Historical / Ahistorical setting

[camfrlas]

hi, i have a bit hard time understanding the appeal Historical setting gets around here. the way i see it, it sure is fun to try and recreate WW2 and "make it happen" or "prevent this" and things like this. but this will pass because it is still a strategy game, and what fun (in a long term) there is, if you know about every major shift, that's going to happen?

so my questions are

1. if you think historical starts are better, please, tell me why. am i missing something? (because i think i will try it maybe once for Europe and once for Asia and that's it)
2. too soon, i know, but do we have any word on achievements? will they work for both historical and ahistorical start? will there be some achievements exclusive only to one setting?
3. given what we saw at World War Wednesday, even though they started with historical AI settings on, there is no FDR, no Stalin, Gdansk was given away, the Franco-British Union was formed and i'm sure i've missed something. (let's bet on how likely it is Churchill to show up hehe). so is it because of the internal release and should it be considered more as a series of bugs? because if this is "correct" for a historical setting, then what is ahistorical? Japan turning to democracy and marching to Moscow and stuff like that?

thanks for replies and devs please release it already. so not cool to keep playing it and posting it online like this. cheers.

 

[GsusNSV]

Its just an option to have the AI follow national focuses according to a timeline.

That isnt what this is, its just a mode where the AI nations pickes focuses in a historical order if they can. if they cant (say if Secret master has been abusing stuff) they will do other stuff. Its not affecting other things or lobotomozing the diplomatic and strategic AI like in HOI3

yeah. full historical mode by its nature would lead to unhistorical gameplay as players wouldnt do historical choices when faced with a historic AI etc.

So the game will be historical, as long as the player stays historical.

 

[Wulf145]

3. given what we saw at World War Wednesday, even though they started with historical AI settings on, there is no FDR, no Stalin, Gdansk was given away, the Franco-British Union was formed and i'm sure i've missed something. (let's bet on how likely it is Churchill to show up hehe). so is it because of the internal release and should it be considered more as a series of bugs? because if this is "correct" for a historical setting, then what is ahistorical? Japan turning to democracy and marching to Moscow and stuff like that?

thanks for replies and devs please release it already. so not cool to keep playing it and posting it online like this. cheers.

Since WWW is a Multiplayer where both England and Germany, two Countries pivotal to WW2, did not adhere to the historical path i.e. England backing up Poland against German requests. The Polish AI reacted accordingly and ceded territory to avoid a war it could not win since it had noone to help it. In a single Player game England would have given Poland guarantees before Germany got to the Danzig or War event.

In the Historical Mode I expect the AI to pursue Historical Goals and take Historical decisions, but I do expect it to leave that path if it does not make sense, i.e. Try to invade in Normandy if Germany has fortified it beyond belief and has Air superiority.

 

[Axe99]

hi, i have a bit hard time understanding the appeal Historical setting gets around here. the way i see it, it sure is fun to try and recreate WW2 and "make it happen" or "prevent this" and things like this. but this will pass because it is still a strategy game, and what fun (in a long term) there is, if you know about every major shift, that's going to happen?

so my questions are

1. if you think historical starts are better, please, tell me why. am i missing something? (because i think i will try it maybe once for Europe and once for Asia and that's it)

Given the high level of operational control available in HoI, I'd imagine there's a lot of appeal playing out a WW2 where the politics lined up as it did historically (the point of historical mode) and see whether someone could do better with their nation. There are quite a number of strategic and operational wargames that are far more strictly historical than any of the HoIs has ever been, and they've been around since before HoI, so while it may not appeal to you in particular, there's definitely an audience for it, and there's plenty of 'what-if' game to be had for everyone involved.

For example, while you know about every major political shift, Barbarossa will still potentially play out differently, as the operational AI isn't locked. Same story with Japan in China and the Pacific, or Germany invading France, as well as the Allied/Soviet counterstrokes. The range of potential options even if you lock in the political choices a la historical mode is enough to play the game for thousands of hours.

Of course, the range of potential options in sandbox mode is enough to play the game for years - but thousands of hours is still good .

 

[Snappie88]

so is it because of the internal release and should it be considered more as a series of bugs?

I'm surprised every time something ahistorical comes up in a WWW, people start complaining about how it is ahistorical. Ofcourse some things are going to be ahistorical, because if it would not be, every game would be exactly the same, and would play out exactly the same. And why stop there? Why not tie the production lines to be historical as well? Why not let divisions move historical as well? Why not railroad the entire game?

Because it wouldn't be any fun.

 

[Procyanide]

I'm surprised every time something ahistorical comes up in a WWW, people start complaining about how it is ahistorical. Ofcourse some things are going to be ahistorical, because if it would not be, every game would be exactly the same, and would play out exactly the same. And why stop there? Why not tie the production lines to be historical as well? Why not let divisions move historical as well? Why not railroad the entire game?

Because it wouldn't be any fun.

This, so much this.

Why not just watch a movie about WW2? I always wonder where people would draw the line regarding historical accuracy. If you want to play 100% historical, Germany inevitably loses the war. How much fun is that?

What would be the arguments for making all political decisions 100% historical, but all military decisions (like movements, attacks, etc) ahistorical?

 

[Jonas]

I'm surprised every time something ahistorical comes up in a WWW, people start complaining about how it is ahistorical. Ofcourse some things are going to be ahistorical, because if it would not be, every game would be exactly the same, and would play out exactly the same. And why stop there? Why not tie the production lines to be historical as well? Why not let divisions move historical as well? Why not railroad the entire game?

Because it wouldn't be any fun.

I cannot speak for others, but to me there is a difference between an ahistorical setting and ahistorical decisions within this setting. The game is sold as a WWII game and while I have not seen the selling point of trying different "what if scenarios" for HOI4, the previous installments were advertised as a means to this end. I ask what interest would trying different what if scenarios out have, if they are not played out in a setting at least slightly similar to the original? People will have different ideas about at what point the game ceases to be a WWII game and becomes a fantasy game, but everyone must have such a point.

For example, I have a problem with minors having similar research capabilities as majors. In spite of what Jacob says, it is both ahistorical and unrealistic. If I try out different strategies as Finland, I will always have an outcome in a world where Finland (and all other minors) are technologically overpowered. That makes the outcome uninteresting to me. It is not more fun for me to play a Finland with ahistorical research capacity, but less. If I can manage to make the historical Finland more powerful by realistic ahistorical decisions, that is a different matter. Some people point to isolated examples like the Swedish 40mm Bofors gun to justify similar research capabilities, but it is a truly bad decision to calibrate a system by the exceptions. Swedish equipment was decidedly inferior to that of the majors in all other aspects. Given the nature of research, some breakthroughs can occur anywhere, but averaged out and especially with many projects, significantly more scientists and engineers will achieve more than significantly fewer, much more. It would be better to let those who want to experiment with a technologically overpowered minor cheat, than to force all players put up with all minors being technologically overpowered at all times.

Some people argue that this is a game and it will never be completely realistic. Of course not. There is a difference, however, between not being able to create a model that fully reflects reality, and actively and consciously deciding to set the game up to be unrealistic.

When it comes to ahistorical decisions, those are the whole point of the game. I want those decisions made by the AI, however, to seem at least moderately sane. Again, the interest I have in the outcome is reduced if I feel this outcome came about in a setting where for example China was ruled by a raving lunatic. I start to suspect that might be the case when I see China asking Jacob's Germany for military access. If the AI goes Johan on me and makes Sweden nuke Denmark, the relevance of the game is lost for me. If the AI makes ahistorical decisions which make sense (and I am sure it will, at times or often), I will be delighted.

Lots of subjective opinions (apart from research levels), but I hope I answered some of Your questions. The one about forcing historical troop movements does not deserve an answer.

 

[camfrlas]

I'm surprised every time something ahistorical comes up in a WWW, people start complaining about how it is ahistorical.

i'm in no way against something ahistorical, quite the opposite. i only expressed wonder on how does historic AI and Franko-British Union work together. you're taking it too far in your holy war.

Since WWW is a Multiplayer where both England and Germany, two Countries pivotal to WW2, did not adhere to the historical path i.e. England backing up Poland against German requests. The Polish AI reacted accordingly and ceded territory to avoid a war it could not win since it had noone to help it. In a single Player game England would have given Poland guarantees before Germany got to the Danzig or War event.

