• 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.
I was wondering if CORE was planning on implamenting any events regarding the loss of kep provences? -Like the loss of London or Washington. Could lead to some nice flavor events and would likely be the casue of a notable event in History if, say Germany captured London
 
Still playing a very bizarre game: it’s now dec. ’42 and there is still no war, apart from Japan vs. China! Germany has stopped after conquering Poland, the Allies have refrained from DoW Germany and the only real action so far has been on the Balkans: Hungary had first annexed Slovakia (in 37!), and after the Treaty of Munich, the Balkans collapsed –the Hungaro-Bulgarian Alliance was formed against Romania and that country was overrun quickly, although the leftovers were allowed to remain as an independent country. Germany has DoW Jugoslavia and after success created Croatia. I am still playing as the USA and doing fine (IC is 375). But it has been inspirational and funny…

I’ve been pondering on a series of events regarding several minors, this time thinking of a possible Scandinavian Alliance. AFAIK, this was a political dream for many political leaders from all over political spectrum, but it never materialized because of circumstancial differences, opposing interests, a lack of serious commitment by respective political leaders and powerplay of involved major powers. However, it remained on the background, more or less as nowadays talk of politically uniting Europe, or the supposed Arabic unification being hoped for in the 60s/70s.
As history has proven, the Greater Scandinavian dream remained just that – a dream. However, I wonder whether circumstances might be created in which a union (or at least an alliance, led by whom? Sweden?) is created. I was inspired by the Hungaro-Bulgaro Alliance.
I believe that a chain-type series of events should be created in the respective Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and maybe also Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) allowing them move closer and closer together. Of course, this process of “integration” should hold pace with international developments, or in other words, is partly influenced by international events and the attitude of the surrounding major powers.

One of my main focal points in the early years of college was the role Finland played in WW2. I can go on for hours and hours, but I will not do so. This is not the time nor the place. Let me just say that I have come to deeply admire this small country for it’s role in WW2.

But now you know where my interest in this region comes from. As I understood from having studied Finnish history, all of the Scandinavian countries had several things in common (their neutral stance, a mistrust for surrounding major powers partly for historical reasons), but there were also differences that in the end proved too much to overcome for more political integration (Norway was primarily focused on relations with the UK, Denmark was deeply dependent on Germany, Finland tried to keep a delicate balance between Germany and the USSR, while Sweden tried to maintain it’s neutrality by having ties with all major powers in the region. Matters were complicated because of the fact that Norway and Finland were former colonies, exploited by the USSR, Sweden and Denmark.

All in all, looking at things from a 1936 perspective, things are unpredictable and might go every way.
And actually, they did! The Soviet invasion of Finland of ’39, the so-called Winter War, actually almost led Norway and Sweden to side with Finland. However, WW2 was already a couple of months old, and for both sides this new war opened up interesting possibilities. First, public support for intervention was high in the Allied nations. For the Allies, under the pretention of aiding Finland, there was now a clear-cut possibility to invade Norway, cutting off the steel supplies Germany was utterly dependent on. It is not at all clear in how far this invasion was actually meant to support Finland. Military documents from both French and British sources do not actually go beyond planning for an invasion in Norway, only referring to Finland in highly uncertain long-term future possibilities. Also, the drawn up battleplans simply were meant to invade the northern part of Norway and keep it under occupation –the only troops meant to go into Finland was the smallest amount possible, and officially they had to go despite orders otherwise (this way it was hoped for that war with the USSR could be avoided). After succesfully occupying northern Norway, more troops could be shipped in, who could be sent to Finland if necessary.
These plans were leaked, after which Germany hastily drew up it’s own plans for invading Norway and Denmark, to make sure no harm would be done to their vital interests. German HQ feared the Allied intervention, since the Kriegsmarine was so inferior to the Allied navies, there was not much they could do to prevent the landings.
In the end, all players were caught with their pants down. Before any of the warring sides could actually intervene, the Winter War was over: Russian casualties were so disastruously high, Stalin was keen to end the conflict, while the Finnish couldn’t resist the Russians for much longer.
The Allies did land in Norway, only to be caught by surprise by the German intervention. The campaign proved to be disastruous for the Allies; it even cost the British an aircraft carrier (torpedoed while on route back to Britain, carrying a full load of aircraft, meant for use in the Allied invasion in Norway), (wasn’t it HMS Furious?) caught off guard by a German U-boat.
But while the German invasion proved to be highly succesful, the Kriegsmarine especially was to pay a very high price –too high for a succesful invasion of the UK. But in the long run, the Finnish War can be seen as crucial to the eventual outcome of the war: the way the war was fought, and the enormous casualties inflicted by underequipped Finnish soldiers attracted much attention by all kinds of foreign observers and military liaison-officers, who reported their findings back to their governments. In Berlin, Hitler ottk notice of these findings, and after these reports he seriously changed his attitude towards and thinking of the USSR. He now became convinced the USSR could be crushed in a war, something he was not too sure of before. On the other hand, the devestating results of the Winter War triggered a complete and radical reorientation and modernisation of the Red Army- when Hitler invaded in 41 this had just started, but it was already implemented and just needed to be introduced much faster and on a larger scale. It also meant that a series of new innovations, designs and new production series was already in production, although on a small scale. But these designs and models did not need to be designed from scratch. So, in this sense, some say it is the Winter War where Hitler has really lost WW2…
Diplomatically, the Allies were embarassed by the whole affair; the leaking of the allied plans caused the Norwegian and Swedish government to protest loudly, and subsequently the Norwegian government (which they hoped only to confront with the situation as a “fait accompli”) did not only not cooperate, but flatout refused entrance to the Allies, after which the situation became hopelessly complicated and confusing. Of course, after the German invasion Norway opted for the Allies, but by then it was all over- only exile remained…
Meanwhile, the only involved country that managed to see things as they were was the country that triggered most of all of the above –Finland.
After the Russian invasion had started, the Finnish HQ calculated the war must end before april ’39. All offers and calls for assistance were thus based on this calculation. When offered assistance by a certain country, the Finns came forward with a very specific list of needed reinforcements, based on the resources and means of that country. This made it possible, along with “regular”intelligence, to check the sincerity of an offer for help.
This way, the Finns were able to quickly turn down all offers of Allied help, except for financial, economical and moral support: looking at the allied battleplans, combined with the result of diplomacy and checking what/who was actually sent to Norway, it was very obvious that the Allies only used intervention in the Winter War as a pretense to invade and occupy Norway. This way, the Finns kept their sovereignty- this proved to be vital when negotiating for peace with the USSR.
By the way, the same eye for diplomacy and “realpolitik” made it possible for Finland to:
-enter the war again in ’41, to reclaim their lost territories, but now as an ally of Germany invading the USSR,
-be formally at war with the USSR ánd the UK and France, but not with the USA,
-withdraw from the war in ’44, and keep their sovereignty and their political system (democratic!), not being occupied by the USSR,
-not be involved in the German atrocities of any kind,
-kill between 650.000 and 1 mln soldiers in the Winter War alone, losing some 45.000 men. Please notice the Russians also deployed over 1200 aircraft and more than 1500 tanks. Finland could deploy less than 100 aircraft, mostly outdated, and had 1 tank. But the Finns did have ski’s and winteruniforms, whereas the Russians (being told they were liberators, freeing the country from greedy capitalist oppressors…) did not. Luckily for us, Stalin took notice of this “white spot” in Russian dress-code…

Now, doesn’t the above not justify a very serious chain-type of events? By the way, since I do not know a great deal on Scandinavian history, if there is somebody from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland or Greenland who thinks I am talking rubbish, let us all know! Personally, I do believe theree is much more to say for a pre-war United Scandinavia than there is for a pre-war Benelux…
A series of events that starts in ’36, wherein all Scandinavian can slowly creep towards each other, becoming more dependent on each other. Of course, the attitude of the surrounding major powers is crucial: if the USSR opts for a more aggressive stance than history has proven, and Germany is aggressive too, these countries should become more and more of a bloc.
I cannot name many of the triggers for these events, but all in all I do think that the northern part of Europe is left out of the game for a little bit.
Ideas anyone? I’ll continue my research, and meanwhile keep spamming my ideas!

Have a nice weekend :cool:

King Konquer
 
I'm finnish and agree with King (whatever country he comes from) only thing that i dosen't agree is that Scandinavian alliance is a dream because it still in minds of some politics. I think it would be great if there would be Scandinavian alliance. Other one is that there could be event that allowed peace in winter war between Soviet Union and Finland where Finland still had karelia.
 
To Mogr:

No offense meant, mate!!
First, I'm Dutch (Keywords: legalized drugs and prostitution, euthanasia, below sea-level, gay marriage, International Court of Justice, rude and direct people, overcrowded, small, bad, very baaaaaaaaaaaad weather...).
Second, I know that this old political desire is still alive (or at least in some circles). But realistically speaking, this cannot happen as long as there is an EU (although there are people appearing everywhere who predict the end of the EU). Time for such a union has never been better then in the interbellum, and I do not believe that momentum will reappear. But one never knows...
 
To Mogr II:

I forgot to mention this while hangin’ around last time.

I agree very much with you, that other outcomes of the Winter War are desirable and possible as well. I also think I have an interesting proposal for this as well.
I suggest the following possibl;e endings for the Winter War:

-“No peace, we’ll bring revolution!”: In this case, the USSR simply rules out any negotiations with Finland, and keeps fighting until Finland is defeated. I do think that there should be a nat.diss.-factor (representing the overburdened populace, sick and tired of repression, war, terror and the long term-prospect that spreading the revolution actually means more and bloodier wars…), relations with the Allies should be seriously hurt, relations with Germany should be burdened and all surrounding countries, as well as european democracies should now all start sweating, from that day losing their neutral stance, and become more and more anti-communist (maybe thereby creating a “we need Scandinavian unification to withstand this!”-event, or an event in which DEN and POL will move towards GER, while TUR, NOR, HOL will move to the Allied poiont of view.
Also, the miltary establishment CAN NOT LEARN ANY LESSONS from this conflict; they won, didn’t they? (And at such a high price that any meaningful commander who could have warned HQ did not come back from the front),
-“This is acceptable”; peace in turn for the earlier demanded Karelia: This is the historical outcome-Finland finally accepted the demands that had 4 months before led both countries to war. Finland was exhausted and about to be overrun, while Stalin just wanted to get out of the mess… So, Karelia went to the USSR, but Finland kept it’s independence, and the USSR could start “digesting” the war, the incorporated lessons just being implemented when Hitler came down…,
-“We need peace!”; this should be the other possibility when negotiating for peace, if only because the USSR needs to open the negotiations. When the USSR chooses this option and FIN accepts it, peace will be restored, while FIN will not lose any territory. The backlash in the USSR must be severe, after just having fought a war with a million casualties for nothing. These should include, but should not be restricted to, political repercussions. However, the military can go into deep reorganisation-mode and acknowledge the problems experienced in the Winter War (ie. most, if not all, lessons learned must happen to the USSR),
-“Comrad, the Party is not happy, and the Politburo is currently deciding your fate: We have lost the war!!”: I hope it’s possible, I do not know, but this should happen IMMEDIATELY AFTER Finland INVADES and OCCUPIES ANY USSR’s province. It might be a little bit of a cheat when playing FIN (but who does that anyway? J), but this stems from the very determined defensive and anti-aggressive stance the Finnish adopted throughout the entire WW2.

So sorry, I’m now brutally interrupted and finish this post ASAP! Apologies, laddies and ladies!

King Konquer
 
Hmm, I saw in my last post that some of the smilies I had put in, didn’t make it online. So, I apologize for offending any people whatsoever (especially the “who plays Finland”-remerk).

Picking up where I left off…
In reality, the Finnish only adopted a defensive/counter-attack- posture. However, the Russians performed so poorly, it would not have been impossible to actually gain ground. In the game, this is even more likely, since the USSR always seems to leave at least one bordeprovince unguarded. An offensive that would have blocked the Murmansk-Leningrad railway would have been disastruous, morally, military and economically. As a matter of fact, when the Finnish signed on for Germany’s invasion, they only occupied those territories lost in the Winter War and a small bufferzone. It is one of the reasons the siege on Leningrad failed; Hitler was furious when the Finnish refused to march on further. And they would very much have been capable of blocking the Len-Murm. railway in this conflict, but they understood very well that in the long run, they hade more to gain in future peace-negotiations with the USSR, then in a Germany-dominated world.

So, that’s all for this post!

King Konquer
 
By the way, I also noticed that in HoI2(vanilla) the fate of the USSR is usually dependent on Finland's stance in operation Barbarossa; if Finlands manages to occupy the entire Murmansk-peninsula, sweeps south and manages to complete the siege of Leningrad (which is then usually won by the Axis), the fate of the USSR is most likely sealed.

This is far away from history, but that's what the game is for, right?

I still have not figured out whether I like or disagree with this feature of the game, but it does make for interesting gameplay, and is a good counter-balance for that other strange series of battles -North-Africa, in which Italy is usually kicked out of the continent in a jiffy.

Have more posts coming up, but after the weekend, which I hoope for all of you will be as plasant as mine will likely be! :D

King Konquer
 
Still thinking about a series of events for the USSR, whereby the USSR opts for a more aggressive, confrontational stance with the rest of the world. However, I have grossly underestimated this series of events. So, while I will be thinking/pondering of this series of events, I will not post it for a while- after I am satisfied with what I think is a reasonable, fun and preferably good alternative history, I will put it online.

That leaves me with more minors. Did I already mention Portugal? If a event is created in which Spain aligns with the Axis, Portugal should do so too, maybe in a newly formed Greater Iberian Bloc. This is historical- there is much data available from Portuguese sources in which they planned for an eventual Spanish-Axis alignment, which seemed just a matter of time in '39 (at least from a Portugese point of view). While the (dictatorial, pro-fascist) establishment was divided over the right course of action (stay neutral or opt for the Axis). So, I suggest a Portuguese event as well as a Spanish event, in which Portugal can opt for an Axis alliance after Spain has joined the Axis.
 
King Konquer: Can I entice you to go over to our own forum (21vikings.dk) and post your ideas in the various national event threads set up there? That would make it a lot more easy to follow and I for one would be able to get more involved in the discussions.

Thanks!
 
By the way, I have now completed a list of possible aircraft types for the following nations (incl. all jet aircraft!) (NOTE: Since I do not know what the revised tech tree will look like, I have based it on the vanilla-HoI2-tech tree):

MAJORS:

USA
UK
USSR
Italy
Nat. China

MINORS:

Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Canada
Australia
South Africa
Switzerland
Austria (in case there is no anschluss…)
Argentina
Brazil


I am planning to make a revised list of types for ALL nations (incl. countries like India, Pakistan and Indonesia, who only gained independence after WW2), however small they might be, but for this agonizing work I would very much like to know what the revised tech tree will look like.
 
To Baylox:

Yes, of course! I feel honoured by your invitation!
Will check the forum rightaway; do you want me to repost everything I mentioned on this site? Or should I just leave it here?
It might take a day or two before you hear more from me- until then I’ll be burying myself in vikings.dk !

Cheers,

King Konquer
 
To Baylox (part 2):

Uhmm… I just checked the site and digged into the forum. Compared with thís forum however, I get kinda lost. I would very much like to put my ideas on Scandinavia, Holland, Central Asia and Latin-America in there, but my posts do not really “fit” into the forum on 21vikings; I would need to cut my post on Central Asia into many different parts, which is all the more annoying since I meant this as a coherent idea, in which all events in these different Asian countries are intertwined. The same goes for my post on Scandinavia, and for Holland/Belgium. Help/suggestions, please?

King Konquer
 
I understand if you get a bit lost right now since we have a number of sub-forums spread around, but it also makes navigating and discussion easier since we can separate things. So hopefully you'll get used to it soon!

If you have event ideas that span more than one country, you can post it a level higher that fits (such as Central/Southeast Asia). Just name the thread you start with something that has bearing on the events so it's easy to find.

I'd prefer you add most of what you have here that you consider to be valid, workable ideas and we'll discuss it from there.
 
differentiation of units

I know this has already been raised in an earlier post in this thread, but for what it's worth, I'd just like to add my own 2p's worth.

One of the things that interests me the most about ww2 is the different design philosophies used by each country when designing it's units(my interest is primarily in tanks).

I'm not a good modder, but I usually mod the tech files from vanilla/core/hsr to give German AA guns some kind of hard attack value(flak88), and increase the attack, defence, cost & supply requirements of heavy & super heavy armour to model the tiger/king tiger.

The decision to make easily producable but (in some ways) inferior armour eventually paid off for the Soviets and US and was such a big factor in the outcome of the war that it should be modelled in the game.

I believe that CORE models via techs(not available to Germany), the ability to produce armour quicker, but it doesn't seem to provide the opposite costlier, but better design choices which should be available to Germany.

Having "generic" units in HOI, be they ships, tanks or aircraft, just seems such a shame and takes away much of the interest from the game for me and probably many others.

Also, on a seperate subject, I think that your actions should affect research. IRL, many of the new designs and innovations came about because of battle. For example, if it weren't for the russian campaign it is unlikely that the Panther would have come about as early as it did.

The only way I can think of modelling this is to increase the research costs of most of the advanced forms of units, and provide a research bonus during periods of war. Perhaps even granting blueprints more often during capture of key provinces or when annexing countries.

I think this is done to an extent with the Condor Legion, but the idea should be expanded.

GJ on the mod though, enjoying playing it so far... :D
 
To Baylox:

Right... Ok, I'll see what I can do. Might take a few days; I've ruined my keyboard (spilled coffe over it...!!!), and I am sure all the copy-pasting will give me a few headaches, but I guess that's the price one has to pay on route to global domination...
But as I said, I feel honoured, and will contribute ASAP!

King Konquer
 
To von Diesel:

I agree with you: it is a shame that such an advanced and complex game does not allow for the fundamental differences in equipment and its performance, and I hope that this can AND will be corrected in CORE. It goes further then tanks: the first US jetfighter (P-59 Airacomet) was not nearly as advanced as its German counterpart (Me-262).
BTW, your comment on tanks is also valid for aircraft-types; the introduction of the British Spitfire Mk.IX was a direct result of the skirmishes over the English Channel between Fw.190's and inferior Spitfire MK.V's. Only aftre a Fw.190 mistakenly landed in the UK and could be analyzed by British intelligence, was the aviation industry capable of developing the superior Mk.IX . But I guess in effect that all weaponry basically is interlinked- it is the industrial counterpart of evolution.

But your post, von Diesel, supports my plea for making blueprints more important ingame. I hope somebody at CORE knows how to implement it.

KIng KOnquer
 
Refuelling tankers... Great idea! But how to make this correspond with range and combat org? This is much trickier then it seems, and I am curious as to how you would make this work ingame. Surprise us all!

King Konquer

PS.: At the moment I'm busy readying all my posts for appearance at 21vikings.
 
King Konquer said:
it is a shame that such an advanced and complex game does not allow for the fundamental differences in equipment and its performance, and I hope that this can AND will be corrected in CORE. It goes further then tanks: the first US jetfighter (P-59 Airacomet) was not nearly as advanced as its German counterpart (Me-262).
We won't have this kind of national differentiation in units, even if technological differences in aircraft and ships matter more than for ground units. First of all there isn't enough models to allow this (and the differences between the P-80 and the Me-262 aren't great enough to warrant a whole unit number in difference so they will be of the same level - only very significant differences in performance can matter), so we can only really use Doctrines to separate them.

As for the idea of blueprints because of crashed and reverse-engineered aircraft... I guess this could be a random event (triggering when two nations are at war with each other, or so), but the problem with random events is that they don't affect AI nations. So then we would have to script for individual nations, taking into account that one nations has a specific tech and the other does not. In the end, I feel that this is more trouble than it's worth and borders on imbalance (unless we script similar events for ALL major and many minor nations - which is just too much work).
 
It seems that there is no string of events dealing with the Allies winning the war against Germany BEFORE USSR and Japan enter the war.

In my latest game as the UK, I pushed up my interventionism early and got rid of my peacetime penalties by getting Republican Spain to join the Allies while the Spanish Civil War was still going on. I was able to coup Hungary and Italy to keep them out of the Axis, prevented the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia by getting them into the Allies in 1937, and I got Netherlands to join the Allies before war broke out in Sept 1939. Asa result, France and England were on a technological par with Germany in 1939, Germany had POL and CZE to deal with in the east, and the idiot German AI didn't fortify the provinces west of the Rhine. By taking military control of CZE and POL, I was able to prevent Germany from taking Warsaw, so the M-R Pact events never happened, and POL stayed in the war. By the end of 1941, Germany was defeated... and when POL finally annexed it, POL got eastern Germany and Berlin, Netherlands got northern and central Germany, DEN got Kiel and Hamburg, CZE got Austria and Dresden, and France got the rest.

The problem is that the end of Germany seemed to stall the game. Japan, who never advanced very far in China, never declared war on the USA or the Allies. The USSR is just sitting there. The Netherlands, Poland, and France are now owners of big chunks of Germany, and there seems to be no options or events for liberating the BRD, nor any events for the tensions of the Cold War. There is no event dealing with the partitioning of German territory among the allies... for instance, the UK got no territory AT ALL since my forces were attacking from Dutch and Polish territory. The existing surrender events for Germany do not trigger if the USSR is not at war with Germany. Moreover, the USSR AI is very passive... ROM and BUL and HUN completely sat out the war, and the USSR is not making any moves towards them. It seems that the penalty for early success is losing any fun in the last 5 years of the game.

I know it is difficult to script events for all the "what-ifs", but the game as it is doesn't seem to deal well with ahistorical outcomes. There is no gameplay left once Germany is beaten, which is something that a good player can accomplish early in the game with a few preudent ahistorical choices. I would love to see CORE address this shortcoming with chains of events in "alternate timelines" that give the player some choices for keeping the game interested. Partition Germany or give it all to the BRD? War against Communism? Intervention in China once Europe is free? The Allies have few options as it is.