White peace & war justification annoyance

[bvrakvs]

This game is fun and all, but diplomatic options are so darn limited, not having an option for white peace is so silly.

Also the war justification mechanic is a bit unrealistic, I understand its importance during the early war, but when the world is at 100%+ tension, with my country generating majority of it, even if you are not at war with a major, it is crazy that it still takes 100+ days to justify, what? I should be able to just march in within days.

Only reason I can come up with is devs trying to stabilize the simulation, and keeping AI from ruining the game world I suppose.

[FreZZy]

I agree on point that justification takes time after 100% world tension is weird, but i have no idea what for you need white peace. Unless you are losing, but then why enemy will want to agree?

[bvrakvs]

Originally posted by FreZZy:

I agree on point that justification takes time after 100% world tension is weird, but i have no idea what for you need white peace. Unless you are losing, but then why enemy will want to agree?

Sometimes the enemy is Japan, and I don't wanna keep the war on with them without a navy

Plus all other paradox games have a ton of options to end a war, only in hoi4 there is no alternative, every war is total war, till death. No limited wars, e.g. I just want to take over some province and the enemy is OK for peace after some point, rather than complete destruction and capitulation. Like in winter war, Finland agrees to Soviet demands and cedes some border lands after war goes bad for a while, but it is a scripted event, no feature to do that manually

[FreZZy]

well, dont attack Japan then. Its not about "total war" its about neither side is willing to surrender. You dont attack Japan - dont need white peace, Japan attacks you - well they want your land.

[bvrakvs]

Originally posted by FreZZy:

well, dont attack Japan then. Its not about "total war" its about neither side is willing to surrender. You dont attack Japan - dont need white peace, Japan attacks you - well they want your land.

I am telling you, some sides do surrender, Finland does a white peace with Soviet Union, so some sides do surrender without complete capitulation. I just think paradox is being lazy for not implementing a proper way to conclude wars to this game apart from total war destroy all majors system for every war, on top of broken peace deal mechanic which is another pile of garbage that I won't go into now.

[FreZZy]

Yes, some does surrender, but white peace is rare. In 90% other cases it was war until formal capitulation. But even if we leave IRL, in game it would be also huge gamechanger, chipping only "wanted" bits sounds fun, but enemy doesnt want give you any bits.

[bvrakvs]

Originally posted by FreZZy:

Yes, some does surrender, but white peace is rare. In 90% other cases it was war until formal capitulation. But even if we leave IRL, in game it would be also huge gamechanger, chipping only "wanted" bits sounds fun, but enemy doesnt want give you any bits.

Have you played any other Paradox games? They all work kinda well, and states do prefer losing a bit rather than losing everything.

[FreZZy]

Yes, im not saying its not implemented in other PDX games, im saying that its not going to fit in HOI4. They are not implemented it here bc they are lazy, they purposedly did not. And its not about "total war" its about "no step back".

[bvrakvs]

Originally posted by FreZZy:

Yes, im not saying its not implemented in other PDX games, im saying that its not going to fit in HOI4. They are not implemented it here bc they are lazy, they purposedly did not. And its not about "total war" its about "no step back".

nah man, they did have white peace early on, they just couldn't make it work, and finally dropped it, look it up, they just created this broken weird endless war game, and somehow it worked, but it still makes no sense.

[FreZZy]

Well, give me an example when you want white peace, maybe then it would make sense for me. Not Japan one, there is million ways to avoid war with them, unless they want you dead, in such case white peace is not an option as well.

[Curfuffle]

I mean i always kind of wanted a way to "pause" the war sometimes. It's fun to build up but the game is so rushed.

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by bvræqvete:

Originally posted by FreZZy:

Yes, some does surrender, but white peace is rare. In 90% other cases it was war until formal capitulation. But even if we leave IRL, in game it would be also huge gamechanger, chipping only "wanted" bits sounds fun, but enemy doesnt want give you any bits.

Have you played any other Paradox games? They all work kinda well, and states do prefer losing a bit rather than losing everything.

