Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries
Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hearts of Iron IV 48312 Bug Reports 17281 After Action Reports (AAR)
Previous dev diary
Show only dev responses

Dev Corner | Faction Dynamics Part 2

If you missed the previous Dev Corner, check it out here.


Reinventing Faction Dynamics Part 2​

Generals!

Welcome to another Developer Corner. Let’s start with a reminder, or clarification, so you have a better idea of what kind of feedback we’re looking for.

Dev Diaries give you a clear preview of what’s coming very soon.

Dev Corners are our way of involving the community earlier in our design and development process so we have a chance to listen and tweak. This obviously means there is less detail to share, because we don’t (want to) have it all nailed down yet. It’s also possible that things we discuss here aren’t all meant for the next DLC.
Now that that’s all cleared up, settle in, read it all and give us your honest, and friendly, feedback.

Now on to @Wrongwraith :

The first dev corner about all things factions got a bit too long as I tended to talk about more things than I had originally intended to. But it felt that I had to try to cover a lot of things in order to explain what I was talking about. To compensate for that, this one will be a bit more focused.

I wanted to talk about the different factions - what makes them different? Basically giving a little bit of an insight into the working day of a game designer.

What we have tried to do is to decide on a theme for a faction; and design a Manifest, and select a set of Faction Rules that relate to that theme. We want to have Goals that are more or less strategic in nature. You should be encouraged to act; and to act in a way that makes sense according to the theme wherever that is possible.

Just to say it one more time: This is very much an iterative process. The final result, whenever this feature actually makes it into the game, might be totally different.

To explain what I mean I will give a few examples and show you a few more screenshots (sorry, but they still very much have placeholder UI elements - and not at all pretty).


Designing the Axis​

Let's start with the Axis…

Germany starts the game as the leader of the Axis; nothing new there.

Thinking about the Axis, and especially the two major powers there - Germany and Italy - it is all about conquest and expansion. Subsequently that quite naturally becomes the theme for this faction. How do we measure conquest then? In HOI terms it is probably the amount of controlled territory that is outside your core nation.

Some of the bonuses you get from high fulfillment of the Manifest then also relate back to the conquest of territory, like non-core manpower, and resistance to occupation.

dc_factiondynamics2_001.png

The Axis faction window - and no, it won't look like this when it is ready.​

The Axis goals then, are as follows:
  • Secure the Resource Supply - Faction members control resources enough to ensure they can be at war with the world for some time.
  • A European Bastion - Get European Continental countries to either join your faction or capitulate / become part of you.
  • Secure North Africa - Control key areas in, and on the way to, North Africa to ensure the safety of the core Axis territory of continental Europe
  • An Armored Fist - Deploy enough armored units so that you are ready to take on anyone who opposes your expansion plans.
  • The North Atlantic - stop any enemies from gaining control of the North Atlantic in order to disrupt any attempts to block you off from world trade and to disable support for enemies in Europe.

The Axis countries weren’t very good at cooperating with each other, so it is for this reason that the faction starts without any of the more cooperative features unlocked.


What about Japan​
How does this then contrast with e.g. the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?

Here the theme is more centered around creating the prerequisites for expansion in Asia, ensuring that the Japanese industry has enough resources, and on creating puppets to establish control over the region. It is a very Japan-centered faction (at least if you play the historical version)

The manifest is about securing vital resources. The goals revolve around ensuring this is possible - and securing the necessary puppet countries.

Coastal security for example is about securing the sea zones around Japan and along the Chinese Coast, down to the South China Sea and the Gulf of Thailand. Secure the Oil Supply is a step on the way to fulfilling the manifest. Align China basically means creating Chinese puppets in China or conquering the country altogether. And so on.

dc_factiondynamics2_002.png

Faction Goal: Coastal Security through naval dominance


The Allies​
The Allies on the other hand have a slightly different set of goals:
They start with just a few, and then they can get a few more through focuses and/or events, but this is what it looks like relatively early on:

dc_factiondynamics2_003.png

Allied Goals​
  • Arteries of trade Focusing on asserting dominance over critical sea zones around the world
  • Guardians of peace - try to ensure world peace
  • Atomic Race - ensure that no one else gets an atomic bomb before we do
  • Imperial Glory - Keep key parts of the colonial Empires under control even in times of war.

