• 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.

Reception & Thoughts | Patch 1.14.2 [Checksum fbf7]

Greetings all!

Today marks the first dev diary since the release of Trial of Allegiance, so we’ll be looking back over how things went, and community reactions in a little more detail than usual. While I would have loved to have some data on player choices and interactions for today’s diary, our analytics engine is busy chugging away. So, we’ll have to hold off on that until the machine spirit has assessed the incoming preponderance of data.

The Elephant in the Room

It would be hard to talk about Trial of Allegiance without first mentioning that we’re acutely aware of its critical reception from fans.

We’ve had releases with less than satisfactory reviews before, so why talk about them this time? Well, this mostly boils down to the reasons. Usually when something doesn’t do well we’ll create a timeline and buckle down to address the issues that matter. As you’ll see below, things are a little different this time.

Above all, I see no reason not to be transparent about this, and I’m going to use today as an opportunity to talk about what it means to us and how we analyze reactions, so let’s dive into some of the facts:

Everything’s on Fire!

Well, actually no. Trial of Allegiance has thus far been one of our most stable releases in terms of bugs and player-encountered issues. This doesn’t mean there aren’t bugs: stuff always creeps through, but as you may have noticed by now, we’ve had an Open Beta running with a patch scheduled sometime today. The patch notes will be attached to the end of this document. Furthermore, we have another patch scheduled in next week to give us a chance to tackle more complex problems.

Due to the low incidence of bugs in the ToA content, we’re spending a bit more time on general improvements and things folks thought were lacking.

Developer’s Perspective: bugs are defects in the game - errors or unforeseen complexities that render part of the experience to not work as intended. We don’t usually consider design choices or outdated content as bugs unless they cause the first statement to apply, since that evaluation is often subjective.

Circles Within Circles

Our steam review score has taken a fairly heavy beating on Trial of Allegiance. Reviews on DLCs are notoriously hard to draw accurate conclusions from, as very few people tend to leave reviews compared to the overall number of people who bought a DLC. Trial of Allegiance is particularly notable in that regard, as there are fewer reviews overall than we would normally expect. It’s absolutely possible to theorize behind why that is, but that’s all those are: theories.

That said, we read every review. Aaand it’s quite hard, tbh. Being a venerable ancient of the internet, I could wax lyrical on toxicity, vocabulary, and dissociation, but at the end of the day folks leave reviews for a reason. The language they use isn’t as important as the sentiment they’re trying to convey, even if they don’t always know the right way to do it.

What we try and do, therefore, is to try and don our armor of not-taking-things-too-personally, and group negative reviews by common themes or sentiments.

For Trial of Allegiance, we assessed clear ‘meta’ groupings in order of weight*:

  • Unhappiness about recent regional currency price adjustments
  • Unhappiness about the price of the country pack
    • Compared to other HOI4 expansions
    • Other
  • Bought it but wanted something different
    • New mechanics, or
    • A european expansion
  • Unhappy with the quality of the release
    • In relation to specific issues;
    • In relation to mods
    • Unclear/Unintelligible
    • Unclear/Horrendously offensive

*This requires looking at global reviews, not english-language only: something we take quite seriously.

The exact weighting here changes a lot over time, but suffice it to say that the top grouping is significantly larger than any of the others, and the last grouping vice-versa.

But hang on, does this just mean we’re being review bombed by angry interest groups? Well, that would be a nice easy assumption that allows us to feel good about ourselves and go home for supper, but there doesn’t seem to be any coordinated effort here as far as we can tell.

What we can tell here is that folks commonly leave reviews for reasons unrelated to the content we made.

So, these are the findings. So far these have been presented as factual; now we take a more subjective view when it comes to reacting to the findings.

Regional Pricing

This one was a little unexpected, though in hindsight it shouldn’t have been. Looking back over recent reviews on our other expansions, we see the same trend.

In January, Paradox made efforts to normalize pricing across various currency regions according to (as I understand it) a standard used by Valve. On HoI, we saw this as a mostly administrative change, and did not, I think, ask enough questions about the effect it might have on our game-specific player base.
I am not promising any sweeping changes here for decisions that have already been made. What I can say however, is that we will not be treating any such changes as administrative in the future. We will be doing our due diligence.

