Noob question but why do I need to justify a war goal?

[Armless Moltes]

I play as Germany, I know big surprise there....and all going well except I cannot understand this justification of "war goal"....like I am nazi germany why can't I just invade anyone who isn't in my faction? I could of taken the netherlands, belgium and france in a couple of days by now but I have to wait for this stupid justification to go though and then declare war....I mean I didn't know hitler asked if he could invade Poland or france he just did it that was the whole point of it.

[Polishkruk]

I think its so a player can't take advantage of timing against the AI and also somewhat relevant in MP. If you notice, you can stack your whole army on the border of a nation but if they do not consider you hostile they will just leave it undefended. As soon as you start justifying a wargoal it triggers that you are a threat and they adjust their forces accordingly. Yes it seems strange since its a new addition to HOI but it fits fairly well in my opinion. Its certainly not the worst idea anyway.

[Blackwolfpt]

Mainly for balance, but even in WWII there was a rationale for declaring war. In Germany's case, they wanted Danzig, because it had belonged to the German Empire.

Germany then invaded other countries to better invade France and that system was in place in the game before release. As a fascist, if you were at war, you could declare war on anyone without having to justify it, but it was too imbalanced and lead to some gamey tactics. As it stands now, you still get a nice 80% discount in political power cost + time it takes to justify.

[Sinclair]

agree with you OP, it aint real blitzkrieging if you are going to war with a war declaration. after the allies has formed a pact against you, justification of war shouldn't be a necesary anymore.

imo you should be able to take ai or players with surpise, that was blitzkrieging all about.

[Blackwolfpt]

Originally posted by GOOD GETTING YOUR DREAMS OUT:

agree with you OP, it aint real blitzkrieging if you are going to war with a war declaration. after the allies has formed a pact against you, justification of war shouldn't be a necesary anymore.

imo you should be able to take ai or players with surpise, that was blitzkrieging all about.

And as I said, that was the case. Unfortunately it was too overpowered and they had to make some adjustments.

[Sinclair]

Originally posted by Blackwolfpt:

Originally posted by GOOD GETTING YOUR DREAMS OUT:

agree with you OP, it aint real blitzkrieging if you are going to war with a war declaration. after the allies has formed a pact against you, justification of war shouldn't be a necesary anymore.

imo you should be able to take ai or players with surpise, that was blitzkrieging all about.

And as I said, that was the case. Unfortunately it was too overpowered and they had to make some adjustments.

still i don't like it, but i understand your point.

[KRY MOR]

As Argentina Fascit, I justified I wanted the south states of Brazil.
I invaded them, occupied the states. Is there any way to "stop" the war and say - Brazil I got what I wanted and will spare your useless states.

I don't intend to move all up into the Amazon to fight and conquer Brazil as a whole.
So, how can I say I already got enough?

[Blackwolfpt]

Originally posted by GOOD GETTING YOUR DREAMS OUT:

Originally posted by Blackwolfpt:

And as I said, that was the case. Unfortunately it was too overpowered and they had to make some adjustments.

still i don't like it, but i understand your point.

The problem are the garantees. Countries can only garantee a country if there is at least 25% world tension. If they garantee after the war has already been declared, they can't join the war. The only way to help the country directly after that would be to invite it to their faction, but that can't happen until there is 80% world tension.

So some players were able to time it perfectly and declare wars all at the same time, without the UK being able to interveene and keep it below 80, so that when those countries capitulate they get straight to the peace conference.

By having you justify, it increases the world tension and gives time to the majors to make the garantees, to avoid these type of cheesy tactics.

[Blackwolfpt]

Originally posted by Renegas:

As Argentina Fascit, I justified I wanted the south states of Brazil.
I invaded them, occupied the states. Is there any way to "stop" the war and say - Brazil I got what I wanted and will spare your useless states.

I don't intend to move all up into the Amazon to fight and conquer Brazil as a whole.
So, how can I say I already got enough?

You can only sue for peace if you are losing the war and your enemy has more than 50% warscore. The AI never uses this option though, so you got to make them capitulate. As this was THE time of total war, it makes sense it works this way.

[mastaflex]

You can always just justify early on the countries you want to eventually take over and then attack whenever you want later.

[Armless Moltes]

Originally posted by Blackwolfpt:

Originally posted by Renegas:

As Argentina Fascit, I justified I wanted the south states of Brazil.
I invaded them, occupied the states. Is there any way to "stop" the war and say - Brazil I got what I wanted and will spare your useless states.

I don't intend to move all up into the Amazon to fight and conquer Brazil as a whole.
So, how can I say I already got enough?

You can only sue for peace if you are losing the war and your enemy has more than 50% warscore. The AI never uses this option though, so you got to make them capitulate. As this was THE time of total war, it makes sense it works this way.

Another stupid thing, If let's say I am playing as hungary and manage to push far into Romanian territory and I say that's enough I got back what was mine before ww1 I cannot do that, I have to go and take everything, that's not how this should work, I should be able to MAKE peace with my enemy if I am on the winning side, I should be able to get peace conference when I say and get parts of that nation and decide what to leave behind for them....for me this is just too "balanced" for multiplayer sake....I want realism here not balance

[Blackwolfpt]

Originally posted by mastaflex:

You can always just justify early on the countries you want to eventually take over and then attack whenever you want later.

Actually war goals only last around 2 months. If you fail to declare war within that time, you lose the war goal, national unity, political power and party support.

[Armless Moltes]

Originally posted by mastaflex:

You can always just justify early on the countries you want to eventually take over and then attack whenever you want later.

Yeah but When I set up my plans properly and I am just perfect for attacking I have to send them an email saying "hey I am going to invade you with this many divisions so better prepare!" it's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

[Armless Moltes]

Originally posted by Blackwolfpt:

Originally posted by mastaflex:

You can always just justify early on the countries you want to eventually take over and then attack whenever you want later.

Actually war goals only last around 2 months. If you fail to declare war within that time, you lose the war goal, national unity, political power and party support.

another stupid thing that came with this war goal bs

[mastaflex]

Though I agree it's a weird mechanic, I did what probably everyone else did when I first started playing and found out I couldn't quite attack yet.

[Blackwolfpt]

Originally posted by Chookies:

Originally posted by Blackwolfpt:

You can only sue for peace if you are losing the war and your enemy has more than 50% warscore. The AI never uses this option though, so you got to make them capitulate. As this was THE time of total war, it makes sense it works this way.

Another stupid thing, If let's say I am playing as hungary and manage to push far into Romanian territory and I say that's enough I got back what was mine before ww1 I cannot do that, I have to go and take everything, that's not how this should work, I should be able to MAKE peace with my enemy if I am on the winning side, I should be able to get peace conference when I say and get parts of that nation and decide what to leave behind for them....for me this is just too "balanced" for multiplayer sake....I want realism here not balance

I do understand where you're coming from, but this specific time period was pretty extreme. All parties involved fought to near annihilation. Free France continued fighting from abroad, despite the fact that all its continental territory had been occupied. The Soviet Union also kept on fighting, even though almost a third of its territory was occupied and having suffered 4 million casualties. Italy didn't capitulate even when they just controlled a small strip of land to the north.

I think the only example of a war that didn't end up with a total victory during WWII, was the winter war, but that is already modeled with an event in the game, plus the war didn't really end there.

In this context, it makes sense and is more realistic, that you have to completely beat your opponent before you get to the peace conference.