• 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.

HoI 4 - Dev Diary: America Rework

Hello, and welcome back to another dev diary! Today we are going to talk about Freedom. Freedom from Fear. Freedom from Want. Freedom from having to vote for a presidential candidate every four years.


The vanilla US focus tree offered some interesting alternate-history scenarios, but if you wanted to play historical, you pretty much sat around doing very little until the war started. Part of this is the fundamental design problem of the US in a historical grand-strategy game: if we allow the US to freely enter the war when it has even a fraction of its historical economy, the Axis never makes it into Paris and the war ends in 1940. If we restrict the US from entering the war freely until its historical date, the US player sits around until late 1941 doing very little (there is a reason why my usual go-to scenario in HoI2 and HoI3 was “Play France until you lose, then switch to the US”).


usa_focus_devdiary.jpg



So one of the goals we had for this rework was to give the player a bit more stuff to actually do during the lead-up to the war. Making the path out of the depression a little more involved was an obvious place to start. Instead of a single national spirit, it is now three levels that give a smoother curve out of the depression. But instead of just taking three focuses in a row to do what could previously be done in one, we wanted the player to have to work a lot more to get out of the depression.


Enter the script-based Congress Mechanic. The Congress mechanic is - for now - unique to the US and simulates the shifting majorities in both houses of Congress. It ties into a lot of things that we will get into in a bit. But on a fundamental level, taking the focuses that reduce the penalties from the great depression will require you to have a majority in both houses, but will also reduce your support once you have taken it to simulate members of Congress who voted for the proposal being unwilling to support you further without getting something in return.


picture_us_congress.JPG



You can gain and lose support from random events as well as midterm and presidential elections. Generally speaking, going with the incumbent means you are more likely to lose support in Congress in the election, and if the situation is particularly dire, going with the challenger will flip support and opposition. Beyond this, a number of decisions allow you to gain support in congress, from simple lobbying to bribing members of Congress by investing in their constituencies to just regularly bribing them.


picture_us_build_factory.JPG



Besides getting out of the depression, you’ll also need to get Congress to sign off on the Selective Service Act, which is the gatekeeper focus of the army modernization branch, and the Two Ocean Navy Act, which is the gatekeeper focus for the naval branch. The amount of support you need depends on your war support (in general, you can assume that every focus with “Act” somewhere in its title ties into the Congress mechanic).


Another aspect we wanted to add was to give the US player a choice to become more active in the world earlier. As I said above, that comes with host of issues. We want it to be a viable option, but not a no-brainer. This means that there will be a number of restrictions in the “Limited Intervention” branch. First, you’ll have to have enough support in Congress to take the focus (and a lack of war support means that quite a few member of Congress will break ranks over it). Afterwards, you will have to choose between focusing your efforts on preparing to intervene in Europe or in Asia. Taking either of these focuses unlocks a number of decisions to try and build public support for an intervention. Many of these decisions are tied to events around the world - here the US is protesting the Anschluss.


picture_us_anschluss.JPG



However, there is only a small window to utilize these events. Each decision adds something that is internally called an “intervention strike” as in “three strikes and you’re out”, except in this case it’s “three strikes and we start bombing”. A generic decision allows to build support against a target if they do not have specific decisions associated with them. Finally, once a country has two strikes against them, you can petition congress to sanction an intervention, which will again require significant support (it is easier to gain a wargoal against a country that is at war, and easier still if they are in an aggressive war).


This will likely make it harder for you to pursue your other goals - so if you want to intervene in Europe on behalf of the Allies, you will most likely have to forego economic reforms, at least for a while.


The intervention mandates are also used to allow the US to intervene in the Americas if someone violates the Monroe doctrine.


Intervention in general is something you can prepare a lot better now by using war plans. Completing the focuses unlocks a decision to execute the corresponding war plan and gain a temporary bonus against a country, along with some other temporary bonuses.


us_picture_war_plan.jpg



Of course, by this point a statistical majority of you might wonder why you even bother with all this busy-work, bribing senators, cutting deals with representatives, when there is a world to be won. As promised, we also wanted to add proper alternate ideology branches for the US. As we said many months ago in the Dev Diary about South Africa, we also look to try and open up new areas of the map for warfare, to allow you to fight in different areas than trudging across the same old parts of Europe.


