Too restrictive

[21oliver]

what brings on the fractured govt modifier?

[Ikarases]

what brings on the fractured govt modifier?

Negative bonus to the NU... Maybe something more, but I don´t have the game here on ntb...

[Secret Master]

what brings on the fractured govt modifier?

You get that modifier when non-ruling parties have enough popularity to rate "seats" in the cabinet. Mouse over the parties in the politics screen and it will tell you how many "seats" that party rates.

Basically, when that modifier is in play, you are vulnerable to coups in addition to the NU penalty. Since the AI doesn't do coups, you never see that side of it. And if you play a faction leader, you are immune to coups anyway.

[Redstars89]

I can't believe some players exist who try to justify the poor political system and the restrictive nature of the game. It's like people voting against their own interests. If I recall, in HOI2 one could use sliders to move a country towards the players preference with regards to communism/fascism. Why they decided to take a step back in politics is beyond me. It reminds me of how Star Wars Galaxies went from an open-ended MMO with unlimited possibilities to restrictive gameplay following the New Game Enhancement update. The same issue is troubling Star Wars The Old Republic which is going free to play after players realized how much they disliked being forced into a box.

[LarryLeica]

I can't believe some players exist who try to justify the poor political system and the restrictive nature of the game. It's like people voting against their own interests. If I recall, in HOI2 one could use sliders to move a country towards the players preference with regards to communism/fascism. Why they decided to take a step back in politics is beyond me. It reminds me of how Star Wars Galaxies went from an open-ended MMO with unlimited possibilities to restrictive gameplay following the New Game Enhancement update. The same issue is troubling Star Wars The Old Republic which is going free to play after players realized how much they disliked being forced into a box.

Who's justifying it? We were trying to explain/figure-out how it works, that's not the same as justifying it.

I can't comment on the differences with HOI2 as I never played it, but may do as I have it lying around somewhere.

As for Star Wars, a popular make-believe world can only go so far, you need a game that is not a rehash of any number of other game out there for it to be a success. Beards is not an adequeate difference.

[Brucesim2003]

I can't believe some players exist who try to justify the poor political system and the restrictive nature of the game. It's like people voting against their own interests. If I recall, in HOI2 one could use sliders to move a country towards the players preference with regards to communism/fascism. Why they decided to take a step back in politics is beyond me. It reminds me of how Star Wars Galaxies went from an open-ended MMO with unlimited possibilities to restrictive gameplay following the New Game Enhancement update. The same issue is troubling Star Wars The Old Republic which is going free to play after players realized how much they disliked being forced into a box.

This is why I've decided to pass on the next expansion (barring some sale which allows me to pay with a few blue coins). I'll stick with Darkest Hour, which, TO&E's excepting, is actually a far superior game.

Cheers


Bruce

[Nephandus]

I do actually have a question:

As with all games it is something like "love it or leave it".... or to be more precise "play and enjoy it or don't". Which choice it is, is a decision each one takes for himself and that is a good thing.
What I don't understand is: if someone has taken the choice (especially the "don't play it" option), why is there the necessity to issue an open statement on this? I've seen similar threads since the publication of this game and even some that were not that calm (basically escalating to a flame war).... but they haven't changed a thing. And honestly... the content of statements like this is as interesting to me as the psychological issues that a single rice grain when had to deal with the trauma of being in the proverbial sack falling over in China.

[Jakalak]

Part of the reason politics is restricted is to provide balance. Let me show you why.

Take the UK. It is a country that has elections and, thanks to ruling party and form of government, certain laws are impossible to enact. This includes totalitarian system and propaganda press. The UK also cannot enact certain laws before the war like Germany and the Soviets can.

But what if you could support another party in elections or even coup your own government?

If that were even possible, then the correct answer would be to ALWAYS either get communists or fascists into power by 1938. That way, you could get all the benefits of those laws and still pursue either Chamberlain or Churchill's pre-war/post-war strategy.

Unless of course the law system was rebalanced, which it really should be. A democracy should theoretically have the ability to switch to a totalitarian system, even if it would be a fairly odd thing to do, considering the fact that one would hope the majority of the populace would revolt, as well as some of the armed forces. To be honest, although this would be incredibly difficult to do, the best solution might be to have part of the political system of Victoria II. Make your population have certain preferences towards different laws, as well as different parties, as currently it is only the latter (even though in theory the same party could enact different laws).

