Unless they, you know, they 'emulated' these "individual sovereign political units"...
- 7
- 1
Looking Good
- Thread starter DazKaz
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Unless they, you know, they 'emulated' these "individual sovereign political units"...
This has nothing to do with the game at all. This isn't the Victoria series. The politics of each individual state don't come into play at all. As it was said its about industrial output and strategic importance . And in this sense most of new Englands role can be filled by one state.
- 4
- 2
- 1
Victoria didn't represent the internal politics of the USA either.
Clearly you are unfamiliar with the US Political system.
- 7
- 1
No but representing the internal politics of each state would be relevant in a game like that as opposed to hearts of iron.
I don't think you understand hearts of iron.
- 2
The power of the States was a very important factor in the USA in the 1930s/40s.
- 4
- 1
And why do you want this? What purpose would this valuable use of development time have in the context of WW2? And why limit it to just the US states?
- 4
Who cares about how many states were in the US? (in this context)
This game is not about the internal politics of the USA.
This game is not about the internal politics of the USA.
- 4
The only power I can see represented by the states is that the approval of congress would be needed to declare war, but that is handled with the World Tension system and the restrictions the US has on requiring a higher amount of World Tension than not only other ideologies but other democracies
- 1
Can you describe a situation or mechanic in game that would require all the states to be individually simulated?
- 1
Can you describe a situation or mechanic in game that would require Belgium to be individually simulated?
It is one thing to not spend development time to accurately model the US Senate or the US HoR, it is another thing to then dismiss the central political structure and turn New England into an amalgamous blob.
- 4
- 1
This guy... It's a simplification because they want to keep the number of provinces down so you don't have to manage every single small state within the country. Don't compare removing a medium sized country in central Europe that played a significant role in the war to merging a few states in USA to have a common industrial basis. This is not "US political simulator 1936", this is a WW2 game.
- 4
I can agree that the art-style feels a little bare boned at the moment. I think vanilla will feel a little too shallow when it comes to graphics. Hopefully there will be more graphics added in expansions. Like cooler cities, weather effects etc, new animations.
About graphic personally for now i dislike only color of some icons of interface (bunkes, costal battery, AA, factories), this orange have no sense. Also the icon of battles yellow and bright green appear too aggressive and clashy... Too flashy colors do not seem to work well aesthetically together with the military graphics interface. During intense blattles looks like "Las Vegas Night" the game screen. The early game graphic style appeared more clear, serious and congruous.
- 2
- 1
As a US citizen this makes no sense whatsoever. The political power of individual states is meaningless on the scale of HOI.
Unless you're going to argue for state/canton/province level detail for each country it's meaningless fluff.
- 2
The game looks fun, and while US states won't matter much; I'd like to see puppet-overlord interactions, and inter-empire civil wars/power struggles (Mostly for GBR and in the late game)
- 1
And why do you think US internal politics matter at all into the game of this type of game? Whatever meaningful there is has already been featured with world tension and diplomacy and political points.
This game is not about US politics or focus on any one country. No one cares.