So we wanted to have a nice big Civil War in the US. We want tank battles south of Chicago. Naval landings in Florida. A brutal slog across the Rocky Mountains. So we decided to not just put in one civil war but two! That’s a whole 100% MORE CIVIL WAR!


You’ll have to fight a civil war in either of the alternate ideology branches. For the curious: the branches straight down from the WPA and Adjusted Compensation Act are democratic ideology branches and will be part of the free update, the branches starting with Suspend the Prosecution and America First will be part of the DLC.


In the left branch, appropriately enough, you soften up your stance towards the communists. You can do this even if you don’t intend to go fully communist, as it opens up new ways of gaining support in Congress. If you do decide to be more radical, you can desegregate the American society, which will trigger protests from the usual suspects. The protests by themselves don’t do anything, but if you decide to push harder towards communism, the protests will intensify and eventually spill over. The Unions Representation Act is another such trigger that will cause protests.


Picture_us_communists_protests.JPG



Before the civil war breaks out, there is a “Point of No Return” after which it is merely a question of time until hostilities start. In the time between the Point of No Return and the actual start of the war, you’ll get a number of events telling you how the situation develops. These events have actual effects on how your position is like at the start of the war.


For example, if an event tells you that a state has mobilized the national guard, the revolter gets a fully-equipped and quite capable division when the war starts. These events aren’t intended to make the difference between winning and losing but to give the war a bit more flavor.


Once the war starts in the communist branch, it is not quite like a regular civil war. Instead of the country and the military splitting in half, it spawns a new tag (CSA). This allows us to do a few things, like removing CSA territories as cores for the US (which means that they, for example, create resistance when conquered into). Depending on how far down you’ve gone in the communist branch, a part of the country might also declare its neutrality during the war. You can still interact with this part through decisions, but so can the other side.


picture_us_purchase_weapons.JPG



Where in other countries, a civil war is something we must be very careful with to ensure that the country is not completely crippled by the time the real war starts, here, we want ACWII to be “the war” the US gets into and which merges into the greater World War. So there are limited objectives for you after you have won the American Theater of World War II, but you can push decolonization in Asia and intervene in the Chinese Civil War, while also working to reintegrate the breakaway states.


The Civil War in the fascist branch works along similar lines. You also get a branch leading down from America First that you can use even if you don’t want to go full fascist - a sort of flirting with fascism, allowing you, for example, to investigate the opposition through the House Committee of Un-American Activities. The Voter Registration Act ensures a comfortable majority in every election, but triggers a wave of protests.


If you decide to push even further and publicly ally with the Silver Legion, you will trigger additional protests that put the country on the road to civil war. Like in the communist branch, a number of events determine what the starting position is, but the roles are reversed. Where in the communist branch, a part of the country tries to break away, in the fascist branch the country revolts against your leadership and tries to oust you from power, forcing you to fall back into a powerbase you set up in advance (you set up a powerbase in advance, right?). Parts of the country will declare in support or in opposition, leading to different front lines.


With much of the professional military on the other side, you’ll have to rely on hastily-raised militias to hold the line until you can get back on your feet. You might have to cut some deals and appeal to the locals to get them to accept that you are on their side.


picture_us_honor_confederacy.JPG



Once you have won that war, you are left with a US that is now safely fascist, which means that you are ideally poised to conquer the rest of the world. So we decided we might as well give you the focus tree to do just that. The War Powers Act lessens the stability impact of being in a war, and you can take your first steps abroad as you politely ask Canada to give you the territory between you and the Alaskan border (the event may or may not be called “Vancouver Or War!”) and politely ask Cuba to please stop being independent.


You continue in this fashion until at last you demand global hegemony and give all other majors an ultimatum to either become puppets or go to war. Along the way, you will most likely have gobbled up all the small countries that otherwise make conquering the world such a pain.


That is all for today. Next week we will be back with another look into the naval side of things.



Rejected Titles:

You will want fries with this focus tree

Making the world safe for fascism

Josh Lyman Simulator 2018

All focus trees are bigger in Texas

Communism is the right of all sentient beings

While writing this dev diary a bald eagle sat down outside the window and cried. True story.

My favourite state borders are Colorado’s

My google search history now makes me unemployable in most of the US

Fight them over here so we don’t have to fight them over there

This dev diary may contain trace amounts of political commentary

There was supposed to be a monarchist path but the Americans in the office rebelled and threw away all the tea

Team America saves the day

“Three strikes and we start bombing” would dramatically improve Baseball as a sport

https://twitter.com/alflandonlover gets the love he deserves

Actually rejected title: Make America <literally anything> Again

“Five score and two days ago our game director brought forth, upon this world, a new DLC announcement, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all gamers like American Civil Wars.”
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Nice preview livestream. This seems like a good place to post a couple of comments on really minor stuff.

West Mid West:
You could really punch up these events with more evocative names. In the Depression, another name for it was the Dust Bowl, and that might be a good bit of flavor if they’re rebelling because everything’s terrible and they’re fed up. Better known as the Great Plains.

A movement like the in-game Constitutionalists (I really like that name) might call the states from Ohio to Minnesota the Old Northwest. It calls back to the right period of history for them (and both Northwest and Northwest Territory referred to other pieces of land by then). Or the Great Lakes. If the Syndies—excuse me, Commies—make that their powerbase, maybe they call it the Steel Belt. It’s ahistorical, but has resonance for Americans today who know it as the Rust Belt.

You might also call the region that stayed with the Loyalists in the livestream the Rockies or, more poetically, the Big Sky.

MacArthur offers to take over: Again, a small nit about writing style, but it’s out of character for this game to be this naïve. A military junta doesn’t “offer” to take over the government, then go back to their jobs as if nothing had happened.

The way this would most plausibly happen is that the President invokes the Insurrection Act, sends in the Army to put down the “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” and possibly also declares a national emergency as FDR historically did in 1939 and 1941. Then there is an order similar to FDR’s Executive Order 9340, in which he sent in the army to break strikes and seize the coal mines. (“I should use all the power vested in me as President and Commander in Chief to protect the national interest and to prevent further interference with the successful prosecution of the war.”) The government in the new timeline could use similar language, but go further, either because it’s more sinister or because there are more strikes and lockouts.

At that point, Douglas MacArthur (who historically was called in to break up a protest in DC between the wars, and might still be Army Chief of Staff) gets promoted to General of the Armies and is granted so much power that the elected President becomes a figurehead. Or, the President manages to retain civilian control over the military but doesn’t fire him.

Contemporaries wouldn’t describe this as MacArthur “offering to take over the government.” They might say that the War Department is losing confidence in the President, or make it a question: “Is MacArthur the Man America Needs?”

Armored Cars: Historically, armies attempted to use these for recon. Another in-game use would be military police. In-game, they might be an upgrade to cavalry that’s better in flat terrain? It’s an oversimplifcation, yes, but it makes sense that the US troops occupying captured territory or rushing in to push naval invasions back into the sea would be riding armored cars and jeeps, not horses or light tanks.
 
Last edited:
Nice preview livestream. This seems like a good place to post a couple of comments on really minor stuff.

West Mid West:
You could really punch up these events with more evocative names. In the Depression, another name for it was the Dust Bowl, and that might be a good bit of flavor if they’re rebelling because everything’s terrible and they’re fed up. Better known as the Great Plains.

A movement like the in-game Constitutionalists (I really like that name) might call the states from Ohio to Minnesota the Old Northwest. It calls back to the right period of history for them (and both Northwest and Northwest Territory referred to other pieces of land by then). Or the Great Lakes. If the Syndies—excuse me, Commies—make that their powerbase, maybe they call it the Steel Belt. It’s ahistorical, but has resonance for Americans today who know it as the Rust Belt.

