Italy or Soviets, which do you think is coming first?

[Ketchup & friends]

I see a lot of people say things like "you can't remake the Soviets without Finland" or "Italy needs to be bundled with Greece".

It's for the same reason Japan AND China were reworked in the same DLC (arguably the best one os far).
The major powers (Societs and Italy) will be buffed A LOT in their DLC with an improved focus tree, new events, decisions, advisors etc. Finland and Greece historically managed to resist an invasion by a major power succesfully and if they don't get buffed along with their historical foes, they would get overrun quickly.
Essentially, not doing it would ensure an ahistorically good performance of the respective major power.

I see a lot of people say things like "you can't remake the Soviets without Finland" or "Italy needs to be bundled with Greece". I don't know personally. France, Germany and the Netherlands have all been reworked, but where is Belgium?

It's indeed strange and worrying that Belgium was not reworked in LR.
Perhaps they will get a rework with a European minors flavor pack along with Ireland and Switzerland?

Austria is another example of a country which seemingly missed its train.

Albania for bunker memes.

Austria and Albania seem very unlikely to ever get an own focus tree. Historically, both were annexed in 1938, and if it does't happen Germany and Italy end up weaker. Most players will try to avoid this and the work the devs put into them will end up essentially wasted. There are many other countries far above them on the priority list.

 

[him_15]

My feeling is that, the Dev might do Italy first and bring out the big gun (Soviet Union) later.

 

[jared2122]

I think it's Soviets (plus Scandinavia). Finland is the most significant WWII participant at this point that doesn't have a devoted focus tree, and making defensive wars more fun is one of the devs' stated goals. Currently, the Winter War is not very satisfying at all. Maybe they'll add some ski battalions while they're at it. I personally haven't played as the Soviets much, so I don't know what all is wrong with their current focus tree, but I'm sure a revamped one couldn't hurt.

 

[Krey_Lollipop]

It's for the same reason Japan AND China were reworked in the same DLC (arguably the best one os far).
The major powers (Societs and Italy) will be buffed A LOT in their DLC with an improved focus tree, new events, decisions, advisors etc. Finland and Greece historically managed to resist an invasion by a major power succesfully and if they don't get buffed along with their historical foes, they would get overrun quickly.
Essentially, not doing it would ensure an ahistorically good performance of the respective major power.

I don't think an improved focus tree, new events, decisions, advisors etc. would necessarily mean a big buff. There would be more options, but they don't have to be stronger. In fact all this could serve as a debuff, as was the case with India losing the ability to form factions when TfV came out.

Austria

and Albania seem very unlikely to ever get an own focus tree. Historically, both were annexed in 1938, and if it does't happen Germany and Italy end up weaker. Most players will try to avoid this and the work the devs put into them will end up essentially wasted. There are many other countries far above them on the priority list.

From a historical standpoint, no, neither Austria nor Albania ever deserve a grand focus tree. At most a smaller one to act as window dressing, or as in the case of Czechoslovakia, add context to the annexation.

This game isn't purely historical though, and countries like Austria and Albania could well serve as excellent testing grounds for new gameplay mechanics. Someone mentioned bunker memes when it came to Albania. If defensive warfare is reworked, an ahistorical focus tree for Albania which showcases these new mechanics could be a fantastic addition. We've already seen this before, such as in TfV where the ahistorical routes showcased the ability for puppets to break free.

In the end I don't think neither Austria nor Albania should have high priority. But if any future expansion adds something which could make these countries meaningful, I hope they make the cut (Within reason).

This was off-topic though. I just wanted to point out why I didn't think Greece, Finland and some others didn't have to bundled with Italy and the Soviet Union respectively. Not why I wouldn't mind an Austrian or Albanian focus tree.

 

[Ffire]

We don't know because we don't have data about game mechanics rework and how long time / how much ressources and dev time pdx can put on the table.
Soviet Union is the most urgent to rework, because their actual tree is quite boring, but aside that they would probably rework east front and land combat. And that's an huge rework they already started I believe.
So my opinion is if they don't think they can manage to both rework the focus tree and land combat in time, Italy will be the next major to get its own DLC.
Else, no reason to not go for soviet union.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

From a historical standpoint, no, neither Austria nor Albania ever deserve a grand focus tree. At most a smaller one to act as window dressing, or as in the case of Czechoslovakia, add context to the annexation.

