• 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.

HoI 4 - Dev Diary: America Rework

Hello, and welcome back to another dev diary! Today we are going to talk about Freedom. Freedom from Fear. Freedom from Want. Freedom from having to vote for a presidential candidate every four years.


The vanilla US focus tree offered some interesting alternate-history scenarios, but if you wanted to play historical, you pretty much sat around doing very little until the war started. Part of this is the fundamental design problem of the US in a historical grand-strategy game: if we allow the US to freely enter the war when it has even a fraction of its historical economy, the Axis never makes it into Paris and the war ends in 1940. If we restrict the US from entering the war freely until its historical date, the US player sits around until late 1941 doing very little (there is a reason why my usual go-to scenario in HoI2 and HoI3 was “Play France until you lose, then switch to the US”).


usa_focus_devdiary.jpg



So one of the goals we had for this rework was to give the player a bit more stuff to actually do during the lead-up to the war. Making the path out of the depression a little more involved was an obvious place to start. Instead of a single national spirit, it is now three levels that give a smoother curve out of the depression. But instead of just taking three focuses in a row to do what could previously be done in one, we wanted the player to have to work a lot more to get out of the depression.


Enter the script-based Congress Mechanic. The Congress mechanic is - for now - unique to the US and simulates the shifting majorities in both houses of Congress. It ties into a lot of things that we will get into in a bit. But on a fundamental level, taking the focuses that reduce the penalties from the great depression will require you to have a majority in both houses, but will also reduce your support once you have taken it to simulate members of Congress who voted for the proposal being unwilling to support you further without getting something in return.


picture_us_congress.JPG



You can gain and lose support from random events as well as midterm and presidential elections. Generally speaking, going with the incumbent means you are more likely to lose support in Congress in the election, and if the situation is particularly dire, going with the challenger will flip support and opposition. Beyond this, a number of decisions allow you to gain support in congress, from simple lobbying to bribing members of Congress by investing in their constituencies to just regularly bribing them.


picture_us_build_factory.JPG



Besides getting out of the depression, you’ll also need to get Congress to sign off on the Selective Service Act, which is the gatekeeper focus of the army modernization branch, and the Two Ocean Navy Act, which is the gatekeeper focus for the naval branch. The amount of support you need depends on your war support (in general, you can assume that every focus with “Act” somewhere in its title ties into the Congress mechanic).


Another aspect we wanted to add was to give the US player a choice to become more active in the world earlier. As I said above, that comes with host of issues. We want it to be a viable option, but not a no-brainer. This means that there will be a number of restrictions in the “Limited Intervention” branch. First, you’ll have to have enough support in Congress to take the focus (and a lack of war support means that quite a few member of Congress will break ranks over it). Afterwards, you will have to choose between focusing your efforts on preparing to intervene in Europe or in Asia. Taking either of these focuses unlocks a number of decisions to try and build public support for an intervention. Many of these decisions are tied to events around the world - here the US is protesting the Anschluss.


picture_us_anschluss.JPG



However, there is only a small window to utilize these events. Each decision adds something that is internally called an “intervention strike” as in “three strikes and you’re out”, except in this case it’s “three strikes and we start bombing”. A generic decision allows to build support against a target if they do not have specific decisions associated with them. Finally, once a country has two strikes against them, you can petition congress to sanction an intervention, which will again require significant support (it is easier to gain a wargoal against a country that is at war, and easier still if they are in an aggressive war).


This will likely make it harder for you to pursue your other goals - so if you want to intervene in Europe on behalf of the Allies, you will most likely have to forego economic reforms, at least for a while.


The intervention mandates are also used to allow the US to intervene in the Americas if someone violates the Monroe doctrine.


Intervention in general is something you can prepare a lot better now by using war plans. Completing the focuses unlocks a decision to execute the corresponding war plan and gain a temporary bonus against a country, along with some other temporary bonuses.


us_picture_war_plan.jpg



Of course, by this point a statistical majority of you might wonder why you even bother with all this busy-work, bribing senators, cutting deals with representatives, when there is a world to be won. As promised, we also wanted to add proper alternate ideology branches for the US. As we said many months ago in the Dev Diary about South Africa, we also look to try and open up new areas of the map for warfare, to allow you to fight in different areas than trudging across the same old parts of Europe.


So we wanted to have a nice big Civil War in the US. We want tank battles south of Chicago. Naval landings in Florida. A brutal slog across the Rocky Mountains. So we decided to not just put in one civil war but two! That’s a whole 100% MORE CIVIL WAR!


You’ll have to fight a civil war in either of the alternate ideology branches. For the curious: the branches straight down from the WPA and Adjusted Compensation Act are democratic ideology branches and will be part of the free update, the branches starting with Suspend the Prosecution and America First will be part of the DLC.


In the left branch, appropriately enough, you soften up your stance towards the communists. You can do this even if you don’t intend to go fully communist, as it opens up new ways of gaining support in Congress. If you do decide to be more radical, you can desegregate the American society, which will trigger protests from the usual suspects. The protests by themselves don’t do anything, but if you decide to push harder towards communism, the protests will intensify and eventually spill over. The Unions Representation Act is another such trigger that will cause protests.


Picture_us_communists_protests.JPG



Before the civil war breaks out, there is a “Point of No Return” after which it is merely a question of time until hostilities start. In the time between the Point of No Return and the actual start of the war, you’ll get a number of events telling you how the situation develops. These events have actual effects on how your position is like at the start of the war.


For example, if an event tells you that a state has mobilized the national guard, the revolter gets a fully-equipped and quite capable division when the war starts. These events aren’t intended to make the difference between winning and losing but to give the war a bit more flavor.


Once the war starts in the communist branch, it is not quite like a regular civil war. Instead of the country and the military splitting in half, it spawns a new tag (CSA). This allows us to do a few things, like removing CSA territories as cores for the US (which means that they, for example, create resistance when conquered into). Depending on how far down you’ve gone in the communist branch, a part of the country might also declare its neutrality during the war. You can still interact with this part through decisions, but so can the other side.


picture_us_purchase_weapons.JPG



Where in other countries, a civil war is something we must be very careful with to ensure that the country is not completely crippled by the time the real war starts, here, we want ACWII to be “the war” the US gets into and which merges into the greater World War. So there are limited objectives for you after you have won the American Theater of World War II, but you can push decolonization in Asia and intervene in the Chinese Civil War, while also working to reintegrate the breakaway states.


The Civil War in the fascist branch works along similar lines. You also get a branch leading down from America First that you can use even if you don’t want to go full fascist - a sort of flirting with fascism, allowing you, for example, to investigate the opposition through the House Committee of Un-American Activities. The Voter Registration Act ensures a comfortable majority in every election, but triggers a wave of protests.


If you decide to push even further and publicly ally with the Silver Legion, you will trigger additional protests that put the country on the road to civil war. Like in the communist branch, a number of events determine what the starting position is, but the roles are reversed. Where in the communist branch, a part of the country tries to break away, in the fascist branch the country revolts against your leadership and tries to oust you from power, forcing you to fall back into a powerbase you set up in advance (you set up a powerbase in advance, right?). Parts of the country will declare in support or in opposition, leading to different front lines.


With much of the professional military on the other side, you’ll have to rely on hastily-raised militias to hold the line until you can get back on your feet. You might have to cut some deals and appeal to the locals to get them to accept that you are on their side.


picture_us_honor_confederacy.JPG



Once you have won that war, you are left with a US that is now safely fascist, which means that you are ideally poised to conquer the rest of the world. So we decided we might as well give you the focus tree to do just that. The War Powers Act lessens the stability impact of being in a war, and you can take your first steps abroad as you politely ask Canada to give you the territory between you and the Alaskan border (the event may or may not be called “Vancouver Or War!”) and politely ask Cuba to please stop being independent.


You continue in this fashion until at last you demand global hegemony and give all other majors an ultimatum to either become puppets or go to war. Along the way, you will most likely have gobbled up all the small countries that otherwise make conquering the world such a pain.


That is all for today. Next week we will be back with another look into the naval side of things.



