A future re-balance?

[blahmaster6k]

From what you say, it does not sound like you paint the map very often yourself...

Way to ad-hominem your way out of responding to my point.

I didn't say either way. I've painted the map plenty in the past and at least once as every major, but once I did it a few times it lost its interest to me because I know when I've won a game. I tend to stop playing when I know that all that's left is to mop up tiny nations all around the world, because it would be easy to do but time consuming and boring.

However, I'm not egotistical enough to assume that other players are like me, which is why I didn't make any claims about player patterns other than what we've seen from dev posts on user metrics in the past. All I did was say that it is impossible to know what most players like doing, unless a dev chimes in with more user statistics or some representative survey of thousands of players is done.

 

[The Colonel]

pnt, I really don't know how you think you're going to get constructive responses to a controversial post by being passive aggressive to everyone in this thread

Just checked steam. The Join a Faction achievement (the most common one) only has 20.9% completion. So yeah most players are basically not playing in ironman mode at all (unless you think 60% of purchasers have never even opened the game, which seems a bit high). Considering the second most common achievement is to research construction V, something I myself don't do in most games due to stopping sooner than that, I really don't think it's that people aren't playing at all or don't necessarily play long games now and then.

To this idea of "map painting" or not. 1) it's ridiculous to say people are not interested in expansion just because they do not WC in every run (especially considering how much people complain about the peace conference system cheating them out of territory they want) and 2) like blahmaster said, playing into late game is just awful due to lag. Even if you have the most godly gaming PC, there just isn't any challenge to be had that late in the game if you're a competent player. The worst achievements in this game are ones that require you to play to nuke people or the godforesaken play to 1948 as France one since there's just nothing at all to do at that point. When I did the France achievement I conquered all of Europe then just AFK'd for like 6 years.

 

[pnt]

@blahmaster6k

If you read my original post, the question was how to best implement a re-balance in case Paradox decides to shift their focus from painting the map as the gold standard for victory to something more historical - not whether they should. Given their past ambitions for historic accuracy, the current situation in the world where myths about WW2 are being weaponized IRL, and the lacklustre appeal of the Imperator: Rome map painting game (which actually had its charm), they may change their point of view. But this is their decision.

What the community can do is to provide input on what it would want to see in such a rebalance, including which important current features should not be lost in translation. I thus very clearly asked for a constructive, on-topic discussion of this aspect in this thread. Instead, you and some like-minded "painters" have tried to subvert it to become a "referendum" - based on statistics O(10) - on the future of "painting." My only comment to that is that it not only seems very impolite, but also quite short sighted...

 

[kettyo]

If countries would be rebalaced according to historical balance the Axis would always lose very hard except under support of a good player, essentially making the game Axis only as playing anyone else made no sense.

The optimal balance for gameplay purposes is one where the war gravitates towards a stalemate without player intervention on any of the sides.

 

[pnt]

If countries would be rebalaced according to historical balance the Axis would always lose very hard except under support of a good player, essentially making the game Axis only as playing anyone else made no sense.

The optimal balance for gameplay purposes is one where the war gravitates towards a stalemate without player intervention on any of the sides.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. And what you describe is one way of reaching a (static) balance - but it is not the only way.

A balanced game does not need to end in a draw (stalemate). What matters is that both sides are equally likely to win, and thus will do so about as often. To achieve this outcome, the strength of both sides can change over time - and this is actually the most common case in real life "games." In this type of game the correct strategy for the side that is initially to delay, while the party that starts strong, but gets weaker over time tends to have an optimal window of opportunity for reaching its goals, after which success becomes less likely as time passes. Such a dynamic balance is the only way to model WW2 in a reasonably historic way. And the reason for this is that the underlying conflict had an intrinsic dynamic balance to begin with.

The Allies start unprepared, but can reach a great strength over time, while the Axis start strong, but cannot compete in the long term. Thus, they have to achieve their war goals early. Historically they assumed that the window of opportunity would close about one year after the entry of the US into the war. And if you look in more detail, while the defeat of France was very likely, without blunders like holding back the Panzers at Dunkirk, and better preparations for the Battle of Britain, an invasion of Britain could have been successful. And for a long time the battle of the Atlantic was a toss up. Had the Germans prepared better for a U-boat campaign before the war, they could have succeeded.
The invasion of the Soviet Union could also have gone the other way had the Germans not committed a series of strategic blunders during the first two years. And of course, had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor in Dec '41, the US entry into war would have been further delayed. Based on this it is easy to see how the Axis in general, and Germany in particular, can reach their historical war goals as I suggested in my post above. I don't see why playing historically as either the Allies, Germany, or USSR would be any less interesting than with their current in-game versions. And upon winning WW2, a player can, of course continue to do whatever they like - although most players don't (Paradox collects the statistics, I am sure).

However, what makes HOI4 so dramatically diverge from reality is the assumption that the game should make it possible for Germany to invade the US. This was never a historical war goal for Germany, and it requires removing the entire US wartime fleet from the game (which at the moment cannot be built by either the player or AI) and greatly weakening the US in general, while at the same time buffing Germany - and for local balance on the Eastern front, also the USSR.

As I pointed out above, the problem with this is not only that ruins the game for anyone who is not only into alt-history, but also propagates myths about WW2 that are currently being used with sinister intent by, for instance, Putin and his cronies as well as far right European political movements. And while I am sure that this is not the intent of Paradox, exposing children and young adults to a very skewed picture of WW2 that may be difficult to distinguish from reality is a problem that Paradox should address - either by labeling HOI4 as a fantasy game or fixing at least the most glaring issues.

 

[blahmaster6k]

However, what makes HOI4 so dramatically diverge from reality is the assumption that the game should make it possible for Germany to invade the US. This was never a historical war goal for Germany, and it requires removing the entire US wartime fleet from the game (which simply cannot be built by either the player or AI) and greatly, and greatly weakening the US in general, while at the same time buffing Germany - and for local balance on the Eastern front, also the USSR.

Keep in mind, the game isn't only about the European theater - It's also designed the way it is so that Japan players have a realistic chance of defeating the US navy. With historical production numbers, that's just literally impossible. You could sink every fleet the US sends at you with a giant doomstack and the US fleet numbers would just keep on growing instead of going down, until eventually you lose. Or imagine if the US had its historical production numbers and decided to build only submarines? You wouldn't even be able to play the game, the Sea of Japan would be more torpedo than water. You wouldn't be able to send troops anywhere, import fuel, and you certainly wouldn't be able to build enough convoy escorts to sink the raiders - the USA could put his subs on "always engage" and still sink every single convoy you have while your pitiful number of destroyers tries in futility to stop them before eventually running out of fuel and being unable to sail at all.

 

[kettyo]

The Allies start unprepared, but can reach a great strength over time, while the Axis start strong, but cannot compete in the long term. Thus, they have to achieve their war goals early. Historically they assumed that the window of opportunity would close about one year after the entry of the US into the war. And if you look in more detail, while the defeat of France was very likely, without blunders like holding back the Panzers at Dunkirk, and better preparations for the Battle of Britain, an invasion of Britain could have been successful. And for a long time the battle of the Atlantic was a toss up. Had the Germans prepared better for a U-boat campaign before the war, they could have succeeded.
The invasion of the Soviet Union could also have gone the other way had the Germans not committed a series of strategic blunders during the first two years. And of course, had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor in Dec '41, the US entry into war would have been further delayed. Based on this it is easy to see how the Axis in general, and Germany in particular, can reach their historical war goals as I suggested in my post above. I don't see why playing historically as either the Allies, Germany, or USSR would be any less interesting than with their current in-game versions. And upon winning WW2, a player can, of course continue to do whatever they like - although most players don't (Paradox collects the statistics, I am sure).

I think you're wrong on most of these assumptions.

Actually everyone was unprepared for the major war including Germany. Hitler was playing brinkmanship but was convinced that the Western threats of war are a bluff and they will ultimately back down so he can do away with a regional war against Poland (which was pretty unpopular in the time anyway, not much less expansionist in their ideas than Germany himself just being in least of a position to realize it).

What is true is that the Western Allies did not expect Poland to fall in a matter of weeks. Based on WW1 experience they have expected the fighting in Poland to be dragged on for months so they assumed they have plenty of time to mobilize against Germany which proved to be a false assumption.

