A lot of people confuse the disagree button with a "does not like" button
- 5
- 4
Breaking up the British Empire
- Thread starter Anichent
- 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.
A lot of people confuse the disagree button with a "does not like" button
because he is arguing with an quote from the PR team of HoI IV and not the development team. The development team stated several times that it is not an hardcore simulation, but first of all an game and an sandbox. It has nothing to do with "does not like", its simply disagreeing on an false argument.
Advertising is always exaggerating. Besides that, they say the most authentic real-time simulation of ww2, not that it is an 100% historic authentic simulator.
Italy for example is buffed compared to its historical position to make up for more interesting gameplay. If you made an "100% accurate authentic simulator" it would be anything but fun.
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
If you back track to the point were you say the change would have virtually no impact you have to ask yourself is it worth bothering with making the change?
- 2
- 1
It always bothered me how colonial possesions had to be handeled the exact same way as core territory just to avoid revoltrisk. So Qingdao had to have a core of the german empire, and Brunei a british core just to avoid rebel activity every few months.
Now that the game relies on states (which is a real setback seeing how developers reapetedly stated going for sandbox and customization) we can atleast use a System similar to Victoria 2. The idea is that annexed (owend) states will have a second available Status (or maybe multiple). So instead of just direct control, you will now have protectorate Status as well (maybe with a restriction of non core oversea). One of the differences is a bonus to reduce revolt risk (like -20 for example) so now burma doesnt require british cores anymore. It also means that revolts (during harsh occupation) follow their respective cores.
Now that the game relies on states (which is a real setback seeing how developers reapetedly stated going for sandbox and customization) we can atleast use a System similar to Victoria 2. The idea is that annexed (owend) states will have a second available Status (or maybe multiple). So instead of just direct control, you will now have protectorate Status as well (maybe with a restriction of non core oversea). One of the differences is a bonus to reduce revolt risk (like -20 for example) so now burma doesnt require british cores anymore. It also means that revolts (during harsh occupation) follow their respective cores.
Techniclly you already have it in HOI 3 as 'collaboration government' occupation policy. I dont know if you can release nations on still contested territory with the game engine.
- 2
- 1
You can't do it in HOI3, though it is possible if there is a pre-programmed event. You could do it in HOI2, though - one of the things HOI2 did much better.
"Collaboration government" didn't really simulate puppets, though, not in the way releasing them did in HOI2.
- 2
Nowhere do I suggest going for a hardcore simulator. Asking for something to be more historically accurate does not automatically equal an argument for history over gameplay. Asking for a few more puppets, part of the list, all of the list, a couple from the list, does not reduce gameplay anymore than having Philippines as a puppet or 100% US territory damages gameplay one way or the other.
You, and others, seem to suggest that the only reason not to do it is because it is historically accurate....
Granted there is serious discussion to be had about the worth of having these puppets, and which of them are more worthwhile and which of them are too complicated, but simply saying "its not a simulator" is not an argument anymore than it would be if were used in a discussion where Canada had the wrong flag and someone suggested changing it to the historically accurate one. Say why its a bad idea, or good idea, or which should be used, or how it should be done if done....but "its not a simulator" is empty words. Why have the right plane models in game? Its not a simulator after all. Why have Hungary take southern Slovakia? Its not a simulator after all. (see: Reductio ad absurdum)
- 4
- 1
Honestly I'm more interested in discussing the worth of having the countries I listed (and which of them) in a mod or expansion rather than complaints that adding them would take too long or be 'too hard'
I'd be very interested in whatever you put together in a mod. I haven't even thought about modding from that perspective (my head's all in ships and shipbuilding at the moment) but if things really are 50 times more mod-friendly (a throwaway number from Podcat, but the general gist is that things are a whole heap easier) you should have a fair bit of scope to adjust things.
