Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

HoI4 Dev Teasers (previously Podcat's Twitter Teasers)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Hearts of Iron IV 45529 Bug Reports 15225 After Action Reports (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Reader mode
The_Evil_Chicken said:
I personally, as the other commenter already said, can justify pretty much anything by changing the pre 36 history in my headcanon.

I don't oppose a bit of variety in my scenarios, as this can drastically change/improve your experience each and every game.

Of course I am very happy when pdx choose to implement soft alt-history, but that should never exclude the more far off stuff.

If they'd choose to completely change this, I feel like half of the community would be pretty disappointed, but it would also hurt consistency a lot.
Click to expand...
I probably should have some imagination, embrace the crazy, and lose myself in some heavy alt history.

id be pissed too if pdx got rid of the grossly ahistoric scenarios. Like I say, and you’ve said, a lot of the community plays it and enjoys it. It sells units and keeps development going on the game. I’m pretty sure most of the combat rework, logistics rework and fundamental ai changes wouldn’t have been able to happen if hoi4 dlcs weren’t as popular as they are.

The “historical gameplay all the time people” lost their battle when paradox normalized tanks and planes across all countries and pumped the ever living bejesus out of everyone but the US’s economy and then nerfed the US.

so I’m not advocating that position. I guess I’m saying I want more development on grounded alt history.

I want war related mechanics that don’t “make” a historical game turn out like real life, but help it play out like real life, but for the player. The logistics rework is a massive step in that direction.

Hitler getting to Iraq by land should be a nigh impossible logistical nightmare, and as a result that should inspire player/ai decision making.

if you want to take those realistic underpinnings and play out the 2nd us civil war, go for it—just buy the dlc first so pdx can continue development on what you like and what I like, and we all win. We get a more accurate sandbox for not only a world war in the 30/40s, but also the Second World War.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
safe-keeper said:
With respect, all of these sound like bugs or things that need to be added/rebalanced rather than a problem with Historical mode itself. I also doubt it's edge cases like that @Arheo had in mind in his reply.
Click to expand...
Yes, half of a problem is about many things that don't make sense, no matter if playing in historical or in ahistorical. The game doesn't have enough checks and randomness isn't controlled. Devs make it worse because they keep adding content that doesn't make sense intentionally, but that's another matter.

This should be a concern for all players. Historical players complain more about it because they expect countries to behave more like they would in real life.

I'm not a historical player because I don't even play vanilla. And I don't play it because of its bad state, because I just wanted a game that makes sense and feels realistic, even if the setting is not historical, and ahistorical vanilla is pure chaos. Ahistorical vanilla players seem to like the chaos though, that's why the fight seems to be "historical players vs. ahistorical players", when it actually is "realism, plausibility and randomness that makes sense vs. chaotic randomness".
Sourlol said:
I probably should have some imagination, embrace the crazy, and lose myself in some heavy alt history.

id be pissed too if pdx got rid of the grossly ahistoric scenarios. Like I say, and you’ve said, a lot of the community plays it and enjoys it. It sells units and keeps development going on the game. I’m pretty sure most of the combat rework, logistics rework and fundamental ai changes wouldn’t have been able to happen if hoi4 dlcs weren’t as popular as they are.

The “historical gameplay all the time people” lost their battle when paradox normalized tanks and planes across all countries and pumped the ever living bejesus out of everyone but the US’s economy and then nerfed the US.

so I’m not advocating that position. I guess I’m saying I want more development on grounded alt history.

I want war related mechanics that don’t “make” a historical game turn out like real life, but help it play out like real life, but for the player. The logistics rework is a massive step in that direction.

