Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 16 - World Tension

[Secret Master]

Why would Germany receiving Danzig from Poland avoid the war? Do we honestly think the Danzig corridor is the limit of Hitler's ambitions?

Even if he settles accounts with Poland without starting a war, surely some kind of conflict with the Soviets is coming down the pipe. And Alsace-Lorraine is a German claim on France...

 

[Gamer_1745]

Why would Germany receiving Danzig from Poland avoid the war? Do we honestly think the Danzig corridor is the limit of Hitler's ambitions?

The only thing I can see is if Poland gives up the Danzig Corridor without Poland going to war and then Germany declares war on Poland anyway it could have greater impact on World Tension (U.S. or other minor nations (not children) like Belgium, Netherlands & others join the war early).

 

[xtfoster]

Just wondering: if poland would have danzig to germany will war be avoided?

Well, since this is a game about the war, I would think that even if Poland were to give up Danzig, something else would eventually start WWII.

 

[Secret Master]

The only thing I can see is if Poland gives up the Danzig Corridor without Poland going to war and then Germany declares war on Poland anyway it could have greater impact on World Tension (U.S. or other minor nations (not children) like Belgium, Netherlands & others join the war early).

What I'm getting at is that given what we know about Hitler's very specific territorial ambitions, there are many more demands he can and would make in any situation where he does not get a war in 1939. Hell, he and his military planners were all laboring under the assumption of a general war breaking out in 1943.

So, I don't think Poland caving into his demands would have prevented any war historically, nor should it in the game. It might change the nature of the war, but I think it's a bit naive to think that Poland ceding Danzig averts the whole war.

 

[BrotherArdis]

Why would Poland ceding Danzig prevent a war with the UK & France at all?

Hitler wanted a war with France. That was the point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - to allow him to safely deal with the French - which in turn was a last-minute replacement for an alliance with Poland that he was trying long and hard to achieve and only gave up when time started to run out. The attack on Poland was again only a step towards the conflict with France.

If anything, ceding Danzig may accelerate a war with the West, enabling Germany to attack France directly in 1939, instead of dealing with Poland first.

 

[diegosimeone]

Question: Say I control Germany, attack Poland while the Soviets follow and then have to focus on the western front. I decide against attacking the Soviets for obvious reasons. Are they going to attack Germany at some point seeing that it might be a threat or does it not matter that much for faction leaders? (I'm also asking as the attack on Germany was allegedly planned by the Soviets just the same way the Germans planned for Barbarossa)

[if this has already been asked and answered, please just direct me to that post, 20 pages is a lot]

 

[DeclaredYuppie]

Question: Say I control Germany, attack Poland while the Soviets follow and then have to focus on the western front. I decide against attacking the Soviets for obvious reasons. Are they going to attack Germany at some point seeing that it might be a threat or does it not matter that much for faction leaders? (I'm also asking as the attack on Germany was allegedly planned by the Soviets just the same way the Germans planned for Barbarossa)

[if this has already been asked and answered, please just direct me to that post, 20 pages is a lot]

Well it seems like there should be a chance that they do, and a chance that they don't. If players are easily able to predict what a major nation like Russia is going to do, that's probably not very good for the game, in general.


Edit- in terms of how this might be handled contextually beyond a random trigger that just says "50% of the time Russia will declare war on Germany in 41 or 42", there could be events for Japan opting to attack Russia instead of the US, Russia pushing into Sweden (threatening Germany's steel supply) or demanding Romania (taking oil resources), or maybe even England/France have some last minute Hail Mary offer to get Stalin to bow out of M-R pact.

 

[diegosimeone]

Well it seems like there should be a chance that they do, and a chance that they don't. If players are easily able to predict what a major nation like Russia is going to do, that's probably not very good for the game, in general.

Yes, obviously I'm not asking if it's going to be a given but basically if the USSR-Germany war depends solely on Germany's actions in the game or not I like that random trigger you mentioned, though I think the odds probably should be higher, but only that the dates are random//depending on ther strength of course.

 

[Kovax]

Random triggers without anything to affect the odds always seem ridiculous to me. Doesn't matter if Relations are at +140 or at -70, doesn't matter if we've got other wars on our hands to deal with, doesn't matter who is in the cabinet, doesn't matter who has how many troops, it's still a 50% chance. Sorry, that's not good for a "plausible" scenario. I want to see at least one or two outside factors affect it (the more the better), so if it makes no sense for it to happen, the odds are abysmally low or non-existent, and if everything adds up to make it seem likely, it will probably happen.

I really disliked how in EU3 and several other games, the odds of things happening were only slightly affected, if at all, by circumstances. You could have +200 Relations with a country, a Royal Marriage, no conflicts or mutual cores, an alliance, military access in both directions, a long history of cooperation in war after war, and a large mutual adversary waiting on the doorsteps of both for the first sign of weakness, and your "ally" might suddenly decide to break all diplomatic ties and attack you, just because the RNG came up with an extreme value. I don't want to see "purely random behavior" passed off as "plausible alternatives" in yet another game.

 

[Warp Drive]

Look at CKII and especially EU4 on how the AI is modelled. Gone are the days of forced triggers. Nowadays they take a historical situation and model the causes leading up to a chain of events.

Take a look at the dynamic historical events in EU4, like the War of the Roses. You can easily prevent it by having an heir with a strong claim, among other things. Sure, in most cases, you or AI England doesn't, leading up to it. But if you play your cards right you can affect change in history in a clear and predictable manner. When I say predictable I don't mean determined. I mean if you do action A it will always lead to consequence B and you can rely on that fact.

To parallel with the HOI4 timeline - WWII started because Hitler overreached. You can choose to go that way, or you can choose to play it safe. The point is, if you do decide to play it safe, you won't be surprised by a scripted DoW any more.

 

[Secret Master]

Random triggers without anything to affect the odds always seem ridiculous to me. Doesn't matter if Relations are at +140 or at -70, doesn't matter if we've got other wars on our hands to deal with, doesn't matter who is in the cabinet, doesn't matter who has how many troops, it's still a 50% chance. Sorry, that's not good for a "plausible" scenario. I want to see at least one or two outside factors affect it (the more the better), so if it makes no sense for it to happen, the odds are abysmally low or non-existent, and if everything adds up to make it seem likely, it will probably happen.

I really disliked how in EU3 and several other games, the odds of things happening were only slightly affected, if at all, by circumstances. You could have +200 Relations with a country, a Royal Marriage, no conflicts or mutual cores, an alliance, military access in both directions, a long history of cooperation in war after war, and a large mutual adversary waiting on the doorsteps of both for the first sign of weakness, and your "ally" might suddenly decide to break all diplomatic ties and attack you, just because the RNG came up with an extreme value. I don't want to see "purely random behavior" passed off as "plausible alternatives" in yet another game.

Given what I've seen in EU4 and CK2, Paradox has gone in the direction of AIs that engage in realpolitik. I won't say the AI in either game is operating at Otto von Bismark levels (beware an AI that can think at that level, as it would rival Skynet), but it makes fairly rational decisions based on the current geopolitical setup in the game. How many times have I cowed vassals into obedience by virtue of being much stronger than them? How many times have I seen the AI in EU4 form coalitions to address the latest Louis XIV style problem? Sometimes the AI makes mystifying moves, but in many cases these mystifying moves are the product of the AI betting on long odds (which is a human thing to do).

To be honest, I'm more concerned that certain countries will end up being more engaged in realpolitik than they were historically, causing odd problems on the lead up to the war. The Soviets add one too many armored divisions, and the next thing you know, a coalition of Balkan states aligns with Germany and launches a crusade against Communism in 1938, derailing everything. The World Tension mechanic should alleviate some of this, but there may still be odd tipping points to worry about.

 

[misterbean]

As I said before, that's where balancing and beta testing comes in. If they do it right, we'll be ok. Given the level of play one gets in their most recent games, I don't think that PDS will let us down.

 

[Gamer_1745]

To be honest, I'm more concerned that certain countries will end up being more engaged in realpolitik than they were historically, causing odd problems on the lead up to the war.

I think that is what the National Focus Tree will help with along with World Tension. From what was said about it it will help the AI be most historical? I am guessing things like Japan needing to conquer some Pacific islands to achieve a National Focus or if you have political ideology of 'Neutral' the AI might have a National Focus that keeps them out of the War untill attacked.

 

[Hans_Schnitzel]

Actually, the National Focus system is supposed to help the AI go ahistorical. HoI IV is trying to make sure that WWII starts differently, plays out differently and ends differently. The German Reich doesn't even have to be the main aggressor, it could be a soviet invasion. It's supposed to be more sandboxy, even on the AI side.

I love that! It's a bit boring to know that the AI will always take the same path.

 

[misterbean]

As long as any deviation from history makes sense in the grand scheme of the particular campaign. So China giving in to Japan in 1937 or the Czechs sticking it to Hitler over the Sudetenland make sense. France DoWing Switzerland out of the blue does not.

 

[safe-keeper]

As long as any deviation from history makes sense in the grand scheme of the particular campaign. So China giving in to Japan in 1937 or the Czechs sticking it to Hitler over the Sudetenland make sense. France DoWing Switzerland out of the blue does not.

Exactly.

 

[Hans_Schnitzel]

Perhaps they should add starting options regarding how ahistorical things can go. From "Every nation does what they did back then" to "The US became facist and is trying to take over the world while the benevolent German democracy is attempting to stop them".

 

[Joppos]

Perhaps they should add starting options regarding how ahistorical things can go. From "Every nation does what they did back then" to "The US became facist and is trying to take over the world while the benevolent German democracy is attempting to stop them".

Seeing as how it seems likely that the national focus trees will become the main decider in what broad-strokes historical/non-historical path the AI nations pursue, their preferred paths could perhaps already as the game is built now be weighted, via modding if nothing else. However it may be, the NF system seems really nice and have a lot of potential for more immersive AI decisions.

 

[Kovax]

It sounds like it has the potential to be anywhere from really good to really bad. I guess we'll have to wait until game release to know for certain.....or longer, if it's like most Paradox games. Most don't really show their real potential until at least the first couple of patches, or the first expansion.

 

[Secret Master]

As long as any deviation from history makes sense in the grand scheme of the particular campaign. So China giving in to Japan in 1937 or the Czechs sticking it to Hitler over the Sudetenland make sense. France DoWing Switzerland out of the blue does not.

Pretty much.

Looking at the national focus trees we've seen so far, the ahistorical options all seem plausible.

So, you get nudged down the road of a plausible alternate history, not pants-on-head insanity. Like Poland DOWing Denmark because the Soviets attacked Ecuador.