Blatant Factual Inaccuracies

[Secret Master]

Makes me think of Candy Crush.

Exactly! What the heck is "gameplay > all" (in my most condescending and mocking voice) supposed to mean anyway?

Paradox used to be (IMHO) a bastion against the "easy way", against the "dumbing down", against the idea that people didn't want games that accurately represented history. Either I was always wrong, or those times have passed.

If you think that Vic2 is a dumbing down of Vicky and Ricky, or EU4 is a dumbing down of EU3, EU2, or EU, or that CK2 is a dumbing down of the original CK, then you either never played them or you are remembering the past through rose colored glasses.

All of these games have gone through iterations where the games get more complex in every version. Candy Crush is not only the wrong way to think of it, but it's blatantly absurd. I would also say that they've gotten more realistic in every iteration. But none of Paradox's games I've played have ever been hyper realistic. There have always been compromises in the name of making gameplay rational and intelligible.

Hell, I remember when Johan was having to defend the original EU from charges that it did not follow the board game accurately. Back in 2001-2002, the response was the same: we made these changes because it makes the game play better (in that case, because EU was more or less real time, while the board game was not).

Without having access to HOI4, I cannot say if it is actually going to be more realistic/an improvement over HOI3. But let's not pretend that there was some Golden Age of Paradox gaming where the developers never worried about short circuiting history in the name of gameplay. If you want, I can dig up threads about Badboy or the Librum Veto event series from the original EU and EU2. Or the ever popular "Crimean War Event Chain" in Vicky/Ricky. Talk about arguing about history versus gameplay. "But I just got a peace treaty with the Russians, and now the Crimean War is firing! WTF!"

 

[Mannstien]

That's what modders are for silly OP

 

[Count Drew]

Clio, it's strange ... In other WW2 strategy games the Egyptian Question is often mended with a Garrison, made directly part of the UK that surrenders when war goals are reached in Egypt. Becomes a bastion for The British Empire if the main Island falls. etc... No one game handles this the same.

I wonder how much the Devs have tested the situation to find balance?

 

[Sharp163]

Gameplay > all

Gameplay, Gameplay, über alles

 

[Number 7]

It's not like egypts standing has exactly changed, it was just british land in HOI3 and possibly(?) other HOI games too.

when it comes to history vs gameplay, Paradox have tried their best to set up a game that is very historical, but is also going to play well. Theres a myriad of issues that are caused by special standings, and these are more complex to solve than it seems. The amount of work it would take for example, to fix the egyptian issue in a way that doesn't cause AI problems is a LOT of work just to make a country that essentially stayed neutral get represented accurately.

It all comes down to opportunity cost. Paradox have a given amount of time to make the game in, and they have only so much money to do it. If they spend time trying to fix egypt, or trying to put manchukuo back in as a puppet, and trying to fix the AI issues around it, thats all time that comes out of the rest of the game. On a project of this scale you have to realistically draw the line somewhere between gameplay and 100% historical accuracy. Its not like paradox has gone off the rails ahistorical, the game has a great semblance of accuracy for 1936 and the war can develop fairly historically, just like HOI3. Its not like HOI3 is some great champion of accuracy either, thats a game where japan is able to invade mainland USA and win the war by grinding their manpower down as if the US wouldn't get just a few more volunteers after the entire west coast falls to the japanese

if you want the most accurate "never compromise on history for gameplay" kind of games, they exist. They aren't paradox games. For example i've heard good things about Gary Grigsby's War in the East.

But basically i don't think its reasonable to demand 100% accuracy in every area when all it does is introduce more and more AI issues in a series where the AI needs all the help it can get... especially for a region as completely minor as egypt, when the importance of the region is already covered by british troops there

 

[RickInVA]

If you think that Vic2 is a dumbing down of Vicky and Ricky, or EU4 is a dumbing down of EU3, EU2, or EU, or that CK2 is a dumbing down of the original CK, then you either never played them or you are remembering the past through rose colored glasses.

All of these games have gone through iterations where the games get more complex in every version. Candy Crush is not only the wrong way to think of it, but it's blatantly absurd. I would also say that they've gotten more realistic in every iteration. But none of Paradox's games I've played have ever been hyper realistic. There have always been compromises in the name of making gameplay rational and intelligible.

Hell, I remember when Johan was having to defend the original EU from charges that it did not follow the board game accurately. Back in 2001-2002, the response was the same: we made these changes because it makes the game play better (in that case, because EU was more or less real time, while the board game was not).

Without having access to HOI4, I cannot say if it is actually going to be more realistic/an improvement over HOI3. But let's not pretend that there was some Golden Age of Paradox gaming where the developers never worried about short circuiting history in the name of gameplay. If you want, I can dig up threads about Badboy or the Librum Veto event series from the original EU and EU2. Or the ever popular "Crimean War Event Chain" in Vicky/Ricky. Talk about arguing about history versus gameplay. "But I just got a peace treaty with the Russians, and now the Crimean War is firing! WTF!"