In the Historical Mode I expect the AI to pursue Historical Goals and take Historical decisions, but I do expect it to leave that path if it does not make sense, i.e. Try to invade in Normandy if Germany has fortified it beyond belief and has Air superiority.

this helped me a lot, thanks for the explaining how English not backing Poland made Poland give Danzig up. but still - FDR and Stalin missing are maybe flavour, but still big deals i think. and England nor Germany did anything about this, if i'm not mistaken. it tickels my mind, but i actually like stuff like this, just cannot properly explain it.

So the game will be historical, as long as the player stays historical.

so with historical AI on, the change is mainly local, reflecting on your moves when necessary, but otherwise staying historical. but with historical AI off, it's pure sandbox. right?

 

[Denkt]

Historical ai will if it can try to go with national focus in a historical order (within the limits of the game). It will not change the rules around. "Normal" mode the ai will still be in some way limited by its national focuses but the order it pick them in can have massive effects on the game.

Then I don't know how ai deals with army setup, production, diplomacy and all that stuff which also effects the game. The ai will never use the coup action and there may be some other limitations of the ai.

Basically this mean that historical ai is predictable but normal ai is not completely unpredictable.

The game is sold as a WWII game

Given that the game starts before WWII (In basically a parallel world to our world) the big war that will happen in each (maybe not) HOI4 game is a world war II and thus the game is a world war II game even tought it is not really about our WWII.

 

[Karimas]

Only a handsoff would be 100% historical, as alone changing to bring less ships and more troops might the AI to change the choices they would made.
But....its not even beta and even HoI 3 TFH wasnt perfect in all it did try. So...just wait and you will have a good historical and a sandboy way of play.

 

[Jonas]

Given that the game starts before WWII (In basically a parallel world to our world) the big war that will happen in each (maybe not) HOI4 game is a world war II and thus the game is a world war II game even tought it is not really about our WWII.

That is why ahistorical decisions and outcomes are fine but ahistorical settings and systems are not.

 

[adam_grif]

IMO, when historical mode is engaged stuff like Amelia Earheart disappearing should go according to the historical route. Not just the national focus stuff for the AI. I know that's just minor flavour but I'd really appreciate it.

 

[paranoidsteve]

They tried to play an historical game, but the first days play was bugged with Stalin being deposed . This change has obviously caused a butterfly effect and a historical game was no longer possible.

 

[Duck1987]

I ONLY enjoy historical scenarios because I am a big history buff, as I am sure many of you are.
I WANT to be able to win as German using the 1943, 1944, 45 scenarios, but of course I end up losing most of the time - just like happened in real life. That's why I play the Darkest Hour Mod.

For me, Hearts of Iron is about reliving history.

 

[Wulf145]

Historical vs nonhistorical - Something we should take into account is that if we (the Player) leave the historical path it will make it difficult for the AI to adhere to it.

For example: I was discussed this with a friend who also plays HOI ( HOI3 in this case), and he complained that Romainia kept refusing to join the Axis. The reason for this was not a bug, but that he, as Germany, did not do the diplomatic influencing which Germany did IRL - the end result was that Romainia was more Allies friendly since they did use diplomacy to influence Romania.

The historical setting should not absolve the player from having to do the 'Historical' work in order to get an historical result.

 

[Procyanide]

For example, I have a problem with minors having similar research capabilities as majors. In spite of what Jacob says, it is both ahistorical and unrealistic. If I try out different strategies as Finland, I will always have an outcome in a world where Finland (and all other minors) are technologically overpowered...

Correct me if I misunderstood, but doesn't that mean that when you play Finland, you want to play knowing that your game will basically be over by the end of 1940, when the Soviet Union has historically smashed your face in? Doesnt seem like a very interesting game at all to me.

You could argue that there is still the continuation war, but as you are playing historical, the German AI will lose vs the Soviets, and since you are only a minor nation, you will most likely lose even faster in 1941, so you play a very historical game where you simply get smashed twice, not being able to do anything about it because you are too small in size.

Definitely not worth spending 10+ hours on playing that imo. Maybe some of those matrix games suit your more, as I believe they are much more realistic and historically accurate (from what I heard, never played them before)

 

[SchLoTTi]

Correct me if I misunderstood, but doesn't that mean that when you play Finland, you want to play knowing that your game will basically be over by the end of 1940, when the Soviet Union has historically smashed your face in? Doesnt seem like a very interesting game at all to me.

