In Defense of Alt-History

[philjd]

...........[snip]........

Thank you for the honesty in that post.
As long as it remains a core function of the game to have a historically accurate rendition of WW2 available for use by those players who desire it, and, mechanics bugs are fixed within the normal routine, and, the mechanics of the game continue to develop towards a better model of the world in the time frame (military, economic, political) then nobody should get too upset over the game.
Personally I have been playing WW2 strategy games for far too long and once the mechanics of the game play are understood and the countries of interest have been played, then the option of variety is much better than being locked into OTL. The variety of possibilities offered by even simply deselecting the 'historical focus' makes you actually think about what you, the country, want to actually achieve now that the stabilisers have been removed from the bicycle and the world does not progress as expected.

 

[Bratyn]

For my, if not others' clarity, is the possibility of Germany winning World War II and the possibility to reform the HRE both "alt history" for the purposes of this discussion, or is it literally the ideology shift focus trees and formable nations that are paying for everything?

It's not a clear-cut thing. It basically boils down to 'fun stuff sells', and alt history options tend to be considered 'fun' by many fans, and therefore tend to sell well. To a certain extent, so does historical accuracy (and we do intend to keep adding historical content as well), but to focus on historical accuracy at the expense of everything else would likely bankrupt the project simply because it attracts fewer people.

In addition, ideology switches provide immense replay value. If you re-do a country and add alt-history ideology options, you've increased the possible scenarios (obviously being very simplistic here - even the exact same path can play out in very different ways) a player can play through from 1 to 4. If you do it for 2 countries, you've gone from 2 to 16. Etc etc... The replayability you get from this is insane, and that is something people want when they put in money for a game. So yes, new ideology branches is definitely a large part of what I am referring to.

The possibility of Germany winning World War II is simply a gameplay necessity, because otherwise there would be no point to play the country. As for being able to re-form the HRE, that is something we added just because we thought it would be cool. That is what easter eggs are; they come from a dev (or a bunch of devs) going 'hey this would be cool - I'll put in some personal time to make it happen because I want to'. For that specific example, considerations of sales or fan reception did not even factor into it.

 

[Fulmen]

It basically boils down to 'fun stuff sells', and alt history options tend to be considered 'fun' by many fans, and therefore tend to sell well. To a certain extent, so does historical accuracy (and we do intend to keep adding historical content as well), but to focus on historical accuracy at the expense of everything else would likely bankrupt the project simply because it attracts fewer people.

Can this be interpreted as "we now mostly focus on alt-history, rather than historical content"?

 

[EltharionDrax]

Thank you @Bratyn for your posts in this thread. Glad that you respond to our concerns and these posts put at least my mind at ease about MtG and things to come for HOI 4.

 

[Bratyn]

Can this be interpreted as "we now mostly focus on alt-history, rather than historical content"?

It should be interpreted as "We will not be toning down on alt-history compared to what we are doing right now". Whether you consider that to be focusing 'mostly' on alt history depends entirely on your point of view - I, for instance, do not think that is the case other than the simple mathematical fact that we have 1 'historical' and 3 'unhistorical' ideology paths for each country. On the other hand, I would argue Fuel, and many other to-be-announced things you'll be getting in MtG, are 'historical content' that far outweighs the alt history branches in 4 focus trees.

 

[Fulmen]

On the other hand, I would argue Fuel, and many other to-be-announced things you'll be getting in MtG, are 'historical content' that far outweighs the alt history branches in 4 focus trees.

Guess we'll have to wait and see then.

 

[qer]

My main problem wit AH is that the different branches interact poorly with each other in a rather fixed way. If Germany go monarchist, France go fascist, Hungary try to go AH etc...It quickly becomes a mess. Not only are some paths very unfeasible, but for me playing Alt-History seems less interesting than going historical because the focus tress work better in well defined scenarios

@Secret Master As you quite often bring the point of Hoi4 not being mechanically bad and fun in a Mp group with some rules, have you ever run an alt history run? And if so, it was better or worse than a usual historical run?