One thing to think about in terms of resources (such as Canadian or Rhodesian copper) is that while the UK definitely had to trade for it, my understanding was that it had 'first dibs', something not really covered off in the current trade system (and if you hit the trade system, probably worth including the UK's relationship with Persia for oil from I think it was Abadan - somewhere else it had first dibs because of its foreign investment) - and you'd probably need to give the UK more civilian industry, so it had something to trade for them, so it'll probably be a bit of work balancing and all that, but nothing you'd have any trouble with I'm sure
.For me, the countries I'd mod in would be the ones that actually had troops on the HoI scale (so brigade and up) and had resources of note, that had some degree of self-Government (including Burma, a la JamesD's excellent post). I'd definitely be interested in checking out what you came up with
.Aye, as expected now that there's a button, some people tend to get a bit 'disagree happy' - the number of posts I've seen with disagrees where there's nothing to disagree with, and it would be downright irrational to not like what was posted to put a red X on it, is silly. That said, the OP is a suggestion that can be legitimately and sensibly disagreed with, even if I don't personally. It reminds me a little (although not on the same scale) as the crazy amount of disagrees Jazumir got for his cards suggestion - so much writing it off without actually thinking about it.
This statement is anything but a foregone conclusion, depending on how you define accurate and authentic. Even if you disallow abstraction, and make the player a person in an office getting and giving orders, allowing for the fast forwarding of time so that you didn't have to wait while they slept or ate lunch in real time, there's still a lot of potential for a very interesting game. Are you suggesting Churchill, Stalin, Hitler's and Roosevelt's jobs during the period wouldn't be interesting (and, without the consequences for failure they faced, fun?)
Of course, it would be a very different game, and I'm not suggesting it for HoI, but the idea that authentic abstraction is somehow intrinsically less 'fun' than made-up stuff is not logically sound (not least because fun is a very, very individually specific attribute). A better statement would be "For me, an 100% accurate authentic simulator would be anything but fun".
- 3
I'm gonna be brutally honest here, but are there any actual benefits of making tons of tiny puppet states like the Maldives, other than it being slightly more historical (which in itself is debatable on some of them)? Just seems like it would needlessly complicate things. I can understand having large and important puppets like India and Egypt, but I don't understand having loads of tiny puppets like Brunei and Swaziland.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
- 1
@GeneralPetrov
A fair point, but I'd counter with this thought: each puppet of Britain is a country that could end up being someone else's puppet.
So if Germany, Italy, and Japan conquered Arabia, I think it'd make more sense if the Arab puppets could become Axis puppets rather than just Axis owned territory. Same goes for Burma, Maldives, and others.
Think about the end of the war, or for people who want to extend the timeline through the 50s or 60s. Truth is the Axis didn't want to annex the world, they just wanted to remake it. Forcing a German player, or Italian player, or any player who conquers, to own the world is in my opinion messier than adding some puppets.
Japan's goal was to create a Burma puppet, not own it. And Germany/Italy would be much more likely to puppet or release Arab states like Qatar or Bahrain than to annex them or return them to Fascist Britain. Imagining an Axis victory where Germany, Italy, and Japan just divvy up the world is just a fantasy. Reality is they wanted to remake the world, not own it all.
My intention with this idea is a bit about historical accuracy, a bit about gameplay, and a bit about the reasonable expectations/goals of players when they imagine their country's conquests in WW2.
A fair point, but I'd counter with this thought: each puppet of Britain is a country that could end up being someone else's puppet.
So if Germany, Italy, and Japan conquered Arabia, I think it'd make more sense if the Arab puppets could become Axis puppets rather than just Axis owned territory. Same goes for Burma, Maldives, and others.
Think about the end of the war, or for people who want to extend the timeline through the 50s or 60s. Truth is the Axis didn't want to annex the world, they just wanted to remake it. Forcing a German player, or Italian player, or any player who conquers, to own the world is in my opinion messier than adding some puppets.
Japan's goal was to create a Burma puppet, not own it. And Germany/Italy would be much more likely to puppet or release Arab states like Qatar or Bahrain than to annex them or return them to Fascist Britain. Imagining an Axis victory where Germany, Italy, and Japan just divvy up the world is just a fantasy. Reality is they wanted to remake the world, not own it all.
My intention with this idea is a bit about historical accuracy, a bit about gameplay, and a bit about the reasonable expectations/goals of players when they imagine their country's conquests in WW2.
- 3
I support having lots of releasable nations, but having all of them including the really small and insignificant nations (no offense to any Maldivian paradoxians out there
) exist at the game start just seems like it would be a big complicated mess.- 1
- 1
This doesn't address the point that there is little point in having tiny puppets that can't have any real effect on the game, regardless of who controls them.
- 2
- 1
Im not sure why people keep saying this, but if I want a unhistorical grand strategy game where I can achieve impossibilities, I will play Total War: Warhammer.
HOI has always been a simulator, I'm not sure why you think this will change.
- 7
- 4
This is a great idea and I hope it gets added but I must admit that it would be quite annoying with all these puppet states around the world that don't really do anything. It will be like 100 Victoria 2 Liberia's. XD
That's true. Lets take out Tuva and Luxembourg and Haiti.
They're in the game because they existed. And these puppets should be in because they existed. That's why. You say they would have no effect, I don't. I say they would have no "effect" as in damaging game balance or playability. You're mixing up contexts.
This criticism that it would be "too many" countries is silly. Does needing to scroll down a list for 2.5 extra seconds really irritate you that much?
If so be sure to never play Europa Universalis, that'll really drive you nuts.- 5
- 4
Those listed were independent nations so no possible overlord to directly control them. I see no problem with tiny loosely independent states/puppets being directly controlled by their overlords if it keeps the game streamlined. If the only impact of adding some of these puppets is that I have more trading to manage as Britain I would rather they weren't there as this is not my idea of fun.That's true. Lets take out Tuva and Luxembourg and Haiti.
They're in the game because they existed. And these puppets should be in because they existed. That's why. You say they would have no effect, I don't. I say they would have no "effect" as in damaging game balance or playability. You're mixing up contexts.
This criticism that it would be "too many" countries is silly. Does needing to scroll down a list for 2.5 extra seconds really irritate you that much?
- 3
- 1
So the real heart of your point is "I want Britain to be easy, I hate trading." Hmmm....colour me unsympathetic. Especially when trading is really so simple. Arguing for easier games and being a fan of Paradox usually don't go hand in hand, part of the reason people love these games is because of the detail.
Again, granted the list can be broken down: Oman (Muscat and Oman) though had its own army. To call it loosely independent and say it should be controlled by Britain is a joke. Even those without armies, because they relied on British forces to defend them, are still 'independent' save for being vassals/puppets.
Just look at what the Skeikh of Bahrain said to Britain on September 10, 1939 when they officially declared war: "For nearly a century, the Khalifa shaikhs of Bahrain have been on terms of friendship with the British Government. Our sympathies in this war which is now being waged [...] are with Great Britain. If we possessed an army, we would offer it to the British Government." These are not the words of a non-existent country. Bahrain, Mysore, puppets like these did not contribute troops to the war but that doesn't mean they didn't exist, didn't have their own rulers and governments, and didn't contribute to the war effort with money and trade.
Sorry but your objections are "I want it to be as easy as possible" and not actually know the history of the countries you object to. Not really strong objections. You also jump from one objection to the next when they fail. First it was they don't have an effect, now its too hard for you and they are too small and too loosely independent. I look forward to what you come up with next.
- 5
- 4
- 1
You are deliberately misinterpreting me. Something being streamlined =/= easier difficulty. Game design that serves to make a player press more buttons to over a longer time isn't increasing difficulty it is increasing tedium, that is not fun. Good try though.
Also I have not been jumping around objections it was you who tried to defend your suggestion by talking about all the things it would have no effect on.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
My response is the same. I addressed your tedium idea in the post I made before your last comment, which you quoted. Why repeat.
- 3
- 1