You might also call the region that stayed with the Loyalists in the livestream the Rockies or, more poetically, the Big Sky.

MacArthur offers to take over: Again, a small nit about writing style, but it’s out of character for this game to be this naïve. A military junta doesn’t “offer” to take over the government, then go back to their jobs as if nothing had happened.

The way this would most plausibly happen is that the President invokes the Insurrection Act, sends in the Army to put down the “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” and possibly also declares a national emergency as FDR historically did in 1939 and 1941. Then there is an order similar to FDR’s Executive Order 9340, in which he sent in the army to break strikes and seize the coal mines. (“I should use all the power vested in me as President and Commander in Chief to protect the national interest and to prevent further interference with the successful prosecution of the war.”) The government in the new timeline could use similar language, but go further, either because it’s more sinister or because there are more strikes and lockouts.

At that point, Douglas MacArthur (who historically was called in to break up a protest in DC between the wars, and might still be Army Chief of Staff) gets promoted to General of the Armies and is granted so much power that the elected President becomes a figurehead. Or, the President manages to retain civilian control over the military but doesn’t fire him.

Contemporaries wouldn’t describe this as MacArthur “offering to take over the government.” They might say that the War Department is losing confidence in the President, or make it a question: “Is MacArthur the Man America Needs?”

Armored Cars: Historically, armies attempted to use these for recon. Another in-game use would be military police. In-game, they might be an upgrade to cavalry that’s better in flat terrain? It’s an oversimplifcation, yes, but it makes sense that the US troops occupying captured territory or rushing in to push naval invasions back into the sea would be riding armored cars and jeeps, not horses or light tanks.

In-lore the events describe the army as defecting to the Constitutionalists (along with basically all the best generals), so I think they made MacArthur's offer more of a personal thing as he's basically an opportunist at this point
 
In-lore the events describe the army as defecting to the Constitutionalists (along with basically all the best generals), so I think they made MacArthur's offer more of a personal thing as he's basically an opportunist at this point
I can’t tell you what exactly Douglas MacArthur would have done in various Second Civil War scenarios. The way he handled the Bonus March in 1932, especially (and ironically, considering how his career ended) the way he disobeyed an order from the President and the Secretary of War by pursuing the protesters over the Potomac river, makes this kind of extrapolation plausible. He saw them, against all the evidence, as a Communist plot to overthrow the government and felt the need to crush them.

My point is more that there’s history we can draw on to flesh the flavor text. For example, look at what both FDR and Truman did in this time period when they thought strikes in the coal mines were endangering national security, and then imagine that there are a lot more strikes in critical industries across the country. Look at how MacArthur would later run the military occupation of Japan. Or look at martial law in Rebel territory during and after the U.S. Civil War.

“MacArthur offers to take over the government” just doesn’t make as much sense or seem as interesting as, say, MacArthur disobeying an order by the President and crossing the Ohio River, daring the President to fire him.

Maybe he forms a junta and says, “I have no idea how a bunch of commies and fascists managed to get elected and wreck the most powerful nation in the history of the world, but I’m going to stop it..” He would not be wrong! But that doesn’t end with American Fascists winning a civil war, and is also a retread of Kaiserreich.

Keeping in mind that this is a game where, if Nazi Germany invades New York City, a stray artillery shell decapitates the Statue of Liberty.
 
Last edited:
There was no need to turn to the memory of the CSA for support for racism during this period though - the entire USA was structured around a racist white consensus at the time. Fascists in the US were looking to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy abroad and the 2nd KKK at home (which you'll note also didn't call for a restoration of the CSA) for inspirations, not a failed rebellion restricted to the South from before they were born.

I'll also be the second person here to point out that the only fascist coup that was actually seriously plotted and which we know about in the 1930s was the Business Plot, which was based in New England and again had no intention of restoring the CSA.
It should be noted that racist =/= anti-democratic or fascist. The Confederates themselves weren't anti-democracy as such (the system of government the CSA had was basically a duplicate of the USA's government structure, which is unsurprising). Conversely, the Brazilian Integralists were fascist, but AFAIK generally emphasized religious identity (i.e. Catholicism) rather than racial.
 
