HoI4 Dev Teasers (previously Podcat's Twitter Teasers)

[ShadowPip]

The US had organised labour movements at this time, Socialist candidate Eugene Debs made some respectable results for a third party in the preceding decades and you had populist figures like Huey Long rising on the political scene. It’s not so outlandish that, in the right conditions, an influential Communist movement could spring up (more likely than in somewhere like Japan, certainly).

I hope the NFs will be more detailed than “click here for communism” but, even as a historian, I’m personally excited for another fleshed our alt history route!

 

[CheesySnake]

Tomorrows Dev Diary will be about UK though, at least according to last weeks Dev diary

Not unless they've changed to doing something US based since it's the 4th of July?

 

[pvt.conners]

Anymore twitter teasers so far?
If so I hope you guy's didn't forget to threadmark them, i don't feel like wading trough pages of discussion about alt-history >.>

Don't worry, I maintain the threadmarks here so I tag everything immediately.

 

[Duke_Dave]

Not unless they've changed to doing something US based since it's the 4th of July?

absolutely, I also thought that they missed a great opportunity here but on the other hand. Lets face it no dev diary title beats (and I hope this becomes a NF) "Let's make America Great Britain again".

 

[CheesySnake]

absolutely, I also thought that they missed a great opportunity here but on the other hand. Lets face it no dev diary title beats (and I hope this becomes a NF) "Let's make America Great Britain again".

Spoke too soon!

 

[Fulmen]

As had been said before, the notion that Germany could ever win the war is preposterous, and at least as 'implausible' as the other alt-history paths we implement. Yet I never see anyone complain about this.

There are two plausible scenarios, either of which having happened, could IMO have won Germany the war. I've repeated myself on this before so I'll try to be brief:

The first scenario is if Germany would not have halted its tanks at Dunkirk when the beaches were still very lightly defended. This would have trapped all of the Allied armies in the Flanders pocket, including almost the entire BEF. In OTL there were already strong voices in England calling for peace with Germany. With the BEF captured, I think it's possible England would have accepted Germany's peace offer.

The second scenario is if in the fall of 1941 Hitler didn't split Army Group Centre to neutralise the Kiev pocket and help siege Leningrad. This would have enabled Moscow to be taken before winter. The Red Army and the USSR itself was highly centralised, but more importantly the Russian railway network and communications hub relied almost entirely on Moscow being in Russian control, as all major networks ran through the city. It was the only major central junction point in their communications and supply network. Securing Moscow would have extremely disorganised the Red Army west of the Urals, possibly leading to a German victory in 1941-42.

 

[Alex_brunius]

There are two plausible scenarios, either of which having happened, could IMO have won Germany the war. I've repeated myself on this before so I'll try to be brief:

The first scenario is if Germany would not have halted its tanks at Dunkirk when the beaches were still very lightly defended. This would have trapped all of the Allied armies in the Flanders pocket, including almost the entire BEF. In OTL there were already strong voices in England calling for peace with Germany. With the BEF captured, I think it's possible England would have accepted Germany's peace offer.

The second scenario is if in the fall of 1941 Hitler didn't split Army Group Centre to neutralise the Kiev pocket and help siege Leningrad. This would have enabled Moscow to be taken before winter. The Red Army and the USSR itself was highly centralised, but more importantly the Russian railway network and communications hub relied almost entirely on Moscow being in Russian control, as all major networks ran through the city. Securing Moscow would have extremely disorganised the Red Army west of the Urals, possibly leading to a German victory in 1941-42.

Neither of those is really a German "victory" in a HoI4 sense where Germany take over the world though, are they?
( And it's debatable if Germany could have taken Moscow anyways since their issue was not to get there before winter, but before the mud ).

For both UK/USA are virtually unharmed and undefeated and Germany have little to no means of conquering either of them, even should they get help from Japan and Italy.

A German peace agreement with UK after dunkirk would have been more akin to a white peace with UK accepting German rule over France/Europe mainland but nothing more.

 

[Fulmen]

Neither of those is really a German "victory" in a HoI4 sense where Germany take over the world though, are they?

