With the new autonomy system could we represent the British Protectorates and perhaps Southern Rhodesia it had responsible government during ww2.
HOI4 Dev Diary - Ally Down Under
- 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.
The problem I find with Australia's state setup, though, is not the "state correctness" of it but the effect it has on the supply areas. The outback is one (huge) supply area that is adjacent to the supply area that includes Sydney and Canberra (and which has a good port and decent infrastructure). The result is that 20 or so divisions can wander at will around the outback because of the "previous infrastructure" element of the supply capacity, and the supply areas cannot be made any smaller without changing the states (supply areas are set up as a list of included states). Basically, the concept for the supply system is not bad, but without very careful setup it allows huge, empty areas to support lots of troops anywhere within them if they are adjacent to well-populated areas. This is one big reason why I created a mod ("Waltzing Matilda") in which I changed the state setup in Australia (among many other things). My aim was not to change the states to be "historical", but rather to allow supply areas (and strategic regions) to be set up that discriminated more where troops could go and be well supplied.
- 8
- 3
- 1
It is not automatic, but Italy and Germany already have national focuses for technology sharing (nukes I think?), and it feels natural to convert this to a technology sharing group.
- 1
@podcat
Here it is.
It's with vanilla+ and nomansland, but since you guys should anyway incorporate these great mods, it shouldn't matter
There is constant naval invasion alarm (the pirate one) and nothing happens...
- 1
Thanks for the reply
. I'll get onto it today and make sure there's something in the bug forums by the end of it (Australian time, not sure what time it is over there). I suspect it's a tricky-ish one to repro precisely as the game engine's 'decision' (not sure what the technical term for this'd be) to go through with turning a skull-and-crossbones into an invasion may not be the same every time, but all being well it'll be fairly easy to have it show up with a China game without too much trouble.
This is not doing it for me, I don't care about fleshing out some more nations, sure it adds to the game, but not enough. I will wait and see what the next expansions do first, then I will instead buy all the former expansions in one go.
Map modes, normal counters, historical settings, air warfare, naval warfare, divisonal names fix, oil/fuel/supply, OOB etc.
Map modes, normal counters, historical settings, air warfare, naval warfare, divisonal names fix, oil/fuel/supply, OOB etc.
- 7
- 5
- 1
I love how the Steam communities are freaking out over this and are just against this entirely. I personally think its understandable to have this a paid DLC since the developers are taking their work time to make additions and updates to the game; to improve it further and seeing how the steam workshop has not just borked my save data once, but twice, I am really hesitant to use mods for HOI4 (the dynamic game-changing ones).
I can't wait to see to play as an Aussie!
I can't wait to see to play as an Aussie!
- 6
- 1
Scrolling the comments I see some people complaining that Paradox has "locked FEATURES behind a DLC!" which is apparently unacceptable. Then I also see people complaining that Focus Trees are lame and they could get them for free from the steam workshop.
I think this is an indication that actually people are just nonspecifically mad that some aspects of the game need fixing and that until they are fixed, there will be people complaining about literally everything whether justified or not.
- 14
- 1
Having had a few goes as Australia, I enjoy its range of grand strategic and strategic choices and find the default tree workable (though some options are much worse than others). The thing most notably missing has been the communication, logistical, and other strategic and operational coordination with the Commonwealth forces and the US. This is also the case with seeking transfers of occupied territory in an efficient way.
The Anglo-Japanese alliance was viewed as security for Australia and and its termination seen as dangerous folly. This is important background to how a self-interested Australia might have triangulated its strategy and made an arrangement with Japan even while remaining a democratic constitutional monarchy with self-rule (or a true republic). Australia had a lot to offer Japan as an associated nation in terms of strategic position, resources (its own, pass-through exports, and cooperation in development of SE Asian resources), and legitimacy for the Co-Prosperity Sphere of de facto protectorates or puppets that Japan's government envisioned.
Some initial questions on the tree:
How is "Pacific Area Navy" not dependent on "Cruisers"?
Curious about the pre-emptive intervention. How could that have come about?
Concerned about the process to the Deal with Japan and especially why Indonesian revolt (and demand on NZ?) is a prerequisite. The birth of Indonesia is an untidy historical tangle of issues. As it happened, the Japanese as usual sought to use local leaders as henchmen and helped put post-war Communist dictator Sukarno in power - it could have gone otherwise.
The Red tree has Australia helping Red China. Makes sense. But a very credible historical focus is Australia making a commitment to give surplus or forwarded equipment as aid to the Republic of China to stiffen opposition to Japan.
The Anglo-Japanese alliance was viewed as security for Australia and and its termination seen as dangerous folly. This is important background to how a self-interested Australia might have triangulated its strategy and made an arrangement with Japan even while remaining a democratic constitutional monarchy with self-rule (or a true republic). Australia had a lot to offer Japan as an associated nation in terms of strategic position, resources (its own, pass-through exports, and cooperation in development of SE Asian resources), and legitimacy for the Co-Prosperity Sphere of de facto protectorates or puppets that Japan's government envisioned.