Stalin vs. Trotsky​
We are looking at different themes for a Stalin-lead, Communist block versus one led by e.g. Trotsky. Where the Comintern under Stalin’s lead would be more focused on border security for the Soviet Union and its allies and securing key strategic locations, the Trotskyist one should be more about spreading the revolution - supporting communism in other countries and/or forcibly converting them.


The Chinese United Front​
The theme for the Chinese United Front is resistance to occupation and unity. Thus the manifest is about territorial integrity - uniting and liberating China. The goals connect to this in various ways; like trying to control the coastline for as long as possible, organizing the resistance to occupation, but also things like building the industrial capacity to be able to stand up against the Japanese - or any other aggressor.


On Feedback & Dev Corners​
This would be all for this time. Would love to hear your thoughts on what you think makes the historical factions different from each other. What other factions and goals would you like to see?

We hope you do like these glimpses into what we do. We at least appreciate the feedback we are getting, having gotten some really good feedback on factions, naval dominance, and coal/energy already.
 
  • 65Like
  • 17Love
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Having had some time to reflect on today's post, I have two big pieces of feedback on its content, and a few minor comments on details.

1. Goals vs Objectives
I think you can improve on the terms "Manifest" and "Faction Goals". In project management jargon, there is a clear distinction between "goals" and "objectives". A "goal" is a desired outcome: what you want as the end state. An "objective" is a measurable action or achievement that gets you towards one or more goals. In everyday English "goals" and "objectives" are interchangeable, so calling this feature "Faction Goals" was fine. But the project management industry makes the distinction because it helps to avoid confusion between the two things. A lot of people will know it even if they're not project managers (I've seen it used in several jobs). So which are we dealing with in this feature?

Faction Objectives
If you look at the items in the OP with this in mind, they are mostly objectives, not goals. Let's use "The North Atlantic" as a clear example. In the 1930s, Nazi leaders weren't giving Nuremburg speeches about wanting to control the North Atlantic. That wasn't one of their goals: a key desired outcome. But once the war started, winning control of the North Atlantic was a measurable achievement towards the goal of defeating the Allies, i.e. an objective. So I think it is better described as a Faction Objective.

Another clear-cut example is "Atomic Race". Not one of the Allies entered the War because gaining an atomic bomb was their desired outcome. But since a War was going on, it became a very useful way to defeat their enemies. Winning the atomic race was a measurable action towards their goal of defeating the Axis. Again, I think this is better described as a Faction Objective.

So I would rename the feature in today's Dev Diary as Faction Objectives, so that we are clear that the items should be measurable actions or achievements. The term is not used anywhere else in HoI4, so there won't be any confusion there.

Conceptual Confusion in the Comments
I think that making the Goals vs Objectives distinction then helps to clear up some conceptual confusion in the comments in this thread.

There have been proposals that "Against Communism" or "Against Democracy" should be on this list. When I first saw it, I thought this was a great idea, because the Axis did want to destroy Communism in particular. But in the project management framework, that was a desired outcome: a goal. It's what they wanted at the end of the war. But we all know that the Nazis were willing to work with the Communists in the interim and the Japanese were willing to accept the USSR's neutrality. I don't think "being against Communism" is a measurable action in HoI4 and so I don't think it belongs on the list.

Faction Goals
If today's feature is really discussing Faction Objectives, what are the faction's goals? In real life, the Axis had several goals, some of which are unmentionable, but destroying Communism was certainly one, as was establishing colonial empires in eastern Europe, China, and the Mediterranean littoral. The first faction Dynamics Dev Corner described this as the faction's "Manifest". This seems to be a phrase that has got lost in translation somewhere. The Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary defines manifest a s"a list of goods or passengers on a ship or an aircraft", which is certainly not what is meant here. My guess is that someone was actually thinking of manifesto, "a written statement in which a group of people explain their beliefs and aims". But that's still not exactly right, is it? I think that the Manifest should be renamed the Faction Goal. That's accurate English and helps players understand that it is the overall aim.

And while we're discussing the Faction Goal, I would note one thing in passing. Look back at the examples I have in my "Faction Objectives" section. In both those examples, I described the goal in the same way: defeating the Allies/Axis. And I think that makes sense because in HoI4, that is always the faction's goal once war has broken out. It is a simplification of real life, but it's pretty fundamental to the game. If the Comintern Faction has been destroyed and Reichskomissariat Ost established, that part of the game is over for the Axis. When you're thinking about the Faction Goal (=Manifest), it needs to work with that fundamental reality of the game's design.