For both UK/USA are virtually unharmed and undefeated and Germany have little to no means of conquering either of them, even should they get help from Japan and Italy.

Which is exactly why there should be mechanics in place to have a plausible outcome to the war. Yet, unsurprisingly, there are not.

Where's the Russo-German Bitter Peace event from past HoIs? Or the peace events with all the other majors? At least they added the Chinese victory one back in, although that too is a bit more simplified in HoI4 (for better or worse: it caused a left-wing coup in Japan in HoI2 and made Korea into a Chinese puppet).

A Germany peace agreement with UK after dunkirk would have been more akin to a white peace with UK accepting German rule over France/Europe mainland but nothing more.

They would've probably lost some colonies: Egypt, Sudan and maybe Cyprus and Malta would've gone to Italy. Germany would've probably gotten its old colonies back, mainly for prestige as Hitler wasn't that interested in them personally. Maybe a couple of other less important territories would've been given up. That's about it though, and even that is pushing it. I could easily see Hitler reigning Mussolini in to get the English to accept peace.

What comes to the other "Entente" (as it was still referred to by many in 1940), Elsass-Lothringen and Eupen-Malmedy would've been returned to Germany. Luxemburg would probably have been annexed into Germany. Probably a few minor territorial changes on the Franco-Italian border as well.

HoI4 could easily facilitate a "limited peace" like this through events and decisions. I mean sure, it wouldn't be very dynamic, but it would be better than nothing.

 

[Alex_brunius]

They would've probably lost some colonies: Egypt, Sudan and maybe Cyprus and Malta would've gone to Italy. Germany would've probably gotten its old colonies back, mainly for prestige as Hitler wasn't that interested in them personally. Maybe a couple of other less important territories would've been given up. That's about it though, and even that is pushing it. I could easily see Hitler reigning Mussolini in to get the English to accept peace.

Handing over any stuff to Italy except perhaps the French Northafrican possessions or some parts in Vichy France I see as very unlikely given how Italy didn't attack Into Egypt until September 1940, and it went very very badly for them with 133'000 Italians taken prisoner in Operation Compass, and the Italian lines getting pushed back all the way past Benghazi by Feb 1941.

At this point in the war the Italians were losing... so UK giving up Suez and Egypt to them would make zero sense. It was Germany that needed that peace, not UK.

The best would be IMO if it could be done in some dynamic way such that forcing peace with UK would require inflicting a certain percentage of their armed forces ( casualties ) and sinking a certain percentage of their convoys. This could then trigger a partial peace treaty where the participants could not use "skip" to get more points and the only things cheap enough to demand were some ( but not all of ) occupied territory, territory from participants that capitulated (france/benelux) or stuff where you got claims ( former German colonies ).

 

[philjd]

[Does anyone have access to the actual terms, assuming they were defined, on offer in July 1940, all I have been able to find is a very general description of them being 'generous' as far as the UK is concerned].

 

[Robosoldier1]

That thread is closed.

Ya it is. Because a conversation like that doesn't last long on forums like this. Not only because the moderators seek any opportunity to snuff them out (with any infraction no matter how small), but because it often gets drowned out by the other topics. Like alternative fantasy requests. This is a pretty major split in the actual focus of the game. Initially it was history and rightfully should be, now its set in this alternative priority and Paradox is going out of their way to swamp history with this alternative content to overlook the lack of depth in the game because people are willing to accept that. So thats why you got to stay consistent with it and call out the BS as it rolls through.

 

[Robosoldier1]

A small but vocal minority of this community is craving 'more'. This is not to say we don't hear you, and I think you may be pleasantly surprised for this DLC. However, do not profess to speak for the entire community, because telemetry shows you most decidedly do not.



As had been said before, the notion that Germany could ever win the war is preposterous, and at least as 'implausible' as the other alt-history paths we implement. Yet I never see anyone complain about this.



Such as this pre-order trailer for the base game?



Literally every single metric we have, from daily and monthly active users to lifetime sales, and everything inbetween, shows that HoI4 is vastly (and I mean vastly) more successful than any previous iteration of the game. I am not at liberty to disclose specific numbers, but let's just say the comparison isn't even close.



