Game should punish instead of not allowing

[SuperZ69]

Hey,

I love most of Paradox games, but one thing that's bothering me in HOI series is that I wish that the game takes a direction in which it allows you to do almost anything, even the worst decisions and simply punishes you for them.

One example would be that if you're playing a democracy and want to invade another country, you should be able to do it and not just by forcing you to turn fascist (this is just an example, I understand the logic that democracies are the good guys, fascist bad and commintern somewhere in the middle, the point is in the overall allow and punish vs grey out the button and make it unclickable).

Simply put,you should be able to do whatever you want with your country, but If it is something really a historical or going against logic and politics of that country or its people, there should be consequences and not a red X mark, saying you can't do that until Germany does this or Japan does that or some arbitrary number or year you have to wait on, so afterwards you will magically be allowed a certain decision.
Game shouldn't be restrictive in how it allows you to play it, but rewarding or punishing based on decisions you take.

For example if you're playing a democratic USA you should be able to invade Canada, but that kinda decision that goes against democratic, political and economic interest should get you in big trouble (no one wants to ally with you, having internal problems etc).

I just think It would make the game so much more fun and engaging longterm.

tldr: you should be able to do almost anything in the game, from starting silly wars to making opressive laws and game should just act accordingly and punish you for straying really far away from preferred choices of the country you are role playing as.

 

[Nuklearius]

#

 

[Daelyn75]

Why always Canada?!?! Fallout, South Park, power outages . . . LEAVE CANADA ALONE!

 

[CrasherZZ]

That would make it more of fantasy game than a historical simulation? It would be fun but it would more like Risk or Civilization. It's also for just a 12 year interval of history, the keyword being "history".

Not trying to disagree with what you want, but what you're talking about is a pretty different kind a game, IMO.

 

[GsusNSV]

Some unhistorical stuff is implemented per the National Focuses. Also a lot of stuff could be abused. As GB and France strike as fast as possible in the Balkans and strip Germany of its possible allies. Or just take Denmark.

To get your USA example, thats in.
In the USA National Focus Tree you need to follow "War Plan Red", which leeds to "Embargo the Empire" --> "Anti-Imperalism" --> "Strike at the Empire"

 

[Dr Hiram Temple]

I'm generally a fan of using soft restrictions to discourage players rather than hard bans on actions; in a perfect world, I'd be right there with you. However, all soft caps are at risk of unintended exploits, and no amount of playtesting will ever catch 100% of exploits in game. One example was the workaround in EUIV during westernization, where a player could invest all their monarch points into construction, start the westernization, and then disband all their buildings in order to not lose any mp. While an outright ban is almost always the easy/lazy way out of an issue, the amount balancing and playtesting that needs to be sunk into a softer restriction can make such a feature simply not worth the effort, especially when the feature in question will almost never be used.

 

[Mac Lazer]

In the case of the USA invading Canada, congress would never agree to that. No matter how much you wanted to do it. So I like Paradox's system.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

In the case of the USA invading Canada, congress would never agree to that. No matter how much you wanted to do it. So I like Paradox's system.

I think this kinda gets to the crux of the problem. The game is already giving players a lot of rope when it comes to what they can do in a democracy unless they want an entire system that governs what the electorate is and isn't willing to go along with they can't really loosen up restrictions on these more extreme things.

 

[JoshieSays]

Hey,

I love most of Paradox games, but one thing that's bothering me in HOI series is that I wish that the game takes a direction in which it allows you to do almost anything, even the worst decisions and simply punishes you for them.

One example would be that if you're playing a democracy and want to invade another country, you should be able to do it and not just by forcing you to turn fascist (this is just an example, I understand the logic that democracies are the good guys, fascist bad and commintern somewhere in the middle, the point is in the overall allow and punish vs grey out the button and make it unclickable).

Simply put,you should be able to do whatever you want with your country, but If it is something really a historical or going against logic and politics of that country or its people, there should be consequences and not a red X mark, saying you can't do that until Germany does this or Japan does that or some arbitrary number or year you have to wait on, so afterwards you will magically be allowed a certain decision.
Game shouldn't be restrictive in how it allows you to play it, but rewarding or punishing based on decisions you take.

For example if you're playing a democratic USA you should be able to invade Canada, but that kinda decision that goes against democratic, political and economic interest should get you in big trouble (no one wants to ally with you, having internal problems etc).

I just think It would make the game so much more fun and engaging longterm.

tldr: you should be able to do almost anything in the game, from starting silly wars to making opressive laws and game should just act accordingly and punish you for straying really far away from preferred choices of the country you are role playing as.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[joe9594]

In the case of the USA invading Canada, congress would never agree to that. No matter how much you wanted to do it. So I like Paradox's system.

Yeah if you were punished for doing this then the punishment would have to be something like, take an 80% national unity hit and your entire army turns against you. The punishment would have to be so sever that the entire invasion failed before it could start. Otherwise it would be too silly.

 

[Opanashc]

For example if you're playing a democratic USA you should be able to invade Canada, but that kinda decision that goes against democratic, political and economic interest should get you in big trouble (no one wants to ally with you, having internal problems etc).

You mean, like USA invaded Iraq?

 

[Tuscan]

You mean, like USA invaded Iraq?

lol.. good point. Bush certainly didn't see a big red cross when he clicked the "declare war" button.

 

[scroggin]

I think an attack on canada by the USA is a bit too extreme. It would be different if they were vastly different cultures or if there was a long history of deep hatred between the nations. No politition would think he could get away with that, it would mean massive desent and game over at the next election.

 

[Wyrm]

You mean, like USA invaded Iraq?

Well, the US invasion of Iraq wasn't just out of the blue. They had a causus belli in their claim of Iraq having WMDs as well as a historical hostility and a strong head-wind in the relatively new War on Terror, so it is not truly comparable with the isolationist US from the 30's going off invading a random country. The invasion of Iraq was supported by the congress. Had the congress voted against it, there would have been no invasion.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

You mean, like USA invaded Iraq?

After a concerted propaganda effort with the help from the media and foreign governments that actually had the population agreeing with that course of action.

It wasn't a bolt out of blue sky like 'lets invade Canada.... for..... freedom!' would be.

 

[Alex_brunius]

For example if you're playing a democratic USA you should be able to invade Canada, but that kinda decision that goes against democratic, political and economic interest should get you in big trouble (no one wants to ally with you, having internal problems etc).

For Democratic USA at this time ( the most isolationist of all nation ) it would be 100% impossible to declare an offensive war on and attack Canada. It's simply inconceivable, and on a scale of what's plausible and not such an action is about as plausible as alien invasions and Germans cloning T-rex dinosaurs to use in combat...

To start with Canada had a bigger Army in 1936, so there's that ( tells you a good deal about just how isolationist USA was ).

Then there's the issue that even with fascists taking over country after country and invading (and overrunning) other democratic countries left and right neither the US Congress nor their population could be convinced to join the war in Europe even as late as 1941 after 2 years of war rampaging in Europe and 4 years of war rampaging in Asia. Declaring war without the populations support might have been possible, but not without support of congress.

And even in Dec 7 1941, when the enemy bombed US soil and killed thousands which finally convinced them to join the war, they were not really prepared for a war either...

You mean, like USA invaded Iraq?

USA today ( or in the 1990s ) is totally different then USA in 1936. Then USA were one of the most isolationist nation on earth, today they are one of the most interventionist and aggressive in their foreign policy. Saying USA should be able to invade anywhere they want back then, when they can't even do that today is even worse then claiming Germany today should be able to become Fascist and attack Europe easily now just because they could back then... It doesn't work that way.


These things is what separates Paradox wargames from other Grand Strategy Games like "Making History" where you see USA helping Germany attack Soviet by landing tanks in and invading Siberia through the bering straits...
This is why Paradox games teaches you actual history, while other games about the era just lets you "play with war toys".

 

[SuperZ69]

The point I was trying to make was never about USA,Canada or even declaring wars, it was what @Dr Hiram Temple called using soft restrictions rather than hard bans on actions.
I just think that aproach would make the game better and more enjoyable.

 

[Zaku]

The point I was trying to make was never about USA,Canada or even declaring wars, it was what @Dr Hiram Temple called using soft restrictions rather than hard bans on actions.
I just think that aproach would make the game better and more enjoyable.

I disagree. If you allow players to do anything as a democratic nation would make the game very unbalanced. As an example, just think about France, UK, and Poland DOWing Germany in 36 to pre-emptively win ww2 . It would be terribly bad for gameplay and I won't even talk about how unrealistic that would be.

If you want to do things like this as a democratic nation, first you have to change to an authoritarian regime, which means you need to win a civil war.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The point I was trying to make was never about USA,Canada or even declaring wars, it was what @Dr Hiram Temple called using soft restrictions rather than hard bans on actions.
I just think that aproach would make the game better and more enjoyable.

Soft restrictions means everything is possible to do. Should calling alien invasions to attack your foes or being able to clone T-rexes and dinosaurs to use in combat also be possible but just have big penalties through "soft restrictions" then? Or what about Germany inventing space flight and building a moon base in 1941?

Would that make the game more enjoyable for you?


My point was that certain things was and should be impossible to do, otherwise it stops being an immersive historical based wargame.

 

[eddyill]

I agree an usual or unrealistic decision should come at a high political power cost, increased pop unrest (if that's still a thing) and negative reactions from other contries, But shouldn't be impossible.