• 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.

Designer Corner: Peace Conference

Steam Event Header (1920x622).png

And we shall have peace.

Hi folks,

It’s been a while since our last update on future plans for HoI, but we’re about ready to show you some of the work we’ve been doing. Before we begin, I’d like to indicate that there’ll be some differences in how we do this. As I’ve previously stated, we want to begin discussion around features and implementation details a little earlier in the process than usual. This means a couple of things.

Firstly, while we’ll be showing off some individual features, we’re not yet ready to give an overview of the entire scope of our next release yet. This will, of course, be coming in the near (ish) future.

Secondly, you’ll be getting an early look at what we’ve been working on, and this comes with all the caveats you might expect: lots of WIP design, interface, and gameplay.

Lastly, for the time being we’ll be producing these ‘design corner’ style diaries every two weeks, rather than weekly. This is likely to change as we get closer to being complete.

Before I hand over, I’ll give you a quick run down of the directive for the feature we’re looking at today: Peace Conferences. Our primary objectives are to:

  • Create a system that appropriately rewards participation.
  • Allow for conflict and conflict resolution within the scope of the conference.
  • Create a limited ‘economy’ within conferences, where you may have to sacrifice your overall aims in order to secure immediate concerns.
  • Produce more ‘realistic’ outcomes where the AI is concerned.

And with that, I’ll hand over to @Yaboi_bobby to dive into the deeper details!

Hey everyone, over the past months we have been working to overhaul the peace conference system. It is no secret that in HoI4 the peace conference system has a number of issues with how it functions. Combining that with the fact that it is a surprisingly hard interface to learn how to use, it is rightly one of our most disliked and complained about features. We have taken a large step away from how the system currently works and I am excited to show what the future holds for peace conferences.

The first major departure we made from the old system was shifting from absolute claiming of territory to contestable claiming of territory. In the old PC system once somebody claimed a state, that was it. That claim would be locked in and no one would be able to interact with it further. Now, players may contest other players' interactions in the conference. This doesn't come without cost. Contesting claimed territory will come with a point tax, and every time a contest happens the price of interacting with that state climbs further. This effectively creates a bidding war between all parties invested in a given state. This change should have some interesting outcomes, allow mid and low level participants to have more agency, and give players the tools needed to go after the states that are most important to them for things like achievements and forming new tags.

Here Brazil prepares to bid upon Chao Boreal which has already been claimed by Argentina
image1.png


Contestable bids help solve some problems, but without further changes many still persist. One of the most obvious issues was how the old system handled turn order. The old system would order countries by participation, and then go in order based upon the number of points held by participants. Where it gets weird is the fact that the order of the list would get updated after each nation’s turn. This meant that often the top two participants could have enough points when a turn ended that they would simply exchange turns between them and end up completely controlling the conference. This was in some ways a good method to allow two big faction leaders to have majority control after the end of a historical WW2, but is bad in virtually every other case.

We did a lot of thinking about turn order and how to structure the turn in general. Slowly we came to the conclusion that any system with a visible turn order, no matter how it was structured, would put people at disadvantage or advantage depending on turn order. This led to the creation of what we have been calling the “Blind Bid” system.

The main concept of the “Blind Bid” system is that everyone acts simultaneously. The way this functions is that, each turn, every conference participant uses their points to make bids. When every player has finished making their bids, all of the bids are evaluated at once. Bids have a fixed cost much like the current claims do, but now with more modifiers. In any instance where two participants made a bid on the same state, that state is marked as contested and the players involved have the majority of their points spent on the bid refunded. Each time a state is contested, it increases in cost for all subsequent rounds. This effect stacks on a state each turn in which a contested bid happens. The other side of this is uncontested bids. Each turn a bid goes uncontested, it increases in cost for everyone else except for the person who made the bid. This acts to, over the course of several turns, lock in bids as they become too expensive to realistically contest.

Brazil and Argentina attempting to resolve a contested bid on Chaco Boreal
image2.png


At this point you may be thinking “Yeah OK, but I get points each turn, how does the conference end?” This leads us to the final major change: limited points. This is pretty self explanatory. Each participant will get a fixed amount of points over the course of the conference based upon war participation score. The way we do this is by distributing a percentage of those points every turn until all points are distributed. Most of the work here comes down to rebalancing war participation and finding what we consider a good point ceiling for a conference. Limited points will mean, in some cases, that loser nations survive more intact than they did previously, but this should not be a common case. In general, we think this creates a fun and somewhat tense conference experience.

