Better alternative to having to join factions

[ClothCoat]

I don't like how in HOI3 you can make a country in to superpower (such as if Nationalist China rules over all of Asia and Russia) yet it still counts as a "defeat" if you stay independent and don't join a faction, despite the fact you may be stronger than all of the other factions. Some ideas:

-There is a way for you to stay independent and still "win", such as by being allowed to set goals for your own country or by becoming more powerful than any other faction.

-You can start your own faction. This would be a fun change up. If Argentina is a superpower ruling over much of South America, much of Central America can join your custom faction out of fear or ideological similarities.

 

[Mendeth]

One the one hand, I'd say that the 'victory conditions' are largely arbitrary; if Nationalist China can rule over Asia and Russia, it has 'won' no matter what the game might say. On the other hand, I do agree with your first suggestion that there should be some supra-faction general victory conditions.

I'm not sure about your second suggestion simply because I fear it would be open to abuse. Though I suppose it might be possible for a state with enough territorial control or alliances to establish a 'faction', even only in name.

 

[Secret Master]

Well, let's keep in mind that like all Paradox games, in many cases, winning or losing is a part of what you, the player, wants to do anyway. Every time I've played Nat. China and annexed the warlords, Korea, and Japan, I know it's a win because I saw my country move up to major power status and I achieved my goals.

What I would like to see are war goals that go beyond factions. In HOI3, factions have goals set by the faction leader before Day 1. I'd like HOI4 to give us some historical war goals for individual countries. Even weird war goals that were insane, but that political leaders espoused. (I'm thinking of Quisling's memos on what to do with Russian territory after the war. That's some crazy right there...)

 

[BBBD316]

I think this would be difficult, as how many nations outside of Nat China and the USA would really be able to project enough power to have their own faction? Excluding the best players who could legitimately take over with the smallest of minor.

I am sure there will be achievements for a number of the minors, perhaps each nation can have an individual points bar after which you have passed it considers that you have "won" as that nation?

 

[Takeo92]

I think this would be difficult, as how many nations outside of Nat China and the USA would really be able to project enough power to have their own faction? Excluding the best players who could legitimately take over with the smallest of minor.

I am sure there will be achievements for a number of the minors, perhaps each nation can have an individual points bar after which you have passed it considers that you have "won" as that nation?

Germany and russia.

Oh wait..

 

[ClothCoat]

@BBBD316

It's surprisingly easy to make Brazil and Argentina a superpower. Mexico too, if it conquers America by catching them by surprise. Spain can also become fairly powerful with ease. I was just throwing suggestions out, and I think my first suggestion is more realistic.

 

[Darkath]

IIRC somewhere Podcat hinted at a system that will allow players to set their own goals in advance.

 

[Fryslan0109]

I'm still wondering about how faction creation would work, but I completely agree that a player, or any country, should be able to meet in-game victory conditions without necessarily having to join a faction.

 

[Le Jones]

Do we even need to have factions? I personally find the whole thing makes modding very difficult...

 

[nikosmy]

Do we even need to have factions? I personally find the whole thing makes modding very difficult...

Yea, I agree, just having large alliances should be enough, and would make modding a lot better

 

[RedHunter]

I am also on board with the idea of having alliances like in EU4 instead of factions. You can still have the big 3 alliances and start the nations that were allied in that alliance in 1936, but other nations should be able to create their own.

Each nation should be able to set it's own goals or their should be a scoring system that is kind of like EU4, but fixed and geared more to war.

 

[MKDELTA]

Do we even need to have factions? I personally find the whole thing makes modding very difficult...

Well, they've been around since HoI 1...but I'm not sure if it's all that great of a mechanic. Maybe it needs to go. Some radical gameplay revamps could definitively breathe life into this franchise. PDox seems to be doing away with abstract IC from what I've understood and IC has been around since HoI 1.

I'm not all that much into WW2 anymore but I'm very curious to see what kind of a game HoI IV will be.

