Well, regardless, I do not see how it in anyway discredits my reasonable but still seemingly most controversial assertion there should be greater adherence to basic standards as to what is in and what is out.
- 2
- 1
English Essay: What are your views on alternate history content?
- Thread starter Thrawn000000
- 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.
No...
Yeah, exactly
Well, thank you so much to everyone who's responded so far, even after <24 hours there's lots to write about (even the intrinsic value of art and Paul Blart Mall Cop, coming out of left field)
- 1
It is an extreme examples it belies the assertion that everything is subjective. Hope you post whatever it is you write.
Last edited:
- 1
I like alt-history when it makes a reasonable and well-explained attempt to justify its plausibility. E.g. The leftists winning out in France and the country more directly intervening in the Spanish Civil War isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination; while Douglas MacArthur, whose father literally fought for the union in the American civil war, suddenly deciding to remake the Confederate States of America doesn't make much sense at all.
Even when alt-history may be plausible. timescales can often be the breaking point for many alt-history paths since they need everything major to happen before WW2 kicks off. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that after a brutal civil war, any country would be able to completely repeal the old system, institute their own successfully, rebuild the entire economy, quash all resistance and be ready to start military adventurism in the space of a couple years. Spain's white terror only started winding down in the late 1940s and their economy didn't even recover to pre-civil-war levels until the late 1950s. The only scenario where I could plausibly see it happening is when a nation sees a large, impending, existential threat to its national security at Communsit China did with the Korean war but the vast majority of alt history trees see countries going on wars of conquest.
Even when alt-history may be plausible. timescales can often be the breaking point for many alt-history paths since they need everything major to happen before WW2 kicks off. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that after a brutal civil war, any country would be able to completely repeal the old system, institute their own successfully, rebuild the entire economy, quash all resistance and be ready to start military adventurism in the space of a couple years. Spain's white terror only started winding down in the late 1940s and their economy didn't even recover to pre-civil-war levels until the late 1950s. The only scenario where I could plausibly see it happening is when a nation sees a large, impending, existential threat to its national security at Communsit China did with the Korean war but the vast majority of alt history trees see countries going on wars of conquest.
- 3
- 1
I think it sucks up a lot of precious development resources that would be better used developing historical content. The game's been in development for almost 10 years, 5.5 years post-release, and they still haven't covered all the nations that had a significant impact on WW2. Also the historical coverage that is there is not very deep. AI Germany attacking west in 1939 and AI Japan declaring war on the US in May 1941 every single game on "historical mode" says a lot about the state of HoI4 as a WW2 game.
It has certainly increased HoI4's popularity (sales), which drives further development, though I'm not sure that matters much to me personally when most of the country content we get is stuff I don't care about.
Getting new mechanics is nice, but again, a lot of the new mechanics PDX has added over the years have been half-baked and broken in some way. Look at espionage, the naval rework, and now the tank designer with its new meta of "tanks are no longer worth building, just spam motorised", though I'm sure they'll rebalance the latter. Though do they fix the "only this particular thing is worth building" mentality of it remains to be seen. Based on their track record, I'm doubtful. They haven't with the naval rework, and that came out almost 3 years ago. Spies being completely overpowered with tech stealing has been in the game for almost 2 years. The naval rework ultimately didn't change much; the meta is still doomstacking and spamming 2-3 types of ships. The AI doesn't know how to use naval mines, despite them being one of the hallmark features of the MtG DLC. Espionage is a tedious micromanagement hell. Ironic, as PDX's reasoning for leaving espionage out from HoI4 at release (it was present at release in at least HoI3) was exactly that they wanted to avoid it being tedious. They actually made it worse in that aspect than in any other HoI game.
And so on.
Anyway, to get back on-topic: I've always believed that HoI should be a WW2 game first and foremost, not a sandbox game set in the time period, which is what PDX wants HoI4 to be.
- 4
- 1
- 1
I mean, what else am I going to do with my time? Work? Engage in actually useful discussions?