Those other games are set in different time periods where white peaces and conditional peaces were more common. After WWI and into WWII, they become the exception, not the rule. The rule becomes total war and unconditional surrender and occupation

[bvrakvs]

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

Originally posted by bvræqvete:

Have you played any other Paradox games? They all work kinda well, and states do prefer losing a bit rather than losing everything.

Those other games are set in different time periods where white peaces and conditional peaces were more common. After WWI and into WWII, they become the exception, not the rule. The rule becomes total war and unconditional surrender and occupation

I don't understand this mindset, defending a literal lack of feature in a game. It is obviously a problem them failing to implement a proper system to end wars with different diplomatic options, there is no flexibility there.

The time period argument also falls short, since this game originally had white peace option in its earlier versions, plus all previous Hearts of Iron titles have better peace systems, HoI2 had "force peace", "white peace", and "beg for peace" options, depending on your war score. HoI3 peace option was available unless both sides are in a faction, which makes sense, if you are a single state without a faction, you should be able to freely decide on pursuing peace. In HoI4 each war is a war between Allies & Axis it feels like, not every war needs to be a total war.

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by bvræqvete:

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

Those other games are set in different time periods where white peaces and conditional peaces were more common. After WWI and into WWII, they become the exception, not the rule. The rule becomes total war and unconditional surrender and occupation

I don't understand this mindset, defending a literal lack of feature in a game. It is obviously a problem them failing to implement a proper system to end wars with different diplomatic options, there is no flexibility there.

The time period argument also falls short, since this game originally had white peace option in its earlier versions, plus all previous Hearts of Iron titles have better peace systems, HoI2 had "force peace", "white peace", and "beg for peace" options, depending on your war score. HoI3 peace option was available unless both sides are in a faction, which makes sense, if you are a single state without a faction, you should be able to freely decide on pursuing peace. In HoI4 each war is a war between Allies & Axis it feels like, not every war needs to be a total war.

You seem to be forgetting the "historical" in "historical grand strategy"

Earlier versions of the game were less historically accurate and they correctly removed the unrealistic peace options

Any war between the axis and the allies was going to be a total war, it was inevitable

[bvrakvs]

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

Originally posted by bvræqvete:

I don't understand this mindset, defending a literal lack of feature in a game. It is obviously a problem them failing to implement a proper system to end wars with different diplomatic options, there is no flexibility there.

The time period argument also falls short, since this game originally had white peace option in its earlier versions, plus all previous Hearts of Iron titles have better peace systems, HoI2 had "force peace", "white peace", and "beg for peace" options, depending on your war score. HoI3 peace option was available unless both sides are in a faction, which makes sense, if you are a single state without a faction, you should be able to freely decide on pursuing peace. In HoI4 each war is a war between Allies & Axis it feels like, not every war needs to be a total war.

You seem to be forgetting the "historical" in "historical grand strategy"

Any war between the axis and the allies was going to be a total war, it was inevitable

I am not talking about the ww2 itself, I am talking about a minor war between chile and argentina, no factions are involved, why does it need to be total war? More peace options is a must in a game like this, and they lazied out, and somehow people like you are defending them, weird

[AdmiralPiett]

Originally posted by bvræqvete:

Originally posted by AdmiralPiett:

You seem to be forgetting the "historical" in "historical grand strategy"

Any war between the axis and the allies was going to be a total war, it was inevitable

I am not talking about the ww2 itself, I am talking about a minor war between chile and argentina, no factions are involved, why does it need to be total war? More peace options is a must in a game like this, and they lazied out, and somehow people like you are defending them, weird

Because no matter the scale of the conflict, total war became the norm after WWI.

The war aims were no longer destruction of the enemy army to force a peace deal, but destruction of the enemy itself. His cities. His infrastructure. His economy.

The time period of HOI4 is now longer the age of singular honorable armies fighting a pitched battle or series of pitched battles in one place at one time to send the conflict to the negotiating table.

The time period of HOI4 is the age of marching through the rubble of your enemy's bombed out capital to run up your flag and impose the totality of your will upon them and their people.