Telenil hits the nail on the head: our data corroborates this. I'll see if I can wrangle Dan into making another telemetry dev diary to show the numbers on history/alt history, as we did with multiplayer.




So which is it?



Shaka is right. I will say before ending this discussion: telemetry clearly shows the incredible appeal that alt history has, so I can already say this direction will likely not change. As I said before, we do hope you'll be pleasantly surprised for MtG on this question, however. Now, please take any further discussion on this topic (including replies to this post) to a new thread. We've cluttered this thread enough, and if things don't stop I will have to ask moderators to intervene.

Ya I speak for the community that represents the old guard and a chunk of the new guard to the series. Those that came for a type of game that Paradox took time and pride in developing in that it had large amounts of depth and large amounts of research put into the subsequent mechanics to make it a player oriented game that by player choice must steer the ship to victory. Yes I said in all likelyhood this brainstorm project of yours took a week to layout. But to implement that undercooked idea obviously takes time within the content and development cycle, as you are fully aware of. Its like you decide to write a 100 page book about Pineapples or something yet you take 2-3 weeks to fully word it out, even if it as simple as "i like pineapples and here is why." Don't kid yourself you as a company and as a team you guys made the decision to focus on this cause its easier to do and ability to make easy money.

Answer me this if people (especially new players) were provided more in terms of mechanical depth at launch do you think they would be more content with this easy alternative stuff you have developed? Or do you think they would've craved more if what they initially got was alot more complex and aligned to the management systems in HOI3? Wasn't that the point of streamlining to make the learning curve easier but to retain the detail that makes being a leader of this time period so essential? You can't tell me you have embodied that especially when its taken 3 subsequent DLCs to re-characterize/add to major mechanical attributes to the game. How long do I have to wait for the politics to get more fleshed out or the national economics? Is it gonna be in DLC 5 Mediterranean bash ? Where the Spanish empire can be reformed the Greeks insta spawn battleships to oppose "Augustus Mussolini" and the turks decide they want to take Budapest again?

You guys have simply strayed for the sake of easy cash and that is just sad. Logical Alternative history apparently got left on the side of the road because of your "data."

( from then )

(to now)

 

[hkrommel]

Such as this pre-order trailer for the base game?

I understand the point you're making here, but can we all acknowledge that there's a world of difference between the USSR invading Japan or a successful Sealion and a Second American Civil War? The former are less of an issue for me because they, while historically highly implausible at best, are not patently absurd. Again I understand you're catering to various audiences but it would be nice if the historical fans or plausible alt-history fans like myself get thrown a bone with content development soon. The trailer for MtG was entirely alt-history, Paradox's facebook ads are about restoring Byzantium or conquering the Nordics as Sweden, it just seems lopsided and like Paradox isn't really interested in what a large part of the community that's been with them since HOI2 (at least) wants.

I also understand that this community may be a minority now, but we're also the Paradox loyalists who truly want to see this company succeed, whereas many newcomers (if Facebook comment threads are any indication) would ditch Paradox for any other company that provides wild alt-history content and the opportunity to paint the map.

 

[Archangel85]

The most popular mod for Darkest hour was Kaiserreich, so I dare say that maybe the community that has been with us since HoI 2 (that includes me, by the way) is pretty okay with this direction. It's not like the old fans are all a hive mind that only ever wants a perfect historical simulation.

Plausibility is, in my opinion, a very subjective term and what one person considers plausible is utterly absurd to the next. Let's not pretend that history itself doesn't have the occasional upset that would be considered implausible by many if it was proposed as an alt-history story (A French bastard invading England and taking the crown? Some weird monk publishing a rant and shattering the catholic church? The French army folding in 6 weeks after sitting through 4 years of gruelling trench warfare only one generation earlier?).

 

[hkrommel]

The most popular mod for Darkest hour was Kaiserreich, so I dare say that maybe the community that has been with us since HoI 2 (that includes me, by the way) is pretty okay with this direction.