SM, I have the utmost respect for you. I also do own and have played all those games you mentioned. (Parenthetically, I never knew there was a EU board game, learn something new every day!) I also agree with you that in the progression of EU and Vicky that each iteration (generally) has tried to make the historical simulation aspect of the game better.

However, it is my personal opinion that this has now changed. The Devs' comments in HOI4 and Stelaris (obviously not from a historical perspective) Dev Diaries clearly indicate to me that a shift has taken place to this "gameplay > all" idea. Again I will say, "whatever that means", because I honestly have no idea what that is supposed to mean if it doesn't mean "making the game easier to play", "making complex aspects simpler", and/or "when historical reality and ease of play are in opposition to each other, history is always going to be sacrificed". I did not feel this way in the past. In the past I felt that a real effort was being made to include historical accuracy as much as possible. Now I feel that the idea is to only include as much historical accuracy as minimally necessary.

There are games I play "for fun". I play Majesty for fun. I play Total War for fun. I play Age of Wonders for fun. I am not looking to have a WWII game that I "play for fun". I want a WWII game that I play because it is an exceptional simulation of WWII that challenges me to make optimal, difficult, choices. That has many many levers for me to adjust. That as much as possible provides me the same kind of challenges that the real national leaders and commanders had.

I am NOT saying, at all, that previous HOIs provided that. I am saying that I felt that Paradox was trying to provide that. I no longer feel that way.

As that is my personal opinion you can of course share it or not. But you cannot refute my opinion, you can only have your own.

 

[Axe99]

Thinking about Egypt, one way to deal with it could be to have an option as the British to release it (which was possible in a past HoI - I had a game once where I played as the Brits and released everyone I could at the start of the game, to see how it went, but I can't recall with it was HoI2 or HoI3), and maybe an event that if the British surrender to someone, or have a civil war or the like, Egypt becomes independent? Not suggesting necessarily for the base game, just trying to think of a way of making it work mechanically.

if you want the most accurate "never compromise on history for gameplay" kind of games, they exist. They aren't paradox games. For example i've heard good things about Gary Grigsby's War in the East.

War in the East is very good, but I wouldn't consider it more historically accurate as much as more railroaded. It's an operational wargame more than a grand strategy game, so its focus on accuracy is on the actual combat, but it's a lot less flexible in terms of the geopolitics (indeed, completely inflexible!)

 

[RELee]

Gameplay > all

 

[Mannstien]

I am NOT saying, at all, that previous HOIs provided that. I am saying that I felt that Paradox was trying to provide that. I no longer feel that way.

As that is my personal opinion you can of course share it or not. But you cannot refute my opinion, you can only have your own.

Hmm, BICE for HOI4 on the Hype Train?? I would generally agree though I think it's all three of these

"making the game easier to play", "making complex aspects simpler", and/or "when historical reality and ease of play are in opposition to each other, history is always going to be sacrificed".

Which sacrifices a lot of Historical Accuracy for those reasons and is why I only got about 3-4 months of play time in the standard TFH game before I started looking for Mod's because it just wasn't enough depth in the base game even after it's last iteration. That said there are a lot of interesting aspects to this game which I would have loved to see in HOI3 such as the way the Naval game works, equipment variants, and the entire division design and supply of equipment system. Seeing them have to click on all those bloody units to me still screams "why no OOB at least to simplify my ability to shift specialized units quickly or assign them to a Theatre" instead it's click click click click click unless there is some trick they haven't shown but no need for Div commanders or radio range etc, just a better and simple organizational tool.

That said I've heard Johan say "This is one of our most moddable games to date" which is really encouraging and lets people that do not have much understanding or knowledge of World War 2 maybe get into keeping history alive and at the same time later on after release those who like the larger number of levers can help forge some good mod's to meet what we really like to see in this game plus unknown DLC I'm sure will come down the pipeline to make it even better.

I forget when this was first announced (Feels like forever to us HOI fans) but the first 5-6 DD's I was really a pessimist because it just looked to much like an EU4 copy cat with WW2 flavor but now that I see a much more developed game and more information is fed to us I'm very much looking forward to playing it and in fact have scheduled a week off in June to play (That and there's a huge air and land show called WW2 weekend in Reading, PA the weekend before it comes out which will be epic to go to that and come back and play some HOI4).

I might have to fly to Sweden though in case there are problems with the steam download to buy a hard copy (maybe they could burn it onto some disks for me)

 

[Standstill]

A game with fantastic historical accuracy but lame gameplay is like a porn with a fantastic plot but lame sex scenes.

 

[Thrake]

A game with fantastic historical accuracy but lame gameplay is like a porn with a fantastic plot but lame sex scenes.

Any precedent to back your words?

 

[scroggin]

I can understand the gameplay reason for egypt being part of britain in HOI. What is the reason for having india as a puppet? I know some of the mods did that too, so what is the ingame advantage?

 

[aruon]

i think it's because india is SO HUGE and never served much purpose in previous HOIs.

 

[Axe99]

A game with fantastic historical accuracy but lame gameplay is like a porn with a fantastic plot but lame sex scenes.

The counter to this is "but what about a game with great historical accuracy and great gameplay" (or a porn with a great plot and great sex scenes ) - it doesn't necessarily need to be an either/or proposition.

 

[podcat]

i think it's because india is SO HUGE and never served much purpose in previous HOIs.

- Egypt is a complicated area where puppets would make things harder for the AI to manage (same reason we dont have manchuria as well)
- Making india a puppet helps with controlling the strength of the allies because as Uk you do not have direct control and up to date techs. it also ties into focus tree gameplay.

both are gameplay considerations. Historical plausibility is pretty important as someone said for immersion. but it is also behind actually making fun and challenging gameplay. Historical Accuracy, is somethign else and is much further down the priority list (and is often impossible since all simulations are approximations)

 

[Number 7]

The counter to this is "but what about a game with great historical accuracy and great gameplay" (or a porn with a great plot and great sex scenes ) - it doesn't necessarily need to be an either/or proposition.

but here's the problem, Paradox don't have infinite time, or infinite money, or infinite skill. Something has to give, you can't have perfection in every area. As podcat himself replied that it would make the area harder for the AI to manage, and manchuria is the same.

"gameplay > all" isn't a motto of "throw history out the window", or anything like that. its "when a choice needs to be made, gameplay will be favoured" as they've explained was the case with manchuria and egypt. The AI really does need all the help it can get to go up against players and if this makes the AI work better than so be it.

 

[AledlePieux]

And I imagine that accessing fully the Indian manpower (with the UK tech on top of it) would make the UK impossible to grind down as Germany or Japan.

 

[hewhoispale]

SM, I have the utmost respect for you. I also do own and have played all those games you mentioned. (Parenthetically, I never knew there was a EU board game, learn something new every day!) I also agree with you that in the progression of EU and Vicky that each iteration (generally) has tried to make the historical simulation aspect of the game better.

However, it is my personal opinion that this has now changed. The Devs' comments in HOI4 and Stelaris (obviously not from a historical perspective) Dev Diaries clearly indicate to me that a shift has taken place to this "gameplay > all" idea. Again I will say, "whatever that means", because I honestly have no idea what that is supposed to mean if it doesn't mean "making the game easier to play", "making complex aspects simpler", and/or "when historical reality and ease of play are in opposition to each other, history is always going to be sacrificed". I did not feel this way in the past. In the past I felt that a real effort was being made to include historical accuracy as much as possible. Now I feel that the idea is to only include as much historical accuracy as minimally necessary.

There are games I play "for fun". I play Majesty for fun. I play Total War for fun. I play Age of Wonders for fun. I am not looking to have a WWII game that I "play for fun". I want a WWII game that I play because it is an exceptional simulation of WWII that challenges me to make optimal, difficult, choices. That has many many levers for me to adjust. That as much as possible provides me the same kind of challenges that the real national leaders and commanders had.

I am NOT saying, at all, that previous HOIs provided that. I am saying that I felt that Paradox was trying to provide that. I no longer feel that way.

As that is my personal opinion you can of course share it or not. But you cannot refute my opinion, you can only have your own.

I was going to try and explain that "gameplay" basically equates to fun, but we seem to have different meanings for that word. A "fun" game is one that is enjoyable to play.
Now it simply isn't possible to make a game that is fun for everyone, I really enjoy playing Eldritch Horror and Agricola and would call them fun but many of my friends don't.
I completely reject your premise that mechanically complex games aren't "fun".

I would echo previous comments about Egypt: to more accurately model the historical situation would require that Egypt get special snowflake mechanics, and I believe that time spent on that would probably be better spent elsewhere on areas that where more relevant historically to the conflict, at least for the initial release.

 

[FOARP]

Paradox used to be (IMHO) a bastion against the "easy way", against the "dumbing down", against the idea that people didn't want games that accurately represented history. Either I was always wrong, or those times have passed.

The first one: you were always wrong about this. Every single HOI game going back to the first had Egypt as UK-controlled territory, so why are you behaving as if this were something recent?

 

[RickInVA]

The first one: you were always wrong about this. Every single HOI game going back to the first had Egypt as UK-controlled territory, so why are you behaving as if this were something recent?

My comments should not be taken to imply acceptance of any prior versions of HOI, nor, in this specific case, as endorsement or opposition to the OPs position. My comments are in response to Podcat's comments.