How do those dirty Germans and Italians get away with it?

[xtfoster]

I’m civil war scenarios it treats both sides as two opposing countries in two opposing factions.
Vichy France is a separate nation.

When the allies won, democratic Germany and Italy were on the winning side and I assume had a high contribution as would have done most of the fighting. This gave them first picks of territory. Although I’m not sure why poland wasn’t freed. I assume they joined the allies.

I agree it would never have happened like that in reality. The issue is with the peace conference mechanic. The whole thing is way off how it really works.
In my opinion that whole system needs to be ripped out of the game and replaced. Although once the war over then the game is over for most people.

Actually, in this case it has nothing to do with the War Score, or peace conferences, in any way. It has to do with the way Civil Wars are coded. When one side of the Civil War capitulates (i.e., loses), the winner gets everything the pre-civil war country owned (but not just controlled). Not sure about Germany retaining Vichy, but it probably has something to do with the same thing. Vichy lost (to one of the two Germanies) and they became the owner of that territory (not just the controller), they they got it back when the Civil War ended.

 

[Hugo Sperrle]

Well, I guess that's the point, isn't it. The game isn't a history game but a wargaming sandbox set in a world that resembles ours at the start of WW2. Nothing, more nothing less.

The difference between game and sandbox is a moot point, in my opinion. They're both forms of structured play, the only difference is that the former generally has victory conditions and the latter not (which by the way I think is a flaw in this sandbox, but that's a different nightmare). But I'll try to stick to the term "sandbox" if that reduces confusion. Hey Franky, how's your sandbox coming along?

Some rules and the expecially (sic) the starting positions of some players (ie nations) are set in a way that a WW2-like outcome is quite propable (sic)

Quite probable? You sound so sure of that. So you actually believe the outcome in my original post is quite plausible?

And have you ever glanced at the number of threads in the suggestions forum?

Or in other words: If you want a game, that resembles WW2 as closely as possible you may have bought the wrong game.

Funny they never tell you that on the DVD jewelcase or in the game reviews. How do I get my funds back in my Steam wallet? How do I get my 1,100 hours back? And the job I abandoned? And my repossessed car? And my wife and kids who left me?

 

[Hugo Sperrle]

Actually, in this case it has nothing to do with the War Score, or peace conferences, in any way. It has to do with the way Civil Wars are coded. When one side of the Civil War capitulates (i.e., loses), the winner gets everything the pre-civil war country owned (but not just controlled). Not sure about Germany retaining Vichy, but it probably has something to do with the same thing. Vichy lost (to one of the two Germanies) and they became the owner of that territory (not just the controller), they they got it back when the Civil War ended.

Fair enough. Let's hope in some release they'll code the game sandbox for a more plausible outcome that Eisenhower, Churchill and de Gaulle would approve of.

 

[kettyo]

I prefer generalised rules to specialised ones.

No need to script special civil-war outcomes for all the countries in the game.

After all there is a state transfer tool mod so you can correct any wrongs you see.

Moreover i think the outcome in game is perfectly reasonable since you have mass recruited local Germans to defeat the Reich. You have to offer something to them for this to be remotely plausible. Offering to throw Hitler out the window and dismember their hard fought empire will certainly not work i guess.

 

[Hugo Sperrle]

I prefer generalised rules to specialised ones.

That's a broad statement. It depends on the situation and what you mean by "rules". If by "rules" you mean the code, then you must perceive the code to be generic. It seems quite situational and country specific in my mind.

No need to script special civil-war outcomes for all the countries in the game.

I really wasn't criticizing the civil war itself, but the peace conference outcome. The civil war was just a means to end the war faster, and save civilian lives.

After all there is a state transfer tool mod so you can correct any wrongs you see.

I have a problem with mods, myself. I think the functionality should come in the base game sandbox. You can download any mod to suit your purpose, it's a sandbox afterall. Heck, I'm sure someone out there scripted a mod where the Joker infects all your enemies with coronavirus. What challenge is there to download some mod to always get your way? But again, I'm drifting into a different nightmare.