General Pricing

A little more expected, perhaps, but with some important notes. The vast majority of complaints about the pricing of this release came with comparisons or in relation to other content we’ve released in the past.

While it overlaps a little with the next topic, I feel like we could have been clearer with setting expectations about what a country pack is.

Another observation here is that our fanbase seems to attach more importance to the consistency of expansion prices than we tend to. A lot of the comparisons we’re seeing are equating content made many years ago or at a completely different scale to Trial of Allegiance.

Wanted Something Different

This one is a real games-industry conundrum. Traditionally, if you bring something to market that doesn’t interest everyone, the uninterested ones avoid it. Not so here.

We knew that South America would be a divisive topic amongst the fanbase: some regard it as important, some do not. We calculated that this would make these nations perfect for a country-pack release instead of a full expansion - including mechanics in something that may not interest everyone would put fans in the situation of having to purchase something they did not want.

And, uh, that backfired a bit. Overwhelmingly, reviews in this category are asking where the mechanics are, or why we’re spending time on X instead of Y.

Importantly though, we aren’t gonna change that. We will sometimes have country pack releases, and they will not contain mechanics, though perhaps there’s some middle ground for tech/unit/other additions.

This all comes with a big but: the Juno team who created Trial of Allegiance are not the only ones working on HOI4. Creating content packs is not being done at the expense of other things. We aren’t ready to talk about exactly what’s coming yet, but simply put: we have mechanical expansions in the pipeline that are being built at this very moment. Outside of expansions, we have even more big stuff happening for HoI in the very near future. Watch this space.

Developer’s Perspective: Even if we wanted to, making two mechanical expansions in parallel would be a significant technical challenge. Some games are built to make that easy! HOI is not one of them.

Quality of Release

This is predominantly the stuff that reviews traditionally focus on. Was the delivered content good/bad/neutral? The nature of this is subjective, and these reviews are really where we can act by making changes and fixes. Below you’ll find the patch notes for our first iteration on ToA’s content, with more to come soon.

Overall what we’re seeing from players that stated an active interest in South America is a trending positive reaction. There are some key problems raised to us from highly invested players, which we’ll do our best to address. There are learnings we want to take into future country packs or war effort patches, including but not limited to:

  • Shared branches were one of those things that made sense at the time, but in hindsight we should have avoided.
  • People love map changes more than I thought humanly possible.
  • Power creep is real, and we should have a balance reckoning sooner rather than later
  • We can do more with units, tech, and non-focus content without being explicitly ‘mechanical’ in nature. This was sort of on our radar already, but player feedback confirms that.

As I mentioned above, this has been a very bug-light release, but if an issue is plaguing you then please let us know through the usual channels, and we’ll spend any time left over on making other improvements to ToA’s content.

—-----------

Stuff That Doesn’t Really Help

Reviews that are empty/irrelevant/insulting/contain mysterious dwarven chanting are not going to be useful to us. When I say that we read all reviews, I’m not kidding - but if there’s no actionable text, we can’t do anything with it. Of course, it is your right to maintain a practice of critical ambiguity, I’m just saying it won’t produce results.

Reviews and comments that set up a strawman and try to assign a motive to the decisions we make serves only to create a rift between developers and community. We love this game as much as you do, and while it would be naive of me to assume that every discussion can be equally polite and constructive, I do believe that it is better if we let people represent themselves.

Of course, the vast majority of you understand this.

In Conclusion

From my perspective, team Juno had a cracking debut release, and I’m beyond proud of what they accomplished. The strategic side of things is where we’ve fallen short, and that is my cross to bear.

Finally, the reason I’m saying any of this stuff is to give you folks some context. This is hopefully an insight into the thought process that collectively happens behind the scenes at HoI HQ.

I’ll be around to try and answer any questions!