This game isn't purely historical though, and countries like Austria and Albania could well serve as excellent testing grounds for new gameplay mechanics. Someone mentioned bunker memes when it came to Albania. If defensive warfare is reworked, an ahistorical focus tree for Albania which showcases these new mechanics could be a fantastic addition. We've already seen this before, such as in TfV where the ahistorical routes showcased the ability for puppets to break free.

In the end I don't think neither Austria nor Albania should have high priority. But if any future expansion adds something which could make these countries meaningful, I hope they make the cut (Within reason).

This was off-topic though. I just wanted to point out why I didn't think Greece, Finland and some others didn't have to bundled with Italy and the Soviet Union respectively. Not why I wouldn't mind an Austrian or Albanian focus tree.

In a perfect HoI IV, every single country (at least the ones existing at start) should get a unique focus tree. But the Devs make only 4 to 6 trees per DLC and one DLC per year, so this won’t happen soon.

So far, the only DLC with a single focus tree is Poland: United and Ready which is a free Flavor Pack.

If Italy and SU will be in the same DLC, 2 or 3 minors will be reworked along them. If each of them gets an own DLC, each of them will include trees for 3 or 4 minors.

Which countries would be more likely to be included with Italy than Greece? Same question for Finland and the Soviet Union.

Actually, we think the Italian DLC will feature focus trees for Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey and Egypt. (There are many things all these countries have in common). It would focus on warfare in the Med and in the best case it would fix things left unfinished by MtG (like Midget subs, MTB etc).

Any other country either already has a focus tree (Spain, Yugoslavia) or has very low priority (Austria, Albania, Switzerland)

The Soviet DLC is less obvious, it can feature Poland, Mongolia, the Baltics (shared tree like the Warlords), perhaps even all Nordics.

 

[AFilthyCasual]

Italy.

Paradox really doesn't seem to care about the Soviets. I would have assumed a DLC about espionage and occupation/resistance would have focused on the Soviets, but instead they made it focus on the French for some reason.

 

[Barvinok]

Italy needs a way to go Communist, so doing them first would be best. I don't know what else could be done in the Soviet tree. I'd like to see a unique tree for Finland.

 

[Riekopo]

Don't care which is first. As long as they read the forum threads and read all the good ideas from players.

 

[derphalo]

It's more like, Hitler was running out of oil because the UK refused a white peace so he *HAD* to invade the Soviet Union to take their oil. The population of occupied Europe was also starving so he desperately needed the incredible farmland of the southern Soviet Union. When he attacked in 1941 it was the last moment he would have enough fuel to launch such an attack. It was now or never.

Also keep in mind it was Hitler's goal to destroy communism. And nothing was going to stop him from Lebensraum.

 

[Col.Klink]

Also keep in mind it was Hitler's goal to destroy communism. And nothing was going to stop him from Lebensraum.

To eradicate socialism with the stated goal of radical anarchist communism specifically. His own society and ideal society was socialist, it was the marxist proposal of eradicating all identity that he took objection to. Sadly its not because he realized we cannot exist in a true classless society (ie no form of identity at all, no rules, no values, absolute total anarchy ) but because of his vile opinions on race. True anarchy with no concept of race what so ever would cause in his mind the thinning of "Arian" blood and therefore eventually end civilization altogether. Socialists all tend to be batshit crazy one way or another...

And the lebensraum is what he wanted ukraine for. The idea he had was to invade the east and enslave the locals to develop the infrastructure working them to death. Then the lands would be farmed by "Arian" hands with top down policies to ensure the land forever remains rural and therefore a net food producer to feed the population of Germany and Scandinavia. If you think about it, he not only intentionally murdered millions of people in death camps but he intended to murder hundreds of millions more.

Btw as I alluded to, Stalin seemed to always hold onto nationalist ideas. Meaning he was holding onto ethnic identity and nationhood. Even though the bolsheviks were ostensibly about achieving that anarchist state in practice Stalin's USSR worked surprisingly similarly to Hitlers end goals. Stalin and Lenin were the first to argue that socialism and communism are different to explain why the dictatorship, not anarchy existed. Socialism exists go transition society to communism they explained. Now instead of trying to use absolute power to wage war on society itself they did the opposite, so I argue communists tell people that anarchy is their true goal but in reality the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is their one and only goal. Enslave the population by getting them to turn on each other essentially...

Fascist, nazi or marxist socialism is just... vile.

 

[Col.Klink]

It's for the same reason Japan AND China were reworked in the same DLC (arguably the best one os far).
The major powers (Societs and Italy) will be buffed A LOT in their DLC with an improved focus tree, new events, decisions, advisors etc. Finland and Greece historically managed to resist an invasion by a major power succesfully and if they don't get buffed along with their historical foes, they would get overrun quickly.
Essentially, not doing it would ensure an ahistorically good performance of the respective major power.


