i think that hoi is missing political turmoil inside the parties what hoi needs is ck3 council roleplay.

[alexman]

i cant find any soucres or links because google is cencoring everything on the topic. but i remember watching documentaries and reading on how the interal political game was rife with intrigue and sabotage. everyone wanted prestigious posts and warcriminals that noone liked stayed in power due to blackmail and internal powerstruggles. its the same in soviet there wasnt always the most effective people that were in power but those that had most intrigue and power.

 

[Iskulya]

Nah, this is a war game.

If you want to play Crusader Kings, then just play that game.

 

[ruzen]

Good luck havung this one while they wont even implement food or ammunition

 

[alexman]

it seems hoi3 actually had this system also a trade market ofgoods

 

[ButcherOfTorfan]

I'm genuinely unsure of what you're even talking about. I would actually agree that the game's party political mechanics are terribly shallow but this changing - as you can see when reading the developer diaries for Battle for the Bosporus, and a system of faction management as a core mechanic might not be too far off.

it seems hoi3 actually had this system also a trade market ofgoods

I don't know what you mean by this. The screenshot shows a set of government ministers that you can recruit and replace as you please but this is something you can do in this game as well. The biggest difference is that Hearts of Iron III had a larger set of parties (which I much prefer to the current restrictive arrangement) but nothing to do with "turmoil inside the parties".

 

[BeauNiddle]

I don't know what you mean by this. The screenshot shows a set of government ministers that you can recruit and replace as you please but this is something you can do in this game as well. The biggest difference is that Hearts of Iron III had a larger set of parties (which I much prefer to the current restrictive arrangement) but nothing to do with "turmoil inside the parties".

HOI3 had a 'hidden' system that if you didn't allocate ministers in equal representation to their parties vote (at least I think that was the measure, it's been a while) then you got a politic disunity malus that (very) slowly ticked down your countries willingness to fight.

It was negligible and most people never noticed it existed.

It's the age old question - is it better to have something that doesn't do anything or is it better not to have it at all.

If they can come up with a system that is interesting and controllable I'd be willing but spinning wheels for the sake of spinning wheels doesn't do anything for me.

 

[alexman]

not removing reckless leaders would lead to genocides and increase resistance and rebellions there even was assassinations bu whermacht over ss on hitler

 

[Jays298]

Nah, this is a war game.

If you want to play Crusader Kings, then just play that game.

Agreed. Plus there already are political events (coups, changes, elections, etc.) and many political focuses.

The game is a war game with in about a ten year period. And the the emphasis is the economic view.

 

[coffeelingfine]

Good luck havung this one while they wont even implement food or ammunition

Don't see why they should? Food and ammo were never resources in any HOI game

 

[Art1985]

I don't want more roleplay and managment of scientists, political leaders and so on, I want to manage system and war machine. Please don't change hoi games into another ck, it's already becoming more and more arcadish with all those focus trees while we still don't have interesting technology mechanics in the game.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

Don't see why they should? Food and ammo were never resources in any HOI game

"Supplies" was a tradable goods in the series for a while.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

"Supplies" was a tradable goods in the series for a while.

In HOI2, if memory serves.

Anyway, this is not a suggestion likely to get much agreement among the people who play HOI. And the development team won't want to do it either, since it would distract them from their core mission of adding even more alt history variants to the game without actually improving core mechanics at all.

Maybe what the OP really wants is a game with deep and complex political system. Many of us hope for that too -- it's called Victoria 3!

 

[DicRoNero]

It's the age old question - is it better to have something that doesn't do anything or is it better not to have it at all.

Well, MtG gave a definite answer to that, picking the first option.

Since game industry now is all about marketing, you assemble stuff like Naval Treaties which has no bearing on the actual gameplay whatsoever, but still allows you to insert a nice looking bulletpoint to the list contaminated by 'features' of a similar caliber.

I have no grudge at all with the personalities responsible for it, though. Provided I was assigned with such a task and put in the same timeframe, I most likely would have failed to deliver anything more substantial than that. My regret only concerns a significant historical pre-war development being effectively wasted. That's like rendering Nuke research a one-click affair. Oh, wait...

Victoria III would be great, yeah. Probably the only title to really bring all (or most) mechanics together in a cohesive fashion.

 

[Admiral Fischer]

In HOI2, if memory serves.

From the original HoI to the HoI 3. That's what I meant by "the series". Just saying.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

From the original HoI to the HoI 3. That's what I meant by "the series". Just saying.

Of course that's right. It's only in this version that "supplies" become less -- umm -- substantial!

 

[Adrianuse]

Since game industry now is all about marketing, you assemble stuff like Naval Treaties which has no bearing on the actual gameplay whatsoever, but still allows you to insert a nice looking bulletpoint to the list contaminated by 'features' of a similar caliber.

I'm not saying that this feature is perfect and the treaty can be circumvented, but overall it does SOMETHING. Specifically, you cannot build ships that are too large. For me, it is always a step towards realism (i.e. it is better than when this option was not available).

I hope that someday they will refine this feature, which should be easier than adding it from scratch.

 

[Emperor_Napoleon]

In HOI2, if memory serves.

Anyway, this is not a suggestion likely to get much agreement among the people who play HOI. And the development team won't want to do it either, since it would distract them from their core mission of adding even more alt history variants to the game without actually improving core mechanics at all.

Maybe what the OP really wants is a game with deep and complex political system. Many of us hope for that too -- it's called Victoria 3!

Hopefully the next major expansion will have some significant mechanical overhauls. If too much emphasis is put on the focus trees, though.... I don't know how much more interest I'll be able to maintain for this game.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Hopefully the next major expansion will have some significant mechanical overhauls. If too much emphasis is put on the focus trees, though.... I don't know how much more interest I'll be able to maintain for this game.

It's basically an open secret that the next major project will include a re-work of the USSR focus tree, whch desperately needs it -- it's dreadful now. But I think there is also a widespread belief that it will include significant overhauls to combat and supply. Heaven knows, supply is in dire need of some work. It's the one major system in the game that has received zero attention since release, and it wasn't all that good to begin with!