Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 16 - World Tension
- Thread starter podcat
- Start date
-
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.
.png){kind=avatar}
So World Tension is like a global hoi2-like belligerence system? I liked the sliders system as well but these new features seem like they may open great possibilities for modding.
Thankyou Paradox, I'm really happy u are making a 4th ideology for politics. Looking like this game is shaping up well.
Cheers for the DD 
. System looks like it has a lot of potential (and, by the look of it, one that is much easier to understand at first glance, but potentially as deep or deeper (and by the look of it much more likely to be easily moddable through events and the like at least), as that in HoI3), and I’d bet good money it will be a good step forward from what was in HoI4. Would love more detail on how it works, but I’m guessing this hasn’t been finalised yet or it would have been included in the DD, but hey, I’ll ask in case there’s a chance….
Beyond limits to producing reasons for going to war, what is the incentive for the UK/France/US to raise tension, rather than diminish it? If there is no anti-tension incentive for the ‘status quo’ countries, then it could lead to some strange behaviour. For example, presumably the 1938 Munich treaty will lead to a reduction in tension if they take the historic path. However, what if the UK and France decide to back Czeckoslovakia and there’s an early outbreak of war? In HoI3 that meant the US (and the Commonwealth Dominions) were less likely to be involved in a future conflict (by increasing their neutrality, iirc), but by the sound of it, in HoI4 the increase in tension this would entail could get the US and others in the war earlier. Am sure it’s covered off, just curious how it’s covered off : ). Totally understand if that bit hasn’t been finalised yet.
Also, as raised by a few others, it looks like there needs to be some kind of mechanic to stop 100% tension leading to some funny results. Is this handled just by limiting who the ‘status quo’ countries could generate reasons for going to war on, or is there another mechanic in place for this?
Am looking forward to hearing how tension interrelates with mobilising for war and the like as well.
Bring ‘em on. And if you run out of ideas, I’m sure there are plenty around these parts that could help .
. System looks like it has a lot of potential (and, by the look of it, one that is much easier to understand at first glance, but potentially as deep or deeper (and by the look of it much more likely to be easily moddable through events and the like at least), as that in HoI3), and I’d bet good money it will be a good step forward from what was in HoI4. Would love more detail on how it works, but I’m guessing this hasn’t been finalised yet or it would have been included in the DD, but hey, I’ll ask in case there’s a chance….Beyond limits to producing reasons for going to war, what is the incentive for the UK/France/US to raise tension, rather than diminish it? If there is no anti-tension incentive for the ‘status quo’ countries, then it could lead to some strange behaviour. For example, presumably the 1938 Munich treaty will lead to a reduction in tension if they take the historic path. However, what if the UK and France decide to back Czeckoslovakia and there’s an early outbreak of war? In HoI3 that meant the US (and the Commonwealth Dominions) were less likely to be involved in a future conflict (by increasing their neutrality, iirc), but by the sound of it, in HoI4 the increase in tension this would entail could get the US and others in the war earlier. Am sure it’s covered off, just curious how it’s covered off : ). Totally understand if that bit hasn’t been finalised yet.
Also, as raised by a few others, it looks like there needs to be some kind of mechanic to stop 100% tension leading to some funny results. Is this handled just by limiting who the ‘status quo’ countries could generate reasons for going to war on, or is there another mechanic in place for this?
Am looking forward to hearing how tension interrelates with mobilising for war and the like as well.
Bring ‘em on
. And if you run out of ideas, I’m sure there are plenty around these parts that could help .- 1
Thanx a lot for the DD pod
I am a bit wary of a global value personally..
Polish ambassador : Welcome sir, how may Poland be of assistance to you today.
German ambassador : The Peruvian Llama scandal was the last drop, we are at war sir!
Polish ambassador : errr, what ?
Well the Manchuria incident did contribute to WW2 IRL
Highly intrigued and concerned about the world tension concept:
Example 1: I play Germany. I'm peaceful as hell, raising no tension at all. Meanwhile Brazil (either whacky a.i. or human) conquers half of South America. Global tension rises. When I finally remilitarize the Rhineland in 1940, all hell breaks loose and I get dow'ed by UK, France and USA.