Moreover i think the outcome in game is perfectly reasonable since you have mass recruited local Germans to defeat the Reich. You have to offer something to them for this to be remotely plausible. Offering to throw Hitler out the window and dismember their hard fought empire will certainly not work i guess.

You could be right, but I'm skeptical. I'd like to read some expert historians take on that, who I believe are lacking in this sandbox. For the amount of money Paradox makes a year, you would think they could afford to pay one or two even only just part-time.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

The difference between game and sandbox is a moot point, in my opinion. They're both forms of structured play, the only difference is that the former generally has victory conditions and the latter not (which by the way I think is a flaw in this sandbox, but that's a different nightmare). But I'll try to stick to the term "sandbox" if that reduces confusion. Hey Franky, how's your sandbox coming along?

The devs themselves decribed the game as such...

Quite probable? You sound so sure of that. So you actually believe the outcome in my original post is quite plausible?

Yes, I am very sure of that.
And yes, your game result is a very plausible outcome (i.e. within the rules of the game) when considering that you started some random civil wars among the major powers.

Funny they never tell you that on the DVD jewelcase or in the game reviews. How do I get my funds back in my Steam wallet? How do I get my 1,100 hours back? And the job I abandoned? And my repossessed car? And my wife and kids who left me?

I don't know what is written on DVD jewelcase since I didn't know they actually sold/sell this game on DVD. But the product description on any other platform (Steam, amazon, paradoxplaza) neither says the contrary.
And of course, I didn't read all reviews of the game so I cannot tell if you actually found one that said that this game is a perfect and accurate simulation of WW2. Most reviews I read - especially the negative ones - however said that the game is NOT historically accurate. So maybe you just picked the wrong reviews?

However, if it took you 1100 hours and especially your kids, wife and job to notice that you might have bought the wrong game for your liking that's NOT the fault of the game...
(I'm quite sure that you tried to be funny with these additions about job/wife/kids but since you added (sic) to my errors to emphasize that you didn't add these errors by yourself I think you are a very accurate person who wouldn't make these kind of joke. So the only conclusion is you were serious about these statements. In which case you should get professional help - it's a serious sign of video game addiction)

 

[Hugo Sperrle]

Yes, I am very sure of that.
And yes, your game result is a very plausible outcome (i.e. within the rules of the game) when considering that you started some random civil wars among the major powers.

I envy a gamer so certain as yourself on WWII historical outcomes. You must be quite the studious scholar. I don't know how people like you do it.

I don't know what is written on DVD jewelcase since I didn't know they actually sold/sell this game on DVD. But the product description on any other platform (Steam, amazon, paradoxplaza) neither says the contrary.
And of course, I didn't read all reviews of the game so I cannot tell if you actually found one that said that this game is a perfect and accurate simulation of WW2. Most reviews I read - especially the negative ones - however said that the game is NOT historically accurate. So maybe you just picked the wrong reviews?

No, I agree with you it's not feasible for a potential paying customer to read all professional and user reviews. But the main reviews one typically reads from those websites that come up first in Google searches for computer gaming and wargame websites, plus the Paradox advertising does appear to lead one to believe they are going to be getting something close to the real deal beyond a game like say Civilization or Rise of Nations, at least in my opinion. I'd be ever so grateful if you enlightened the forum subscribers by pointing some of these negative reviews, particularily those that emphatically critique the historical outcomes, out to us if you can spare the time and effort.

Surprizing there are so many forum users here that criticize some aspect of the game, particularly in the suggestions forum.

However, if it took you 1100 hours and especially your kids, wife and job to notice that you might have bought the wrong game for your liking that's NOT the fault of the game...

Call me an optimist who believes the developers will someday take notice and add (what I see as) more plausible outcomes to the game. And call me one who likes to get his money's worth. It's a long game to just to learn given its vast breadth and complexity for one and there being not much adequate documentation secondly. And the deficiencies in the user interface doesn't help. Even in the review I read said that the best way to learn how to play the game is just to play it. And of course having to try all seven interesting countries, and yet to try the 1936 scenario and multiplayer. Hence the hours. No doubt I was entertained. But I appear to one of those rare birds who is also looking for plausible historical immersion, and doing it the hard way. But I'm hopeful knowledge as yours on the subject may reassure me I'm getting that historical immersion.