The defeat of France was anything but likely. It was nothing short of a miracle from German perspective. No one really expected this to happen, not even German generals themselves. Fall Gelb was more like a desperate attempt of military gamble to avoid certain defeat by Germany. Quite surprisingly it worked but very easily it could also have resulted in total disaster for the Germans.

I don't think a successful German invasion of Britain was ever realistic during the war.

I have no sufficient knowledge about the Battle of the Atlantic but i assume the Allies had a decisive advantage there with their ability to use airplanes during the campaign while the Germans could not.

Operation Barbarossa was so successful initially because of major Soviet strategic failures so that could also have went much more difficult for the Germans. But it's also true the situation could also have gone much more dire for the Soviets if e.g. they have lost the Moscow area because of the Moscow-centralized nature of the Soviet infrastructure (railroads, roads, etc.). How close the Germans actually were to capture the Moscow area i have no proper knowledge of.

If Japan hadn't attacked the USA the USA would have continued and probably expanded lend-leases to Allied powers. This is probably a somewhat better scenario for Germany than direct involvement i agree.

However, what makes HOI4 so dramatically diverge from reality is the assumption that the game should make it possible for Germany to invade the US. This was never a historical war goal for Germany, and it requires removing the entire US wartime fleet from the game (which at the moment cannot be built by either the player or AI) and greatly weakening the US in general, while at the same time buffing Germany - and for local balance on the Eastern front, also the USSR.

This one i agree with. Invading the USA was pretty much impossible. But to be honest if the USA is played by even a semi-competent player there is close to zero chance for a successful Axis invasion either. A player can do that against the AI though but players can do much bigger feats against the AI anyway

 

[pnt]

@blahmaster6k

The US - Japan balance is an important consideration. But again, the Japanese plan was never to sink the entire US navy. The attack on Pearl Harbor was meant to disable it long enough that they could conquer the resource-rich territories in the Pacific region (Malaya, Indonesia, etc). And they almost succeeded. Guadalcanal was just one bridge too far. But the idea that the Americans would be interested in negotiating after this was very naive and obviously did not come to pass.

However, building the US wartime fleet took quite some time, and throughout 1942 they had to use what they had. The rational strategy for the US would have been to delay until they had built up a decisive advantage. Instead, the US pursued a very aggressive strategy which could have cost them their entire carrier fleet. If this had happened, and new carriers would have been thrown piecemeal, Japanese dominance in the pacific could have extended for some time.

But saying that the US fleet cannot be stronger than the Japanese again cuts all ties with actual WW2 strategy and turns even the "historic" paths into a fantasy game. Now, maybe there is a potential player base for a "Risk" with nicely animated units - but I think that most players who HOI4 under the current premises expect something that is at based on historical considerations.

EDIT: And regarding submarines, this is actually the only thing that the US can build effectively at this moment, and can easily sink all Japanese transports within a few months. Building more submarines would not significantly change this. The excessively rapid rate at which transports are bing sunk at the moment is an important, but separate question.

 

[pnt]

Actually everyone was unprepared for the major war including Germany. Hitler was playing brinkmanship but was convinced that the Western threats of war are a bluff and they will ultimately back down so he can do away with a regional war against Poland (which was pretty unpopular in the time anyway, not much less expansionist in their ideas than Germany himself just being in least of a position to realize it).

What is true is that the Western Allies did not expect Poland to fall in a matter of weeks. Based on WW1 experience they have expected the fighting in Poland to be dragged on for months so they assumed they have plenty of time to mobilize against Germany which proved to be a false assumption.

Your description of events sounds a bit like taken from Hitler's speeches. Keep in mind that until the Panzer's crossed the Polish border the French repeatedly insisted that the Polish army would not mobilize so as not to "provoke" Hitler, and promised a counter-offensive in the West within weeks if he did. And on September 17 the Red Army crossed into Poland and took its eastern half as stipulated in the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. The HOI4 event that Germany takes Poland and then shares with the Soviet Union is easier to implement - but not historically accurate.

I don't think a successful German invasion of Britain was ever realistic during the war.