Agree with @Lorehead about MacArthur. He should definitely go rogue. :D
 
It should be noted that racist =/= anti-democratic or fascist.
White supremacy in the form it took in the South during the Jim Crow era definitely was anti-democratic, since it held on to power by preventing black people from voting. This is even more true of the Confederate States, which never actually held a competitive national election, and where some states at the time of secession actually had a black majority. (Sorry to get a bit off-topic.)
 
White supremacy in the form it took in the South during the Jim Crow era definitely was anti-democratic, since it held on to power by preventing black people from voting. This is even more true of the Confederate States, which never actually held a competitive national election, and where some states at the time of secession actually had a black majority. (Sorry to get a bit off-topic.)

Black suffrage was very limited in the Union, only a few states had it - the 14th amendment only made it through with the support of reintegrated Southern states where black suffrage was imposed by occupation. If full suffrage for all adults is a prerequisite to count as a democracy, then very few countries would qualify before 1945.
 
White supremacy in the form it took in the South during the Jim Crow era definitely was anti-democratic, since it held on to power by preventing black people from voting. This is even more true of the Confederate States, which never actually held a competitive national election, and where some states at the time of secession actually had a black majority. (Sorry to get a bit off-topic.)

That's not anti-democratic, that's just anti-Black. The White supremacists had no issue with White people voting, either ideologically or in practice.

An anti-democratic system would have been something more like a military dictatorship.
 
Black suffrage was very limited in the Union, only a few states had it - the 14th amendment only made it through with the support of reintegrated Southern states where black suffrage was imposed by occupation. If full suffrage for all adults is a prerequisite to count as a democracy, then very few countries would qualify before 1945.
Women couldn't vote in France until 1945, and - IIRC, in Switzerland until after 1970.
 
Sure, to some degree, everybody was doing it. One of the best ideas in Kaiserreich is that it really puts the colonialism of Western European democracies front and center by reducing them to nothing but their colonial empires. Another clever riff was turning Belgium, where I was born, into Flanders-Wallonia because the Realpolitik that created it had changed.

I’m going to try to avoid a semantic debate about what counts as “fascist” or “undemocratic,” but the game labels the Apartheid policies of South Africa “fascist,” and D. F. Malan the leader of their “fascist” faction. (And the expansion of the South African focus tree also has a path to go on an anti-colonial and liberate the Belgian Congo, along with other colonies in Africa.) Which I think is reasonable. And the analogy to Jim Crow is very direct. The South should not, of course, be unfairly singled out when there was plenty of racial discrimination in the rest of the U.S. (One of the events that historically made the Japanese government mad at the U.S. was when the state of Oregon, where I live now, made it illegal for Japanese-Americans to own property.)

To stick to the US focus tree in HOI4, this shows up in decisions such as the US desegregating its armed forces.
 
Last edited:
A separate topic that brought to mind. The expansion is adding “reverse migration” events. Maybe it could add a couple more about the historical Great Migration, predominantly of African-Americans, from the South to cities in the North. For example, a new city, Vanport, was constructed in August 1942 between Portland, Oregon, and the Columbia river, and the 40,000 people who lived there (40% of them black) primarily worked in the shipyards along the river. One of these, the Oregon Shipbuilding Yards, built 455 ships, and set a record by constructing a Victory Ship in just ten days.

The shipyards closed after the war, and Vanport was destroyed by a flood on 4:05 p.m. on May 30, 1948. (There’s now a park and a racetrack there. Portland still has fewer black people today than any other city its size in America. After seventy years of environmental clean-up, the shipyards are being turned into riverfront condos.) This history—and several others—would make great-game events.

ETA: I’m not sure whether the demi-mod warning about discussions of “genocide” was based on skimming this, but if it wasn’t clear, the Vanport flood was a natural disaster that destroyed a lot of people’s homes and forced them to move elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
White supremacy in the form it took in the South during the Jim Crow era definitely was anti-democratic, since it held on to power by preventing black people from voting. This is even more true of the Confederate States, which never actually held a competitive national election, and where some states at the time of secession actually had a black majority. (Sorry to get a bit off-topic.)
In general, democracies only allow citizens to vote, and slaves are by definition not citizens. If the CSA was undemocratic because there was a large non-citizen/slave population, then you'd have to make the same statement about Athens or any other 'democratic' state of antiquity (or, for that matter, virtually any other purportedly democratic country prior to the mid-20th century or so).
The CSA only lasted 4 years and was under a 'provisional' wartime government for that entire period, so there was never any point where an election was possible anyway. It'd be the same as arguing that the USA during the American War of Independence was undemocratic because a national election was not held.
 
In general, democracies only allow citizens to vote, and slaves are by definition not citizens. If the CSA was undemocratic because there was a large non-citizen/slave population, then you'd have to make the same statement about Athens or any other 'democratic' state [...]
Sure, I agree that a society based on slavery is not really democratic. Many other democracies had abolished slavery by then.

The CSA only lasted 4 years and was under a 'provisional' wartime government for that entire period, so there was never any point where an election was possible anyway. It'd be the same as arguing that the USA during the American War of Independence was undemocratic because a national election was not held.
The United States did hold a free and fair election in 1864, even though there was a strong possibility that Lincoln might lose. Since a conversation about the 1860s is drifting a little off-topic, though, back to the 1930s and ’40s as represented in the game.

If true democracies as you would define them didn’t exist because everybody’s a hypocrite, then I guess that makes the word useless to describe countries in the time period of Paradox games. I don’t think that semantic debate is worth arguing about.

We can still talk about democratic and undemocratic features of the system, and we can still say that some countries were more or less democratic than others. White-supremacist one-party rule would be a trait that the Jim Crow system has in common with other parties that the game labels fascist.
 
Last edited:
Sure, I agree that a society based on slavery is not really demoratic. Many other democracies had abolished slavery by then.
The problem is that would imply that Athens wasn't democratic.
The United States did hold a free and fair election in 1864, even though there was a strong possibility that Lincoln might lose.
That wasn't in the middle of trying to become independent though. A more accurate analogy would be if they'd held an election in the middle of the War of Independence.
We can still talk about democratic and undemocratic features of the system, and we can still say that some countries were more or less democratic than others. White supremacy would be a feature that the Jim Crow system has in common with other parties that the game labels fascist.
Not really- 'white supremacy' as an ideological concept was largely meaningless outside the specific context of the USA and other ex-colonies. Ethnocentrism in a more general sense was a consistent feature of fascist governments- but it was also a pretty common factor in other governments as well.
 
The problem is that would imply that Athens wasn't democratic.
A bit off topic, but Athens really doesn’t count as a true democracy, at least in the modern sense of the term. It’s very much still a tyranny of the few, just that the few are titled as citizens rather than nobles.
 
Anyway, since we got a mod warning, wrapping this up and sticking to topics I’m pretty sure are allowed.

On the one hand, it’s a good point that most “democracies” are imperfectly democratic. Yeah, it’s strange to say that the system the word “democracy” was originally coined to describe is “undemocratic.” Or that the original “scientists” were by modern standards unscientific, or that the Acropolis has a low elevation compared to Mount Everest and is not really a city.

On the other, the game tries to give every country at least a quasi-historical “Democratic.” “Communist,” “Fascist” and “Non-aligned” path, which are more about the alliances in the game than whether a political party is exactly like the Bolsheviks or the Nazis. And some of the leaders it labels “fascist” did hold elections that meant something. In particular, I think there are a lot of similarities between the elections South Africa held in the ’50s when D. F. Malan was in power and elections under the contemporary Jim Crow system.

The relevance to the game is, I think Paradox should go ahead and label Segregation “fascist” if they want. It makes sense and won’t offend anybody because the political debate has moved on. They presumably are going to stick to their policy of not describing what bad things might have happened to imaginary people in a game about moving army counters around a map.
 
Last edited: