Why would a peace conference happen between two nations that are at war?

[Vigor]

So, the allies have fallen. I am Japan and am at war with the axis. The vast majority of the conquered land was conquered by me. So now I have to give some to Germany my enemy? It seems to me the land is already divided up properly. And somehow Germany has more warscore than me. It seems to me I did way more than they did. We had similar kills but I wiped out 2 fleets of 4 carriers as well as killing lots of other ships and about a million convoys.

I don't want to do all those naval invasions again. I don't want Germany's aquisitions messing up my supply. I don't want Germany's aquisitions messing up my network of naval bases.

When I had a peace conference with my enemy Communist China after China capitulated. They got everything and somehow the capitulated China had land and troops again. But the strangest thing was, China was an ally so there shouldn't have been a peace conference at all.

[Big [REDACTED] Marty]

the peace deal system has always been funky when it's a 3 way conflict

[Vigor]

This is ridiculous. This turns a great game into a debacle. The peace deal system is wonky period. I have not had one sensible peace deal.

I think the game needs a whole new peace conference system on top of not having peace conferences until all involved nations are at peace.

I think for starters, nations should go in order, no contested demands.
-They go in order by warscore.
-They should only be allowed to take...
1. territory adjacent to them
2. if no territory is adjacent to any of their territory (including what has been taken during the conference)
a. they can take a coastal territory of their choosing
3. if there are no remaining coastal zones and there is no territory you can take, you're done unless you want to take land on behalf of another country.
- Each round nations should get a small amount of points relative to their warscore.
- If nations lack the points to take what they want they can still take it but then wouldn't be able to select another territory until that territory is paid for (by points from subsequent rounds)
-Liberated countries should sit round 1 out. Round 1 would just cost them the points for the round to get liberated.
4. If you want to take land on behalf of another country you can but the options would be restricted to that nation's acquisition rules but you can't take coastal zones for them unless it is an island with only 1 coastal zone.(taking coastal zones might force them to take land somewhere they don't want).

If peace conferences happened this way, territorial blocks would maintain integrity rather than every nation being pin striped.

There is no use allowing puppeting or change government. Nations should do those things after the peace conference is done. I'm looking at my choices and i have to choose puppet or take when...
1. I don't know what I am gonna get from the whole conference
2. I can't yet decide if something has sufficient manpower/factories/resources to make pupppeting useful. (for instance playing as Japan I would need every puppet to have at least 1 coastal space or I wouldn't be able to send them lend lease.
3. There would be no point in changing government on some nation unless it made a good barrier nation. But if I don't know i will get enough territories to make a barrier it would be better to just have it as noncore or puppet.

If after the conference you want to release puppets or change governments the land is yours to distribute how you see fit. That being said, you shouldn't just be forced to give them all core territory. You should be able to give them noncore territory or a portion of their core territory. This way you would be able to make sure your puppets or changed government nations all have sea access, manpower, and factories. As Japan I would probably not want to give my puppets any dockyards. I need those myself.

Here's how that would work.
Lets say Germany has 50% warscore
Italy has 15% warscore
Japan has 35% warscore
Germany begins round 1 with 500 pts. If they take a 1399 pont territory they would sit out round 2 as they would be negative 399 pts.
Japan has 350 pts and takes 3 spaces which total 351 pts.
Italy goes next with 150 pts....
Since Germany skipped a round due to negative points, it is now Japan's turn with 349 points.

Then as each nation takes a turn you get a message notifying you of what they selected (so you know what they are doing) Some rounds might be invisible as all nations currently have negative points. Nations would just keep taking turns until everything has been taken.

[plugwater]

Originally posted by Vigor:

This is ridiculous. This turns a great game into a debacle. The peace deal system is wonky period. I have not had one sensible peace deal.

I think the game needs a whole new peace conference system on top of not having peace conferences until all involved nations are at peace.

I think for starters, nations should go in order, no contested demands.
-They go in order by warscore.
-They should only be allowed to take...
1. territory adjacent to them
2. if no territory is adjacent to any of their territory (including what has been taken during the conference)
a. they can take a coastal territory of their choosing
3. if there are no remaining coastal zones and there is no territory you can take, you're done unless you want to take land on behalf of another country.
- Each round nations should get a small amount of points relative to their warscore.
- If nations lack the points to take what they want they can still take it but then wouldn't be able to select another territory until that territory is paid for (by points from subsequent rounds)
-Liberated countries should sit round 1 out. Round 1 would just cost them the points for the round to get liberated.
4. If you want to take land on behalf of another country you can but the options would be restricted to that nation's acquisition rules but you can't take coastal zones for them unless it is an island with only 1 coastal zone.(taking coastal zones might force them to take land somewhere they don't want).

If peace conferences happened this way, territorial blocks would maintain integrity rather than every nation being pin striped.