(I'm quite sure that you tried to be funny with these additions about job/wife/kids but since you added (sic) to my errors to emphasize that you didn't add these errors by yourself I think you are a very accurate person who wouldn't make these kind of joke. So the only conclusion is you were serious about these statements. In which case you should get professional help - it's a serious sign of video game addiction)

Yes, pardon my sense of humour. I accidentally keep overestimating the wit of some (if not most) of the readers on here. It's a bad habit of mine, being a native to the blue icy Class M planet Andor.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

I envy a gamer so certain as yourself on WWII historical outcomes. You must be quite the studious scholar. I don't know how people like you do it.

I said "plausible outcome (i.e. within the rules of the game)". I never said anything about a plausible WW2. A plausible WW2 went out of the window the moment you decided to initate civil wars in the major antagonists of said war.

And call me one who likes to get his money's worth.

If 1100 hours of entertainment aren't the "money's worth" then I don't know what it is. I "only" played ~400h and I'd say: Totally worth the money I've paid for that.

As for the (negative) reviews about the game not being historical accurate:

Steam Community :: Def :: Review for Hearts of Iron IV

I speak as a veteran of the series. Is anyone else underwhelmed? I don't think it was worth the $40 price. I was expecting more. Instead we get HoI3 with better production and diplomacy systems. Land combat is the meat of the HoI franchise and yet the AI still doesn't know a strategy other than...

steamcommunity.com

Steam Community :: Vepatzioone :: Review for Hearts of Iron IV

The game is ok. Just HoI4 vanilla is kinda shit: PROS: 1. Fallback Order. its bretty good, makes defending 50 times better. 2.Naval Combat and Ships. At the start of the game I didnt like it, but now I have grown fond of it. I love the look of Battlecruisers and will always attempt to build a...

steamcommunity.com

Steam Community :: Holy Athena :: Review for Hearts of Iron IV

First things first. The reason I'm down voting is simply because they've taken a huge step back from what HOI was originally, and that's a Grand Strategy. This is by no means a "Grand Strategy" by any definition. That's not to be confused with "Strategy". It's a strategy game, but it's more in...

steamcommunity.com

Steam Community :: Error

steamcommunity.com

(That's just an excerpt, of course. And I didn't have to read that many to find them (~30min)).

 

[kettyo]

What you seemingly don't understand is that in game terms Germany wasn't defeated in war, it has changed ideology by civil war.

If you want to see Germany defeated and his empire or maybe even Germany itself dismembered, you have to avoid instigating a civil war, you have to defeat him in international conflict. Simple as that.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

I just assumed that the rules of the game were supposed to plausibly model WWII events, because for one Montgomery, Rommel, MacArthur and Zhukov were on the product advertising.

I can only repeat myself (with all the errors included, just for you ):

Well, I guess that's the point, isn't it. The game isn't a history game but a wargaming sandbox set in a world that resembles ours at the start of WW2. Nothing, more nothing less. Some rules and the expecially the starting positions of some players (ie nations) are set in a way that a WW2-like outcome is quite propable. However, besides of these starting restrictions and some other rules which might or might not be disabled depending on the player's country ideology, all rules apply for all players. This includes the rules for staging coups and how (civil) wars are resolved.

Or in other words: If you want a game, that resembles WW2 as closely as possible you may have bought the wrong game.

Look, I get where you are coming from. You want a game that resembles WW2 as closely as possible. HoI4 just isn't that game. And HoI4 has surely its flaws (besides the stuff we are currently talking about). But in the end that's the game how the devs envisioned it (if you look at DevDiary 1 you will see that most parts of "Our vision" have become true) and it's the game that most players (according to Steam) like as it is. Granted, the rules for resolving civil wars could be a bit better elaborated in a way that the situation you had would have been resolved in a way that would have been more to your liking/expectations. If you have an idea how to make it in a way that does NOT break the general sandbox approach (ie more or less the same general rules for all) you could write a suggestion.

