My beef with Cornflakes

[GreatStuff]

First of all, I'd like to say that adding more alt-history options for majors is a great thing and I'm sure that the vast majority of players will enjoy exploring the what-if scenarios with Germany and that other country (pretty sure it's gonna be SU).

However, what I fail to understand is why was this prioritized over the more sensible (in my opinion) route of going for a Barbarossa-themed "land war" expansion. As we all know, operation Barbarossa was the largest military invasion in human history, and the outcome of WWII was more or less decided on the Eastern Front.

A lot of horrible things happened during those 4 years, which, quite naturally, can't be represented in-game. But I think that it's a bit sad that all we get is one "War with the USSR" focus if we choose to go down the historical path.

The war in the East should have its own focus tree, allowing Germany and the SU to interact in a way, similar to the DoD minors. For me, that would be a lot more engaging than, for example, trying to restore the Keiserreich and getting into dull situations with the AI in single player.

Furthermore, I feel that land combat lacks a lot of depth at the moment. We don't have a proper logistical system, there's this perpetual blitzkrieg going on as tanks and planes don't waste fuel once they are made, weather conditions are nowhere as crucial as they are in real life, and the partisan system is beyond annoying. I do appreciate you guys enriching the OOB system and the stats of army officials, but there's a lot more to be desired here, and we probably could have gotten some of this stuff in the next expansion if time was allocated there.

I'm sure that the things I talked about in this thread will probably get added at some point, but I do fear that the attention won't be on Germany and the Soviets in the next few expansions, which could mean that we're probably going to have to wait a while.

 

[Secret Master]

The war in the East should have its own focus tree, allowing Germany and the SU to interact in a way, similar to the DoD minors.

Every time I fight Barbarossa, I get plenty of interaction with either Germany or the Soviets.

Sometimes I bag well over a million troops within the first month. What more interaction do you really want? I don't want some national focus being required to kick off a defense of Leningrad, or Operation Uranus, or a turn south towards Baku.

 

[LiberiusX]

Every time I fight Barbarossa, I get plenty of interaction with either Germany or the Soviets.

Sometimes I bag well over a million troops within the first month. What more interaction do you really want? I don't want some national focus being required to kick off a defense of Leningrad, or Operation Uranus, or a turn south towards Baku.

I could see some kind of repeatable NF like, "prepare for spring offensive" which could only be taken in the winter and would give your divisions a bump in supplies and/or planning bonus speed for 90 days when completed.

 

[hkrommel]

Honestly I just want to see some coherent design philosophy for NFs.

Right now you can do some plausible things in an implausibly easy/simple way, making them implausible. Does Paradox really think that Germany could bring back the Kaiser without an automatic DoW from France, Britain, Poland, etc. or at least the threat of one? Why in the world would Hungary be the one restoring A-H under a Hapsburg, a union in which they were the junior partner? It's possible to get interesting ahistorical paths without going off the deep end in terms of execution.

Another problem is that these things happen in a vacuum. Germany restoring the Kaiser won't really cause France to do anything other than plod along its focus tree. The Soviets won't act any differently. The effects of the Kaiser's restoration are limited to the German focus tree. This has been a problem from the beginning, where Germany has "Befriend Sweden" as a focus, but there's no consideration of whether Sweden is having none of it. Multilateral relationships shouldn't be handled unilaterally.

In my opinion there needs to be some design change with NFs, right now the entire game is chained to them and they honestly don't work all that well outside tech and industry foci. I'd much rather have diplomacy and such be event-driven and more domestic stuff handled by NF. However, I know that ship has sailed.

 

[Adrized]

I couldn't agree more. I was hoping for an expansion of the existing German tree instead of an entirely historically impossible path that is triple the size of the Hitler one.
And there's so many bugs with the vanilla German tree I can't even count and none are getting adressed.

What kind of game is hoi4 even trying to be at this point.

 

[C-Breeze]

Another problem is that these things happen in a vacuum. Germany restoring the Kaiser won't really cause France to do anything other than plod along its focus tree. The Soviets won't act any differently. The effects of the Kaiser's restoration are limited to the German focus tree. This has been a problem from the beginning, where Germany has "Befriend Sweden" as a focus, but there's no consideration of whether Sweden is having none of it. Multilateral relationships shouldn't be handled unilaterally.

Couldn't have said it any better. This paragraph pretty much sums up the underlying issues with the current NF system. While it makes for a great idea in theory, the way it's being put into practice leaves much to be desired. In all fairness, unilateral everything should be a non-starter.

 

[SgtHydra]

Another problem is the update to the focus tree totally ignores the real problem with the focus trees.

They completely replace diplomacy and internal events, which as a result means when you run out of focuses your diplomacy and internal events all vanish away entirely. What does a Monarchist Germany do with Occupied Commie France? Does it try to Germanize it culturally? Does it install a French Monarch, and if so who? And what happens to post-Soviet Russia? Any events related to that?

Some things in HOI have always required imagination, sure, but Focuses are a game mechanic in HOI4 and they should be a part of the game until it is supposed to end. Focuses should begin to dry up around 1945, not 1942.

 

[Secret Master]

Focuses should begin to dry up around 1945, not 1942.

I really think you are asking too much from them. For two reasons, actually.

1) The world situation may be so insane after 1942 that context sensitive NFs will be meaningless. They would be as bad as the scripted Crimean War event from Vicky. Hell, they only make any sense now, because the game is on some historical rails in 1936.

2) Let's not forget that NFs cost 1 PP a day. You might end up with players ignoring later NFs because they want the PP for other things. Like occupations. Or changing laws. Or swapping out ministers. Or running the ever valuable constant NFs like aircraft production.

 

[Fulmen]

First of all, I'd like to say that adding more alt-history options for majors is a great thing and I'm sure that the vast majority of players will enjoy exploring the what-if scenarios with Germany and that other country (pretty sure it's gonna be SU).

However, what I fail to understand is why was this prioritized over the more sensible (in my opinion) route of going for a Barbarossa-themed "land war" expansion. As we all know, operation Barbarossa was the largest military invasion in human history, and the outcome of WWII was more or less decided on the Eastern Front.

A lot of horrible things happened during those 4 years, which, quite naturally, can't be represented in-game. But I think that it's a bit sad that all we get is one "War with the USSR" focus if we choose to go down the historical path.

The war in the East should have its own focus tree, allowing Germany and the SU to interact in a way, similar to the DoD minors. For me, that would be a lot more engaging than, for example, trying to restore the Keiserreich and getting into dull situations with the AI in single player.

Furthermore, I feel that land combat lacks a lot of depth at the moment. We don't have a proper logistical system, there's this perpetual blitzkrieg going on as tanks and planes don't waste fuel once they are made, weather conditions are nowhere as crucial as they are in real life, and the partisan system is beyond annoying. I do appreciate you guys enriching the OOB system and the stats of army officials, but there's a lot more to be desired here, and we probably could have gotten some of this stuff in the next expansion if time was allocated there.

I'm sure that the things I talked about in this thread will probably get added at some point, but I do fear that the attention won't be on Germany and the Soviets in the next few expansions, which could mean that we're probably going to have to wait a while.

I'm not too hot with all the fantasty alt-history stuff they're using time and resources on.

I only play MP so these focuses, just like the fantasy trees already in the game, will never be used by me. Actually buying the FM edition of HoI4 was a waste of money for me as all of the DLCs so far are 60-70% purely singleplayer content.

But I know I'm in the tiny minority here. HoI4 had sold 500k copies in Feb 2017, so it's probably around 600k or more by now. Yet only a hundred or so people play MP in organised groups. Only a few dozen of these people are good players who know how the game works and will never enjoy SP with the current AI and mechanics.