Below, you’ll find the patch notes for the update coming sometime today:

################################################################
######## Patch 1.14.2 "Bolivar" #########
################################################################

##################################
# Bugfix & Gameplay Additions
##################################
- Presets in the equipment designer should not be blocked because of so-called negative stats
- Blockade runner now requires fighting with at least one >37 knot ship
- Added a decision for fascist Chile after completing the focus "Forge a New Chilean Identity" to change the national flag to the Patria Vieja based one, due to popular demand.
- Added Felipe Molas López as advisor for Paraguay
- Valentino Riroko Tuki's trait has been buffed, and RAP now gains slightly more things when released and chosen to be played as a part of the Araucanian-Chilean civil war.
- Blockade runner is now actually obtainable
- Flourishing economy for Paraguay no longer expires
- Revenge for the Triple Alliance and Rekindle old gripes now gives wargoals against both actors in a civil war if BRA or ARG is in a civil war
- Fixed an issue where two designer companies for Chile wouldn't have icons with AAT disabled.
- Fixed a bug where Bartolome Blanche would go to the revolting side in the Araucanian civil war despite the non-aligned side still meeting all the requirements to keep him.
- Fixed an issue where taking any of the Promote Spanish Immigration decisions as Chile would permanently block the player from taking any further immigration decisions.
- Support the Spanish republicans no longer spams the error folder
- Historical AI behavior setting for Uruguay no longer disallows achievements
- Fixed an issue where Paraguay could take a focus before taking the prerequisite focus
- You no longer require French Somaliland for the Chilean empire achivement
- USA should no longer guarantee Monroe countries in addition to having the Monroe spirit if Trial of Allegiance is on, unless Tension is > 90%
- Replaced some Uruguayan spirit icons with nicer ones
- Italy now joins the war when France proper is being invaded by Axis troops, or on the historical date
- Reshuffled priorities for building slots for URG/PAR to make it less likely that the capital hits the 25 slot limit
- Paraguay river navy gets properly removed upon capitulation
- Fixed Oscar Escudero Otárola having his name backwards
- 'Reach out to Soviets' in the Argentina tree now checks if the Soviet Union is communist.
- Election event will now only fire if Brazil has completed 'Repeal the National Security Laws'
- Made the requirements to get Senor Hilter slightly easier.
- Added the correct Mechanized tech icons for Brazil
- Fixed an issue where Argentina and Chile could not use their modern small aircraft icon for carrier aircraft.
- Added a fix so you can now see that Prestes will become country leader with the 'Align with Moscow' trait.
- Added a check to Argentina's 'Support the Spanish Republicans' focus so it can only be taken if the Spanish Republic exists.
- some more portrait tweaks for minvervino, valentino and dartnell
- Added a check to the Juan Peron focus to make sure he is still recruited. Also added tooltip to event to make it more apparent he will not be available.
- Argentina can now peace out all UK allies when taking the Falklands
- Modified requirements for 'Revise Treaty of Roca-Runciman' in Argentina focus tree. Now accessible to communists after civil war.
- New Edelman portrait added and minor tweaks to previously existing portraits
- Fix for the Cisplatine war achievement not working.
- Fixed snake smoked achievement file names.
- Nerfed some of the recruitable population and supply in Communist Argentina
- Merged two instances of a duplicated Brazilian admiral/advisor
- Added fix to prevent elections from firing if Vargas is still country leader
- Eugenio Gomez portrait updated to show the right person
- Neglected state and Cangaco state modifiers will now be removed when another country owns the state.
- Fixed an issue that was preventing players from inviting countries to the Org of American states faction and made it easier to see how to integrate countries into US of South America.
- Updated some focuses that were not adding cores to new states.
- Added a fix to make sure that Support the Spanish Nationalists isn't available if they win the civil war
- Added chief of army for those without ToA for Argentina
- Made Fascist demagogue advisors available from game start in Argentina
- Brazil and Argentina now have full access to their respective intel agency icons
- Improved tooltip for Align with Moscow focus
- Beneath the shadow of the Triple Alliance and Rekindle old gripes no longer instantly white peace PAR/URG, giving them the option of continuing the war without being teleported back
- Fixed confusing Tooltip for blockade runner
- Peru can no longer go to war with Ecuador if subject
- Chile can no longer create their own faction is subject
- Mexico can no longer invite Peru to their faction if they are at war with Ecuador
- Normandy is now part of Chile's decisions to core France
- Manuel A. Rodriguez no longer has a duplicated localization key and is recruited when ToA is disabled.
- Added fix that prevents players from taking "Demand Compensation From Spain" if Spain does not own Equatorial Guinea
- Fixed an issue with Argentina's starting plane having the wrong icon.
- Fixed a bug where "TAG makes aggressive moves on Uruguay" event fires twice
- URSAL focus now grants cores to Brazil
- Fixed a bug which required reloading the game to show hidden Senor Hilter focuses


##################################
# AI
##################################
- AI now motorizes supply hubs if needed, even if they are controlled by allies or puppets
- The ai should no longer be as willing to send volunteers to the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia for all of eternity.
- Limiting some italy ai strategies for only when in faction with germany

##################################
# Modding
##################################
- Removed the check on negative stats that disabled create_equipment_variant and AI equipment creation


##################################
# Stability & Performance
##################################
- Improve performance in resource computation.
- Various minor optimisations across the game (infrastructure etc)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 99Like
  • 27
  • 23Love
  • 15
  • 9
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I didn't see an explicit mention in the patch, but is the Communist Chilean focus which calls the other SA Communist nations to submit working properly? I'm in the middle of my game, and I'm not sure if I can fire it now with the assumed effect, or not (perhaps I must restart?). There is also a Mapuche focus which was supposed to liberate indigenous peoples of the Americas, but apparently did not give cores on Argentina - is that working now?

As for the DLC: I like it. Admittedly, I feel Peru and Ecuador deserved focus trees, as the only countries to have been in an actual South American war during the scope of the game.
 
I believe there are many players like me who don't find it very appealing to play minor countries other than our own personal home country. I expect most are looking for improvements or change in the main major ww2 countries and games mechanics.
Arheo has replied to this, but to add my anecdote: I predominantly play minor countries that can grow into something that competes with the main WW2 countries. Turkey (Ottoman) is a prime example. Anarchist Spain is another. Now ToA introduces the possibility of South America getting united and charging into USA by land, completely side-stepping the USA's strong navy. A minor country that can choose to enter WW2 around 1941 after consolidating land, industry and tech is interesting.

Germany. I know we have had several additions and reworks, but for such an important role in this scenario, I found the tree and ways to play lacking. Going Alt-History immediately cripples the game flow and removes challenge as you can just join either the Allies or the Soviet Union, and often or not the game is decided there. With the content we got for other countries, just as Finland, the Soviet Union, and such, a little gimmicky mechanic around Germany and politics would be nice and lift that vital country to the same level.
What would make Alt-History feel good is knowing there's a hand-crafted timeline that most nations are following. What you're describing is picking the most central major nation of WW2, going down alt-history and wondering if there'll even be a major world war should the rest of the world mostly follow the historical focuses. I recall a dev diary long ago talking of how the AI would try to accommodate Alt-Germany to present e.g. a French-Italian united Fascist front.

The game has enough focus trees that something could be orchestrated. There's already options in Custom Game Rules to hand-pick which paths AI will follow and save/load those presets. The average player will not have the time to handcraft those AI path choices to have a balanced alt-WW2 experience. Only devs know how many nightly automated games it takes to ensure the historical WW2 experience remains balanced as more content and mechanics are added. Maybe this is more suited as a mod than as a DLC but it feels like there's opportunity to present official alt-WW2 timelines (with some achievements and a few in-game newspaper announcements so it feels more alive).

This is a lengthy and interesting topic which I won't pretend to be a mega-expert on, but some context specific to this industry is that the price of games more or less stagnated for 15 or so years until quite recently. There's a bunch of contributing reasons to that, that include everything from communications advances making it easier to have a wide reach, or the massive shift from physical to digital media making it easier to maintain a competitive price by not adjusting game prices for inflation.
Ah yes. Also contributing would be the shift in social attitude towards gaming. There was a time when gaming was considered unfit for the normal person. As that stigma eroded away, there would be more buyers.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Importantly though, we aren’t gonna change that. We will sometimes have country pack releases, and they will not contain mechanics, though perhaps there’s some middle ground for tech/unit/other additions.
I really appreciate this approach. Not having to pay for more content than you actually want in order to have the full experience, mechanically speaking, is always a good thing in my book.


