• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Myth

Strategy Cognoscenti
33 Badges
Jul 8, 2005
7.277
9
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris
  • Knights of Pen and Paper 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • 500k Club
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Magicka
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Deus Vult
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II
The purpose of this suggestion is to expand the diplomatic part of the game to make it more immersive (hopefully) and to use more of the ministers. What I have in mind is implementing a layered bureaucracy for the four ministries (foreign, armaments, security, intelligence). The amount of layers would be determined by the country’s IC and, naturally, availability of suitable (ie, close ideologically) ministers. Thus, a country like Latvia would have only the first layer—such as one man in the foreign ministry, and so on. Germany, on the other hand, may have more (with the world powers, this would depend more on minister availability than IC). Now, with this basic premise to something you may not understand yet (unless you’re quite insightful into the types of things I’d like to stick into a HoI3), I’ll move on to the main idea.

But first, a diagram, using the foreign ministry (of, say, Germany) as an example.

uglypaint-madeministrydiagram.JPG

yes, it is damn ugly. it was a 10 second thing in paint and probably represents the pinnacle of my artistic ability.

Now, first off, preferably all these titles (and what they actually influence) would be dynamic (one reason being that the branches would be different for different countries, another being that diplomatic relations naturally break off during war).
Second, it allows for three levels of diplomatic priority. The lowest (and hence slowest to be responded to [yeah, another thing, having a delay before an answer as in CK would be nice, I think], and thus slowest to come back). This low priority would be the country-specific ministers. Medium priority would speed everything up and bump it to the head of the branch and high priority would go directly to the head minister of it all and take the least amount of time. This means that the different minister bonuses would come into effect (low priority would be the bonuses of the country-specific minister, etc…). finally, for very serious (and very rare) issues, there’s the omgomgomg priority that is the HoS/HoG [such as the conferences between FDR and Churchill, etc).

I think this structure could be relatively easily adapted to the other ministries. For example, security; there could be three branches for Germany: national security, western conquest security and eastern conquest security. Intelligence could be divided along the lines of military (what we know of their armed forces), and political (what we know of the conditions within their nation and whatever conquered territory they have). Armaments could be split between military and civilian. As there really isn’t ‘priority’ in the sense of a foreign ministry, each minister takes care of solely his own turf (meaning that, unless a balanced system of thought out, the ministers toward the top have less and less to do on their own if they have more and more bureaucracy below them though they take the credit usually—ie, if a good minister is at the top, he’ll take a prestige hit and not like it if he’s moved down, even if he’s better than his predecessor.)

Now, this structure doesn’t apply to the chief of staff or of the various military branches as they would presumably already have their infrastructure in place—the various military branches. As for the HoS and HoG, all of this is their infrastructure.
 
Upvote 0
In foreign politics (espacially at that time) ministers wasn't allways doing what they were put in charge for. I think it's good the way it is now. You can allways change foreign minister, as you go from one tactic to another, and thats the way it is, very often. (Maybe not changing foreign minister, but rather using the "wrong" minister for the mission.)

I think it's enough the way it is. If using your suggestion, you could also have ambassadors for each country, wich would get messy, as many countries didn't even have diplomatic relations. I think the ambassadors was more important than the specialized foreign ministers, but not important enough to compensate for the work it would require from Paradox.
 
I figured it'd add some nice flexibility. wouldn't it be nice to, as Germany (for example), use a man of the people to conjure up support in western europe while ruthlessly stripping away the industries of the east with a prince of terror, or vice versa?
 
My Suggestions for Diplomacy on HoI3:
-See the political map when offering peace.
-Major allliances should sign negoatiated peaces between themselves.
-Chance to create minor alliances should be increased.
-Myth's diplomatic system sounds good
 
Myth said:
I figured it'd add some nice flexibility. wouldn't it be nice to, as Germany (for example), use a man of the people to conjure up support in western europe while ruthlessly stripping away the industries of the east with a prince of terror, or vice versa?

Specialized ministers for occupied territor? Sounds like another idea I have. Check the "puppet slider" thread in the enhancement suggesions.
 
For diplomacy ideas I'd suggest different types of military access - air overflights, ship rebasing, colonial military access, give access, demand access, demand canceling of nation's access to others, transports with troops rebasing (but don't allow troops to move), etc.

I would also allow more tech trading between nations. For example Germany and Japan - "Axis" members - can't trade blueprints, since they are not in an alliance. If they do join an alliance post-Barbarossa, then Japan is at war with the Soviets. I'd also allow UK and France to exchange blueprints with USA during Lend-Lease, but before Pearl Harbor. I suppose this could be done with various types of alliances - military, economic, technical. The economic alliance could give preferential trade deals - Lend-Lease, Zet, Burma Road, etc. This could also automatically give resources when the "ally" is running low. Or it could trigger an event that asks for resources, and the user can select, 1000, 5000, 10,000, etc.

There could be economic demands under an expanded "demand territory". This could force neutral countries to stop trading with opposing alliances, etc. Also, demanding supplies or resources could be done.
 
Yes, there are a lot of possibilities for additional diplomatic options. A more flexible diplomatic system in general, so that events like the Anschluss or Operation Zet could be done via the diplomatic tab rather than set events, would be very preferable I think.
 
Why don't they allow you to trade for a province even if you aren't in an allinace? That could simulate countries using another countries territory without being allied and without using military access.