• 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.
Hello, and welcome back to the next DevDiary for the upcoming DLC! Today, we will talk a bit about how we are going to represent Vichy and Free France during the war.

Vichy France is perhaps the best example for what I like to call “trying to fit a history-shaped peg through a mechanics-shaped hole”. They were a puppet state of Germany by any reasonable metric - except they never formally joined the war. They weren’t at war with the Allies - and yet there were several battles between Allied and Vichy forces in Syria, Madagascar and most famously Dakar and during Operation Torch. Even after the battles were fought, however, Vichy France did not join the war, and the Vichy French troops engaged there were usually repatriated by the Allies after operations were over.

Currently, the division between Vichy France and Free France is handled by creating a civil war in France and Germany puppeting the fascist side. This automatically solves a number of issues that come with the sandbox nature of the game, such as dividing the military the player built instead of relying on pre-scripted OoBs, making sure both sides start with the same technology base and so on. It does, however, immediately put Vichy into war with Free France and (usually), by extension, the Allies.

This is somewhat accurate in the sense that there were engagements between Allies and Vichy France and Vichy France lost territory in those engagements. But there was never a formal state of war between Vichy France and the Allies, and the total contribution of Vichy French forces to the war in Russia amounted to a single regiment of volunteers. In fact, in a lot of ways, the Allies preferred Vichy France to de Gaulle, despite de Gaulle’s winning personality and great people skills.

To really do this situation justice, we decided to make special focus trees to handle it.

My design goals were to have

  • A way to separate France into a government-in-exile and a collaborating government in metropolitan France that did not require a gigantic ramshackle script system to handle all the edge cases

  • A Vichy France that remains neutral in the war for at least some time

  • A way for Vichy to become the “legitimate” France and even potentially join the Allies

  • A way to have Free France gain territories that were assigned to Vichy France when the whole thing was created, without bringing them into the war

Thankfully, we now have the ability to essentially run the civil war creation effect without actually creating a civil war. This does split the country, reassign the military, split the stockpiles, give both sides the right technologies and so on and so forth. This makes the whole process a lot less painful and reduces the number of edge cases, because as far as the game is concerned, Free France and Vichy France both qualify as France under the right conditions.

Screenshot_51.jpg


Another small change is that if you manage to get war support above 70%, a third option appears in the event about deciding between asking for an armistice or creating the Franco-British Union, allowing you to continue the fight. If you decide to surrender, the country is split between Vichy France and Free France, much as you are used to. Most overseas territories will initially go to Vichy France, as was historical, with Free France holding onto a few scattered island possessions. Both countries load a separate focus tree.

Free France has two main storylines to follow. On the one hand, you’ll want to recover territories that are held by Vichy. For the purpose of making things more manageable, the French colonial holdings are separated into a number of larger areas instead of being separated by modern national or period-appropriate administrative borders. These areas are: Syria, North Africa, West Africa, Central Africa, Madagascar, and Indochina.

free_france.jpg


Appealing to them directly through the focus has a chance to flip a few of them to your side, but the rest will have to converted by more direct means. One option is to promise the territory independence after the war, which has a chance to convert the territories and reduces resistance/increases compliance in the affected areas for the duration of the war. However, once the war is over, these areas will demand that you honor your commitment and let them go. If you refuse, you will quickly find yourself with a rather upset population resisting your administration, like France did historically in Indochina.

Option two is to intervene militarily, in areas that you have access too. This takes the form of the border wars, allowing you (or, more likely, your allies) to take over territories from Vichy France without going into a full-blown war. Not all areas can be taken over by border wars - Madagascar doesn’t border any other state from which an intervention could be launched, so you’ll have to find a different way.

Screenshot_54.jpg


The other large branch for Free France is establishing and improving the resistance working in France. Through a number of focuses, you can boost resistance targets all across occupied France and turn the entire area into a hotbed of resistance - even if you do have to make some unlikely alliances between Communists and Industrialists.

Once you have recovered the homeland and taken back Paris, you can form the Provisional Government, which reloads the original French focus tree. Should Vichy France still exist by this point without being at war with you, you get a decision to demand reunification.

vichy_france.jpg


On the opposite side, the biggest change is that Vichy France is no longer considered to be a puppet of Germany. Puppets are heavily weighted towards joining their master’s faction and towards following a call to arms if in a faction. I briefly considered making a special puppet level that could refuse a call to arms and set a number of scripted AI strategies to make it do so, but decided that a one-off puppet level was easily as much of a hack solution than just not having Vichy be a puppet in the first place and handle its relationship with Germany through other ways.

As Vichy France, your big task is to complete the “National Revolution” to transform French society away from the republicanism that has brought them to this point. At the same time, you will want to rebuild the military and, of course, try to hold onto your colonial empire. In the moment of surrender, you are saddled with a massive 20% consumer goods penalty that represents the occupation costs levied on France by the Germans.

Screenshot_53.jpg


To reduce these costs, you can strike a number of deals with the Germans, starting with giving them basing rights (historically done to help German support for an uprising in Iraq), later you can reduce your penalties further by offering to produce aircraft parts for the Germans (reducing production cost for German planes) and sending workers to Germany (giving them a production bonus).

Once you have finished the National Revolution, you can ask for Germany to return your occupied territories, and, should they agree, you join the Axis and reload the original focus tree with the branch towards the fascist alliance with Germany unlocked. If Germany refuses, you can then attempt to reconcile with the Free French, unify and re-join the war on the allied side if de Gaulle agrees (loading the original focus tree with the right-wing democratic branch unlocked), or you can decide to regain your honor by yourself and declare war directly, in which case you load the original focus tree with the branch towards the Latin Entente unlocked.

Of course, the Case Anton decision for Germany remains, so you might want to make very sure that you hold onto North Africa, lest Germany decides that you can’t be trusted.

That is all for today. Next week we will talk about some other changes coming in 1.8 Husky.
 
I'm hoping that we get the ability to go against the Navy norm of the time. The most nation was going for Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers or Submarines focus. But France has the interesting option of going for Submarine Cruiser focuses. The Surcouf had a Cruiser level type of cannon. I think it would be interesting if we got a three-way Naval tree for France. One focusing on Submarines; The second would focus on heavy ships like Battleships and Aircraft Carriers. While the third goes for Cruiser submarine warfare.

I imagine that going down the Submarine like would have focused that penalizes Submarine output but gain various bonuses.

The BB's and CV'S I imagine would be focused on more ships such as Dunkerque that are more Battlecruiser.

The Cruiser Submarines I imagine would have a split between more Cruiser type armaments while the other split would be focused on Battleship power. The Cruiser section would be smaller options with stealth orientation while the Battleship would be focused on giant guns and floatplanes. Being less stealthy then the Cruiser type CS. You'de also get the ability to start scrapping certain parts of your fleet to increase the production of the CS. You could start scrapping Battleships and use the parts to boost your Battleship CS or start scrapping you Cruisers to increase the Cruiser type CS.

I'd say give the option for FLOATPLANE CRUISER SUBMARINE CV'S!!! But that seems more far fetched than anything. I was just making ideas of things that could be done to the Naval section so it's not the same as all the other nations and for it to have some flavor.
 
I'm hoping that we get the ability to go against the Navy norm of the time. The most nation was going for Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers or Submarines focus. But France has the interesting option of going for Submarine Cruiser focuses. The Surcouf had a Cruiser level type of cannon. I think it would be interesting if we got a three-way Naval tree for France. One focusing on Submarines; The second would focus on heavy ships like Battleships and Aircraft Carriers. While the third goes for Cruiser submarine warfare.
Technically (from a historical perspective), for France to build additional Surcouf type submarines they would have to leave the Naval Treaties because no nation was allowed to A) build submarines over 2000-tons and (USA/UK/Japan were allowed to keep (but not build) 3 each, France 1) B) build submarines with guns larger than 6.1-inches (155mm) (France was allowed to keep the Surcouf).
I'd say give the option for FLOATPLANE CRUISER SUBMARINE CV'S!!! But that seems more far fetched than anything. I was just making ideas of things that could be done to the Naval section so it's not the same as all the other nations and for it to have some flavor.
The largest SS/CV built carried what, 3 barely capable floatplanes? Not exactly an overwhelming air group. Even if all 18 planned Sentoku type submarines had been built and concentrated they would have had a combined air group of only 54 planes (with almost no air-to-air capability, only a single 13mm Type 2 MG) capable of carrying 1 torpedo OR 2x250kg bombs OR 1x850kg bomb.
 
I'm hoping that we get the ability to go against the Navy norm of the time. The most nation was going for Aircraft Carriers, Battleships, Cruisers or Submarines focus. But France has the interesting option of going for Submarine Cruiser focuses. The Surcouf had a Cruiser level type of cannon. I think it would be interesting if we got a three-way Naval tree for France. One focusing on Submarines; The second would focus on heavy ships like Battleships and Aircraft Carriers. While the third goes for Cruiser submarine warfare.

I imagine that going down the Submarine like would have focused that penalizes Submarine output but gain various bonuses.

The BB's and CV'S I imagine would be focused on more ships such as Dunkerque that are more Battlecruiser.

The Cruiser Submarines I imagine would have a split between more Cruiser type armaments while the other split would be focused on Battleship power. The Cruiser section would be smaller options with stealth orientation while the Battleship would be focused on giant guns and floatplanes. Being less stealthy then the Cruiser type CS. You'de also get the ability to start scrapping certain parts of your fleet to increase the production of the CS. You could start scrapping Battleships and use the parts to boost your Battleship CS or start scrapping you Cruisers to increase the Cruiser type CS.

I'd say give the option for FLOATPLANE CRUISER SUBMARINE CV'S!!! But that seems more far fetched than anything. I was just making ideas of things that could be done to the Naval section so it's not the same as all the other nations and for it to have some flavor.

I don't think adding the Surcouf would be a good idea. mostly because of its very limited use.

IN terms of naval tree, the game could offer some interesting choices. French interwar naval planning was essentially a continuation of the so called "jeune école". Which emphasized speed over armor and generally saw the use of smaller ships over larger ones.

So, the French should have a Carrier leg, which emphasizes the use of carriers and big battleships, and a special Jeune Ecolé leg, which is heavily geared towards battlecruisers and very speedy, heavily armed destroyers.

The Italians, likewise, faced a similar problem, and could easily have 3 seperate trees for their navy. IF people are interested, i could make a nice little overview of such a tree.
 
I don't think adding the Surcouf would be a good idea. mostly because of its very limited use.

IN terms of naval tree, the game could offer some interesting choices. French interwar naval planning was essentially a continuation of the so called "jeune école". Which emphasized speed over armor and generally saw the use of smaller ships over larger ones.

So, the French should have a Carrier leg, which emphasizes the use of carriers and big battleships, and a special Jeune Ecolé leg, which is heavily geared towards battlecruisers and very speedy, heavily armed destroyers.

The Italians, likewise, faced a similar problem, and could easily have 3 seperate trees for their navy. IF people are interested, i could make a nice little overview of such a tree.
I would like that. I am not much of a navy person. I do like the Pacific theater and am mostly an IJN and USN enthusiast. I barely know much of allied fleets except USN
 
I don't think adding the Surcouf would be a good idea. mostly because of its very limited use.

IN terms of naval tree, the game could offer some interesting choices. French interwar naval planning was essentially a continuation of the so called "jeune école". Which emphasized speed over armor and generally saw the use of smaller ships over larger ones.

So, the French should have a Carrier leg, which emphasizes the use of carriers and big battleships, and a special Jeune Ecolé leg, which is heavily geared towards battlecruisers and very speedy, heavily armed destroyers.

The Italians, likewise, faced a similar problem, and could easily have 3 seperate trees for their navy. IF people are interested, i could make a nice little overview of such a tree.
Please do!
 
Anyone else not excited in the least bit?
What's the point in investing so much effort into Vichy and Free France which are likely to break the balance unless you're being historical and then it becomes moot.

Vichy only existed for two years.
Meanwhile we're stuck with a bland Soviet Union and interesting nations like Finland are void of a focus tree.

I somehow get the feeling that someone is going for a cheap focus tree inflation. Vichy and Free are small trees and are likely intended to artificially bloat the content to justify the price.

I know this sounds negative, but it's not meant to be overly critical. I'll buy it either way and will soon pass the 2,000 hour mark.
Just wish, we'd finally get a real Barbarossa like the mods do with grand land offensives, decisions and winter.
 
Vichy only existed for two years.
Meanwhile we're stuck with a bland Soviet Union and interesting nations like Finland are void of a focus tree.

I somehow get the feeling that someone is going for a cheap focus tree inflation. Vichy and Free are small trees and are likely intended to artificially bloat the content to justify the price.

First 99% of the historical content so fat of the majors has come in the free patch, so I don't see why they would ask money for Vichy and Free France.

Now, Podcat clearly said that while the team wanted to do a Soviet Rework it would require mechanics that are outside the scope of this patch/DLC, so would you prefer a improved Soviet Focus Tree right now that it's still clearly lacking or a far better focus tree more into the future?
 
First 99% of the historical content so fat of the majors has come in the free patch, so I don't see why they would ask money for Vichy and Free France.

Now, Podcat clearly said that while the team wanted to do a Soviet Rework it would require mechanics that are outside the scope of this patch/DLC, so would you prefer a improved Soviet Focus Tree right now that it's still clearly lacking or a far better focus tree more into the future?

It's not a binary choice though.
There's option c) as well:
Instead of a small DLC now, why not make this one a major expansion with a development time of 6 months?

I might have missed it, but who forces PDS to release a minor DLC before the major Soviet one?
 
Instead of a small DLC now, why not make this one a major expansion with a development time of 6 months?

I might have missed it, but who forces PDS to release a minor DLC before the major Soviet one?

What makes you think this will be a small DLC?

The fact that France is getting reworked (who is also a major nation) makes me believe that devs will stick to their trend by having reworks of 2 majors and giving focus trees to countries that don't currently have them, which is what they started doing since WTT. France is not only getting expanded but it's also going to receive 2 small trees based upon what Vichy and Free France represented, Italy fits into that part aswell because they were also a country during the WW2 that split where one side supported the Axis and other the Allies.

Add that France has a lot of interactions with both Italy and Spain and is even allowed to intervene into Spanish civil war + with the Gibraltar map change it only makes me believe that both Italy and Spain wll be part of the expansion.
 
Instead of a small DLC now, why not make this one a major expansion with a development time of 6 months?

We don't know if it's going to be a small DLC, but anyway they have to distribute the content and working hours in a sane schedule.

I would have loved to see the AIR and Naval rework in a single patch instead of waiting for a year between them but that would have most likely resulted in a worse product and a buggy mess in the free patch.

I may not agree about all their priorities but in the end most of the topic in the to do list of Podcat are going to be done.
 
We don't know if it's going to be a small DLC, but anyway they have to distribute the content and working hours in a sane schedule.

I would have loved to see the AIR and Naval rework in a single patch instead of waiting for a year between them but that would have most likely resulted in a worse product and a buggy mess in the free patch.

I may not agree about all their priorities but in the end most of the topic in the to do list of Podcat are going to be done.



I think the next dlc will be to imitate in content the previous two that were MTG and WTT and I agree that all roadmap suggestions will be made sooner and later and would surely add more things as they finish with some planned things
 
What's the point in investing so much effort into Vichy and Free France which are likely to break the balance unless you're being historical and then it becomes moot.

I'm not sure if I follow your point about it moot if it's historical. Currently, Vichy's behaviour is anything but historical - while the GER/SOV balance is an ongoing challenge, at the end of the day, what GER and SOV do is more-or-less appropriate. What Vichy does is completely out-of-whack, which impacts on the balance of naval strength, the ownership of French North Africa, and often results in German and Italian troops being sent to sub-Saharan Africa to defend Vichy's interests there.

Vichy and Free are small trees and are likely intended to artificially bloat the content to justify the price.

This also feels a bit odd. We've had DDs on pricing before (I think for EU4, rather than HoI4, but talking about how Paradox does things generally), and they're based mostly on content. So stuff that takes less work, is cheaper, and stuff that takes more work, is more expensive. It's not quite as simple as that, but value-wise (in overall content/work done - obviously the value of particular content to particular players will vary wildly*) I haven't seen any justification for cynicism when it comes to pricing. There's a decent-sized team working full-time on HoI4, they don't need to 'pretend' to make content to bloat price, there's been a stack of work go into all of the expansions so far.


* For example, all MP work holds no value for my personal gaming, although I'm happy others get to enjoy HoI4 in its MP glory.

I somehow get the feeling that someone is going for a cheap focus tree inflation.

I've never got the impression focus trees are cheap, and when it come up a year or two back, Archangel was good enough to outline the work that went into them. When I've tinkered with focus trees, and that's just looking from the perspective of adding naval bits, I've never felt it was particularly easy, and the more complex the 'forest' of focus trees become, the trickier it is to get everything working.

Not saying that it's wrong to want a SOV tree, a new SOV tree would be cool (and the kind of things I imagine the devs would do now could be very cool). I'm not sure if I'm a fan of decision-based gameplay when it comes to the Eastern Front, but that's just a preference thing (I'd rather things were handled mechanically, rather than a HoI3 style "GER does good until point X, when SOV gets a decision where they do good for a while' kind of approach - although you may well mean something else, in which case feel free to shred that example :)).
 
I haven't seen any justification for cynicism when it comes to pricing.

Gamers in general are just understandably skeptical about price these days, because of the actions of other publishers. It's automatic to assume the worst because for other companies it's usually true. However the resources needed to develop and support a game for a decade, in a niche market from a country with a lot of benefits like Sweden, make regular DLCs necessary. The key features always come in the free patches anyway. Most people will agree with Paradox's business model if you explain it to them in detail and it sinks in that they don't have unlimited money. There are a few cynics who will complain about spending money no matter what but they keep playing anyway.
 
Last edited:
Gamers in general are just understandably skeptical about price these days, because of the actions of other publishers. It's automatic to assume the worst because for other companies it's usually true. However the resources needed to develop and support a game for a decade, in a niche market from a country with a lot of benefits like Sweden, make regular DLCs necessary. The key features always come in the free patches anyway. Most people will agree with Paradox's business model if you explain it to them in detail and it sinks in that they don't have unlimited money. There are a few cynics who will complain about spending money no matter what but they keep playing anyway.

Games are still very good value. To put things in perspective, a basic Lunch in most western countries is 10 euros, about the price of a dlc. Watching a 2 hour movie in a theatre is 15 euros.

Base prices for video games have barely budged in the last 20-30 years. I remember as a kid a new game would cost 50 pounds(60 euros). New games today cost... 60 euros. Given how everything else has increased by 1.5 to 2 times, its actually quite amazing how games have maintained their price point. You could say that the difference has been made up in dlc (that said, back then there was 30 euro expansion packs)

I will say though, that the sticker shock of buying all paradox dlc as a new player is a bit much. They should make dlc that's more than a year or two old free.

Compared to most other hobbies out there, video games are actually very good value.

All that said, the calculus changes a lot depending on where you live. A €1000 gaming rig is a lot easier to afford if you work for 30k a year in Germany, then it is if you work for 5k a year in Argentina.
 
Gamers in general are just understandably skeptical about price these days, because of the actions of other publishers. It's automatic to assume the worst because for other companies it's usually true. However the resources needed to develop and support a game for a decade, in a niche market from a country with a lot of benefits like Sweden, make regular DLCs necessary. The key features always come in the free patches anyway. Most people will agree with Paradox's business model if you explain it to them in detail and it sinks in that they don't have unlimited money. There are a few cynics who will complain about spending money no matter what but they keep playing anyway.

Personally I just dislike how Paradox makes certain seemingly small features, which I consider basic for the game locked behind dlc.
Things like asking for lend lease, Spearhead (or any other battle plans unless very specific for the dlc theme), the combat log, the minimap and control over convoy routes (which is critical imo) should be in the base game. Instead these features are sprinkled all over the dlc's in an effort to increase their value I believe.

Imagine buying MtG, having no interest in naval battles or the countries in the pack, just to not have your convoys carelessly sunk, its very annoying.
I have pretty much all the expansions and went to try a game without these small features, they add up.
 
Base prices for video games have barely budged in the last 20-30 years. I remember as a kid a new game would cost 50 pounds(60 euros). New games today cost... 60 euros. Given how everything else has increased by 1.5 to 2 times, its actually quite amazing how games have maintained their price point. You could say that the difference has been made up in dlc (that said, back then there was 30 euro expansion packs)

Depends on where you live, I remember when games were $60 as a teenager, now they're $80 and with taxes I'm spending close to $100 for a game so I'm not nearly as much into games as I used to be. I would imagine games were cheaper than $60 before I was a teenager but I never bought games so I wouldn't know.
 
I'm not sure if I follow your point about it moot if it's historical. Currently, Vichy's behaviour is anything but historical - while the GER/SOV balance is an ongoing challenge, at the end of the day, what GER and SOV do is more-or-less appropriate. What Vichy does is completely out-of-whack, which impacts on the balance of naval strength, the ownership of French North Africa, and often results in German and Italian troops being sent to sub-Saharan Africa to defend Vichy's interests there

Honestly if the Axis are getting a nerf with occupation not auto taking all resources and industry, along with losing equipment and manpower from resistance, it makes a lot of sense to create the Vichy state. Vichy's focus that help assist the German economy will help balance this out. The real trick is making it so mechanically Free and Vichy France cannot decide who is the 'real' France before the war is concluded.
 
Is this Live yet ?
Started a new game as the UK and Vichy seems to be acting much the same.