I am sorry but maybe because I am tired now but I can't understand your point. Mine is quite simple: the game is unbalanced and the way to change it is quite straightforward. Cheats or tricks are always possible so don't consider them.
Ahistorical Balance - I'd like to see it change
- Thread starter 77Hawk77
- 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.
Well it depends on how you want to define a "trick". Doing A+B as UK to raise the world tension as to bring the US into the war early is a "trick" but I wouldn't call it cheating. It will however unbalance the game. Having fixed dates or similar hard limits on the other hand gives other loopholes for the opposition to use. Invade Britain early and you won't have to deal with the US since they can't join would be one hypothetical consequence. And so forth.
Now I am fresh and still I don't understand. If the USA can enter in the war only when attacked what you said above is not relevant. Don't you think so?
Then as the an Axis major you simply don't attack the US until you defeated everyone else and thus have a pretty easy, and ahistorical game. The whole point of the world-tension mechanic in HOI4 is meant to govern the time when majors like the US can gear up for, and eventually join, the war. The US unfortunately needs to be nerfed a bit compared to historical values because since a human player have perfect hindsight and knows what's coming (that US officials did not since they tried hard to not get involved) thus will take every available action to gear up the US no matter how small. The game must work no matter what nation players decide to play and it shouldn't be easy-mode no matter what nation you select.
- 1
No, as Japan, I don't know if you played it, you are forced to attack because of the USA embargo and ultimatum. If your economy is crippled and you must retreat from China either you comply or you attack. Pretty much historical.
- 1
It turns out that in both HoI2 and HoI3 a resourceful Japanese player could postpone Pearl Harbor near-indefinitely by abusing trade mechanics and doing ahistorical invasions to secure the resources needed to sustain their industry. The problem is that the USA in real life had somewhere around 50-70% of the total combined industry in the world during WW2 and giving this sort of power to the player, giving them the production capacity of all other factions combined, is setting the game up for the player to abuse the system to allow them to start wartime production as early as possible.
Balancing the USA for a game about WW2 will inevitably come down to reducing its' industrial capacity, postponing its' ability to utilize all its IC and taking away its' ability to be diplomatically active before the onset of the war. Because the other alternative is the US player gaming the system and unleashing doom stacks that will blot out the sun.
Raise threat on japan, embargo them, guarantee independance of china, if japan takes the invite to the axis, may be enough to get into the war early. Also building a ton of units and certain techs will lower your neutrality.
You could potentially do the same against the germans and get your invite to the allies earlier. but japan naturally starts of has USA biggest threat, but can change if germany is doing well. So its worth carpet guarenteeing nations that germany will invade, raising threat and embargoing them.
You could potentially do the same against the germans and get your invite to the allies earlier. but japan naturally starts of has USA biggest threat, but can change if germany is doing well. So its worth carpet guarenteeing nations that germany will invade, raising threat and embargoing them.
Last edited:
- 1
I don't see the problem to change the game in a way that either Japan stays quiet and surrenders all the conquests in China or is forced to go for war with the USA. For that it isn't even needed a developer but a scripter.
The rants would be endless and such mechanics are pretty non Paradoxian. Some freedom must be given to the players to chose alternate historical paths.
What limited the US historically was politics (future mandate periods basically) and the inertia of democracy. Players don't have to care about what's gonna happen in 10 years (like in CK2) since the scope of the game for a US player is basically "Defeat the Axis" and are thus not restricted by the same factors that historically limited the US involvement.
So you are confirming what I said since the beginning: the problem is not to make the game balanced but to keep quiet the USA players that until 1941 can't do almost anything.
- 1
If playing japan, and you didn't join the axis faction, and just dealt with china, if i remember correctly, you could avoid war with the US or starve it off atleast alot longer, since in the end, US will join the allies since they would become the new threat. But then, your potential for future expansion will dimish if the axis faction run's into trouble.
saying that, im wonder if faction strategic resources are included in hoi4?, since they were the main reason for joining a faction.
- 1
The issue is that it needs to be dynamic since 1941 could as easily be 1939 or 1944 as far as game events go (because it's a dynamic game and not a scripted movie).
But not only that because dynamic triggers are possible to "game" and thus influence the US being unleashed or not which means that some limitations or nerfs need to be enacted.
AND on top of that you still have the issue of the US player (if given the entire historical registry of oomph of the US) would be able to just steamroll any opposition because there are no consequences (to hell with re-election or prosperity in the 50's).
Allies can have a bad day if US joins the axis, although i've never see the ai use the monroe doctrine.
- 1
Sure but Roosevelt tried to get in WW2 by any means. The USA player would do the same. Just try to provoke the Germans and the Japanese as much as possible. Sink the submarines, protect the UK sea lanes, cripple Japanese economy and starve the country, issue ultimatum to stop the war in China and to surrender all the conquests, guarantee European colonies in Asia, and maybe you will get a war sooner than later.
- 1
ahh totally agree! i don't play by any house rules in mp games, although saying that, i will bend to phoney wars if i must. Since the axis and commies get an advanatge there with the boost to tech. I was once playing GB, a friend Japan, somehow he got the US to grant guarantee on him, i accidently attacked the jap player not looking at diplomacy, and fount myself at war with japan and the US, lucky for me the US accepted a white peace, joined the allieds since it screwed world tension, and then backfired for the jap player.
Last edited:
- 1
Exactly but the limitations that Roosevelt and his administration faced are not applicable to a player who simply doesn't care. Historical politics and morals won't stop a player from doing what he/she deems the most optimal action. Since the player can't be put in front of a congressional hearing to answer for crazy decisions there need to be some other nerfs or limitations that prevents an unbalanced game.
I think perhaps what you guys are looking for is a deeper mechanic of the league of nations, in hoi3 there are events scripted that allow you intervene on behalf of Czechoslovakia, at a cost to a huge national unity hit. But it could have been alot more, increasing your armament was in violation of article 8, so that is why world tension rises when you keep building ships, planes and units.
you could straight up nerf the US with somthing to do with isolationism although they suffer from high neutrality anyway, that would invovle winning the public around like what Cardus mentions that Roosevelt did historically, puting US naval personal at risk by annoying germany by sending lend lease, that triggered the confrontation between germany and the us,
you could straight up nerf the US with somthing to do with isolationism although they suffer from high neutrality anyway, that would invovle winning the public around like what Cardus mentions that Roosevelt did historically, puting US naval personal at risk by annoying germany by sending lend lease, that triggered the confrontation between germany and the us,
Last edited:
- 1
A historically balanced game with a plausible degree of variation is what I think they shoot for, and should. Or else set it in an alternate universe.
Although plausibility is restrictive, since much of history is very implausible. The Napoloenic Wars, the Civil War, WW1, these are all stories with fairly solid drama.
WW2, though, is at an overly complicated and over-produced Hollywood blockbuster with a story line, too full of incredible plot twists, lucky breaks, and deus ex machina events to be believable, though it is a rollicking adventure story..
Think about it -starting with just the Pearl Harbor disaster, from the incredible bumble and laxness that allowed US forces to be caught out both at Pearl and in the Philippines, to the terribly convenient last-minute delay in delivering the Japanese Declaration of War that transforms the shock of a pacific nation instantly to righteous fury, the German declaration of war for no good reason, to the carriers being at sea , lucky to escape, that the Japanese turn away prematurely, and the battleships can mostly be raised - from the 1930s through ending with a secret superweapon, it's a twisty-turny adventure tale that has to make the audience's head spin trying to follow it.
Let's not forget the aviation error, French strategic errors and fortuitous meetings in Germany that explain how the Germans changed their plan and basically just punched a hole and overran an army with a high reputation that had been preparing for this assault for many years.
Although plausibility is restrictive, since much of history is very implausible. The Napoloenic Wars, the Civil War, WW1, these are all stories with fairly solid drama.
WW2, though, is at an overly complicated and over-produced Hollywood blockbuster with a story line, too full of incredible plot twists, lucky breaks, and deus ex machina events to be believable, though it is a rollicking adventure story..
Think about it -starting with just the Pearl Harbor disaster, from the incredible bumble and laxness that allowed US forces to be caught out both at Pearl and in the Philippines, to the terribly convenient last-minute delay in delivering the Japanese Declaration of War that transforms the shock of a pacific nation instantly to righteous fury, the German declaration of war for no good reason, to the carriers being at sea , lucky to escape, that the Japanese turn away prematurely, and the battleships can mostly be raised - from the 1930s through ending with a secret superweapon, it's a twisty-turny adventure tale that has to make the audience's head spin trying to follow it.
Let's not forget the aviation error, French strategic errors and fortuitous meetings in Germany that explain how the Germans changed their plan and basically just punched a hole and overran an army with a high reputation that had been preparing for this assault for many years.
Last edited:
- 2
no where near complicated has the cold war though! and hoi less so, if comparing the mechanics to that of eu4, minus the military/airwar mechanics. eu4 basically could be converted into a cold war mod more or less had it planes and a good military system. Guess what i'm getting at, hoi3 is pretty simple when it comes down to the mechanics, with the focus of the game being on the battles.