Example 2: This one is really gamey. I play the UK and am at war with a historical Germany. In early 1940 I'm afraid of a game ending Sealion. If there was only a way to get the US to join... wait a minute: world tension! Unjustified dow of a minor nation and following annexation should be enough. World tension rises and the US joins the Allies. Since the UK didn't do anything threatening before, this one act of aggression won't hurt our relations too much.
World tension is a wonderful concept with a ton of problems. If you can manage to eliminate exploits and sheer randomness (I fear that the a.i. will ruin many games with unrealistic acts of aggression), then this will be wonderful. I'm only afraid that it won't work as intended and in the end the solution will lead to more railroading (to keep it in check).
Example 1: I play Germany. I'm peaceful as hell, raising no tension at all. Meanwhile Brazil (either whacky a.i. or human) conquers half of South America. Global tension rises. When I finally remilitarize the Rhineland in 1940, all hell breaks loose and I get dow'ed by UK, France and USA.
Example 2: This one is really gamey. I play the UK and am at war with a historical Germany. In early 1940 I'm afraid of a game ending Sealion. If there was only a way to get the US to join... wait a minute: world tension! Unjustified dow of a minor nation and following annexation should be enough. World tension rises and the US joins the Allies. Since the UK didn't do anything threatening before, this one act of aggression won't hurt our relations too much.
World tension is a wonderful concept with a ton of problems. If you can manage to eliminate exploits and sheer randomness (I fear that the a.i. will ruin many games with unrealistic acts of aggression), then this will be wonderful. I'm only afraid that it won't work as intended and in the end the solution will lead to more railroading (to keep it in check).
- 3
There's also Casus Belli to consider, also mentioned in the diary. To follow your examples:
1. If Brazil stirs of trouble in South America it will give CB(s) against it, possibly even war. By the time you remilitarise the Rhineland, hell will have already broken loose, but the focus wouldn't be you, it would be Brazil. Simply put, even if they had a reason to DoW you, it would not be as big a priority, meaning you could probably get away with it.
2. If you raise tension by DoWing a minor nation, that would not go well with USA, giving them a CB against you. They would probably not join the Allies because of that.
- 2
The point is that belligerent actions made by Germany should make it easier to perform belligerent actions against Germany (*shocked face*), but that's it. When Japan DOWs China, nations like Bulgaria, Switzerland, Sweden or Romania shouldn't be affected, because, well, why would they care?
I think the point is ... an ever increasing number of small wars around the globe means heading to a point where a world war becomes more likely, seems a logical mechanic to me, ultimately a major gets pulled in then another etc.
Well this is a global world, people do care when nations annex each other even on the other side of the world, also I imagine it will probably be a mixed system, global tension makes it easier to declare war but if you play as germany and are pretty peaceful with longish breaks in between reasonable diplomatic accomplishments like militarization or anchluss then I image that western powers will not dislike you enough to declare war.
The map is beautiful
The UI, not so much. Go back and look at the tech trees and tell me that doesn't look like some awful tablet game
- 3
- 1
We have to remember that this isn't 2015 we're talking about, it's 1930's. Look at how uninterested the USA were in joining any war on the other side of the world (well, anything really is on the other side of the world from an US perspective... which makes me wonder who actually lives on the arse end of the world
) until Pearl Harbour. Likewise, I doubt many tears were shed when Italy annexed Albania or when the British and Soviets invaded Iran. The World Threat meter needs to include a sort of rating system which takes into account the power of a country which gets annexed / loses provinces or the such. Other actions like a British naval blockade of the North Sea should antagonize those countries who have to use that sea for their trade route without being allied to the Axis...
- 2
Even in the world of the 1930s countries were deeply invested in protecting their global interests. UK and France both had a networking of colonies and trade that stretched the globe, you couldn't do much expansion without coming into contact with it and that was a real concern for those countries and one that would make them much more willing to use military force.
They had a huge interest in the preservation of the status quo and if it was threatened too much they would react.
- 3
If there is a deciding factor, it should be the international status of the belligerent country, IMO. People will pay more attention when UK invades Norway, than when Chili invades Peru.
- 3
Sure. That's why Japan invading China may concern the UK, France or the Soviet Union. It won't concern Yugoslavia, Argentina or Poland that much. Just as Italy annexing Albania will mean next to nothing to Thailand, Brazil, Mexico or even the USA, while Greece and Yugoslavia may be deeply concerned.
At least nation status and proximity need to taken into account in order to have a decent system, which means that one global World Tension value simply won't cut it
- 2