- 1
Because HOI was not designed with that in mind. HOI, first and foremost, is war-focused game, where production of war material, logistics, troop placement, and movement take priority over everything else. Look at diplomacy options: they are non-existent. There are next to zero tools for AI to judge geopolitical situation (generating WT is the only one and mostly works on democracies, but not to the point of forming a proper coalition in time) or react to it. Opinion does next to noting, and often pales in comparison to the hard-coded "strategical reasons"...Since this feels like it comes up every month, I may as well entertain the idea
Initial game rules already pre-divide world into historical factions, and when said factions fail to form or their enemies fail to act - nothing really happens. No consolidation of China when it becomes obvious that Japan won't attack, no intervention from GB into communist uprising of USA or France, no other power to step in if GB falls apart - all alt-history scenarios happen in a vacuum, which is not how history works. Sure, it would be a monumental task to account for all the possibilities (or code in AI that would react in a plausible manner to changes in geopolitical situation), but that is what separates good alt-history scenarios from "let's bring zombie Rasputin back to power!" memes.
Now, I won't even try to argue that EU4 AI works perfectly fine (far from that, in fact), but, at least, the game itself was designed around the concept of countries interacting with each other through diplomacy. Turning HOI into something like that reminds me of a British rotor trailer - a good idea in theory, that failed utterly the moment it had to face reality.
- 5
- 1
See this is what I don't understand; HOI4 itself from launch has always been a sandbox war game, the closest the game gets to railroaded is the focus tree system. I don't see how the production of war materiel and fighting a war means it has to be a WW2 simulator at all personally. In fact, I'd argue it should be used for alt-history purpose in that context, as it opens up a lot of possible routes to take the combat of WW2 into different theatres. Pre-updates for all the majors, so v 1.0, you could simply increase support for X party in the UK and flip, getting an event to change ideology; it's just more refined now. What you're arguing for is something I also want, that being greater diplomatic options, but they don't inherently shape if the game is historically focused or not.
Opinion and troop count are usually the only two factors in deciding events (if it's not just down to RNG) but it could, with a bit of work, be applied to most if not all events. I do agree that the international impact of most alt-history paths leaves a lot to be desired, and there's some precedent on work being done to assist this. Some of the more recent trees have allowed different ideology faction joining should nations flip (Bulgaria joining the Central Powers and not the Axis, or the Netherlands joining a French communist faction) which is a step in the right direction. Same thing with Germany flipping, France (should) flip to communism but rarely does because of focus priority, which is unfortunate. A lot of these could be simple checks - but that doesn't necessarily mean the game wasn't designed for it, it just means the game isn't fully supportive of integrating every route (I'd argue that it's almost impossible).
And again, on the US civil war, the issue with the older content is just that - it's older. MTGs UK and US trees IMO are severely lacking in a number of places and feel like not a lot of thought has been put into them design-wise, whereas the 2nd Russian Civil Wars are designed very well and are much more engaging than the US'.
Just to touch on the "meme" paths, again I don't see what the problem is if they offer good gameplay and a unique and interesting storyline. Anything outside of tactical and strategic alt-history would become a meme and that would make the game very boring very quickly. Personally I think a reason this game has lasted as long as it has is because of the open design that has always been present.
TL;DR - I don't think HOI4 has ever portrayed itself to be a war-game simulator and I'd argue that it was only assumed to be one because similar games of WW2 are usually sims. Focus tree international interaction is for sure a fixable issue and has been seen to work in a number of cases (Berlin-Moscow Axis is by far the best) but I imagine there will always be edge cases.
- 1
Just to touch on the "meme" paths, again I don't see what the problem is if they offer good gameplay and a unique and interesting storyline.
Unique and interesting indeed, just not In a good way.
Unique and interesting indeed, just not In a good way.
Off topic but addressing this thread...
Concerning starting resources in the game. Yes resources have been altered somewhat compared to what countries really made. However, production of certain tanks did not cost exactly 2 iron and 1 tungsten either. Since production is greatly abstracted the developers have also altered the resource scheme to try and approximate the costs to certain countries for producing those type of units. Having everyone making exactly their historic levels of resources would mean little since equipment production resource costs are not very refined at all.
Concerning industrial capacity, Yes Germany's economy is bigger than it was in reality. That is because Germany's expertise in conducting warfare is difficult to represent in a game like this.
In this game all countries get the same units as everyone else. They all build the same factories. They use the same doctrines. They all have aircraft that perform the same at the same tier of research. German Infantry battalions are essentially the same as Italian and Luxemburg battalions. In fact any minor country can concentrate their research in a couple of areas and have better combat units than the major powers who excelled in certain types of warfare.
Therefore, IMHO the designers had to alter what they could so that certain countries would be powerful enough to play their proper roles. And thus something akin to WWII would break out for the player to interact with.
On topic...
I will summarize my opinion on the Alternate History options in this game. Like many have said, I enjoy alternate history just fine. It is alternate realities that bother me. Hence, for me to enjoy something it has to at least be plausible. I do not like what the developers have done to the game in the alt history realm. As more and more outlandish content is added, I am experiencing less and less of the work they put into the game. Why? I am forced to play historical or else nothing resembling WWII happens at all in this game. It is too time consuming to run through years of build up, just to have the other countries ruin a perfectly challenging game with some sort of crazy decision that makes no sense and allows for an easy victory.
If anything, I would love for PDX to add a slider for "Historical" options. Then you could subtly adjust the odds that ahistorical events happen instead of it being an on off button.
Concerning starting resources in the game. Yes resources have been altered somewhat compared to what countries really made. However, production of certain tanks did not cost exactly 2 iron and 1 tungsten either. Since production is greatly abstracted the developers have also altered the resource scheme to try and approximate the costs to certain countries for producing those type of units. Having everyone making exactly their historic levels of resources would mean little since equipment production resource costs are not very refined at all.
Concerning industrial capacity, Yes Germany's economy is bigger than it was in reality. That is because Germany's expertise in conducting warfare is difficult to represent in a game like this.
In this game all countries get the same units as everyone else. They all build the same factories. They use the same doctrines. They all have aircraft that perform the same at the same tier of research. German Infantry battalions are essentially the same as Italian and Luxemburg battalions. In fact any minor country can concentrate their research in a couple of areas and have better combat units than the major powers who excelled in certain types of warfare.
Therefore, IMHO the designers had to alter what they could so that certain countries would be powerful enough to play their proper roles. And thus something akin to WWII would break out for the player to interact with.
On topic...
I will summarize my opinion on the Alternate History options in this game. Like many have said, I enjoy alternate history just fine. It is alternate realities that bother me. Hence, for me to enjoy something it has to at least be plausible. I do not like what the developers have done to the game in the alt history realm. As more and more outlandish content is added, I am experiencing less and less of the work they put into the game. Why? I am forced to play historical or else nothing resembling WWII happens at all in this game. It is too time consuming to run through years of build up, just to have the other countries ruin a perfectly challenging game with some sort of crazy decision that makes no sense and allows for an easy victory.
If anything, I would love for PDX to add a slider for "Historical" options. Then you could subtly adjust the odds that ahistorical events happen instead of it being an on off button.
- 5
- 1
This is a perfect, irrefutable indictment against the charge that prioritizing this stuff does not adversely anyone because those who want to play what HOI4 has been billed to be for almost 20 years can always choose not to select anything but historical.
- 1
So much this. I tried to learn how to manage the new supply system with a game as Italy. By late 1937, A civil war had replaced Nazi Germany with Neutral/Monarchy Germany, the United Kingdom had turned Facist, a democratic Japan had all but defeated Imperial Japan and Republican Spain had defeated Franco/Facist Spain in mere weeks ... *sight
Like many people I do like reasonable alternative history. As I said in a recent thread, I did like the 1.0 focus trees as they porposed reasonable alternative scenario. Since then I actually hate the Focus Trees and I do believe they are harming the game a lot.
Even if you are not an WW2 history enthousiast, they are far too complex and obscure. Either you don't know a country during this time period and so you are completely at loss in face of the Focus Tree. As literraly everybody in front of Mexico Focus Tree. Or you are familiar with the countryh because it is your own or for whatever reason and so you do realize the Focus Tree is not only complete alternative history but also don't make any sense at all with social democrats depicted as hard core communist revolutionnaries, royalists depicted as facists while actual fascists are depicted as neutral/royalists, etc etc. In short words, it is just bad alt history. Often it feels more like mod content than real devs content. Something along the line of Lux Invicta for CK2 (I love the mod btw).
- 3
- 1
What's wrong with content that's fun and interesting? Genuinely wondering, because being anti-content for the sake of the mythical ""historical accuracy"" would just mean you see the exact same game, over and over.
- The UK will never surrender as you'll never be able to overwhelm or destroy the RN.
- Germany will never win against the USSR; it was impossible.
- Japan will always lose to the US and the Allies the Pacific.
- Only a handful of powers would be playable, with the majority of the world extremely boring to play.
At some point historical accuracy has to take a backseat for gameplay, otherwise you end up with a simulator (which again, HOI4 has never been and never has claimed to be)
"meme" paths here are being equated into something they're not. Like I said in my example, if a player Greece occupies Turkey under a fascist state that harkens back to a lot of ancient traditions, how implausible would it be that they could form a neo-Byzantine state? As far as I'm concerned, the more player agency the better; the more button pressing ones I find both much less rewarding and more cheap (i.e. Austria-Hungary).
- 5
- 3
There is nothing "fun" or "interesting" about goofball scenarios that have no basis in reality, eg Monarchist USA or Communist Japan. I suggest you re-read some of the excellent posts that have denounced this sort of "alt-history," a term used far too loosely in this context. @DaleDVM hits right on the head by distinguishing between alt-history and alternate reality.
Compare the absurdist examples and I others have cited with what you are talking about, objectives and contingencies that historical players sought to achive or stop. The UK would never surrender? Are you familiar with how close the British government was to going with Halfiax around the Dunkirk crisis? Germany would never prevail against the USSR, even as this is a subject historians and even figures who were there such as von Manstein and Guderian have hotly debated during the war and since? Unlike the absurdist examples others and I denounce, this are not empirical, unassailable truths, particularly in the context where players are there to make different decisions than for example Hitler did throughout the war. Many of these key decisions are alas not represented in the game, eg Hitler ordering upgrade of the Panzer III armament but having it ignored, decision to not even care about winter clothing, so many other things.. These things are ignored because the developers spend so much time and effort and capital on garbage.
Perhaps as it should be, at least if those people wanting to play minors want to do unrealistic, goofball stuff like Luxemborg conquering the world. As far as I know the main players are still overwhelmingly the most popular. So focus on the basic of the game to improve those experiences rather trot out SAB junk. Before trying to make x rando country better, make the main players the best they can be. That is the purpose of the game.
- 6
- 1
Again, this is purely subjective. *Fun* is subjective. So you're saying that only *your* fun is acceptable to be in the game?
So, you can make a pronouncement that X is fun and Y is not *for you*, but you can't make a pronouncement that X is fun for everyone, and Y is not fun for anyone at all.
Sure, there are limits, but I submit they can be much wider than you specifically accept and still appeal to many more people than you expect.
Again, you're pontificating on high, with the idea that you are the sole authority in these matters...and you are definitely not that.
Enough.
- 4
- 2
Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never claimed to be the sole authority. The imperative distinctions between things that were anticipated, arrived for and fought against versus what I AMD others complain about stands completely unrefuted on the merits.
And no, it is neither fun nor interesting to have the game bogged down with this garbage.
Again, a fundamental probelm with your hyper relativist nonsense is that is not on topic (the subject here is not whether taste is subjective or if any one person's opinion is just as valid as another). Beyond that it can and often is used to bludgeon, and obfuscate any discussion on the merits. On a music forum, there are legitimate reasons to claim, as an example, that Pseusodio and We Built This City are two of the worst songs ever. Someone like you comes in and says hurr dururr any one person's opinion is just as valid anyone else's. Who are you to say blah blah blah! NO!--that is not the subject at hand and besides that it is just not true. Someone who thinks that Pope Goes the Weasel is better music than Beethoven *IS* wrong empirically, is frankly an idiot, and should be dismissed out of hand, and if forum rules allowed be chastised and ridiculed mercilessly. Ditto with someone who goes into a top flight steak house and artues--wrongly--that steak should be served well done rather than medium rare. So it is with this.
- 2
I do not mind that there are alternate history options. However, if you play without historic setting on there is WAY too much alternate history all at once. Having one major power OR a couple of minors changing paths in one gameplay is more than enough for flavor. Having 2 or 3 major powers changing sides in this conflict is not any fun for me. It usually makes the game either impossible to win or impossible to lose. I stop playing when I no longer have to think.
I suppose some people came to this game for less thinking and for more stories? If I want a story, I will read a book. There are millions of books. I came here for a challenging WWII simulation. There is only one game like HOI4. I do get rather militant when people push to ruin this unique game just to fix their need for fiction and fancy.
Unfortunately the developers listen to these people. I suppose that is in their financial interest. There are more casual gamers than grognards these days.
I suppose some people came to this game for less thinking and for more stories? If I want a story, I will read a book. There are millions of books. I came here for a challenging WWII simulation. There is only one game like HOI4. I do get rather militant when people push to ruin this unique game just to fix their need for fiction and fancy.
Unfortunately the developers listen to these people. I suppose that is in their financial interest. There are more casual gamers than grognards these days.
- 5
I'm in disbelief that these myth are still out there.
(1) The UK considered a white peace multiple times. If the Germans would have destroyed the exp. force, Britain would have 100% sought a white peace. It was really close.
(2) Barb was very winnable. Hitler just butchered it.
(3) Japan didn't need to win, it merely had to make it costly enough for the US. War support was very low in the US.
(4) No shit Sherlock. Maybe there is a reason for that? [Besides that, it is not true even if the game was 100 % realistic, because the Player still could give his 2 cents even as a minor nation]
- 3
- 2
- 1
Hey Herr B, I will only add that playing as minors should be fun for things that those minors could realistically or even quasi realistically do. Playing as Spain to join Axis or playing as Norway to get away from neutrality sooner to get British involvement to preemptively stop Weserübung--thsee and other things are interesting to me. Liberia developing the atomic bomb or Guatemala conquering South and Central America is not. Most can see the obvious differences!
Last edited:
- 2
What myths? The UK never even considered a white peace. I've seen Halifax mentioned a few times, but the only times white peace was even mentioned was when Germany "proposed" it. If by some chance Halifax got into power, Halifax himself said Churchill would be the "real" leader of the war, himself just being a figurehead. By 4 June, Churchill was already in power and I can't see a failure of Operation Dynamo resulting in a white peace; if anything, I think the capture of such a force would see the UK go even faster into invasion prepping.
Barb was only winnable should the Germans have foresight. There was no feasible way for the mostly horse-drawn German armies to quickly and reliably knock the Soviet Union out of the war. In OTL the Soviets didn't have their "Dunkirk" yet they still kept fighting.
I don't agree with the other points, but I don't want to take it too off-topic, so I hope you understand me leaving it there.
And I've argued otherwise; that good alt-history is done by telling a story. Why does player agency need to be taken away? And you're solely speaking for yourself; I find it fun and interesting, so therefore I am correct
As someone else has said in this thread, it's completely subjective as to what's "fun and interesting" so even though I don't mind the convo, don't be rude and put down what other people enjoy just because you don't. Gatekeeping video game enjoyment ain't a good look chief.Already commented on some of that stuff above, but again, if you think Halifax would've surrendered you need to do some reading on the topic. The UK was never going to surrender. By May the UK Parliament had already drawn off any calls for peace and Dunkirk was a month later. Ever considered why it was called the 'Miracle of Dunkirk'? because so many soldiers weren't expected to be saved, yet the government had already decided a month prior it would keep fighting. Doesn't sound very surrender-y to me
And as the devs have posted in other threads, I don't think they even consider alt-history being a drain - otherwise they wouldn't do it. Your points, Pz. III being upgunned and winter clothing are to a degree represented - both the Soviets and Germany struggled in the snow, so you both get the penalties. You can upgrade your tanks with more specific modules now. We've just got an overhaul to the way supply functions, yet that's still not enough? Can't wait for people to start asking for a plane camo editor to be more historically accurate at this rate
Why? why are you so adamant to actively take away content rather than add to it? I genuinely don't understand! If you are under the impression that HOI4 should be a sim look at these pre-launch and launch trailers:
And if the argument is it's taking time away from something else... can you actually prove that? or is that just an assumption based on what's been put out? By the looks of things they work on certain areas for a given amount of time -why not add as many alt-history options if you're not going back to it?
I get you're going for ""plausible"" alt-history, but with your examples they're just as historically fictitious as a resurgent Spanish Empire. And I still don't see what harm any extra content has - the only one I can kinda see would be that turning off historical makes it too random, but if you don't want ironman on just stick countries on what route you want them to. I would like a "slider" per say, to give a little more control, but put that in the suggestions, not whining about it is a 4 page deep thread.
EDIT: Just a quick addition - I've seen a lot of phrasing like "me and a lot of others" thrown around (less so here but on other threads of a similar nature) and it's worth noting the people who actively engage in the forum is going to be a small fraction of the player-base. A lot of people here will share the same grievances because that's why they're here in the first place - don't convince yourself everyone is 100% on board with everything, otherwise you've convinced yourself you're not in an echochamber.
Last edited:
- 4
- 3