Reception & Thoughts | Patch 1.14.2 [Checksum fbf7]

[hannibal_pjv]

Perhaps the best way to salvage this mess would be making Trial of Allegiance a two parter. Go back to work and finish out trees for Peru, Colombia, Venezuela, and Ecuador, and release them once they’re done as a free update for those who’ve bought the DLC.

That would be enough content to justify the $15 price, satisfy complaints about countries being overlooked, and it wouldn’t screw over anybody who bought it at $15 like it would if you just chopped the price down to $10.

It will/would be another $15 dlc… and don`t worry…new feature dlc will cost more than $20… maybe $35… so $15 is in line with that.

 

[Flayer92]

I'm not super keen on the memes either, but how exactly do they detract from your experience playing the game?

The default AI behaviour is historical, and no one is forcing you to restore the Byzantine Empire. You can play for hours and never have to engage with the fantastic content if you don't want to.

Personally I would prefer it if all the implausible focuses were hidden like Papal Italy and Hitlerian Argentina. But that's a matter of framing not substance. At the end of the day, the players who buy DLC for the memes are subsidising our historical content.

I see them as part of a larger set of compromises that went into the overall design of HOI4. Compared to its predecessors, Paradox chose to concentrate a lot more effort into presentation, accessibility, and simple fun. It was a successful strategy from a commercial standpoint. HOI4 outsold all of its predecessors and made a household name out of a previously niche series. Many people enjoy the result. I do too, when I’m in a certain mood.

But the nature of a compromise is that you gain in some things by making sacrifices in others. HOI4 is a great sandbox game, but very poor at modeling something close to the real WW2. It was like that at release, and while eight or ten expansions later it’s gotten exponentially better as an alternate history or fantasy sandbox, it’s gotten only marginally better by comparison at being a WW2 game. It’s still playing catchup with HOI3 in some respects even after all these add-ons. It’s a matter of opportunity costs. What if all the development time that went into crafting these alternate history trees was invested on improving the core gameplay instead?

HOI3 is far from a perfect game, but it hit the mark better for me in most respects, so it’s still the game I play more often. At release, it was because HOI4 felt so barren and stripped down in comparison. Now all these years and expansions later, I often find myself turned off by how convoluted and complex HOI4 has become. It’s certainly gained some in depth, but it feels like it’s gained a lot more in bloat. HOI3, criticized for being too micromanagement heavy, is now the less stressful and more straightforward of the two to play.

One basic feature of HOI3 that I’m still somewhat amazed HOI4 lacks (despite its emphasis on ease of play and attracting more casual gamers) was the ability you had to put various systems of the game on autopilot under AI management. This was great as a way for new players to learn one particular aspect of the game at a time. And even as a veteran player, I often made use of it in solo games simply so that I could tune out the parts of the game that were the least interesting or entertaining to me, and focus on the ones that were.

A well-crafted automation system, were this feature to be reintroduced to the game now, would be more than a simple on/off checkbox, but rather come with a menu of options and priorities. With the HOI3 trade system you could have checked boxes to a stockpile a particular resource (if you’re someone like Germany) or to minimize stockpiles and maximize profit (if you’re the US), checked certain countries to prioritize or avoid deals with, checked an option to avoid overseas trades that require convoys, etc. With production AI you could select options for an overall build strategy and fine tune it by prioritizing or excluding specific types of units. The ability to free myself of juggling every detail of trade, production, and so on would be a welcome relief at times so I can concentrate on running the military operations, or just enjoy a more relaxed and hands off experience.

If I was overseeing the development strategy for HOI5, since HOI4 is what it is and it’s too late to change that, I would choose to concentrate on deepening the core WW2 experience, while leaving the alternate history development to the community. Modders have proven fully capable of crafting national focus trees. I would curate the highest quality community content mods, give them an official endorsement, and have them integrated in an in-game menu, where players can browse their choices and enable the ones they like. That way, all the fun fantasy options are still available, but the historical game remains the central focus of the developers’ efforts. I’m certain it would be a worse strategy from a business perspective, since you’re no longer monetizing that alt-history content, but it would probably lead to a better game in the end.

 

[herr anfsim]

I see them as part of a larger set of compromises that went into the overall design of HOI4. Compared to its predecessors, Paradox chose to concentrate a lot more effort into presentation, accessibility, and simple fun. It was a successful strategy from a commercial standpoint. HOI4 outsold all of its predecessors and made a household name out of a previously niche series. Many people enjoy the result. I do too, when I’m in a certain mood.

But the nature of a compromise is that you gain in some things by making sacrifices in others. HOI4 is a great sandbox game, but very poor at modeling something close to the real WW2. It was like that at release, and while eight or ten expansions later it’s gotten exponentially better as an alternate history or fantasy sandbox, it’s gotten only marginally better by comparison at being a WW2 game. It’s still playing catchup with HOI3 in some respects even after all these add-ons. It’s a matter of opportunity costs. What if all the development time that went into crafting these alternate history trees was invested on improving the core gameplay instead?