That doesn't logically follow. Just because people want wild alt-history sometimes in a mod doesn't mean they want it in a base game, or developed in the base game to the detriment of more realistic options. I played KR all the time, but I still played the base game more often. I never wanted KR-like content in the base game.

all a hive mind that only ever wants a perfect historical simulation.

plausible alt-history fans like myself

This just reinforces the feeling I had about not being heard. It's not that I want everything to be railroaded or historical, it's not that I'm completely opposed to wild alternate history options, it's that I'm opposed to having those options take precedence over historical and quasi-historical options. I know I'm not alone in this, and I never claimed everyone who played old Paradox games felt the same way, just a "large part" of them. I'm literally asking to be "thrown a bone."

Plausibility is, in my opinion, a very subjective term and what one person considers plausible is utterly absurd to the next.

This is true to an extent, but I'm sure we can all agree a Second American Civil War is utterly absurd.

 

[Robosoldier1]

The most popular mod for Darkest hour was Kaiserreich, so I dare say that maybe the community that has been with us since HoI 2 (that includes me, by the way) is pretty okay with this direction. It's not like the old fans are all a hive mind that only ever wants a perfect historical simulation.

Plausibility is, in my opinion, a very subjective term and what one person considers plausible is utterly absurd to the next. Let's not pretend that history itself doesn't have the occasional upset that would be considered implausible by many if it was proposed as an alt-history story (A French bastard invading England and taking the crown? Some weird monk publishing a rant and shattering the catholic church? The French army folding in 6 weeks after sitting through 4 years of gruelling trench warfare only one generation earlier?).

Everyone always cites Kaiserreich as a easy method to redirect the issue. Kaiserreich is entirely different in that its a mod and that the people behind it go to the length of researching and adding a whole lot of detail into the game. Thats what people are more appealed about. The world/reality that Kaisereich has spent years developing and refining. A world that the historical deserves as much time and respect to be managed within the base game.

Thats were you come in. You take on the torch of history and go to those lengths of detail to explain why such events occurred and help simulate them to the player. France suffered heavy and political mismanagement in that they underestimated moderation of warfare through tanks and heavily relied on the maginot to protect them. Now you need to expand upon the roles and value that Free France and Vichy bring to the table as they both had very different realities of management they had to deal with. This entire set of events is as much a war about thinking as it is about the physical fighting.

History has its weird instances I grant you but thats the appeal the historical reality of the time brings. Not something generated and forcibly shoved in by you guys that we know to be out of place. Again the scenarios of what if said leader made X decision over Y or option Z is alot more fitting then "what if this dead empire came back or this ideology began to get a grip on this nation." I mean there is just so much you can do with this that it boggles my brain that you guys resort to this alternative fantasy.

 

[philjd]

This is true to an extent, but I'm sure we can all agree a Second American Civil War is utterly absurd.

Perhaps the same equivalent ACW, but let us hypothesise:-
The civil rights movement kicks off in a different way, the authorities and unofficial organisations in the south react extremely violently, the northern politicians and federal authorities try to impose peace. Communications break down, polarisation starts to occur, lines get drawn...

Unlikely, as the experiences of the 'coloured' people in the US armed forces during WW2 and the seeming hypocrisy of fighting for democracy while denied democratic participation at home in a significant part of the US gave the movement a lot of impetus, but still 'possible'.
Not quite the usual civil war, but 'a' civil war based around the same geographical states.

We don't yet know on what basis the advertised civil war starts, but for a north south split, it has to be, or most probably would be, based around civil rights.

 

[Archangel85]

This just reinforces the feeling I had about not being heard. It's not that I want everything to be railroaded or historical, it's not that I'm completely opposed to wild alternate history options, it's that I'm opposed to having those options take precedence over historical and quasi-historical options. I know I'm not alone in this, and I never claimed everyone who played old Paradox games felt the same way, just a "large part" of them. I'm literally asking to be "thrown a bone."

I may have exaggerated, then. I just don't particularly like it when people claim to speak for the silent majority and use it to give their arguments greater weight. Speak for yourself, don't presume to speak for others. I also would argue that you are getting some pretty damn juicy bones in Man the Guns, some of them even being free. Alt-history is flashy and can seem bigger than it really is, but I would argue that all of our DLCs so far have included things to make the historical experience deeper and more accurate. It seems to me at times that the mere existence of the alt-history stuff is seen as tainting the rest of the game, and I honestly don't understand that.