Rejected Titles:

You will want fries with this focus tree

Making the world safe for fascism

Josh Lyman Simulator 2018

All focus trees are bigger in Texas

Communism is the right of all sentient beings

While writing this dev diary a bald eagle sat down outside the window and cried. True story.

My favourite state borders are Colorado’s

My google search history now makes me unemployable in most of the US

Fight them over here so we don’t have to fight them over there

This dev diary may contain trace amounts of political commentary

There was supposed to be a monarchist path but the Americans in the office rebelled and threw away all the tea

Team America saves the day

“Three strikes and we start bombing” would dramatically improve Baseball as a sport

https://twitter.com/alflandonlover gets the love he deserves

Actually rejected title: Make America <literally anything> Again

“Five score and two days ago our game director brought forth, upon this world, a new DLC announcement, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all gamers like American Civil Wars.”
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
@podcat @Archangel85
It would be pretty useful to have an American on the dev team with a BA or MA in American history, specifically the 1930's. Maybe even get some input from established academics? I'd recommend maybe shooting an email to Professor Glen Jeansonne. I took almost took a course of his on 1930's America and he has written a few books on the far-right during that period. Shoot me a message if this sounds worth pursuing.

A big part of the issue here is resources - to have someone for every significant topic with an appropriate qualification on the dev team (but if they have that qualification, odds are they're probably, at least not initially, a whole lot of help when it comes to actual developing - and they may also have very little interest in it) then you'd have a very big dev team. That approach would require a similar individual for each of the majors (all needing to speak English of course, which is the language spoken in the PDS offices), as well as appropriate specialists on the trade, air, land and sea warfare.

While I think it would be wonderful if PDS had the resources to have a dedicated research team of appropriately qualified people that were also well-enough versed in game development that their suggestions wouldn't be impractical, I imagine this would be difficult to achieve in practice even if the resources were available, which I suspect they aren't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are likely to be more Americans on the forums, relative to most other countries, because America is by far the largest English-speaking country - so there'll be a greater sensitivity to details here than there might be, for example, for naval warfare. This doubles-down in the case of the US because of the current highly partisan angle on politics, such that many commentators are coming from a far-from-unbiased position, making sifting the wheat from the chaff doubly difficult.
 
wow did america really need those 10% buffs against Canada?
Yes. Canada is full of [Reactionaries/Imperialists/Oppressed Peoples Yearning to be Free/Dark Souls/Take Your Pick]

UP WITH THE STARS!
DOWN WITH THE LEAF!
 
Will it be possible for the USA to gain a focus that would allow for them to annex Greenland? as they historically offered Denmark 100 Million Dollars for Greenland.
 
Last edited:
A big part of the issue here is resources - to have someone for every significant topic with an appropriate qualification on the dev team (but if they have that qualification, odds are they're probably, at least not initially, a whole lot of help when it comes to actual developing - and they may also have very little interest in it) then you'd have a very big dev team. That approach would require a similar individual for each of the majors (all needing to speak English of course, which is the language spoken in the PDS offices), as well as appropriate specialists on the trade, air, land and sea warfare.

While I think it would be wonderful if PDS had the resources to have a dedicated research team of appropriately qualified people that were also well-enough versed in game development that their suggestions wouldn't be impractical, I imagine this would be difficult to achieve in practice even if the resources were available, which I suspect they aren't.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are likely to be more Americans on the forums, relative to most other countries, because America is by far the largest English-speaking country - so there'll be a greater sensitivity to details here than there might be, for example, for naval warfare. This doubles-down in the case of the US because of the current highly partisan angle on politics, such that many commentators are coming from a far-from-unbiased position, making sifting the wheat from the chaff doubly difficult.
My idea was more that they could shoot an email to Professor Glen Jeansonne with a line like, "How can we make this this plausible, how can we make southern nationalism and fascism work together?" I know they don't have the money or resources to hire historical experts. Also academics might not really get the compromise you have to make between historical accuracy and gameplay. Still it's a suggestion to make content plausible yet fun.
 
My idea was more that they could shoot an email to Professor Glen Jeansonne with a line like, "How can we make this this plausible, how can we make southern nationalism and fascism work together?" I know they don't have the money or resources to hire historical experts. Also academics might not really get the compromise you have to make between historical accuracy and gameplay. Still it's a suggestion to make content plausible yet fun.