HOI3 is far from a perfect game, but it hit the mark better for me in most respects, so it’s still the game I play more often. At release, it was because HOI4 felt so barren and stripped down in comparison. Now all these years and expansions later, I often find myself turned off by how convoluted and complex HOI4 has become. It’s certainly gained some in depth, but it feels like it’s gained a lot more in bloat. HOI3, criticized for being too micromanagement heavy, is now the less stressful and more straightforward of the two to play.

One basic feature of HOI3 that I’m still somewhat amazed HOI4 lacks (despite its emphasis on ease of play and attracting more casual gamers) was the ability you had to put various systems of the game on autopilot under AI management. This was great as a way for new players to learn one particular aspect of the game at a time. And even as a veteran player, I often made use of it in solo games simply so that I could tune out the parts of the game that were the least interesting or entertaining to me, and focus on the ones that were.

A well-crafted automation system, were this feature to be reintroduced to the game now, would be more than a simple on/off checkbox, but rather come with a menu of options and priorities. With the HOI3 trade system you could have checked boxes to a stockpile a particular resource (if you’re someone like Germany) or to minimize stockpiles and maximize profit (if you’re the US), checked certain countries to prioritize or avoid deals with, checked an option to avoid overseas trades that require convoys, etc. With production AI you could select options for an overall build strategy and fine tune it by prioritizing or excluding specific types of units. The ability to free myself of juggling every detail of trade, production, and so on would be a welcome relief at times so I can concentrate on running the military operations, or just enjoy a more relaxed and hands off experience.

If I was overseeing the development strategy for HOI5, since HOI4 is what it is and it’s too late to change that, I would choose to concentrate on deepening the core WW2 experience, while leaving the alternate history development to the community. Modders have proven fully capable of crafting national focus trees. I would curate the highest quality community content mods, give them an official endorsement, and have them integrated in an in-game menu, where players can browse their choices and enable the ones they like. That way, all the fun fantasy options are still available, but the historical game remains the central focus of the developers’ efforts. I’m certain it would be a worse strategy from a business perspective, since you’re no longer monetizing that alt-history content, but it would probably lead to a better game in the end.

I agree with your points, and I believe HOI4 has become a kind of sandbox where a lot of nations can do the same very unrealistic alternative history paths, while few can do more slight, though plausible, deviations from history. For instance, you could play out a swedish power fantasy of Sweden becoming a great power and dominating its neighbours (like most DLC nations can), but you are not able to allow the historical allied request for passing through Sweden to aid Finland against the Soviet Union and see how that fascinating scenario would play out.

When HOI4 released, I too fealt that it lacked too much from the previous games, and I was quite surprised (and still am) that basic functionality like automate trade or message settings were missing from the game. I have always thought some of the latter was to force the player into relying more on battleplans.

To your last point; I believe a deepening of the core mechanics and plausible historical scenarios while having a more generalized approach to the (wildly) alt history stuff would benefit the game greatly. For one, the alt history paths are to a large extent variations around the same themes and the numerous implementations causes numerous problems that PDX will most likely not resource working on. Allowing the player a more generic way of becoming the communist/fascist/monarchist power they want would avoid the problem of some content comparing poorly to others, while flavour content and the context would provide the "localization". I think this would allow PDX to focus on making the core mechanics to what they want to achieve rather than solving everything with focuses, while allowing plausible deviations from actual history to play out via decisions and events.

 

[ElAntiOtaku18]

Personally, I am very disappointed with the representation of my country, Peru, in the DLC. It's not about you didn't include it; but it's you put the option of restoring the Inca Empire with Chile. I do not understand why did you make this decision, considering that civilization originated in Cuzco (current Peruvian territory). It may sound exaggerated, but I'm also afraid that this will lead people to mistakenly believe that the Incas are Chilean, when in fact they are not.

 

[ElAntiOtaku18]

It will/would be another $15 dlc… and don`t worry…new feature dlc will cost more than $20… maybe $35… so $15 is in line with that.

And that's the best case. Because at this point it seems that DLC will never come.

 

[Herennius]

And that's the best case. Because at this point it seems that DLC will never come.

What at this point point makes you think that there won't be another DLC for South America in feature? I don't remember having read any such official statement, while in contrary there was one in the past where a focus tree for any country was mentioned as the ideal case (though it wasn't promised of course). So yes, these is no absolute certainty about the remaining south-american countries getting unique content, but at the moment is see no indication of that not possiblly happen in the future.

 

[ElAntiOtaku18]

What at this point point makes you think that there won't be another DLC for South America in feature? I don't remember having read any such official statement, while in contrary there was one in the past where a focus tree for any country was mentioned as the ideal case (though it wasn't promised of course). So yes, these is no absolute certainty about the remaining south-american countries getting unique content, but at the moment is see no indication of that not possiblly happen in the future.

Read my previous post

Personally, I am very disappointed with the representation of my country, Peru, in the DLC. It's not about you didn't include it; but it's you put the option of restoring the Inca Empire with Chile. I do not understand why did you make this decision, considering that civilization originated in Cuzco (current Peruvian territory). It may sound exaggerated, but I'm also afraid that this will lead people to mistakenly believe that the Incas are Chilean, when in fact they are not.