But PDX's first goal as a business is to make money, and thus they will continue making products that most of their clientele will buy and enjoy. As long as 99.97% of the clientele plays SP or at the most meme'y MP games with no rules and organisation worth speaking of, PDX will continue making content that has no historical plausibility and as such has no place in a grand strategy game that's supposed to be about WW2.

 

[grandad1982]

I couldn't agree more. I was hoping for an expansion of the existing German tree instead of an entirely historically impossible path that is triple the size of the Hitler one.
And there's so many bugs with the vanilla German tree I can't even count and none are getting adressed.

What kind of game is hoi4 even trying to be at this point.

How do you know none of the bugs etc are being addressed?

 

[Tisifoni12]

Beef with cornflakes = culinary disaster!

 

[Robosoldier1]

Ya I hear ya and agree a missed opportunity for sure, Paradox really likes doing that for some reason when it comes to extending their content. Sure some stuff attached to their tree is a nice touch but overall it just feels lackluster. Especially since alot of it doesn't even seem to encourage changing/improving the current meta in place. Singleplayer wise the alternative stuff will prob get used 1-3 playthroughs and then never get touched again. Multiplayer wise it holds no value since it just throws the entire premise of ww2 out of wack so again a missed opportunity. Maybe they could do a scorched earth focus for both the germans and soviets when they start heavily losing turf at a certain extent. Or maybe Germany has the ability to form the Russian Liberation army and gets a unique template thats resident to cold. Idk just a bit more.

 

[pvt.conners]

I'm not too hot with all the fantasty alt-history stuff they're using time and resources on.

I only play MP so these focuses, just like the fantasy trees already in the game, will never be used by me. Actually buying the FM edition of HoI4 was a waste of money for me as all of the DLCs so far are 60-70% purely singleplayer content.

But I know I'm in the tiny minority here. HoI4 had sold 500k copies in Feb 2017, so it's probably around 600k or more by now. Yet only a hundred or so people play MP in organised groups. Only a few dozen of these people are good players who know how the game works and will never enjoy SP with the current AI and mechanics.

But PDX's first goal as a business is to make money, and thus they will continue making products that most of their clientele will buy and enjoy. As long as 99.97% of the clientele plays SP or at the most meme'y MP games with no rules and organisation worth speaking of, PDX will continue making content that has no historical plausibility and as such has no place in a grand strategy game that's supposed to be about WW2.

[CITATION NEEDED]

In all seriousness, I think you don't have the actual statistics on hand. Aside from this, you also don't know how much of their resources are being used for alt-history focuses. So far we've had a handful of dev diaries and this the first one about some alt-history focuses. Let's pull back and think about what we are getting so far:

-Overhaul of Chain of Command and Generals/Field Marshals
-Redesign of National Unity -> Stability/War Support with associated bonuses for your nation, as well as internal events
-Division Name lists
-Overhaul of synthetic refineries
-QoL features

Seems to me like the majority of their resources are going towards improving the base game as well as immersion for everyone, regardless of preference for alt-history or not.
Aside from this, more dev diaries are coming, so let's not divide the skin on the bear just yet.

I also disagree with your assesment of the DLC's being for the most part singleplayer. I've hosted several private MP matches for friends and we've gotten alot of use out of both DLCs so far, both in strictly historical settings as well as more open-ended games.

 

[GreatStuff]

Every time I fight Barbarossa, I get plenty of interaction with either Germany or the Soviets.

Sometimes I bag well over a million troops within the first month. What more interaction do you really want? I don't want some national focus being required to kick off a defense of Leningrad, or Operation Uranus, or a turn south towards Baku.

Well, from my experience with single player, the Soviets don't really recover that well once you smash them up during the initial phases. There could be focuses, national spirits, or even some sort of dynamic events and decisions that can help the Soviets attain non-experienced and/or not fully equipped reinforcements that can then be sent against the Germans. That's what happened in real life - the Soviet army wasn't completely encircled and destroyed by the end of 1941, and operation Barbarossa ended up being a failure. Winter kicked in from there on, making things even worse.

If there is some sort of foundation for this to happen in-game, it could open up a lot of possibilities for both sides of the conflict in the years that follow. I agree that purely addressing the issue via a focus tree isn't perfect, but it could work when combined with other gameplay mechanics like the ones I described above.

I'm not at all stating that I know what's best, but I am sharing my opinion here. Paradox have said that their future DLCs will comply with what the people want, so I'd like to know if more people on the forums would have prefered this instead of the "New Germany" we're seeing in Cornflakes.

 

[Duke_Dave]

For startets, people see one aspect of the development and think that its a waste of time, when the stuff they want is developed by other programmers. NF are one part and new mechanics are completly different.
To adress your main point, in this new NF you also have Reichskommisariats which will give the game more depth. In the first DD on Cornflakes they mentioned all the future features they're currently planing, mentioning all the issues you talked about. They also said that the Kaiser NF would influence the rest of the world with the SU getting stronger if you form an anti-soviet block, also France will most likely become communist if you follow this path, so two front war. (I think part of
this was explained in the stream).
There will also be a feature that is smaller and more dynamic than NF, where you get events and have to pick between options, if they can get that to work dynamically it will make interesting post 1942 content

 

[Fulmen]

In all seriousness, I think you don't have the actual statistics on hand.

No, because there are none. PDX has said 12% of the clientele play MP, but this includes anyone clicking "Multiplayer" (or do you seriously think there are 72k players in MP?). Most games are passworded little private games, all welcome games or poorly organised Discord games, not competitive 25-32 player TS games with experienced majors & key minors and a good ruleset.

But I do have ~1600h of purely multiplayer experience in HoI4 since the game came out and I've hosted probably close to 200 TS games. I've seen the rise and fall of the HoI4 MP community, the various metas, the evolution of various rulesets, MP mods and TS communities. Not to pat myself on the back, but I'd say I'm a pretty good source on the state of the MP community.

The number of active players in organised TS games was never more than a few hundred at most, with the number of experienced players never reaching even 100 (more like 50-70). By now though the MP community is so eroded that it's impossible to get a quality game during the week; you'll have to play in some Discord game with terrible majors and minors on both teams and with a garbage ruleset. That or all welcome games, which are even worse.

From what I've seen, there's only around 20-30 players that still play at least once a week that are good on almost any country and really know how all aspects of the game work. Good players in other words. Most people have largely stopped playing, no two ways around that.

Aside from this, you also don't know how much of their resources are being used for alt-history focuses. So far we've had a handful of dev diaries and this the first one about some alt-history focuses. Let's pull back and think about what we are getting so far:

-Overhaul of Chain of Command and Generals/Field Marshals
-Redesign of National Unity -> Stability/War Support with associated bonuses for your nation, as well as internal events
-Division Name lists
-Overhaul of synthetic refineries
-QoL features

Seems to me like the majority of their resources are going towards improving the base game as well as immersion for everyone, regardless of preference for alt-history or not.
Aside from this, more dev diaries are coming, so let's not divide the skin on the bear just yet.

PDX has said it takes them weeks of research, designing and testing to create a focus tree for a country. I think it was around 4-6 weeks to be exact, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Of course, the new fantasy trees aren't entire new focus trees, so it's probably safe to assume that each one takes only at least 2 weeks to finish. That however adds up when you consider they seem to be doing most if not all of the majors.

Also I do recognise the other features and this DLC hopefully has more to add to MP than what TfV and DoD brought to the table.

I also disagree with your assesment of the DLC's being for the most part singleplayer. I've hosted several private MP matches for friends and we've gotten alot of use out of both DLCs so far, both in strictly historical settings as well as more open-ended games.

TfV and DoD are 60% and 75% SP-only respectively.

In TfV half of the new focus trees were fantasy stuff that's always banned in any decent MP game, and the remaining 10% are focuses that never get used because there's no point to use them. We got a new autonomy system (mostly trivial), some new strategies for a few minors and a nerf and buff to the early- and late-game Allies respectively.

In DoD half of the new focus trees were once again SP-only fantasy stuff, except this time 2/4 focus trees were on countries that are always banned in MP!
Some attempts at trying out new strategies for HUN and ROM were made but ultimately the meta didn't really change: HUN still spams planes and ROM still spams marines (and now also sometimes planes, what a change!).

By far the biggest and only really noticeable change to MP was that DoD gave us was the ability to rush late-war techs even earlier in the pre-war years; now 1938 instead of 1939! What a bargain for €10!

I've hosted several private MP matches for friends and we've gotten alot of use out of both DLCs so far, both in strictly historical settings as well as more open-ended games.

Well, I don't know what kind of games you play and I don't remember ever seeing you in the community. Although of course not everyone has the same name in-game as they do on the forums.

But when I'm talking about good MP, I'm talking about competitive 25-32 player TS games where all the majors and key minors have 1-3k hours, have been vetted and definitely know what they're doing. Said games also have good balanced and historical rulesets. There's also often a mod in play that makes the game more historical than rules alone can.

In my experience games with memes like communist France or fascist Canada do not make for a good game. And apparently I'm not alone in thinking that as such fantasy has been banned literally in every TS game I've seen basically since the release of HoI4.

 

[Deinhardt]

No, because there are none. PDX has said 12% of the clientele play MP, but this includes anyone clicking "Multiplayer" (or do you seriously think there are 72k players in MP?). Most games are passworded little private games, all welcome games or poorly organised Discord games, not competitive 25-32 player TS games with experienced majors & key minors and a good ruleset.

But I do have ~1600h of purely multiplayer experience in HoI4 since the game came out and I've hosted probably close to 200 TS games. I've seen the rise and fall of the HoI4 MP community, the various metas, the evolution of various rulesets, MP mods and TS communities. Not to pat myself on the back, but I'd say I'm a pretty good source on the state of the MP community.

The number of active players in organised TS games was never more than a few hundred at most, with the number of experienced players never reaching even 100 (more like 50-70). By now though the MP community is so eroded that it's impossible to get a quality game during the week; you'll have to play in some Discord game with terrible majors and minors on both teams and with a garbage ruleset. That or all welcome games, which are even worse.

From what I've seen, there's only around 20-30 players that still play at least once a week that are good on almost any country and really know how all aspects of the game work. Good players in other words. Most people have largely stopped playing, no two ways around that.



PDX has said it takes them weeks of research, designing and testing to create a focus tree for a country. I think it was around 4-6 weeks to be exact, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Of course, the new fantasy trees aren't entire new focus trees, so it's probably safe to assume that each one takes only at least 2 weeks to finish. That however adds up when you consider they seem to be doing most if not all of the majors.

Also I do recognise the other features and this DLC hopefully has more to add to MP than what TfV and DoD brought to the table.



TfV and DoD are 60% and 75% SP-only respectively.

In TfV half of the new focus trees were fantasy stuff that's always banned in any decent MP game, and the remaining 10% are focuses that never get used because there's no point to use them. We got a new autonomy system (mostly trivial), some new strategies for a few minors and a nerf and buff to the early- and late-game Allies respectively.

In DoD half of the new focus trees were once again SP-only fantasy stuff, except this time 2/4 focus trees were on countries that are always banned in MP!
Some attempts at trying out new strategies for HUN and ROM were made but ultimately the meta didn't really change: HUN still spams planes and ROM still spams marines (and now also sometimes planes, what a change!).

By far the biggest and only really noticeable change to MP was that DoD gave us was the ability to rush late-war techs even earlier in the pre-war years; now 1938 instead of 1939! What a bargain for €10!



Well, I don't know what kind of games you play and I don't remember ever seeing you in the community. Although of course not everyone has the same name in-game as they do on the forums.

But when I'm talking about good MP, I'm talking about competitive 25-32 player TS games where all the majors and key minors have 1-3k hours, have been vetted and definitely know what they're doing. Said games also have good balanced and historical rulesets. There's also often a mod in play that makes the game more historical than rules alone can.

In my experience games with memes like communist France or fascist Canada do not make for a good game. And apparently I'm not alone in thinking that as such fantasy has been banned literally in every TS game I've seen basically since the release of HoI4.

I am honestly confused.

So you're complaining that PDX does "Fantasy" NF, that dont find any Play in your MP. A MP that you and the respective People seclude themselfs in already, by gating it behind hours played, specific rulesets and mods required to even join.

So. You're not only part of the already small MP crowd but also a even more specialized Version of it that could be called "hardcore competetive MP enthusiasts." A Group with a very clear mindset of how the MP aspect of the game should be.

And you're saying that PDX is only creating NF for Singleplayer and not that, sorry but I lack a better word, "elitist" crowd of MP Players? I mean I get the line of thought. Have seen this mindset bevor in multiple RTS games. Difference is though that in RTS games, you usually get the longevity for them by the MP crowd and there it actually makes sense to cater to the Hardcore MP Players, since their insight of the game helps to Balance the Overall MP experience for everyone and build a solid platform.

But this is HoI4. This game arguably lives from Mod Support, Singleplayer and a crowd that is divided 50/50 over realism and aHistory stuff.

Apologies if I gotten this wrong.

 

[Fulmen]

I am honestly confused.

So you're complaining that PDX does "Fantasy" NF, that dont find any Play in your MP. A MP that you and the respective People seclude themselfs in already, by gating it behind hours played, specific rulesets and mods required to even join.

So. You're not only part of the already small MP crowd but also a even more specialized Version of it that could be called "hardcore competetive MP enthusiasts." A Group with a very clear mindset of how the MP aspect of the game should be.

And you're saying that PDX is only creating NF for Singleplayer and not that, sorry but I lack a better word, "elitist" crowd of MP Players? I mean I get the line of thought. Have seen this mindset bevor in multiple RTS games. Difference is though that in RTS games, you usually get the longevity for them by the MP crowd and there it actually makes sense to cater to the Hardcore MP Players, since their insight of the game helps to Balance the Overall MP experience for everyone and build a solid platform.

You could say that. However I'd argue that if PDX listened to the "elitist" MP crowd, a lot of bugs, balance issues and outright silliness like minor countries having late-war tech well before the war or even nukes early in the war, would get fixed very quickly, thus prolonging the longevity of HoI4 in the process.

But this is HoI4. This game arguably lives from Mod Support, Singleplayer and a crowd that is divided 50/50 over realism and aHistory stuff.

Which at least IMO is a shame and one reason I still think HoI3 and HoI2 with its spin-offs were in a lot of ways better games, as they were in many areas far more historical. I'm one of those people that think this should be a WW2 game, not a fantasy game. Sure I'd allow alt-history, but in my view it should only be plausible alt-history. Of course it's just a game and thus players would always find ways to achieve things straight from a fiction novel, but doing this should be hard and an achievement in itself, instead of something any player who just bought the game can do with any country.

 

[Rubidium]

My assumption is that their usage stats, etc. show that most of their customers like to do crazy nonsense like restore Austria-Hungary, and play single-player (where the need for replayability is also going to drive a desire for more varied NFs/fantasy options). Ultimately they have to cater to the majority of their player base if they want to remain profitable (not just as a company, but as a unit within the company; how much support did Sengoku or March of the Eagles get, versus say CK2, which is still going strong after how many years?).

Besides, just as the people who do things like make new portraits are different from the people who do things like work on the AI code, I assume much of the research/NF work is also divided up such that it doesn't have too much impact on bug fixing. It obviously does have some impact on time used, but less than it seems.

 

[safe-keeper]

I'm personally surprised by how much I enjoy exploring alt-history content in HOI4, so I'm not sure how much I dislike this.

What I do have a beef with is how easy it is to do wildly ahistorical things, like turning the US communist. Some of the stuff that happens or can happen is on par with Hitler building anime-style kitten battle robots in my eyes.