I think what he's getting at is the fact that China wouldn't be able to win a sustained war against someone like the UK, US, USSR, Germany. I always considered those 4 superpowers and Japan, France, Italy and China major powers.
Generic Focus Tree: Fascist vs. Communist is WAY out of balance
- Thread starter ForsakenSoldier
- 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.
- Status
I think what he's getting at is the fact that China wouldn't be able to win a sustained war against someone like the UK, US, USSR, Germany. I always considered those 4 superpowers and Japan, France, Italy and China major powers.
China was still in a civil war back then and certainly not a major power during the entire war. Having Chiang in the team practically ensured that Roosevelt could have +1 vote for anything that would be about dismantling Britains asian colonial empire after the war. If Chiang would have lead a major power then Mao would have failed to take over from his starting position.
There is however a lot of space between "major power" and "totally unimportant country nobody cared about" as you put it.
You seem to be mistaking power potential (something gained over centuries) with combat performance (very fluid, compare France between the two world wars). If the latter were a thing we would have minor minoris category just for Italy.
Future potential power means little, when power is required RIGHT NOW.
There is a reason, why US and USSR got the name "superpower" after WW2. Simple "Great Powers" were not in the league anymore.
The problem is only having two categories. If they had three tiers as in most Paradox games, Poland would easily make the second tier. I mean they certainly are not comparable to truly minor powers like Bolivia or Siam.
I had an impression we were discussing not a computer generated history course, but a game. You know, interactive kind, where countries might (and probably will) have very different powers right-now-in-all-caps (because players will have made decisions very different from those of the original politicians). So the potential is the only thing worth being taken into account.
Last edited:
Does the game offer any preference for majors vs. minors? Except purely cosmetic, like appearing under major diplomatic selection? I have not seen any. Faction creation? Every nation can create its own faction, via NF. Only 3 nations start as faction creators for gameplay purposes.
Ok. Against AI - you would be right. Now, if all countries were run by competent human players, could Poland still become a major power?
If all players are acting in their self-interest, and NOT in interests of Poland? I highly doubt it, but it is now matter of opinion. You have yours, I have mine.
In-game, any country can become a major, if it reaches a certain threshold - 70% IC of average of all current majors, or something like that.
The problem with the manpower boost the fascists get is probably the increments for each "node" of the Focus Tree (3% and 4% if I'm not mistaken, I don't have the game). The problem could be eased by making so that the various Conscription Laws have an exponential cost and give 0.5%/1% more manpower if you take the fascist tree: this way lower mobilization would cost less (simulating the increased militarization of a fascist country) while the later ones have a really high cost (to show how the population became disillusioned by the military failures), so that, at the end of the day, you have the same 6%/7% increment but at a higher cost.
Of course there are problems with this: first, the economic, social and military penalties for going from 'Disarmed Nation' to 'Press gang every person with male genitalia and at least two limbs' are pretty much non existant; second it would require a certain fluidity of the system which, at this point, is as rigid as a steel pole a 0K tmperatures
Of course there are problems with this: first, the economic, social and military penalties for going from 'Disarmed Nation' to 'Press gang every person with male genitalia and at least two limbs' are pretty much non existant; second it would require a certain fluidity of the system which, at this point, is as rigid as a steel pole a 0K tmperatures
I could certainly see Bulgaria, Romania and Yugoslavia getting their own custom focus trees, but I do agree that this particular generic focus should be toned down to a percent or two.
Knee jerk reaction nerfs rarely help games. I have played many MMOs over the years and can tell you they cause more damage than they ever help. The root issue isn't that the Fascist tree gets more man power - it is that the other government options are not well structured. Communism doesn't really give you any benefits. Democracy is poorly modeled in the game, they don't get enough economic advantages and they have far too much leeway in fighting wars. Despite these shortcomings I don't think a deep dive into the effects of your government of choice is really needed at this time.
There is one: As long as a faction has a major power in it, the faction does not go to a peace conference. This leads to the Raj saving the Allies from being annexed, since it sometimes becomes a major and prevents the Axis from winning.
I didn't see it earlier, but we aren't discussing mass killing of civilians, even by Communist regimes.
Thread closed.
Thread closed.
- Status