Focus trees as a mechanic should not reappear in HOI5

[mursolini]

I disagree. Without focus trees, there is just a mess of decisions that do same, in convoluted way.
Current focuses should be made to do less, but they represent your progression, while a lot of focuses are just filler.
I wouldn't mind if filler was reduced, and more focuses worked like Anshluss/Sudetenland, 5 years plan, ex. Where you fullfil conditions first.

I also find the idea of diplomacy in WW2 game hilarious. You play USA, Germany invades SU, gets some peace. Japanese invade China, get some peace. Wonderful, what are you even doing here? Same for SU, same for allies.

You get 100% warscore raiding British convoys, Britain signs peace with you in 1941. Lovely, and completely non-exploitable.

 

[Skylax]

I couldn't find my old comment on this so I'll try and paraphrase from memory: I think focus trees are our best, worst mechanic. I won't wax lyrical on reasons as most of them are included here, but they're incredibly polarizing from a design perspective.

If we ever make a HoI5, and if it ever included focus trees, they'd be rather different I'm sure.

Just as always: Focuses can be good if enabling them feels like an achievement and the reward is meaningful.

There should be different general focus categories foremost: expansion, economy (civil/military), politcal stability, research (land/air/navy), war tactics, diplomacy and revolution.
The player chooses one category for a certain amount of time, the longer they stay with it, the bigger the rewards. Then the have several milestones to reach. For civil economy: build x amount of civil factories. Then they give bonuses. A certain percentage increase to the civ factories grants production efficiency of consumer goods (maybe have an event like "Workers are happy and their efficiency increased) or something like this. The longer you keep the focus, the better the rewards become and spread over in other areas. Increase number of civ factories of your country by X%, you get industrial research bonus, then you get mil factory building bonus, resource production bonus and so on. At one point, you have to choose to change the focus. Maybe have a little bit of an RNG-element to it to increase replayability. Otherwise people will calculate the exact date to run a focus.
The focuses have to impact each other. When Germany takes an expansion focus tree to take Rhineland, Austria or prepare for war against Poland, other countries will get to counter that with specific focuses on diplomacy or armament.
Espionage (which was way more important in WW2 than is displayed in the game) lets you monitor the focus of other countries. And again, no weird deciphering mechanic HoI4 has, but make it an investment (factories or some other resource). A high intelligence level grants spies in a country that let you do operations that give clear bonuses. Discover the stockpile of a country, discover attack plans (I mean real strategic plans on the map), discover diplomatic efforts.

 

[Donkey Kong]

The prevoius Hoi-Versions as welll as other previous and modern History-Games from Paradox are only playable for Experts and Veterans

Hoi IV, especially with a few expansions, is arguably far more complex than HoI 2 ever was.

 

[Nnorm]

National focuses were great step in good direction - it gave us opportunity to alter history, but PDX went on a path to create memes instead of plausible alt-scenarios. Maybe we could have something better in HoI V, but what we've had in previous iterations is obsolete.

 

[Andreu]

I couldn't find my old comment on this so I'll try and paraphrase from memory: I think focus trees are our best, worst mechanic. I won't wax lyrical on reasons as most of them are included here, but they're incredibly polarizing from a design perspective.

If we ever make a HoI5, and if it ever included focus trees, they'd be rather different I'm sure.

You said it here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1728322834102170091

 

[Findell_HOI]

Mission Trees from EU4 slightly modified so you can have excluive paths would probbaly be the best way.

 

[N3UTR0N]

I just wanted to say this about HOI4 as well. Back then, I was hyped for new gameplay mechanics and new features that could be added and expand on the game, but at the end, I figured out really is that they just vomit more and more bloated focus trees with memey paths, which makes the game end up feeling really shallow, undercooked, completely lack the needed dynamics and interactions, everything is almost completely railroaded by focus trees, so 90% of the game content really is just mashing focus tree buttons. That is not to mention that many times the different focus trees between different nations can way too easily mess the game up, which I mean they have very poor interactibility.

I am not against the idea of focus trees per-se, but it should be significantly minimised and leave out a lot of more space for other mechanics, such as diplomacy, nation interactibility, and make the game a lot more dynamic and actualy feel like a proper sandbox game, rather than being railroaded to some memey alt-history lore, which should easily be achievable if the developers actualy focused on fleshing out the game mechanics, so it can occur much more naturaly and dynamicaly.

 

[billcorr]

T


Or a poem?

Time for a bit of Alfred Joyce Kilmer!

 

[FlinzP]

I think focus trees move game forward nicely here. What I don't like is that they are filled with useless stuff. I see them more political paths as they should be. However. it is just pain to go through set of weak focuses. You often have to skip bonuses for navy, air, army because you prefer political and industry. Even industry often have to wait and lose purpose.

Also, it feeld odd that nation can't improve army, industry and politics same time.

 

[PK_AZ]

Also, it feeld odd that nation can't improve army, industry and politics same time.

Fictional problem, if you ask me. If you want to work on army, industry and politics at the same time, while using only NF and not any core mechanics dedicated to improve your industry and army, then swap between branches after each focus. 35 days for army, 35 days for industry, 35 days for politics. In mid-term of 105 days, you get the same that if you worked on these three focuses at the same time.

 

[Vlad123]

I think focus trees move game forward nicely here. What I don't like is that they are filled with useless stuff. I see them more political paths as they should be. However. it is just pain to go through set of weak focuses. You often have to skip bonuses for navy, air, army because you prefer political and industry. Even industry often have to wait and lose purpose.

Also, it feeld odd that nation can't improve army, industry and politics same time.

True ...anyway the FT are fantastic if you want do a scriptic history for tell a tale using hoi4...not for a sandbox game

 

[Vlad123]

Fictional problem, if you ask me. If you want to work on army, industry and politics at the same time, while using only NF and not any core mechanics dedicated to improve your industry and army, then swap between branches after each focus. 35 days for army, 35 days for industry, 35 days for politics. In mid-term of 105 days, you get the same that if you worked on these three focuses at the same time.

and you discovered why Mexican focus three are one of the best: focus of 35 days!

 

[cdub8d]

I endorse no focus trees!

 

[herr anfsim]

Also, it feeld odd that nation can't improve army, industry and politics same time.

I feel like this kind of illustrates the problem with focus tress in its current iteration, because of course you can improve all of this simultaneously, just not through focus trees.

And to my mind, the core mechanics for improving for instance your army (through tech, production, doctrine, training, leadership, etc) is much more interesting than the whole «complete focus to add buff/remove debuff» approach.