Meme'd hard by the AI, WTT decisions and NF needs tweaking..

[TheMeInTeam]

Again, what if I don’t change history AT ALL and I still have to face all the ahistorical events and decisions popping up?

Wouldn’t be better have all the alt history paths locked in the historical mode?

You're playing a game that compresses > 10 years to less than a day and abstracts to an extreme degree in manufacturing, trade, technological advancement, logistics, and even diplomacy.

Show me any model ever that can do this without changing history "at all".

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

You're playing a game that compresses > 10 years to less than a day and abstracts to an extreme degree in manufacturing, trade, technological advancement, logistics, and even diplomacy.

Show me any model ever that can do this without changing history "at all".

If the % of going for alt history, when playing historical, was 0 instead of 5 the half of the problems would have been solved.

 

[kozlovsky]

All the alt-focuses should be locked in the historical mode, for both the player and the AI. I don’t want to win because I attack France trough Switzerland, I want to make a huge effort trying to not collapse on the eastern front before 1945. I want to have (ex) 100 divisions on the field when I actually need 150 and still being able to make an offensive (remember the Ardennes?). I want to gather all the few tank divisions left and push with a strategic purpose just to see everything failing because of the bad weather. I want to see the AI doing all the beautiful military operations that made us falling in love of ww2.

It won't really help you. You can go ahistorical in many ways, not just with National Focuses. You can generate a war goal agaisnt an "unexpected' country; you can screw up a historical mission; you can, say, defeat UK before attacking USSR, etc. The AI can do the same. And then you simply won't have any national focuses for such situations. At best, the game will get boring because you've been locked out of all possible branches of the focus tree. At worst, you will find yourself in a deadlock, e.g. unable to end a war that gone "wrong".

Perhaps, the only way to achieve historical accuracy is to prevent the player from doing anything—anything—ahistorical including: declaring wars and making peace, planning his/her own strategic operations, significantly changing the composition of the armed forces, etc. Still, the game would have to "reset" the situation pretty often or even small changes would accumulate. It is basically a classic wargame with levels and preset objectives. It is certainly not a game of scale and freedom of HOI4.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

Perhaps, the only way to achieve historical accuracy is to prevent the player from doing anything—anything—ahistorical including: declaring wars and making peace, planning his/her own strategic operations, significantly changing the composition of the armed forces, etc. Still, the game would have to "reset" the situation pretty often or even small changes would accumulate. It is basically a classic wargame with levels and preset objectives. It is certainly not a game of scale and freedom of HOI4.

It’s sound perfect to me. You only have to follow the course of events, no deviations. That would be a great game. The game tells you what you have to do and you must be able to do it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If the the % of going for alt history, when playing historical, was 0 instead of 5 the half of the problems would have been solved.

Under this scenario there is no game to play, you just watch a simulation.

Deviating from that and allowing alternate inputs in any capacity breaks the case you're making.

 

[a_sophist]

As an occasional alternative to "historical" '36, and Instead of pure railroading, what I'd like is a a Spring 41 start date where you can spawn your own units depending on the production capability of the country in question instead of getting stuck with the bad default ones and have some preset research paths so you've got at least part of the doctrines you want. I'd like the game to come down to whether or not the Soviets hold before a stable second front opens and whether the IJN can withstand the USN.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

As an occasional alternative to "historical" '36, and Instead of pure railroading, what I'd like is a a Spring 41 start date where you can spawn your own units depending on the production capability of the country in question instead of getting stuck with the bad default ones and have some preset research paths so you've got at least part of the doctrines you want. I'd like the game to come down to whether or not the Soviets hold before a stable second front opens and whether the IJN can withstand the USN.

1941 will never work. What if I want play as Italy? I’ll miss all the fun. What about UK and all the North Africa and Italian campaign? USA without the Pacific.

I say:
Historical railroaded mode - 1939
Alternative history - 1936

 

[a_sophist]

Well if you want to play historically as you define it, wouldn't Italy from '39 just be preparing to lose in Africa and Greece and then capitulating

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

As an occasional alternative to "historical" '36, and Instead of pure railroading, what I'd like is a a Spring 41 start date where you can spawn your own units depending on the production capability of the country in question instead of getting stuck with the bad default ones and have some preset research paths so you've got at least part of the doctrines you want. I'd like the game to come down to whether or not the Soviets hold before a stable second front opens and whether the IJN can withstand the USN.

Yes, this could work as a mod. Basically you want a Barbarossa start with random starting units. The problem is most people want the chance (illusion?) to show that they can do better than the historical Germany. I suspect that is the reason there are no mod's for Barbarossa or any other historically significant starting points.

I think about doing a Barbarossa mod, but not until I finish the mod's I'm currently working on. So even if I was to do it, it would be like a year from now.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

Well if you want to play historically as you define it, wouldn't Italy from '39 just be preparing to lose in Africa and Greece and then capitulating

But you have Greece, Stalingrad and the all allied invasion in Sicily ahead to play. Italy has this to offer and this should be given us to play.

 

[War_lord]

Perhaps, the only way to achieve historical accuracy is to prevent the player from doing anything—anything—ahistorical including: declaring wars and making peace, planning his/her own strategic operations, significantly changing the composition of the armed forces, etc. Still, the game would have to "reset" the situation pretty often or even small changes would accumulate. It is basically a classic wargame with levels and preset objectives. It is certainly not a game of scale and freedom of HOI4.

You can't compare, say, Japan doing better then expected in China and thus moving up their timetable for the strike south to something as silly as the Anglo-French union (yes, it was historically discussed as a last minute act of desperation to try and keep France in the war. Not the same as it actually working). That's a false comparison. The problem is that aside from bugs, no matter how historical I play, there's apparently at least a 5% chance of something dumb happening.

 

[kozlovsky]

You can't compare, say, Japan doing better then expected in China and thus moving up their timetable for the strike south to something as silly as the Anglo-French union (yes, it was historically discussed as a last minute act of desperation to try and keep France in the war. Not the same as it actually working). That's a false comparison. The problem is that aside from bugs, no matter how historical I play, there's apparently at least a 5% chance of something dumb happening.

Ok, let's consider your example. Japan (in the hands of a skilled player, due to game's imperfect historical accuracy or thanks to pure luck) steamrolls China. They then take over South-East Asia from the British and invade India. Would it still be "historical" and allowed in such a game? If yes, Japan, UK and India should surely have ways to react to it leading to more and more deviating from history. Anyway, you'd end up with something pretty weird such as Japan attacking Iraq in 1945 or India surrendering and joining the Axis etc. We'd still have lots of complaints from history lovers that it can't happen in a historical game.

And if you disallow such a thing, what's the point in winning the war if you can't exploit the spoils of victory? Again, it would mean the game would turn into a series of tactical battles with strategy completely in the hands of developers. I don't mind this genre, but it would be a very different game from HOI4.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

Ok, let's consider your example. Japan (in the hands of a skilled player, due to game's imperfect historical accuracy or thanks to pure luck) steamrolls China. They then take over South-East Asia from the British and invade India. Would it still be "historical" and allowed in such a game? If yes, Japan, UK and India should surely have ways to react to it leading to more and more deviating from history. Anyway, you'd end up with something pretty weird such as Japan attacking Iraq in 1945 or India surrendering and joining the Axis etc. We'd still have lots of complaints from history lovers that it can't happen in a historical game.

And if you disallow such a thing, what's the point in winning the war if you can't exploit the spoils of victory? Again, it would mean the game would turn into a series of tactical battles with strategy completely in the hands of developers. I don't mind this genre, but it would be a very different game from HOI4.

The game shouldn’t allow you to steamrolling China, a very skilled player should be able to do what japan did historically, not better.
The challenge for japan is to seize the territories they did historically, occupy all the islands nearby the mainland, Burma, and try to resist to the USA. All of this against a super strong AI.
This is in the historical mode. It’s so easy to understand.

 

[kozlovsky]

The game shouldn’t allow you to steamrolling China, a very skilled player should be able to do what japan did historically, not better.
The challenge for japan is to seize the territories they did historically, occupy all the islands nearby the mainland, Burma, and try to resist to the USA. All of this against a super strong AI.
This is in the historical mode. It’s so easy to understand.

How can the game prevent you? Say, you are playing an MP game and the China player is a noob while you manage Japan like a genius. It's quite likely you will take over them (or successfully invade Britain as Germany or lose Barbarossa as USSR, you name it) and the game will go ahistorical. What I'm saying is, in a game of such complexity and scale, a lot of things can go "wrong" and you can't really prevent them. The only way out would be to split one big campaign into a series of short battles where you can only attack or defend a predefined enemy and, should the outcome of a battle be non-historical, it is a game over (or "Replay level").

But it is not HOI4. You are effectively asking Paradox to give up on their entire franchise and make you another wargame with completely different mechanics. I honestly don't think it's going to happen. This game just can't get much more historical than it already is.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

How can the game prevent you? Say, you are playing an MP game and the China player is a noob while you manage Japan like a genius. It's quite likely you will take over them (or successfully invade Britain as Germany or lose Barbarossa as USSR, you name it) and the game will go ahistorical. What I'm saying is, in a game of such complexity and scale, a lot of things can go "wrong" and you can't really prevent them. The only way out would be to split one big campaign into a series of short battles where you can only attack or defend a predefined enemy and, should the outcome of a battle be non-historical, it is a game over (or "Replay level").

But it is not HOI4. You are effectively asking Paradox to give up on their entire franchise and make you another wargame with completely different mechanics. I honestly don't think it's going to happen. This game just can't get much more historical than it already is.

Multiplayer and ahistorical mode are different from SP historical.

There is no need for different mechanics if you eliminate all the ahistorical possibilities such as: justifying against country not directly involved in ww2 and alternative focuses.

Also scripts would help a lot.

 

[Wasted Shampoo]

A Barbarossa start date or mod would be awesome.


Franco-British Union was close to happening IRL. At least as possible as the Axis winning, which is more likely in the game than Franco-British Union.

Was close to happening but it didn’t, and there is no more plausible decision of that one that really happened. So why should I see my game spoiled by this decision? Wouldn’t be better leave it for the ahistorical path? Why do I have to be forced to accept the alt history as the only and holy way for the game to played?

 

[War_lord]

Ok, let's consider your example. Japan (in the hands of a skilled player, due to game's imperfect historical accuracy or thanks to pure luck) steamrolls China. They then take over South-East Asia from the British and invade India. Would it still be "historical" and allowed in such a game? If yes, Japan, UK and India should surely have ways to react to it leading to more and more deviating from history. Anyway, you'd end up with something pretty weird such as Japan attacking Iraq in 1945 or India surrendering and joining the Axis etc. We'd still have lots of complaints from history lovers that it can't happen in a historical game.

And if you disallow such a thing, what's the point in winning the war if you can't exploit the spoils of victory? Again, it would mean the game would turn into a series of tactical battles with strategy completely in the hands of developers. I don't mind this genre, but it would be a very different game from HOI4.

Okay, try to actually address my argument now. Japan doing better then historically is part of the game being a game. The Franco-British union is something that didn't happen, having a 5% chance of happening even if the player plays as close to historically as the game provides.

Yes, WastedShampoo's position that the game should be totally scripted to the point that you can't win as an Axis power or go to war with Sweden or anything else other then copy history exactly is dumb. But there's a middle position between wacky alternative history and an interactive atlas.You're totally mischaracterizing my position, Japan doing better then expected is part of HOI4 being a game, the Franco-British union happening isn't, it's alternative (counterfactual) history, and if the game's offering a mode to turn that off, it should actually do that. Just like CKII has a mode that turns off supernatural events, not makes them happen 5% of the time, gets rid of them.