• 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.

SergeantPunch

Banned
31 Badges
Apr 27, 2014
324
6
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Victoria 2
Haven't seen a DD on this yet. I've seen that the factions will be less rigid but it would be interesting to see more on what plans are in store for the political system. It would be nice to have more a historical options. For example with Germany it would be nice to create puppet states or even to liberate states if they have a fascist government to take over. In the invasion of the USSR it would be nice to "liberate" states such as Ukraine and the Baltic states. This would have been a much better strategy then the rather insane Hitler idea lol.
 
You can create client states in the newest EU4 expansion right? Maybe they could use a similar mechanic for puppets in HOI4?

One thing I always wanted for politics was if being in a particular faction had an influence on the government of a nation. The closer you are to the axis the more influence far-right parties will have? Likewise for the Comintern and communism and the Allies with democracy?

In HOI3 I could be mexico with a social democrat party, and join Hitler in the axis...didn't make much sense.
 
You can create client states in the newest EU4 expansion right? Maybe they could use a similar mechanic for puppets in HOI4?

One thing I always wanted for politics was if being in a particular faction had an influence on the government of a nation. The closer you are to the axis the more influence far-right parties will have? Likewise for the Comintern and communism and the Allies with democracy?

In HOI3 I could be mexico with a social democrat party, and join Hitler in the axis...didn't make much sense.
Historically, democratic, and if my memory does not fail me, social democratic, Finland joined axis. We were not real allies like Italy or Romania, but i would say it still counts. "enemy of my enemy is my friend" - TheRomanRuler, i just made it up the first time ever.
 
We were not real allies like Italy or Romania
Alliance was real. Finland was more isolated from Germany proper for military pressure to be effective, and thus more independent in its decisions. Romania, Italy, Hungary - had to weigh the possibility of panzers rolling down their capital streets in case of separate surrender/truce with the Allies/Comintern. Finland didn't.
 
I'll be honest, I'm very dissapointed with how they approached the political parties, only 3! Communist, Democracy, Fascist. I don't like it, I would prefer more choices, mod able at least.
 
I'll be honest, I'm very dissapointed with how they approached the political parties, only 3! Communist, Democracy, Fascist. I don't like it, I would prefer more choices, mod able at least.

podcat has hinted at something new.

Q: How do you want the player to approach politics and diplomacy in HoI4 compared to HoI3? In HoI3 you had the factions and neutrality system, where there were three alliances that had separate victory conditions. With HoI4 are you keeping a similar system or moving towards something new?

New. The idea is less rigidity and more about countries looking after themselves. The influence pyramid, while looking cool, wasnt terribly good for gameplay or actually simulating history for example so thats out. While hoi3 was a game about the struggles of 3 ideologies hoi4 is more about the struggles of countries.

I'm thinking that diplomacy is going to be more like EU4 and Vic 2 and that political ideology might have less influence on international relations.
 
I agree the political spectrum should play a greater role both in diplomacy and in controlling domestic policies. I think they need to make it clearer what the three forms of popular support (ruling party support, dissent, and national unity) really mean.

National unity should be a lot like war-exhaustion in other paradox titles, essentially the willingess of the people to continue the fight. In democracies, the population can still firmly support the war while not supporting the party in power (the UK in '45) while in Germany and the Motherland many people were more willing to fight for the country rather than the leader. The distinction will become important in how you try to force a peace treaty. NU/WE can be sapped by convoy raiding, strategic bombing, loss of core province VPs and MP losses in general, largely as in Hoi3. Perhaps losing capital ships, especially the Pride of the Fleet could also be a hit. It would certainly make more sense than a hit to dissent as it is in Hoi3. The inverse where applicable is also true in all these cases, i.e. adding NU. In general though, it is far easier to lose unity than add it.

Dissent, or perhaps more accurately militancy, should be the general willingness of those opposed to you to take up arms or otherwise act against you, including non-citizens. In this sense it should be the amalgamation of "dissent" and "revolt risk" from Hoi, and it is represented at a region or state level and not in the global UI. Non core provinces will naturally have a high dissent while core provinces are likely to incur dissent hits if your political support is very low. It would be represented a percentage but not one necessarily linked to actual likelihood of revolt, but instead a graduated series of effects. For example: 0-10%: small drop in industrial/resource/leadership productivity, 10-25%: same as above + passive damage to infrastructure/naval bases + potential political event prompt(strike, popular demands etc), 25-50%: same + chance of forming underground cell (akin to Hoi3, possibly loyal to exiled gov) + passive attrition to occupying units, 50%+: same + chance of forming partisans in addition to those organised by the underground. Basically it would make it possible for a lot of the revolt dynamics already present in Hoi3 to affect core provinces if they seriously mishandle their policies.

Ruling party support should represent the trust people have in their leaders (and to some extent you). It should largely depend on domestic policy and not as much on the conduct of the war itself. Thus domestic policy and political management should be a significant part of peace-time gameplay, something that I don't think is unwarranted as most players spend at most a minute at the start of each game selecting laws and ministers and make only minor adjustments from there on. Minister selection should be the main focus here (and the DDs show promise here), with each minister you select allowing the implementation of 2-3 policies, with different policies depending on personality type and ideology. This is similar to previous titles of course. Unlike previously however, minister bonuses are not implemented immediately, instead you may activate policies using political points (like Monarch points in EU4). Political points are accumulated based on ruling party support and the number of cabinet ministers who belong to your party. Balancing your policies are the key to success, some policies will be purely to add party support, but will cost you in cash and eat up the number of potential policies you can enact(like welfare programs). Others will provide powerful bonuses but may damage party support(like conscription) while some will provide one time hits to support but will consolidate your support in the long run (like censor ship or banning opposition parties). Support can also be sapped by political decision prompts (which could easily be scripted to occur more often during peacetime) which may also force you to fire ministers or implement certain policies etc.

Consolidating ruling party support should be a critical part of your strategy, both as a dictator and as a democracy. Low support for the ruling party should negatively affect national unity and dissent and so a good base of support heading into a prolonged war is critical. There should also of course be diplomatic affinities between ideologies. This combined with the greater potential for shifting internal politics could make for very different, yet still historically plausible bloc positions heading into the war, or emerging from it.

As a side note, a more in depth political sphere could make a game more interesting from different start dates (either post versailles or post potsdam).

As usual that was considerably longer than it was intended to be; apologies.
 
Last edited:
Alliance was real. Finland was more isolated from Germany proper for military pressure to be effective, and thus more independent in its decisions. Romania, Italy, Hungary - had to weigh the possibility of panzers rolling down their capital streets in case of separate surrender/truce with the Allies/Comintern. Finland didn't.
I don`t argue against that, i don`t mind if Finland how deeply allied Finland was, in Finland people just are very precise about it: "we were brothers in arms, not allies". After WW2 that is image people want to give about Finland, everyone wants to see their nation as perfect as possible. I personally don`t care if we "saw what nazies really were from the start" or not, unlike most, i know that my nation may not be any better than anyone else. We are all humans, and humans are stupid "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein. To me "we were brothers in arms, not allies" kind of political correctness is BS - expect when we are talking about other nations, i always try to see others in as good light as possible (becouse i naturally tend to see everything as negative as possible, so it balances it out. And trying to put others above me prevents me seeing myself as better than others).
 
Last edited: