• 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 We don’t usually consider design choices or outdated content as bugs unless they cause the first statement to apply, since that evaluation is often subjective.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 decided to check out if the new patch had dropped and I find a minor war has broken out in the Balkans, 9 pages of comments just read through.

I don't have much time for discussions thus rarely on these forums despite MANY years here and an original HOI1 player and all its sequels. So a few impressions and comments about the current state of this simulation/game:

1. Bought the new DLC ( and own every one), I spend more of my gaming time playing HOI4 despite other gaming interests (primarily strategic wargames are my favs), so I know something of the subject with about 50 years playing board games to crude PC (hello Battleship Bismarck!) to the latest Civil War and Roman games. If I am spending SO much of my limited time playing this game in its current state (and I generally don't do mods or MP due to time constraints), I think the game is in good shape. I would have preferred a COMPLETE South American DLC, even if it meant just some shared focus trees and limited individual trees. I have been trying out achievements now, trying to do one with current Venezuela is simply not too fun.

2. BUT that's the problem: once the developers start making truly in-depth focus trees (compare DLC Italy to Germany or Japan now), we all expect every new DLC to have our favorite country treated like a major. Yes I think spending so much effort on minor countries is excessive, but I did enjoy my first play-throughs with the new DLC and where do you draw the line? I am all for alternate-history if plausible, but yeah some of it is pure chrome to appeal to a different type of player than me.

3. So what would I like to see? Maybe the next DLC is a true update to the core major powers who haven't seen as much love as Italy or USSR, with suggested fixes to minor trees and some more improvements to naval game and whatever else can improve the play of the game, the fun of beating the AI and making your own alt-history within reason. Not sure how that would be done, seems all the themes of the war have been touched upon.

Bravo to Arheo and his team, thanks for the honest and thorough update and response to criticism, even if I believe MOST is unwarranted. Back to the game...
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
He definitely looks darker skinned; more like mixed-race but his portrait is pretty much a 1-to-1 of the reference picture of him
I really can't see any difference between before and after and i am not the only one.
Look at his picture on Kaiserreich, look soo much better
 

Attachments

  • portrait_bra_minervino_oliveira.png
    portrait_bra_minervino_oliveira.png
    44,9 KB · Views: 0
  • 1
Reactions:
Just a few questions.

When will we get a Communist focus tree path for Germany with Ernst Thalmann and his KPD? and why don't we currently have one?

Why wasn't the North sea oil implemented as an exploitable resource option for players during the Norway focus tree in the previous expansion? We have Nazi Germany with nuclear weapons, why not North sea oil?

Also what about a Rhodesia focus tree and making it playable? Since it was part of the British Empire and Ian Smith fought for the British empire during WW2 and there was a referendum in Rhodesia about whether it and South Africa should become one country in the 1920s.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Why is Gustavo Barroso as a general named something else? And Who is domingos bras???? Lowkey this dlc kinda sucks and I’m just waiting for you guys to update it because this game is just unplayable now….

If the generals are not correct, we'll look into it. However, if your bar for unplayability is some incorrect character names, I'm not sure there's much I can do or say to make you happy.

I'm not sure why 'unplayable' has become the goto word for every complaint. Perhaps because people know that developers prioritize bugs that make the game (literally) unplayable? Whatever the reason: if every bug for every person is priority 1, priority 1 means nothing.
 
  • 15
Reactions:
Just a few questions.

When will we get a Communist focus tree path for Germany with Ernst Thalmann and his KPD? and why don't we currently have one?

Why wasn't the North sea oil implemented as an exploitable resource option for players during the Norway focus tree in the previous expansion? We have Nazi Germany with nuclear weapons, why not North sea oil?

Also what about a Rhodesia focus tree and making it playable? Since it was part of the British Empire and Ian Smith fought for the British empire during WW2 and there was a referendum in Rhodesia about whether it and South Africa should become one country in the 1920s.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure how those things relate to South America.
 
  • 8
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Also what about a Rhodesia focus tree and making it playable? Since it was part of the British Empire and Ian Smith fought for the British empire during WW2 and there was a referendum in Rhodesia about whether it and South Africa should become one country in the 1920s.
You mean the colonial white supremacist state that didn't even exist until 1965? In PI's WW2 game where Belgium doesn't even have a tree yet? I think you can probably answer this one yourself dude.
 
