HoI 4 Dev Diary - Formable Nations and Achievements

[Ryousan2k]

No offense, but I think if we are going to think about what's good for the game, we have to think beyond "The country I'm from needs love". Game design shouldn't be about satisfying patriotism.

Just because somebody is a patriotic Nepali or Yemeni, doesn't mean there is a need for those nations to get focus trees and decisions (not at this stage of the game anyway).

And just for the record, I think it was a bit of a waste of time for my home country to get a focus tree so early in the game, and it didn't fill me with any kind of patriotic joy when it did get one.

Colombia was one the bigger fish of SOuth America at the time, and one of those who was embroiled in that political dance between the US and the Axis (most Latin AMerica flirted with theAxis until very late in the War) and actively participated in naval combat against German SUbmarines. I could see them having a proper Focus Tree, along with Brazil , Argentina and Mexico, Peru has also some nice potential : it had a rather large Japanese Community and for this very same reason it caught some attention from the US.

It would be also a good time to intrudice Spies and Covert Ops, to properly represent the German Operation Boliviar in SOuth AMerica

 

[roberd]

Can you form The Commonwealth (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) ?

 

[Tempestra]

Colombia was one the bigger fish of SOuth America at the time, and one of those who was embroiled in that political dance between the US and the Axis (most Latin AMerica flirted with theAxis until very late in the War

Yes, well, -that- is a good reason for Colombia to get some design love.

I wasn't necessarily saying Colombia has to be neglected, just "to make patriotic Colombian players happy" isn't a good rationale for working on it.

 

[Mr. Phorcys]

I'd just like to note that a formable Byzantium is perhaps slightly less improbable than some think.

The Megali Idea (that Greece could reform Byzantium if they retook Thrace) went on as a serious idea all the way up to at least the Balkan Wars (The maps for claimed territories mostly date to WWI, anyway) -- a nickname for Constantine I of Greece amongst nationalist Greeks was "Constantine XII", for obvious reasons. And the Balkan Wars were closer to the start date than WWI or the collapse of the Qing, yet not as many people seem to complain about the return of the Kaiserreich or of the Xuantong Emperor.

Even today, the fascist Golden Dawn party in Greece supports the Megali Idea -- so it's not as if the idea died after World War I.

Of course, there's nothing saying that the formable countries would be anything more than a cosmetic change: I highly doubt that forming Rome would cause a "rightful heir" to be put on the throne, for example. With Byzantium, it'd be no different than Hitler's Germany being called the "Third Reich" -- sure, the flag changes, but it's fundamentally revaunchist posturing that caters to a particular culture, if you choose to interpret it that way.

 

[Tempestra]

I'd just like to note that a formable Byzantium is perhaps slightly less improbable than some think.

The Megali Idea (that Greece could reform Byzantium if they retook Thrace) went on as a serious idea....

This is exactly analogous to the "Mussolini wanted to conquer former Roman territories, therefore he wanted to reform the Roman Empire" argument. So analogous, in fact, I explicitly mentioned earlier.

Exactly the same argument applies. Bigging up Byzantium as a boost for modern Greek nationalism, even conquering former territories based on their having once belonged to Byzantium, does not mean tag switching to Byzantium.

To use an example that should resonate with everyone here, Nazis often talked about the legacy of the Teutonic Knights, and talked about reclaiming their conquests in the Baltics. This does not mean Germany should tag switch to the Teutonic Knights when playing historically.

 

[Ryousan2k]

To use an example that should resonate with everyone here, Nazis often talked about the legacy of the Teutonic Knights, and talked about reclaiming their conquests in the Baltics. This does not mean Germany should tag switch to the Teutonic Knights when playing historically.

But Nazis did try to stablish -or to fabricate, depending on how you see it- a sense of continuity between the Kaiserreich and the Third Reich, thats why Hitler tried initially to court the favor of the deposed German nobility.

I can see the case of why most people wont consider the modern Greek State does not possess any continuity from the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire, but the idea of Byzantium (and by extention the Megali idea) is more intimately tied to Greek Identity as a nation than in the Italo-Roman case, which is more complex. That why Greek restoring the "Byzantine" Empire sounds a lil`less outlandish than if we were to say Greeks restoring Rome because Byzantium.

 

[Reinner]

To use an example that should resonate with everyone here, Nazis often talked about the legacy of the Teutonic Knights, and talked about reclaiming their conquests in the Baltics. This does not mean Germany should tag switch to the Teutonic Knights when playing historically.

Another good example is the name operation Barbarossa, which was named after Holy Roman Emperor Frederick I who stated he is going to make Germany the biggest and most important land in Europe during his reign.

 

[Lord of Beer]

The historical purists can also rest assured that they won’t see the decision pop up if they follow the historical path

Does this mean formable nations won't work/be shown for the player on 'historical mode'? Because that would be quite lame, I want to play historical mode AND have formable nations.

Also does the territory need to be annexed or just occupied to form?

 

[Alex_brunius]

Does this mean formable nations won't work/be shown for the player on 'historical mode'? Because that would be quite lame, I want to play historical mode AND have formable nations.

HoI4 doesn't have a "historical mode", only a setting if you want AI nations to follow historical NFs or not.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

HoI4 doesn't have a "historical mode", only a setting if you want AI nations to follow historical NFs or not.

I don't even think the Historical setting even covers event choices.

 

[Gamengervi]

I don't even think the Historical setting even covers event choices.

It does. At least in some cases.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

It does. At least in some cases.

If you choose to play historical everything must follow the course of events.

When I play historical and see Italy invading the Balkans, or Uk landing in Italy in 1942, I just quit and wait for the next patch. I can’t play a satisfying game knowing that anything will go as history intended.

Those are things that I can’t control.

 

[Gamengervi]

If you choose to play historical everything must follow the course of events.

When I play historical and see Italy invading the Balkans, or Uk landing in Italy in 1942, I just quit and wait for the next patch. I can’t play a satisfying game knowing that anything will go as history intended.

Those are things that I can’t control.

Well you're going to be waiting for awhile.

 

[DrTjr]

I'm going to need a new pair a pants.

I am going to Get that Byzantine goodness

 

[FlavioB]

And you are ok with it. Let me guess, if i want a real ww2 experience I should watch a documentary. Because who cares of D Day if you can play as Iran and take over the world. It’s funny!!! Super funny!!!! We are having so much fun!!!!!!!!

So you want the AI to act historically even when the reasons why those choices were made in real life are not applicable to the case in the game?
You want Poland to say "Hey, we're gonna fight Germany" even if Germany amassed 8.000.000 fighting troops with 1944 tech in their borders in 1939?

The moment you sign up to change history, you have to understand that history will be changed. Otherwise you're just watching a slightly interactive documentary.

 

[Mr. Phorcys]

This is exactly analogous to the "Mussolini wanted to conquer former Roman territories, therefore he wanted to reform the Roman Empire" argument. So analogous, in fact, I explicitly mentioned earlier.

Exactly the same argument applies. Bigging up Byzantium as a boost for modern Greek nationalism, even conquering former territories based on their having once belonged to Byzantium, does not mean tag switching to Byzantium.

To use an example that should resonate with everyone here, Nazis often talked about the legacy of the Teutonic Knights, and talked about reclaiming their conquests in the Baltics. This does not mean Germany should tag switch to the Teutonic Knights when playing historically.

But the Teutonic Knights were a part of a patchwork of propaganda that included Vikings, the Holy Roman Empire, and Prussia... And the actual Teutonic Order still existed (and does to this day), so a tag change would be much more ridiculous.

Regarding Mussolini, his conquests were similarly built around a pan-Italian sentiment, but more to the tune of "Make Italia Great Again" rather than a "Make Rome Again". And as stated above, Italian nationalism had a more complicated relationship to Rome. But the Byzantine Empire was the great revaunchist rhetoric of Greece, and though the state had no political ties to Byzantium the belief in a reborn Orthodox Greek Empire was much more ingrained than, say, the rebirth of Rome in Western Europe. Not to mention it was nearly a political reality at the end of WWI... much more than what Mussolini got to.

 

[Tempestra]

Modern Greece also utilised a panoply of historical antecedents in its propaganda - Byzantine, yes, but also ancient Athens and Sparta, and historical folk resistance from the Ottoman occupation.

You can't dismiss Italian or German evocations of Rome or the Teutons (respectively) as part of a patchwork, and then claim some kind of focus on Byzantine.

This is how modern nationalism works - it's always a melange of fisiparous historical antecedents mixed with urban myth, folklore, actual myth, and a healthy injection of pure bullshit.

Extracting a historic component of this and saying "X Modern state was going to transform into Y ancient state if they captured Z physical territory" never makes any sense - for Italy and Rome, for Germany and the Teutons/HRE, for Greece and Byzantine, for Turkey and the Ottomans, for the USSR and the Ottoman Empire, for France and Charlemagne's Empire, hell, for India and the Mughal Empire.

I mean I know Paradox will do it, but let's not claim it's anything other than historical fantasy across the board.

 

[Ryousan2k]

Modern Greece also utilised a panoply of historical antecedents in its propaganda - Byzantine, yes, but also ancient Athens and Sparta, and historical folk resistance from the Ottoman occupation.

You can't dismiss Italian or German evocations of Rome or the Teutons (respectively) as part of a patchwork, and then claim some kind of focus on Byzantine.

But the core of and Center of Greek Nationalism has been always Byzantium: As it was what could be called the blue print for modern Greece (a greek speaking, christian Nation). And HAS ALWAYS BEEN a key point in Greek irredentism: To this day Istanbul/Konstantinopolis is point of contention between Turkey and Greece, so in this key tthe physical case does carry some weight in the idea of Byzantium as a Greek and Christian State. Athens and Sparta were meant as a remidner that Greeks had an illustrious past but the Magali Idea and Byzatium were seen as means to make Greece whole again

And its quite different to say, if Greece captures Afghanistan, to revive the Bactrian Kingdom or capture Syria and restore the Seleucids (but I smell mods in those cases ¬_¬) In that sense the HRE is more outlandish to me, but if country name changes acording to ideology it probably wont be so bad,

 

[Gamengervi]

Don't downvote me because you made yourself look bad, @Wasted Shampoo. I didn't agree or disagree with you. If you actually made cohesive arguments instead of nonsensical angry posts (which you have been doing since you came into these forums), people wouldn't react so negatively. That's on you, not me.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

No @Gamengervi, the downvote is for the attitude, very disappointing.

@FlavioB tell me, what if I don’t want to change history but the AI does it for me.
Don’t you think historical mode should really mean historical?