How come alt-history mods are more historically accurate than the World War II base game?

[=XIII=Wedge]

The main problem with "historical accuracy", or the supposed lack of it, is that that is exactly what the game is trying to accomplish - it is NOT a simulator, is NOT suppose to be "history" AT ALL - it is your chance to CHANGE history.

Watch documentaries if you want history, or, better yet, actually read a book that is history. HOI IV is not designed to be, or intended to be, a historical simulator, it's a GAME, and the second after you start the game, it moves away from history. Think of the game as a made-for-TV movie "based" on history, nothing more.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment without the butterfly effect of the player over a normal distribution of historical game runs you would expect the mean result to resemble the historical outcome of the war, maybe not in the same exact time frame.

Clearly this is a goal or the devs would not add mechanisms to slow down the Sino-Japanese or Spanish civil wars.

The further through the trees and without certain historical tactical results you would expect variations.

I’m still enjoying the game and am seeing more cool elements added that link trees - Operation Countenance being a good one in the new Soviet Tree.

Iceland consistently joining the Axis and Tibet going with the Japanese - not so much.

The US Navy flooding the Med, leaving the Pacific even though the Royal Navy has the Med covered.

Japan declaring war on the Philippines directly after completing the focus is a great example of where the AI could make a better tactical assessment on when to attack or even have the opportunity to launch a surprise attack on the USA directly. Right now it May ‘41.

At least the Dev have aspirations even if there is more paint to add to the canvas.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment without the butterfly effect of the player over a normal distribution of historical game runs you would expect the mean result to resemble the historical outcome of the war

This is one heck of an assumption given how the game's model of reality/rules/physical limitations/starting game state/AI decision-making capability compare to actual history.

I will go so far as to say that forcing mean result to resemble historical outcome of the war while also having mechanics as they are in HOI 4 across a wide spectrum is necessarily a) internally inconsistent and b) objectively ahistorical as a result. This despite the ostensible goal of historical accuracy.

 

[=XIII=Wedge]

This is one heck of an assumption given how the game's model of reality/rules/physical limitations/starting game state/AI decision-making capability compare to actual history.

I will go so far as to say that forcing mean result to resemble historical outcome of the war while also having mechanics as they are in HOI 4 across a wide spectrum is necessarily a) internally inconsistent and b) objectively ahistorical as a result. This despite the ostensible goal of historical accuracy.

Key word is resemble, otherwise what is the point in having focus trees if not to rail history in a certain direction. The story telling framework is very important to this game, not just sandbox mechanics of war - each story telling is different, but it still needs to be believable.

You are correct though, I am projecting my aspirations onto what in my view could be the greatest WWII GSG ever made.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Key word is resemble, otherwise what is the point in having focus trees if not to rail history in a certain direction.

I consider them as they're presently designed to be a kludge that is nearly guaranteed to break both history and gameplay goals simultaneously.

Focuses might allow "remilitarization of x". But they also allow "Communist China joins CUF, calls it, leaves CUF for allies, calls allies too" all in one war. Scripted garbage also allows a puppet Japan with its only province being a < 5k pop island to "white peace" China and give away Korea (owned by its overlord). The situation isn't historical in the first place, but at least it was created using the game's model of reality. Until the game broke that model for looney tunes garbage and just decided the previous war + peace conference didn't count.

So yeah, great. Now Korea gets to be there. But claiming that outcome was "historical" is objectively inaccurate.

The story telling framework is very important to this game, not just sandbox mechanics of war - each story telling is different, but it still needs to be believable.

Insofar as the story telling is important, it needs to align with the rules that create the sandbox. Because those rules are the game's model of reality. Break those rules, and you can no longer be "historical", period. Real history did not blatantly break causality that way.

Using focuses, events, or other things to bypass the rules because the rules can't do what you want is a cop-out. An admission of shortcoming for the rules themselves. If the developer/mod creator valued those rules, if they were not a failure, they would not need to break them to break history in the name of being historical. Breaking them, but only selectively, is incoherent. Whatever the goal is in doing so, using "history" as an explanation for doing so is not valid.

I can't speak for the KR devs though. Maybe they just want a meme story as first priority, disregarding gameplay. I don't agree with that goal if you're making a mod for a game, but they don't need my agreement to make it. But regardless of that, they are then making a meme story, not something "historical". Because history does not/did not ignore its own causality.

 

[pheonicia]

Key word is resemble, otherwise what is the point in having focus trees if not to rail history in a certain direction. The story telling framework is very important to this game, not just sandbox mechanics of war - each story telling is different, but it still needs to be believable.

