Can Africa Be Made Interesting?
- Thread starter SacremPyrobolum
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
This forum is literally littered with posts complaining about the AI + illogical occupations. A new one pops up reliably every two-three days.
They're addressing 3 ways wars, so to speak. They've confirmed no change to war participation (downgrade in confidence). They have yet to confirm that wrong-capitulations are fixed (downgrade in confidence). I haven't seen anything to suggest stuff like territory going to the wrong nation while fighting in the same faction is even considered an issue to the devs (major downgrade in confidence).
From reading old threads, these are all longstanding issues from before I started playing the game, apparently dating back to release date. Without even explicit acknowledgement of them and stated emphasis on fixing them, why should a reasonable person think the dev diaries suggest it would be fixed in 1.5?
Most people don't even mention one of them when listing top 3 issues with the game, which is baffling. They're core mechanics that provably don't work with sufficiently high confidence in that fact that I doubt devs themselves could reasonably claim otherwise. At least one of them shows up in every game, and usually at least 2.
The problem is that you bring up a large issue (AI) and then complain that 3 small sub-issues aren't being taken care of, then use that as evidence the larger issue isn't being taken care of. That's illogical.
- I didn't bring up AI (someone else mentioned it). I consider it an issue too, but in a different scope. AI can always get better, at non-linear increase in cost, and unless it's off the deep end spectrum in one or the other direction you'll still have players that consider it too weak, adequate, or too hard. This is much harder than implementing functional rules.
- Now that we've established that I didn't "bring up AI", I counter-claim that none of the 3 are "small sub-issues". All 3 are core mechanics, all 3 have a substantial impact on who has access to resources and IC, during war (occupations + caps) and after (participation + occupations due to 10x cost rule). These are every-game broken mechanics that influence access to resources for upwards of 1/3 to 1/2 the time players are playing the game.
Participation is so unrepresentative of actual contribution to the war that anything post-war is a complete joke...yet the game has content and focuses for after WW2. Maybe the MP community doesn't care, and at this point it *can't*, the game gives post-war rewards with no functional correlation to player performance. Playing on when the game ignores performance is not meaningful.
It's a total farce and no, the AI and poor naval balance are not more significant issues by any reasonable standard. I'm not sure a self-consistent basis for prioritization to push them higher even exists. Maybe it does and nobody has mentioned it yet though. It'd be tough to make a serious case that broken mechanics that actively disincentivize faction alignment outright in a WW2 game based around factions is "minor" though.
This is certainly a valid issue.
But until Paradox actually creates victory conditions. Or the ability for players to define their own. What is the point?
I don't think I've played until 1948 or the cessation of all hostilities since 2016.
You'll never get people to agree with you if you identify anyone who doesn't as unreasonable off the bat. You need to work on your persuasion skills.
Make Somali, Eritrea and eventually Abyssinia integrated puppets (representing AOI) and allow the raising of the local troops represented in that fancy GIF. If you roll back to 1.3.3 and check out my outdated mod, you have those colonies more accurately represented. It makes Africa more "interesting."
Complaining that I call a quoted statement out as "unreasonable" after using a strawman argument to claim my position isn't logical is pretty amusing, especially after neglecting to build an argument in the same post.
The conditions required for actual persuasion on the internet are pretty steep. It's more "rant at overt misprioritization" than "post thinking I'm going to actually change minds" in this case. I consider it quite likely that you're aware of the problems I mention, and less likely for a typical poster but still likely that you have a rough idea of the math involved in terms of who gets wrong-resources. This impression is due to the fact that you're a years-long registered poster with obvious experience and knowledge across multiple paradox titles...likelihood I'm telling you something you don't know is slim by my estimation.
But we still disagree. If it were just you or just this game it would be one thing, but issues similar to the ones I'm ranting about are pervasive in the strategy genre for every game I've played in recent history. Devs and fans alike provably set DLC > core mechanics and controls/UI. That's true in HOI 4, EU 4, every civ title in the past decade, and a number of lesser-known titles. In each case, it's trivial to prove that an aspect of control, UI, or mechanic doesn't work. Only the most blindfolded fans disagree that there's an issue, but the prioritization is odd...and so bad that the devs will simply not update a wrong-tooltip for years in some cases.
That brings us back to the discussion at hand. AI-straw distraction aside, the main reason I used "unreasonable" is that you hand-waved what I stated as "minor issues" while classifying other issues as "major", without presenting any basis for that evaluation...all while stating my position isn't logical! That's silly enough that I'm calling this out, as I don't believe self-consistent standards could classify the naval imbalance as a bigger game issue for example. I could be proven wrong, if someone presents these standards. If that happens we can have a discussion, maybe even my mind gets changed.
Simply stating something is minor or major without basis for it *is* unreasonable in this discussion, however. It's the same as me claiming that the AI is a minor issue, or that the state of Africa is a more major issue than the US focus tree. I consider those claims silly, but if I were to make them, there would be an expectation that I have basis for doing so. Same goes with calling broken core mechanics a "minor" issue.
If you want to see an actual persuasive debate, the first step is to have a seat at the table and present an argument in the first place
. At present, achievement hunter/SP do depend on post-war outcomes in some cases. The nuke achievements frequently see the end of WW2 before they're even possible. They're not the only ones. Maybe players want the post-war picture to reflect their efforts too. When you make a game go until '48 by default design, having its mechanics work until the end date is part of the experience.
Of course, the other two issues I mentioned directly influence WW2 itself, sometimes significantly.
You know very well why I said that. Nothing happened in South America, Africa and Asia.
Since you know soooooo much about ww2, with pics and articles and all the rest you should know who did what. Isn’t it?
We don’t want to change history.
Don't want to change history? What has Paradox been doing the past 3 DLC's and all the updates????????????
it's all ahistorical, whether you like it or not. And the Middle East has a lot of potential.
And i hope you were joking about nothing happening in Asia....
I don't see why that's a problem. It's not like other Paradox games where you're just playing through history. Hearts of Iron IV is about World War II, and when World War II is over, the story is over.
Now, if what you really want is a grand strategy set in the WW2 period that plays more like Paradox's other games, then that's something I can get on board with.
What happens at the end of WW2 is modeled, but it is modeled very poorly.
The game affords the possibility of WW3/hostilities rather than a cold war. In the event that this occurs, it'd be nice if the game still works!
Africa could be more interesting with the addition of AEF ("L'Afrique Equatoriale Française"), who was administered by Felix Eboué during WW2.
Basically, it was the work of Eboué who make the AEF a stronghold with a good army for De Gaulle, he was the first to answer his call, he mobilize an army and a strong administration in the region to fight against the pro-Vichy administrator of western French colonies. And it was from this region that France regain it's power.
So, the AEF could become an interesting faction, with the choice to stay loyal to Vichy, side like historically with De Gaulle, or even tried to carve it's own path under the "indigenous politic" of Eboué.
Basically, it was the work of Eboué who make the AEF a stronghold with a good army for De Gaulle, he was the first to answer his call, he mobilize an army and a strong administration in the region to fight against the pro-Vichy administrator of western French colonies. And it was from this region that France regain it's power.
So, the AEF could become an interesting faction, with the choice to stay loyal to Vichy, side like historically with De Gaulle, or even tried to carve it's own path under the "indigenous politic" of Eboué.
Africa, other than North Africa, was an relatively unimportant backwater in WW2. The African independence movements were almost all long after the time period of HOI4.
The biggest issue is keeping the Axis from shipping troops on kamikaze runs to Africa after France falls and they have nothing to do until they attack Russia. I want Africa to be as unappealing as a box of rocks.
North Africa is pretty important to hold. Sub-Saharan, no. Not much incentive for anything going on there other than trade interdiction if it gets routed around Cape Hope.
In NAfrica you have air bases in range of much of the Axis, control of Suez, what little steel France will have left, and contesting straits of Gibraltar. Axis controlling this is a large advantage.
We are playing a War Game. It isnt a lackadaisical trip through the 1st half of the 20th century. It is a titanic struggle for the very soul of humanity.
There is little point in prosecuting wars until global peace because the game is over as soon as you do.
I see two main reasons why victory conditions should be implemented eventually (well 3, but the third just opens up a window for more content).
I see victory conditions adding to immersion as well a improving gameplay, particularly for MP.
Also, I can only speak to a historical playing of the game.
One major problem with HOI4, especially in MP, is the game often plays out UK/USA/FRA/USSR v GER/ITA/JAP (+2 minors).
The actual war was a lot closer to:
UK/FRA/USA v GER/ITA
GER/ITA v USSR
JAP v USA/UK
JAP v China
With the note that UK/USA/FRA all wanted China and USSR to win, but only just, they wanted the communists and fascists to bleed each other to a nub.
That dynamic, where the Western Allies knowingly only fund USSR and China enough to avoid their own destruction. This would also likely require some rebalancing, likely making fascists a little stronger thus requiring LL, but that is another discussion.
Further, this would help model the race to "liberate" Europe. The UK wanted landings in the Balkans to stave off the Red Advance west--USA was more interested in not sacrificing more Americans than needed (among other factors).
This could be achieved, generally, by:
Western Allies: USA/FRA/UK/ Commonwealth
Axis:
Europe: GER/ITA/HUN
Co-Prosperity Sphere: JAP/MAN
Commintern:
USSR
PRC
China
(DOD minor could sub for Hungary, China warlord could sub for China, Finland, Spain and other belligerents as they get focus trees)
To Win:
Western Allies: Fascists must capitulate; must have more victory points than Commintern
Axis: Must not have capitulated by VE and VJ days respectively
Commintern: Fascists must capitulate; must have more victory points than Western Allies
China sub victory: Japan off Chinese Mainland; More victory points than PRC by the end of hostilities
PRC sub victory: Japan off Chinese Mainland; More victory points than China by the end of hostilities
victory points would be something pegged to CIC/MIC/Population under a given ideology and war participation etc. I'd leave it to my betters to devise the formula.
The immersion would come from fearing the communists almost as much as he fascists, it'd come from that moment when you know youve won WW2 and so begins the phase of securing the new world order.
The gameplay seems obvious to me. It would change the dynamic between the ideologies adding a new strategic level of thought to the game.
It also opens the Door to the Cold War. One could make the UN in their game and set up a NWO....conveniently Paradox could make a perfect segway into Victoria 3 : The Cold War
In SP I can do all this now, but it's all in my head. And I suppose I should rephrase, do I do this now.
But it would be a nice function to have in game for MP. As at least when I was playing MP it was EVERYONE GANG UP AND ORGANIZE TOGETHER TO BEAT THE NAZIS! (which seems like a good argument as to why a Germany may exploit to keep up)