Historical inaccurates

[GSP Jr]

What I don't understand is how a major Allied power and an Axis power haven't had their mission trees revamped where so many minor nations already had their turn.

They have done *most* Majors at this point in previous DLC's, only the Soviets and Italy remain to get overhauled.

 

[yezhanquan]

I know. SU and Italy are exactly the powers I was referring to.

 

[GSP Jr]

I know. SU and Italy are exactly the powers I was referring to.

PDX says they are also working on the next major DLC (1.11) already also (that would appear to be Soviet and/or Italian).

 

[kimidf]

Yes. I consider a yugoslavia coup and Danzig as minor details that just make things more complicated. So you want Yugoslavia to split into three at some point with two joining either axis or allies? Seems like needless complex things.

The iraqi invasion of the UK? Sure. Fine whatever. Itll just add another front that won't matter to Germany. They won't care about Iraq and Iran being invaded.

Free city of Danzig? So basically you want that to be a seperate easy conquest like Luxembourg while nerfing Poland's manpower since it won't br part of Poland. This is alrrady in the game because Poland wont give it up. Just adding complexity for complexitys sake.

The battle of thid lake would just be another optional border skirmish. Seems likr a waste of resources to put in that wont do anything other than add another minor thing that won't extend the games life.

Sorry. I don't think any of these are important for a games life. You know what historical thing would br cool. A fuel embargo against Japan. And pearl harbor already has an event in the game if Japan attacks and takes it.



And the reason developers are adding in alternative options is cause the majority of the community enjoys the alternate history. Most of us believe a straight historical accurate game gets boring after ten games cause youve seen it all. Nothing is new.

The current Yugoslav tree is terrible, it does not even remotely reflect the serious internal factional struggles the country existed between different nationalist Serbs, Croats and the different nationalities of the Yugoslav state, not even mentionthe partisan movements or spirit nothing and a large part of the political spectrum would have to be reworked, emphasizing as has been done in the Bulgarian tree on elements of internal factions


perfectly free city of Danzig could be a Polish collaborative state or autonomous government when the rework of this country is done

 

[Jays298]

I get that a lot of sacrifices were made in the name of balance.

A lot of things of strategic importance were left out (mainly the importance of US aid and therefore the importance of ports like Iran). And the game has no surprise attacks!

And I guess nothing is a surprise 60+ years later.

Game wise the same things happen every game. There is no pearl harbor so the US has a fair fight vs Japan, even can take them out within a year if they desire. Pearl Harbor should kinda be like the great purge is for the Soviets... devastating in the near term and mostly inevitable.

The German offensive against the USSR goes no where because the red army is massed at the border (that area should be demilitarized to reflect the surprise).

The borders and provinces are being worked on.

 

[squid_hills]

Game wise the same things happen every game. There is no pearl harbor so the US has a fair fight vs Japan, even can take them out within a year if they desire. Pearl Harbor should kinda be like the great purge is for the Soviets... devastating in the near term and mostly inevitable.

The German offensive against the USSR goes no where because the red army is massed at the border (that area should be demilitarized to reflect the surprise).

A lot of this depends on which version you are playing. In 1.8x I've never seen the USSR win against AI Germany without tangible support from the Allies (an active D-Day or a boatload of volunteer divisions). In prior versions, the USSR tended to win against Germany even when fighting alone. When they patched the AI to get it to garrison its VPs to prevent paratrooper meme shenannigans, Japan started to struggle against China because it would garrison all the cities and ports of the Home Islands against an enemy that didn't have an airforce, which didn't leave enough divisions to effectively push the Chinese back. I've seen the US bleed itself white trying to push the Japanese out of the Phillippines, and I've seen them naval invade Kyushu in January of 1942. When you play as a minor and focus on regional expansion and stay out of WWII you learn a lot about what the AI will do unmolested. The AI is balanced to play against the AI (for the most part), and every time the devs try to strengthen one aspect of the AI it unbalances something else. Germany needs to be able to beat the USSR so that the Allies player has a reason to get involved. Japan needs to be able to beat China, but not so quickly that they conquer the country by 1939. The invasion of Iraq and Iran is on the UK focus tree, but it is in the "Home Defense" branch of the tree and the AI almost always takes "Global Defense" instead (why invading two foreign countries is filed under 'home defense' I can't explain) presumably because the AI is told to think Global Defense is the better branch.

And so on...

TL;DR A lot of the un-historic stuff you see in the game is down to the AI being the AI, and its behavior will change from version to version.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

@DaddySugar331 some of the issues concerning SU and Italy will be probably adrssed when these countries are reworked.

Actually it isn't. It has a WWII flavor.

It's advertised as a WW2 game with ahistorical options.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

It's advertised as a WW2 game with ahistorical options.

Even so, it is a game that has a WWII flavor to it. Also referred to as a WWII sandbox. If this was a true WWII game, the inaccuracies related to WWII are unforgivable. Some may argue that what I am referring to would more properly be called a WWII simulation. Maybe it is just me, but I've spent years playing WWII board and computer games (strategical and grand strategical level) and my expectations are based on what they offer.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Even so, it is a game that has a WWII flavor to it. Also referred to as a WWII sandbox. If this was a true WWII game, the inaccuracies related to WWII are unforgivable. Some may argue that what I am referring to would more properly be called a WWII simulation. Maybe it is just me, but I've spent years playing WWII board and computer games (strategical and grand strategical level) and my expectations are based on what they offer.

That's how HoI 4 is advertised at steam:

Victory is at your fingertips! Your ability to lead your nation is your supreme weapon, the strategy game Hearts of Iron IV lets you take command of any nation in World War II; the most engaging conflict in world history.

From the heart of the battlefield to the command center, you will guide your nation to glory and wage war, negotiate or invade. You hold the power to tip the very balance of WWII. It is time to show your ability as the greatest military leader in the world. Will you relive or change history? Will you change the fate of the world by achieving victory at all costs?

It's described as a WW2 game. The word sandbox isn't mentioned.

Any WW2 game that gives the player control over entire countries MUST neccesarily have many ahistorical options or would be extremely railroading.
But a game that makes historical choices and outcomes impossible is a poorly designed game.