There is no use allowing puppeting or change government. Nations should do those things after the peace conference is done. I'm looking at my choices and i have to choose puppet or take when...
1. I don't know what I am gonna get from the whole conference
2. I can't yet decide if something has sufficient manpower/factories/resources to make pupppeting useful. (for instance playing as Japan I would need every puppet to have at least 1 coastal space or I wouldn't be able to send them lend lease.
3. There would be no point in changing government on some nation unless it made a good barrier nation. But if I don't know i will get enough territories to make a barrier it would be better to just have it as noncore or puppet.

If after the conference you want to release puppets or change governments the land is yours to distribute how you see fit. That being said, you shouldn't just be forced to give them all core territory. You should be able to give them noncore territory or a portion of their core territory. This way you would be able to make sure your puppets or changed government nations all have sea access, manpower, and factories. As Japan I would probably not want to give my puppets any dockyards. I need those myself.

Here's how that would work.
Lets say Germany has 50% warscore
Italy has 15% warscore
Japan has 35% warscore
Germany begins round 1 with 500 pts. If they take a 1399 pont territory they would sit out round 2 as they would be negative 399 pts.
Japan has 350 pts and takes 3 spaces which total 351 pts.
Italy goes next with 150 pts....
Since Germany skipped a round due to negative points, it is now Japan's turn with 349 points.

Then as each nation takes a turn you get a message notifying you of what they selected (so you know what they are doing) Some rounds might be invisible as all nations currently have negative points. Nations would just keep taking turns until everything has been taken.

Fax af this happened to me last night

[Big [REDACTED] Marty]

Originally posted by Vigor:

This is ridiculous. This turns a great game into a debacle. The peace deal system is wonky period. I have not had one sensible peace deal.

I think the game needs a whole new peace conference system on top of not having peace conferences until all involved nations are at peace.

I think for starters, nations should go in order, no contested demands.
-They go in order by warscore.
-They should only be allowed to take...
1. territory adjacent to them
2. if no territory is adjacent to any of their territory (including what has been taken during the conference)
a. they can take a coastal territory of their choosing
3. if there are no remaining coastal zones and there is no territory you can take, you're done unless you want to take land on behalf of another country.
- Each round nations should get a small amount of points relative to their warscore.
- If nations lack the points to take what they want they can still take it but then wouldn't be able to select another territory until that territory is paid for (by points from subsequent rounds)
-Liberated countries should sit round 1 out. Round 1 would just cost them the points for the round to get liberated.
4. If you want to take land on behalf of another country you can but the options would be restricted to that nation's acquisition rules but you can't take coastal zones for them unless it is an island with only 1 coastal zone.(taking coastal zones might force them to take land somewhere they don't want).

If peace conferences happened this way, territorial blocks would maintain integrity rather than every nation being pin striped.

There is no use allowing puppeting or change government. Nations should do those things after the peace conference is done. I'm looking at my choices and i have to choose puppet or take when...
1. I don't know what I am gonna get from the whole conference
2. I can't yet decide if something has sufficient manpower/factories/resources to make pupppeting useful. (for instance playing as Japan I would need every puppet to have at least 1 coastal space or I wouldn't be able to send them lend lease.
3. There would be no point in changing government on some nation unless it made a good barrier nation. But if I don't know i will get enough territories to make a barrier it would be better to just have it as noncore or puppet.

If after the conference you want to release puppets or change governments the land is yours to distribute how you see fit. That being said, you shouldn't just be forced to give them all core territory. You should be able to give them noncore territory or a portion of their core territory. This way you would be able to make sure your puppets or changed government nations all have sea access, manpower, and factories. As Japan I would probably not want to give my puppets any dockyards. I need those myself.

Here's how that would work.
Lets say Germany has 50% warscore
Italy has 15% warscore
Japan has 35% warscore
Germany begins round 1 with 500 pts. If they take a 1399 pont territory they would sit out round 2 as they would be negative 399 pts.
Japan has 350 pts and takes 3 spaces which total 351 pts.
Italy goes next with 150 pts....
Since Germany skipped a round due to negative points, it is now Japan's turn with 349 points.

Then as each nation takes a turn you get a message notifying you of what they selected (so you know what they are doing) Some rounds might be invisible as all nations currently have negative points. Nations would just keep taking turns until everything has been taken.

wow that's a lot of words

[CaptainSpacetime]

Originally posted by Vigor:

And somehow Germany has more warscore than me. It seems to me I did way more than they did.

They did more according to the warscore calculation and that's all that matters. It's a good idea to keep an eye on the % contribution for the war and see where you stand.

[apudzuf]

Originally posted by Vigor:

This is ridiculous. This turns a great game into a debacle. The peace deal system is wonky period. I have not had one sensible peace deal.

I'm not going to debate the merits of the current PC system or of your suggestion, but I have written a guide on it and recommend you read it, and you might find that it's possible to have a sensible peace deal every now and then: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876062194

[Vigor]

Originally posted by apudzuf:

Originally posted by Vigor:

This is ridiculous. This turns a great game into a debacle. The peace deal system is wonky period. I have not had one sensible peace deal.

