In my humble opinion, Churchill as a leader needs a modifier similar to Hitler's +25% PP. Probably something similair like national unity boost. He really was an excellent speech maker and war leader, but at the minute he's just a portrait.
Churchill needs a modifier
- Thread starter CharlesV
- 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.
I guess, but then Halifax would need something in order to counteract that with Chamberlain's resignation/death, and anything like AI Focus on Peace or Same Ideology Monthly Opinion (based on his real-life role) would seem pretty soft.
In order to make up for all of this, Paradox would probably be pressured into doing the same for Mussolini, Hirohito, Chamberlain etc and (knowing them) it would probably be a whole other DLC.
In order to make up for all of this, Paradox would probably be pressured into doing the same for Mussolini, Hirohito, Chamberlain etc and (knowing them) it would probably be a whole other DLC.
Last edited:
Stalin also should have some. In fact, that is more coming not to personal traits, but more to governmental type. In democracy half of world loves you, but you lose some PP (well, simply not get possible maximum) just because you waste your time on political struggle.
Like what zombie said, eventually I would like fundamental differences in gameplay between Democracy / Autocratic / Fascist / Communist.
But that’s a long way down the road.
Are democracies really building factories for arms production? Or are private/semi private firms winning contracts to produce arms? And is the government designing those or are indivuals who try to sell the government on their design?
What was the public/private industry relationship like in Nazi Germany/Japan/Italy—was it altogether similar?
However as it is, the current construction/production/research system is good enough!
But that’s a long way down the road.
Are democracies really building factories for arms production? Or are private/semi private firms winning contracts to produce arms? And is the government designing those or are indivuals who try to sell the government on their design?
What was the public/private industry relationship like in Nazi Germany/Japan/Italy—was it altogether similar?
However as it is, the current construction/production/research system is good enough!
I'd say, that system in general works pretty odd. PP exists and has some purpose, but there is too much things to invest it "right yesterday", taking into account pretty small income.
For one, he should get the dictator trait. He was always one, no matter what way you look at it.
Actually, I can make a sizable list of all the leaders that need the dictator trait, because they were one. Here's some:
- Francisco Franco
- Joseph Stalin
- Ion Antonescu
- Miklos Horthy
- Phillipe Petain
- Rafael Trujillo
- Chiang Kai-shek
- Mao Zedong
- Wang Jingwei
- Puyi
- Getulio Vargas.
- Antonio Salazar
- Josip Broz Tito
- Matias Rakosi
- Kim Il-sung
Last edited:
In the new decisions mechanic they account d for Winston's speeches. As the British you spend political power to to do a speech which gives other bonuses. @CharlesV
Hitler has the Dictator trait because the way Nazi Germany was set up politically and economically it was literally only him who could organize anything. Nobody else had the power to do anything that he did not specifically give them. I'm not doing justice to the specific intricacies in this small comment, but I can assure you that this does not generalize to any dictatorial government. One could argue Stalin post purge has the same situation, or Kim Il-Sung but the majority of your list does not.
To try and give you an idea here, if Hitler decided to screw off for 12 months Nazi Germany would literally come to a grinding stand still. The Military couldn't Military anything, the industry could industry anything, the Ministers couldn't minister anything without Hitlers explicit approval. A good example is literally every offensive the Germans did needed Hitlers approval, and any General that did an offensive without Hitlers approval was either A) fired/shot if they didn't have the Prestige to whether his ire, or B) would get reassigned/demoted, or C) yelled at for a day or so. Some examples:
- The OKW couldn't active Panzers reserves in France following D-Day until Hitler authorized it
- von Manstein was fired following disobeying Hitlers order to defend Kharkov*.
- von Paulus couldn't withdraw from Stalingrad unless Hitler gave him permission
- the OKW, OKH, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe were not allowed to requisition equipment unless he allowed it
- the OKW, OKH, Kriegsmarine, and Luftwaffe were not allowed to do R&D unless he allowed it
- industrial contracts could not be given unless he allowed it
- airborne units couldn't be used unless he allowed it, even when it made perfect tactical/strategic sense to use them
- etc
Francisco Franco, Miklos Horthy, Phillipe Petain, Antonio Salazar, Ion Antonescu, Josip Broz Tito, and Chiang Kai-Shek in particular did not have the same level of arbitrary power and government structure that needed them to function. Also I should not in the case of Petain, he is often regarded as being almost entirely a figure head by the time he is in charge of Vichy France so him getting Dictatorial bonus is extra weird, that would be like Edward the VIII giving +PP if you take the Oswald Mosley option when you go fascist.
*He was reinstated later, but thats mostly because he was an excellent General with a lot of Prestige so Hitler didn't want to take the PR hit, nor did he want to take the Military effectiveness hit after see what his removal caused.
Thanks for the insight - I now see why the Dictator trait isn't more widespread. In the case of Chiang Kai-shek, his status as the face of Chinese resistance during the war with Japan meant that there was a high chance the Japanese would try to assassinate him. If I recall correctly, Li Zongren and Bai Chongxi were marked as potential successors, partly for their military competence.
If this is the case, though, then perhaps the Dictator trait should be renamed to make it clear that it only applies to dictators who really are in full control of their governments. Or simply rename it to "Fuhrer" and make it a German Reich-exclusive trait.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
If we're assigning traits for oratory ability and engaging speeches then Sir Oswald Mosley deserves a trait similar to Hitler's far more than Churchill. The CONTENT of Churchill's speeches is top-notch stuff, but his tone is always so flat and monotonous. Mosley was passionate, he connected with his audiences, and he had one HELL of a vocabulary - he brought tens of thousands of ordinary Englishmen to their feet weeping and shouting his punchy one-liners at Earl's Court. I imagine he'd give more political power at the cost of low war support seeing as he was so uncompromisingly anti-war.
Though Hitler's trait reads 'Dictator', there's obviously something far more unique about what it entails because there were a LOT of dictators in the '30s and '40s. Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin all exercised their dictatorial positions to more-or-less carry out their will, just as Hitler did (but as Otto pointed out Hitler had much more executive control than any other dictator in the world). I interpret the Dictator trait to be a blend of both Hitler's spellbinding charisma and his ability to do whatever he pleased as Fuhrer.
As Il Duce, Mussolini only officially had one authority to answer to (the King) but was more or less completely free to do as he liked. Mussolini was NOT the orator that Hitler was - he was a powerful presence to be sure, but he did not have the gift of the silver tongue.
Stalin, following the great purges, assumed ultimate authority over the Politburo and most matters of state relating to the USSR - but he was an even worse orator than Mussolini. A fine writer, but he was quite shy when it came to speeches.
Oswald Mosley was the greatest orator to grace Britain since David Lloyd George, but his proposal for government saw him sharing a dictatorship with four other central authorities (not to mention the monarchy). Even though he was nearly as gifted in guile as Hitler, he would not have had nearly as much authority over his government as Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin did.
The 'Dictator' trait should be renamed to Führer if it's going to remain exclusive to Hitler, which it probably should unless a weakened version was distributed to other leaders with a cult of personality and plenty of executive control (in my humble opinion).
Though Hitler's trait reads 'Dictator', there's obviously something far more unique about what it entails because there were a LOT of dictators in the '30s and '40s. Mussolini, Franco, and Stalin all exercised their dictatorial positions to more-or-less carry out their will, just as Hitler did (but as Otto pointed out Hitler had much more executive control than any other dictator in the world). I interpret the Dictator trait to be a blend of both Hitler's spellbinding charisma and his ability to do whatever he pleased as Fuhrer.
As Il Duce, Mussolini only officially had one authority to answer to (the King) but was more or less completely free to do as he liked. Mussolini was NOT the orator that Hitler was - he was a powerful presence to be sure, but he did not have the gift of the silver tongue.
Stalin, following the great purges, assumed ultimate authority over the Politburo and most matters of state relating to the USSR - but he was an even worse orator than Mussolini. A fine writer, but he was quite shy when it came to speeches.
Oswald Mosley was the greatest orator to grace Britain since David Lloyd George, but his proposal for government saw him sharing a dictatorship with four other central authorities (not to mention the monarchy). Even though he was nearly as gifted in guile as Hitler, he would not have had nearly as much authority over his government as Hitler, Mussolini, or Stalin did.
The 'Dictator' trait should be renamed to Führer if it's going to remain exclusive to Hitler, which it probably should unless a weakened version was distributed to other leaders with a cult of personality and plenty of executive control (in my humble opinion).
Last edited:
Churchill is an obvious one: +% war support. It unlocks just the sort of laws that Churchill was urging Britain to pass.
That's going overboard. This is HoI4, not CK2. In the modern world >99% of the time a head of state or government won't somehow make the country's factories build 20% faster etc.
A single trait is enough and even then only leaders that really stood out in some category as an individual should get one.
They have revamped the traits and peronalities of the General Staff.
Political Leaders should get something similar.
Political Leaders should get something similar.
Can imagine the multiplayer allied pressure on FRA to capitulate quickly so ENG finally gets that super buffed Churchill to lead.
Yeah, another reason I'm against stacking multiple traits is that all it leads is to stupid levels of min-maxing. People already swap out Horthy as fascist Hungary in an attempt to get a good traited leader. And that's with current fairly traitless version.
In the base game, Roosevelt and Hitler have traits (possibly more as well, need to check), neither of which affect the game too much - they're more for historical accuracy. Things may change with the new mission system etc, but at the moment giving all the leaders at least a single trait (weighted towards accuracy rather than gameplay) would probably increase immersion.
A single trait is fine, but 3 is already a bit too much unless they tone the bonuses down. If you look at previous HoIs the minister traits were a lot more balanced there. You couldn't have something ridiculous like +20% construction speed on a randomly generated PM of some banana republic, unlike in this game.
I think a far easier option would to give him an acceptance of fascist diplomacy modifier.
But that would probably shake things up a bit in the event of him leading Britain in peacetime, when in reality he wanted peace (as opposed to admiring/accepting Hitler) and so would probably still have been hostile towards the fascists if Britain had got the peace he had wanted.