Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 16 - World Tension

[Gamer_1745]

To start off, we have made some changes to previously presented stuff. When we last talked about parties and ideologies there were only 3 ideological leanings for countries: Democratic, Fascist and Communist. After some playing we felt this was too constraining, so we have added a 4th group we call Neutral. It functions as a sort of catch-all ideology for nations who don't really fit into the big three. Nations like Poland, Greece, or Yugoslavia fit here, for example, instead of lumping them into the ideology we expect them to join. Neutral nations, for the most part just want to be left alone to get on with life, but their lack of a solid stance means that members of the main ideologies have an easier time influencing them.

@podcat

'Neutral' does not sound good. You could call it 'Authoritarian', which I would say covers Poland, Greece, or Yugoslavia. Now if you need to to cover Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden & Switzerland as well I would call them 'Traditionalist' Governments. This would cover liberal Monarchies, limited democracies or minor strongmen governments. It could also function for those who want to do things like restore the German Monarchy and need a fourth system. I believe it fills your need to have a government type that generally wants to stay out of the war and is flexible enough to cover different nations 'Traditional' governments. Also in the aftermath of WWI 'Traditional' governments were breaking down and were vulnerable to ' main ideologies have an easier time influencing them'.

 

[Mendeth]

@podcat

'Neutral' does not sound good. You could call it 'Authoritarian', which I would say covers Poland, Greece, or Yugoslavia. Now if you need to to cover Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden & Switzerland as well I would call them 'Traditionalist' Governments. This would cover liberal Monarchies, limited democracies or minor strongmen governments. It could also function for those who want to do things like restore the German Monarchy and need a fourth system. I believe it fills your need to have a government type that generally wants to stay out of the war and is flexible enough to cover different nations 'Traditional' governments. Also in the aftermath of WWI 'Traditional' governments were breaking down and were vulnerable to ' main ideologies have an easier time influencing them'.

I think the idea of the 'neutral' tag is more indicative of a distance from the Democratic, Fascist or Communist factions than the nature of their governments. I suppose 'non-aligned' might be an alternative term, similar to the voting block in the UN.

 

[BestOfTheWest]

"Nationalist Spain decleared war on Republican Spain" sounds somewhat weird for a civil war

 

[fizy45]

I cant see the images in any dev diaries since we begin to use the new forum anyone know why ?

 

[ClothCoat]

@podcat

'Neutral' does not sound good. You could call it 'Authoritarian', which I would say covers Poland, Greece, or Yugoslavia. Now if you need to to cover Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden & Switzerland as well I would call them 'Traditionalist' Governments. This would cover liberal Monarchies, limited democracies or minor strongmen governments. It could also function for those who want to do things like restore the German Monarchy and need a fourth system. I believe it fills your need to have a government type that generally wants to stay out of the war and is flexible enough to cover different nations 'Traditional' governments. Also in the aftermath of WWI 'Traditional' governments were breaking down and were vulnerable to ' main ideologies have an easier time influencing them'.

They could just simplify the whole thing and just have five ideologies and wash their hands of it. It seems that's what they're leaning towards doing anyways:

Communist - Social Democrat - Liberal - Conservative - Fascist

Give each ideology a unique trait, such as making it easier to pass certain laws for one than another (the further you are from liberal the easier it is to have government intervention). An ideology between liberal and Communist/Fascist will lean in between the Allies and Comintern/Axis in ideological terms, though there should be more than just ideology influencing a nations drift to make it realistic.

Alternatively if they want something more complex like seven ideologies, which still cuts down on the bloated nine ideologies in HOI3, it could work:

Communist - Socialist/Radical - Social Democrat - Liberal - Conservative - Autocrat - Fascist

Honestly the way they have it now "works" and is playable, but I think something like the five ideology system would be better, with "Conservatives" being in power in both democracies and autocracies depending on the government (UK vs Poland were both conservative leaderships but obviously very different ones).

 

[DC123456789]

Which is basically what a lot of people have been clamoring for ever since they first introduced the oversimplified political system.

 

[Denkt]

And still HOI4 political system is way more complex then HOI3 political system.

 

[Gamer_1745]

@ClothCoat

You are right and I also think more ideologies would be good and I hope this is moddable. My main thought is regarding the name/term being used for their current system not redesigning the system. I am trying to be helpful to the game they are building and not the game I would build or will be able to mod later.

 

[dark devil]

Thanks for this new DD.

 

[Denkt]

I think their current system is better then adding more ideologies as the game is focused on the world.

3 ideologies lead to the 3 standard factions. Country relationship will be important but that don't need more ideologies.

 

[Mannstien]

Oh lordy lordy, not those bloody EU pop up icons lol

 

[ObssesedNuker]

@podcat: I noticed you covered how World Tension affects fascist and democratic states, but you don't really talk about how it affects communist ones. Could we get any elaboration on that or will we have to wait?

Otherwise, things seem to be shaping up nicely! Glad to hear that they are far enough along that we may see weekly DDs in a month! I also can't help but notice the lack of pre-alpha stickers on the most recent screenshots.

 

[Kadanz]

I think their current system is better then adding more ideologies as the game is focused on the world.

3 ideologies lead to the 3 standard factions. Country relationship will be important but that don't need more ideologies.

I don't think it fits the game either. It's something which would be better suited for Vic 3. But you won't hear me complain if they decided to expand it down the road!

 

[jeep91]

imho, military aspects of the game should be highly detailed
the rest should be simple
so, it think this feature is not very essential and needed

57x Disagrees daaaaaamn dude

 

[Sloeberjong]

Country government =/= country ideology

There can be a lot of different political parties but the country can still be aligned towards a certain ideology. For US that means that democrats or republicans alike will align towards the allies even though it is a republic with different political parties. They ally with the UK who's a constitutional monarchy. I think representing this through having your government align towards one of the 3 big ideologies (or neutral) is a good representation of the situation. The actual government type and the parties don't really matter because the country is controlled as a whole (especially by players). If you want to go a different route with your country than historical you want to change the political landscape by steering it toward another big ideology and which specific party does that is unimportant. It's a better representation of what you as a player would want to happen IMO. Government type should give certain bonusses and malusses for laws etc. but not necessarily be a prerequisite for ideology. The absolute monarchy of Saudi Arabia nowadays is a big ally of the US and they have very big differences in doing things in their countries, but they do share a common goal (peace in the Middle East). That's what happened during WW2, countries joined the Allies for their own reasons or Axis or Communist but it didn't necessarily have anything to do with their government type...if you get what I mean, I find it harder than I thought to get my point across...

 

[Sernista]

@podcat: I noticed you covered how World Tension affects fascist and democratic states, but you don't really talk about how it affects communist ones. Could we get any elaboration on that or will we have to wait?

Otherwise, things seem to be shaping up nicely! Glad to hear that they are far enough along that we may see weekly DDs in a month! I also can't help but notice the lack of pre-alpha stickers on the most recent screenshots.

I would imagine that dictatorial/totalitarian communists like Stalin have a lot of the same considerations going on as Fascists if they intend to be expansionist. Anyone relying on taking what they want has reason to hope that the other big guys stay out of the way and let them have their fun.

I don't know how they'll handle states like the Spanish Republic, which teeter on the borderline between democracy and communism - obviously there was a substantial faction pushing for them to end up in a classical Stalinist state, but it would be neat if there were other outcomes available between "fall to totalitarianism, one way or the other" and "be counted as just another western democracy with the radically different economic system hand-waved". For one thing, I imagine there would have been diplomatic ramifications if the Popular Front's campaign of socialist/anarchist reforms continued. But that's getting into a tangent.

 

[21oliver]

My concern is how does certain actions effect nations specifically, not globally. If Germany mobilizes its troops, Poland will get scared but Cuba say might not give a crap.

 

[Denkt]

My concern is how does certain actions effect nations specifically, not globally. If Germany mobilizes its troops, Poland will get scared but Cuba say might not give a crap.

Country relations probably play a big role.

 

[21oliver]

Individual relations between nations play a role as well. The Balkan nations hated each other, even when they allied they still hated each other. So likely for example they would fear each other whether anyone did anything wrong or not. When France & the UK talked tough with Germany, Hitler polled may nations, those of which still stated at that time that regardless of Hitler's bloodless conquests they didn't fear Germany. Remember even Belgium felt safe enough as a Neutral not to join the Allies (and this hurt France's defense). Part of the problem with HOI3 was that the threat system was basically global. If your playing the Soviet Union and you want to hurt the Axis, its simple take a few minors early and you'll bring the USA into the Allies and they'll launch the war early, even though its YOUR threat that sets them off. Made no sense.

 

[Kovax]

If the SU goes on an early conquering spree, does that essentially screw GER/JAP/ITA? I'm liking the idea of "global tension", but feel that there needs to be some kind of "individual responsibility" as well, rather than all of it being dumped into the same pool....or else we get a "llama war".

I like the uncluttered map image in the OP. I won't say what's conspicuously missing at that zoom level.