Hitler getting to Iraq by land should be a nigh impossible logistical nightmare, and as a result that should inspire player/ai decision making.

if you want to take those realistic underpinnings and play out the 2nd us civil war, go for it—just buy the dlc first so pdx can continue development on what you like and what I like, and we all win. We get a more accurate sandbox for not only a world war in the 30/40s, but also the Second World War.
Click to expand...
The same, this isn't about history vs. alt-history, it's about content that makes sense and content that doesn't make sense. I don't play historical, I just want vanilla HoI to work well, to feel realistic no matter if playing historical or ahistorical, and to have content that doesn't break immersion, like many mods have managed to do.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Yay!

1635332605533.png
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
MrMcQue said:
In view of the now steadily approaching release of NSB there are only 4 dev diaries (including tomorrow's) left.
Assuming we can expect the same as in previous releases these would be 1. Releasables and formable nations, 2. Achievements, 3. Art.

What is the 4th one in your opinion?
Click to expand...
Just thought of that, that the 4th one will most likely include changes to existing focus trees, according to the added features (e.g. infrastructure & railways as well as boni to land doctrines and tank research). Especially Germany should have some stuff (Treaty with SU will probably give a Pz III variant or so, that Reichsautobahn focus will be readjusted, etc.).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Last edited:
  • 5Haha
  • 2Like
  • 2Love
Reactions:
I would say Germany fighting the Soviet union.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
First impressions from stream. Some small increases in all soviet resources, much lower starting stability and war support (meaning lower factory efficiency), much more factories consumed by consumer goods (from five year plan spirit), piercing is now much higher than armor to compensate new piercing calculations
 
Last edited:
Oh my god, that tree's wide. Makes me wonder if they should rethink focus trees as a radial design or something - as in, have them radiate out from a central point, rather than having them be side-by-side.
 
Sourlol said:
I probably should have some imagination, embrace the crazy, and lose myself in some heavy alt history.

id be pissed too if pdx got rid of the grossly ahistoric scenarios. Like I say, and you’ve said, a lot of the community plays it and enjoys it. It sells units and keeps development going on the game. I’m pretty sure most of the combat rework, logistics rework and fundamental ai changes wouldn’t have been able to happen if hoi4 dlcs weren’t as popular as they are.

The “historical gameplay all the time people” lost their battle when paradox normalized tanks and planes across all countries and pumped the ever living bejesus out of everyone but the US’s economy and then nerfed the US.

so I’m not advocating that position. I guess I’m saying I want more development on grounded alt history.

I want war related mechanics that don’t “make” a historical game turn out like real life, but help it play out like real life, but for the player. The logistics rework is a massive step in that direction.

Hitler getting to Iraq by land should be a nigh impossible logistical nightmare, and as a result that should inspire player/ai decision making.
Click to expand...
If the Axis conquered Egypt I don't see how it would be so difficult for them to getting to Iraq, having bases in Alexandria and Syria. Of course it would have required an early focus in the Mediterranean, a delayed Barbarossa and good cooperation with a competent Italy :)
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Koba133 said:
If the Axis conquered Egypt I don't see how it would be so difficult for them to getting to Iraq, having bases in Alexandria and Syria. Of course it would have required an early focus in the Mediterranean, a delayed Barbarossa and good cooperation with a competent Italy :)
Click to expand...
You just answered your own question :p .
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Koba133 said:
If the Axis conquered Egypt I don't see how it would be so difficult for them to getting to Iraq, having bases in Alexandria and Syria. Of course it would have required an early focus in the Mediterranean, a delayed Barbarossa and good cooperation with a competent Italy :)
Click to expand...
Beyond the Mediterranean not being a realistic avenue for supply throughput due to the collapse of Italian naval and general axis air power by the end of 41, 42 by the latest, you’d have to assume Germany would need a direct land route to Iraq.
By the end of 42/43 the eastern thrust of Germany was it its end. They had to blunt any advance into the caucus to alleviate the Stalingrad pocket, and failed at that. They lost 300,000 in the pocket alone. They didn’t have the capacity to get oil from the Middle East back to Germany for refinement and back to the front.
In my armchair opinion it is fantasy to assume they would be able to secure those overland supply lines, much less maritime and be able to carry on with offensive operations.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back