2. Faction Objectives need to be conditional
My second big point is that I wonder whether Faction Objectives (what OP calls Faction Goals) need to be made conditional, probably using the traditional PDX trigger scripting. There are so many alt-history paths that both players and the AI can take through the NF trees. So many of the Faction Objectives in OP could stop making sense if certain paths are taken. Why would the Axis be trying to Secure North Africa if it is at war with Italy? Why would it be concerned with The North Atlantic if it's got the Royal Navy on its side, or at least neutral? Will Imperial Glory require protecting French colonies even if France isn't in the Allies? There are so many potential clashes between National Focus paths and Faction Objectives.

The OP raises the idea of the Stalinist Comintern and Trotskyite 4th International having very different Objectives. I really like the general idea that the USSR plays differently depending on who's in charge. But the Comintern sub-branch of the USSR's NF tree is open to both Stalinist and Trotskyite players/AIs, Depending on what NFs are or are not taken in that sub-branch, the strategic situation of the USSR's faction can be very different depending on whether it sees Germany and the US as friends or foes. I think it makes more sense to have a single Faction led by the USSR and add/remove Faction Objectives depending on which NFs are taken. So instead of having a very large list of pre-scripted factions, I think it would be better to have genuinely dynamic Factions based on NF choices.

The obvious worry with this is that increases complexity because there are so many possible paths, especially since DLCs are optional. But I think you are going to have that problem with pre-scripted factions anyway. E.g. Secure North Africa just not making sense because Italy is at war with the Axis. Dynamic Faction Objectives, conditional on NF choices, gives you the tool to actually deal with the resulting problems.

3. Minor Comments
Imperial Glory: In reality, the Allies were extremely willing to sacrifice colonies to protect their metropolitan homelands. That's why Singapore fell: the Royal Navy and RAF were kept in the Atlantic, Europe, and the Near East. I would rework this into something more specific, like keeping the rubber and oil of the Malay archipelago/East Indies.

Guardians of Peace: Hmm. You're right that Allied publics and government did not want a war, but I feel this is a bit vague to implement in the game. I would reframe it as as Appeasement-to-buy-time objective. Something like "don't enter a war with another faction until 1939".

Chinese United Front: The industrial capacity one is very important; the attempt to rebuild China's war effort in the interior wasn't very successful but it was a high priority for the Chinese. I would also suggest a Faction Objective about the Burma Road: the Chinese sent their very best divisions to try to save the British from defeat in Burma. I'm not sure defending the coastline makes sense; Chiang fought hard for Shanghai's factories, but sensibly made almost no effort to defend the rest of the coast.
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:
How will the faction continue to work (or not) when faction leader/all majors are taken out? Would be good to offer white peace/capitulation instead of half the world surrendering because the UK is taken out.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
This sounds very nice, but now I'd like to see more about non-historical/alternative/minor factions, like the Stresa Front, Italian League, Anti-Soviet Pact, Little Entente, Catholic Dominion, etc. If the wiki serves me right, there are 144 possible factions in the game right now. Some of them are very similar to each other, but still, I hope that those don't get left behind. Maybe introducing flavor to all 144 factions (plus whatever many more are introduced in the new DLC) at once is a little too much, but I hope that most of them get something unique about them, eventually.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe a way for us to put our own objectives to some generic factions, let's say as Spain you want to either reclaim the lands of the Spanish empire or ally the Latin American nations under your banner
Maybe as some Latin American nations, get rid of the USA and European colonies

Maybe some more generic ones like getting resources or controlling the region you are in
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I just can't get a League of Nations like faction out of my head, doing its best to preserve peace, imposing naval, army and air force restrictions, penalties for world tension spiking, mass volunteers during wars. (a little out of LON charter but w/e) the ideas are abound!
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
The Allies should have a choice between "War on the Fringes" versus "Storming the Fortress." These would help distinguish between the Churchill-led focus on fighting the Axis wherever the Axis had to stretch its supply lines (i.e., North Africa) versus the USA/USSR attitude of going directly for Berlin and bypassing the distant garrisons.