I'm not going to debate the merits of the current PC system or of your suggestion, but I have written a guide on it and recommend you read it, and you might find that it's possible to have a sensible peace deal every now and then: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2876062194

First of all, I would like to compliment you on all of the work you have done to understand and then try to convey your understanding of these game mechanics. It appears to me you have tried to be very thorough which is rare.

But, after learning all you have learned would you say that you like the system as it is?

To me, if something is made to be unnecessarily complicated it is a waste of thought power. I try to keep things as simple as possible in a world full of complexities. That being said, sometimes things are just simply complex and I feel others often pretend they aren't.

In the case of peace conferences. After reading your guide it appears to me that your benefit during a conference is drastically increased by your understanding of, and ability to work the mechanics. Should it be that way?

I think my suggestion for how to make peace conference mechanics is very simple. It might have taken 1/4 as many words to describe as your guide. I shudder to think of how much thought the developers spent devising such a complicated system, which, IMO, produces poor results.

Some takeaways I got from your guide...
Takeaway 1 - Here is what I think is the biggest problem with how participation is calculated.

Casualties – Every 1000 casualties you suffer awards 0.5 points (e.g., Germany suffers 1,000,000 casualties fighting Russia for 2 years, gaining 1000000 / 1000 * 0.5 = 500 points).

So basically, when the AI attacks 4 divisions with 1 they are stockpiling participation points. When the AI does that I usually wait for their 1 division to wear out then counter-attack with a bunch of divisions. That 1 division instantly retreats and I maul the other divisions there. I take very few casualties and they take a bunch. I think this is the explanation for why Russia or China perform like champions in the peace conferences. It is because they wasted a lot of troops and equipment. But then, when I counter attack, I like to have 1 cavalry tank or mobile division to overrun the enemy. And from your guide it looks like wiping out a division doesn't earn me a lot of participation credit.

Land Combat Damage - Points awarded due to strength and equipment damage you deal to the enemy during battles. Based on in-game observations and the HOI4 defines file, this calculates as: [1.2] * 0.1c + 0.08e, where c = the strength damage (i.e., hit points) and e = the equipment IC damage. The 1.2 factor is in brackets because it only applies if you are both attacker and winner. Note that if you annihilate a division by reducing its organization to zero, any remaining strength the unit has will not be not included in the calculation; on the other hand, all remaining equipment is included as equipment IC damage.

So if I really want to game the system, I would not overrun or encircle I would just keep following them and attacking the same divisions over and over. Otherwise I would lose the bonus from strength/hp.

I simply don't think gaming the system should drastically effect your peace conference success. I want to have few losses because i don't want to lose war support or manpower. I have yet to play a nation that had disposable manpower. But it seems to me that the nations who can throw it away have a huge advantage in peace conferences.

I think that is far too much reward for getting your soldiers killed.

takeaway 2 - the air war, while not being very tactically useful appears to generate a lot of participation points. As a player, I feel I can't compete with the AI in an air war. If the AI has air superiority with 200 fighters and I put 300 fighters on it, within 3 game days the AI has 400 fighters. To keep air superiority i would need to constantly check it as well as build a lot of planes. For that reason, I mostly don't use aircraft besides naval bombers on patrol and transport planes. I have fighters, but I normally keep them on hold so they aren't bleeding xp and fighters. If I can force air superiority, the AI will just evacuate and leave my planes to die by accident. I only use aircraft when I need temporary air superiority (i.e. for naval invasion/paratrooper) If I'm using transport planes for supply I normally put 1 fighter wing on air superiority with them just so they aren't entirely defenseless. it seems to me a handful of nations have a huge advantage in aircraft production. i.e. any nation that can afford to trade for a lot of rubber because it has so much IC or any nation that possesses a large supply of rubber.

Then, even as Japan who has an infinite supply of EG rubber, still really needs to build synthetic refineries in order to fuel all of its ships and planes. Because synth plants generate fuel too. Even by 1945, when I have every fuel tech researched with Japan I still struggle to keep enough fuel to keep my ships and aircraft busy. I have thousands of aircraft but I still keep them on hold because I don't want them using fuel. I also have good oil production. It doesn't seem to help.

The same nations that can afford tons of rubber can also afford to upgrade airbases and buy oil. So, in a nutshell, the US, UK and Germany are always gonna beat anyone else in participation points from the air war. Even if Japan occupies half the world it will still have poor IC because it is occupying the wrong half.

[[PoS] Semoth]

Peace conference got a bit better with the respective update, but i too think it has some flaws.

1. For the casualties-thing: I don't know what to think of that. It makes sense, that in a real conference you could say "but our people suffered heavy losses, we want some compensation for that", but in HOI i have to share now the main japanese land with china, who got kicked in the a** by japan, while i basically conquered all of the japanese main islands.

2. Being forced to share the defeated enemy with a third party always seemed a bit unfair to me sometimes. Why is there no "ehm, no, i keep all the territory i conquered under my influence"-button? Or a "invite country X to peace-conference" button, without that you have the peace conference only in your faction for territory that you currently have controlled?