This is true to an extent, but I'm sure we can all agree a Second American Civil War is utterly absurd.

Depends. A lot of people seem to look at the historical situation in 1936 and wonder if a ACW could have errupted by itself. I agree that it could not have. But civil wars errupting without player intervention is Victoria's territory, not ours. Our civil wars, by and large, happen because of player intervention. And I for one do believe that if FDR had been more aggressive with the New Deal - far more aggressive - then the opposition would at last have felt compelled to take up arms. And the player is not a passive observer in this game who gets to occasionally nudge something one way or the other, the player is actively involved into making this happen. Historical FDR would probably have weighed the options and decided not to push too hard, but the player is not restrained by that unless they choose to.

 

[safe-keeper]

Ya because that wasn't an already established core mechanic of the series and is only now getting added after 2 years of bitching by people who know this is one of the weakest titles in the series. This is another problem of the gaming community in general. There is the newer smucks who don't care and the veterans that act like they should be benevolent to Paradox to include such critical elements in the game again when by all definitions it should've been included in the first place. Streamlining vs. gutting the game of any depth are 2 entirely different dynamics of development. Removing fuel as a critical balancing and game play factor for players to consider is as stupid as it was for Total war to remove bridge battles, ruin siege battles, restrict the players ability to conquer and expand anywhere they like and so on. "Ya lets get rid of all the things that got people interested in our title in the first place... and resell it them!"

Gee I feel so grateful.

"HOI4 players want sugar on their porridge!"
"Telemetry shows roughly 29% of players take their porridge with sugar, and btw only 2% purchased the cinnamon DLC".
"OK sure the smucks don't but REAL HOI4 players want more sugar on their porridge!"

 

[hkrommel]

but I would argue that all of our DLCs so far have included things to make the historical experience deeper and more accurate. It seems to me at times that the mere existence of the alt-history stuff is seen as tainting the rest of the game, and I honestly don't understand that.

In terms of mechanics, absolutely. In terms of content, not so much. The UK is getting one change (a welcome one) in terms of timing of rearmament, and another with decolonization. However, the first post after the dev diary contains something that would be even better for improving plausible alt-history. (credit to @Ironside121)

I like some of the changes to the tree- like the interventionist path over the appeasement strategy, and the decolonization path.

However, I'm disappointed there is no Imperial Conference related events or focuses, which would've been PERFECT for these. The 1937 Imperial Conference discussed many things in regards to the Empire- even a united Federation.

Appeasement of the Italians was also discussed, as was the Statue of Westminster and Colonial Independence. A few simple events could lock you into whichever tree you wish to take- it would require VERY little work just for a bit more flavor.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...7-imperial-conference-will-we-see-it.1106677/

For a bit of context on what was covered in the Imperial Conference and how important it was, there's a link to a post I made a few weeks ago.

Did Paradox not know about this? Did you guys know but think it too farfetched (which would be incredibly ironic)? Did you know but not implement it because you instead spent your time implementing Communist and Fascist UK? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. I'm happy to see it will at least be looked into but it's telling that, even though there have been threads about it, mods have implemented it, and it was a fairly notable event, it's only after someone brings it up in a dev diary thread after we have this elaborate Communist and Fascist UK setup that it's even considered.

You also reference Kaiserreich, and I would encourage you to examine the depth of the world there, which is a point @Robosoldier1 made earlier. The KR devs go through great lengths to explain the world as it is, and why it is that way. The base game doesn't. There has been some improvement from release, but still one can't help but wonder if historical paths are more unpopular because it's just assumed that players understand what's happening, so the flavor and background just isn't there for those who aren't as well-versed in history. It takes more than a paragraph mousing over France's national spirits to understand what's happening in France. I'm not asking for dissertation-level analysis in-game, but maybe something explaining what the Maginot Line is for people who don't know, why France has so few military factories for a major nation, or who all these key individuals are and what their motivations may be. WWII knowledge is quite lacking among many people, and constructing a compelling world with a few informational and orienting events here and there beyond "The Hindenburg Blew Up" would go a long way towards immersion.