Since this never happened, the possible success of such an invasion is only a matter of speculation. However, had Germany equipped if Bf109's with drop tanks, had Hitler not redirected the attacks from targeting the RAF to terror bombing of London, and had Germany prevented Dunkirk (which they could easily have done if Hitler had ignored Goring), they could establish air superiority over the English Channel, and only need to ship over a relatively small number of troops to secure the British ports. We will never know whether the Royal Navy would have been able to stop an invasion despite of this - but the British were not sure at the time that it could. And that make it a perfect "what if" to explore for a game like HOI4.

This one i agree with. Invading the USA was pretty much impossible. But to be honest if the USA is played by even a semi-competent player there is close to zero chance for a successful Axis invasion either. A player can do that against the AI though but players can do much bigger feats against the AI anyway

This is truly the critical issue, though. If you design the game in such a way that a nazi "victory" requires an invasion of the US, you need to make some rather dramatic adjustments to the historic context. In particular, it needs Germany to become extremely strong over time, while the US needs to be weak. And as I mentioned earlier, to achieve local balance on the Eastern front, you need a Red superArmy. As you point out, though, a human German player may be able to invade the US even with historical conditions - and that's ok. What is not ok is to design the game with this as its central premise - even though the result is a depiction of WW2 that feeds into extremist propaganda IRL.

 

[The Colonel]

This is truly the critical issue, though. If you design the game in such a way that a nazi "victory" requires an invasion of the US

It doesn't though. You can simply capitulate the Allies long before the US ever enters the war, and this is in fact the best way to do it in nearly every category (Allies will not have built up more strength yet, you will get to absorb their resources for longer, etc.). At that point there's not really a reason to fight the US as Germany, and I don't think it's worth the hassle of doing so. Certainly if I'm playing a Germany game, I plan for the US to simply never get involved.

It also stands to note that as the game currently stands 1) you typically don't get Canada/SA/Aus/NZ as valid war participants in this peace deal because they will have no war participation, meaning they're not annexed or puppeted by you like you keep saying is unrealistic and 2) you don't get access to the British fleet if you directly annex them, although it is a bit silly that they apparently scuttle all 400 ships simultaneously instead of sailing off to Canada or the US. The peace deal rework is supposed to somewhat address this though. Is it perfect? No. Is it a decent approximation in a game with universally poor diplomacy to the point that I think this specific instance deserves no special criticism? Yes.

Ironically it reminds me a bit of the old HOI 3 strategy where you would use spies to flip the US fascist and get them neutral or in your faction to achieve the same effect (not having to deal with them) which was IIRC straight up impossible in this game until the added the proper coup mechanic, but I basically never see anyone talking about it (so I assume it's more effort than it's really worth, esp. given what I said above) and haven't tried it myself since I find espionage in general a pain to engage with in this game.

 

[pnt]

I absolutely agree with you that the best strategy for Germany is one where Britain is defeated before the US enters it - just as it was historically. But in order to achieve this Germany does need to be unhistorically strong or the US unhistorically weak. In fact, if you think that this is a German "victory," then we are in full agreement.

However, as shown by, for instance, the German focus "Crossing the Atlantic," which is also part of the historical path, the game assumes that after defeating Britain, Germany will not only go to war with the USSR but also the US, and only defeating both of these will be a "complete" victory. And this is where the problems start...

Just to briefly comment on two of your other points, I agree that the fact that Germany does not always get Canada in a peace deal is good. But keep in mind that in reality if the UK would be at risk to surrender, the most likely outcome would be that the King would evacuate to Canada (which was discussed), and presumably so would the rest of the Royal Navy.

 

[mursolini]

The Allies start unprepared, but can reach a great strength over time, while the Axis start strong, but cannot compete in the long term. Thus, they have to achieve their war goals early. Historically they assumed that the window of opportunity would close about one year after the entry of the US into the war. And if you look in more detail, while the defeat of France was very likely, without blunders like holding back the Panzers at Dunkirk, and better preparations for the Battle of Britain, an invasion of Britain could have been successful. And for a long time the battle of the Atlantic was a toss up. Had the Germans prepared better for a U-boat campaign before the war, they could have succeeded.

Allies actually weren`t weak at the start. Looking at attack in the west, it could`ve easily been a toss up, had French not committed the strategic blunder of running as many of their troops as deep into Belgium and Netherlands, and instead had more reserves stay back and counter-attack as required.