Some initial questions on the tree:
How is "Pacific Area Navy" not dependent on "Cruisers"?
Curious about the pre-emptive intervention. How could that have come about?
Concerned about the process to the Deal with Japan and especially why Indonesian revolt (and demand on NZ?) is a prerequisite. The birth of Indonesia is an untidy historical tangle of issues. As it happened, the Japanese as usual sought to use local leaders as henchmen and helped put post-war Communist dictator Sukarno in power - it could have gone otherwise.
The Red tree has Australia helping Red China. Makes sense. But a very credible historical focus is Australia making a commitment to give surplus or forwarded equipment as aid to the Republic of China to stiffen opposition to Japan.
- 2
- 2
Just to nitpick there, be careful how you refer to Sukarno. He was Authoritarian at points, and at other times democratic. He dominated Indonesia's political development for almost 30 years, and it is unfair to categorize him as a dictator, especially considering what happened with Suharto. Essentially, it was another one of those left leaning governments in the developing world, sabotaged by the West, to greatly remove the mass involvement with politics and the setting up of a military dictatorship.
- 2
Plz can we finally have that feature that a lot of players have requested: the ability to STOP the AI from moving your units when a battleplan is made. Thanks.
- 6
yes that would be a good reason. However, they need to understand that a lot of those issues are being handled and the DLC is also being worked by the other members of the team.
Unfortunately for a gaming company it seems that you can only satisfy a couple of people some of the time and piss off most of the people most of the time.
- 2
Basically speaking, getting more fluff about CW nations does not only reward the players originating from those respective countries, it adds to general flavor in the game. So we all will have kind of a benefit from that.
This being said, i wonder what the "historical mode" will produce with all those odd options. Just look at the freaking number of focus choices in those trees... If only all the majors got this much love in theirs... I therefore hope that enough effort will be undertaken to keep those countries in line if AI is at the helms. i thus foresee quite a lot of work to balance end even out AI choices when it comes to focuses and stuff.
This being said, i wonder what the "historical mode" will produce with all those odd options. Just look at the freaking number of focus choices in those trees... If only all the majors got this much love in theirs... I therefore hope that enough effort will be undertaken to keep those countries in line if AI is at the helms. i thus foresee quite a lot of work to balance end even out AI choices when it comes to focuses and stuff.
The more NFs the more variety one should see. With the old generic NF one would get to somewhere between 11/10/1943 to 01/03/1945 depending on choices made and never losing a day. With this one it looks like around 07/02/1947.
those are if all NFs take 70 days to complete. I would like to see the NFs go out to 01/01/1950. This way the AI can not get through all of them by end game. Creating more variant games and so the game would lose some of the railroad feel. I know it is not railroaded per se but since the computer ALWAYS takes a NF that means it will almost always play the same.
those are if all NFs take 70 days to complete. I would like to see the NFs go out to 01/01/1950. This way the AI can not get through all of them by end game. Creating more variant games and so the game would lose some of the railroad feel. I know it is not railroaded per se but since the computer ALWAYS takes a NF that means it will almost always play the same.
- 1
Also just realised that you guys have placed Hobart on the wrong side of Tasmania. Not a huge issue but easy to fix.
- 2
So there is gonna be no revisions really to resource allocation? I was conquering in the Middle East today and found there was no Oil... The British Petrol Company, had been sourcing Oil from the Middle East since Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty the first time, (1907). Oil from the region had fueled the British Navy with such resources that they were capable of looking towards going with an all oil powered navy, (The Queen Elizabeth Class was only made possible with the promise of the oil from the Levant) It is one of the reasons they fought there in the Great War, to preserve the Oil. So why are the Oil Reserves so meager in comparison to the US?
- 1
I believe the issue here is that it wasn't discovered or what was discovered wasn't yet being produced as much. The USA at the time was the largest producer of oil in the world.
Except that it wasn't exactly. The UK got all of it's oil from the Middle East, the Iraqi reserves being sufficient enough to have Iraq as a veritable protectorate until 1937. The Saudi reserves were found in 1937, Irans reserves were so large as to cause a three way war in 1914 between the Ottomons, the British and the Germans. America was not the largest producer, rather it was the largest self-contained consumer of oil and that is what made their economy so strong.
Actually, the British also secured large amounts of Oil from Jordan too, amounts that were at least semi-comparable to the US stockpiles. During the Second World War, Britain never found it all that necessary to import Oil from the US, instead its own Persian Stockpiles proved to be more than sufficient, and it was the reason for their need for absolute dominance of the Med. Seuz was crucial not because of the canal, but because it facilitated the British Oil Supply.
Last edited:
- 1