HoI 4 Dev Diary - Formable Nations and Achievements

[Gamengervi]

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

My attitude? I'm not the one that talks down to people whenever I post because the game isn't exactly the way I want it to be or because other people have different opinions on how it should be developed. How about you make productive criticism in a non-condescending, mature manner and get off your high horse? Or go play some Gary Grigsby or something instead of increasing toxicity levels here. And who the hell are you to say that you're disappointed in me? You don't even know me.

Grow up.

 

[JAEDON]

You can form United Netherlands... So you don't need Benelux

United Netherlands =/= Benelux

 

[Xerberous]

Don’t you think historical mode should really mean historical?

What is actually historical?

- Germany goes to war with the Allies?
- Germany goes to war with in the Allies in the right order (Poland, France,...)
- Germany goes to war with in the Allies in the right order and the right dates?
- Germany goes to war with in the Allies in the right order, the right dates and the right number of divisions in total?
- Germany goes to war with in the Allies in the right order, the right dates and the right number of divisions in the individual places?
- Germany goes to war with in the Allies in the right order, the right dates, the right number of divisions in the individual places and the historical strategy?
- Germany goes to war with in the Allies in the right order, the right dates, the right number of divisions in the individual places, the historical strategy and loses the war?

Especially when taking the last point: Why playing this as computer game? The outcome should be clear, otherwise it would not be “historical”.

 

[CommunistLeader]

Good.

 

[jpapple]

United Netherlands =/= Benelux

It spans the same landmass and the historical naming of the low countries were 'The Netherlands' so adding the Benelux would just be a new name and flag... Even though the United Netherlands can stand for an United nation of the Netherlands (like how the region is historically called)

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

What is actually historical?

- Germany goes to war with in the Allies in the right order, the right dates, the right number of divisions in the individual places, the historical strategy and loses the war?

Especially when taking the last point: Why playing this as computer game? The outcome should be clear, otherwise it would not be “historical”.

Yes, I would definitely pick the last option.

I don’t play to know the outcome because it’s always the same, me winning.
Don’t you think that if all the issues that Germany had faced in the war were properly represented it would have been a nice and challenging game?

Without the D Day I don’t have to pull divisions from the eastern front.
Without Stalingrad there’s no turning point.
Without the Russian pushing me back I don’t need to research better tanks.
Without market garden and the Ardennes offensive the western front gets a little boring.
Without Crete the allies would control the Mediterranean.
Without the landing In Sicily there is no war on the italian’s soil.
Without pearl harbour there is no USA at all.
Without the stalemate in China there’s no Burma campaign.

This is my opinion. I would love to hear yours.

 

[Xerberous]

Yes, I would definitely pick the last option.

I don’t play to know the outcome because it’s always the same, me winning.
Don’t you think that if all the issues that Germany had faced in the war were properly represented it would have been a nice and challenging game?

This is my opinion. I would love to hear yours.

Sorry, but I still don't get your point.

When you play as Germany, what is the intended result? Germany winning the war or losing the war? In the first case you have to go a-historically somewhere – and I’m interested where this “somewhere” should be according to your opinion.

In the second case I just don’t see the sense in playing a computer game.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

Sorry, but I still don't get your point.

When you play as Germany, what is the intended result? Germany winning the war or losing the war? In the first case you have to go a-historically somewhere – and I’m interested where this “somewhere” should be according to your opinion.

In the second case I just don’t see the sense in playing a computer game.

The point would be trying desperately to postpone the capitulation. Imagine that your opponent (the AI) is as strong as it was historically, you then have to use your strategic skills, moving divisions wisely and do some actual thinking and not just draw a line and watch. Each faction, of course, will face different focuses, ambitions, problems and war goals as they did historically.

This is why I think that playing historically is still a valid way to have a nice experience.

 

[Reinner]

Yes, I would definitely pick the last option.

I don’t play to know the outcome because it’s always the same, me winning.
Don’t you think that if all the issues that Germany had faced in the war were properly represented it would have been a nice and challenging game?

You're puting historical events over gameplay and that's not how things work in HoI4 which is good and a bad thing, let me give you couple of examples:

- when Germany invaded Soviet Union, Soviets were completely surprised and were pretty much constantly retreating from positions and cities they could not defend, meanwhile in the game as soon as Germany takes focus for Barbarosa, all their troops are garrissoned on their borders and prepared, they are defending in the beggining of the attack much better then later on

- if Moscow and Stalingrad are reached by the Germans (or anyone else in the matter) it is guaranteed those cities will fall, because by that time majority of enemy divisions are too crippled and exhausted for them to be able push Axis back like they did in real life

- there is no point of having invasion of Creete since Greece surrenders when Athens fall and governments in exile (aside from France) don't exist, which is the reason why Germany launched an attack on Crete (not to mention AI doesn't use paratroopers)

- invasion of Norway almost never happens because UK wipes out entire German navy within first couple of months after the war breaks out, despite the fact that Germany was contesting royal navy with their submarines and ships like Bismarck a lot in the early years

I also would like to see more events appearing but not if it sacrifices the gameplay, i don't want magically for Soviet Union to receive X ammount of divisions when their capital cities are reached just so they could try to portray some battles being more "historical" . The game becomes ahistorical as soon as you start playing it., that's the fact.