You could argue that there is still the continuation war, but as you are playing historical, the German AI will lose vs the Soviets, and since you are only a minor nation, you will most likely lose even faster in 1941, so you play a very historical game where you simply get smashed twice, not being able to do anything about it because you are too small in size.

Definitely not worth spending 10+ hours on playing that imo. Maybe some of those matrix games suit your more, as I believe they are much more realistic and historically accurate (from what I heard, never played them before)

He is not against an ahistorical game. Just against an ahistorical setting! He just said that ...
So, if he plays Finland why shouldnt he have the possibility to win, just with realistic research? Germany can still win against the SU.

I mean. How should the balancing work with Germany - SU for example. With my understanding Finland has more chances with a realistic research speed overhaul.
Correct me if I am wrong, but SU gets benefits too. In HOI 3 Germany could research faster/more than the Soviet Union. But the SU had more Troops and stuff. What is the big advantages of the germans in HOI IV? Beside of veteran soldiers.

 

[Denkt]

Given how little industry and resources Finland have, you probably won't see anything spectacular.

Countries that did have industries on a decent level did have about the same technology no matter if large or smal.

 

[Sweed Raver]

Something I'm wondering regarding the sandbox mode however is if the AI prioritizes certain focuses at all, or if they are totally random? If they prioritize them, is it based on pragmatism, ideology or historical paths?

 

[Jonas]

Correct me if I misunderstood, but doesn't that mean that when you play Finland, you want to play knowing that your game will basically be over by the end of 1940, when the Soviet Union has historically smashed your face in? Doesnt seem like a very interesting game at all to me.

You could argue that there is still the continuation war, but as you are playing historical, the German AI will lose vs the Soviets, and since you are only a minor nation, you will most likely lose even faster in 1941, so you play a very historical game where you simply get smashed twice, not being able to do anything about it because you are too small in size.

Definitely not worth spending 10+ hours on playing that imo. Maybe some of those matrix games suit your more, as I believe they are much more realistic and historically accurate (from what I heard, never played them before)

If I play as Finland, I want to play a nation that is similar to what Finland was like at the time. I would certainly expect to struggle, should the Soviet Union attack me, but they might not. I might not play on historical setting and even in historical setting the Soviet Union might not attack because something else happened which made them decide on a different path. Maybe Germany will do better than historically and this will benefit me. Maybe Scandinavia will form an alliance which is better able to resist the Soviet steamroller. Maybe there is some way for me to ally with the Soviet Union and see how that plays out. Maybe the nations will clash exactly like they did historically and then I will get to try if I can do better than the Finns did historically. It will be difficult, given that they did pretty darned well considering the situation they were in. Nonetheless, trying to do better or resist longer holds interest to me even in a hopeless fight.

In spite of what Denkt writes, Finland did not have cutting edge ships, aircraft, radar, tanks, mass production bonuses and brand new doctrines. Look at the tech tree and then tell me again Finland was on German level across that tree. A Finland with all those things is not interesting for me to play. IF I wanted to try out a Finland with German level technology, I would cheat to achieve this. The advantage of cheating to alter one minor to be some ahistorical and unrealistic nation is that not ALL minor nations will ALWAYS be ahistorical and unrealistic no matter who plays what nation.

Not being able to prevent a loss against the Soviet Union because I am too small in size is just fine and what I want. Do You really want to be able to beat the Soviet Union as Finland with all other things in the war remaining equal? The hope is to do better and that other events will play out differently so that a loss can be avoided or perhaps even a victory achieved.

I have played Grigsby's games. I liked them a lot and I miss their detail, but I like HOI much more. The reason I love HOI is because I am not stuck with decisions and priorities made by others. I love the freedom of HOI. The point I was trying to get across is that there is a difference between ahistorical decisions and outcomes and an ahistorical world in which these things play out. On a different level, separate from whether the systems reflect the historical situation or not, illogical and seemingly mad decisions by the AI could also generate complaints which contain the word ahistorical. It is unfortunate if they do, because I read most of them to mean that the AI nation in question would never make such a decision given their situation, culture, history, form of government or whatever. Not that it is unacceptable that AI nations do completely different things from what their real counterparts did.