• 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.

HoI4 Dev Diary - Resistance and Compliance

Hello HoI bois and ladies, welcome to the second dev diary on our upcoming unannounced expansion and 1.8 ‘Husky’ update. This update features some big changes to how occupied territory functions. The biggest part of this is an overhaul of the game’s current resistance system into what we are calling the “Resistance and Compliance” system. This should help curb a bit of power from snowballing (Hello, Germany), remove gamey early war sniping of provinces, and put a bit of a clock on world conquest runs.

The old resistance system is rather simple. Each occupied state has a suppression requirement. If you meet that requirement nothing happens. If the suppression requirement is not met then you suffer from increasingly common sabotage to factories or infrastructure as resistance strength grows. We decided we could make this more interesting and use it as a way to further control the power of snowballing.

The growth of resistance is no longer stopped by having an adequate garrison. Resistance now functions with a target system. The resistance level will grow or decay towards whatever the current target is. The target is impacted by the development of the state, the core owner still existing and other factors. Resistance activities will still scale with the level of resistance, but the garrison will now work as a shield that absorbs these sabotages. If the garrison is adequate, the garrison shield will absorb the vast majority of sabotage attempts and take losses to manpower and equipment. Not having an adequate garrison means a higher resistance target and more resistance activity making it past the garrison shield to the state.

DD_RESCOMP_COMP.png


Compliance is in some ways the opposite of resistance. It is a rating of how willing the local state is to work with their occupiers. Compliance will normally start at zero and increase slowly over time. Compliance growth will generally be slow and several factors can affect that speed of growth. As compliance increases in a state, it will decrease local resistance and give access to more resources, factories, and manpower.

DD_RESCOMP_COMP2.png


Resistance and compliance also will have various effects that are unlocked. Resistance will gain the ability to more frequently bypass the garrison shield after it reaches a strength of 25%. Reaching 25% compliance means reducing suppression requirements for the current level of resistance.

DD_RESCOMP_UNLOCKS.png


The highest level of resistance unlocks include two levels of uprising. The first is a passive malus that is applied to the state, adding attrition, decreasing move speed, and slowing org regain for occupying forces in the area. The 2nd level uprising is a full scale organized uprising that functions somewhat like a civil war. The states that rise up will gain low-quality divisions and either rejoin their former master or if that no longer exists, reestablish themselves on the map. Both of these should be somewhat rare and will require the local resistance being supported by an outside source.

DD_RESCOMP_UPRISING1.png



In conjunction with these new systems, we have reworked how occupied states are handled. Colony states will be removed as a concept and every state not controlled by a nation with a core on the state will be viewed as occupied. Occupied states will now be less rewarding for the occupier. Access to the factories and resources of the state will by default be much lower than before. However, the conqueror can get more out of the state by cultivating compliance or adjusting occupation laws. This gives a bit of granularity between what was previously colony states and cores.

Occupation laws will also be updated to work with the new resistance and compliance systems and give the player more choice. Previous occupation laws were mostly a linear system of paying PP and increasing suppression need for increasing rewards. If you could afford it, harsher occupation would almost always be more beneficial. This was also a system not a lot of people interacted with as it was hidden behind several layers of the menu.

New occupation laws are built around trying to give the player choice based on playstyle and short and longterm goals. The new laws tend towards one of three objectives: compliance growth, resistance suppression, factory/resource exploitation. Compliance growth is a longterm reward, while resistance suppression and resource gains are more short term. These laws will, in turn, be bad at what they are not concerned with. IE focusing on resistance suppression will generally not be very rewarding in terms of resources or long term compliance growth. Cultivating compliance will mean that the player will have to deal with a period of low yields and maybe a more active resistance movement. Each of the big three ideologies will also get their own special occupation laws. These laws fit the themes of the ideologies and give them some unique choices

DD_RESCOMP_OCULAW02.png


That's all we got for this week. Next week we will update the good people of these forums on what is going on with France. Secrets and things hidden will be revealed!
 
