|
Post by crossdeck on Aug 26, 2019 15:17:23 GMT -6
In the aftermath of a war in the 1910s the French fell to a fascist coup. I went to war with them again in 1930. It's now 1942 and they refuse to surrender. They've been officially blockaded for a decade, I have 123,214 VPs to their 30,000, I destroy their ships as fast as they build them (they now have 0BB, 0BC, 1CV, 3CVL, 5CA, 5CL, 9DD, 7AMC). Their entire navy is essentially 200(!) submarines, but they never sink my shipping and occasionally take out a destroyer.
What will it take to get them to surrender? This war is killing my budget and ships that were brand new at the beginning of the conflict are obsolete. I need to keep up my naval aircraft but the maintenance alone means I can't do much other than maintain current numbers.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on Aug 26, 2019 15:26:41 GMT -6
When Fascist declare a total war it should technically mean they are much much less likely to surrender, however in the past player have reported them signing peace mere turn or two after said declaration. Maybe this were changed and perhaps now they are way too reluctant than intended. Best chance would be keep up the blockade and hope their unrest lead to a revolution. (If this keeps on going you might want to report it as a bug with the save attached)
|
|
|
Post by JagdFlanker on Aug 26, 2019 15:45:27 GMT -6
keep blockading and they should eventually collapse into revolution
|
|
|
Post by sloanjh on Aug 26, 2019 17:59:27 GMT -6
I was in a war (as France) with Germany (I think) where I knocked out all their major combatants within the first couple of months. I mothballed most of my major combatants while still blockading them and used the high war budget to put a building program in place. One thing I did that might help is put most air bases in reserve - that helps a lot on spending.
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Aug 26, 2019 18:57:02 GMT -6
It seems like posting here gets me the results I want. The next turn there was revolution and surrender (no change in government though). Now it's 1948 and time for the final war with the British to seize their Mediterranean possessions. Just in time too, as my Yamato-equivalents just came out.
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Aug 27, 2019 5:02:38 GMT -6
I've had a similar issue to the OP. France wasn't fascist but playing as the Germans I had destroyed all her navy bar 1 CL, 1 CA and 12 DD. France constantly denied battle and eventually capitulated after years of having virtually no navy and refusing to give battle.
I think a rule should be introduced where if any nation (the player's included) denies battle more than, say, 5 times in 2 years of a war then that nation should automatically lose the war.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 27, 2019 5:45:05 GMT -6
I've had a similar issue to the OP. France wasn't fascist but playing as the Germans I had destroyed all her navy bar 1 CL, 1 CA and 12 DD. France constantly denied battle and eventually capitulated after years of having virtually no navy and refusing to give battle. I think a rule should be introduced where if any nation (the player's included) denies battle more than, say, 5 times in 2 years of a war then that nation should automatically lose the war. It should not be. Navy is not center of the world, especially for continental powers. If you do not break supply chain the effect not having navy is almost nil.
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Aug 27, 2019 7:05:09 GMT -6
I've had a similar issue to the OP. France wasn't fascist but playing as the Germans I had destroyed all her navy bar 1 CL, 1 CA and 12 DD. France constantly denied battle and eventually capitulated after years of having virtually no navy and refusing to give battle. I think a rule should be introduced where if any nation (the player's included) denies battle more than, say, 5 times in 2 years of a war then that nation should automatically lose the war. It should not be. Navy is not center of the world, especially for continental powers. If you do not break supply chain the effect not having navy is almost nil. I am talking from a game play perspective. It's tedious to have those wars drag on against countries who have no navy to speak of but who can constantly deny battle. In the playthrough I reference in my original post France must have declined battle over fifty times. From a gameplay perspective that is no fun as it was obvious there was only ever going to be one winner in a naval game simulating a naval war where one of the participants has no navy remaining.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Aug 27, 2019 8:54:24 GMT -6
I agree that it is tedious from the gameplay perspective, but the French navy declining to come out and play (and getting clubbed like baby seals when they did) after the revolution (and the Trafalgar seal clubbing) crippled it didn't seem to slow Napoleon down much. As long as they didn't try something foolish, like invading Egypt or Ireland, it wasn't a major factor. The game already puts excessive weight on the importance of the naval component, which makes sense with a naval simulator. A continental power can win a war without getting it's toes wet.
|
|
|
Post by jishmael on Aug 27, 2019 9:33:56 GMT -6
I tend to agree, as long as they're not killing me with subs it's free budget
|
|
|
Post by crossdeck on Aug 27, 2019 13:50:56 GMT -6
It doesn't make much sense if you don't share a border though. I understand this is beyond what probably should be modeled in-game but in my war I was Austria-Hungary, and I was wondering where these army offensives the Kaiser needed money for were taking place.
|
|
blur
New Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by blur on Aug 27, 2019 15:51:20 GMT -6
It doesn't make much sense if you don't share a border though. I understand this is beyond what probably should be modeled in-game but in my war I was Austria-Hungary, and I was wondering where these army offensives the Kaiser needed money for were taking place. I like to think of those army offensives as operations against minor allies. Belgium, the Netherlands, Poland, and in your case various nations in the Balkans would fit the bill. That would also explain why the VP payout is so very low compared to naval actions against your major opponents. Since the VP loss of a catastrophic defeat on land is vastly outweighed by any victory at sea, I never ever give money to the army. Right now it feels completely unbalanced.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 27, 2019 23:04:46 GMT -6
Why should naval score be so much influenced by land warfare?
This could be another reason why peace conditions vary so much as your victory at sea could be hindered by situation on land.
|
|
Warspite
Full Member
Sky of blue/And sea of green
Posts: 230
|
Post by Warspite on Aug 28, 2019 15:25:43 GMT -6
In a naval wargame such as this I just think there should be an automatic war winning condition whenever an opponent has no navy left to speak of. Maybe it should be no B/BB/BC/CV/CVL/CA left AND if battle is denied X amount of times over X amount of years then the war should be over by default.
I get the land war argument but this (naval) game barely simulates that. It could even be an optional tick box rule where players can choose to play with this rule or not.
|
|
euchrejack
Full Member
Don't feed the Trolls. They just get bigger and more numerous.
Posts: 139
|
Post by euchrejack on Aug 28, 2019 17:56:10 GMT -6
Why wasn't anybody invading France, or a least their colonies?
|
|