I suspect it'd be a bit more complicated than that. Even chatting with other modders about this or that point of history, it gets complicated very fast, and gets pretty time consuming. There's a fair chance that even if a Professor wanted to get involved with game development, that they might want something for it, and there'd need to be time and effort in building up and then maintaining relationships with various academics/experts to make this viable.

A 'safer' approach might be to set up a 'forum research support team' - sort of like betas, but 'research only', which with a bit of luck would provide enough expertise to cover off most issues. However, even in this, there'd be issues with many things being quite contentious (I'm no expert on US politics of the period, but I have noticed that a number of the complaints are by no means consistent with each other). It may even be easiest to keep things like they are now, and let things 'work themselves out' on the forum?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "plausible but fun" - and I'm very much of the view that plausibility = immersion which is a part of gameplay. I'm just not sure how feasible it would be to start shooting emails off to academics, and suspect it might be a fair bit more complicated than it sounds at first glance - but as always, may well be wrong :).
 
@Archangel85 I'm reserving judgement for the moment, but allow me to express some very deep concerns about the fascist branch (in particular, the focuses after Ally with the Silver Shirts). I don't see what privatization and de-regulation have to do with fascism. In particular, privatizing the TVA, since advocacy against the TVA was what more or less launched Ronald Reagan's political career, and was a stance of Barry Goldwater, neither of whom were remotely fascist in their leanings.

I also have concerns regarding the entire concept of effectively gating the fascism path behind what looks to be a general opposition to the New Deal, given that, at the time, one of the criticisms of the New Deal itself was that it resembled fascism a little too much (a less hyperbolic sounding criticism at the time, before the democracies were actively fighting the fascist countries).

I really much agree with this point here. Stating that deregulation and privatisation are essentially coterminous with fascism is very disingenuous and lends credence to the theory that, for example, libertarianism is "soft fascism", when some libertarians advocate for more privatisation and a return the gold standard. To equate an opposition to the New Deal programmes as part of the fascist path, it puts it into a "good versus bad" category which is ideologically murky at best. Some people opposed New Deal because they considered it too fascist, or too socialist, and argued against excessive government influence and intervention in things like the economy and public programmes. It's quite concerning to me as it seems very ideologically biased against any sort of political belief that is not socially liberal/democratic.

With that said, this is an interesting update. I will reserve my final judgement, but I do indeed express concerns at how this is laid out and feels ideologically driven.
 
I suspect it'd be a bit more complicated than that. Even chatting with other modders about this or that point of history, it gets complicated very fast, and gets pretty time consuming. There's a fair chance that even if a Professor wanted to get involved with game development, that they might want something for it, and there'd need to be time and effort in building up and then maintaining relationships with various academics/experts to make this viable.

A 'safer' approach might be to set up a 'forum research support team' - sort of like betas, but 'research only', which with a bit of luck would provide enough expertise to cover off most issues. However, even in this, there'd be issues with many things being quite contentious (I'm no expert on US politics of the period, but I have noticed that a number of the complaints are by no means consistent with each other). It may even be easiest to keep things like they are now, and let things 'work themselves out' on the forum?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for "plausible but fun" - and I'm very much of the view that plausibility = immersion which is a part of gameplay. I'm just not sure how feasible it would be to start shooting emails off to academics, and suspect it might be a fair bit more complicated than it sounds at first glance - but as always, may well be wrong :).
You do have a point, I was just hoping to make a positive change, and make the tree a little better. I like your idea of research support, as long as what is submitted can be cited. But that's more resources that might not be available. I think a good solution would to be have a dev diary on how research is conducted and how its incorporated into gameplay. At least that would get communication flowing.
 
Last edited:
As a southern Retired Army Officer, I do take offense at folks outside the US who think we would be disloyal, violate our oath to the constitution and lead some sort of violent fascist revolt. We americans love our elections. We have peacefully changed our government for the good or the worse every two years since 1792. During the American civil war, each side elected their respective governments. President Lincoln ran for a second term during that same period. US commissioned officers in all branches pride themselves upon being as apolitical as possible. Also we like our pensions; we like that money to keep on coming in so leading a revolution that would stop that flow is just unheard of.