All this talk about Austria-Hungary…. here i'm thinking about all the potential this mechanic would open up:

- Soviet partisans operating in Belarus, Baltics, Ukraine etc
- Warsaw Uprising, where Soviet Union would have the decision to either help Polish Undergound retake the city or leave them to die like Stalin did
- the Italian resistance that helped Allies in liberation war
- a complex civil war and diplomacy that was happening between Partisans, Chetniks and Ustaše with Axis, Allies and Comintern intervention in occupied Yugoslavia

Ah, sweet bloody Stalin. let's look at the Warsaw Uprising:
- The Warsaw uprising was politically directed against the USSR
- Supply from the USSR
The discharge of weapons and military cargo into the Warsaw region continued from September 13 to September 30, 1944. From September 13 to October 1, 1944, Soviet aviation made more than 5 thousand sorties, including 700 sorties were carried out by the forces of the 1st aviation division of the Polish Army. Belarusian Front aviation made 4821 sorties to the Warsaw area, of which 2535 took off with the discharge of cargo, 1361 - with assault and bombing attacks on the enemy, 925 - to cover the air from rebel areas and 100 - to suppress enemy air defenses. One 45 mm anti-tank gun with an ammunition load of 30 was dropped. artillery shells, 156 pcs. 50 mm mortars (with an ammunition load of 37,216 pieces of 50 mm mortar mines), 505 anti-tank rifles, 1,478 machine guns; 520 rifles; 669 carbines, 41,780 grenades, more than 3 million rounds of ammunition, communications, 131,221 kg of food and 515 kg of medicine
- The Soviet troops could not support the uprising due to purely military reasons with which Western historians agree: the lengthy communications due to the rapid advance of the troops. Rokosovsky ethnic Pole who was very worried about the tragedy of the uprising wrote in his memoirs:
“The rebels could try to capture the bridges across the Vistula and take control of Prague, striking the enemy from the rear. Thus, they would help the troops of the 2nd Tank Army and, who knows, how events would have played out then. But that was not part of the calculation ... of the London Polish government. ” He noted that the capture and retention of Warsaw was possible only if the uprising began with the direct approach of the Red Army to the city.

As a result: the uprising directed against the USSR, the USSR helped both the supply and military assistance: air support of the insurgents by the Polish Army and an attempt to send soldiers of the Polish Army to the troops, air support of the USSR Air Force, artillery support. But Stalin drowned Warsaw in blood.
 
Last edited:
Why are we even having this discussion.

1. you're focusing way too much about this one particular case instead of seeing the whole picture.

2. as I already pointed out to you, assuming that the game won't be rebalanced around this new feature is a very large and unfounded assumption.

Because it points out the potineital problems this system has so its not rushed out?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Because it points out the potineital problems this system has so its not rushed out?
was anything pointing out that this patch/dlc is to be rushed out?
 
All this talk about Austria-Hungary…. here i'm thinking about all the potential this mechanic would open up:

- Soviet partisans operating in Belarus, Baltics, Ukraine etc
- Warsaw Uprising, where Soviet Union would have the decision to either help Polish Undergound retake the city or leave them to die like Stalin did
- the Italian resistance that helped Allies in liberation war
- a complex civil war and diplomacy that was happening between Partisans, Chetniks and Ustaše with Axis, Allies and Comintern intervention in occupied Yugoslavia

This sounds to me like its just a heavy allies buff and extremely nerfs all the Axis, except Germany who it'll minorly inconvience.... and for what reason exactly? So people don't complain about Germany?

No one complains about how strong Italy is... but they'll be more affected than Germany is. Thats why I dont like the system. Its poorly thought out imo.
 
was anything pointing out that this patch/dlc is to be rushed out?

Damn dude. I just posted lmao.


A lack of information, shows me a rushing out/poorly thought out mechanic. Lack of informatino is always the bane of everything. If you can't get all the information, you're not the big picture. Its unfortunate, but im only going based off the ifnromation given to me.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This sounds to me like its just a heavy allies buff and extremely nerfs all the Axis, except Germany who it'll minorly inconvience.... and for what reason exactly? So people don't complain about Germany?

No one complains about how strong Italy is... but they'll be more affected than Germany is. Thats why I dont like the system. Its poorly thought out imo.
Except this won't only effect the Axis and aggressors , it will also effect the countries that have colonies all over the world which is what UK and France are. For what reason you ask?
Because i'm getting sick of the fact that Germany steamrolls Soviet Union in majority of the games, i'm annoyed that China gets completely defeated and annexed by Japan all the time.
One of many reasons why both of them failed was because of resistance and partisans, they played a huge role and it's about time they get introduced.

If you consider this system annoying... well it was annoying for Germany indeed. They were forced to station more than 100k garrison troops in Yugoslavia, because resistance there was so powerful, just one example.
 
Last edited:
If you consider this system annoying... well it was annoying for Germany indeed.

Hell, it was even worse for Japan in some respects.

The "occupation" of various parts of China was basically just "we control some rail lines and intersections" in many places that HOI4 considers provinces.

I like the look of the new system, and I'm hoping that it will put the brakes on "Axis gets 100% of IC and resources out of occupied areas for little cost" that we have now. I have no illusions that it will be strong enough in the base game, but it should be more interesting than what we have now.

The irony of this discussion is that in our current MP game, Italy is occupying a substantial portion of the British Empire. And we modded the game to make partisans far worse than in vanilla. And she is still contributing to the war effort against the Soviets in 1941. :)
 
And the both of you above me, right now, is why this system is bad. You're both basically advocating for Allies Win 2.0 simulator. This is why that other person and i agreed. Realism is great, but not to the point you ruin the game for other people because realism diehard's want it.

There's no way this system will not kill off 90% of the other gameplay styles if they want to hurt Germany. I just wont update to the new update. It's sad, because I'd love to play with the new french and Italy trees((Im assuming Italy will be updated)) but not at the cost of actual playability.

What's the point of alt-history trees if we're making this game even closer to a WW2 Simulator where Allies always win? No thanks.

I actually like to play Italy be able to do something.


A sandbox is always better than a simulator. Sandbox=more options, more outcomes, more shenanigans. Simulator=Very few options, very few outcomes, less shenanigans.

It's why I just have no interest.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
And the both of you above me, right now, is why this system is bad. You're both basically advocating for Allies Win 2.0 simulator. This is why that other person and i agreed. Realism is great, but not to the point you ruin the game for other people because realism diehard's want it.

There's no way this system will not kill off 90% of the other gameplay styles if they want to hurt Germany. I just wont update to the new update. It's sad, because I'd love to play with the new french and Italy trees((Im assuming Italy will be updated)) but not at the cost of actual playability.

What's the point of alt-history trees if we're making this game even closer to a WW2 Simulator where Allies always win? No thanks.

I actually like to play Italy be able to do something.


A sandbox is always better than a simulator. Sandbox=more options, more outcomes, more shenanigans. Simulator=Very few options, very few outcomes, less shenanigans.

It's why I just have no interest.
You really need to stop putting your words into other people's mouth

I literally stated why this isn't "Allies win 2.0" because France and UK will also suffer from resistance in their colonies especially if war gets reached in those places. It will be even worse for alternative paths if UK decides to go for King's Party/Mosley since both of them focus heavily on expansionism, same will most likely happen with new France. The Axis have been dominating this game ever since MtG, which is something i don't mind cause i prefer seeing more powerful Axis than Allies.

Nobody is asking for total realism or a game that needs too proceed exactly like it did historically (which is impossible for hoi4 or pretty much any other game).
All previous HoI games had this system and how exactly is adding an additional mechanic to the game suddenly a simulator? You have no idea how this system will work, what is behind it and to what extend will it effect the gameplay.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
You really need to stop putting your words into other people's mouth

I literally stated why this isn't "Allies win 2.0" because France and UK will also suffer from resistance in their colonies especially if war gets reached in those places. It will be even worse for alternative paths if UK decides to go for King's Party/Mosley since both of them focus heavily on expansionism, same will most likely happen with new France. The Axis have been dominating this game ever since MtG, which is something i don't mind cause i prefer seeing more powerful Axis than Allies.

Nobody is asking for total realism or a game that needs too proceed exactly like it did historically (which is impossible for hoi4 or pretty much any other game).
All previous HoI games had this system and how exactly is adding an additional mechanic to the game suddenly a simulator? You have no idea how this system will work, what is behind it and to what extend will it effect the gameplay.

1. This new update, doesn't affect the allies as much as it affects Facist and Communnist nations. So yes, it is pushing more for Allies win 2.0. Do I think that Germany right now is OP? Yes. But Germany is a one country out of... how many? A Blanket Nerf is not the way to do things.

2. The Axis has been dominating, but thats only because Germany is stupidly OP. No one struggles against Italy. Lol

3. You have to admit, that this update minorly inconviences Germany while other facist and communist nations get the biggest hit.

4. Then this game will have to be entirely revamped around this system, because just shoving this system in right now, would completely negate several things as ive mentioned.