That kinda shows the issue with viewing WW2 as a fight of 2 teams, allies vs axis. In practice, the reason for allied "weakness" in early war wasn`t their lack of equipment or manpower, it was infighting and unwilliness to commit to war if they can avoid it.

Which led to France having to pretty much to fend for itself(with decent help of Britain) in early war, which then led them into making the mistake of rushing to meet German army, because they didn`t want a re-run of WW1 on their soil.

The fact that France and Britain in game know that US has their back, and they only need to hold 1-1.5 years till it enters, not 3 years like last time, means allies shouldn`t use any risky strategies, they felt had to, IRL.

Again, Soviet union and Japan were independent agents. SU definitely didn`t want the outcome it got in 1940, of being lone European power not aligned to axis. If fact, SU wanted to have a long Franko-German war, and mostly to sit it out, till it wanted to enter, or not.

The invasion of the Soviet Union could also have gone the other way had the Germans not committed a series of strategic blunders during the first two years.

Or, invasion could go horribly wrong, had Soviets not commit their fair share of strategic blunders in 1941. In fact, most of early Barbarossa was mostly dictated by Soviet failure to be prepared, realistically access it`s forces and devise a working strategy. Except, they didn`t have to. They had manpower and they had equipment, what they didn`t, was working institutions.

And of course, had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor in Dec '41, the US entry into war would have been further delayed.

Us de-facto entered war in September 1941, by attacking German subs and escorting UK convoys in Atlantic. Japanese attack on them, was dictated by oil embargo, which US did themselves. American leadership was well aware of that exact possibility. So, in practice, there was no way to delay US entry. US leadership chose to enter at that point, because Allies were on the ropes. Germans were approaching Moscow, UK didn`t have a good time in desert, nor Atlantic. They, obviously didn`t know at that point, that Soviets will hold without intervention, but that, is again difference between reality and hindsight.

Based on this it is easy to see how the Axis in general, and Germany in particular, can reach their historical war goals as I suggested in my post above. I don't see why playing historically as either the Allies, Germany, or USSR would be any less interesting than with their current in-game versions. And upon winning WW2, a player can, of course continue to do whatever they like - although most players don't (Paradox collects the statistics, I am sure).

Issue is, IRL Axis could only achieve some limited goals, if at some point, their foes chose peace. The moment 1942 rolled in, it was relatively obvious Axis can`t win by any other factor then allies being attired into peace negotiations.
This is something the game doesn`t support, currently, hence the need for axis to be able to capitulate allies, same way allies historically did.

Keep in mind, the game isn't only about the European theater - It's also designed the way it is so that Japan players have a realistic chance of defeating the US navy. With historical production numbers, that's just literally impossible. You could sink every fleet the US sends at you with a giant doomstack and the US fleet numbers would just keep on growing instead of going down, until eventually you lose. Or imagine if the US had its historical production numbers and decided to build only submarines? You wouldn't even be able to play the game, the Sea of Japan would be more torpedo than water. You wouldn't be able to send troops anywhere, import fuel, and you certainly wouldn't be able to build enough convoy escorts to sink the raiders - the USA could put his subs on "always engage" and still sink every single convoy you have while your pitiful number of destroyers tries in futility to stop them before eventually running out of fuel and being unable to sail at all.

Japan doesn`t have a chance of winning vs US navy, if US puts efforts in its navy. Japan doesn`t have steel, fuel and aluminum, nor dockyards.

It`s only if US deliberately choses to go Europe first, and doesn`t build much of a navy, that Japan has a chance, to hold, for some limited time. That said, most of US might discussed, was created in 1943-1944, which is typically too late for this game, as people finish Barbarossa and Sealion in 1942, give or take.

What is true is that the Western Allies did not expect Poland to fall in a matter of weeks. Based on WW1 experience they have expected the fighting in Poland to be dragged on for months so they assumed they have plenty of time to mobilize against Germany which proved to be a false assumption.

It`s not just WW1 experience. French had to mobilize, form units that are capable of attacking into well fortified(or so they assumed) German defensive line, West Wall, achieve breakthrough so big that Germans would have to forgo destroying Polish army completely, and all of that had to be done before September 8th, in just 7 days, since by that time most of Polish standing army was encircled. This is mission impossible, even if they had known how fast Germans would advance.

 

[pnt]

Allies actually weren`t weak at the start. Looking at attack in the west, it could`ve easily been a toss up, had French not committed the strategic blunder of running as many of their troops as deep into Belgium and Netherlands, and instead had more reserves stay back and counter-attack as required.

That kinda shows the issue with viewing WW2 as a fight of 2 teams, allies vs axis. In practice, the reason for allied "weakness" in early war wasn`t their lack of equipment or manpower, it was infighting and unwilliness to commit to war if they can avoid it.

Which led to France having to pretty much to fend for itself(with decent help of Britain) in early war, which then led them into making the mistake of rushing to meet German army, because they didn`t want a re-run of WW1 on their soil.

The fact that France and Britain in game know that US has their back, and they only need to hold 1-1.5 years till it enters, not 3 years like last time, means allies shouldn`t use any risky strategies, they felt had to, IRL.

Again, Soviet union and Japan were independent agents. SU definitely didn`t want the outcome it got in 1940, of being lone European power not aligned to axis. If fact, SU wanted to have a long Franko-German war, and mostly to sit it out, till it wanted to enter, or not.

Or, invasion could go horribly wrong, had Soviets not commit their fair share of strategic blunders in 1941. In fact, most of early Barbarossa was mostly dictated by Soviet failure to be prepared, realistically access it`s forces and devise a working strategy. Except, they didn`t have to. They had manpower and they had equipment, what they didn`t, was working institutions.

You are making a distinction between French and Soviet "institutional" weakness and the fact that they had plenty of soldiers and weapons. But the combat effectiveness of an army is a combination of the two. "Bean counting" only makes sense when two otherwise comparable armies face each other. The shortcomings shown by the French army in 1940, including doctrine, leadership, training, communications, cohesion, etc, were catastrophic - just as the Soviet ones were in 1941. I have seen few serious suggestions that the French were in a position to win if the Germans attacked through Belgium. The political leadership also lacked a strong will to win, and panicked after the initial setbacks. The Soviets differeed in this respect - Stalin wanted to survive at all cost, and they used the large area of the USSR to buy time to rebuild the army. But aspects are reasonably well modeled in the game, and are not related to the balance between the US, Germany, and the Soviet Union.

As for your point that the Allies (effectively the British player) has hindsight about the time for the US entry into war - I agree but don't see the practical impact in the sense of what the British actually would do differently if they knew.

Us de-facto entered war in September 1941, by attacking German subs and escorting UK convoys in Atlantic. Japanese attack on them, was dictated by oil embargo, which US did themselves. American leadership was well aware of that exact possibility. So, in practice, there was no way to delay US entry. US leadership chose to enter at that point, because Allies were on the ropes. Germans were approaching Moscow, UK didn`t have a good time in desert, nor Atlantic. They, obviously didn`t know at that point, that Soviets will hold without intervention, but that, is again difference between reality and hindsight.

I assume your last point refers to the poor German preparations for the winter of '41, but Roosevelt made no secret of trying to get the US into war on the side of the British. Had Pearl Harbor not happened, the US would likely had been drawn into war against Germany sometime during 1942. So indeed, the Japanese attack and Hitler's declaration of war on the US probably only speeded up the US entry into war by 6-12 months. But how does this relate the the US - German - Soviet historical balance, or current lack thereof?

Issue is, IRL Axis could only achieve some limited goals, if at some point, their foes chose peace. The moment 1942 rolled in, it was relatively obvious Axis can`t win by any other factor then allies being attired into peace negotiations.
This is something the game doesn`t support, currently, hence the need for axis to be able to capitulate allies, same way allies historically did.

Hitler's desire for revenge on France for the defeat in WWI, and Lebensraum in the east, where Germans would be the master race while Poles, Ukrainians, Belorussians, and others would be slave races is not a "limited goal." Germany can become masters of Eurasia without the need to change the historical balance of power. By defeating Britain through and invasion or at sea in the first two years of the war, their success is pretty much guaranteed. The US would not enter the war if Britain was already defeated. And as I suggested above, if Germany defeats the USSR and holds southern Europe, and inflicts a large amount of casualties on the Allies, they may agree to peace - in particular if Germany agrees to release France, for instance. While this is not the same as painting little imaginary swastikas all over the map - it is certainly something that Hitler would have considered to be a total victory. And none of these possibilities require an unhistorical balance.

