Before first Tinto Talk, I wrote a comment about how I imagined EU5 and was pretty successfull (more organic mechanics, introduction of pops...)
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/how-eu5-can-become-great.1600136/post-29176754
I'm going to try the same with HoI5!
1) More sandbox:
More flexibility and diplomatic capacity, giving space to less polarizing 'what if's' than the focus tree system of HoI4. In any case, somehow it will be necessary to incentivize players to have more or less concrete short and long term goals.
Here I have doubts about how to implement radical government changes without them being the result of doing it badly (low stability, etc.) or of closed narratives (and isolated from the rest of what is happening in the world, which is the big problem of the focus tree). Maybe a certain political opposition could be playable (without territory). It would be DLC content but it would imply a way of playing temporarily without territory that they should make fun in some way.
2) More tactical importance of the map:
In the line of the raids and facilities of HoI4, the different elements of the game (buildings, garrisons, resources, etc) will be better integrated into the map and in the military operations.
Also the terrain (mountains, rivers, roads...) will have a greater impact when planning an invasion, movement or defense.
3) Less teleportation and more realistic maneuvers:
Military leaders will be located on the map and armies may have buildings/sites where they can be, being a relevant fact their deployment on a border (maneuvers that will alert the neighbor). Speaking of borders, in some way they should always be minimally protected (I don't know if also with visible troops, with buildings that house troops or with a more invisible system).
Logistics will also be more realistic and important when moving around the map, conquering and even proposing diplomatic pacts.
4) More customized research and map related industrial production for each country:
I suppose that some kind of technology tree will be maintained but more merged with the system of scientific facilities.
The current concept of MIOs will merge with the factories, giving rise to a more visual system on the map and deeper in terms of what you want your industry to produce. This can also be linked to the economic system (ideology/politics) of your country.
The whole point 4 gives rise to national immersion (DLCs).
5) Integrated mechanics:
DLCs must serve to expand or deepen already existing basic systems. Otherwise, subsequent development becomes more complicated over time.
A very clear example would be espionage, which must be better integrated into operations and the overall strategy. The buying and selling of weapons could also be based on it.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/how-eu5-can-become-great.1600136/post-29176754
I'm going to try the same with HoI5!
1) More sandbox:
More flexibility and diplomatic capacity, giving space to less polarizing 'what if's' than the focus tree system of HoI4. In any case, somehow it will be necessary to incentivize players to have more or less concrete short and long term goals.
Here I have doubts about how to implement radical government changes without them being the result of doing it badly (low stability, etc.) or of closed narratives (and isolated from the rest of what is happening in the world, which is the big problem of the focus tree). Maybe a certain political opposition could be playable (without territory). It would be DLC content but it would imply a way of playing temporarily without territory that they should make fun in some way.
2) More tactical importance of the map:
In the line of the raids and facilities of HoI4, the different elements of the game (buildings, garrisons, resources, etc) will be better integrated into the map and in the military operations.
Also the terrain (mountains, rivers, roads...) will have a greater impact when planning an invasion, movement or defense.
3) Less teleportation and more realistic maneuvers:
Military leaders will be located on the map and armies may have buildings/sites where they can be, being a relevant fact their deployment on a border (maneuvers that will alert the neighbor). Speaking of borders, in some way they should always be minimally protected (I don't know if also with visible troops, with buildings that house troops or with a more invisible system).
Logistics will also be more realistic and important when moving around the map, conquering and even proposing diplomatic pacts.
4) More customized research and map related industrial production for each country:
I suppose that some kind of technology tree will be maintained but more merged with the system of scientific facilities.
The current concept of MIOs will merge with the factories, giving rise to a more visual system on the map and deeper in terms of what you want your industry to produce. This can also be linked to the economic system (ideology/politics) of your country.
The whole point 4 gives rise to national immersion (DLCs).
5) Integrated mechanics:
DLCs must serve to expand or deepen already existing basic systems. Otherwise, subsequent development becomes more complicated over time.
A very clear example would be espionage, which must be better integrated into operations and the overall strategy. The buying and selling of weapons could also be based on it.
Last edited:
- 2