You are correct though, I am projecting my aspirations onto what in my view could be the greatest WWII GSG ever made.

Focus trees help guide players to their goals, especially for new players who may not be super familiar with the hyper specific details of the war and don't have internet phds in history. This was stated as a reason why the devs even bothered to come up with focus trees instead of just relying on chains of events and/or decisions. Focus trees in theory let you see what the consequences of your actions will be.

Which if I can go off on a tangent, is why I hate it when a focus just gives you an event with a cryptic name instead of an actual effect, or even worse when you get a mini tree that completely hides the rest of the foci you can do, or worst of all when you're proceeding down a focus tree and then you get an event and suddenly the entire tree is locked and you have a new tree for no previously discernable reason. (Those last two being a problem with mods rather than vanilla.)

 

[mursolini]

It's with this "rule" in mind I made those statements. The Ukrainians in Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine did not see themselves as under foreign occupation and were not hostile to Polish rule. The vast majority of them at least.

This is super-heavy revisionism. Both events on 1918 and later on during WW2 and UPA/Armiya Krayova "relations" suggests that Ukrainians very much minded being occupied by Poland, and were hostile to polish rule. They didn`t have much options for forced resistance that we know of, but there is plenty we don`t know of, and can probably accurately assume how if would go, if the option was there, from what actually happened after they got the option.

Unless, of course you suggest that Poles, Chechs, French, ex didn`t mind being occupied by Germans, until 1944.

 

[MrMcQue]

This is super-heavy revisionism. Both events on 1918 and later on during WW2 and UPA/Armiya Krayova "relations" suggests that Ukrainians very much minded being occupied by Poland, and were hostile to polish rule. They didn`t have much options for forced resistance that we know of, but there is plenty we don`t know of, and can probably accurately assume how if would go, if the option was there, from what actually happened after they got the option.

Unless, of course you suggest that Poles, Chechs, French, ex didn`t mind being occupied by Germans, until 1944.

The revisionism is equating the occupation of Poland, Czechia or France to Poland ruling over areas that were at least mixed in population and which cities were majority Polish for hundreds of years. This is not to take away anything from the Ukrainians or Belarussians but there was no, let's say, German majority in Paris, Warsaw and Prague, unlike Lwów for example.

Not mentioning in the statistics of the Voivodships like the Tarnopol Voivodship or Lwów Voivodship Poles were the majority in general (50%+), while for example in the Stanisławów and Wołyń Voivodship they were not. Or the Wilno Voivodship in which in 1931 there was almost 60% Poles and only 5% Lithuanians (!), so who was here occupying whom and how is this comparable to France or Czechia ?!?!

 

[mursolini]

The revisionism is equating the occupation of Poland, Czechia or France to Poland ruling over areas that were at least mixed in population and which cities were majority Polish for hundreds of years. This is not to take away anything from the Ukrainians or Belarussians but there was no, let's say, German majority in Paris, Warsaw and Prague, unlike Lwów for example.

If you want to go that way, "Poland" was ruled by Germans and Russians for at least a hundred years before WW1, and was ruled by Russians till 1991. Pretty sure Poles very much minded both occasions. At least Warshaw uprising #1 seem to suggest. So, it is revisionism to say that non-Polish population didn`t mind Polish rule. It did, just wasn`t in position to do something about it.

And let`s not start on how much "legitimacy" non-polish minorities provided to occupiers in ww2.

Not mentioning in the statistics of the Voivodships like the Tarnopol Voivodship or Lwów Voivodship Poles were the majority in general (50%+), while for example in the Stanisławów and Wołyń Voivodship they were not. Or the Wilno Voivodship in which in 1931 there was almost 60% Poles and only 5% Lithuanians (!), so who was here occupying whom and how is this comparable to France or Czechia ?!?!

Sudeten german lands were given to Chechs to establish them some defensible borders despite demographics, so those are comparable.

 

[MrMcQue]

If you want to go that way, "Poland" was ruled by Germans and Russians for at least a hundred years before WW1, and was ruled by Russians till 1991. Pretty sure Poles very much minded both occasions. At least Warshaw uprising #1 seem to suggest. So, it is revisionism to say that non-Polish population didn`t mind Polish rule. It did, just wasn`t in position to do something about it.

And let`s not start on how much "legitimacy" non-polish minorities provided to occupiers in ww2.

Sudeten german lands were given to Chechs to establish them some defensible borders despite demographics, so those are comparable.

There are some other issues with this, like what i still don't get bringing e.g. France into the discussion, but i am not going to reply to them because i believe i misread the initial post and i thought this was another discussion about whether Poland should have these cores in the first place or not. So i am just going to leave it at that.