In Defense of Alt-History

[Shaka of Carthage]

--replicate fuel/suppies
Fuel is coming and supplies already exist. There is at least one mod that does fuel, but I'm not that familiar with it.

-- even remotely historical invasion of Denmark and Norway
Yes. But it has to be through decisions, events and/or focuses.

-- basic, non-game breaking naval warfare, and also submarine warfare?
Most are already aware of the carrier vs land based air "bug". Currently there are some attempts to fix it through mods. And the next DLC will address it.
Ignoring the above, there is a basic naval combat system. Sufficient for the European naval war, lacking for the Pacific.
Submarines are subjective based on who you ask. But do they sink convoys? Yes.

-- AI that does not keeping attacking with wasted divisions?
Obviously MP games eliminate this.
For SP games, Expert AI. Some other mods have tweaked the AI as well (Total War?).
While those are better than the base game, they still can't compare to a competent human opponent.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Fuel is coming and supplies already exist. There is at least one mod that does fuel, but I'm not that familiar with it.

In other words, Mods cannot fix that, and we have to wait as long as 2019 until this is fixed. Exactly my assertion.

-- even remotely historical invasion of Denmark and Norway
Yes. But it has to be through decisions, events and/or focuses.

Really, then why is everybody complaining about it?

-- AI that does not keeping attacking with wasted divisions? Obviously MP games eliminate this.
For SP games, Expert AI. Some other mods have tweaked the AI as well (Total War?).

Even more obviously not everyone, indeed perhaps a majority of people do not like playing MP, probably more than the althistory geeks that Paradox is selling out to. My biggest problem with MP is that I make extravagant use of the pause button. Although the AI is not ideal, I need time to pause to consider what new military factories will produce, or what I will research next, or what is next in national focus, and so on and so forth. As for SP, I use Expert AI and what I describe is still a problem.

-- basic, non-game breaking naval warfare, and also submarine warfare?
Most are already aware of the carrier vs land based air "bug". Currently there are some attempts to fix it through mods. And the next DLC will address it.
Ignoring the above, there is a basic naval combat system. Sufficient for the European naval war, lacking for the Pacific.
Submarines are subjective based on who you ask. But do they sink convoys? Yes.

Again, awareness does not mean it is fixable or fixed, quite the contrary. And it is not just the carrier vs land bug. The whole warfare dynamic is scerwed, from battles taking weeks to months to battleships being the only ship worth producing. That submarines technically sink convoys does nothing to refute the assertion that submarine warfare sucks, is broken, that submaries get killed and are useless.

Stop defending the indefensible.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

In other words, Mods cannot fix that, and we have to wait as long as 2019 until this is fixed. Exactly my assertion.

Yes, a mod can include Fuel. One has already done so. If you have to have a different fuel solution than the one already in the base game, try the mod.

Really, then why is everybody complaining about it?

Cause some people would prefer to complain than address a solution.

Even more obviously not everyone, indeed perhaps a majority of people do not like playing MP, probably more than the althistory geeks that Paradox is selling out to. My biggest problem with MP is that I make extravagant use of the pause button. Although the AI is not ideal, I need time to pause to consider what new military factories will produce, or what I will research next, or what is next in national focus, and so on and so forth. As for SP, I use Expert AI and what I describe is still a problem.

So you would like a better AI. We all would. You are implying that the AI is so bad that you cannot play the game. I'm sure Paradox is aware of the faults of the AI. We are not privy as to why certain corrections cannot be made as quickly as we would like.

Again, awareness does not mean it is fixable or fixed, quite the contrary. And it is not just the carrier vs land bug. The whole warfare dynamic is scerwed, from battles taking weeks to months to battleships being the only ship worth producing. That submarines technically sink convoys does nothing to refute the assertion that submarine warfare sucks, is broken, that submaries get killed and are useless.

Again, all you are saying is that you want a better naval system. Even with the carrier bug, the one we have now doesn't "break" the game.

Stop defending the indefensible.

"Indefensible" from your viewpoint. Sorry if the game is unplayable for you because of the above. But that is just for you. And while you are not the only one who holds that opinion, why not try and find solutions instead of complaining?

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Yes, the flaws I the naval system do break the game. Nothing else in your post warrants a reply beyond "NO!"

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Yes, the flaws I the naval system do break the game. Nothing else in your post warrants a reply beyond "NO!"

Not a problem. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Trevok]

Not a problem. We can agree to disagree.

Yes, the flaws I the naval system do break the game. Nothing else in your post warrants a reply beyond "NO!"

This is just too funny. Argue about it private messages lol.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

This is just too funny.

I'll be here all week... bada boom!

 

[Antihero97]

As bad is naval warfare is its not unplayable.

 

[hkrommel]

These players, in fact, often mainly play Germany because they believe it is the most interesting game. Frankly, this betrays a lack of self-awareness, and a willingness to accept truly absurd alt-history as long as it fits the wehraboo narrative found in many history books.

Ah yes, the classic sweeping generalization to categorize your opponents as something altogether disagreeable and easy to argue against. FYI I most often play as France, followed by Germany, followed by USSR/Japan.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Ah yes, the classic sweeping generalization to categorize your opponents as something altogether disagreeable and easy to argue against. FYI I most often play as France, followed by Germany, followed by USSR/Japan.

Mostly, USSR, France and, surprisingly, Greece.

 

[Antihero97]

Ah yes, the classic sweeping generalization to categorize your opponents as something altogether disagreeable and easy to argue against. FYI I most often play as France, followed by Germany, followed by USSR/Japan.

Sadly this happens on both sides to any argument.

To anyone completely against alt history if you don't like it just don't play it. Its just a game let people play how they want to play.

To people who don't like how the alt history is being implemented or how plausible it is I understand. I don't want these options removed but their is a difference between a fascist coup in Russia vs bring Lenin back from the dead.

To anyone who believes that development of the alt history is time that could have gone into X or Y your both right and wrong. The people making the focus trees are not the same as the people who fix bugs or balance the game. If there not doing alt history they would just be making focus trees for different country's. Some people might prefer new focus trees or more reworked trees to alt history but that's a matter of opinion. They could replace the people who do focus trees for more bug fixers or people to make new/fix mechanics but that's for paradox to decide.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Sadly this happens on both sides to any argument.

To anyone completely against alt history if you don't like it just don't play it. Its just a game let people play how they want to play.

To people who don't like how the alt history is being implemented or how plausible it is I understand. I don't want these options removed but their is a difference between a fascist coup in Russia vs bring Lenin back from the dead.

To anyone who believes that development of the alt history is time that could have gone into X or Y your both right and wrong. The people making the focus trees are not the same as the people who fix bugs or balance the game. If there not doing alt history they would just be making focus trees for different country's. Some people might prefer new focus trees or more reworked trees to alt history but that's a matter of opinion. They could replace the people who do focus trees for more bug fixers or people to make new/fix mechanics but that's for paradox to decide.

Except that time and resources that ought to be fixing and improving the base game are directed to this nonsense. So it does affect me and others.

 

[Trevok]

Except that time and resources that ought to be fixing and improving the base game are directed to this nonsense. So it does affect me and others.

Only with the most tortured definition of "unplayable." Naval is very important to US, UK, and Japan. Naval battles do not last weeks, the interface renders screens and anything other than battleships pretty much useless. Carrier groups work nothing like as it actually happened. Submarines are useless, further taking the battle of the atlantic off the table.

I really do not see why you fanboys insist on defending this crap. The relevance of course being that paradox should not focus on any of this althistory crap till they are able to render a proficient WORLD WAR II game. The way it works, Axis and Allies has a better naval warfare dimension.

Guys, like mentioned in a previous diary, their are a limiting amount of programmers for fixing bugs and implementing mechanics. While those programmers do that, the content designers have nothing to do and so make alt-history paths that are easily made with little time from the programmers that spend most of the time fixing the game’s mechanics. Not everything is done in a day, and when one may be fixed, it affects another, so if you want a perfect game, wait till 2030.

 

[hkrommel]

the content designers have nothing to do and so make alt-history paths

...except they could rework the USSR, France, Italy, and Poland trees (or any number of minors that have trees), add new trees, add more plausible alternate history options to current trees, design events and decisions, or do any number of other content design things to better develop the historical and quasi-historical parts of the game. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition here.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Guys, like mentioned in a previous diary, their are a limiting amount of programmers for fixing bugs and implementing mechanics. While those programmers do that, the content designers have nothing to do and so make alt-history paths that are easily made with little time from the programmers that spend most of the time fixing the game’s mechanics. Not everything is done in a day, and when one may be fixed, it affects another, so if you want a perfect game, wait till 2030.

Hire more programmers, and less content designers. Or direct content designers to focus on universally relevant materials. For one thing, historically accurate tech trees would be a good start. Also, a game that cannot handle a base world war ii scenario cannot handle a game with multiple alt history variants.

 

[Doom Juan]

I love alt-history, keeps the game fresh.

Sure, I like playing historical from time to time: but when playing multiplayer with friends alternative history is the order of the day.

Speaking of alt-history... did anyone know that the first leader of the first Fascist party in Britain was a woman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotha_Lintorn-Orman

That would make an interesting alternative to Mosley... lol

 

[Theodorian]

Alt-history is an issue in Hearts of Iron 4 because we’ve now reached the implausible.

The economic and cultural conditions which existed and allowed Germany to go down the path it went required Germany for them to be fulfilled.

If I could turn Hearts of Iron 4 on and play a historical game, I would have zero issues with alt-history that is optional to me. Right now however resources are being used on FANTASY, instead addressing historical errors;

- The Pacific War doesn’t exist in any meaningful way? Yeah but what’s if Oswald Mosley took power?

- Second Sino-Japanese War ends with Japan winning in 1938-1939? Okay but let’s talk about the return of the Kaiser in German KAISERWAGEN LMAOOOOOO GET IT?!

- Spanish Civil War is busted, ends prematurely and has no flavor whatsoever? Guys.. What if there was a Second American Civil War?

Load up Hearts of Iron 3 and play as Cuba. It will take a historical approach, that doesn’t mean the game ends exactly as it did in real life but that up to Barbarossa everything follows the way it did traditionally. That’s what many of us want.

Paradox thinks that isn’t the case.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Alt-history is an issue in Hearts of Iron 4 because we’ve now reached the implausible.

The economic and cultural conditions which existed and allowed Germany to go down the path it went required Germany for them to be fulfilled.

If I could turn Hearts of Iron 4 on and play a historical game, I would have zero issues with alt-history that is optional to me. Right now however resources are being used on FANTASY, instead addressing historical errors;

- The Pacific War doesn’t exist in any menaningful way? Yeah but what’s if Oswald Mosley took power?

- Second Sino-Japanese War ends with Japan winning in 1938-1939? Okay but let’s talk about the return of the Kaiser in German KAISERWAGEN LMAOOOOOO GET IT?!

- Spanish Civil War is busted, ends prematurely and has no flavor whatsoever? Guys.. What if there was a Second American Civil War?

Load up Hearts of Iron 3 and play as Cuba. It will take a historical approach, that doesn’t mean the game ends exactly as it did in real life but that up to Barbarossa everything follows the way it did traditionally. That’s what many of us want.

Paradox thinks that isn’t the case.

Most excellent reply. I SALUTE YOU!

 

[Doom Juan]

Youtube is probably the best indicator as to what people are doing with HOI4, and alt-history seems to dominate. Not seen anyone do any historical German playthroughs for a while.

What I would like to see is a far more complex tech tree, similar to the one in HOI1 (in my opinion the best tech tree of any of the games).

The ability to design your own specific Panzer tank with it's own specific gun etc - that was another realm that allowed for alternative historical paths, years even before National Focus Trees.

 

[Antihero97]

...except they could rework the USSR, France, Italy, and Poland trees (or any number of minors that have trees), add new trees, add more plausible alternate history options to current trees, design events and decisions, or do any number of other content design things to better develop the historical and quasi-historical parts of the game. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition here.

Their already reworking US and UK why wait to do the alt history if they already were going to change the focus trees. They are doing a naval overhaul so they chose the US and the UK as the most relevant nations to update. Its up to paradox to decide who and when gets a new/reworked focus tree. If X or Y didn't get a focus tree or a rework but Z did they probably have a reason.

Hire more programmers, and less content designers. Or direct content designers to focus on universally relevant materials. For one thing, historically accurate tech trees would be a good start. Also, a game that cannot handle a base world war ii scenario cannot handle a game with multiple alt history variants.

Its probably a business decision to have more content designers than programmers. New focus trees or new mechanics stand out more and sound more interesting than bug fixes or balancing. They probably make more money making new content then constantly tweaking old stuff. Dose't mean bugs/balance issues aren't being addressed.

Alt-history is an issue in Hearts of Iron 4 because we’ve now reached the implausible.

The economic and cultural conditions which existed and allowed Germany to go down the path it went required Germany for them to be fulfilled.

If I could turn Hearts of Iron 4 on and play a historical game, I would have zero issues with alt-history that is optional to me. Right now however resources are being used on FANTASY, instead addressing historical errors;

- The Pacific War doesn’t exist in any meaningful way? Yeah but what’s if Oswald Mosley took power?

- Second Sino-Japanese War ends with Japan winning in 1938-1939? Okay but let’s talk about the return of the Kaiser in German KAISERWAGEN LMAOOOOOO GET IT?!

- Spanish Civil War is busted, ends prematurely and has no flavor whatsoever? Guys.. What if there was a Second American Civil War?

Load up Hearts of Iron 3 and play as Cuba. It will take a historical approach, that doesn’t mean the game ends exactly as it did in real life but that up to Barbarossa everything follows the way it did traditionally. That’s what many of us want.

Paradox thinks that isn’t the case.

I will agree that historical needs some love but them making alt history dose not mean they aren't working on historical fixes. If Mtg comes out and these issues aren't addressed ill be right there with you voicing my complaints to paradox. Wait for a few more dev diary's or for the dlc to come out before you assume that none of these issues have been addressed.