English Essay: What are your views on alternate history content?

[Herr B.]

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!

That's exactly what I'm thinking as well.

I'm not even that much against minor nations. However, there has to be a middle ground between "forming byzantium" (incl coring) and no content at all. And there is! The proof is already in the game: The historical path for the minor nations are for the most part fine in terms of realism! And, as I wrote in the very beginning, certain alt-hist path are fine as well.

I will not continue to discuss here, however.

Some people seem to think, that our history was hard-coded (well, now I know where the christian/muslim determinism* is coming from). And sure, if you have this firm believe, than anything besides "the" path is ASB, making any further distinction useless. And because that's such a strong believe, any futher argument is a waste of time.

Other people think, that this game is "art" and therefore doesn't need any justification for anything. That's an interesting nihilism right there, but you can't argue with nihilists either.

Spoiler

* christian/muslim determinism: The belief, that God predecided all historic events before they happend.

 

[Medicknight]

I hate it. I hate it all.
I remember when the game was actually about WW2 and not about the Byzantines reforming in Russia with some random priest as their leader.

 

[permanently_afk]

I think there is another aspect why the debates of what is AH so often turn acrimonous about what is possible, plausible or ASB - identity. WW2 is the last (I daresay only) war where there is good and evil, while the rest of the wars tend to be much less clear and much less acrimonious in debate. For the rest, well, history is the lie the victors agreed upon, paraphrasing Napoleon.

People identify by their past to a greater or lesser degree. That makes it difficult to admit fault. Especially people from nations who got out on the "right side" of history tend to be hostile to the idea that their nation would have folded or fallen to the dark side themselves. The thing to watch out for is people categorically excluding things ("The UK would never have surrendered!" et. al.), because the underlying thinking is not that the USA wins because of their industry and having two huge-ass moats, but because they are the tag "USA". And yes, there is some "dressup" involved, because outright stating so makes you look like a jingo.
This is caused by by now nearly 70 years of propaganda and hagiography. Noone wants to admit that they nearly folded, or that they only become the defender of freedom after lots of prodding and had a good chance to go isolationist. That isn't written into the histories.

Generally speaking, there are two kinds of objection:
Implausible (could have happend, but the P'dox didn't choose the "correct" trigger. Mackensen comes to mind)
Impossible (Could never ever happend...what is and what isn't often depends on the personal biases of the author speaking)
Finding this dividing line causes the acrimony.

And all that is before we start discussing the limitations of the medium and the issue that HoI already has enough "prep phase". But then, that is a separate matter (imho).

 

[Gefallener_Held]

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.

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.

I have no interest in debating the Dunkirk crisis or how close Britain was to negotiating some form of peace with Halifax. Even if what you say is true, which I dispute, other variables would undoubtedly change that, for example if Dunkirk was NOT evacuated. There are others, such as Germany not switching to a true war economy until after Stalingrad. The list goes on. Beyond that, as I stated before, Sea Lion, negotiated peace were things that both sides interfaced with grappled. This makes it totally and completely unlike things which are simply unthinkable to any right-thinking person, such as Monarchist USA, Communist Japan, other ASB nonsense.

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.

No, it is not subjective. There are objective standards at play. Myself and others have articulated them. Again, the problem with this wrongheaded, "Diff'rent Strokes" "philosophy" is that then every opinion is just as valid, which renders the exercise of discussing the merits of anything moot.

Deep down you and anyone else know this is true. You know that Katy Perry is inferior to Beethoven, if that sort of strumpet driven pop is to be considered music at all, just as Danielle Steele or Letters to Penthouse Forum are inferior to Dostoyevsky, Thomas Hardy, or Victor Hugo, if they are to be defined as literature at all. And it is by the same undeniable axiom that objective standards do exist that reputable steak houses will refuse to serve a steak well done, because it is wrong. If you search why, there are myriad reasons bolstering this obvious position. In the end, no one ever pulls the "my opinion or anyone else's opinion is just as valid as any other" bit when that person is losing the argument on the merits.

Finally, on this, if every opinion is subjective and every "opinion" is just as valid, then the "opinion' or rather position that all opinions are valid is also valid.

As to it taking away from other aspects, there was another thread where Louelle for example discussed scripts, how it does interfere with the quality of the product. Since there is not an infinite number of workhours in the day or resources, it simply stands to reason.

 

[Fulmen]

The historical path for the minor nations are for the most part fine in terms of realism!

Since when did minor nations increase their metal production by 300% in two months, or possess excavation technology from the future that allowed them to drill oil not discovered until the 1950s in 1936, and in quantities not drilled in until the 1980s? Because both are norms in HoI4's "historical" branches for minor nations. Those particular examples are from the Romanian and Portuguese focus trees.

 

[Walshman98]

In the sense of the game, I am fine with it since by the mere action of playing the game one is modifying the tale and not truly following any historical facts. More so, even if we tried what would be the fun of that?
Realism in a game is good only in design visualization and the way how the game was intended to flow but not as the moves one has to do, and so after all we are playing to forget a little about real life and just enjoy a moment in another world... My two cents, sorry if brief

 

[Ironside112]

No, it is not subjective. There are objective standards at play. Myself and others have articulated them. Again, the problem with this wrongheaded, "Diff'rent Strokes" "philosophy" is that then every opinion is just as valid, which renders the exercise of discussing the merits of anything moot.

Deep down you and anyone else know this is true. You know that Katy Perry is inferior to Beethoven, if that sort of strumpet driven pop is to be considered music at all, just as Danielle Steele or Letters to Penthouse Forum are inferior to Dostoyevsky, Thomas Hardy, or Victor Hugo, if they are to be defined as literature at all. And it is by the same undeniable axiom that objective standards do exist that reputable steak houses will refuse to serve a steak well done, because it is wrong. If you search why, there are myriad reasons bolstering this obvious position. In the end, no one ever pulls the "my opinion or anyone else's opinion is just as valid as any other" bit when that person is losing the argument on the merits.

Finally, on this, if every opinion is subjective and every "opinion" is just as valid, then the "opinion' or rather position that all opinions are valid is also valid.

Just gonna touch on this, cause you're obviously so set in your ways I'd need a nuclear bomb to get through to you so I'd rather spend my time doing something I enjoy; everything, and I mean everything, mentioned there is subjective. You are taking your opinion (which is what it is, it's not fact) and claiming it to be something it isn't. Considering how controversial this topic is, it has to be subjective. And just because people have different opinions on something, it doesn't mean merits cannot be discussed; that's just plain wrong, governments do it all the time as do everyone else.

I don't "know" any of the things you put in; Beethoven's music is alright but I much, much prefer listening to songs with lyrics and songs which fit my taste. I'm not wrong for liking that, it's just different. If by that you mean Beethoven's work is more complex, then yes, I may have to agree - but that's not the case, and nor should complexity be a defining factor of worth. There is beauty in simplicity after all

All of that applies to HOI4, no matter how hard you wanna cope about it or not. I genuinely enjoy alt-history routes (done well) and you quite literally cannot take that opinion away from me or claim it to be "worse" than yours. If you genuinely think that I, or anyone else for that matter, is less than because your opinion is not being taken as gospel, you are quite frankly not a nice person and I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you anymore.

TL;DR - You're taking this way too seriously (it's a forum thread for a map game, not the Holy Grail) and are contributing nothing to the conversation. Not expecting an apology or anything just please be less rude; you're better than that.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

@Ironside112. Again, I reject everything you wrote. I take this seriously bc it is a threat to the game I and many others have waited now five years or longer. Another poster wrote he hates everything about it, as it is supposed to be a WWII game.

 

[EltharionDrax]

Not to simply repeat what others have said, I will say this: it says something about your WW2 sandbox-game when players have suggested that monarchies should be a faction in the game, which is absurd when the build-up to WW2 and the war itself was the death-knell of monarchies in Europe.

From a technical standpoint, the game barely manages to simulate WW2 without falling apart, but take the training-wheels of that is historical NFs and it all falls apart.

In my opinion, the largest and one of - if not the most - documented conflict in history has so many stories, events and characters in it that we haven't even gotten close to the bottom of the barrel for inspiration about what to put in the game.

 

[permanently_afk]

Not to simply repeat what others have said, I will say this: it says something about your WW2 sandbox-game when players have suggested that monarchies should be a faction in the game, which is absurd when the build-up to WW2 and the war itself was the death-knell of monarchies in Europe.

From a technical standpoint, the game barely manages to simulate WW2 without falling apart, but take the training-wheels of that is historical NFs and it all falls apart

To be fair, most of the games dealing with WW2 mostly dispense with any large-scale AH and instead simply focus on single campaings and theatres (looking at you here, War in the East). If you simply do not engage with alternate history beyond a few events (and single PoDs), it becomes rather simple to simulate WW2. HoI4 attempts to be flexible enough for multiple PoDs and great shifts. It is entertaining, at least.

 

[Pale Blue]

That's covered in this, which I put up earlier:

"Yes, they are allowed. They put up the money to make it happen, they get to make the profits or take the losses if they don't sell enough."

The market makes the determination collectively. You and I do not do it alone. You can say you are many, and there probably are.

However, if your opinion was as universal as you would like it to be, Paradox wouldn't be making any money, and we wouldn't be talking about this.

Again, ALL art is subjective. I've seen awards won for things that I would pay to make go away, but, some people call it 'good', as you are saying X is good in this context. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it bad.

We're talking about games here, not real-world things.

The customer base has no way of giving feedback if they like the crazy alt-history or not. These trees come bundled with game mechanics. I find the new Russia tree is one of the worst made and couldn't care less what weird stuff they did for Poland and the Baltics. But I can't not buy these trees if I want the tank designer and officer corps.

 

[FindFloppies]

The customer base has no way of giving feedback if they like the crazy alt-history or not. These trees come bundled with game mechanics. I find the new Russia tree is one of the worst made and couldn't care less what weird stuff they did for Poland and the Baltics. But I can't not buy these trees if I want the tank designer and officer corps.

(Not personally toward you, Pale Blue)

You can always give feedback, but the bottom line is this:

The game company makes the game. They offer it for sale.

You can:
Buy it and play it as offered.
Get mods and change behaviors.
Walk away, whether you spent money or not.
LATER EDIT: Some of you who are so sure you're right about what everyone wants, should make your own game, because surely it will be a huge commercial success because you know better than all of us, right? Put your money where your mouth is, and all that.

Those are your choices, in the end. It's a game, not someone gouging 3rd world countries for clean water.

Also, if the DLC really hurts someone's wallet, maybe they shouldn't be buying games with said wallet anyway?

YMMV.

 

[Pale Blue]

(Not personally toward you, Pale Blue)

You can always give feedback, but the bottom line is this:

The game company makes the game. They offer it for sale.

You can:
Buy it and play it as offered.
Get mods and change behaviors.
Walk away, whether you spent money or not.

Those are your choices, in the end. It's a game, not someone gouging 3rd world countries for clean water.

Also, if the DLC really hurts someone's wallet, maybe they shouldn't be buying games with said wallet anyway?

YMMV.

I personally ignore the alt history stuff I dont like, but would prefer the Dev time were spent on something else instead.

I mainly wanted to point out that I is hard to tell by sales why a dlc is bought. For example eu4 has the main dlc and a cosmetic unit pack. Because these are separate and the Devs still create these unit packs is can assume there is a demand for them and are bought because of the graphics. If it were bundled with the main dlc I wouldn't know if the players buy the doc because of the new mechanics or because of the graphics or both. Similarly is the case for hoi4 which bundles focus trees with mechanics.

 

[kettyo]

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

As far as i remember Halifax has criticized Churchill for refusing negotiation outright. Not as if he had much optimism for such a negotiation, he just though the sons of Britain trapped at Dunkirk deserved at least to try it even if chances were close to zero.

 

[Darksworthyone]

Counterpoint: Gameplay > Realism. If we accept that small powers shouldn't be able to do much because the timespan makes it "implausible", then we're throwing away 90% of starting positions and the game becomes a 1v1 of Germany vs Soviets, where everything else is vastly unimportant by comparison. Tons of interesting scenarios would thrown in the garbage because of an arbitrary appeal to realism.

Yeah exactly just look at every Bokoen1 video! same thing every time! even if the axis take Africa they still end up losing! and for 40%-50% of his games are just Germany vs Soviets!