Alternate event chains (for when the main one gets broken...)

[Mabzie555]

I would love a bunch of alternative event chains, with the option to play a more historical game or a sandbox game with the possibility of alternativel event chains. (Option there just to preempt people complaining... I personally would choose sandbox every time)

But Paradox said hoi4 would be more sandbox than hoi3, so... Fingers crossed.

 

[Smileyou]

problem is scripting it all.. that is not the solution, we just need to have better developed AI that understands
rudimentary "geography" of 30's geopolitics and stick to it..

Germany,ITaly and Japan were the newcomers to colonialism and wanted a bigger slice of the pice without
upsetting the balance of power.. obviously UK and old colonial powers(benelux states, france etc) wanted
to prevent this.. and USSR,China being the main price both camps wanted for resources (to dissect and use as
colony)..

As long as you stick to this in AI logic WW2 would work out just fine.. one way or another newcomers go after
the "meat" (USSR,China) and one way or another "allies" jump in (either cuz axis are winnig and they can't have them
owning the "meat" for they will be too powerful, or USSR is winning and they obviously want to prevent the "meat"
acting as its a sovereign state.. simple as that..

so in this way you can't have USSR on the rampage in 1937, but more likely you'll see expansion from Axis as
they are close to fascist ideologies which are naturally aggressive, while allies are in economic turmoil and
try to avoid taking d brunt of putting down the threat..

also big "to do" list is keep US and UK&Co. separeted.. they are not "allies" as game shows, especially UK being
the leader LOL if US joins.. Game should make a clear distinction when US "joins" allies they become a leader and UK
becomes US client state that transfers sphere of influence on major part of its decaying empire to US..

This would make the AI play US and UK apart from each other and make it logical why US doesn't rush to UK help
right away..

 

[wingo]

I dont share your view. All majors seek to spread their influence, but some were on the decline so they decided to at least keep what they have. Also I dont think anyone (well, except German leadership for ideological reasons) seriously believed that USSR would be a potential colony. Potential threat that could be cut down to size like AH or Ottoman Empire were in WW1, sure, but colony like India, Indonesia, Africa...?

Japan wanted its place in the sun in Asia, Germans wanted Lebensraum in Eastern Europe (and some payback for WW1), Italy wanted to resurrect ancient Roman Empire, USA seeked to overtake UK as the dominant power but wanted to do it peacefully, UK&France were desperate to keep the status quo, USSR wanted to eventually spread communism to the world...
So, in the end, who lost? Germany, Italy, Japan.
Pyrrhic victory? France & UK.
Who ultimately won? USA and USSR (in HOI timeframe).

Also, I dont support automatic "USA joins war, it automatically becomes war leader." USA became the leader by eventually providing more to the war effort than the UK & UK being dependent on lend lease from USA. It also marked the peaceful transition of dominant power status from UK to USA. So to simulate it, USA becomes the leader when it has bigger army&navy than UK & it provides significant lend lease to UK (and that could be one of US national goals). If UK&France manage to win WW2 without significant US help, then it would be their victory and UK would keep its status.

 

[Smileyou]

@wingo.. not correct.. u forget US,UK to some extent had same goals, and Axis to some extent had same goals,
and USSR had no allies who had same goals.. so ability to win their war was not possible for USSR so no, USSR
had no "goals" as other axis had.. it was just impossible to reach them period.

and yes, Allies and Axis looked upon USSR, China as resource colonies, the victim number count in the end of war
proves this was a war against them mostly..while fighting between themselves of who has the right to take it.

To put USSR, China on same league as Axis and allies is stupid, not historically correct nor factual if you look
at the numbers..

p.s.: also what i wrote actually works in game terms and historical terms, .. AI would always go for the meat,
allies would intervene ONLY if meat is loosing, and even assist the meat in order not to loose, and if meat is
winning by some miracle allies ramp up the pressure on axis.. simple working logical course of WW2..

if u stick to US propaganda of WW2 than its hard to script a sensible AI ..that much i agree..

 

[Flayer92]

There's a bit difference in terms of practicality between the alternate event chains I've suggested and the more freeform ones people want, which are idealistic, wishful thinking at this point.

These scripted event chains like the one I've suggested are something the devs could add to the game this week if they felt the inclination to. If I had the time and motivation to develop any skill as a modder, I could pretty straightforwardly add them to the game myself. I could even add them to Hearts of Iron III.

Having these scripted event chains as a contingency plan to keep the war from getting totally derailed by an ahistorical development is something that could actually be added to HOI IV, most likely in an update or DLC at this point in the development.

Having a free-thinking sandbox AI would be nice, but it is not practical to add this far into development. It basically means scrapping the whole diplomatic model and AI as it stands and starting over again. It's not a reasonable to ask for or for Paradox to do.

My suggestion is for an addition that will enhance gameplay and replayability and can be tacked onto the existing game fairly easily. These other suggestions are ones that involve gutting the game and developing something new from scratch, which is certain to be riddled with bugs and oversights since it will be a first time experimental development.

I think it would be best if everyone who wants more ahistorical possibilities in the game would put their dreams about a totally new diplomatic model on hold for now and throw their support behind practical, workable ideas that could actually be implemented into the current system.

 

[FNK_Drake]

@flayer92

While I think you've done a great job laying out possible ahistoric event chains, I don't think an events system would work well at all.. It's far to easy to break the chain of events, something I've experienced multiple times, and I think Paradox would be making a huge mistake if they fail to evolve this aspect of the gameplay into something more dynamic.

The main problem with using events is it does not take much at all to completely break a chain of events and the more complicated the chain is the easier it is to break. All it really takes is for a player or AI to declare war without decision/event to break the chain.. That and it is impossible to come up with a chain of events for every single situation.. Also since the events are scripted separately from the AI the AI could be making decisions that are illogical given how the events turned out unless they find a way to code the events to trigger different AI behavior.. Also I don't think there is any way to make the AI favor different choices dependent on the situation, so the only solution is extremely complex event chains where choices and other factors activate different branches of the same events where the AI is more favorable to one choice because of one choice they made before, or some other factors, which leads to more branches and so on... Just thinking about it is giving me a headache

Another problem, something I remember well from the days of HOI2's Mod33, was that when events are overly scripted it tends to cause the player to be a bit paralyzed in their actions. You are always thinking there is another event over the horizon to put you into war or whatever that you really aren't so much playing as you are waiting for the story to unfold.. The only solution to that is to intimately know the events and their triggers, but this takes away from the immersion into the game..

The closest thing to your system I could see working is using a combination of the National Goals and Decisions to make a somewhat dynamic chain of events where Decisions become available depending on your Goals and the current war situation, but even then it could be tricky.. There are so many factors to take into consideration and I don't think events can be dynamic enough..