Ability to turn off a few mechanics

[seawolf]

There's a few specific mechanics/events that can get irritating in the late game, and it would be nice to be able to turn them off.
1.  Invasions suspended due to weather.  I can see the reasoning for it, and some people might want it, but it can easily delay invasions for a year or more, even with complete naval supremacy.
2.  Territories holding out due to fortifications/coastal defenses.  Once again, it kinda makes sense but it also means the fighting can continue in the territory for a year or more, even after you've successfully launched the invasion.  In combination with the first mechanic it makes it really frustrating to take territories, so it would be nice to be able to turn it off.

And lastly, when a government declares total war, it would be nice to have a settings option to turn off peace deals outside of government collapses.  Its quite irritating to be fighting a war, when the enemy has declared total war, just to have a random white peace in the middle of the campaign.  I know that this isn't a large chance per turn, but if you play through a full campaign it happens more often than not.

[nimrod]

Have thought that invasions being scrubbed by weather should be limited to a couple of months.

Fortifications mimicking the failed Gallipoli campaign makes more sense to me; especially for connected possessions (those with road or rail connections) that can't be shut-off from the sea.

I'm 100% with seawolf for non-continental colonial invasions and fortifications holding up the land fighting. If airpower and seapower are secure than I think historical the invasion should complete within 6 months. I mean a lot of the possessions aren't complete countries (some are like the Baltic States) but most are coastal city's and fortifications. I can't think of any successful invasions where the ports and other strategic locals weren't secured within such a time-frame (well at least since 1900) - some fighting may remain but the survivors have been low on ammo and are not holding the key strategic locations. A subsequent re-invasion / counter invasion would (I think) make more game roll-playing sense. Even in highly contested invasion situations like Guadalcanal the land fighting was pretty much over in 6-7 months - also the Japanese were effectively having to counter-invade the island as the allied forces seized the "all" strategic Henderson Field at the outset.

On a related note, if the fortifications hold up the land fighting than I would like to see a 50% chance of the invader taking the territory if a unilateral white peace is forced upon me. After a year plus of the invasion force trying to take a territory, I think the invaders would have seized enough strategic locations to warrant them hanging on to what they own.

[seawolf]

Jan 12, 2021 16:37:01 GMT -6 nimrod said:

Have thought that invasions being scrubbed by weather should be limited to a couple of months.

Fortifications mimicking the failed Gallipoli campaign makes more sense to me; especially for connected possessions (those with road or rail connections) that can't be shut-off from the sea.

I'm 100% with seawolf for non-continental colonial invasions and fortifications holding up the land fighting. If airpower and seapower are secure than I think historical the invasion should complete within 6 months. I mean a lot of the possessions aren't complete countries (some are like the Baltic States) but most are coastal city's and fortifications. I can't think of any successful invasions where the ports and other strategic locals weren't secured within such a time-frame (well at least since 1900) - some fighting may remain but the survivors have been low on ammo and are not holding the key strategic locations. A subsequent re-invasion / counter invasion would (I think) make more game roll-playing sense. Even in highly contested invasion situations like Guadalcanal the land fighting was pretty much over in 6-7 months - also the Japanese were effectively having to counter-invade the island as the allied forces seized the "all" strategic Henderson Field at the outset.

On a related note, if the fortifications hold up the land fighting than I would like to see a 50% chance of the invader taking the territory if a unilateral white peace is forced upon me. After a year plus of the invasion force trying to take a territory, I think the invaders would have seized enough strategic locations to warrant them hanging on to what they own.

And even guadalcanal was a case of the defenders holding out, which is already an event that happens, and the landings seized the critical ports and airfield on the first day of the invasion

[nimrod]

Agreed seawolf, agreed.

My gameplay point with Guadalcanal was that I think defenders need to spend monies resisting an invasion force and attackers in sustaining the landing force. As it stands a nation with sea zone control can launch sequential invasions if events allow (weather, etc.) and the land battles on far off possessions take far longer than historical. I think, feel might be a better word here, that invasions should have a random time limit assigned at the start of the invasion - say 3-8 months. If the defender or attacker do not fund the land battle for a month than the decision date moves up a month with weighting being given to the side that funded the battle. If both sides fully fund the battle, than the victor is determined along the existing rules at the randomly determined time.

I'm sure the game isn't setup for my desires, but some sort of attrition of air-forces on a disputed possession, loss of transports or damaged ships representing attrition in running supplies to the troops and or loss of base capacity might make some sense.

[afish]

If airpower and seapower are secure than I think historical the invasion should complete within 6 months

A subsequent re-invasion / counter invasion would (I think) make more game roll-playing sense. Even in highly contested invasion situations like Guadalcanal the land fighting was pretty much over in 6-7 months

Just a quick thought on this - if an invasion was complete in 6 months, there could be a game mechanic where any attempted re-invasion would be marginally easier (if launched within the next 6 months and assuming the total air & sea superiority by the original invaders has been neutralized), thus simulating the ongoing resistance fighters that could help facilitate any re-invasion (via infiltration or sabotage).  Then after some time (a year?) of the initial invasion any 'bonus' could be removed, simulating the original invader's ability to finally get control over any substantial resistance.  Ultimately this would allow the initial invasion to happen quicker (as per original request) but also essentially keep the territory 'up for grabs' for a similar amount of time as is currently in the game, with the player (or AI) having a bit more influence on whether an area is captured and remains captured. 

[wlbjork]

I'm ambivalent on the fortifications suggestion. On the one hand, yes it does seem excessive.

On the other hand, the land-based combat is completely abstracted, and those fortifications are currently the only method by which a player has any influence on the defence after a successful invasion, short of the occasional attack on supply/reinforcement convoys.

I think if that particular factor is removed then something else should be substituted in as compensation.