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I really can't see any difference between before and after and i am not the only one.
Look at his picture on Kaiserreich, look soo much better

This is, as it happens, also a reference picture of the same person. At this point I feel like we're going in circles. The portrait will not change any further.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Perhaps because people know that developers prioritize bugs that make the game (literally) unplayable? Whatever the reason: if every bug for every person is priority 1, priority 1 means nothing.
Yup, hence i took a backseat and just going along with the ride instead of protesting for Dutch East Indies' portrayal in-game. It even didn't have a focus tree for now so the priority for it falls even lower.

I do hope that at least the starting ideologies and party names for Southeast Asia should be a bit more accurate than what we have right now, though. But perhaps for the next major patch since IIRC War Effort Patches didn't even touch on that.
 
[...]"Literally Unplayable" is an expression indicating that a video game is so badly broken that it prevents a player from progressing or enjoying the experience. While it is sometimes used earnestly to complain about game-breaking issues, it is often used sarcastically when pointing out minor bugs, glitches and mistakes.[...]

Sad, but lately the expression is often used frivolously. So it's hard to take it seriously as an argument.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It is nice that you adress this here, however:

1. my gripe with communication from PDX over the last years have been that it comes across as deflecting guilt. Back in the days of HoI3 Johan openly admitted that they screwed things up, that they overlooked certain things or that some mechanics were simply tedious and not fun. I have never seen such a clear admission of oversight from neither the Vicky3 nor the HoI-Teams recently.

You write an extensive post reacting to an overwhelmingly bad reception of your recently released product and I copied the sentences where you admit that you did something wrong:

  • Shared branches were one of those things that made sense at the time, but in hindsight we should have avoided.
  • 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.

  • 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.


The last point is also kind of a deflection because it's Valve's fault and you simply did not do "your due diligence" which probably means communicating it earlier in a way people understand beforehand that Valve is to blame.

I also don't think you understand or are neglecting the underlying nature of the majority of the complains. It is not about the price being high, it is about insufficient value for money. The development speed for HoI is painfully slow, this is why there is so much discontent with "wanting something different". And this is also something that you admitted by creating a second team working on content 1,5 years ago(?). The content pack pretty much contains 2,5 NF trees and some models, music and voiceovers. I do not want to argue that a lot of research time and testing went into the game, but if I wanted to be snarky, I could say that the fact that there are almost no bugs in the release - a fact that you present more prominently than the shortcomings - is due to the relatively thin content.

And this is where your defined circles - people complaining about pricings and who wanted something different - come together: the content does not justify the price. For some, the price is too high, for others the content too shallow. Others, are just dissatisfied with the overall slow development speed. Major nations haven't really received a meaningful upgrade in years. The last one was BBA and that was released 1,5 years ago.

You are absolutely right when you say that usually, if the perceived RoI isn't perceived as good, people will simply not buy the product but not leave negative reviews. But this is different. This is not a "product" you are developing, people feel attached to it, they care about it as it is part of their lives. This is good for you as a developer, because this guarantees profit, but it also comes with the responsibility of listening to those who feel attached to the product. And if a large amount of people feel a product they feel attached to is developed past them you should probably self-reflect on actual mistakes being made in the development process instead of deflecting responsibility.
 
  • 8
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
It is nice that you adress this here, however:

1. my gripe with communication from PDX over the last years have been that it comes across as deflecting guilt. Back in the days of HoI3 Johan openly admitted that they screwed things up, that they overlooked certain things or that some mechanics were simply tedious and not fun. I have never seen such a clear admission of oversight from neither the Vicky3 nor the HoI-Teams recently.

You write an extensive post reacting to an overwhelmingly bad reception of your recently released product and I copied the sentences where you admit that you did something wrong:






The last point is also kind of a deflection because it's Valve's fault and you simply did not do "your due diligence" which probably means communicating it earlier in a way people understand beforehand that Valve is to blame.

I also don't think you understand or are neglecting the underlying nature of the majority of the complains. It is not about the price being high, it is about insufficient value for money. The development speed for HoI is painfully slow, this is why there is so much discontent with "wanting something different". And this is also something that you admitted by creating a second team working on content 1,5 years ago(?). The content pack pretty much contains 2,5 NF trees and some models, music and voiceovers. I do not want to argue that a lot of research time and testing went into the game, but if I wanted to be snarky, I could say that the fact that there are almost no bugs in the release - a fact that you present more prominently than the shortcomings - is due to the relatively thin content.

And this is where your defined circles - people complaining about pricings and who wanted something different - come together: the content does not justify the price. For some, the price is too high, for others the content too shallow. Others, are just dissatisfied with the overall slow development speed. Major nations haven't really received a meaningful upgrade in years. The last one was BBA and that was released 1,5 years ago.