The Elephant in the Room
Thank you for the openness about the reception of the content and your thoughts surrounding it. Even though AAT was generally favourably received parts of the content wasnt, and though you have admitted not being happy about Norway, I think adressing some of those shortcomings and sharing your thoughts (like in this DD) would have been really helpful, as it feels like you have been ignoring a "baby elephant" for a while now. I understand there might be good reasons not to (internal politics and employer responsibility comes to mind), but some thoughts on the way forward for content you are unhappy with (not nescesarrily limited to AAT) would be a great follow up to this DD.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Really enjoying the content, before my last play through I was in the camp of the price point being a bit high for additions that don't really have much of an effect on the war if not playing with the countries in the DLC. That was until I did the world conquest as communist Brazil with the lack of cores still being present in the game. After that adventure I would say the price per hour came crashing down lol. Only real complaint I have is this coming out before a South East Asia DLC. Overall, really enjoyed the content. Congrats.
 
  • 1Love
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Besides the wishes to update the majors, add mechanics or give focus trees to untouched minor-nations, will there be a possibility to add more Generals to France?

In comparison to recently reworked nations and even majors like Italy, France seems to be desperately lacking more historical and important Generals. This is especially annoying for those of us who love immersion but largely play with ironman friendly mods only and like the vanilla art style.

There are more cases of this (important Polish generals missing and being unable to recreate the historical 1939 PL OOB, which i plan to write a thread on soon, or Spanish Admirals) but adding more of them to at least France would be greatly appreciated and was iirc already in the suggestion sub-forum somewhere before.

Is this something that would be possible in a war effort patch or is it too far out of scope?
 
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Hi (warning bad english I'am from chile) I loved the DLC and I have played all the Chile routes, I have a small complaint about the communist route of chile, It's the fact that you can't eliminate the Inquilinje and mapuche conflict being a communist, because the solutions to these problems are found after the focus "an attempt to mantain neutrality" or "support the democracy" and these focus require that you be democratic or non-aligned. It is not possible to bypass the focus or add way to eliminate it in the communist focus. because it is strange that the communists cannot eliminate those two problems
And the other problem is whether an easier way to annex puppet countries like communist Chile cannot be added.

Thanks for reading me
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I'm probably unduly obsessive about this, but in Paraguay, Ciudad del Este (the second victory/capture point) didn't exist in 1936. Not even a village, not even a project for anything until the 50s. And the place wasn't called Ciudad del Este once they founded it either. It was called Puerto Flor de Lis, then soon after and for most of its existence Puerto Presidente Stroessner (the old dictator's name). It got the current name in '89. I think you should probably add Encarnacion further south as the second city in Paraguay instead. It's rather immersion breaking, at least for me.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
One thing that actually opened my eyes with this DLC was that, before it released, I thought I didn't enjoy wacky alt history in this game, but playing Mapuche Chile showed me that with enough depth and actual game objectives, choices, good modifiers and engaging use of game mechanics, you can make any path fun. My only problem with this DLC is that, for being a focus tree only expansion, not all branches actually got the same amount of love, as I've been voicing my love and hatred relationship with the Cangaço path for a while now, as it could very well have more depth and sub branches, advisors and modifiers given to it besides just a single leader. The cangaço mechanic in general is something you get rid of too easily by clicking a few times. Quick fixes and improvements could be given to the integralist modifiers to make them stand out to Vargas a bit more, and these are all things I'd say is fair for a country with the magnitude of Brazil to have.
Sometimes it feels like feedback falls on deaf ears due to releases feeling rushed and bug filled, which I am not saying is the case with this one, but it was exactly what it looked like when I opened the game and saw the bad modifier in Minas Gerais which I still don't get if its intended or not. Best regards

Edit : I feel like its worth mentioning I loved playing Estado Novo Brazil and seeing my country represented there, in all its flaws and turmoil of the historical path. I also liked the industry tree and I enjoyed messing around with army modifiers.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Firstly, overjoyed to see this open discussion take place and the response from the developers. That itself is more encouraging about the future of this game than an "overwhelmingly positive" response to any DLC.

Also disclaimer: I haven't bought the DLC myself (yet) and it is the first DLC I haven't put top of my wishlist (its even below some Stellaris DLC's which, surprise surprise are also "Mostly Negative").

What I would like to know, if it can be shared, is a bit more about how and why these DLC's are chosen. You say there is a roadmap and the team has lots of things they'd like to do, but from a business decision, why was South America chosen? Was it to address a market need? Was it customer led or developer led? If one imagines a list of possible (and uncontroversial) positive future developments that would benefit the game as a whole (I know, sounds hard but not impossible), how does the team / director think a South America content pack stacks up?

Whilst I would say the HOI team is excellent at laying out what is coming, some responses suggest they are not so great at laying out the why. Crucially, why does the feedback about prioritising X over Y meet with the response of
"Importantly though, we aren’t gonna change that"? if you acknowledge a large subset of responses are of this ilk, it sounds like at the very least you could do more to explain your reasoning beyond "no change".

I also find it very difficult to accept that working on content packs does not come at the expense of other features. In my experience, getting a release together necessarily requires pausing other development branches / merging to the trunk (even temporarily) and getting the software through QA. I would be curious to know how you manage to eliminate this expense entirely, especially given the necessity of follow-up patches (which the game relies on quite heavily).

Finally:
Interestingly, one of the earlier points of feedback we had was that the old version of the Monroe doctrine felt very unrealistic.
Do you think the new method is  more realistic? I'm concerned that these mini changes (or small nudges as I believe you previously referred to them) are not having the desired effect of encouraging historical or realistic gameplay. Rather the opposite.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
In January, Paradox made efforts to normalize pricing across various currency regions according to (as I understand it) a standard used by Valve.
Hm... Yeah... I see.

1710346942348.png
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Ive got a few hours in HOI4 :D

I bought the pack because I am happy to support you guys, but I was left a tad disappointed. To be fair, it wasn't unexpected. I didn't expect sweeping changes - it just seems a little unpolished, and unfinished, and that's the nail in the coffin. The duplication of focus tree choices, the lack of equipment naming, etc. Things like this need to be finished or it just seems like laziness on your part.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not sure it would be profitable but revisiting the trees from the first few DLCs would be very welcome. They don't all need to be super powered but a number of countries just have a very boring focus tree compared to the more recently developed ones. Also it's pretty weird this game still has no mention of the Pearl Harbor attack.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Hey, I am long-time fan of the game and have bought every DLC/content pack the game has released, except this one. For me, my biggest concern with this DLC, and with the direction of Hoi4 in general, is it's focus on alternate history. Anyone that knows some history about World War Two knows that South America was not an integral part of the war, and its largest contribution was the roughly 25,000 troops sent from Brazil. Thus, the inclusion of focus trees for South America (with nations that were largely neutral) displays that the focus was mainly on their a-historical branches, as (proven with Sweden and Switzerland) nobody (for the most part) wants to play a wargame as a neutral country. This is not bad on its own, however, it seems ridiculous to me that the focus of an ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT TEAM is on nations that DIDN'T PARICIPATE in the war that this game is SUPPOSED to be focused on! And this is the biggest concern that I have with the current state of the game, as it is clear that this has been the focus for the last 2 DLC's. I am struggling to understand why an development team is spending its resources creating focus trees for irrelevant nations instead of using its resources to either create DESPERATELY NEEDED REWORKS for nations such as Germany, Japan, USA (and basically every minor nation before NSB), as it seems likely from your developer comments that the new expansions coming will not be reworks.

I would like to make it clear that I am not against new content, in fact I have loved most of the recent DLCs! But it seems clear that the focus of the Hoi4 development team is shifting away from creating a WW2 simulation game and instead is focusing on expanding the a-historical content (which also has several balancing issues that make playing the game historical very unrealistic and not fun to play. In my opinion a minor nations such as Estonia should not be given enough modifiers, cores, and other buffs to easily take over all of Scandinavia and beat a power at big as the Soviet Union, but that is just my opinion).

I would like to end this with a question to the developers, and ask if I am correct that the focus of the game has shifted to alternative history? Also will the 1939 start date ever be fixed/reworked?
 
  • 4Like
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm not sure it would be profitable but revisiting the trees from the first few DLCs would be very welcome. They don't all need to be super powered but a number of countries just have a very boring focus tree compared to the more recently developed ones. Also it's pretty weird this game still has no mention of the Pearl Harbor attack.

That one is more mechanical in nature. At the time, I think it was deemed a bit of a weak option when a player could just… move their navy and avoid the catastrophe they knew was coming.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
I love every time we get new content! And I love this post.

I got the TOA but have not played anything around south america yet - I started a chinese game instead (not that I disapprove of anything, just got the urge).

If I was in Paradox I would do country packs for India and the Dutch Indies aswell just to aim at big chunks of the world population, so I understand and respect why south america is a priority. After all, the more people enjoy Hoi4 - the more content I get as a gamer.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Hey, I am long-time fan of the game and have bought every DLC/content pack the game has released, except this one. For me, my biggest concern with this DLC, and with the direction of Hoi4 in general, is it's focus on alternate history. Anyone that knows some history about World War Two knows that South America was not an integral part of the war, and its largest contribution was the roughly 25,000 troops sent from Brazil. Thus, the inclusion of focus trees for South America (with nations that were largely neutral) displays that the focus was mainly on their a-historical branches, as (proven with Sweden and Switzerland) nobody (for the most part) wants to play a wargame as a neutral country. This is not bad on its own, however, it seems ridiculous to me that the focus of an ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT TEAM is on nations that DIDN'T PARICIPATE in the war that this game is SUPPOSED to be focused on! And this is the biggest concern that I have with the current state of the game, as it is clear that this has been the focus for the last 2 DLC's. I am struggling to understand why an development team is spending its resources creating focus trees for irrelevant nations instead of using its resources to either create DESPERATELY NEEDED REWORKS for nations such as Germany, Japan, USA (and basically every minor nation before NSB), as it seems likely from your developer comments that the new expansions coming will not be reworks.

I would like to make it clear that I am not against new content, in fact I have loved most of the recent DLCs! But it seems clear that the focus of the Hoi4 development team is shifting away from creating a WW2 simulation game and instead is focusing on expanding the a-historical content (which also has several balancing issues that make playing the game historical very unrealistic and not fun to play. In my opinion a minor nations such as Estonia should not be given enough modifiers, cores, and other buffs to easily take over all of Scandinavia and beat a power at big as the Soviet Union, but that is just my opinion).

I would like to end this with a question to the developers, and ask if I am correct that the focus of the game has shifted to alternative history? Also will the 1939 start date ever be fixed/reworked?


I'm glad there are options for alternative History.
I play Hoi 4 exclusively without a historical focus.
Nevertheless, I agree with you about the reworks from Germany and Japan. And there are even more countries that need a rework.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I'm glad there are options for alternative History.
I play Hoi 4 exclusively without a historical focus.
Nevertheless, I agree with you about the reworks from Germany and Japan. And there are even more countries that need a rework.
I understand that many people play without historical focuses, but it seems odd to me that the game which is and was a world war two simulator first now seems to be completely shifting to creating focus trees with the purpose of alt history instead of reworking the focus trees of the nations which are most relevant for the "ww2 simulator" that hoi4 claims to be
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Ah yes. Also contributing would be the shift in social attitude towards gaming. There was a time when gaming was considered unfit for the normal person.
Whcih I always thought as rather odd, because most of the people I knew who were saying that, still watched TV religiously every evening for hours. So, TV for hours, staring at the idiot box was fine, but playing a game was not? Never made sense to me.
 
  • 3
Reactions: