Alternative history becoming too invasive?

[Duke_Dave]

Ya? Why then do you presume people who prefer historically plausible scenarios aren't also seeking the thrill of fun? Why do you and other people believe the ludicrousness of the Qing restoration derives more enjoyment then actually getting to play out a more indepth analysis and platform that encompasses the 2nd world war? Why do people also always seem to try and disassociate the point of our objection in that were just being stingy historians? Again I ask whats wrong with people wanting to get more WW2 at an obvious designed WW2 game? Its strange to me to get such stiff resistance on something I think we all would want to see developed to its peak potential and to the receive the respect and dedication it deserves to accomplish it.

Think of it like this, its the equivalent of a Madden game prioritizing the element of "in-game stadium fan interaction" instead of making the base design more involved with actually playing out a professional American football game. Its just like why? Sure it is defiantly something that adds to it, but its not what I'm here for. I came for a fun game that encompasses WW2, If I wanted to play a segment of history that involves alot of the long dead empires Paradox keeps bringing back Id just go play Europa as it fits within that time period. Or hell Id advocate for a WW1 iteration of the game, since people seem to clearly want something associated to that.

You make a fundamental mistake here it's not either/or both groups want to have fun, but you make it sound like "your" group has more right to it than the other.
A) the alt-history community is big, so big so they bring in cash. Their content is more visible (The Kaiser) than the historic-realistic improvements (like making naval invasions more complex or limiting special forces) but they don't cost that much time, as other have pointed out.
B) In all due likelihood if you take away alt history income it would take away far more ressources from the development than is spent on it.
I would go so far and say the people who bought WtT just for the Kaiser are enough to pay for the development of the DLC.
C) I have bit of a feeling there is some arrogance in this discussion that somehow the people wanting most development time spent on 100% accurate history are feeling they are the real target audience while the rest just trods along. In all due likelihood it's the other way around. But from PDX perspective we are all the community.

We should all pressure PDX to fix stuff like Operation Baravrossa starting in winter 1940 cause it just doesn't make sense no matter if you are lead by Adolf Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm II or Pieck wanting Germany to become the supreme communist power. Nobody with reason starts invading Russia in winter.

 

[fred.erick]

When facing the focus tree for the first time, it would be nice to know at least which options fell in the historical line and which are not.
Trying Japan for the first time recently, I had to read through a huge focus tree, with names that aren't particularly intuitive, until I could figure out which political options actually follow what Japan did in history.
It hurts the experience also because the focus trees are visually huge (take up a lot of screen space,) and require much scrolling to navigate.
Ideally, it would be nice to have an option to minimize or completely hide branches that you're not interested in as a player (going communist as Japan, resurrecting Frederick the Great as Germany, or building the Byzantine death ray as Greece.)

 

[Ironside121]

Yes, and the ahistorical options are at least as popular as the historical ones. I think Hungary has a 70/30 split between people going ahistoric/historic. Restoring Austria-Hungary is really, really, really popular.

I can see why, a major selling point for the DLC's of smaller nations is the ahistoric route, allowing you to punch well above your historic weight, but the same can't always be said about major powers.

 

[Radu]

Good to see the developers care more about Battleships for Bhutan than actually providing an engrossing WW2 experience.

I mean somebody buying a -historical game- and expecting plausibility, how preposterous.

End sarcasm.

No wonder it's taken you two years plus to get around to fixing the naval war. You care nothing for authenticity. Too busy pandering to the "World conquest as Tibet crowd".

 

[Zwirbaum]

Good to see the developers care more about Battleships for Bhutan than actually providing an engrossing WW2 experience.

I mean somebody buying a -historical game- and expecting plausibility, how preposterous.

End sarcasm.

No wonder it's taken you two years plus to get around to fixing the naval war. You care nothing for authenticity. Too busy pandering to the "World conquest as Tibet crowd".

Because obviously people that are doing rework naval warfare are the same that create additional focus trees. Oh, wait...

 

[Riftwalker]

I say they are not really represented because even if game features bear the same name or are closely named after the aforementioned military elements,

AH BEAR!

i'm sorry, but I couldn't help myself when i saw this.

Sounds to me like you don't understand the way National Focus trees are programmed. On historical mode there is a zero percent chance of any alt history focuses being chosen. In the game files the AI has a literal list of focuses that it takes in a specified order for historical mode. Also many decisions have a modifier for if the game is historical and there's values set for the probability if its histoircal

this is partly true, if the AI can't choose a focus because it's down a road that it doesn't have the prereqs, it'll skip to the next available on the list, if all available have been taken then it chooses one as if historical mode wasn't selected. but yes, for Japan to go communist, they would need to not meet the prereqs for the historical route, which I don't think there are any other than not being a puppet, which would have to happen before their first focus.

 

[Robosoldier1]

It should be pretty clear that not everyone wants that. What are the most popular mods? Is it Black Ice, for additionnal equipment types and complexity? Is it one that adds start dates for more historical scenarios? No, it's Kaiserreich, full of leftist civil wars and balkanized nations, and Millenium Dawn, which I think recently added a Monarchist path for the 2018 US. It's fairly obvious that the average player, as opposed to forum posters, is happy with the sort of light-hearted alt-history CK2 or EU4 are known for. Podcat has said on several occasions that the dev team did not expect this before release, and only saw it when they looked at the data, which is probably why the game may sometimes feel like it's trying to do two different things.

What's wrong with wanting more WW2? Nothing. I would be fine with that. And as long as I get my historical focuses, and the mechanics are based on the actual WW2, there is also nothing wrong with someone enjoying his 1943 Byzantine Empire. It appears more players are interested in the latter, which is perhaps not that surprising when a happy mess of borders and nations is the default state in other Paradox games.

Yes but those are outcomes produced by modders, not Paradox themselves and I'm not paying the modders for that content. Like we've been trying to get across this whole time they should prioritize historical plausibility before doing the outrageous. Because obviously one holds more weight to it in that it fits the theme and setting of the game, while the fantasy scenarios don't because there just that far disjointed. I think Kaiserreich gets so much traction is because it goes into great detail over its alternative history and thats what makes it appealing, the detail. Not purely because its alternative history but because they took the time to research, design, plan events and do alot to make the world feel alive. While you can argue Paradox hasn't done enough to do that because they take too much focus out of history to cram in their alt history scenarios.

 

[Robosoldier1]

You make a fundamental mistake here it's not either/or both groups want to have fun, but you make it sound like "your" group has more right to it than the other.
A) the alt-history community is big, so big so they bring in cash. Their content is more visible (The Kaiser) than the historic-realistic improvements (like making naval invasions more complex or limiting special forces) but they don't cost that much time, as other have pointed out.
B) In all due likelihood if you take away alt history income it would take away far more ressources from the development than is spent on it.
I would go so far and say the people who bought WtT just for the Kaiser are enough to pay for the development of the DLC.
C) I have bit of a feeling there is some arrogance in this discussion that somehow the people wanting most development time spent on 100% accurate history are feeling they are the real target audience while the rest just trods along. In all due likelihood it's the other way around. But from PDX perspective we are all the community.

We should all pressure PDX to fix stuff like Operation Baravrossa starting in winter 1940 cause it just doesn't make sense no matter if you are lead by Adolf Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm II or Pieck wanting Germany to become the supreme communist power. Nobody with reason starts invading Russia in winter.

Well not that my particular crowd "deserves" more. But the historical attribute of the title does. Not because me and my group are just more important. its that Paradox has taken on the challenge of conveying what made WW2 interesting, and they have scratched the surface in some areas, and delved deeper into others. Were just saying while you have those Alternative history scenarios under way can you for the love of god actually research some historical based circumstances people can play around with more? Some of the current ones are either extremely redundant or there just so obvious to pick that it offers no give or take its just well this option is clearly better so I'm gonna click it.

Redundant
Spain: "move and make the capital from Madrid, to Madrid?"
France: "dismantle the Maginot line, we might as well make it easier on the germans, ya?"
Italy/British: "destroy the Suez, ya know destroying one of the most lucrative trade routes in the world from Europe to Asia, and that we have wasted huge amounts of man and material defending/taking it, but ya know what the hell?"

Obvious
Yugoslavia plane purchase: "we will buy a handful of your old crap planes for -5 consumer goods for around 3/4s of a year, its a great deal right?" Yes, and why would I not take the deal?
Romania: Force abdication verse king Michael's coup. Both get rid of the king and his stupid debuff events, yet one makes me suffer a year of penalties while the other I just have to wait a little longer because the AI shoots it above 25 percent in mid 37- early 38 because of the china war and Russias stupid amount of tension hikes because it sends ground force volunteers to each and every warlord. Obviously ya go with Michael coup.

 

[Trevok]

I would find that a Communist Japan Was more likely than a Communist Germany.

 

[rutger9]

As far as I know, the Japanese only managed to carry one opposed landing against the US during the entire war - on the second attempt, at Wake Island.

Not to dispute anything else you said but the japanese did manage a number of opposed landings during their initial naval blitz into the southern pacific, to provide an example

''On 24 Dec, 7,000 troops from Japanese 16th Division landed at Mauban, Atimonan, and Siain on the shores of Lamon Bay at eastern Luzon island. The Filipino 1st Regular Division opposed the Lamon Bay landings fiercely and slowed the Japanese advance, but ultimately would not be able to hold the line.''

https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=46

Rather pedantic post but if we are talking about historical accuracy, now landing against a rather disorganized foe like the Filipinos is very different from assaulting a prepared island with a marine garrison like midway was so japanese odds of success would have been rather low on that front imo anyways.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Sounds to me like you don't understand the way National Focus trees are programmed. On historical mode there is a zero percent chance of any alt history focuses being chosen. In the game files the AI has a literal list of focuses that it takes in a specified order for historical mode. Also many decisions have a modifier for if the game is historical and there's values set for the probability if its histoircal

Really? So why in every historical game I have played does Italy enter the war in 1939 on the axis side? 'Historical mode' is often anything but historical, and although I do not want the same predictable outcome each time, I seem to no matter what I do.

K

 

[Alex_brunius]

Really? So why in every historical game I have played does Italy enter the war in 1939 on the axis side? 'Historical mode' is often anything but historical, and although I do not want the same predictable outcome each time, I seem to no matter what I do.

Becasue they don't need a focus to join the war, they get called to war and accept?

It's not historical mode. It's historical focuses. Everything else ( like if a nation will accept when called to war ) is not guaranteed to be historical at all.

 

[Khevenhuller]

I would find that a Communist Japan Was more likely than a Communist Germany.

'Our German comrades won't storm a railway station unless they've bought valid platform tickets first.' Eine Frau in Berlin, published 1954...

K

 

[Khevenhuller]

Becasue they don't need a focus to join the war, they get called to war and accept?

It's not historical mode. It's historical focuses. Everything else ( like if a nation will accept when called to war ) is not guaranteed to be historical at all.

Which is not in the least bit historical given how Italy found herself at war in 1940 and why she chose that particular moment to do so.

K

 

[Alex_brunius]

Which is not in the least bit historical given how Italy found herself at war in 1940 and why she chose that particular moment to do so.

No one claimed it was either...

Alterative history focuses ( like communist Japan ) have 0% chance to happen if you tick the box that say historical focuses.

 

[Xerberous]

Good to see the developers care more about Battleships for Bhutan than actually providing an engrossing WW2 experience.

I mean somebody buying a -historical game- and expecting plausibility, how preposterous.

End sarcasm.

No wonder it's taken you two years plus to get around to fixing the naval war. You care nothing for authenticity. Too busy pandering to the "World conquest as Tibet crowd".

I actually don't know where this kind of arguments should lead. It was explained numerous times that the resources needed to improve naval warfare (which is by the way also crappy when you play as the Kaiserin) are different from those which are used to implement the 2. US civil war. The only effect of the 2. US civil war is, that it has the potential to bring additional customers and thus strengthening the game as a whole.

There is no competitive situation between the "Battleships for Bhutan" and the "Attacking Poland only September 1st" fraction. Both won’t to play a working, well balanced comprehensive game free of error.

 

[Linred]

I actually don't know where this kind of arguments should lead. It was explained numerous times that the resources needed to improve naval warfare (which is by the way also crappy when you play as the Kaiserin) are different from those which are used to implement the 2. US civil war. The only effect of the 2. US civil war is, that it has the potential to bring additional customers and thus strengthening the game as a whole.

There is no competitive situation between the "Battleships for Bhutan" and the "Attacking Poland only September 1st" fraction. Both won’t to play a working, well balanced comprehensive game free of error.

A limited budget is assigned to a team. The lead designer decides how the budget is going to be spent. He decides developing the popular alt-history content more and hires people in consquence. This is a sound marketing decision, considering the popularity of mods like Kaissereich. He employs of course programmers and a rigorous QA team to ensure a game free of error and develop regular content to ensure that the consumer is regularly enticed back to the game and buys the DLC content.

In his budgeting, he decided to prioritize the alt-history content (communist Japan, Second American Civil War etcc) but not historical accuracy/immersion in the contingencies of the period.

 

[208]

Now that we have a new DLC on its way I want to ask if anyone feels that this Alternative history stance Paradox has been really digging into as of late is a bit too much? Now Don't get me wrong I get that as soon as you start the game it instantaneously falls outside the realm of what actually happened in WW2, obviously. I also understand that both as a content and economic decision, its to appease the SP crowd and allow them to branch out more and not tire of the game after the 80th-200th time running through it.

I agree with your sentiment, but I am sure that my feelings on the subject are not going to sway the devs to change their minds. I've basically given up that vanilla HoI4 will ever be the game that I wanted - it's 100% clear to me at this point that the HoI4 devs are not going to spend much, if any, effort on satisfying players who want more history instead of less.

I don't play HoI4 much anymore (I kick the tires when there's a major patch just to see - hope springs eternal, I guess), and I have no desire to purchase DLC of which 80%+ I will ignore anyway. I don't regret purchasing the game - I have several hundred hours on it, so certainly it's given me my money's worth. But I don't like the ongoing direction of the dev team, and I do regret purchasing the expansion pass because I would have skipped the previous DLC, too.

Maybe there will be a "historical" mod at some point (maybe there already is - I haven't looked), or maybe Paradox will release a historical wargame based on the HoI4 engine (unlikely but I can always dream).

 

[Frozen Yakman]

Would it even be WW3 or just the Soviet German War?

I think it would depend on the result of the treaty, Germany would likely regain its colonies in such a situation and would again be a world power. Which now that I think about it, that would be an interesting mod.

 

[Telenil]

A limited budget is assigned to a team. The lead designer decides how the budget is going to be spent. He decides developing the popular alt-history content more and hires people in consquence. This is a sound marketing decision, considering the popularity of mods like Kaissereich. He employs of course programmers and a rigorous QA team to ensure a game free of error and develop regular content to ensure that the consumer is regularly enticed back to the game and buys the DLC content.

In his budgeting, he decided to prioritize the alt-history content (communist Japan, Second American Civil War etcc) but not historical accuracy/immersion in the contingencies of the period.

I think that's too simplistic. Paradox as a studio has a pool of programmers, artists, content designers and so on. It has been explained back in the "AI IS BROKEN" days that these people move from game to game as necessary, and if HoI4 happens to have someone capable of designing focus trees, then of course he is going to design focus trees. That's fairly straightforward.

On the other hand, it would be much more complicated for someone to untangle the web of focus trees and AI calculations that lead to Italy joining in 1939, tweak them in a way that still lets Italy join WW2 at some point, test these changes for a variety of relative faction strengths, and check that they don't lead to something completely unexpected like the German thinking they should invade Switzerland to bypass Maginot.

Add to that the designer next door may or may not be tweaking the formulas you are using, and it's probably something that only a few people could do at a few specific times.