My beef with Cornflakes

[Reinner]

My main complaint for Hitler's tree is that Yugoslavia still has exact same annexation focus path as Czechs do. There is also no event after you capitulate Yugo to able to create Croatian puppet state (ignoring the focus) like you can make Slovakia and Vichy France. Getting Finland into Axis post Winter War is also missing and no Waffen SS.

But to be fair, they haven't revealed everything about Germany and maybe some of this stuff will get adressed through the events and i'm looking forward to Kaiser tree.

 

[Deinhardt]

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.

You just wait until they bring out the "Secret Weapons"-DLC. You just wait.

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.

Oh I agree on that aspect. The MP crowd usually gives the most coherent Feedback, regarding balance. Buuuut. That is allot of Things to fix. I'd argue that they'd have to completely redisign the game if they want to take out sillyness and historical inaccuracy regarding Research, you are bringing up.

THe streamlined Research is one of the bigger Problems, atleast from a historical Point of view. It doesnt make sense for when you can Research stuff and when actually beeing able to field it. Take the Bismarck for example. Unless you rush Plan Z you wont be fielding that ship bevor 1940, when historically it was finished 1939 and went into Service in August 1940.

Point beeing that what you and others are advocating for will take a very very Long time and DLC and Patches bevor it is where you want it to be.

 

[safe-keeper]

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.

Yeah, I get the idea that minors should be "fun", but I feel they went overboard with this in HOI4. If you ask me, the tech tree should be extended BlackICE-style so that there are more WWI/pre-war techs you have to research your way through before you even get to WWII level technology. Things like having to develop dreadnaughts and other pre-war designs before you can build modern destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, tankettes and armoured cars before you can research tanks, and so on. I'm not even sure if every nation should be able to build infrastructure, factories, forts, and so on right off the bat, at least not beyond a certain level.

For the same reason, there should be several "tiers" of national focus trees. Sweden and Bhutan shouldn't have the same options available to them.

 

[Fulmen]

Oh I agree on that aspect. The MP crowd usually gives the most coherent Feedback, regarding balance. Buuuut. That is allot of Things to fix. I'd argue that they'd have to completely redisign the game if they want to take out sillyness and historical inaccuracy regarding Research, you are bringing up.

THe streamlined Research is one of the bigger Problems, atleast from a historical Point of view. It doesnt make sense for when you can Research stuff and when actually beeing able to field it. Take the Bismarck for example. Unless you rush Plan Z you wont be fielding that ship bevor 1940, when historically it was finished 1939 and went into Service in August 1940.

Point beeing that what you and others are advocating for will take a very very Long time and DLC and Patches bevor it is where you want it to be.

Not necessarily. Research bonuses are easy to bring to sane levels. My Fulmen's Historical MP Mod was the first MP mod to do it, with others like Yet Another Multiplayer Mod and Paradox Friends United following suit. SpeedKat's Multiplayer Mod probably does this as well.

All you really need to do is change all the research bonuses to tech-specific and make sure they don't apply to late-war techs. Then you can also do things like bring down the amount of bonuses for minors/certain countries that had no historically plausible capability to develop a certain kind of tech, as well as increase ahead of time penalty. You can also lock certain bonus-giving focuses behind dates. None of this radically changes the game, but it does keep it a lot more historical tech-wise than in the current vanilla MP meta.

Pro-tip for any modder seeking to do just this: for QoL purposes it's wise to for example make a 1x50% FTR bonus apply only to the 1940 FTR, instead of also the '33 & '36 models, just so the tooltip is easier to read. No-one wants to waste a research bonus on a '36 tech anyway.

Yeah, I get the idea that minors should be "fun", but I feel they went overboard with this in HOI4. If you ask me, the tech tree should be extended BlackICE-style so that there are more WWI/pre-war techs you have to research your way through before you even get to WWII level technology. Things like having to develop dreadnaughts and other pre-war designs before you can build modern destroyers, cruisers, and battleships, tankettes and armoured cars before you can research tanks, and so on. I'm not even sure if every nation should be able to build infrastructure, factories, forts, and so on right off the bat, at least not beyond a certain level.

For the same reason, there should be several "tiers" of national focus trees. Sweden and Bhutan shouldn't have the same options available to them.

I agree. A lot of this was actually in the previous HoIs as you probably know.

 

[pvt.conners]

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.

I admit I don't have nearly as much experience as you, however your authority is in question, as alot of your evidence is anecdotal.
So is mine of course, but I don't claim to be an expert.

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.

Or maybe people have things to do during the week and cannot devote a few hours to game because they need to work/study/sleep? It isn't vacation time anymore. Timezones also have an impact. Another possibility is of course that some people may have moved on to different rulesets out of preference.

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.