 

[LastPlayer]

I've just a question: why?
Why making formable nations now? I think that there are more important issues to resolve and mechanics to improve or to add (example: the AI). I'm not saying that i don't like this feature but in my opinion it is something unnecessary . In conclusion i would prefer to see more resources deticated to improve basic mechanics than in this less important features.

 

[Gort11]

I've just a question: why?
Why making formable nations now? I think that there are more important issues to resolve and mechanics to improve or to add (example: the AI). I'm not saying that i don't like this feature but in my opinion it is something unnecessary . In conclusion i would prefer to see more resources deticated to improve basic mechanics than in this less important features.

Lots of people like them in the other games Paradox have made, and it's probably pretty cheap resources-wise.

Also, the people who are working on this will not be the AI programmers. You don't get anywhere good by just throwing a mob of unskilled people at whatever you deem to be the most important issue, you silo people off to the most important issue within their skillset.

 

[LastPlayer]

Lots of people like them in the other games Paradox have made, and it's probably pretty cheap resources-wise.

Also, the people who are working on this will not be the AI programmers. You don't get anywhere good by just throwing a mob of unskilled people at whatever you deem to be the most important issue, you silo people off to the most important issue within their skillset.

1) I'm not saying the only problem of hoi4 is just the AI (unfurtunatelly)
2) implementing new mechanics or improve old ones will need the work of all the development team i think
3) Which skill is required to add some formable staes? As you have said it's probably pretty cheap resources-wise

 

[Gort11]

2) implementing new mechanics or improve old ones will need the work of all the development team i think

Only because "Implementing new mechanics or improve old ones" is such a meaningless term it could encompass everything in the game. The example you gave was "Improving the AI", and that's a very specialised skillset.

3) Which skill is required to add some formable staes? As you have said it's probably pretty cheap resources-wise

Given that the AI won't do it, a bit of event and decision scripting. If they can do a feature that a lot of players like without many resources, that's a win for everyone involved.

 

[Mr. Phorcys]

The point would be trying desperately to postpone the capitulation. Imagine that your opponent (the AI) is as strong as it was historically, you then have to use your strategic skills, moving divisions wisely and do some actual thinking and not just draw a line and watch. Each faction, of course, will face different focuses, ambitions, problems and war goals as they did historically.

This is why I think that playing historically is still a valid way to have a nice experience.

But then it becomes a game of micromanagement on all fronts, and that's not fun for new players. Germany especially is the first pick for new players, and your idea of WWII has all the divisions being moved around for the player... except during the actual war. Where's the fun for a new player if they desperately have to look up where every single Allied division was on any given day just to avoid capitulation? Where's the fun for the experienced player if Germany is fated to trigger Operation Barbarossa too late in the year? For other countries, like Tibet or Brazil, they would have to contend with going the historical path... And basically just sit there. Tibet specifically would have to wait for Mao's inevitable victory in the civil war before being crushed like a bug because it did nothing for two excruciatingly long decades. Where would you be able to have fun, with your five infantry divisions, no allies, and no way to change the course? That would be historical.

On a different note, take Manchukuo in this expansion. It is led by the last true Emperor of China, and is the chance to revive the Qing dynasty from the very brink of destruction to continue the milennia-long cycle of dynasties. It is also an underdog, barely autonomous from Japan, sandwiched between Stalin and the Republic of China. It would be an amazing play through to see Puyi reclaim the Dragon Throne. But... historically Puyi was a spoiled brat, living in fear of the Kwantung generals who managed the country for him, and he could never have restored the Qing with what he was given. A truly historical HOI4 would reflect that, and also the fact that Chiang Kai-shek would eventually take over Manchuria. Doing otherwise would be unfair for a Chinese play through. But in doing that, an amazing story would be lost.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

But then it becomes a game of micromanagement on all fronts, and that's not fun for new players. Germany especially is the first pick for new players, and your idea of WWII has all the divisions being moved around for the player... except during the actual war. Where's the fun for a new player if they desperately have to look up where every single Allied division was on any given day just to avoid capitulation? Where's the fun for the experienced player if Germany is fated to trigger Operation Barbarossa too late in the year? For other countries, like Tibet or Brazil, they would have to contend with going the historical path... And basically just sit there. Tibet specifically would have to wait for Mao's inevitable victory in the civil war before being crushed like a bug because it did nothing for two excruciatingly long decades. Where would you be able to have fun, with your five infantry divisions, no allies, and no way to change the course? That would be historical.

I understand your point but I believe new players will learn, as we all did. Keeping a game shallow and exaggerated easy because scares new players is not something that I would like to see in any game.

Tibet might be fun but the priority should always be given to the historical factions.

Why can’t we have a good historical game mode alongside the ahistorical one? There is nothing to lose.

 

[Greene]

How does one kill Mussolini?

 

[Xerberous]

The point would be trying desperately to postpone the capitulation. Imagine that your opponent (the AI) is as strong as it was historically, you then have to use your strategic skills, moving divisions wisely and do some actual thinking and not just draw a line and watch. Each faction, of course, will face different focuses, ambitions, problems and war goals as they did historically.

This is why I think that playing historically is still a valid way to have a nice experience.

I'm really interested to understand your approach. Let's stick with the Barbarossa example:

Assuming it's Summer 1942 and you and the HoI4 AI managed to keep everything historically. Would you really exercise "Fall Blau" (the assault on Stalingrad) as it was done in reality? And if so, why? Why play a game to loose on purpose?

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

I'm really interested to understand your approach. Let's stick with the Barbarossa example:

Assuming it's Summer 1942 and you and the HoI4 AI managed to keep everything historically. Would you really exercise "Fall Blau" (the assault on Stalingrad) as it was done in reality? And if so, why? Why play a game to loose on purpose?

Because if you manage to get Russia capitulated you can concentrate all your divisions to the other front.
Understanding my approach is easy, I’m not interested in world conquest.

 

[Pyro157]

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.

Do you understand how frustrating this will be for Nationalist China players like me, then?

That if the game fits your ideas, we have to play historical and watch as our economy spirals out of control, watch as we fail to get sufficient amounts of lend-lease equipment to our soldiers, as our counterattacks fail often, as the Japanese take huge amounts of land and push back our troops, that we resist as hard as we can and come out victorious, but have to lose the civil war to the Communists and everything we've built on the mainland? That if everything goes at history intended, we have to deal with games that are not fun, and are sad and frustrating?

I'm a history buff. I'm all for historical accuracy to a reasonable degree. I like ensuring things happen at fairly historical dates. But trying to make the game completely fit history is something that can't be done.

 

[Mr. Phorcys]

I understand your point but I believe new players will learn, as we all did. Keeping a game shallow and exaggerated easy because scares new players is not something that I would like to see in any game.

Tibet might be fun but the priority should always be given to the historical factions.

Why can’t we have a good historical game mode alongside the ahistorical one? There is nothing to lose.

Except a historical mode would require oh so much data for what you want. And imagine if you chose France, justified on Germany before 1939, and went to war. That isn't historical. But that's the risk in a game where the player can change history. A truly historical game would only be fun for a major power that "wins" for a time. France would exist only to be overrun by the Reich. And let's return to that war. What if you, as France, won? Does Barbarossa still fire? What happens to all that historical coding that those developers spent months on? Does de Gaulle lead France if France never fell?

In another dimension, diplomacy. How should Ethiopia's annexation be taken by the other countries? Historical reactions are far too complex for any game to give a true representation of diplomacy. And what about simulating the ahistorical occupations that will inevitably arise? What if, after immense effort, a player-directed Estonia takes over Manhattan? Would it then have to model an "oppressed American minority"? Wouldn't that modifier be lessened if Estonia instead took over Poland or Latvia? If so, every single country must have multiple degrees of culture shock for varying degrees of similarity between conquered and occupying cultures. Could rebels rise up in Estonian New York the same way Poland resisted the Nazis? After all, you want at least enough ahistoricity that you could theoretically change some history, so the people who take on the absurd challenges would naturally seek out these sorts of outcome. To deny Estonia the theoretical ability to take over the U.S. is to limit the scope of the game, which is madness from a dev standpoint.

Speaking of which, do you know how much coding that would require? It would be enormous -- far, far larger than any expansion ever produced -- and only for those few who want to play as a major or who want further challenge to an ahistoric campaign. You would have a lot of resources used to a small return. A terrible business decision.

And there would be the dreaded lag.

Finally, focusing on the "majors" flies in the face of a "truly historical mode" -- just because small countries do not have a narrative role in a Eurocentric conflict does not mean that you can just overwrite them and make them even more pawns than they already were.