5. Again ,I dont know whats going to happen. Im not told anything by the devs, but from the information provided, this is all what ive gathered from it. And why shouldn't I bring up my concerns about a system that hasn't been developeda nd is being shoved in our faces that seems to be praised as the new Messiah by the unthinking masses? No one yet, has addressed the several problems ive pointed out that this update, with the information provided, brings. its better to bring uyp concerns now so things are addressed before they are put into the game, so we dont have to wait ANOTHER year for things to be fixed.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If you don't know what's going to happen, then why are you being so hysterical over it? Relax for a minute.

There's every reason to believe that, if anything, this new mechanic will be implemented in a way that won't be too harmful to occupiers. Balance is a tricky thing, and the smart thing to do would be to err on the side of caution in terms of having resistance be a little weaker than it should be. We have all kinds of different occupation policies, remember. It is likely that there will be occupation options that minimize resistance, but have low compliance gain(meaning you will get few resources, manpower, or factories from them). In a competitive game Germany will probably opt for a policy that maximizes compliance even at the cost of higher resistance because they need all the factories they can get their hands on, ASAP.

There's also yet to be any real evidence presented that Germany is 'overpowered', at least by the standards of 1.5. Has anyone presented any factory count comparisons? It seems the real difference is the AI and two issues which compound themselves: it is relatively easy to make an AI that can use submarines well, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to make one that can defend against subs well.

You admit that the allies will benefit from this change in a historical game overall. Yes, and...? The Axis already have a much stronger edge than they historically have, and already win the game handily most of the time. The scales of balance should be tipped against the Axis somewhat. In your own words, this is a "minor inconvenience" for the Axis, so why make such a big deal over it?

It seems like the real reason you're making a big deal over this is because it will make world conquest runs with minor countries more difficult, you've indicated as much in your previous posts. I don't think the game should be balanced around minors being able to achieve a world conquest. Paradox has a tricky line to balance between making minors fun, but still having a roughly historical war in which the major players are... the majors. Balancing things around minors achieving world conquest is at one end of that extreme and it is to the detriment of everything else. At the end of the day, people who are determined to do their bhutan world conquest will still be able to do it. That's how it's always been in other Paradox games. Someone always finds a way to exploit design oversights, poorly designed mechanics, and outright bugs.

Nobody can address the 'several problems' you've pointed out because they aren't actually problems: they're good decision decisions that are moving things in a welcome direction, assuming that they are balanced correctly and the AI can cope with them.
 
If you don't know what's going to happen, then why are you being so hysterical over it? Relax for a minute.

There's every reason to believe that, if anything, this new mechanic will be implemented in a way that won't be too harmful to occupiers. Balance is a tricky thing, and the smart thing to do would be to err on the side of caution in terms of having resistance be a little weaker than it should be. We have all kinds of different occupation policies, remember. It is likely that there will be occupation options that minimize resistance, but have low compliance gain(meaning you will get few resources, manpower, or factories from them). In a competitive game Germany will probably opt for a policy that maximizes compliance even at the cost of higher resistance because they need all the factories they can get their hands on, ASAP.

There's also yet to be any real evidence presented that Germany is 'overpowered', at least by the standards of 1.5. Has anyone presented any factory count comparisons? It seems the real difference is the AI and two issues which compound themselves: it is relatively easy to make an AI that can use submarines well, but it is an order of magnitude more difficult to make one that can defend against subs well.

You admit that the allies will benefit from this change in a historical game overall. Yes, and...? The Axis already have a much stronger edge than they historically have, and already win the game handily most of the time. The scales of balance should be tipped against the Axis somewhat. In your own words, this is a "minor inconvenience" for the Axis, so why make such a big deal over it?

It seems like the real reason you're making a big deal over this is because it will make world conquest runs with minor countries more difficult, you've indicated as much in your previous posts. I don't think the game should be balanced around minors being able to achieve a world conquest. Paradox has a tricky line to balance between making minors fun, but still having a roughly historical war in which the major players are... the majors. Balancing things around minors achieving world conquest is at one end of that extreme and it is to the detriment of everything else. At the end of the day, people who are determined to do their bhutan world conquest will still be able to do it. That's how it's always been in other Paradox games. Someone always finds a way to exploit design oversights, poorly designed mechanics, and outright bugs.

Nobody can address the 'several problems' you've pointed out because they aren't actually problems: they're good decision decisions that are moving things in a welcome direction, assuming that they are balanced correctly and the AI can cope with them.

There are not that many developers in the gaming industry and err on the side of caution. I dont trust game developers to do anything right the first time, but fine. Lets say that they do err on the side of caution and they'll make occupation affects every country differently. Thats one theory, but what if they dont? Do you know how much that changes?

And no, I never said Minors conquering the world. I have zero interest in playing Luxemborg and conquering the world. Im looking at the gameboard as a whole. Ive used Austria-Hungary and Italy as good examples and I'll further go into this in a moment.

I dont remember ever saying that I want Minors to conquer the world. I was using Greece as an example, because of their formable nation. The Byzatine Empire. This does help them do a world conquest of course, but at least it IS formable. The issue is with the new update, I dont think it would be formable anymore, especially in a single player game. Multiplayer can easily make it happen if the other players work for it, but single player wise it will never happen if the update goes as its suggested.

And yes, they are problems, you just dont see it as I do. And, I wont use Hungary anymore as a point of reference, because I think it'll still be possible, just slightly more difficult. I just did a Hungary run and did really well. Very well rather. Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Italy, Most of Romania and bits of Poland all under my banner. Was actually really good.

Anyways, let me explain why its a problem.

Italy. Now, historically, Italy sucked. I agree, but this is not a simulator game... or at least at the current time. This is a sandbox with realistic elements, which is a good thing. Sandbox means more options and more playability. If you play Italy, what do you do usually? I would like to say that 90% of players, go for Yugoslavia ASAP. Like 1937 ASAP. This entire update, removes that option. The dev said it would remove gamey province sniping. Meaning, any sort of early gains by anyone would be horrendous to do.

So, what can you do as Italy? Nothing. Italy already has a pretty bad focus tree, starts out with a pretty bad start. I'd say it starts out as the WORST major in the game, but it does have good options... but not if the update goes throuugh. Italy will be stuck, in the worst major in the game permamently. It'll have no playability outside of Germanys bitch. No major nation should be relegated to a single purpose.

Italy, will never be able to pull out a world conquest if this update goes through, because the nation is so reliant on Early wars. It's not that its making it difficult, its making it pretty impossible.

Italy is not strong in the current game. We can both agree that Italy is pretty much the worst major nation with France. Nerfing Italy more, just to nerf Germany?

And they wont do anything to fix this problem, unless they make Italy's new focus tree, absolutely overpowered.

It will become unplayable, outside of historical games.

The current status quo is pretty good, but the new update will just make so many things unplayable.

Greece, Italy, and other smaller meme nations like Sweden too.


But like I said, I'll just not update to the new patch, cause I refuse to play a simulator.



If you wish, I can explain to you more in depth about how Italy works in the current game and why this update ruins it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But like I said, I'll just not update to the new patch, cause I refuse to play a simulator.

Keep in mind that whether it's a "historically plausible mechanics" simulator, or "anyone can world conquest" simulator, it's still a simulator. A simulation is just a set of rules and mechanics designed to model something. All computer games are arguably simulations, either of actual or imaginary things. The Sims 4 even has the word in its name (although I'm glad my life doesn't resemble what happens to people in the rare event of me playing the sims!)

I'm still trying to work out exactly what Rez is simulating, but it's still a simulator :)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Keep in mind that whether it's a "historically plausible mechanics" simulator, or "anyone can world conquest" simulator, it's still a simulator. A simulation is just a set of rules and mechanics designed to model something. All computer games are arguably simulations, either of actual or imaginary things. The Sims 4 even has the word in its name (although I'm glad my life doesn't resemble what happens to people in the rare event of me playing the sims!)

I'm still trying to work out exactly what Rez is simulating, but it's still a simulator :)

Except, we both know I wasn't referencing the Sims or the fact that games are all simulators. When you force a game to become less of a Sandbox, you end up with a game with limited paths of gameplay/options, limited outcomes, and limited things to do. A Sandbox has an abundance of such things, which does increase playability. Im very positive you'd agree that a game with more things to do generally has more life to it and replayability than a game without it.

Why do you think Skyrim is still popular to this day, despite being... What? 8 years old? Because it has massive replayability, because it has a bazillion options and mods of course.

I do not want to play a historical simulator. I dont. Thats not what the game is right now. its a Sandbox, and I think a Sandbox is a better option. You can please the realistic croews and those who enjoy Alt-history and sandbox style games, instead of just one particular style. This update, to me, ruins 90% of the games options.

I would like to be able to continue playing this game for years to come. I mean, I put over 300 hours in it already. I think ive put plenty for my money, but why not play more and more? What harm is there in this desire?

But because Im pointing out flaws, im a bad guy. Because Im voicing my concerns about the future of the product I paid for, im a bad guy.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What you are pointing out are not problems, but assumptions.

Everything you said is being directed towards Italy becoming unplayable, you are silly if you think PDX would do that especially to a major nation. I'm pretty sure world conquests will still be duable, the main difference is that you will have to put more effort and micromanagement on occupied lands in order to achieve that not just with Italy but with every single nation.

You are right Italy does start as the worst major nation, but guess that's exactly what they were during interwar and WW2 period and before you assume that i want "historical simulator" or realistic Italy let me stop you for a second. Italy had concription issues, equipment shortages (guns, tanks, airplanes, artillery etc.), scarce resources, in fact their industry was so bad that many people refuse to even consider them as a major nation and their soldiers were equipped worse than they were during Great War and combine that with the political struggles the country was facing. Not one of these problems appears in the game at the moment and it already makes Italy more powerful than they were at the start of 1936.

I'm pretty sure they will adress some of these issues if they get reworked in this expansion, considering both France and Spain will also face new problems at the start of the game now.
 
What you are pointing out are not problems, but assumptions.

Everything you said is being directed towards Italy becoming unplayable, you are silly if you think PDX would do that especially to a major nation. I'm pretty sure world conquests will still be duable, the main difference is that you will have to put more effort and micromanagement on occupied lands in order to achieve that not just with Italy but with every single nation.

You are right Italy does start as the worst major nation, but guess that's exactly what they were during interwar and WW2 period and before you assume that i want "historical simulator" or realistic Italy let me stop you for a second. Italy had concription issues, equipment shortages (guns, tanks, airplanes, artillery etc.), scarce resources, in fact their industry was so bad that many people refuse to even consider them as a major nation and their soldiers were equipped worse than they were during Great War and combine that with the political struggles the country was facing. Not one of these problems appears in the game at the moment and it already makes Italy more powerful than they were at the start of 1936.

I'm pretty sure they will adress some of these issues if they get reworked in this expansion, considering both France and Spain will also face new problems at the start of the game now.

Yes, and assumptions can easily point out problems with a system. You never put something out without testing it. I dont care what PDX tests. it is the CONSUMER who matters in the test. If the consumer is disatisfied with a product, the person making the product should generally fix the problem and make it better.

Now, I actually have zero issue with Italy anymore. I actually know how to play them now. Ive formed that Roman Empire a few weeks ago, so im super happy about it. I am aware of Italy being stronger than they were... but im very positive nearly all nations are 'stronger' than they were IRL. But its a game and its meant to be more playable than what IRL is.


And I dont know much about what Spain and France are getting, so now I have to wonder if this will make them worse than what they are now, or is it just a bad start with a good ramp up? Now you made me curious.

But thats not the point of this. I am concerned, because Italy is my favorite nation in the game. This actually is kind of only beacuse they could form the Roman Empire, and I am someone who plays alot of Roman games. Civilization 5/6, Ryse Son of Rome, Total war, etc. Huge fan of the Roman Empire and it carried on over here, and eventually fell in love with Italy in itself for Hoi4. I dont want to see Italy be even worse. I am fine with it bein the WORST of the major nations. Its still playable, but I rather not have my favorite coutnry be reduced to unplayability and thats another concern I have.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
If you don't know what's going to happen, then why are you being so hysterical over it? Relax for a minute.

Has anyone presented any factory count comparisons?

Per your request, here is a summary comparison of 1.5.4 versus 1.7.1 for building slots and factory counts:

Factory Count.png
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This resistance system was not the right way.

MAYBE im over reacting a bit.... but I am thinking of the worst case scenario of what this update can bring.

5. Again ,I dont know whats going to happen.

Quoted for the entertainment value...

A Dev Diary is a view into what is coming in the next patch. They always put a disclaimer that nothing is final, all values that you see in screen shots are subject to balancing, etc. Please don't judge until you've tried this system... Don't judge a book by it's cover? Ever heard of that?
 
This actually is kind of only beacuse they could form the Roman Empire, and I am someone who plays alot of Roman games.
Then perhaps Imperator: Rome would be more your bag. It's also geared towards blobbing out and taking over the world, I think you'd feel right at home. Seriously, go try it, it's made by the same company and it's getting an update soon. Either way, it's clear the HOI4 playerbase doesn't exactly share your concerns or desires. The devs shouldn't and won't gimp the game's depth just for the sake of your Hungary and Italy world conquests.
 
Last edited: