Will there be events where there have been like small encounters between border guards that could lead to more WT? Or other small events like this?
Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 16 - World Tension
- Thread starter podcat
- 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.
sweet.....so all actions (or even their inactions) by all nations have consequences ?
War is the continuation of politics by other means. WW2 was a total war, meaning both an economic and a diplomatic one. Without features such as this one in this DD we wouldn't have the hole experience.
- 18
Why don't we get this holiday in germany ?
I would be glad to have time to celebrate.
I would be glad to have time to celebrate.
Will Democracies have ways to increase World Tension? Such as cutting off trade with Axis or likely Axis such as Japan? I get that they can react to tension, but I'd like to see some limited ways for us to play at FDR (I know, lend lease and all that). It would also be fun to play as a minor power and try to jack things up, for the best reasons, of course. I think I'll enjoy the mechanic.
Excellent news. Can we expect 4 Dev diaries after that? 5?
Excellent news. Can we expect 4 Dev diaries after that? 5?
- 1
Am I crazy, or do the borders of the "provinces" look much more defined in the screenshot than in previous ones? Maybe its just me.
Also, while I love this new "neutral" grouping, I really wish personally that we could think of something other than that term for it. But then again, I can't think of one that fits either, so I am not questioning the developers' judgement here.
Also, while I love this new "neutral" grouping, I really wish personally that we could think of something other than that term for it. But then again, I can't think of one that fits either, so I am not questioning the developers' judgement here.
Excellent news. Can we expect 4 Dev diaries after that? 5?
We shall see. my list of possible topics is over 25 anyway.
- 14
So, if I'm playing an Allied country, I can take a couple of threatening actions to unite the world against Germany and Japan? I see a need for independent "global tension" variables for each of the three (or four?) ideologies.
Overall, I'm very pleased to see that the game is intended to have deeper consequences to your actions than the last, but I'm not sure how well the proposed implementation is going to fulfill that need. In my opinion, the ideas behind the system in HOI3 were solid, but were never properly balanced. In earlier expansions, Threat worked as intended to push neutral countries away from aggressors, but made those small countries more vulnerable to being "bullied" into an alliance as well. The problem was that once enough Threat was generated by all parties, it effectively "locked" countries into the middle of the triangle, driven there from all sides with nothing powerful enough to pry them loose. Rather than putting a "soft" cap on Threat, or reducing It by around half, it was "rebalanced" in TFH down to the point where Threat essentially had no meaningful effect on drift, and diplomacy became little more than a meta-game to lower Neutrality. One simple trade deal could more than offset the drift effects of major hostile acts, and the weird Neutrality rules created a situation where it frequently made more sense to make "country A" look scary so you could attack "country B". The cure (amputation at the neck) was worse than the disease, in my opinion.
To me, nearly half the fun in HOI is/was getting your faction together and organizing a "side" to fight against the other "sides". The actual combat almost seems like an afterthought at times (depending on who you manage to get in your coalition), although I still see it as an absolutely critical part of the game. I can see that some players want the historical lineup every time, with no variation, and the ability to refight the exact same war 500 times to tweak all of their actions and get it "perfect", rather than face realistic hard choices and deal with multiple possibilities and occasional surprises. To me, that's "Chess", not a historical wargame, but the game needs to address that aspect as well, since it does bring in revenue.
Overall, I'm very pleased to see that the game is intended to have deeper consequences to your actions than the last, but I'm not sure how well the proposed implementation is going to fulfill that need. In my opinion, the ideas behind the system in HOI3 were solid, but were never properly balanced. In earlier expansions, Threat worked as intended to push neutral countries away from aggressors, but made those small countries more vulnerable to being "bullied" into an alliance as well. The problem was that once enough Threat was generated by all parties, it effectively "locked" countries into the middle of the triangle, driven there from all sides with nothing powerful enough to pry them loose. Rather than putting a "soft" cap on Threat, or reducing It by around half, it was "rebalanced" in TFH down to the point where Threat essentially had no meaningful effect on drift, and diplomacy became little more than a meta-game to lower Neutrality. One simple trade deal could more than offset the drift effects of major hostile acts, and the weird Neutrality rules created a situation where it frequently made more sense to make "country A" look scary so you could attack "country B". The cure (amputation at the neck) was worse than the disease, in my opinion.
To me, nearly half the fun in HOI is/was getting your faction together and organizing a "side" to fight against the other "sides". The actual combat almost seems like an afterthought at times (depending on who you manage to get in your coalition), although I still see it as an absolutely critical part of the game. I can see that some players want the historical lineup every time, with no variation, and the ability to refight the exact same war 500 times to tweak all of their actions and get it "perfect", rather than face realistic hard choices and deal with multiple possibilities and occasional surprises. To me, that's "Chess", not a historical wargame, but the game needs to address that aspect as well, since it does bring in revenue.
- 4
- 1
such features will only make the game difficult to fix
- 14
Re: the second screenshot:
I've been looking through the other dev diaries and haven't found a proper answer to this. What benefits are there to isolation as opposed to mobilization? From what I see, for an engaging game, a player would want to power level through that system, so more actions are available.
My question extends a bit into historical realism. The Allies wanted to keep tensions down, to appease, to not increase WT (from the game's standpoint), mostly because they were the "Haves" of the previous war and wanted to prosper. The Axis wanted to keep it down so they wouldn't be DoWed too early, all the while trying to change the "Have Nots" status they had from the previous war.
In EUIV the gameplay systems are set in such a way that playing to history is the way to win - Venice trades, Spain colonizes, etc... More accurately - the owner of the Venice province/trade center would win by trading, and the owner of the Spanish/Portuguese coast would win by colonising.
Does the same happen with WT? I understand the way it works for fascist countries. If you play any fascist country, your gameplay interest is to expand, and keep WT down so you can get away with it. If you do that, you win, similar to what happened historically.
But what's the gameplay interest of a democratic nation?
If I play USA, do I want to heighten WT, in order to move out of isolation and DoW the Axis early, before they get a chance to act? That would be how I would win, and that's not historically accurate.
If I play a minor country, what's my gameplay interest in WT? How does manipulating WT affect my winning?
I've been looking through the other dev diaries and haven't found a proper answer to this. What benefits are there to isolation as opposed to mobilization? From what I see, for an engaging game, a player would want to power level through that system, so more actions are available.
My question extends a bit into historical realism. The Allies wanted to keep tensions down, to appease, to not increase WT (from the game's standpoint), mostly because they were the "Haves" of the previous war and wanted to prosper. The Axis wanted to keep it down so they wouldn't be DoWed too early, all the while trying to change the "Have Nots" status they had from the previous war.
In EUIV the gameplay systems are set in such a way that playing to history is the way to win - Venice trades, Spain colonizes, etc... More accurately - the owner of the Venice province/trade center would win by trading, and the owner of the Spanish/Portuguese coast would win by colonising.
Does the same happen with WT? I understand the way it works for fascist countries. If you play any fascist country, your gameplay interest is to expand, and keep WT down so you can get away with it. If you do that, you win, similar to what happened historically.
But what's the gameplay interest of a democratic nation?
If I play USA, do I want to heighten WT, in order to move out of isolation and DoW the Axis early, before they get a chance to act? That would be how I would win, and that's not historically accurate.
If I play a minor country, what's my gameplay interest in WT? How does manipulating WT affect my winning?
- 2
- 1
Tension looks very nice - I can be a bit worried about its being global, though, but we'll see.
Neutral Poland, instead, looks a bit lol. Wasn't it a Fascist country? Are conflicts within the blocks impossible by design?
Neutral Poland, instead, looks a bit lol. Wasn't it a Fascist country? Are conflicts within the blocks impossible by design?
Raises the question:
Will it be possible to have a border war or border dispute between 2 states, where there are for instance, border clashes or artillery exchanges because of "border tensions" or rising strife between the countries? I mean a small little border clash, so no real war declared, just a border spat?
Something like the way north korea would always threathen south korea (modern day example), they might even sink a ship or fire artillery across the border, but there is no actual war started, it is just a clash.
Will it be possible to have a border war or border dispute between 2 states, where there are for instance, border clashes or artillery exchanges because of "border tensions" or rising strife between the countries? I mean a small little border clash, so no real war declared, just a border spat?
Something like the way north korea would always threathen south korea (modern day example), they might even sink a ship or fire artillery across the border, but there is no actual war started, it is just a clash.
It's a wargame after all, i wouldn't expect to win WW2 by just making fridges and washing machines.
I see it more as a balancing thing, USA has a lot of industry but to put it on a war effort first has to end the isolation
This is great development; bullying mana is a welcome addition to the game, but I think we need to go further. The current party system is far too complex - it's only fair we remove all four parties and add the following:
Good guy party
everyone else
Bad guy party
germany and italy and maybe finland
This is the only system that will streamline the system ergonomically enough for it to be playable for all types of player
Good guy party
everyone else
Bad guy party
germany and italy and maybe finland
This is the only system that will streamline the system ergonomically enough for it to be playable for all types of player
- 12
- 2
All these features really looks like it can tip into the Cold war very easily. I know this is a HOI game but I hope that paradox considers releasing a Cold War DLC to expand on this.
- 3
- 1
Thanx a lot for the DD pod
I am a bit wary of a global value personally..
Polish ambassador : Welcome sir, how may Poland be of assistance to you today.
German ambassador : The Peruvian Llama scandal was the last drop, we are at war sir!
Polish ambassador : errr, what ?
I am a bit wary of a global value personally..
Polish ambassador : Welcome sir, how may Poland be of assistance to you today.
German ambassador : The Peruvian Llama scandal was the last drop, we are at war sir!
Polish ambassador : errr, what ?
- 12