent. The time frame in mind was ridiculous though and the Dutch at the time thought it would take untill 1980/90 for Indonesians to reach the point where full independence could be granted. The British had a similar attitude towards India and Pakistan.

 

[Oof]

Personal attacks like that certainly don't help your cause.

I agree but i probably cant be won over to your side or you to mine

 

[Darkrenown]

I've seen this event fire before, but it might have gotten broken in one of the later patches.

And fixed again:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?536618-Semper-Fi-2.04f-BETA-PATCH

 

[Darkrenown]

Recently installed the 2.04f patch and found out that some of the errors I found are still there. So gotta change em again manually

Make a bug report on the subforum and I'll fix them

 

[Oof]

I will, but first i have to figure out which ones have and havent been solved in the patch. So far i found one and thats the occupation of Iceland event that hasnt been solved yet.