Japan doesn`t have a chance of winning vs US navy, if US puts efforts in its navy. Japan doesn`t have steel, fuel and aluminum, nor dockyards.

It`s only if US deliberately choses to go Europe first, and doesn`t build much of a navy, that Japan has a chance, to hold, for some limited time. That said, most of US might discussed, was created in 1943-1944, which is typically too late for this game, as people finish Barbarossa and Sealion in 1942, give or take.

If this is your opinion, then why do you think Germany needs to be greatly strengthened and the US greatly weakened?

 

[pnt]

The discussion is becoming a little circular in nature, and I have other things to do, so I wanted to end it by saying the following.

Paradox has over the years done an excellent job with the HOI series over years, and the current installment is the best yet. The upcoming DLC sounds exciting, and I am looking forward to playing it.

I also think that moving forward Paradox has an opportunity to be socially responsible and improve gameplay at the same time by shifting the balance to better reflect the realities of WW2, and introduce more appropriate and clearly defined victory options for Germany and the Axis powers.

 

[blahmaster6k]

I also think that moving forward Paradox has an opportunity to be socially responsible and improve gameplay at the same time by shifting the balance to better reflect the realities of WW2, and introduce more appropriate and clearly defined victory options for Germany and the Axis powers.

While I agree with the first part of what you said about the devs doing a great job, I take issue with you accusing the devs of being socially irresponsible by not designing the game the way you want it to be.

They've already made their position clear in the past based on dev diary comments and the realities of the gameplay. When there is a conflict between gameplay being fun and balanced and historical accuracy, they side in favor of fun and balanced gameplay most of the time, and I don't expect them to suddenly change their minds.

And from a business perspective their stats show that Germany has always been the most played nation by far. I have a feeling that having a more balanced game where either side can realistically win by conquering the other side appeals to more players and sells more copies than a game that more accurately reflects history but basically guarantees an allied victory. And I'm confident saying this because if it weren't the case the game would be different - Paradox is a company after all, and I'm sure they gather all sorts of user data they don't make public. If a more historically accurate game would make them more money, they would make a more historically accurate game. They've had all the years since HoI1 was released to do analytics and learn what approach is most profitable.

And the great part about HoI4 is that its so moddable. Players like you who want a more historically accurate experience can draw from many different mods that build on top of the product the devs have created which cater to that market. So really, no one loses. Paradox gets to make money and draw in players who like the game the way it is in vanilla, and players who want a more historical (or more alternate reality, or different time setting) can play a vast array of mods to suit their preferences.

 

[mursolini]

And from a business perspective their stats show that Germany has always been the most played nation by far. I have a feeling that having a more balanced game where either side can realistically win by conquering the other side appeals to more players and sells more copies than a game that more accurately reflects history but basically guarantees an allied victory. And I'm confident saying this because if it weren't the case the game would be different - Paradox is a company after all, and I'm sure they gather all sorts of user data they don't make public. If a more historically accurate game would make them more money, they would make a more historically accurate game. They've had all the years since HoI1 was released to do analytics and learn what approach is most profitable.

There is also a vast problems with player interest of allied victory:
1. Allies are supposed to be the "good guys" and thus no or almost no conquest for them. US doesn`t want colonies, while France and UK already have them plenty.
2. Allied countries don`t get any sort of personal performance agency. You are on the side of most powerful alliance, it doesn`t matter how well you do. As Britain, it doesn`t matter if Germany was defeated without French capitulation and battle of Atlantic.
As France, it doesn`t matter f you were defeated and forced into exile, or not. As USA, it again doesn`t matter how you won.
Fleshing out allied gameplay requires some better interaction, while axis is relatively simple the better you did, the more spoils you get, and no further elaboration is necessary.

Current early EU formable, is a nice touch. I wish something as simple as UK/France, that, if Germany was defeated without SU/US get to form some kind of EU/Nato where all European states join, becoming some loose puppet(the new level probably should be created) of yours, and then cold war becomes a 3 sided affair.