Also I agree that flavour is something the game really needs. I have always thought that playing DH feel much more personal than Hoi4

 

[CrazyZombie]

@Bratyn

Ok, I understand general focus of PDX on alt-history. I can't agree with degree of such decision, but that's already another story. Anyway, back to the topic - should I be worried about future Soviet update? I mean, a lot of people await something about tzarist restoration or smth like this, which stays more or less on the same level of possibility as ressurection of Lenin. Problem is that "social order" doesn't know much about this - or doesn't care anyway. I honestly can't blame them - while I know historical context of own country, I can't just say the same about many other states.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

Here is my take.

Alt history sets up the board. That's its entire purpose. It lays out the teams, and allows each game (theoretically) to have different nations fighting each other. The history doesn't make the game, the war mechanics do. Divisions behaving realistically, terrain having its realistic influence, the toll war takes on the people, the difficulties of naval landings, the influence of air and sea power, the importance of logistics, all these are more important than Germany attacking Poland in 1941. Historical plausibility should be a result of game mechanics, that Luxembourg just simply cannot muster the men or industry to take out Belgium let alone the world, but even they can have their moment of glory defending their city against the Nazi hordes.

The alternate history allows Germany and the USA to be on a team together, the USSR and Japan to be on a team together, the USA to be vs the world, etc. Every game being Germany attacking Poland, killing France, and then choosing whether to finish off Britain or Russia does get boring after a while. If Germany needs to do all those AND deal with Italy, things get interesting. If the USSR needs to fight a European coalition, things get interesting. If Britain has a Fascist USA on its backdoor, things get interesting. I'm excited to see the USA focus tree, but I am more excited to see the naval mechanics.

I have many complaints about this game that have nothing to do with history. The armies seem like hordes, and there are too many divisions present on the map at a time. The AI's tactics have still much to be hoped for, and don't get me started on peace deals which are still broken. But basically, alt history for me is just to mix and match nations, and if I wanted an actual political simulation I'd play Victoria II.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Here is my take.

Alt history sets up the board. That's its entire purpose. It lays out the teams, and allows each game (theoretically) to have different nations fighting each other. The history doesn't make the game, the war mechanics do. Divisions behaving realistically, terrain having its realistic influence, the toll war takes on the people, the difficulties of naval landings, the influence of air and sea power, the importance of logistics, all these are more important than Germany attacking Poland in 1941. Historical plausibility should be a result of game mechanics, that Luxembourg just simply cannot muster the men or industry to take out Belgium let alone the world, but even they can have their moment of glory defending their city against the Nazi hordes.

The alternate history allows Germany and the USA to be on a team together, the USSR and Japan to be on a team together, the USA to be vs the world, etc. Every game being Germany attacking Poland, killing France, and then choosing whether to finish off Britain or Russia does get boring after a while. If Germany needs to do all those AND deal with Italy, things get interesting. If the USSR needs to fight a European coalition, things get interesting. If Britain has a Fascist USA on its backdoor, things get interesting. I'm excited to see the USA focus tree, but I am more excited to see the naval mechanics.

I have many complaints about this game that have nothing to do with history. The armies seem like hordes, and there are too many divisions present on the map at a time. The AI's tactics have still much to be hoped for, and don't get me started on peace deals which are still broken. But basically, alt history for me is just to mix and match nations, and if I wanted an actual political simulation I'd play Victoria II.

While I never play in historical, I never seen something more radical than Japan, taking route, leading to war with Soviet Union.

 

[philjd]

While I never play in historical, I never seen something more radical than Japan, taking route, leading to war with Soviet Union.

IN my current ahistorical game, poland joined the turkish faction, followed by Romania, then France (plus BeNeLux, who are now dead, along with Pol/Rom). Japan has yet to do anything. China has unified itself. Italy is sitting on it hands also. Not sure what will happen - I'm playing an isolationist UK.

 

[ViolentBeetle]

One of the understated problems with attempts at proper history, I think, is clairvoyant player(s) that don't correspond to a single individual.