It's indeed strange and worrying that Belgium was not reworked in LR.
Perhaps they will get a rework with a European minors flavor pack along with Ireland and Switzerland?





Austria and Albania seem very unlikely to ever get an own focus tree. Historically, both were annexed in 1938, and if it does't happen Germany and Italy end up weaker. Most players will try to avoid this and the work the devs put into them will end up essentially wasted. There are many other countries far above them on the priority list.

1) you're right. The Asia dlc is by far the best. The chaos that reigned there since 1911 is sad and deeply fascinating at the same time. Bringing Asia more to life in the game really adds so much.

2) I think you bring up a good point with a minor powers pack. Hearts of iron exists in this great area of fantasy and actual history. Bringing more depth to minors really should be done not only because it makes more fun options to try but might lead people to read about things outside the game and learn more history.

The asia focused dlc caused me to learn so much more about Asia. The poor boy emperor living in exile, only to become a Japanese puppet as an example. There are so many stories big and small to be told from that era that its great to encourage people to learn more than d day.

Thinking on that. I've never played with the newish government in exile feature in game... can you help said exile government form an army? Like the free Poles whose blood opened the road to Rome?

 

[MobiusTwo]

For myself, I would love every country in the game to have a focus tree, but it could literally be many years before that happens, if they continue on the current pace. Here are the expansion packs I want from most to least pressing:

1. Soviet DLC: Would include a Soviet and Polish rework, plus new focus trees for Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

2. Italian DLC: Would include an Italian rework, plus new focus trees for Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Austria, and Ethiopia.

3. Middle East DLC: Would include a rework for India, plus new focus trees for Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

4. Southeast Asian DLC: Would include new focus trees for the Philippines, Thailand, British Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies.

5. "The Rest of Europe" DLC: Would include new focus trees for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Ireland.

6. "The Rest of Asia" DLC: Would include new focus trees for Afghanistan, Mongolia, Tannu Tuva, Mengkukuo, Tibet, Bhutan, and Nepal.

Somewhere in there I would also like reworks for Canada and South Africa.

 

[Bki]

Italy.

Paradox really doesn't seem to care about the Soviets. I would have assumed a DLC about espionage and occupation/resistance would have focused on the Soviets, but instead they made it focus on the French for some reason.

Given the low effort of the French rework compared to Spain, I dispute that LR actually focused on France.

 

[Dlin369]

I think part of DLC size in the future would hinge on how large of a focus tree they want to do for the future. I know after Spain they said in the dev streams for us to manage our expectations and expect smaller ones (I think UK was the one they said would be standard size for majors), but for minor nations it remains to be seen how big and detailed they'll make them.

For countries like Albania and Austria, their inclusion would basically hinge on how small they could make their trees without making it not worth adding at all - Austria probably would get (if they made it all, which I think they might just limit to decisions and events for Italy and Germany) Fatherland-front, Austrian Nazi party, and a monarchist path. Maybe a small democratic + communist tree. Albania would probably have to be even smaller assuming Italy is being put with Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey.

 

[mpop]

Not a fan of paying 20$ again for fixes or overhaul for the game current problems after how bad La Resistance was. I rather want them to use their effort to fix the game current problems because so many things still need work and balance changes.

New supply system and hide it behind 20$ soviet dlc paywall because the current supply system is bad because your allies are flooding you? I hope not especially how disappointing La resistance was.

 

[mcicet]

After reading these forums for the last several months, I think there are many who are hoping land combat and everything supporting it gets a lot of attention in the next DLC. Updating the USSR may have the best chance for that to happen.

Agree with you there, it would be a perfect chance to enhance both areas.

 

[Surimi]

His own society and ideal society was socialist, it was the marxist proposal of eradicating all identity that he took objection to.

Not really

Terms like "national socialist" and "german workers party" were just a ruse to capitalise on the popularity of socialism in Weimar Germany.

In the early Nazi party there was a power struggle between "left" Nazis like Gregor Strasser and the volkisch wing, to which Adolf Hitler belonged. The former might genuinely be described as "socialist", in that they supported widespread nationalisation and ending the capitalist system of exploitation (generally based on the idea of capitalism as a means of Jewish exploitation of working class Germans). Hitler vehemently opposed this, and his rise to power within the party saw the "left" of the party driven out. Ultimately, they did not fare much better than Marxist socalists under the Nazi regime, and Strasser himself was killed during the Night of the Long Knives.

