• 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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.

Johan

Studio Manager Paradox Tinto
Administrator
Paradox Staff
Moderator
15 Badges
Dec 14, 1999
19.193
80.166
  • Diplomacy
  • Teleglitch: Die More Edition
  • War of the Roses
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Imperator: Rome Sign Up
  • A Game of Dwarves
  • Magicka
  • Starvoid
Hello, we are back with the lucky 13th episode of the Hearts of Iron 3 development diary. Progress has been going strong the last week, and we’re happy with the feature we will be presenting today.

So we are back talking about politics. As mentioned in previous developer diaries, Hearts of Iron 3 is a grand strategy war game. Our main focus through out is on the war. However as some German guy once said, war is a continuation of politics by other means. So although we were never going to lavish a lot of attention on it, we felt that politics should at the very least get a little tender loving care. Our goal was to give the internal politics of a country have a little more depth and try to make it function more dynamically. The biggest restriction we placed upon our changes was that it should feel right for the era.

Before we launch into this let’s recap briefly about party organisation, as seen a previous developer’s dairy. Each party has a value representing its relative organisation value inside the country. This number is listed between 0-100 and the total organisation value inside a country will also be 100. This is a 0 sum game where increases in organisation by one party hit the others. This in turn feeds into a party’s ability to mobilise support for things like elections and, for those more cloak and dagger types, coups.

First off I suppose your are wondering what happens if you end up with someone like the National Socialists as the largest party but your country is a democracy. In this scenario your democracy is living on borrowed time. Sooner or later there will be a fire in the parliament building, a state of emergency and a dictatorship. Now I know what you are thinking, what are the odds? However as with all these things we work on the policy, well it could happen.

Onto the cabinet, as with all the various incarnations of Hearts of Iron, there is a ten-man cabinet where each minister has a different type of effect. However with new toys we have to play with in Hearts of Iron 3 we have overhauled these effects. We personally felt that a lot of minister’s bonuses were independent of your current situation where we feel that the minister choice should reward long-term strategy. So let’s look at some of our new minister effects. Your choice of foreign minister will in the main affect your drift, thus who you pick will have a long term affect on which faction your country moves closest to. Same with your military staff positions they, in general, affect practical decay. So if you have Armoured Spearhead Doctrine Chief of the Army he will get you cheaper tanks and better tank technologies but to get the best out of him you are really going to need to build some tanks.

Next, as you are no doubt aware the trusty sliders have gone, to be replaced by laws. We like laws a lot more, because unlike sliders who have a fixed time limit between changes, with laws we can make the switch context sensitive. So consider the situation where your neighbour has become just a little bit threatening, so you up your draft level to increase the size of your army. Then your neighbour attacks you, in Hearts of Iron 2 you would have to wait until the next slider change, with laws since you are at war you can immediately start to mobilise your country for war. It also adds in the effect that moving towards a greater war orientation is not a simple annual step, but an actual process that takes into account the global situation.


Here’s a screenshot of Nazi Germany in 1936.

alpha_jan21.jpg
 
perhaps we are yet to add in the flavour names for political parties?
 
How about different symbols for each ideology?

Anyway, is it possible to make laws have a particular ideology's popularity/organization as a pre-requisite? Say, land reform in a Latin American country could only be done when the country is on the verge of a socialist takeover, or something?

This is a war game, the laws are all about fighting wars.
 
That's not really an answer, however. Could Law X have a particular ideology's popularity/organization as a pre-requisite?

EDIT: I am specifically interested in this because it has the potential of being used to model things like Congressional resistance to war entry.

Laws are fully modable and uses the same trigger rules as events. Giving us a wide scope of things to play with when we come round to balancing laws.
 
This is a good question, since Germany really didn't have any parties except for the NSDAP in 1939 as all the others were banned and most of their active supporters and leaders dead or imprisoned. I wonder if parties are handled differently in dictatorships than in democracies. Maybe the main parties there are harder to bring down or have a certain fixed popularity bonus?

Probably like this :

"This is a dynamic variable that can be altered via espionage in either your home country or others and via events and decisions"

It's amazing what your police force can do against those who oppose you if you are willing to invest the leadership points.
 
2) You have implied that a ministers performance may be affected by other factors in the game. Does this mean their abilities are variable? e.g. Hess might not actually be able to deliver +10%IC or that his +10% bonus may decrease or increase over time?

No we implied that ministers didn't need to just have the abilities we listed they could have and thus the choice of foriegn minister could effect something other than drift.
 
The question is, will it have less nuance than Hearts of Iron 2? Also, incidentally, a war game. But Japan and Romania there, for example, exist along a continuum between a parliamentary system and a paternalistic dictatorship. Is there any way that HoI3 could model the in-between (not necessarily through politics, but also diplomacy and intelligence), or is there merely a binary choice of parliamentarism versus dictatorship?

far more nuances than the simple and crude political slider were, with lots of laws, party popularity and party organisation.
 
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean that Germany already has a lot of laws that it can enact, or that the laws on the screenshots are already enacted (which would seem to contradict the meaning of the green checkmark on Diplomacy screen decisions)? Or something else?

Those are the laws it can enact, now think about this.
 
- Since the game basically lets the Executive control the country, do you plan on using laws to simulate parliamentary opposition to various measures? (this is similar to my previous question, but more focused) For example, again, if you are FDR, but Republicans are very popular, would this block a peacetime Full Mobilization order?

I suspect many laws will have triggers based on what your ruling party is, if it has a clear majority, and if other laws are already in effect.

E.g a Democracy might have a law called "Demand key government postitions" (makes largest party leader HoG) that can only be enacted if an extreamist party is the largest single party. Then you might have to meet some other condictions to enact "Take control of the police". With that and some other triggers you might be able to "Ban opposing parties", "End elections" and finally "Seize total power" (Making your HoG the HoS too) to end up as a Dictatorship.

Similarly for something like Lend-Lease it might require the HoG's party to control a majority vote, the USA to be enough Allied-leading, and probably GER to have a certain amount of BB.

It could be very entertaining to have a political minigame going on, where Allied players try to drum up support to prepare for, or enter, the war early while the Axis player tries to stop neutral nations from leading too far towards the Allied camp. I'd certainly welcome anything that would make the first few years as a Democracy so dull.
 
Laws are all about war

Well yes, but surely some are about if/when a country can declare war? Some to simulate the "peace time IC penalty" etc? I mean, sure you could just hardcode limits like that into the government types, but that seems a lot more limiting and inelegent than basing it on laws and politics.

Certainly some laws from the screenshots don't appear to be directly war related; the industry focus, state press and the education funding laws don't seem to be, although they probably give bonus IC, -dissent or +research bonuses which indirectly affect the war.

I would hope some laws also affect your political setup, or else how is a Democracy different from a Dictatorship? Clearly you can change from one to the other:
Johan said:
First off I suppose your are wondering what happens if you end up with someone like the National Socialists as the largest party but your country is a democracy. In this scenario your democracy is living on borrowed time. Sooner or later there will be a fire in the parliament building, a state of emergency and a dictatorship.
It'd be a shame if that process is just: You are a Democracy. Vote in the National Socialists. Wait for a random event. You are now a Dictatorship.
 
I would hope some laws also affect your political setup, or else how is a Democracy different from a Dictatorship? Clearly you can change from one to the other:

It'd be a shame if that process is just: You are a Democracy. Vote in the National Socialists. Wait for a random event. You are now a Dictatorship.

Cleary you are not reading the Dev diaries, you can influence your and other country's political set up via esponainge.
 
Cleary you are not reading the Dev diaries, you can influence your and other country's political set up via esponainge.

I was talking about changing your own country's political setup via laws. Either you've misread my post or you're saying you can only change your own political setup by performing espionage on yourself. I do read the DDs, but it's never been clearly stated you can only affect your own nation by spying on yourself, although if that is the case I suppose:

DD 6 said:
However the first big change is a concept we call party organisation. This is a dynamic variable that can be altered via espionage in either your home country or others and via events and decisions. This represents how well a particular ideology is organised, covering a broad brush stroke of concepts from party membership, newspaper editorial stance, the views of opinion formers in the country, actual campaigners going out trying to convince people to support them, just give you an idea. For an ideology group that is out of power it also reflects the chances of a coup d’etat, if a democracy has well organised fascist parties then the risks of a right wing coup d’etat are much greater than in a country where they have simply no organisation.

does explain it. But while it might seem obvious when you already know how everything works, if you don't it's more logical to think Johan meant 3rd parties might alter your party organisation via espionage while you had access to similar tools for your own nation on the yet to be revealed politics screen. I suppose there's nothing wrong with managing your own nation via the espionage screen too, but it's not entirely intuitive.
 
Someone mentioned badboy, from what I've read of the DDs so far... there's nothing to lead me to assume that badboy scores will be a part of HoI3.

I think you mean me. I haven't seen BB in HoI3 mentioned anywhere so far, but it's been in every Paradox game I've played, so I expect it in HoI3. If they don't have BB I expect they'll have some other measurement for a nation's agressiveness/expansionism, it's too useful a trigger not to have.