There should be fairly large diplomatic modifiers for countries switching their ideological status, as well (in my opinion, there should also be an increase/decrease opinion to simulate all the little things you can do to influence a country's opinion).

I know it sounds like I'm suggesting something like Victoria II during WW2, but I'm not really. It's just, especially in my opinion, the military and politics are inevitably tied together, and right now the military is overemphasized to the extreme and the politics are confined to a nook.

An Emperor would be outside the political infight of any country, though.

Unless of course the Emperor was deposed. Which has happened, and could have happened.

--

I do actually have a question:

As with all games it is something like "love it or leave it".... or to be more precise "play and enjoy it or don't". Which choice it is, is a decision each one takes for himself and that is a good thing.
What I don't understand is: if someone has taken the choice (especially the "don't play it" option), why is there the necessity to issue an open statement on this? I've seen similar threads since the publication of this game and even some that were not that calm (basically escalating to a flame war).... but they haven't changed a thing. And honestly... the content of statements like this is as interesting to me as the psychological issues that a single rice grain when had to deal with the trauma of being in the proverbial sack falling over in China.

I think it has to do with consumerism and the belief that every customer matters to the company (also that the customer has a right to expect a certain quality of product (highly subjective)).

I'd also like to throw in that while I think there are more constructive ways to do it, they are certainly voicing valid criticisms, although all might not share them.

[21oliver]

Thank you for the info guys...

[Beagá]

Basically, when that modifier is in play, you are vulnerable to coups in addition to the NU penalty. Since the AI doesn't do coups, you never see that side of it. And if you play a faction leader, you are immune to coups anyway.

Didn´t knew that. So, only nations with Fractured Govt. can suffer coups?

[Secret Master]

Unless of course the law system was rebalanced, which it really should be.

No argument from me on that point. The "I can mobilize the economy for war in 1937 and leave it that way until 1948 with no ill effects or reduced NU" issue should be addressed at some point.

[1alexey]

Really? Think again. Germany had a coalition of right-wing parties which managed to get Hitler into power. Likewise, other countries had coalitions of parties and it wouldn't be unrealistic at all to support them instead of the major player of that coalition. The smaller member of the coalition only needs to have the minister of security to supervise intelligence missions.

The head of the goverment still would not accept that kind of actions if done openly.

So, while the ministers cecretly can try to get more power for them/party, if you know about it, it is basically suposed to be "public" knowlege, and the rulling party should take actions to get rid of the minister.

Part of the reason politics is restricted is to provide balance. Let me show you why.

Take the UK. It is a country that has elections and, thanks to ruling party and form of government, certain laws are impossible to enact. This includes totalitarian system and propaganda press. The UK also cannot enact certain laws before the war like Germany and the Soviets can.

But what if you could support another party in elections or even coup your own government?

If that were even possible, then the correct answer would be to ALWAYS either get communists or fascists into power by 1938. That way, you could get all the benefits of those laws and still pursue either Chamberlain or Churchill's pre-war/post-war strategy.

And it works. Before I knew that faction leaders were immune to coups, I supported British fascists into 1940 (as Germany). When the 1940 election fired, the British fascists won the election. They instituted a totalitarian system and propaganda press and continued their war against Germany in the name of "freedom."

Trust me, that was the last time I ever did that.

True, because politics is not just a label, and in fact does metter, it should be realistically restricted.

Granted, As USA, you probably still can get Nazi(much less probably commies) in power, if you allign yourself to Germany(ussr), and send speis with friendly missins(I usually send with support the rulling party mission to all future axis majors) so it will send spies to support their party and do not get domestic spies, so German/Italian/Japanese spies that support their party do not die.

But that is a kind of tricky manipulation.

This ensures that meddling in the politics of major powers literally takes hundreds of leadership points over several years, and even then isn't always successful. Minor powers are easier to meddle with because they can't defend themselves as efficiently, but even then you might not be successful.

If you want to coup or elect a radically different party in a major power, it's possible, but be prepared for a tough slog. And remember that faction leaders can't be couped.

Well, you can do a lot with a single country, UK/GER/SU. Now, what if you`re in multiplayer, and there is about 5 vs 5 game.

With that amount of spies, factions can literally bombard eachother with spies, coups and other crap, not to metion multiple coupes of everyone that is not faction leader.

I can't believe some players exist who try to justify the poor political system and the restrictive nature of the game. It's like people voting against their own interests. If I recall, in HOI2 one could use sliders to move a country towards the players preference with regards to communism/fascism. Why they decided to take a step back in politics is beyond me. It reminds me of how Star Wars Galaxies went from an open-ended MMO with unlimited possibilities to restrictive gameplay following the New Game Enhancement update. The same issue is troubling Star Wars The Old Republic which is going free to play after players realized how much they disliked being forced into a box.

Let me guess, the Tech tree and IC is also restrictive nature of a game?

Ofcourse, the HOI2`s ability to do so was not flawed, unrealistic and overally wierd, it is the lack of it in HOI3 that is the problem
Politics needs to either be very complex, or very restricted to resemble at least some sort of realism and common sence.

Unless of course the law system was rebalanced, which it really should be. A democracy should theoretically have the ability to switch to a totalitarian system, even if it would be a fairly odd thing to do, considering the fact that one would hope the majority of the populace would revolt, as well as some of the armed forces. To be honest, although this would be incredibly difficult to do, the best solution might be to have part of the political system of Victoria II. Make your population have certain preferences towards different laws, as well as different parties, as currently it is only the latter (even though in theory the same party could enact different laws).

You vastly overestimate the common population, as long as they have almost nothing to loose, people will not go and fight.

Not for the woting power, to be sure.

There should be fairly large diplomatic modifiers for countries switching their ideological status, as well (in my opinion, there should also be an increase/decrease opinion to simulate all the little things you can do to influence a country's opinion).

Ideology, in fact is something nobody ever cared about. It is always about power and money/resourses.

I know it sounds like I'm suggesting something like Victoria II during WW2, but I'm not really. It's just, especially in my opinion, the military and politics are inevitably tied together, and right now the military is overemphasized to the extreme and the politics are confined to a nook.

Problem is, to have proper politics, you need to have things that fuel it, economy and social relations.

International relations are way more tied to economy and military, than internal politics.

[Jakalak]

You vastly overestimate the common population, as long as they have almost nothing to loose, people will not go and fight.

Not for the woting power, to be sure.

I would disagree entirely. Of course, both of our opinions are only opinions, and can't be backed up by much.

Ideology, in fact is something nobody ever cared about. It is always about power and money/resourses.

Although I would agree with you in theory, I think you're oversimplifying. The main reason that the UK (and their allies), Germany (and their allies), and the Soviet Union (and their allies) were opposed to each other was power/resource considerations. However, the ideologies that these countries maintained came to represent the countries themselves, so that those allies of the UK would adopt a somewhat similar political setup to show their support, etc.

Simply, I agree that in most cases ideology did not shape relations, relations (and by proxy, power/resources) most definitely shaped ideology, which isn't modeled in the game. The way that it's done now, with unrealistically static political setups, is unnecessarily fixed.

Problem is, to have proper politics, you need to have things that fuel it, economy and social relations.

Eeerrrrrr, I might disagree. While those are vastly important, if they aren't able to be modeled (due to complexity), they could perhaps be shown through the chosen laws, combined with threat level, etc. The current ministers could have some effect, while most of the blame would probably go towards either head of state or head of government. It would be an incredible oversimplification, but I still think it would be better than what we currently have.

International relations are way more tied to economy and military, than internal politics.

Again, see my post above about ideology.

[Baltasar]

This is why I've decided to pass on the next expansion (barring some sale which allows me to pay with a few blue coins). I'll stick with Darkest Hour, which, TO&E's excepting, is actually a far superior game.

Errm... No. DH is actually a much worse game. You got a few sliders that make up your politics and this particular HOI2 variant has a lot of decisions which heavily influence the game, not neccessary in a user firendly way, since the tooltips and infotexts aren't that helpful. Don't get me started about poor techs and illogical startups in WWI scenario....

[1alexey]

I would disagree entirely. Of course, both of our opinions are only opinions, and can't be backed up by much.

I do not know of any civil war or aprising demanding woting power sololey, and independently of other thins, such as bad economy and starvation.

People usually activly demand political power to be capable os seeng improvements to theri problems.

Political power is a tool, that is of no value by itself, not to metion, most people realise that voting power is a very weak tool.

Which is why, people will not risk their lives just to get it back, things needs to get worse, to the point where risking getting killed fighting for changes is a viable alternative to continued live.

There can be protests, and other means of peacefull protest, but if the goverment has police on it`s side, population need the will to escalete the issue into civil war, or has to accept the fact.

But then, you need to have police in game, in the first place, to "poll" their oppinion.

Eeerrrrrr, I might disagree. While those are vastly important, if they aren't able to be modeled (due to complexity), they could perhaps be shown through the chosen laws, combined with threat level, etc. The current ministers could have some effect, while most of the blame would probably go towards either head of state or head of government. It would be an incredible oversimplification, but I still think it would be better than what we currently have.

What i mean, is politics should reflect on 2 things:
1. What is the current setup of the nation`s balance of power between goverment, rich&famous, miliraty and other "armed forces"(police, paramilitaries, ex) and general population.
Well, it does to a sort. It may be more complex to allow for more realistic and diverse setup, but the deept for sake of deept is needless.

2. Make the proces of changes more realistic. But to do that, you need to go in deept and represent the forces that clash in a combat to move or uphold the status quo, something even V2 doesn`t quite manages to capture to the fullest.

I think this, is what HOI3 can not reflect realistically, because it lacks popularion and economy.

Which leaves two options, either it is very restricted, or absolitely free for human to do whatever they please.

I personally find first to be more historically accurate(most goerments did an acceptable job of keeping themselves in power thugh period), and leaving to better expirience.

I just assume that the forces that uphold the status quo are way stronger than forces that want to shift it, at least from within. After all, goverment systems are the slowest thing that is getting reformed, on average.

[Brucesim2003]

Errm... No. DH is actually a much worse game. You got a few sliders that make up your politics and this particular HOI2 variant has a lot of decisions which heavily influence the game, not neccessary in a user firendly way, since the tooltips and infotexts aren't that helpful. Don't get me started about poor techs and illogical startups in WWI scenario....

We will have do agree to disagree, hmmm?

Cheers


Bruce

[Kovax]

Ignoring internal political mechanics for the moment and focusing on external, why isn't it possible to support a SIMILAR party to your own, but not identical to yours, in foreign countries? There are many cases where the party adjacent to your ruling party's counterpart is a serious contender for power, but that counterpart itself is all but non-existent. Why can't you support the party which has a reasonable chance of instating at least MOST of the changes you want, rather than one with virtually no shot at getting all of it? Germany can ally with a Fascist Italy, yet can't back a Fascist party in another country unless they're already in power? I don't understand the reasoning?

The bigger issue with politics is that it starts out in Fantasyland and drifts into absurdity. Starting relations are humorously inaccurate, where the major powers start out at 0 relations with virtually everyone, just because they're faction leaders, and nearly everyone else is at 75 relations, regardless of whether they've been fighting each other off and on out of sheer hatred for the past couple hundred years or are closest friends with strong dynastic links and free trade. If the overall political picture doesn't follow the historical route without a huge amount of prodding and forcing, maybe the problem is more of a "garbage in = garbage out" issue, where the starting conditions could use a few adjustments.

Drift from ideology is "all or nothing", rather than based on the relative popularity and/or organizational strength of the political factions within that country. Influence from trade deals is based entirely on the number of transactions, rather than the value of those transactions, so it pays off far more effectively to raise relations by spamming 10-15 little deals for 1 energy each, instead of arranging a solid deal for 10-15 energy. There are several other such problems which tend to turn "shades of gray" into a "black or white" issue, and cause ahistorical situations which have to be addressed by still more forced scripting and other events which then cause unintended side-effects in other situations.

The political side of the game is rife with gamey moves, exploits, and outright cheats, and most gameplay has to rely on those because any more realistic political mechanisms are either non-existent or don't function well enough to matter. Since Politics and Warfare are so tightly linked, the awkward political aspects of this wargame really need to be addressed, if not in patches or expansions, then in an eventual HOI4.