Lots of history is driven by people making bad choices that seemed like a good idea at a time, but in game we are bound to know better. And similarly while AI can be railroaded into poor choices, it doesn't need to get even more weakened. So, for example, Maginot Line might've seemed like a good idea at the time, but if I were to be transformed into incorporeal time-travelling spirit controlling France and getting to relive World War II again and again I would know better than to rely on it. And in Hearts of Iron, you can't take this kind of agency from me.

Similarly, due to how nations work, political alt-history is not working the same as in real life. In real life various factions within a country would vie for influence, but in Hearts of Irons scope everyone effectively works together to make fascism real because incorporeal time-travelling spirit that haunts it wills so. I'd say if entire British leadership at once got an idea that fascism is good and worked together to install Mosley to power, everything would be possible.

 

[Bratyn]

Anyway, back to the topic - should I be worried about future Soviet update? I mean, a lot of people await something about tzarist restoration or smth like this, which stays more or less on the same level of possibility as ressurection of Lenin. Problem is that "social order" doesn't know much about this - or doesn't care anyway. I honestly can't blame them - while I know historical context of own country, I can't just say the same about many other states.

We currently haven't delved into literature on any other country other than the four that are receiving (new or reworked) focus trees for MtG. And once we do look into other countries, I would not be able to tell you anything about it until the Dev Diary showcasing those focus trees, whenever that might be.

 

[Doom Juan]

Reading over the anti-alt-history posts makes me think that certain players want their game railroaded to a certain point. In that case why not just play a scenario where Germany is in a situation that you're satisfied with?

 

[The_Meme_Man]

We currently haven't delved into literature on any other country other than the four that are receiving (new or reworked) focus trees for MtG. And once we do look into other countries, I would not be able to tell you anything about it until the Dev Diary showcasing those focus trees, whenever that might be.

Four?

 

[a_sophist]

Reading over the anti-alt-history posts makes me think that certain players want their game railroaded to a certain point. In that case why not just play a scenario where Germany is in a situation that you're satisfied with?

To use Germany as an example, if I could spawn in the divisions, equipment, and advisers I normally do from a '36 start I'd start in '39 every time. I don't want to count how many tens of hours I've lost speed-5'ing to 1941 as the Soviet Union to compare a new build with an old one.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Four?

Two majors, two minors, obviously.

 

[Secret Master]

As you quite often bring the point of Hoi4 not being mechanically bad and fun in a Mp group with some rules, have you ever run an alt history run? And if so, it was better or worse than a usual historical run?

In MP or SP?

I've done some alt-history runs in SP before (although not since WtT came out).

 

[Secret Master]

To use Germany as an example, if I could spawn in the divisions, equipment, and advisers I normally do from a '36 start I'd start in '39 every time. I don't want to count how many tens of hours I've lost speed-5'ing to 1941 as the Soviet Union to compare a new build with an old one.

There are console commands that should let you do all the things you want in this regard.

I use the following commands with some frequency when running aircraft tests:

ale (all latest equipment): spawns 10,000 of each kind of best non-naval equipment you have. You can use modifiers to the command to specify exactly how much equipment you want.

allowdiplo: lets you use any diplomatic option at any time regardless of prerequisites.

ai: Turns off the AI for all countries (this is really damn important when trying to conduct controlled tests for ships and planes)

ic: allows all factories and ships to be built instantly (applies to AI as well as human)

pp: gives you 1000 PP

xp: gives you 500 navy, air, and army xp (note that if you need more than 500, you have to roll the game for a day and fire the command again)

instant_research_on_click: lets you research any tech instantly

There are others that let you complete focuses instantly, teleport units around, and so on. The wiki has a ton of commands.

 

[qer]

In MP or SP?

I've done some alt-history runs in SP before (although not since WtT came out).

In mp, against an opponent that isn't brain dead. Really anyone who plays in serious mp groups could answer this. I just one to know how the game mechanics hold together in a more unexpected yet regulated way