There should also be a Sadabat Pact faction for the Islamic nations in the Middle East aimed at keeping colonial empires & communism out. Historically, it didn't go much further than a pact of non-aggression, but this kept the Middle Eastern nations neutral in the early years of WW2. An expanded Sadabat Pact could improve defensive cooperation, boost diplomatic pressure to break European petroleum monopolies, and even enable border wars to regain territories directly owned by Britain & France (Syria, Kuwait, etc.).


For alt-history, a "Holy League" option for non-aligned European monarchies would be fun. This could have goals of defeating communism/fascism/democracy, replacing colonialism with collaboration governments, forming historical small kingdoms, fortifying urban provinces, and boosting population growth.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
JAYP303 said:
Please add more Chinese generals. 14 million troops fought for 7 years and there were only 7 generals and 5 field marshals??? How come Chile has 32 generals and Brazil has 18, even Ethiopia and Sweden has got more.
Click to expand...
I think they should specifically make a new patch or possibly dlc to add more generals in game for all countries. Everyone would like the idea.

Anyways I liked the new faction system, but I still think, amount of faction goals must be lot more than what you show here.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
What about OPEC, Islamic Brotherhood (led by Islamic Iran) and the regional alliances? Have their limits too? Because for OPEC it would be pointless if a country that has no oil joins in.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
The mostly-scripted but a little open HOI4 faction system is better than the HOI3 triangle where everyone was dragging USA, neutral Switzerland etc into their corner, but if there is no script or focus and ideology clashes there is a real lack of diplomatic options. The other factor is tension which has been around forever. Maybe it could have different values for different places, instead of one global tension.

It's good that allies have the joint nuclear program, which it always was, instead of a bunch of boutique nuclear programs. I mentioned the 'tube-alloys project' in some post before Gotterdammerung, that should be the genesis.
 
I am wondering about the generic focus tree countries. Seeing as they have a focus that allows them to make factions. What will there goals be? Is the though that they get generic strategic focuses or something regional? Do they possess the ability to decide their own focus where its a conquer, and they click an area, or trade and they click an area and it decides that's the focus? Im generally concerned because the developments team tends to complete ignore the generic focus tree and there have half a dozen or so updates and it's always ignored so I think this is another mechanic that the generic focus tree wont ever implement.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
About the goals and objectives of ideologies:
Communism (since the Russian revolution) wanted to overthrow capitalism and Democracy. Therefore the main goal or objective of Communism should be Against Democracy. Later Communism was also against Fascism, but that was not it's original or main goal, since many Communist theorists explained that Fascism was just another form of capitalism, just like Democracy was a form of capitalism.

Fascism was both agaist Communism and against Democracy. For Hitler Communism was the main enemy, but he was not the founder of Fascism, and from 1939 until 1941 he co-operated with Communism. Fascists wanted to replace Democracy and Communism with Fascism.

Democracy was against Communism already before Fascism existed. Later Democracy also opposed Fascism. However, the democratic countries did not try to actively overthrow Mussolini or Hitler before the WW2 started. That was unlike how the Democrats had acted against Communism: Democracies actively supported the White generals against the Communists during the Russian Civil War, trying to overthrow the Communists.

As a conclusion:
Democracy, Communism and Fascism have all the goal/objective to replace (or fight against) the two other ideologies.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Ok, I am new in commenting HOI4 diaries/corners. But I had some thoughts that personally I wish to be in the game (in some mod probably?).
All the countries are played in one style more or less. What is the difference in between fascists or communists? And they have very different view on politics and future of humankind. It should be implemented in mechanics. What do I mean?
1. Social industry produces workers, thus communism increases its presence in your country. You want to be industrialised country, but still be democracy? You have to handle it somehow.
2. Military industry gives boost to military economy which increases role of soldiers (and big manufacturers). Solders of the WW1 were the basement of fascists in Germany and Italy. If you play as Soviet Union and you want to prepare for a future war (you build military factories), you tend to become fascist. Don't like it? - do army purges. Before and after war (as it was historically).
3. Democracy is tired of wars. Some fascist country has to start war so that you fill scared. Than you can increase your military budget. Or you loose next elections. Your policy is to feed fascist country so that people in your country allow small increase of military budget just in case.
4. If you are fascist and you start the war, you literally cannot stop war. You have to declare war to another and another country. Because your top ruler are corrupted and incompetent. Your economy can survive only if you loot neighboring countries. It's stupid to attack USSR, but you ruin your military-based economy if you don't.
5. If you are communist you have catching up model of development. It means, you have investigated industry of rich countries and you can copy it. You can prepare planned economy. You know how many metallurgy factories you need, you know how many machine tools you need or how many physicist you have to prepare. You have 10+% grows of economy when you are much smaller than the leading capitalist country. When you at the same level, you just cannot develop anymore. Because you just cannot prepare plan for better economy. Then you have to either convert to democracy or pray for "stability". Maybe buffs/debuffs to construction building?
6. "Popularity" of fraction in the world. Before WW2 fascism didn't look as ugly as after it. So fascists can make some crime time-to-time decreasing opinion about themselves. Why? Because need to feed their growing military, which is always ugly.

I am not sure if these ideas are realisable, but I wish ideology would be not just historical information on the screen. It should reflect our (players) actions.

7. Fears of nations. It might be another spirit of nation giving some debuffs during war. Germany was scared of long two-fronts war. So they have to diplomatically save their east before attacking France in 1940. If Germany has two-front war, morale rapidly falls. France has to look for allies on the east. They historically chose Poland, because they thought Poland is stronger than USSR. Great Britain is scared of unlucky troop landing, so they prepare invasion carefully. In WW1 they landed in Ottoman Empire and lost 220 k troops at Gallipoli Campaign. Italy is scared they are not considered as a great power. They have to attack some african or any else country to proove they are european. Japan pretends they are only asian colonial power. Their greatest scare is some european country enters its wars in China or Korea. For example, if Soviet Union (European power) enters Manjuria, Japan should capitulate soon. Spain is scared that any foreign troops pass through its territory (Napoleonic injury). So each country has its goals in campaign, each one has its weak points.
8. Land doctrine should influence the campaign more dramatically. I am not sure how, but now everyone suggests choosing the second doctrine and that's it. About Soviet Union, I would say that after civil war they had doctrine suggesting always attacking. Like if you have your country splitted and you conquer some land at the price of some deads, you will recruit new soldiers (and food) at new lands. Initially they thought to bring fire of international revolution to all the country. They thought that they only need to declare war to capitalist country, the proletariat there would join Red Army. Invasion to Poland showed it was not true. So Soviets reinvestigated ew doctrine. I think, massive front was something creating during German invasion. But before that... Well, Russian Empire participated WW1, standing front. But after that civil war was completely different. It was mostly cavalry-mobile war. The most of apparatus in Soviet Union were from 1st cavalry corp, they knew pretty well mobile warfare. That's why so much attention was given to tanks. I am not sure how this can be represented in the game.

Sorry for long read. I like your new ideas on where the game should move. I hope you guys can make even greater game than it's now!
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Re: the theme of the Axis

I remember there was a pretty good lecture by Sarah Paine where she mentioned one of the core weaknesses of the Axis was there wasn't a core theme to the faction. They were a bunch of autocratic regimes that didn't really have compatible interests or goals. The Allies could said to be guardians of democracy, the Comintern had the profiligation of Communism, but the Axis powers were a much looser alliance of warlords who had some mutual enemies, but ultimately...

I'm not sure you can make compelling content out of not having a central theme however.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So how these new features will affect our ability join factions via invitation? Lets say I am playing as Mughal Empire, a non-aligned country at Asia but in a war with Allies same as Axis, will I be able to join Axis or game prevents me to do it because it is a faction focuses on Europe.

Because if it is the second, this means sucks because I can cap UK with Axis help as a minor/medium power but can not do it at least before US joins the war.

Also I hope this new faction mechanics allow us to peace out with US if we cap UK.
 
Lord Megatronus said:
So how these new features will affect our ability join factions via invitation? Lets say I am playing as Mughal Empire, a non-aligned country at Asia but in a war with Allies same as Axis, will I be able to join Axis or game prevents me to do it because it is a faction focuses on Europe.

Because if it is the second, this means sucks because I can cap UK with Axis help as a minor/medium power but can not do it at least before US joins the war.

Also I hope this new faction mechanics allow us to peace out with US if we cap UK.
Click to expand...
Did you read Part I Dev diary? There will be rules that will affect who can join factions. But your post does make me wonder how the AI will choose which rules to pick. The Nazi-dominated Axis should never be keen to welcome the Mughals because of all their racist lies. But some alt-history German factions fighting the Allies (e.g. Central Powers), with less racist baggage, might be a possibility.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back