"But isn't the number of divisions bloated in HOI4 overall?"

[Reman]

I don't see the number of divisions that can be fielded to be a major problem, as the supply system already restricts how many can be used in any given area. Modern tanks with supply companies + '44 CAS will rip through the late game AI with ease, no matter how many divisions they throw at you. I'm more partial to the idea that excess divisions can cause late game performance issues, although the performance change for divisions that aren't recalculating pathing shouldn't be that extreme. I also think solving structural issues in the game would be a lot better in this regard, e.g. why do I need to capitulate the USA to get the achievement for "Restoring Austria Hungary"? Stuff like that, along with the sorry state of peace conferences drags stuff out way more than a few extra divisions do.

 

[7163D]

The mod World Ablaze use a "economic fatigue" system. "war-oriented" law increase fatigue, "peace-oriented law" decrease fatigue.
You can also decrease fatigue with pp.
Economic fatigue decrease war support, construction building, infrastructure reparation...

 

[Dlin369]

SORRY!? Can you repeat!? Let's talk about the Paradox! He has experience in this type of games for YEARS! YEARS! And they say THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO SET UP A MAINTENANCE SYSTEM WHEN ALL THEIR OTHER GAMES HAVE IT !? But do they take us for fools or something !? Sorry, but this statement made me trigger a lot! That is "we do not know how to set the AI" AND WE PLAYERS MUST KNOW !? THE GAME DEVELOPER ARE YOU! But does it just seem like an excuse to me for not doing anything yet?

Well there are maintenance systems and then there are the ability to handle it - PDX has had maintenance systems for CK, Stellaris, and EU4 (I haven't played Imperator or Victoria) but those rely on some sort of currency, long time durations and on top of that the AI isn't always able to actually handle the costs.

HOI4 lacks a currency system beyond civilian factories because most nations fighting in WW2 were fighting total wars and didn't care as much about economic costs so much as survival. This is fine for HOI4 for the most part, but for mods it means a currency system needs to be generated from scratch in some cases. I believe some have tried to add an upkeep cost by making equipment "expire" or attrition over time, which is the alternative currency in the game, but the effectiveness there I do not know enough to comment. Stellaris has something similar where the currency you need for maintenance is alloys, a generally second order resource in the sense that you manufacture all but a few alloys rather than directly obtain them from farms/mines/generators. I'll say I never really liked the alloy system in its current implementation, but that's partially because of Stellaris UI

Long Time Durations - upkeep matters mostly in the postwar and the debts nations accumulated aided the American rise to the world stage as well as set in motion decolonization. However, the game "ends" in ironman in 1948 and isn't equipped to go into the 1950s at the moment. Road to 56 leads up to 56 of course, but the cold war in a lot of ways would be a different game once Nukes and MAD come into play after Korea. By contrast, other games take place over centuries, which means that there is a real price to pay for going into severe debt for one war. For WW2, a war for survival and facing total annihilation, debt is secondary to victory literally at any cost

Finally there is the AI - honestly, given the rate in which HOI4 keeps expanding in complexity I'm surprised the AI has been able to keep up as much as it has (not all that great, but ok). Maintenance is a thorn in a lot of games' AI - I haven't been keeping track of CK3 as much as I had planned but EU4 had mercenaries sinking AI nations' budgets and Stellaris AI struggles to juggle all the many orders of resources into the late game. HOI4 I think is a bit easier for resource management in the sense that the time frame is shorter and there are theoretically only 2 first-order resources, but there are a lot of equipment types

On whole I hope HOI4 develops some sort of upkeep system but I believe it will probably come later in the development cycle. I imagine the next thing is logistics and combat rework, which hopefully will help transition into upkeep. But we'll have to wait and see

 

[Vlad123]

Well there are maintenance systems and then there are the ability to handle it - PDX has had maintenance systems for CK, Stellaris, and EU4 (I haven't played Imperator or Victoria) but those rely on some sort of currency, long time durations and on top of that the AI isn't always able to actually handle the costs.