However, if you want a "real" WW2 experinece I could recommend GG's WitE (and similar like WitWest and WitPacific) to you. It's quite often on sale either on Steam or GoG.
Or maybe even HoI3 which is (by far) more railroaded into the actual events of WW2 than HoI4 but still more open in the result than WitE. Especially - so I've heard - with the BlackICE mod.

let alone having to browse or install Steam

Since using Steam is (afaik) the only way to play the game I would consider Steam reviews the number one source. But I get your point. If we assume that someone gets interested in the game who doesn't already have Steam. However all the reviews above are available without actually needing a Steam installation or even an account. Whatever...

And sorry, I really don't get what you want to tell me with that advertisement for the girl car. I'm more a Mustang fan.

 

[kettyo]

However, if you want a "real" WW2 experinece I could recommend GG's WitE (and similar like WitWest and WitPacific) to you

GG's grand strategy WAW-AWD is also very good albeit very different from HOI4, much more railroaded, and luck factor is way bigger but still it's good.

 

[SophieX]

I just assumed that the rules of the game were supposed to plausibly model WWII events,

1. There are "rules" for a historical path with historical outcome.
2. There are "rules" for an alternative paths with other outcomes.

You chose the second one. And to speak with your words: You do an implausible ( unhistorical ) step, regarding WWII events, by causing a civil war in Germany and you wonder why you get an unhistorical outcome.
Is it that difficult to understand?

 

[Hugo Sperrle]

What you seemingly don't understand is that in game terms Germany wasn't defeated in war, it has changed ideology by civil war.

If you want to see Germany defeated and his empire or maybe even Germany itself dismembered, you have to avoid instigating a civil war, you have to defeat him in international conflict. Simple as that.

There is no such thing as Germany. There are the countries German Reich and German Republic, among others like the Socialist Republic of Germany. “Germany” is a collection of countries that one or more may exist at any time. During the game, after the successful staging of the coup, both countries existed and fought each other in a civil war. The peace conference exiled German Reich (which still exists, but to where I have no idea, ratlined somewhere in South America maybe if the game obeys history?) and assigned all or most provinces to German Republic. Similar with “Italy”. German Reich was defeated in game terms. Whether or not German Reich could be released again in a future war, I don’t know (but a cool idea, Hitler and friends fighting for Uruguay).

That much I seem to understand.

The problem as I’ve stated too many times (read the original post again if you must) is that I think that that peace conference outcome could never happen as it did in my game, regardless if there was a civil war. And I’m still waiting for a straightforward answer.

I, playing as Dominion of Canada staged the coup to examine the effects of ending the war faster (mind you I did much the same thing playing France in another game).

In my limited understanding of the historical period, I can’t see how the allies would not give France back all its core provinces (including one now in German Republic) and colonies. German Republic and Republican Italy would or should get at most only its own core provinces. Assuming Soviet Union is satisfied with its take (because of the civil war, Soviet Union was hardly touched by German Reich), at least the western provinces that are core to Polish Republic would be released. Some combination of Austria, Upper Austria and Lower Austria would very likely be released with democratic ideologies. I can’t see how Slovak Republic would not be released. The one province of Lithuania possessed by German Republic would become democratic Republic of Lithuania. Ethiopia and Kingdom of Libya would be released from former Italy.

Why would the allies initiate civil wars for Germany and Italy only for them to retain half of continental Western Europe? That picture can’t look right.

At least have it in the game a message to the player detailing the agreement or motivation of the coup negotiation. What are the German Republic and Republican Italy break-away countries fighting for? To stop a destructive world war or just replace Hitler and Mussolini with new tyrannical regimes ala democratic ideology (not unlike what United Kingdom, France and to a lesser extent United States are already). If the latter is the case, and maybe I wasn’t seeing that, then perhaps the peace conference outcome is not that unbelievable after all. However, I can’t see a German or Italian civil war during that period would be anything else but for the break-away countries to eventually end all hostilities and preventing continental Europe becoming a wasteland as really what happened, and thus would be happy to release their colonies and occupied provinces to their rightful owners.

Granted, the World Tension is accurately still 100%, but that may be because war is still on with Japan. And yes, my Dominion of Canada did eventually successfully stage a coup there too. And yes, if it’s anything like what happened in my game as France, much of fascist Japan’s possessions will be transferred to democratic State of Japan after that peace conference. It stinks, but don’t tell that to the comfort women.

 

[Restless Native]

To answer your question. In reality if this scenario happened there is no hope in hell that Germany would be allowed to keep conquered territory regardless of the civil war replaced the nazis with a democracy. They would be occupied and dismantled.

People have explained why it happened the way it did in game. The peace process system the game has can’t even manage the end of a historical ww2 outcome correctly. Let alone one ended by civil wars.

 

[kettyo]

There is no such thing as Germany. There are the countries German Reich and German Republic, among others like the Socialist Republic of Germany. “Germany” is a collection of countries that one or more may exist at any time

In game terms they are competitors for governing Germany, not fully autonomous countries and resolving civil wars (reunifying Germany in this case) has priority over resolving international conflicts in peace conferences.

 

[kettyo]

In reality if this scenario happened there is no hope in hell that Germany would be allowed to keep conquered territory regardless of the civil war replaced the nazis with a democracy

But in the other hand if the revolters knew the Reich will be dismantled, they wouldn't take up arms in the first place.

Enabling millions of Germans to oppose the Reich while you actually offer them less than the Reich itself would be pretty crazy.

 

[Restless Native]

But in the other hand if the revolters knew the Reich will be dismantled, they wouldn't take up arms in the first place.

Enabling millions of Germans to oppose the Reich while you actually offer them less than the Reich itself would be pretty crazy.

Germans, even anti nazi Germans, don’t get to decide if Germany gets punished for starting a war.

 

[kettyo]

Germans, even anti nazi Germans, don’t get to decide if Germany gets punished for starting a war.

That's partially why there was no large scale anti-hitlerist uprising in real life. But if you envision it happening, you can't offer them Yalta in return

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I. @Hugo Sperrle 's Example

While some of these results are completely whacky (like German Republic keeping southern France and French colonies), some parts are certainly plausible. Germany had historical claims on Alsace-Lorraine and parts of Poland, and Italy had claimed the parts of France they annexed.

The game doesn’t state what exactly your government did to make democracy more popular in Germany and Italy, but it a plausible explanation would be that your agents promised them to keep their maximum borders if only they get rid of their fascist governments themselves. They did it and you’ve had to keep the promise. That means the Allies in your game were extremely cynical (betraying France and Poland) but also more successful (you have ended the war much earlier than IRL and presumably with much lower allied casualties).

Historically, the Allies were determined to beat the Axis into an unconditional surrender. You have chosen an alternate path and got alternate results.



II. Railroading in a Sandbox in general

Any historical Grand Strategy game should include possible ahistorical options. Otherwise, it would be quite dull and predictable and prevent the player(s) from doing better than historical leaders or exploring alternate outcomes of historical events.

However, these non-historical alternatives should be plausible and reasonable.

HoI 4 is extremely customisable. It allows setting every major AI-controlled country on a certain path. There are two startdates, with the 39 scenario better suited for a historical war. At the same time a player can release over 100 small countries and set the major ones to do the opposite of their historical actions.

The late game obviously tends to be less historical and there are some problems with early game outcomes like SCW ending far too early.



III. How to fix it

Civil war factions should have a reduced weight at peace conferences. That way thy wouldn’t be able to claim everything before the major powers get their turn.

EDIT: Did as @kettyo said.

 

[kettyo]

That means the Allies in your game were extremely cynical (betraying France and Poland)

Business as usual for them

Civil war factions should have a reduced weight at peace conferences. That way thy wouldn’t be able to claim everything before the major powers get their turn.

Actually civil wars are resolved before any normal international wars.

Your solution might have worse outcomes than the current system. Just imagine you're e.g. trying to go fascist as France via civil war and you join Axis as democratic France is in the Allies. Let's assume you eventually defeat the Allies. If your civil war was part of the bigger war against the Allies you probably got nothing from democratic France in the conference as Germany tends to farm insane amounts of warscore in every war with infantry assaults so Germany annexed all of democratic France before you get your first turn. Imagine the player outbreaks in the forum

P.S.: Remove your reference to the HC asap. It's not allowed.