This patch will see the overhaul of two (2) majors only, as was stated in the most recent diary. There will be new trees as well, so I don't see how "it" adds up.

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!

Your standards are not a universal metric, nor should they be. I have different thoughts on the trees and features, and that is hardly less valid than your opinions.
You also probably know that in the long-term, the Commonwealth nations are better off played historically, so it's obvious that Paradox is actually commited to making reenactment as appealing as possible (Just an aside). If you choose to exploit certain mechanics/metas, that's on you, not the game.
I know this might sound crazy, but I like to roleplay (as do some of the blokes I play with), even if it could be detrimental to my victory, because I derive enjoyment from that.

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.

My ingame/Steam name is AER0mat, and I haven't spent time in the circles you move in because I usually play with acquiantances and friends.
As for the rule sets I use, all of them ban any sort of exploits/excessive tech rushing.

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.

So you dislike certain aspects of the game (which is fine, I too have my issues with HoI 4), then turn around and claim that your select group of God's chosen people have the answers to these aspects and that it would benefit everyone?

(X) Doubt

 

[Fulmen]

I admit I don't have nearly as much experience as you, however your authority is in question, as alot of your evidence is anecdotal.
So is mine of course, but I don't claim to be an expert.

Well that's the best you're gonna get. PDX doesn't record statistics on such a precise level.

Or maybe people have things to do during the week and cannot devote a few hours to game because they need to work/study/sleep? It isn't vacation time anymore. Timezones also have an impact. Another possibility is of course that some people may have moved on to different rulesets out of preference.

Of course. But the state of the MP community was very different during the week during non-holiday seasons say, 6 months ago. I think people have just grown tired of the repetitiveness of HoI4 but more over the fact that it's increasingly hard to get good games. There's always some noob who screws over the entire team and bam, 5-8h wasted. Rinse and repeat.

This patch will see the overhaul of two (2) majors only, as was stated in the most recent diary.

I wasn't aware. Good to know.

so it's obvious that Paradox is actually commited to making reenactment as appealing as possible (Just an aside). If you choose to exploit certain mechanics/metas, that's on you, not the game.

I wouldn't say obvious or committed. If it were obvious, the same cheesy metas that were possible at release wouldn't be possible well over a year later. I do really like it though when something historical is also optimal.

So you dislike certain aspects of the game (which is fine, I too have my issues with HoI 4), then turn around and claim that your select group of God's chosen people have the answers to these aspects and that it would benefit everyone?

My point is, that these people know the game like the back of their hand. They know what works and what doesn't. They know all the exploits and cheesy strategies. Their input should be far more valuable than that of the countless compstompers this forum is riddled with. It's not exactly easy though, so I don't entirely blame PDX. A lot of the good players in this game don't even have forum accounts.

 

[Secret Master]

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.

I would be very irritated if the Soviets could use NFs to conjure millions of troops out of thin air to continue the fight.

The game already has mechanics that let you field under trained and under equipped formations within a fraction of their normal deployment time. The Soviets also get that ridiculous NKVD focus with such a high reinforcement chance that it renders Signals obsolete.

If we really want the Soviets to recover from Battle of Kiev types of defeats, we either need a better AI (in SP) or better mechanics for doing defense in depth.

I don't play HOI4 to fight hordes of alien space bats.

 

[mursolini]

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.

Well, how are they supposed to recover when player has x2 or even x3 military factories? IRL SU heavilly outproduced Germany in 1940-1944, which made Soviet recoveries possible, as German inferiority in equipement production slowly catched up to them.

I would be very irritated if the Soviets could use NFs to conjure millions of troops out of thin air to continue the fight.

The game already has mechanics that let you field under trained and under equipped formations within a fraction of their normal deployment time. The Soviets also get that ridiculous NKVD focus with such a high reinforcement chance that it renders Signals obsolete.

If we really want the Soviets to recover from Battle of Kiev types of defeats, we either need a better AI (in SP) or better mechanics for doing defense in depth.

Better AI is always something we will want, but current Germany/SU balance is so heavilly in German favor if Germany is not AI, more fundamental balance changes would be needed.

 

[safe-keeper]

I would be very irritated if the Soviets could use NFs to conjure millions of troops out of thin air to continue the fight.

The game already has mechanics that let you field under trained and under equipped formations within a fraction of their normal deployment time. The Soviets also get that ridiculous NKVD focus with such a high reinforcement chance that it renders Signals obsolete.

If we really want the Soviets to recover from Battle of Kiev types of defeats, we either need a better AI (in SP) or better mechanics for doing defense in depth.

I don't play HOI4 to fight hordes of alien space bats.

They're the most fun division in my whole game, though .