HOI4 lacks a currency system beyond civilian factories because most nations fighting in WW2 were fighting total wars and didn't care as much about economic costs so much as survival. This is fine for HOI4 for the most part, but for mods it means a currency system needs to be generated from scratch in some cases. I believe some have tried to add an upkeep cost by making equipment "expire" or attrition over time, which is the alternative currency in the game, but the effectiveness there I do not know enough to comment. Stellaris has something similar where the currency you need for maintenance is alloys, a generally second order resource in the sense that you manufacture all but a few alloys rather than directly obtain them from farms/mines/generators. I'll say I never really liked the alloy system in its current implementation, but that's partially because of Stellaris UI

Long Time Durations - upkeep matters mostly in the postwar and the debts nations accumulated aided the American rise to the world stage as well as set in motion decolonization. However, the game "ends" in ironman in 1948 and isn't equipped to go into the 1950s at the moment. Road to 56 leads up to 56 of course, but the cold war in a lot of ways would be a different game once Nukes and MAD come into play after Korea. By contrast, other games take place over centuries, which means that there is a real price to pay for going into severe debt for one war. For WW2, a war for survival and facing total annihilation, debt is secondary to victory literally at any cost

Finally there is the AI - honestly, given the rate in which HOI4 keeps expanding in complexity I'm surprised the AI has been able to keep up as much as it has (not all that great, but ok). Maintenance is a thorn in a lot of games' AI - I haven't been keeping track of CK3 as much as I had planned but EU4 had mercenaries sinking AI nations' budgets and Stellaris AI struggles to juggle all the many orders of resources into the late game. HOI4 I think is a bit easier for resource management in the sense that the time frame is shorter and there are theoretically only 2 first-order resources, but there are a lot of equipment types

On whole I hope HOI4 develops some sort of upkeep system but I believe it will probably come later in the development cycle. I imagine the next thing is logistics and combat rework, which hopefully will help transition into upkeep. But we'll have to wait and see

The old hoi (and DH) had money, as currency and were used to trade ... if you lacked a resource it had malus (pretty heavy, not like on hoi4), you could also trade debt (hoi3 sure, the others I don't remember) and then if you were lucky you didn't pay off the debt (otherwise they were REALLY problems).
For a simulation if you "run out money" you have big stability penalties etc ... so if the state no longer has liquidity (so or via debt or otherwise) to build / buy armaments ... it's over ... peace ... ah no on hoi4 there is no peace system ... and in the old hoi there was also this. So, PDX, he was wrong, I don't say everything but 50% in this game.

 

[Paul.Ketcham]

The real problem with division spam comes mainly with two problems, which are both logistical in nature:

1.) The AI builds to match its division composition, which in 1936 is mostly infantry (and this continues through the game). Then it needs to upgrade all its equipment as new tech is researched, which mostly consists of infantry and artillery upgrades (as well as fighters). The recruitment AI, however, doesn't take obsolete equipment into account so it treats all the replaced old equipment as available for fielding new divisions, which then need even more replacement gear.

2.) The AI builds divisions whenever possible, doesn't consolidate divisions when equipment/manpower is low, and doesn't cancel training divisions.

The former issue is really obvious if you compare Russia to most other powers, which happens to be the only one (besides Germany) to build any meaningful volume of tanks; yet those tanks are almost always light tanks, which is consistent with its large number of starting tank divisions (which also start missing many of their tanks). As a result, the Russians end up fielding light tanks long after they've shifted research and division design towards mediums, which never have meaningful numbers fielded. Russia is also the only power that produces strategic bombers, which is accounted for by the fact that they start with an air wing of them (thus a production need for more).

You can test this by actually giving the AI different equipment in fielded divisions or air wings at the start of the game, and watching them build more (i.e. heavy tanks; the AI never starts production or researches new ones, but will build new heavy tanks and train new divisions if it has them in stockpile already).


The solution to this problem isn't clear, but the AI clearly needs to recognize a few major details if it is going to address this:
1.) Number of divisions that can be fielded based on available manpower and projected manpower (can they get their conscription laws up for more troops), including an accomodation for lost manpower. This isn't a hard limit, but an AI goal to prevent it from building past its practical number of supportable divisions.

2.) Consolidation of depleted divisions. If the AI has divisions that are combat-ineffective, it needs to consolidate these (and cancel training divisions if it lacks equipment in the field and they are wasting those supplies).

3.) Combat changes, so that smaller combat widths aren't ineffectual (the AI should be able to use smaller divisions if it needs more to manage the front lines). This could help fix both the issue of 40-widths being too-effective, and also enable the AI to split divisions rather than suffer massive equipment shortages when it needs large numbers to manage large fronts (namely in China and Russia).

4.) Supply considerations, so the AI doesn't suffer massive equipment attrition from overloading the front lines (which also removes most of the reason division spam is a problem, other than lag). This could help lead to the AI keeping troops in reserve.

5.) Less prioritization of rifles and artillery; the AI needs to forward-plan for more expensive equipment (bombers and tanks) if it has the industry to build them, rather than just building to support its existing army.

 

[CrasherZZ]

The real problem with division spam comes mainly with two problems, which are both logistical in nature:

1.) The AI builds to match its division composition, which in 1936 is mostly infantry (and this continues through the game). Then it needs to upgrade all its equipment as new tech is researched, which mostly consists of infantry and artillery upgrades (as well as fighters). The recruitment AI, however, doesn't take obsolete equipment into account so it treats all the replaced old equipment as available for fielding new divisions, which then need even more replacement gear.

2.) The AI builds divisions whenever possible, doesn't consolidate divisions when equipment/manpower is low, and doesn't cancel training divisions.

The former issue is really obvious if you compare Russia to most other powers, which happens to be the only one (besides Germany) to build any meaningful volume of tanks; yet those tanks are almost always light tanks, which is consistent with its large number of starting tank divisions (which also start missing many of their tanks). As a result, the Russians end up fielding light tanks long after they've shifted research and division design towards mediums, which never have meaningful numbers fielded. Russia is also the only power that produces strategic bombers, which is accounted for by the fact that they start with an air wing of them (thus a production need for more).

You can test this by actually giving the AI different equipment in fielded divisions or air wings at the start of the game, and watching them build more (i.e. heavy tanks; the AI never starts production or researches new ones, but will build new heavy tanks and train new divisions if it has them in stockpile already).


The solution to this problem isn't clear, but the AI clearly needs to recognize a few major details if it is going to address this:
1.) Number of divisions that can be fielded based on available manpower and projected manpower (can they get their conscription laws up for more troops), including an accomodation for lost manpower. This isn't a hard limit, but an AI goal to prevent it from building past its practical number of supportable divisions.

2.) Consolidation of depleted divisions. If the AI has divisions that are combat-ineffective, it needs to consolidate these (and cancel training divisions if it lacks equipment in the field and they are wasting those supplies).

3.) Combat changes, so that smaller combat widths aren't ineffectual (the AI should be able to use smaller divisions if it needs more to manage the front lines). This could help fix both the issue of 40-widths being too-effective, and also enable the AI to split divisions rather than suffer massive equipment shortages when it needs large numbers to manage large fronts (namely in China and Russia).

4.) Supply considerations, so the AI doesn't suffer massive equipment attrition from overloading the front lines (which also removes most of the reason division spam is a problem, other than lag). This could help lead to the AI keeping troops in reserve.

5.) Less prioritization of rifles and artillery; the AI needs to forward-plan for more expensive equipment (bombers and tanks) if it has the industry to build them, rather than just building to support its existing army.

This is a great analysis. The only problem is that this would make the AI better than most human players, including me. I think my next game will be as the Soviets - I'm inspired now...

 

[Harin]

I was trying to think of ways to reduce division counts that would require less change to the AI and game functions. I am not a coder so please let me know if I am creating more work than I realize. The ideas can be thought of as stand alone, or combine as one sees fit.

1. Make battalions and support units cost more manpower and equipment without changing any unit stats. This is probably the easiest.
2. Reduce the first battalion/regiment of artillery to zero combat width. The next artillery battalion/regiments would each cost 3. Make everyone's 1936 default division templates begin with one artillery battalion/regiment. This would help the AI figure what to build with its factories. This would also make artillery important again and consume production. It is also realistic. I mean really, WW2 without artillery? Who thought that crap up.
3. Make starting infantry template for appropriate countries, 9 infantry, 1 AT, 1 AA, and 1 ART. The first ART cost zero combat width, the AT and AA cost one each, the 9 infantry cost 18 (9x2), for a total combat width of 20. The support units would include ENG, REC, HOS This makes a division expensive and gives it the tools every proper division had. This template would put the AI a lot closer to the human player's ability to design the first basic division.
4. Make non-combat support companies, especially the ones listed in number 3, indispensable, like they were in real life. None of the non-combat support units should cost organization loss. Take them out of the averaging formula that determines division organization. ENG could have all their buffs in 1936, including speed, river crossing, forts, cities, entrenchment, etc... Research would make them better at all the buffs and increase the equipment they need, to make them more expensive. ENG should probably come with a plus five organization buff for the division in 1936 and it grows with each research. A defense supported by ENG should dis-org slower than without. The 1936 HOS should reduce loss of experience by a significant amount so that not having one is a disadvantage. A division without a HOS should have a major malus that causes disorganization to occur twice as fast. This makes HOS indispensable and is realistic. No front is going to hold for long when the men see (and hear) their buddies dying slowly over days and no effort is made by leadership to get those men off the front and to help. The 1936 REC would have its speed buff, but also buff artillery soft attack by 20%. This artillery buff and speed buff could both go up 5% as as REC is researched. They were the the farthest out there and best trained to call down artillery. This makes REC powerful. ART without those forward spotters was much less effective. The speed buff makes sense as the RECON unit gets larger and more expensive with research. The larger REC unit is able to more quickly find ways around obstacles, decreasing the time/distance problem for units traveling over terrain. I was once in triple canopy jungle and we were averaging about 100 yards an hour, even slower if we had to take our machetes out. When the way was reconned for us, we could average close to a kilometer in an hour or three. We were not running, we were moving smarter. That is what REC does in real life. It makes movement smarter and gets artillery fires out there farther, where the enemy is massing for attack.
5. Eliminate combat support companies like artillery. Combined with one or more of the ideas above, it will provide additional motivation to put the battalion/regiment artillery in the division.
6. Or, double the cost of combat support companies like artillery to represent that they are the larger and longer ranged guns of the division. A double cost AT company would be the big 88mm AT guns, etc.. I think eliminating the combat companies cleans up the division template better though, leaving five slots for support companies. Divisions with proper support companies should have a major advantage over those that do not. Even late war Germany, losing on every front never stopped putting hospitals, engineers, and recon into its divisions. They are such force multipliers that they are necessary.

Wow, had no idea I typed so much. Threads like this get my mind thinking.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

I've kind of lost track of whether PDX actually cares about producing a game about World War II that's balanced and challenging in solo play, or whether they just want to make a "fun" 1940s version of Europa Universalis, where a player can take control of Mexico and paint the world in Mexico's color. I say this because questions of game balance don't appear to occupy much of their thinking these days. Harin's suggestions are excellent ones, but one might suppose that their implementation is most likely to come in mods such as Total War, which in fact DOES make support companies of various types quite indispensable.

One reason that division spam is so prominent in HOI4 is that the game's AI is so pathetic -- really, really pathetic -- so that it just churns out one ridiculous, useless template after another, and I believe that unit spam is one way of papering over that flaw. Mods have sought to remedy this in various ways, beginning I think with Chondrite's mod, which has been widely adapted by others. So with mods doing all the heavy lifting here, what might we expect in the vanilla game?

By the way, in response to Paul.Ketcham's excellent points above, one thing that the much-maligned HOI3 had going for it as that it gave you the opportunity to "load" different AI behaviors for countries at different points in the war. So, for example, you could design a given country's AI so that it would go heavy in tank research and also emphasize unit builds to take advantage of the research you did. By contrast, there seems to be so little opportunity to "evolve" an AI country's behavior in HOI4. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's much capacity for that.

 

[jetfx]

I'd like to see the lackluster domestic politics of the game overhauled because I think that could partly help address this issue. Historically, domestic political pressures did limit the ability of govts, especially in democracies, to fully mobilize their potential national manpower. For example, in game Canada can field a couple dozen divisions easily, but historically they only sent about 6 divisions overseas, largely because the issue of conscription was extremely polarizing domestically. Or fascist Italy, where political issues really hobbled the war effort in a way the game doesn't simulate, although I suspect the eventual Italian focus tree update will add some negative national spirits to represent these problems. Despite being a dictatorship that was not constrained by formal democratic processes, the regime's war effort never enjoyed widespread popular support, which meant that people regularly evaded the draft and were generally unwilling to risk their lives for a cause they did not identify with. When the Allies invaded the Italian mainland the govt quickly collapsed, and Italy fought a civil war as a result.

The game often allows countries to mobilize ludicrous percentages of their population that rarely happened historically for political reasons. Sure the game restricts the highest conscription laws with war support thresholds and imposes harsh economic penalties for doing so, but trying to conscript 25% of the population after a mid tier nation has already taken millions of casualties should realistically have severe political consequences, like a big hit to stability and/or war support. At the very least stability and war support should be more dynamic and reflect the state of the national war effort. Heavy casualties, lengthy wars, increased mobilization, etc, should start to eat into political enthusiasm for fighting, especially if a nation is clearly losing. In short, small nations that field absurd numbers of divisions should be teetering on the brink of civil war.

 

[Synicus]

I agree jetfx...
Hmm, neutral isn't really a political ideology, er non-aligned but rather a state of not being in a faction or supporting madness of one form or the other.
This blanket of nothingness covers nearly half the world and seems to just set them all up to be conquered.
I think their governments should be flagged as what they are. Then we can apply unique laws for each type of government.
This way conscription for one can be toned down for many country types... Should America have access to total war? and so on.
I still think military equipment and factories are way to easy for dirt poor nations to have access too and that we need a system for resource sanctioning.
Trade should also be less automated or more politically policed, like blocking out nations not just for war status and logistical blockage but also for that
nations stance toward your government. Some sort of focus or decision should be required for America to trade steel to the Soviets for example.

I agree AI needs to make better templets and less of them or delete the old and upgrade the unit, mostly in peace time.
Consolidating can be a code nightmare as AI doesn't seem to know what units are best once fielded and what units are best to consolidated.
In war they also make pick the units that are in most important strategic spots.
I think the AI also needs to learn that keeping my superior units from digging in/planning is not worth all the equipment and manpower with
constant single unit fails to the brink of retreating. This contradicts what Patton said about never wining by defending.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

There are so many things that could be done in a game that paid more detailed attention to economics and domestic politics. Controlling the level of mobilization is one thing that could be modeled better, as is the cost of fielding large armies. The USSR's army cost comparatively little in terms of logistical support to put in the field, compared to the US Army, which was (and still is) a complete resource hog. None of this is represented in the game. It matters, though, because by failing to represent the real costs of being at war, the game basically treats all countries more or less as equal. But in reality people in the USA would not have tolerated the severe levels of privation that people in the USSR endured.

 

[goodcigar]

One of the reasons for the terrible AI Division template I think is the XP system. They have to build crap Division to grind XP so they can build better Division. Just like the player. You can't just build the template you want. Never liked the system. XP only makes real life logical sense for Doctrine.

And most other people don't like it either based on the number of people who use "No XP" type mods on Workshop. It was first mod uploaded I think in 2016.

 

[Harin]

5.) Less prioritization of rifles and artillery; the AI needs to forward-plan for more expensive equipment (bombers and tanks) if it has the industry to build them, rather than just building to support its existing army.

This is a good point. The AI makes bad production choices. I suspect the AI is so bad at this, because it has to budget its decisions on today's military IC production, the daily budget, if you will. What if the AI was given a War Budget? Let me throw an idea out there.

tl:dnr version:

Give the AI two numbers. One, the number of days war will most likely occur. Two, how much military IC it will produce between now and war. Make the AI use these two numbers to make longer range production decisions, instead of the current system that seems to focus on todays production and today's shortfalls.

The more detailed version:

AI controlled countries have some process in play that tells them what focuses, decisions, spending of PP, etc... it will take in a game. Right after the AI chooses its path, usually on the first day, could the AI run this process as a thinking exercise, in other words not effecting the game, for the purpose of getting a date. We can call this the Path-Process. The AI runs down the path to the point it discovers a date the AI country will declare war on another country. This date is the main purpose of running this process. It will also provides some variables for the second process.

This Path-Process, most likely will encounter randomness due to weights on certain focuses, but that is true during the game, too. It is probably best to let the AI run the process just like it would in the game to get that date war may begin. Remember, when the AI runs this process, it does not effect the game at all. It just gives a date war may start. The in game date war starts may be different, because in the game, the AI may make different choices. That is ok, humans do the same thing.

The second process, the IC-Process, would be about computations. It would need to collect variables from the Path-Process to help it determine the maximum military IC output it can achieve before the war date. The Path-Process would let the AI know what free factories it might get, building bonuses from leaders, research, etc.. and the possible dates they occur. The AI could then compute what factory build out will give it the most military IC before the war.

The IC-Process would not be perfect. It is based on the Path-Process that will not exactly match the one the AI may actually choose in the game. Still, it is a lot more than the AI has to work on now and it follows a methodical approach an experienced player might take. Even without perfection, it gives the AI a definitive number to work with in the next process, the Budget-Process.

In the Budget-Process the AI can finally address the problem that @Paul.Ketcham pointed out in his post. The AI makes bad production choices. Here the AI begins with two very important numbers that changes everything. One, it knows how many days until war day. Second, it knows the total military IC production before war day. We can call that the War Budget. Instead of the AI trying to project production off today's production, it could use the War Budget. The Budget-Process itself needs more words than I should type here, but here the AI has a much wider space to determine what to build.

The imagination can go wild with how the AI could use this data on making better production decisions. The Path-Process gives the AI number of days. The IC-Path gives a budget. With these two numbers, the AI no longer has to use daily production numbers to fix today's shortages, creating a production nightmare it never wakes up from.

For example: January 1st, 1936, the AI is producing 100 IC a day and is short 10,000 infantry kits. Those two numbers are what the current AI deals with and tries to fix that immediate problem. Imagine if the AI did not see production problems as a daily problem, but instead saw that war may be declared in 645 days and there is a military budget of (some huge number). Today's shortage of 10,000 infantry kits do not have to be solved today, just before war day. There is plenty in the budget to get the job done. Better decisions can be made.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

The AI isnt strong enough to be limited in numbers, Mass wave attacks are all it can do. If you limited the numbers it can field, You'd only need a couple good encirclements and you're in Berlin.

 

[ThaHoward]

So based upon earlier post here, I made it so that UK, France, USA, Japan, USSR had historical(ish) divisions ans gave them some equipment to start with (at etc). Also qued some divisions for them. Other than one or two weird garrison divisons they habe stuck to their divisons and not made any significant division spam.

Edit: This is as of now in start of 1940. Greek-Allied invasion of Turkey have happened. Plus a "Balkan war" between Germany, Hungary, Italy, Bulgaria v Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Only checked it once, but it may seem that just expanding divisions with AA, AT, arty and support companies (along with equipment) may solve the issue - at the very least until the war starts.

 

[seattle]

Vicky2 had small standing armies. When war breaks out, based on your military spending etc. the majority of divs spawn when mobilizing.
Why not do likewise in HoI4?

Mods like BICE and Hearts of Oak offer settings to eliminate irrelevant nations (South America etc. gone completely) or to hinder the a.i. from producing units there.

Point is: we got hundreds of divs on the map that will never see combat in 99% of play throughs. Should be an option at least if you want to play historically.

Another point is that divs should be of historical size. Yet you have hundreds of divs with like 2-3k soldiers. Make the a.i. build 10k divs.

 

[Emren]

Another way to limit division spam could be to introduce an ‘Officers’ currency. HOI3 had that concept, and I believe it could be brought back. I’m not talking about the portrait RPG-style generals that we have, but all the levels below. National spirits could limit the number of available officers of minor nations, thereby limiting the number of divisions (OR Battalions!) that could be fielded. It’s an artificial hardcap, sure, but it’s one that’s relatively simple to program and implement, and which doesn’t add a lot of calculation cycles compared to some other ideas here.

 

[Mr.Bajskorv]

I'd like to see the lackluster domestic politics of the game overhauled because I think that could partly help address this issue. Historically, domestic political pressures did limit the ability of govts, especially in democracies, to fully mobilize their potential national manpower. For example, in game Canada can field a couple dozen divisions easily, but historically they only sent about 6 divisions overseas, largely because the issue of conscription was extremely polarizing domestically. Or fascist Italy, where political issues really hobbled the war effort in a way the game doesn't simulate, although I suspect the eventual Italian focus tree update will add some negative national spirits to represent these problems. Despite being a dictatorship that was not constrained by formal democratic processes, the regime's war effort never enjoyed widespread popular support, which meant that people regularly evaded the draft and were generally unwilling to risk their lives for a cause they did not identify with. When the Allies invaded the Italian mainland the govt quickly collapsed, and Italy fought a civil war as a result.

The game often allows countries to mobilize ludicrous percentages of their population that rarely happened historically for political reasons. Sure the game restricts the highest conscription laws with war support thresholds and imposes harsh economic penalties for doing so, but trying to conscript 25% of the population after a mid tier nation has already taken millions of casualties should realistically have severe political consequences, like a big hit to stability and/or war support. At the very least stability and war support should be more dynamic and reflect the state of the national war effort. Heavy casualties, lengthy wars, increased mobilization, etc, should start to eat into political enthusiasm for fighting, especially if a nation is clearly losing. In short, small nations that field absurd numbers of divisions should be teetering on the brink of civil war.

The the biggest flaw or mistake in the HOI4 design is rigid Fascist, Communist, Democracy, Un-aligned system. I remember Hoi2 where you had many ideologies and they each had their own limitations. The cabinet and the law system should be changed, it would help to address many issues.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

The the biggest flaw or mistake in the HOI4 design is rigid Fascist, Communist, Democracy, Un-aligned system. I remember Hoi2 where you had many ideologies and they each had their own limitations. The cabinet and the law system should be changed, it would help to address many issues.

It was done to simplify gameplay and make more it accessable. People don't need to get into the politics of it and can jump into any nation knowning that whichever of the paths they want to go down its not too much fuss and you can see from the focus tree what kind of gameplay you are going to get. allowing players to focus on the core which is the War itself.

The games popularity only goes up year on year which I would take to mean the silent majority of people prefer it this way. Business wise its been a good choice for PDX and is unlikely to change in this iteration.

 

[Vlad123]

It was done to simplify gameplay and make more it accessable. People don't need to get into the politics of it and can jump into any nation knowning that whichever of the paths they want to go down its not too much fuss and you can see from the focus tree what kind of gameplay you are going to get. allowing players to focus on the core which is the War itself.

The games popularity only goes up year on year which I would take to mean the silent majority of people prefer it this way. Business wise its been a good choice for PDX and is unlikely to change in this iteration.

It depends: if the price to pay is the efficiency of the game itself (which is unplayable vanilla, and if you iron, you can't even use the console command to fix bugs) I think PDX will change the way, but it can change it in 2 ways:
1) on time and save and the whole shack.
2) he changes it when it's too late and a competitor has arrived and knocks out PDX