 

[Secret Master]

Do we even need to have factions? I personally find the whole thing makes modding very difficult...

Honestly, yes, if you want the same kind of game.

HOI3 really emphasizes the "final showdown" quality of the period and the "ideological" quality as well. While any reasonable study of the period will see past pure ideology as a driving force (realpolitik comes into play with some frequency), the entire period is often depicted in the imaginations of people as the "final showdown with fascism/communism/capitalism." Couple this with what we know about in the post-war period (Cold War nominally between capitalism and communism), and the faction system makes sense in HOI3 with the victory conditions mechanic. It's not just about winning the war, but deciding who, exactly, will attain hegemony in the post-war world.

If you took that away, you could do a lot of other stuff, but you'd lose these concepts. And I would be okay with that as long as individual nations got victory conditions instead. Does that make sense?

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Honestly, yes, if you want the same kind of game.

HOI3 really emphasizes the "final showdown" quality of the period and the "ideological" quality as well. While any reasonable study of the period will see past pure ideology as a driving force (realpolitik comes into play with some frequency), the entire period is often depicted in the imaginations of people as the "final showdown with fascism/communism/capitalism." Couple this with what we know about in the post-war period (Cold War nominally between capitalism and communism), and the faction system makes sense in HOI3 with the victory conditions mechanic. It's not just about winning the war, but deciding who, exactly, will attain hegemony in the post-war world.

If you took that away, you could do a lot of other stuff, but you'd lose these concepts. And I would be okay with that as long as individual nations got victory conditions instead. Does that make sense?

Thinking WW2 as Facism vs Communism vs Capitalism is stupid, since Communists and Capitalists were allied with each other...

 

[BBBD316]

I like the no factions idea, that would allow the scope for all groupings of alliances to try to take the prize. This gets rid of any concern regarding the abuse of factions.

Maybe even allow the renaming of alliance groupings, so you can leave the Axis as the Axis or change it to the League of Super Evil, etc. So Brazil can have their own name and score.

 

[Secret Master]

Thinking WW2 as Facism vs Communism vs Capitalism is stupid, since Communists and Capitalists were allied with each other...

I never said I thought that. I said it was in the imagination of lots of people, and is in part a byproduct of how things turned out.

As for Communists being allied to capitalists, that wasn't the situation in 37, 38, 39, or 40. Change some of the leaders around, and you could have gotten an entirely different set up for the war. If the Germans let the Soviets in the Axis, or the Soviets DOW Japan on the eve of the Anti-COMINTERN Pact, or a Soviet misstep in Eastern Europe, and you could have had all kinds of interesting scenarios.

What might have happened if the Poles let the Soviets station troops on their soil before Danzig? And what if, after Hitler backs down/is assassinated/overthrown, the Soviets don't leave Poland (which is why the historical Polish government didn't want them there in the first place)?

If there's one thing I'm glad they changed in HOI3, it's that the Soviets can generate enough threat to cause the British to DOW them. That way, there is no inevitability to the Soviets and Allies working together.

 

[21oliver]

The problem as i see it in this case is relevant to a variety of areas in HOI3. They allow you to go Ahistorical, BUT the game stays historical basically. There isnt a mechanism in the game that diverts the game into a different direction. The win/loss part of the game is designed if you play historically and not otherwise. Other than the 10% chance the czechs fight, the game is heavily scripted to stay historical. IMO they should either force you to play historically or have a better system if you dont, otherwise whats the point?

 

[diegosimeone]

-You can start your own faction. This would be a fun change up. If Argentina is a superpower ruling over much of South America, much of Central America can join your custom faction out of fear or ideological similarities.

yes please

 

[benice1234]

A generally more flexible game would be great. My biggest gripe about Darkest Hour is that it gets a little weird if you try and stray from the path, and HoI3 made it impossible to stray from the path.

 

[21oliver]

On the forum at least it seems the majority prefer a more history based. I myself think instead of easy-med-hard-VH the game setup should be historical / semi-historical (plausible) / sandbox.