Hearts of Iron IV - 43rd Development Diary - 5th of February 2016

[llib]

Actually as far as I know there were some thoughts in Poland about alliance with Third reich and general war against bolsevism. It's partial explanation for Polish behavior (e.g. against Czechoslovakia).

 

[GsusNSV]

Wonder if you went down that route you could offer Slovakia to Poland after Munich and the invasion of the rest of the Czech, I know they and Hungary had some claims though as a German player if I aligned with the Poles I'd be more inclined to take the Baltic states for myself for logistical reasons.

The opposite NF for "Danzig or War" is actually "Danzig for Slovakia", which leds to "Befriend Poland".

 

[Bjorn_Ginger]

It's interesting that the different groups are called democratic, communist and fascist while the communists in Sovjet and other parts have been pure fascists. If the communists aren't democratic, although they allow elections, they must be fascists because the elections don't mean much and the people are oppressed while the leaders live their usual decadent life.

 

[GeneralPetrov]

What didn´t you understand ?
It´s a farly simple aspect : Liberalism is different of democracy. And democracy is a larger and more embracing than liberalism. It´s a injust mistake comparing equally democracy with liberalism.

Well ignoring your ignorance of what liberalism actually is, where exactly does the game compare the two anyway? And what does this have to do with this dev diary?

 

[albso437]

It's interesting that the different groups are called democratic, communist and fascist while the communists in Sovjet and other parts have been pure fascists. If the communists aren't democratic, although they allow elections, they must be fascists because the elections don't mean much and the people are oppressed while the leaders live their usual decadent life.

The Maxim "Anything I personally dislike is Fascism" is as false as it is old.
Communism isn't democratic. Never.
That was what the whole split of Marxist socialism into Democratic Socialism and Communism was about in the first place.

 

[silentsam5]

It is great that the game is in Beta now! Congrats!

I do have some issues that may have been raised already. If they have, let me know.

Guarantee
This is the main tool for democracies trying to stop expansionist powers. By guaranteeing someone's independence you are called into war to protect them no matter what the world tension is (The actual guarantee requires at least 25% tension). Guaranteeing someone cost political power and these get (a lot) more expensive the more guarantees you have so carpeting europe is not a particularly good option.

I'm never a fan of limiting the player, or the AI that much. I think that preventing any guarantees from happening before 25% tension is too limiting. The increase in cost for each one is enough to ensure that one nation does not completely guarantee Europe, or something. Or is this done just so the player can't guarantee a certain nation too early, thereby ruining the chain of events that lead to WW2?

Military Access
Like in most paradox games, this lets you move troops in a nation's territory, but not attack from there. Airbase and naval base access requires factions and military access is not enough for this.

I believe, not sure if this is true, that the USSR allowed the US's planes to launch from their eastern airstrips near the end of WW2. There should be another diplomatic action that asks for basing rights or something, that way a country not involved in a war could allow another country's ships to refuel, resupply, or launch missions from their ports/airstrips.

Non Aggression Pact
A non aggression pact between you and another nation will stop you both from declaring wars. When first enacted you have 12 months where it can not be broken. After that it can be broken if they have a lot fewer units than you on your mutual border. The exact amount of troops required to ensure it's not breakable will get progressively smaller to break over time.

I'm not a fan of anything that feels artificial either. Instead of disallowing a nation from breaking a non aggression pact based on how many units they have on your border, why not just make the AI less likely to break it if you have more units than them on your border. If I want to break it, and I know they have a hell of a lot more units than me, why can't I?

Boost party popularity
You can spend political power to affect the popularity of parties in other nations. It's much less powerful than say enacting a minister in your own nation for that purpose, but it means that you can shift nations closer to you or set things up for a future coup.

Are the only 3 parties Democratic, Communist, and Fascist? Or would it boost the party that best represents the ideology?

I've read all DDs, but I could be forgetting if one of these issues was already address. Please forgive me if this makes me look foolish

 

[silentsam5]

It means the base game is completed, so no new features will be added etc. And now it is just testing in and getting rid of any bugs and balancing the game.

I heard that Beta Testing usually takes about 4 months. Is this true?

 

[GsusNSV]

I heard that Beta Testing usually takes about 4 months. Is this true?

Johan once said, he thinks it will take them 3-6 months after beta. That is the best we have ATM.

 

[silentsam5]

Johan once said, he thinks it will take them 3-6 months after beta. That is the best we have ATM.

Sounds great! I'd say at this point 8 months would be great news. I've never been this excited about the up and coming release of a game, so knowing that the game could be released in a matter of months is very hopeful!

 

[Johan]

Paradox HUGE mistake that you are making is that it´s not Democratic, but Liberal/liberalism. It´s a comum but horrible ideological mistake made by a lot of people comparing liberalism with democracy, since liberalism is a form of understanding that power of the state should be minimal or decreased and democracy is a understanding that power should be divided among people(should it be decreasing the state power or dividing the power of the state is a different concept discussed by the liberals and socialists.

Finally thanks, but i would appreciate the correction.

Democracy without liberalism does not exist.

 

[LoLLarN]

Democracy without liberalism does not exist.

It is time to invent it then!

 

[Calders]

Democracy without liberalism does not exist.

Can't agree with that... in fact you could argue that Britain during the war was hardly a liberal country (mind you, technically it wasn't democratic either). Another example might be America during the McCarthy era. A democracy can be illiberal as long as there is sufficient public support for being so. However the bigger problem with using "Democratic" as one of the three party types is that some of the countries rules by a party in that group won't be democratic. Liberal is an alternative but I actually think a better choice might be to call them capitalist.

 

[Secret Master]

Wonder if you went down that route you could offer Slovakia to Poland after Munich and the invasion of the rest of the Czech, I know they and Hungary had some claims though as a German player if I aligned with the Poles I'd be more inclined to take the Baltic states for myself for logistical reasons.

Yep, it's in the tree.

Although the other flaw in the Poland gambit is that no matter who you align with in Eastern Europe, you will anger someone else. Gain Poland, lose who?

 

[Cardus]

As plausible as the M-R Pact.

I see it as less plausible that Hitler would make such an offer for complicated reasons. But if Poland was offered, say, Lithuania and the Baltic states as their "compensation" for joining the war, I could see them at least considering it. Poland was the government that issued an ultimatum to Lithuania in 1938 and against the Czechs in 38 when the opportunities arose, so it's not like they don't have interests abroad.

Then there's the whole "Prometheism" of Piłsudski aimed at breaking up the Soviet Union, to say nothing of the Intermarium. Piłsudski may be dead in 35, but there's no reason that someone else couldn't try to carry the torch. And a German offer of the kind I describe would fit those policy goals nicely.

No, it is not plausible. Germany had claims on Poland and Poland wasn't available to consider to give up a inch of the land subtracted to Germany in 1918. In that case a war was the only natural outcome. The issue, as I said, is the Poland had 2 powerful neighbors from which had taken away land when they were extremely weak. For this reason Poland couldn't ally with Germany against Soviet Union or with Soviet Union against Germany. If France had not guaranteed Poland the issue would have been settled much earlier. Obviously IF Poland had a more reasonable leadership than things could have changed. The problem is that any reasonable settlement would have implied to give up some land (either to Germany or to Soviet Union). This could be plausible but quite unlikely as the Polish leadership was nationalistic, arrogant and conceited. In fact the battle plan in case of German aggression started with this: "the enemy is retreating" .

 

[Wraith11B]

Cardus... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact

Hitler attempted to get Poland to join the Anti-COMINTERN Pact in exchange for settling the territorial disputes with Poland. Poland feared becoming a client state of Germany, to be sure, but Pildulski after awhile wanted Hitler to stay in power.

 

[RJL518]

YAAYYYYY BETA!!!!!

 

[Bjorn_Ginger]

Communism isn't democratic. Never.

Yes, exactly. So why not have democratic, communistic fascism/socialistic fascism (left wing) and nationalistic fascism (right wing)? Although the Nazis called themselves a socialistic society, at least in the beginning, they would maybe have to go under right wing fascism because they were against communists and socialists.

 

[albso437]

Yes, exactly. So why not have democratic, communistic fascism/socialistic fascism (left wing) and nationalistic fascism (right wing)? Although the Nazis called themselves a socialistic society, at least in the beginning, they would maybe have to go under right wing fascism because they were against communists and socialists.

Ehr... Because Communism isn't Fascism.

 

[ClothCoat]

The Maxim "Anything I personally dislike is Fascism" is as false as it is old.
Communism isn't democratic. Never.
That was what the whole split of Marxist socialism into Democratic Socialism and Communism was about in the first place.

True this is why I think there should be a little more depth to ideology (WAIT PLEASE DON'T DOWNVOTE ME YET JUST HEAR ME OUT)! I remember George Orwell writing at the time that he wanted a Democratic Socialist federation among Western Europe that would stand in opposition to both American Capitalism and Stalinist Communism. Obviously that's ahistorical in our timeline but there's plenty of ways players could push for that, such as winning the Spanish Civil War for the Republican side and allowing Republican Spain to create a democratic leftist faction, or as some have brought up Eastern European countries creating a federation with a democratic but broadly socially conservative ideology.

I suppose in both cases these ideologies would usually fall under the "democratic" label, and they would prefer to work with the Allies if they could, but they are different enough to not fall comfortably under the Allied banner. I DON'T NEED THE TEN IDEOLOGIES OF HOI3, that was clunky I know that. How about just to start:

Communism - Socialist - Liberal ("Democratic") - Conservative - Fascist

As far as I can tell both the "socialist" and "conservative" ideologies can have democratic or authoritarian governments, with the player being able to push for either if they want to. Like in real life which type of government they have can help dictate whether they have Axis/Comintern leanings or Allied ones, but they are still different enough to excuse wanting to set up their own ideologically driven faction, or being flexible enough to work with the other side if it benefits them (for instance Nationalist China has an "Authoritarian conservative" govenment but nonetheless tends to work with the Allies... but it would be harder for them to join the ComIntern without some government changes).

I also like a sliding spectrum because it might be a bit jarring if the player is trying slowly shift your government from "liberal" to straight up "fascist" without some sort of phase inbetween.

 

[Razielus]

The opposite NF for "Danzig or War" is actually "Danzig for Slovakia", which leds to "Befriend Poland".
View attachment 157578

They added another focus after "Befriend Poland" - Invade France