I find the tree to be very flawed and unrealistic. @podcat, @Archangel85 please pay attention to @vyshan's post.

Secondly, I still find the tree to be lacking in Naval Air support. I hope you change the tech trees and remove the dependence of carrier based aircraft on land aircraft. That is just wrong. The US Navy had its own naval air research and development department totally separate from the army's R and D efforts. That part of the tree I find to be totally wrong footed. I strongly recommend more deeper research into what actually took place rather than trying to shoe horn things into your perceived simulation fits all.
 
As a southern Retired Army Officer, I do take offense at folks outside the US who think we would be disloyal, violate our oath to the constitution and lead some sort of violent fascist revolt. We americans love our elections. We have peacefully changed our government for the good or the worse every two years since 1792. During the American civil war, each side elected their respective governments. President Lincoln ran for a second term during that same period. US commissioned officers in all branches pride themselves upon being as apolitical as possible. Also we like our pensions; we like that money to keep on coming in so leading a revolution that would stop that flow is just unheard of.

I find the tree to be very flawed and unrealistic. @podcat, @Archangel85 please pay attention to @vyshan's post.

Secondly, I still find the tree to be lacking in Naval Air support. I hope you change the tech trees and remove the dependence of carrier based aircraft on land aircraft. That is just wrong. The US Navy had its own naval air research and development department totally separate from the army's R and D efforts. That part of the tree I find to be totally wrong footed. I strongly recommend more deeper research into what actually took place rather than trying to shoe horn things into your perceived simulation fits all.
Also the South was the most pro-allied and interventionist region in the U.S. Regions like mine, the Mid-West is highly German, and there was a German-American Bund Camp a half hour away from my home city. I really want to support you but at the same time, I don't see how you can re-incorporate the Civil War into this game. It has to be marketing in response to the popularity of KaiserReich.

I suppose this has to do with my post on trying to stick to research by academics and trying to get it to work with gameplay, but I'd trust this Lieutenant knows his stuff when it comes to research and doctrine. Simplification for gameplay's sake isn't always the best approach. Your audience is definitely not casual, and they spend the money and want to continue spending. Stick with them.
 
Last edited:
Shouldn't the focus for warplan scarlet garnet have both the Australian and New Zealand flags. I get New Zealand's not important enough to get it's own focus but don't forget us entirely
 
Last edited:
Focus trees in general should go poof. When you factor in the Congress Mechanic and decisions then one could handle a lot of this through events and decisions
The problem with an events and decisions based system is that players can't plan ahead a good path due to the randomness inherent in events and the fact that decisions of other nations can't be seen. Removing focus trees is a step backwards in clarity and makes it less user friendly.
It's one of the things I don't like about many mods that they make it very event driven, which means I cannot plan out a coherent plan for my playthrough (without looking in the event files and finding event chains).
 
Also if you do decide to give the CSA it's own Focus tree or make them playable you could connect them to one of the U.K. focus tree. Maybe the Non-Aligned pathway as a way to cripple the USA. If not that you could add some decisions for both to trade weapons and such. Just throwing out some ideas...
 
@Archangel85 I'm reserving judgement for the moment, but allow me to express some very deep concerns about the fascist branch (in particular, the focuses after Ally with the Silver Shirts). I don't see what privatization and de-regulation have to do with fascism. In particular, privatizing the TVA, since advocacy against the TVA was what more or less launched Ronald Reagan's political career, and was a stance of Barry Goldwater, neither of whom were remotely fascist in their leanings.

I also have concerns regarding the entire concept of effectively gating the fascism path behind what looks to be a general opposition to the New Deal, given that, at the time, one of the criticisms of the New Deal itself was that it resembled fascism a little too much (a less hyperbolic sounding criticism at the time, before the democracies were actively fighting the fascist countries).
Privatization was originally coined to describe Nazi Germany's practices of selling off government-run enterprises. It's hardly out of place in a fascist branch of a focus tree.