Hitler's "socialism" was always intentionally vague, and when he had to elaborate it it generally came down to "people will live in a society" or "people will have families", which is kind of empty rhetoric since people do that anyway.

Sadly its not because he realized we cannot exist in a true classless society (ie no form of identity at all, no rules, no values, absolute total anarchy ) but because of his vile opinions on race. True anarchy with no concept of race what so ever would cause in his mind the thinning of "Arian" blood and therefore eventually end civilization altogether. Socialists all tend to be batshit crazy one way or another...

Very few people in the 1930s believed that the Soviet Union had any kind of anarchistic goal or intent. That would be a very silly thing to believe.

During the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks transformed the Soviet Union into a one party dictatorship. Anarchists, even anarchists who had supported the Soviet government, were effectively barred from any form of political representation or expression. This lead to Anarchists calling for a "third revolution" and participating in several uprisings against the Bolsheviks, with an exceptionally brutal response each time. The Bolshevik system clearly and unambiguously opposed any move towards popular rule. This is why anarchism in HOI4 is a distinct ideology from communism, because by that point the two were ideologically opposed and often engaged in armed conflict.

Hitler's anti-communism did stem partly from his extreme opposition to egalitarianism, but it's mostly just antisemitism. Nazi propaganda didn't attempt to present the Soviet Union as a classless society or as wanting to be a classless society. Kind of the opposite. It was viewed as a slave society dominated by undercover Jews who ruled over a brainwashed mass of slavic "subhumans", a system the Nazis called "Judeo-Bolshevism".

Stalin and Lenin were the first to argue that socialism and communism are different to explain why the dictatorship, not anarchy existed.

That's not true. The term "socialism" actually predates the term "communism" by a while. It's why I'm happy to call Strasser a "socialist" even though his ideal society was an extreme right-wing dictatorship.

Communism and anarchism are different things, although they can ideologically coexist with some compromises. A communist subscribes to the Marxist view of stadial history and seeks to replace the existing capitalist economic system with one in which private ownership of the means of production is abolished. This does not mean abolishing the state, and may in fact mean creating a very powerful state as a means to represent the popular interest (which is what happened in the soviet union). An anarchist views states as inherently coercive, and the abolition of the state not just as something which will happen one day because human economies have outgrown the need for bureaucracy, but as a worthwhile objective in and of itself.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

For myself, I would love every country in the game to have a focus tree, but it could literally be many years before that happens, if they continue on the current pace. Here are the expansion packs I want from most to least pressing:

1. Soviet DLC: Would include a Soviet and Polish rework, plus new focus trees for Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

2. Italian DLC: Would include an Italian rework, plus new focus trees for Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Austria, and Ethiopia.

3. Middle East DLC: Would include a rework for India, plus new focus trees for Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.

4. Southeast Asian DLC: Would include new focus trees for the Philippines, Thailand, British Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies.

5. "The Rest of Europe" DLC: Would include new focus trees for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Ireland.

6. "The Rest of Asia" DLC: Would include new focus trees for Afghanistan, Mongolia, Tannu Tuva, Mengkukuo, Tibet, Bhutan, and Nepal.

Somewhere in there I would also like reworks for Canada and South Africa.

This is good, but we disagree on India, Canada and South Africa. They all got reworked in TfV, and while their focus trees need improvement, these improved Trees should stay part of that DLC.

 

[Col.Klink]

Not really

Terms like "national socialist" and "german workers party" were just a ruse to capitalise on the popularity of socialism in Weimar Germany.

In the early Nazi party there was a power struggle between "left" Nazis like Gregor Strasser and the volkisch wing, to which Adolf Hitler belonged. The former might genuinely be described as "socialist", in that they supported widespread nationalisation and ending the capitalist system of exploitation (generally based on the idea of capitalism as a means of Jewish exploitation of working class Germans). Hitler vehemently opposed this, and his rise to power within the party saw the "left" of the party driven out. Ultimately, they did not fare much better than Marxist socalists under the Nazi regime, and Strasser himself was killed during the Night of the Long Knives.

Hitler's "socialism" was always intentionally vague, and when he had to elaborate it it generally came down to "people will live in a society" or "people will have families", which is kind of empty rhetoric since people do that anyway.



Very few people in the 1930s believed that the Soviet Union had any kind of anarchistic goal or intent. That would be a very silly thing to believe.

During the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks transformed the Soviet Union into a one party dictatorship. Anarchists, even anarchists who had supported the Soviet government, were effectively barred from any form of political representation or expression. This lead to Anarchists calling for a "third revolution" and participating in several uprisings against the Bolsheviks, with an exceptionally brutal response each time. The Bolshevik system clearly and unambiguously opposed any move towards popular rule. This is why anarchism in HOI4 is a distinct ideology from communism, because by that point the two were ideologically opposed and often engaged in armed conflict.

Hitler's anti-communism did stem partly from his extreme opposition to egalitarianism, but it's mostly just antisemitism. Nazi propaganda didn't attempt to present the Soviet Union as a classless society or as wanting to be a classless society. Kind of the opposite. It was viewed as a slave society dominated by undercover Jews who ruled over a brainwashed mass of slavic "subhumans", a system the Nazis called "Judeo-Bolshevism".



That's not true. The term "socialism" actually predates the term "communism" by a while. It's why I'm happy to call Strasser a "socialist" even though his ideal society was an extreme right-wing dictatorship.

Communism and anarchism are different things, although they can ideologically coexist with some compromises. A communist subscribes to the Marxist view of stadial history and seeks to replace the existing capitalist economic system with one in which private ownership of the means of production is abolished. This does not mean abolishing the state, and may in fact mean creating a very powerful state as a means to represent the popular interest (which is what happened in the soviet union). An anarchist views states as inherently coercive, and the abolition of the state not just as something which will happen one day because human economies have outgrown the need for bureaucracy, but as a worthwhile objective in and of itself.

Yes, socialist is an old term, a very very old term. As the term communist came into use the two were regarded as synonymous. Right up until Lenin and Stalin.

Also sorry, but the whole "Hitler wasn't a socialist" thing doesn't hold, just something modern marxist sympathizers have proposed in an effort to disassociate from one of the most murderous men to ever live. Sort of like how modern Marxists disengenously say "comminism has never been tried", conveniently not mentioning that in marxist theory there is always a transitional state, a state lenin declared to be socialism.

Pointing out Hitler was against other "left wingers" or socialists doesn't mean he wasn't a socialist. Stalin and Trotsky are both socialists. Hitler's position on auturky comes from Marx proposal that trade is a slowly losing relationship. His goal of invading the ussr to take Ukraine and Azerbaijan was specifically because of this.

He crippled the german economy in the 1930s by trying to reduce imports by as much as possible. All because when he read Marx he believed him. He was anti capitalist because when he read Marx saying capitalism will eventually crumble under its own weight he believed him.

What so many marxist socialists do to try to obfuscate and claim they aren't ideologically related is that Hitler's actions were intended to prevent the societal collapse Marx predicted. Hitler was obsessed with this racist idea that only Arians can make civilization and that if the marxist revolution came this would thin the Arian blood through mixing to the point civilization would end.

The derangement came from believing that both capitalism and communism were part of a singular Jewish plot to end civilization. He felt Jewish people couldn't act in a collective manner and were trying to end collective cooperation everywhere. Note that key point. He felt the key to german strength was collectivization, unified actions and thoughts. He was in fact a socialist. Just because he didn't achieve all of his socialist ambitions doesn't mean he didn't have them. And of course he was vague with his socialism, so are all socialists. "Its impossible to know what the utopia will be like because we haven't seen it yet, keep working comrades! To utopia" essentially....

And that brings it to the USSR, while a great many could fairly have felt that it had no goals of anarchy that doesn't mean that you can write that off entirely. The theory is that the marxist revolution had to become WORLD WIDE first. Basically governments are too good at focusing power so the only way to achieve anarchy is to force it upon everyone all at once. Its like you can't safely throw away your weapons and army till your neighbors do as well. This is the supposed schism between Trotsky and Stalin, how exactly to do that. Subversion by agitating revolutions everywhere or build up the ussr into a mighty unstoppable juggernaut....

Most days I feel socialism really only exists to dupe people into giving stalin absolute power. Then i consider that stalin had 28,000 tanks alone when the germans invaded. He built up a mind numbing stockpile of weapons and Stalin was a genius. He wouldn't have done that without a reason, so maybe he did intend to conquer the world in the end, to force anarchy down everyone's throat at once...

(I say supposed schism between Trotsky and Stalin based on the belief that the real conflict between the two is that there were two of them and there could only be one tyrannical evil dictator. If you wonder as I do if the actual intend of socialism is just to empower one tyrant as much as possible this makes sense. Socialism going back to its roots in the french revolution always has had a dictator. It always seems to be more about power and not actually about helping anyone.)