What if the AI was instead allowed to deploy poorly trained divisions? As in, let them start training x number of divisions and then field them as early as possible as some kind of scripted event when/if things go badly enough for them? So, if the player crushes the Soviet army in the beginning of Barbarossa, they encounter hordes of conscripts as they approach Leningrad and Moscow?

 

[geckoman1011]

So the OP has a beef with an update that hasnt even been released? That sure to make for a compelling post on the subject.

 

[Olanov]

If the majority of the players really do just play SP, I can understand why most of the effort would be going there. There's just going to be no way they could cater to everybody's wishes. That said, I can understand where the problems with alt-historical stuff comes from with some folk and I hope they (Paradox) continue to find a way for some sort of compromise.

Quite liking the look of this update myself, though!

 

[Robosoldier1]

Personally don't understand the desire and interest in singleplayer for this title, this is my opinion so please don't rip my head off just because I'm the minority. While singleeplayer defiantly has its moments those moments to me are often short lived. Or just feel entirely dislodged from the environment its set in with the A historical stuff. Theres only so much you can do in the context of the game and in the manner of which you do it. Especially since most strategies can handle the ineptness of the AI. I mean common theres only so many times you can conquer the world as Germany, or win the patriotic war as Russia or beat the Japanese in the China war or overcome the US Fleet as the Japanese. Thats why I think multiplayer is all around better. Not because I'm a zealot for multiplayer but because it honestly enhances what I think most of us look for in this title. A sense of commanding the larger picture, coordinating with allies to fight a common enemy, interact with one of the biggest conflicts in human history, steering a country down a certain path and getting a rigorious challenge when doing so. Obviously multiplayer has its downsides and I get its not everyones ideal way of play especially with the demand in time, of finding capable people, of good rule sets and communities. However its prob one of the reasons why I have stuck around this thing for so long compared to any total war, civilization, Xcom, Age of empire titles but again thats just me and here in this upcoming update I don't think the changes to the NF applied (at least to what we've seen so far) enhance the experience as much as it could. So again a missed opportunity.

 

[ltccone]

Beef with cornflakes = culinary disaster!

Maybe the next DLC can be weather related and be called "Frosted Flakes?"

 

[Theodorian]

Focus Trees are just boring.

They’re not proactive. You just click on them and things happen. There’s no decisions to make, no pros/cons to weigh. They are very unexciting.

Not to mention the Pacific aspect of the game doesn’t even exist. The USA can literally build a monster fleet 1936-1941 before Japan attacks.

 

[onlysane1]

Personally don't understand the desire and interest in singleplayer for this title, this is my opinion so please don't rip my head off just because I'm the minority. While singleeplayer defiantly has its moments those moments to me are often short lived. Or just feel entirely dislodged from the environment its set in with the A historical stuff. Theres only so much you can do in the context of the game and in the manner of which you do it. Especially since most strategies can handle the ineptness of the AI. I mean common theres only so many times you can conquer the world as Germany, or win the patriotic war as Russia or beat the Japanese in the China war or overcome the US Fleet as the Japanese. Thats why I think multiplayer is all around better. Not because I'm a zealot for multiplayer but because it honestly enhances what I think most of us look for in this title. A sense of commanding the larger picture, coordinating with allies to fight a common enemy, interact with one of the biggest conflicts in human history, steering a country down a certain path and getting a rigorious challenge when doing so. Obviously multiplayer has its downsides and I get its not everyones ideal way of play especially with the demand in time, of finding capable people, of good rule sets and communities. However its prob one of the reasons why I have stuck around this thing for so long compared to any total war, civilization, Xcom, Age of empire titles but again thats just me and here in this upcoming update I don't think the changes to the NF applied (at least to what we've seen so far) enhance the experience as much as it could. So again a missed opportunity.

Not everyone is in such a competitive mindset. I play Paradox grand strategies for fun, and I get hundreds of hours of fun from them, and that's enough. And the open ended and (by necessity) unbalanced nature of Paradox's games means that it is rather pointless to cater to a competitive multiplayer experience, because it is impossible without a predefined set of multiplayer only rules of what nations are banned and what focus choices are banned and what's the earliest date you can do such and such.

 

[hkrommel]

Personally don't understand the desire and interest in singleplayer for this title, this is my opinion so please don't rip my head off just because I'm the minority. While singleeplayer defiantly has its moments those moments to me are often short lived. Or just feel entirely dislodged from the environment its set in with the A historical stuff. Theres only so much you can do in the context of the game and in the manner of which you do it. Especially since most strategies can handle the ineptness of the AI. I mean common theres only so many times you can conquer the world as Germany, or win the patriotic war as Russia or beat the Japanese in the China war or overcome the US Fleet as the Japanese. Thats why I think multiplayer is all around better. Not because I'm a zealot for multiplayer but because it honestly enhances what I think most of us look for in this title. A sense of commanding the larger picture, coordinating with allies to fight a common enemy, interact with one of the biggest conflicts in human history, steering a country down a certain path and getting a rigorious challenge when doing so. Obviously multiplayer has its downsides and I get its not everyones ideal way of play especially with the demand in time, of finding capable people, of good rule sets and communities. However its prob one of the reasons why I have stuck around this thing for so long compared to any total war, civilization, Xcom, Age of empire titles but again thats just me and here in this upcoming update I don't think the changes to the NF applied (at least to what we've seen so far) enhance the experience as much as it could. So again a missed opportunity.

Playing against humans is (usually) better competition for sure and the game plays a lot better as long as you have house rules, the issue is finding good people to play with (with a decent internet connection) who all have the same gap in their schedules and have a decent amount of time to play. Plus I hate playing on speed 3 unless it's the start of Barbarossa or something. You can't just pick up and play multiplayer in a decent way unless you get extremely lucky. In addition, multiplayer lends itself to the more gamey aspects of the game in terms of division build and min-maxing exploits, which isn't fun. Human players can be predictable in their own ways too.

 

[Robosoldier1]

Not everyone is in such a competitive mindset. I play Paradox grand strategies for fun, and I get hundreds of hours of fun from them, and that's enough. And the open ended and (by necessity) unbalanced nature of Paradox's games means that it is rather pointless to cater to a competitive multiplayer experience, because it is impossible without a predefined set of multiplayer only rules of what nations are banned and what focus choices are banned and what's the earliest date you can do such and such.

Yes multiplayer is hard to balance but id prefer they provide tools that actually have meaning behind them and align better with the events of ww2 so that we as a community can balance it out amongst ourselves. Alternative history does nothing for us because we have no reason to use them. If we do then the game would spiral and drown in the chaos and end as soon as it began because some asshat sees more value in reestablishing the roman empire or the Russian Empire or democratic Japan then actually winning the grand conflict to come. Sorry that my blood doesn't pump as much as yours when I see something that obviously wont get traction in terms of enhancing a communal play experience but instead just enhances the individual basis.

 

[Olanov]

Playing against humans is (usually) better competition for sure and the game plays a lot better as long as you have house rules, the issue is finding good people to play with (with a decent internet connection) who all have the same gap in their schedules and have a decent amount of time to play. Plus I hate playing on speed 3 unless it's the start of Barbarossa or something. You can't just pick up and play multiplayer in a decent way unless you get extremely lucky. In addition, multiplayer lends itself to the more gamey aspects of the game in terms of division build and min-maxing exploits, which isn't fun. Human players can be predictable in their own ways too.

This so much. I play casual games, usually with just a group of 3 friends, and even we are finding it difficult to organize and find a perfect gap in our varying schedules. Two players it's already easier.

 

[Dan1109]

Please give some suggestions of a Barbarossa NF tree would look like? The only thing I could possibly imagine are focuses that deal with the post-war scenario, after one has capitulated the other. I can't think of a single NF focus that would be useful "during" the war.

In regards to your complaints about other issues in the game, I can only say that content designers need to have work to do, and this is what they do. They don't code AI. They can't write new mechanics(well, its not in their realm of responsibility). Their "focus" is NF Trees, events, and probably 3D Models (just guessing, unless they have to have people with specific artistic skills to code the models). I do have complaints about HOI4's resource management, having not enough game engine coders and AI development resources (which could be offset by reducing content designer resources), but if they have CDs, let them do what they do. And I have to say, I am pleasantly pleased that the CDs are working on Majors now, countries that people play, rather than countries that people don't play (ala TFV and DoD).

I know PDS has a grand vision of every country having a unique focus tree one day, but at what expense? The expense of the game AI still being horrible, lack of much needed mechanics to increase realism, an infinite list of bugs, etc?

 

[hkrommel]

Please give some suggestions of a Barbarossa NF tree would look like?

There are two of them, easy.

1. A huge problem the Germans faced when invading the USSR was the wider rail gauge, which was a mammoth undertaking to convert. A NF giving a temporary national spirit increasing infrastructure repair and build speed could counter this.

2. If the war isn't won by a certain date (let's say 1943) then the Germans can take a "Festung" focus, adding fortifications to key VPs and maybe along defensive lines (nothing huge obviously except in places like Poznan but something to get you started).

There's another one that would probably work with the upcoming war support mechanics: promising autonomy to the Soviet republics. This would lower war support in the USSR as the Ukrainians especially, but also the other various non-Russian groups, would have less support for their Soviet overlords and would be more welcoming to the Germans. If the German player takes this focus and doesn't actually grant that autonomy, the penalty could be that those nations "rebel" and spawn an OOB of some sort, and go to war with Germany.