 

[Herennius]

Read my previous post

I have read it, but it doesn't explain to me where the indicator is for "no future south america content". You stated that you don't like a part of the Chilean content (and I could even imagine that I would agree with you, if I would dig deeper - I can at least echo, that in mind "Inca" is associated first hand with Peru as well), but I fail to see that this means no 2nd DLC. What would e.g. stop developers from allowing Peru in such a hypothetic DLC to found the Inca Empire as well?

 

[ElAntiOtaku18]

I have read it, but it doesn't explain to me where the indicator is for "no future south america content". You stated that you don't like a part of the Chilean content (and I could even imagine that I would agree with you, if I would dig deeper - I can at least echo, that in mind "Inca" is associated first hand with Peru as well), but I fail to see that this means no 2nd DLC. What would e.g. stop developers from allowing Peru in such a hypothetic DLC to found the Inca Empire as well?

I'll explain more. They put something that it should be in a peruvian focus tree; not in chilean focus tree. If Chile has the option alredy, how could Peru do the same in a future DLC. What will happen if a player chooses Peru, plays in non historical, starts to restore Inca Empire,and AI makes Chile take the focus of Inca Empire? Or if in Multiplayer two players take these branches.
That only leads some ways:
-Omit completely Peru and only put other countries (Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador)
-Omit the option of restoring Inca Empire with Peru
Additionally I don't see anyone associating Incas with any other thing aside from Peru.

 

[Herennius]

If you didn't understand. They put something that it should be in a peruvian focus tree; not in chilean focus tree. If Chile has the option alredy, how could Peru do the same in a future DLC. What will happen if a player chooses Peru, plays in non historical, starts to restore Inca Empire,and AI makes Chile take the focus of Inca Empire?

I would expect the focus for Chile getting blocked then, because the nation to be founded/transforming into already existing (technically a requirement for the focus like "Requieres: Inca Empire does not exist")

 

[ElAntiOtaku18]

I would expect the focus for Chile getting blocked then, because the nation to be founded/transforming into already existing (technically a requirement for the focus like "Requieres: Inca Empire does not exist")

Wouldn't this make that chilean branch impossible to play or too nerfed?

 

[Herennius]

Wouldn't this make that chilean branch impossible to play or too nerfed?

I might err, but isn't that the common way HoI4 handles such situations? If you want to form nation X, you always run into the danger that some AI might prevent you from executing the final step, because they are faster or create another formable nation conflicting yours by included required parts. In this case it would put Peru and Chile in a kind of antagonist position, when it comes to founding the Inca Empire, creating a kind of "race situation" about who is faster...but I wouldn't see that as a real nerf.

 

[ElAntiOtaku18]

I might err, but isn't that the common way HoI4 handles such situations? If you want to form nation X, you always run into the danger that some AI might prevent you from executing the final step, because they are faster or create another formable nation conflicting yours by included required parts. In this case it would put Peru and Chile in a kind of antagonist position, when it comes to founding the Inca Empire, creating a kind of "race situation" about who is faster...but I wouldn't see that as a real nerf.

That's a thing the game in general should change to avoid unfair exploits that make some games impossible.
As I edited a previous post, nobody sees Incas as something aside from Peru. And culturally, chileans never identified with that civilization in their history. So in the case of making that antagonist position it should be a thing like a second Inca Mapuche war, deleting that focus from Chile or changing its name

 

[Sevinceur]

I might err, but isn't that the common way HoI4 handles such situations? If you want to form nation X, you always run into the danger that some AI might prevent you from executing the final step, because they are faster or create another formable nation conflicting yours by included required parts. In this case it would put Peru and Chile in a kind of antagonist position, when it comes to founding the Inca Empire, creating a kind of "race situation" about who is faster...but I wouldn't see that as a real nerf.

It could be problematic, most formable you don't need to worry about other countries forming unless they conquer you first at the least. But some (I can only think of Austri-Hungary as Czech in non-historical) may require you to race another country (Hungary) before they acquire the tag.

 

[the_unnamed]

Is it possible to implement an increasing or adaptive difficulty system? Something that would allow the computer player to adjust its strategies and designs in reaction to player’s or any threatening/rivalling nation‘s progress?

And can we please get less rng in leader development (getting engineer generals just because there was one engineer battalion as support is ridiculous) as well as an option to remove generals/marshals from the leader pool?

 

[JakeCourtney]

I'd buy a DLC that taught the AI how to properly play (script) the game using all the existing mechanics, until then I'm out.

 

[Mattmine]

I really hope that these reviews of south America don't dissuade you from making flavour for other regions of the world. I learned so much about Brazilian history and involvement in the second world War that I only vaguely knew about from an axis and allies board years ago. I love that this dlc was made.

 

[FindFloppies]

Happy to read this! Power creep is a problem in many Paradox games, and corrections are always welcome.

Let me fix that:

Happy to read this! Power creep is a problem in many Paradox games, and corrections are always welcome.

EDIT: To be clear, there is definitely power creep in Paradox games, but it's not just a Paradox problem. There is power creep in a LOT of games as they get older. MMOs are especially bad about this, for example.