Beyond the big three changes listed so far we have a number of smaller tweaks, adjustments, and rebalance to overall cost of interactions and participation. However, that topic is not worth going into at this point as it is still very much WiP. So with that I will conclude the first overview of the peace conference rework. We look forward to your feedback, hot takes, and hopefully excitement. Until next time o7
 
  • 192Like
  • 82Love
  • 18
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
A Serious Question / Suggestion, but have you thought to put a "Scripted Peace Deal" for cases where Yalta Conference fires, and Soviets and US Split the Europe in two, so that Poland doesn't stay in allies all the timee and similar such oddities for historical borders.
 
  • 9
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Will we still get to choose what happens if we use Player Lead Peace Conferences as a playable mod or will this feature make it broken, because I like it when the AI doesn't make the map look like a CK3 map.
 
Could there ever be a situation where you keep spending your points on a specific state, but eventually get outbid, so you leave the conference with nothing, because all the other claims have gotten too expensive?
I mean, that could reasonably happen. It gives me strong "Italy after WW1" vibes, in fact.
 
  • 3
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm glad this is coming, I did a Die Preferus Albinon run where I singlehandedly beat the British but Germany took Scotland because they were dying in the desert.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Will things like war reparations, demilitarized states, controlling resources but not states and seizing fleets be added to peace conferences?
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
A Serious Question / Suggestion, but have you thought to put a "Scripted Peace Deal" for cases where Yalta Conference fires, and Soviets and US Split the Europe in two, so that Poland doesn't stay in allies all the timee and similar such oddities for historical borders.

This has existed, in one form, for some time. It has been updated for the new system, and is now a little more reliable.

Will we still get to choose what happens if we use Player Lead Peace Conferences as a playable mod or will this feature make it broken, because I like it when the AI doesn't make the map look like a CK3 map.

The mod will not be compatible with the new system. The AI is already significantly less inclined towards border-gore under the new system, and will improve further.
 
  • 28
  • 7Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Will there be mechanics around nations that were capitulated getting much less warscore? France for instance (let alone European minors) weren’t in much position to be pressing claims at war end (and even had the British effectively force it to release Syria and Lebanon - one of the few edge cases the current system actually allows for).
 
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Will there be mechanics around nations that were capitulated getting much less warscore? France for instance (let alone European minors) weren’t in much position to be pressing claims at war end (and even had the British effectively force it to release Syria and Lebanon - one of the few edge cases the current system actually allows for).

Yes.

Will compliance be factored in? It feels like a state with maximum compliance should be easier to claim than one with 0.

Possibly.
 
  • 31Like
  • 9
  • 3Love
  • 1
Reactions:
What would happen if, say, two democratic nations each bid to liberate Czechoslovakia? Are those treated as competing bids, even though they're effectively two votes for the same outcome?
 
  • 5Like
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Positive!

Two questions:

1. Will there be an option for a victorious country to walk away from the peace conference and wage war with its "partners" over disputes, until circumstances are more favourable for that country? (maybe with a cost of decreased war support, or other severe penalties)

2. Any plans for implementation of limited conflicts and their own resolution mechanics / their own peace conferences? No clear victors or losers, just compromises and option to leave the table and keep waging the war?
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
Are there any plans for allowing partial peace deals? Say I just want a province or two off an enemy without having to completely capitulate them (winter war, for example), could I invade and then propose a peace after having made some gains in the chosen regions? The war score would then limit me to only taking small amounts of land.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
At this point you may be thinking “Yeah OK, but I get points each turn, how does the conference end?” This leads us to the final major change: limited points. This is pretty self explanatory. Each participant will get a fixed amount of points over the course of the conference based upon war participation score. The way we do this is by distributing a percentage of those points every turn until all points are distributed. Most of the work here comes down to rebalancing war participation and finding what we consider a good point ceiling for a conference. Limited points will mean, in some cases, that loser nations survive more intact than they did previously, but this should not be a common case. In general, we think this creates a fun and somewhat tense conference experience.

So as I understand with the old system nations could skip turns increasing their points and they were always able to conquer all the territory of the defeated nations, with the new system the amount of points is limited and as provinces get more expensive due to bids the defeated alliances will always survive. So with the new system Hitler will always survive and still control a tiny nazi Germany after the war? :confused:
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't hate the ideas presented here. But there was something very significant missing. Has the participation score been changed? And if so, how? I think the biggest issue with the Peace Conference system is not what's been discussed here, but the fact that casualties have an inordinate impact on the overall participation score. This leads to situations where the UK and Italy have massive war scores simply because they've both sent their entire populations to die in the deserts of Africa and a tertiary nation that actually defeats Italy ends up with nothing because of these overblown war scores due to casualties.

This system might allow that tertiary nation to now take a province or two, but the limits of the war score will still be telling overall.

Finally, as with all new features, if you don't teach the AI to use it, it's of no use. The AI still doesn't bother to build new rail, even in the worst supplied areas and just grinds it's equipment to dust.
 
  • 13
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions: