By whom toward whom? (I did not know if whom was correct but the opportunity to use two of them in one sentence was just too awesome!)
Gaming world tension as the USSR
- Thread starter R1ob7
- 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.
As Op stated: In SP as SU, you could hamper Germany by not only creating WT that allows early guaranteeing (although when historical, Poland should be guaranteed anyway), but also allowing for faster Allies, especially USA. In MP, this could also be abused to stop fascists going ahistorical (dunno, taking BeNeLux as Germany early or Italy taking hungry ...).
But as I said, assuming the Ai plays historical, there might be minor impact on SP; yet the core mechanic is troubled imo. Unless what @Denkt mentioned is true: That there are still remnants of the old threat-system in there, that can balance this.
But as I said, assuming the Ai plays historical, there might be minor impact on SP; yet the core mechanic is troubled imo. Unless what @Denkt mentioned is true: That there are still remnants of the old threat-system in there, that can balance this.
So if I'm to understand this correctly.
In a single player game it would be you, the human, who would be creating the WT?
In a multiplayer game two things come to mind: 1. Um, write a rule? 2. For every good offense there is a good defense. Do ya'll think this action can't be countered? If taken to the next step, is this really a viable strategy?
But I get it. This type of conversation fills some time between now and D-Day so why not blue sky and try to release some of that pre game tension? I get it. I'm right there with ya on that!
In a single player game it would be you, the human, who would be creating the WT?
In a multiplayer game two things come to mind: 1. Um, write a rule? 2. For every good offense there is a good defense. Do ya'll think this action can't be countered? If taken to the next step, is this really a viable strategy?
But I get it. This type of conversation fills some time between now and D-Day so why not blue sky and try to release some of that pre game tension? I get it. I'm right there with ya on that!
Last edited:
- 1
If you want to say that you have no real interest in the topic, I would urge you not to project this on me. My concerns about this mechanic is not fed by boredom.
For the SP part, that is right. The human is most likely the only one trying to abuse the System. I guess your Point being that then there is noone harmed but the player himself? While this is true, the game should still not allow it. I don't think we have to go through the discussion why, do we?
In MP, you of course can make rules. But the necessarity of them (I guess you agree they would be necessary, if I understood you correctly?) Shows that there is a broken set of rules in the game. This issue is not some weird house-rule stuff (e.g. no war before 1938 or what) but a core mechanic that should not require player restriction to work. That's like saying "no tanks in MP", in case they were not balanced. A crutch. Okay if needed but should not be needed,
- 3
So, as either an Axis or Commintern leaning nation, it apparently pays to grab as much as you can, as early as you can, without going over the magic number, before your political rivals get more than you. If you wait too long as the SU while Germany uses up all of the WT "capital", then they get stronger, and now it's too late for you to grab anything without starting a war. As Germany, you want to beat the SU to the punch. As an unaligned expansionist minor, you may want to go for a couple of early grabs before it becomes impossible. It's in EVERYONE's best interest in raising WT FIRST, before the next guy does so and someone goes over the limit. While it's probably "playable", it's an unrealistic mechanic due to the hard limits, and the global effect exceeding the individual ones.
Possible solutions: each aggressive action, there's a chance, based on both WT and the aggressor's action, for a political backlash. The seriousness of the response should be based on the margin of failure, so with low WT and a semi-aggressive action, the odds of ANY response are fairly low (mainly economic sanctions and earlier arms buildups, if at all), and the odds of an outright declaration of war are virtually nil (nobody's ready for it). As WT increases, the odds of hostile actions, particularly the more aggressive ones, provoking an active response go up considerably, until virtually any act of aggression is going to bring embargos, blockades, and guarantees if you're lucky, and war if not. You don't know when it's going to trigger a given response, and can't easily "game it" (without blatantly reloading).
Unfortunately, while "If A, then B" game mechanics are the easiest to program, they're also the least realistic. Real-world situations generally reflect some sort of response that's scaled to the action (or series of actions) which caused it, not a simple trigger for a pre-defined response.
Possible solutions: each aggressive action, there's a chance, based on both WT and the aggressor's action, for a political backlash. The seriousness of the response should be based on the margin of failure, so with low WT and a semi-aggressive action, the odds of ANY response are fairly low (mainly economic sanctions and earlier arms buildups, if at all), and the odds of an outright declaration of war are virtually nil (nobody's ready for it). As WT increases, the odds of hostile actions, particularly the more aggressive ones, provoking an active response go up considerably, until virtually any act of aggression is going to bring embargos, blockades, and guarantees if you're lucky, and war if not. You don't know when it's going to trigger a given response, and can't easily "game it" (without blatantly reloading).
Unfortunately, while "If A, then B" game mechanics are the easiest to program, they're also the least realistic. Real-world situations generally reflect some sort of response that's scaled to the action (or series of actions) which caused it, not a simple trigger for a pre-defined response.
- 1
I agree on the first paragraph, but your solution seems very intransparent. While this has the benefit of being harder to exploit, I believe PDS rightfully strives for more transparency in the game mechanics.
Meanwhile, I doubt that this global limit can be adapted into a threat-like system, which would be needed to alleviate the issue with WT-creation on purpose.
But it may just work in the game although it has theoretic flaws.
Meanwhile, I doubt that this global limit can be adapted into a threat-like system, which would be needed to alleviate the issue with WT-creation on purpose.
But it may just work in the game although it has theoretic flaws.
Raising world tension to get the allies to declare war on Germany is what the Soviets did historically.
When the allies declared war on Germany, SU had a non-agression pact with Germany and secret treaties to split Poland. But could you elaborate?
Wait, I'm right but the game should not allow it? YOU the HUMAN are doing it! WOW you have got to be kidding me with this.
The necessity of rules in MP. That is new? Seriously?
What player restriction??????? If you are playing historically then what the hell are you raising the WT for as Russia anyway? Aren't you playing historically? If you are playing ahistorical then isn't it anything goes?
My God this is like oh so very many posts on this forum. High on drama low on reasoning/facts/understanding.
- 3
- 1
So Kalauer you are against all mods, the ability we have now and will in the future to change files & this so called WT fiasco etc.
All of these things are in the game. But they all have to have the human to put them into action. Just because something is there; it means squat. Which is why in essence this entire post other than the OP's questions and answers (if any) were nothing more than.......
Doods playing the DRAMA game!
The Househusbands of HOI4?
All of these things are in the game. But they all have to have the human to put them into action. Just because something is there; it means squat. Which is why in essence this entire post other than the OP's questions and answers (if any) were nothing more than.......
Doods playing the DRAMA game!
The Househusbands of HOI4?
- 1
So we do have to get through this. No, I am not kidding and yes, the game should force the human Player to do some stuff and forbid to do other. This is called the rule set that applies to the game. And it is needed to make the game fun and challenging. This one particular rule is not working as it should (it can be bend), or do we disagree here?
As I stated, special rules in MP apply for several reasons. But they should not be necessary to fix a core mechanic of the game. And the reason one would have to make such a WT-rule is that it creates inplausible results if abused.
edit: regarding post #30: I can find no relation to mods, unless you want to say that they should be used as bugfixing. While they can, I strongly disagree with should. And if you want the human Player to make his own, individual, mood reliant rules, go play some ... wait, there are no games that allow you to do that. For a reason.
Last edited:
- 1
The problem is it's super cheesy to just go hyper aggressive as Russia and Germany gets punished for it.We would like to play sandbox in MP but we don't want such obvious cheese tactics to be so clearly effective. If the Soviets are aggressive then the allies should only have the option to slow or stop the Soviets rather than a Germany who has only reoccupied the Rhineland.
- 2
I disagree 100%
I hate that game companies ALWAYS tell me where to go, what is out of bounds, what is the limit and force me to play their game the way they want me to. The only way. I have to start here. Can't start anywhere else. I have to go this path. Can't take another.
No, I don't like that. I like that HOI4 will allow me to take nearly any path I choose.
You may be under the belief that 'rules sets' are the end all be all. Me I like to think that is old school thinking and way outdated.
#1 again, only YOU the human can enact this core mechanic. If you don't want it in your game don't enact it. If you do or don't care then don't write the rule.
This whole notion you have that this is a core mechanic issue and it needs to be fixed is so very flawed. It is not there if it is not used by the human. If the human wants to enact it why can't he? What do you care? You are not playing his game?
Why do I have to play MY game the way you want to play your game?
- 3
OMG then write a rule!
Stop with the drama already! This thread (sorry not post. not singling you out) and so oh so many others are just filled to the max with DRAMA, DRAMA, DRAMA.
- 5
@JerkyJerry I don't think anyone is advocating a railroad. I think they want to add meaningful tradeoffs to WT. At present, the no-brainer solution is "get yours before it's too late" and as the devs have said, if something is a no-brainer, it needs to change.
Really, the question is how can raising WT be made more of a tradeoff. Atm it's Free Lunch until point X, at which point all the late comers starve - of course you'll get a food stampede in that case. I don't personally like a random will they/wont they mechanic so I disagree with the earlier suggestion, but the point that WT can readily be gamed is a valid one.
Really, the question is how can raising WT be made more of a tradeoff. Atm it's Free Lunch until point X, at which point all the late comers starve - of course you'll get a food stampede in that case. I don't personally like a random will they/wont they mechanic so I disagree with the earlier suggestion, but the point that WT can readily be gamed is a valid one.
- 3
Right, and you could easily enforce that rule in MP. But why is this acceptable at all in the game? It shouldn't even happen in SP. That's the point. Why do you want to degrade what everyone says into "omg ur just drama." if you disagree with them?
- 1
Why not in single player? I, me, the guy who purchased my game. Want to raise WT with Russia in 1937. Why can't I? Why do you think I should not be able to? Because you say it is not historically correct? Ok, but I'm playing ahistorical. So you are saying I can't do it then either? So why don't I just give you my game to play since you are writing all my rules for me?
Because it is DRAMA! Are you kidding me? You want to be the boss over my game. You want Paradox to change something that IMHO does not need to be changed at all. Why can't I raise WT whenever I want? Just because Stalin and Hitler didn't?
So in your version of the game that you want Paradox to make for you, America can't become Fascist or Communist? But wait, it's in the game! OH NO!!!!
- 4
Did they ever say how much a nation would have to raise world tension?
If Germany raises it by 1% would this be enough, i dont ever remember hearing anything about this. The only thing I have seen is the overall world tension effect gameplay and not limits for each nation that contributed to it.
World Tension is not a rule to make you go somewhere, it is there to model an important mechanic: The (in hindsight) hard to understand tolerance that Democracies had against agressive nations before WW2. Thus, it is not restricting your choices, but creating consequences for them, for without consequences, choices do not matter. As it is now, some thinkable consequences (as far as we know), do not go with the intended mechanic. Maybe you misunderstand the word "rule".
Not true. WT is mainly there for the AI, for it to somehow know what is going on. So if a human SU raises WT on purpose to send AI Democracies against a human Germany, that is an abuse and has nothing to do with "my game" or "your game". If you want to Play a game ith an incosnsistent rule set, mod it this way. But WT is in the game and has apurpose designed by the developers, which it, insome cases (as far as we can imagine) does not fulfill. You not wantin WT at all in the game is of no importance to this.
- 3
You're so deluded.
We're arguing that GERMANY shouldn't be hurt if RUSSIA raises the WT. If RUSSIA raises WT then the ALLIES should only be able to intervene against RUSSIA. I have no problem with aggressive Russia, just that it shouldn't cause Germany to die early on in the game if Russia is meddling too much.
- 1
- 1