You are absolutely right when you say that usually, if the perceived RoI isn't perceived as good, people will simply not buy the product but not leave negative reviews. But this is different. This is not a "product" you are developing, people feel attached to it, they care about it as it is part of their lives. This is good for you as a developer, because this guarantees profit, but it also comes with the responsibility of listening to those who feel attached to the product. And if a large amount of people feel a product they feel attached to is developed past them you should probably self-reflect on actual mistakes being made in the development process instead of deflecting responsibility.
Why are you treating this as if somebody hurt you emotionally? Lmao

I understand that people who bought Cities Skylines 2 full price would feel somehow screwed over, buying a game that is turning into a diashow sometimes. Or the disaster that EU4 Leviathan was. But here the content of the DLC was delivered as advertised, even if the content itself was lacking, and there is nothing you lose by not buying it. Basegame Total War Warhammer 3 is borderline unplayable and breaking further with each new DLC or update, but i don't think this is the case here.

If you believe that modders make better trees or that the new content is not worth the money than just don't buy it and save yourself the 15 euros. HoI4 has no microtransactions or similar and the old content you already bought does not go away. The only people hurt by a potentially bad selling DLC are ultimately Paradox themselves. Not their clients.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
The dlc which costs money provides replayability, and most importantly MODS. Mods mods mods is what makes many of the paradox games a huge shelf life. That said paradox deserves praise for making their games so moddable. A great synergy. Toxic? Come on, don't confuse passion and people venting as toxic. Such a simplistic and black and white way of looking at things.
:D There is no black and white, there is only grey.
I don't mean people with toxicity who say why they think the game is bad (for example a bug or something like that (and reporting the bug). That's what I call constructive criticism. And criticism stops, where it gets personal. (Arheo said: "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.") So there are a lot of persons who give reviews I wouldn't call "passionate".

And yes the moddability make these games great.
 
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
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)

eopel were teh most unhappy with

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)
The reason why most people, me included disliked the price. Was because the pack contains way less content than the other DLCs, yet is more expensive. If you're gonna make a DLC with way less content, set a price that represents that. Otherwise the community will (rightfully so) feel cheated.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm pretty satisfied with the DLC, it pretty much being about what I expected from it. There's a few nitpicks (there's a few things where descriptions are a bit weird and things didn't happen as advertised) and the power-creep is absolutely real, but other than that? It's been pretty fun.

Price increases suck, but OTOH it's understandable and well... It is pretty much an industry-wide complaint, not a Paradox-specific one.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The reason why most people, me included disliked the price. Was because the pack contains way less content than the other DLCs, yet is more expensive. If you're gonna make a DLC with way less content, set a price that represents that. Otherwise the community will (rightfully so) feel cheated.

Don`t worry!
Next big DLC will be much more expensive than this one! So your problem is solved soon!
 
  • 2Haha
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I really enjoyed playing Brazil with this new DLC, however, there was one underlying thing that I wish the team could fix if not properly explain to the community why it exists in such a way that it does. That is, the coup upon failing to declare the Estado Novo or Estado Moderno on time. It's great that random field marshals or generals will end up being the country leader each game that the player fails to select either of the aforementioned focuses, but why does it act like a bump on a road given how it doesn't bar the player from declaring either when that is its ultimate purpose? Why depose Vargas only to see him restored by the military who essentially now saw him with distaste for failing to respond to the Cohen Plan? I think personally this should create a new militaristic path for Brazil if not, remove the player's ability to declare the Estado Novo/Moderno or even have the general or FM who deposed the government declare either instead, being the one to remain in power instead of Vargas. Personally, I think it would be interesting to see a Latin America mostly led by military governments from Buenos Aires to Mexico City.

Also, can you fix the issue of Turkey electing the CHP instead of DP when they're set to go down the Ottoman Path in the custom game rules? Thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
Reactions:
When I play as Japan, I rarely hear music dedicated to Japan, can you change that? I really like this music theme, but since it doesn't turn on I have to do it manually.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The reason why most people, me included disliked the price. Was because the pack contains way less content than the other DLCs, yet is more expensive. If you're gonna make a DLC with way less content, set a price that represents that. Otherwise the community will (rightfully so) feel cheated.
You know the price and the content before you buy it, so how can you be cheated? It's either content you want at a price you're willing to pay or it isn't. If it isn't you don't buy it. Not rocket science.

If it promised 20 things and only delivered 3, then you're cheated, but that's not the case at all here.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions: