My constructive criticism on how focus trees are designed, specifically in regards to alt-history.

[Shaka of Carthage]

HoI4 isn't really meant to appeal to people actually interested in WW2 history.

But it can be modded to do so.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

The main problems with alternate paths are:

I. some of them are poorly balanced between the nations, which results in some paths being unplayable without other nations taking certain alternate paths.

The Netherlands, Chinese Warlords, and Ottoman Turkey are victims of this.

II. it takes a lot of time to make focus trees. After 4 years and 6 DLC, some countries have extensive alternate paths but 2 majors (SU and Italy) and multiple important minors (Finland, Egypt, Ireland and Siam) didn’t get any rework yet.

But it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be any alternate paths. They just have to be implemented better.

I'd actually support Hungary having a communist path, if their path wasn't complete garbage. Historically, Hungary wasn't going to have a Communist anything without getting conquered by the USSR (Horthy was super-duper anti-communist, and the communists were mostly purged in the 1920s). But I'd feel better about a communist branch being included on their tree if it had amounted to anything other than "go independent with no way to get other countries to join you and then get eaten by Germany" or "Join the Comintern and do a bunch of focuses that give the USSR new territory while giving yourself exactly nothing".

it's a consequence of the geeric focus tree allowing any minor to choose any ideology. If the devs removed the branch from the DLC FT, it would mean that reworked countries lose something compared to generic.

And I have to disagree. There is really no such thing as Plausible history that is actual factual and this entire game is fantasy to begin with. Germany could have never done IRL what it does in game. It's fantasy.

Plausible would mean things that were planed, or attempted IRL.
Implausible is completely made-up stuff.

Restoring the German emperor is still more plausible that bringing the Bourbon dynasty to the throne, or making Japan communist... there were efforts to bring Hohenzollerns back to the throne. Partly due to the popularity of the royal family among the German populace, Hitler brought Prinzenerlass, which forbade royal family members to serve in Wehrmacht.

possible, but it's strange that germany has a path to bring back Wilhelm II and repeat WW1 but lacks such things as:

• Operation Valkyrie if they’re losing the war (as they tried IRL)
• The military resisting Hitler after 1936 (If taking Czechoslovakia or Poland fails)
• anti-Nazi coup restoring the Weimar Republic
• a communist path

 

[kettyo]

The military resisting Hitler after 1936 (If taking Czechoslovakia or Poland fails)

This is actually there i think.

anti-Nazi coup restoring the Weimar Republic

This would be very implausible as close to nobody wanted the Weimar Republic back as it was generally seen as an utter failure.

 

[TalyonUngol]

The main problems with alternate paths are:

I. some of them are poorly balanced between the nations, which results in some paths being unplayable without other nations taking certain alternate paths.

The Netherlands, Chinese Warlords, and Ottoman Turkey are victims of this.

II. it takes a lot of time to make focus trees. After 4 years and 6 DLC, some countries have extensive alternate paths but 2 majors (SU and Italy) and multiple important minors (Finland, Egypt, Ireland and Siam) didn’t get any rework yet.

But it doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be any alternate paths. They just have to be implemented better.


it's a consequence of the geeric focus tree allowing any minor to choose any ideology. If the devs removed the branch from the DLC FT, it would mean that reworked countries lose something compared to generic.


Plausible would mean things that were planed, or attempted IRL.
Implausible is completely made-up stuff.


possible, but it's strange that germany has a path to bring back Wilhelm II and repeat WW1 but lacks such things as:

• Operation Valkyrie if they’re losing the war (as they tried IRL)
• The military resisting Hitler after 1936 (If taking Czechoslovakia or Poland fails)
• anti-Nazi coup restoring the Weimar Republic
• a communist path

Well, if you mean if things were planned being PLausible... I guess that Means Italy should def get a very powerful Roman Empire tree since it -was- Mussolinis dream.

 

[hkrommel]

Just going to chime in real quick and point out that many posters (one in particular) continually miss the point on these sorts of threads as to why people object to the more ridiculous alt-history.

HOI4 is a WWII game. It was advertised as a WWII game. It is still advertised, on its Steam page, as a WWII game.

WWII is unsatisfying to play for many. It's unsatisfying historically as the historical aspects of the game tend to be under-developed compared to where they should be as the supposed focus of the game. Plausible alternate history is likewise underdeveloped compared to the kind of content ridiculous alt history gets. The devs show no interest in changing this trend.

Sure the stats show that alt history is popular, but statistics without context are misleading for a couple of reasons. First, if alternate history trees get the most developer attention, then of course they will be the most popular! More dev time tends to result in a better product, and people want to play a better product over a worse product. Second, those statistics don't count people using mods. A good deal of people who are interested in more historical gameplay use one of the many historical mods out there, which have various degrees of imbalance and complexity to suit different tastes. You have ULTRA, World Ablaze, Total War, Hearts of Oak, BICE, and others. So these stats are both self-reinforcing (develop with a focus on alt history, people play alt history, respond to that by developing more alt history) and have people selecting out of the sample size by opting for mods instead of vanilla.

All that to say simply this: It's great that you all enjoy alt-history. It's great that you all have fun conducting world conquests as Greece after reforming Byzantium. I have no problem with that.

Just don't forget that dev time spent on that is dev time not spent on historical content, which is the content many of us bought this game expecting. It's what this game is still advertised as focusing on even though most of the new content development has revolved around alternate history. That's why people like me are unhappy with the state of things. It's why I will take a hard look at HOI5 before deciding whether to buy it, and have all but stopped playing HOI4.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Just going to chime in real quick and point out that many posters (one in particular) continually miss the point on these sorts of threads as to why people object to the more ridiculous alt-history.

HOI4 is a WWII game. It was advertised as a WWII game. It is still advertised, on its Steam page, as a WWII game.

WWII is unsatisfying to play for many. It's unsatisfying historically as the historical aspects of the game tend to be under-developed compared to where they should be as the supposed focus of the game. Plausible alternate history is likewise underdeveloped compared to the kind of content ridiculous alt history gets. The devs show no interest in changing this trend.

Sure the stats show that alt history is popular, but statistics without context are misleading for a couple of reasons. First, if alternate history trees get the most developer attention, then of course they will be the most popular! More dev time tends to result in a better product, and people want to play a better product over a worse product. Second, those statistics don't count people using mods. A good deal of people who are interested in more historical gameplay use one of the many historical mods out there, which have various degrees of imbalance and complexity to suit different tastes. You have ULTRA, World Ablaze, Total War, Hearts of Oak, BICE, and others. So these stats are both self-reinforcing (develop with a focus on alt history, people play alt history, respond to that by developing more alt history) and have people selecting out of the sample size by opting for mods instead of vanilla.

All that to say simply this: It's great that you all enjoy alt-history. It's great that you all have fun conducting world conquests as Greece after reforming Byzantium. I have no problem with that.

Just don't forget that dev time spent on that is dev time not spent on historical content, which is the content many of us bought this game expecting. It's what this game is still advertised as focusing on even though most of the new content development has revolved around alternate history. That's why people like me are unhappy with the state of things. It's why I will take a hard look at HOI5 before deciding whether to buy it, and have all but stopped playing HOI4.

Okay? It -is- a WWII game. The entire thing is based off of WW2. What it does NOT say is that it is a Simulator. This is a sandbox. This is what -you- are mistaken about. None of us here who support alt-history have any delusions about what this game is. It's, all in all, always a WW2 game. You really think that Italy doesn't do WW2 by going for the Roman Empire? No. It absolutely does WW2 by going for the Roman Empire, it just does it by itself.

What you're asking for is a complete simulator of a game where Germany loses -every- single time, USA and Britain never get invaded, Japan stalls in China, and Russia never captiulates and eventually pushes back the Germans rather quickly. This is a horrible idea as guess what, theres no replayability. Everything goes the exact same way every single time. Germany loses. There will be no replayability and they might as well not even make more focus trees.

And you're saying that they don't focus on historical and only do alt-history? They focus on both sides. They give both sides a fair amount of attention. Sure, alt-history gets -more- from the focus tree because theres more room for things to do. Lets take Frances tree. it has a historical side of the tree and yea, the alt-history side has more because... well... it should have more. Because alt-history for France means going Facist, Communist or Non Aligned. Thats three compared to one. What did you expect to happen? You expected the historical tree to have 6x the content of everything making it all bloated? What exactly are you asking for when it comes to the historical vs alt-history? 90% of the events you see are historical events. If you play on the historical side, everything is scripted to go close to the same way it goes historically. Or do you expect Germany to be heavily nerfed so it doesn't defeat the soviets? What -exactly- are you wanting from the devs. They give both sides a fair amount of time and effort, but sorry to burst your bubble... the historical side can only have so much because there isn't as much going on for it as it is for alt-history.

As I said above, historical games end with Germany losing. Why even bother giving France a historical tree when they just die out in a few weeks? Why bother doing an Austrian tree when they just get anschulussed? Why bother with Poland? Why bother with Focus trees at all really. Might as well just have the game give you units based off of WW2 time period. Germany only fielded this amount during the battle of Poland? Well, here you go boys!

This is why I have an issue with the arguement that Alt-history sucks and say that Historical accuracy is the most super duper important thing. There is no replayability. You might as well just be part of scripted content at that point.

 

[Harin]

It seems discussions about alt-history vs history eventually get people to stray into the wing-nut territory. I am guilty of it, too. Even so, it would not surprise me if most people are not extreme alt-history wing or extreme history wing. Many people probably want both, but done well. Even people posting to the extreme edges of the discussion would most likely enjoy both, if done well.

I think the real debate is on the "done well" part. Whether it is 1) history; 2) possibilities that were possible within the time frame of the game; or 3) possibilities that could only be possible if the game spanned generations and are just shoe horned into the game for fun, it all must be done well.

The quality of the the new DLC and its new focuses, is a shining example of what could be. Its very quality makes some, myself included, want this same kind of passion put into working on the historical side, too. The historical side is the bedrock the game is supposed to be built on. It is where alt-history has a plot to spring from.

But fixing the history side is not easy. The historical side is not just focuses or added content. By its very nature of being history, being real, it is revealed best in the very mechanics of the game that create a world set during the time of WW2. That world has flaws and fixing them with the quality shown in this new DLC will make a better game world that both history and alt-history will benefit from.

Fixing the historical side can be helped with improved focuses and decisions, but since it is the bedrock, it benefits more from fixing the basic game mechanics themselves. It is a much harder fix, but fixing game mechanics improves everything at the same time.

 

[TalyonUngol]

It seems discussions about alt-history vs history eventually get people to stray into the wing-nut territory. I am guilty of it, too. Even so, it would not surprise me if most people are not extreme alt-history wing or extreme history wing. Many people probably want both, but done well. Even people posting to the extreme edges of the discussion would most likely enjoy both, if done well.

I think the real debate is on the "done well" part. Whether it is 1) history; 2) possibilities that were possible within the time frame of the game; or 3) possibilities that could only be possible if the game spanned generations and are just shoe horned into the game for fun, it all must be done well.

The quality of the the new DLC and its new focuses, is a shining example of what could be. Its very quality makes some, myself included, want this same kind of passion put into working on the historical side, too. The historical side is the bedrock the game is supposed to be built on. It is where alt-history has a plot to spring from.

But fixing the history side is not easy. The historical side is not just focuses or added content. By its very nature of being history, being real, it is revealed best in the very mechanics of the game that create a world set during the time of WW2. That world has flaws and fixing them with the quality shown in this new DLC will make a better game world that both history and alt-history will benefit from.

Fixing the historical side can be helped with improved focuses and decisions, but since it is the bedrock, it benefits more from fixing the basic game mechanics themselves. It is a much harder fix, but fixing game mechanics improves everything at the same time.

But what -exactly- would you fix in the base mechanics that would benefit the historical side without completely erasing the alt-history side? I've not heard anyone come up with anything except 'alt-history bad'.

I have -zero- issue with people playing historical as it doesn't affect me since I play alt-history. We can both be satisfied with the content of the game, but what exactly would you suggest changing in terms of mechanics? We already have 90% of the historical events and everything in the game. The peru-ecudorian war and the continuation war not withstanding((I didn't even know this was a thing. This is honestly not that important imo as its not common knowledge)).

 

[Tsavong]

Even so, it would not surprise me if most people are not extreme alt-history wing or extreme history wing. Many people probably want both, but done well.

I agree. I liked to play " historical" multiplayer games in hoi3 and in hoi 4( up to wtt, group disbanded) and i liked to play historical based singeplayer games.
But here is the problem that " historical" does not work so well in hoi4. I dont even want to write about warfare itself or supply or teleporting planes...Just what made me stop thinking about hoi4 as a historical ww2 game, but instead as a wargame sandbox set in the ww2 time ( which is actually a very good one) :

A " historical" game just never felt historical, because for example the war begins ahistorical in historical focus, the usa joins early, japan crushes china in 38 and lets the world tension skyrocket ( making us join early), germany declares war on soviet union at any time but not historical. ( Some of that got fixed) Numbers are absolutely wrong: Looking at french army seize for example. Allies are a pain , overcrowding the frontline, reshuffling ...Better play without allies. The list could go on..


BUT if you see it as sandbox , vanilla( or with expert ai) is for ME actually still fun and the only reason is alt history. If the game had no althistory, but the same ww2 gameplay i would have stopped playing some time ago. Alt history makes me play the game again for fun achievements or just crazy multi-sided battle royal games as turkey.

If I could have a hoi4 thats catches the historical part better , i would definitly say: Yes going to take it. But i dont want to miss the ahistorical stuff too.

 

[hkrommel]

Okay? It -is- a WWII game. The entire thing is based off of WW2. What it does NOT say is that it is a Simulator. This is a sandbox. This is what -you- are mistaken about. None of us here who support alt-history have any delusions about what this game is. It's, all in all, always a WW2 game. You really think that Italy doesn't do WW2 by going for the Roman Empire? No. It absolutely does WW2 by going for the Roman Empire, it just does it by itself.

What you're asking for is a complete simulator of a game where Germany loses -every- single time, USA and Britain never get invaded, Japan stalls in China, and Russia never captiulates and eventually pushes back the Germans rather quickly. This is a horrible idea as guess what, theres no replayability. Everything goes the exact same way every single time. Germany loses. There will be no replayability and they might as well not even make more focus trees.

And you're saying that they don't focus on historical and only do alt-history? They focus on both sides. They give both sides a fair amount of attention. Sure, alt-history gets -more- from the focus tree because theres more room for things to do. Lets take Frances tree. it has a historical side of the tree and yea, the alt-history side has more because... well... it should have more. Because alt-history for France means going Facist, Communist or Non Aligned. Thats three compared to one. What did you expect to happen? You expected the historical tree to have 6x the content of everything making it all bloated? What exactly are you asking for when it comes to the historical vs alt-history? 90% of the events you see are historical events. If you play on the historical side, everything is scripted to go close to the same way it goes historically. Or do you expect Germany to be heavily nerfed so it doesn't defeat the soviets? What -exactly- are you wanting from the devs. They give both sides a fair amount of time and effort, but sorry to burst your bubble... the historical side can only have so much because there isn't as much going on for it as it is for alt-history.

As I said above, historical games end with Germany losing. Why even bother giving France a historical tree when they just die out in a few weeks? Why bother doing an Austrian tree when they just get anschulussed? Why bother with Poland? Why bother with Focus trees at all really. Might as well just have the game give you units based off of WW2 time period. Germany only fielded this amount during the battle of Poland? Well, here you go boys!

This is why I have an issue with the arguement that Alt-history sucks and say that Historical accuracy is the most super duper important thing. There is no replayability. You might as well just be part of scripted content at that point.

Before I start I'll just say it's posts like this why I rarely visit these forums anymore. It's chock full of equivocation, straw men, bifurcations, circular reasoning, and straight-up non-sequiturs. I'll also add that after posting this I'll be taking another long hiatus from these forums and will not continue this discussion.

Okay? It -is- a WWII game. The entire thing is based off of WW2. What it does NOT say is that it is a Simulator. This is a sandbox. This is what -you- are mistaken about. None of us here who support alt-history have any delusions about what this game is. It's, all in all, always a WW2 game. You really think that Italy doesn't do WW2 by going for the Roman Empire? No. It absolutely does WW2 by going for the Roman Empire, it just does it by itself.

It's really not based in WWII anymore. It's mostly a sandbox in the same time period as WWII. You seem to be saying that any war that happens counts as WWII because it takes place in the same time period. This is incorrect.

What you're asking for is a complete simulator of a game where Germany loses -every- single time, USA and Britain never get invaded, Japan stalls in China, and Russia never captiulates and eventually pushes back the Germans rather quickly. This is a horrible idea as guess what, theres no replayability. Everything goes the exact same way every single time. Germany loses. There will be no replayability and they might as well not even make more focus trees.

I'm very much not asking for that if you take even the slightest bit of care to read what I wrote instead of constructing a straw man to knock down. Why do you expect others to take your opinion seriously when you don't take the time to understand theirs?

And you're saying that they don't focus on historical and only do alt-history? They focus on both sides. They give both sides a fair amount of attention. Sure, alt-history gets -more- from the focus tree because theres more room for things to do. Lets take Frances tree. it has a historical side of the tree and yea, the alt-history side has more because... well... it should have more. Because alt-history for France means going Facist, Communist or Non Aligned. Thats three compared to one. What did you expect to happen? You expected the historical tree to have 6x the content of everything making it all bloated?

They focus on implausible alt-history much more than history and plausible alt-history. I don't expect 6x the content but I do not want historical content to get the short end of the stick, like it is currently. The WWII content should be more extensive than it currently is in a supposedly WWII based game. I don't care if more than half of the content is crazy alt-history where you can conduct a Trotskyite world conquest as Ryukyu, just as long as the historical and plausible alt-historical paths are fleshed out with some care and nuance. They aren't for most countries.

If you play on the historical side, everything is scripted to go close to the same way it goes historically.

It's really, really not. The focuses are scripted to be semi-historical but the game isn't anywhere near that.

Or do you expect Germany to be heavily nerfed so it doesn't defeat the soviets?

Some nerfs would be nice, yes. Germany being too powerful makes it less interesting for folks like me who enjoy overcoming the historical disadvantages nations had. Overcoming those challenges is half the fun for people like me, and removing those challenges loses that. Take a look at World Ablaze and how it handles German economics as a good example of what I mean.

What -exactly- are you wanting from the devs.

What was advertised: A WWII-focused grand strategy game with alt-historical options as a bonus. Not a 1936 sandbox grand strategy that gives you the option of playing something that resembles WWII if you feel like it.

They give both sides a fair amount of time and effort, but sorry to burst your bubble... the historical side can only have so much because there isn't as much going on for it as it is for alt-history.

Apparently what you enjoy is objectively better and everything else doesn't have "much going on for it." I really shouldn't have to explain how this is a poor argument.

As I said above, historical games end with Germany losing. Why even bother giving France a historical tree when they just die out in a few weeks? Why bother doing an Austrian tree when they just get anschulussed? Why bother with Poland? Why bother with Focus trees at all really. Might as well just have the game give you units based off of WW2 time period. Germany only fielded this amount during the battle of Poland? Well, here you go boys!

Purely historical, yes. Plausible alt-historical, no. France surviving was very much in the cards, and what they would have done afterwards is very much a plausible outcome. That's one of the most interesting situations in my opinion, and I would love for that to be fleshed out better than it is.

Once again, you have constructed a straw man and then congratulated yourself on knocking it down. Unfortunately for you, I never made such an argument for purely scripted historical games.

This is why I have an issue with the arguement that Alt-history sucks and say that Historical accuracy is the most super duper important thing. There is no replayability. You might as well just be part of scripted content at that point.

I specifically said

All that to say simply this: It's great that you all enjoy alt-history. It's great that you all have fun conducting world conquests as Greece after reforming Byzantium. I have no problem with that.

Just don't forget that dev time spent on that is dev time not spent on historical content, which is the content many of us bought this game expecting. It's what this game is still advertised as focusing on even though most of the new content development has revolved around alternate history. That's why people like me are unhappy with the state of things. It's why I will take a hard look at HOI5 before deciding whether to buy it, and have all but stopped playing HOI4.

If to you that means "alt-history sucks" and that I only want scripted historical content, then I highly recommend avoiding mind-altering substances when reading other posts in the future.

 

[KubiG37]

The worst thing certainly is the ideology flipping by hiring advisors, WHO are these guys??

You're a Stalin, Earth equivalent of Emperor Palpatine, and then suddenly this fascist guy appears in your coutry, and your entire communist country just starts adoring fascism for no reason, because he said so? And Stalin doesn't care, and just keeps him there.

It's as if Princess Leia appeared at the Death Star - no one giving a damn - and in a few months just convicted everyone to dump the Siths and restore democracy...

If aliens exist, it must be THESE ADVISORS.

 

[TalyonUngol]

Before I start I'll just say it's posts like this why I rarely visit these forums anymore. It's chock full of equivocation, straw men, bifurcations, circular reasoning, and straight-up non-sequiturs. I'll also add that after posting this I'll be taking another long hiatus from these forums and will not continue this discussion.



It's really not based in WWII anymore. It's mostly a sandbox in the same time period as WWII. You seem to be saying that any war that happens counts as WWII because it takes place in the same time period. This is incorrect.



I'm very much not asking for that if you take even the slightest bit of care to read what I wrote instead of constructing a straw man to knock down. Why do you expect others to take your opinion seriously when you don't take the time to understand theirs?



They focus on implausible alt-history much more than history and plausible alt-history. I don't expect 6x the content but I do not want historical content to get the short end of the stick, like it is currently. The WWII content should be more extensive than it currently is in a supposedly WWII based game. I don't care if more than half of the content is crazy alt-history where you can conduct a Trotskyite world conquest as Ryukyu, just as long as the historical and plausible alt-historical paths are fleshed out with some care and nuance. They aren't for most countries.



It's really, really not. The focuses are scripted to be semi-historical but the game isn't anywhere near that.



Some nerfs would be nice, yes. Germany being too powerful makes it less interesting for folks like me who enjoy overcoming the historical disadvantages nations had. Overcoming those challenges is half the fun for people like me, and removing those challenges loses that. Take a look at World Ablaze and how it handles German economics as a good example of what I mean.



What was advertised: A WWII-focused grand strategy game with alt-historical options as a bonus. Not a 1936 sandbox grand strategy that gives you the option of playing something that resembles WWII if you feel like it.



Apparently what you enjoy is objectively better and everything else doesn't have "much going on for it." I really shouldn't have to explain how this is a poor argument.



Purely historical, yes. Plausible alt-historical, no. France surviving was very much in the cards, and what they would have done afterwards is very much a plausible outcome. That's one of the most interesting situations in my opinion, and I would love for that to be fleshed out better than it is.

Once again, you have constructed a straw man and then congratulated yourself on knocking it down. Unfortunately for you, I never made such an argument for purely scripted historical games.



I specifically said


If to you that means "alt-history sucks" and that I only want scripted historical content, then I highly recommend avoiding mind-altering substances when reading other posts in the future.

Okay fine. How would you make this game WW2 -based- where it's -NOT- a game called Allies win 2.0.

Please. Please do. You've not once given -ANY- sort of actual constructive arguements except "nerf germmany plz."

You've not once. I looked at your posting. If you're going to bash the historical side as being trash, how would you improve it and I'll gladly argue with you, but you've only posted "Historical good, alt-history bad, nerf germany plz".

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

Okay fine. How would you make this game WW2 -based- where it's -NOT- a game called Allies win 2.0.

I do agree with a lot of what @hkrommel said. And I do like alt-history options as well. If you really want to have a discussion about what could be changed to make it a WWII game, more than willing to start a new thread for that discussion.

I'll mention one item to change, where the Allies don't always "win".

Change the win conditions to what they were historically.

If Germany is not conquered by 1946, they win.
If Japan is not conquered by 1946 (I may be off on the year) they win.
The Western Allies have to conquer Germany by 1946 to win.
The United States has to conquer Japan and Germany has fallen by 1946, for the US to win.
The Soviets have to conquer Germany by 1946 to win.

I may be missing some conditions, but above is enough to illustrate my point. The Soviets and the Western Allies have overwhelming economic strength vs the Axis. Yet with the deadline dates, they can't take their time about it. And only one of the two, the Soviets or the Western Allies, will win. The other one will lose.

Just looking at the economies of the majors in 1936, shows some of the issues. Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union are overpowered in terms of their factory count. Germany and the US don't have enough. Once the game starts, it will vary as players have different play styles and will react differently to historical events.

All @hkrommel and others like him (including myself) are asking, is that the game present us with the same historical dilemmas those nations had to face. Having alt-history options, even the far out ones is fine, as long as it is a choice I can make.

 

[TalyonUngol]

I do agree with a lot of what @hkrommel said. And I do like alt-history options as well. If you really want to have a discussion about what could be changed to make it a WWII game, more than willing to start a new thread for that discussion.

I'll mention one item to change, where the Allies don't always "win".

Change the win conditions to what they were historically.

If Germany is not conquered by 1946, they win.
If Japan is not conquered by 1946 (I may be off on the year) they win.
The Western Allies have to conquer Germany by 1946 to win.
The United States has to conquer Japan by 1946 to win.
The Soviets have to conquer Germany by 1946 to win.

I may be missing some conditions, but above is enough to illustrate my point. The Soviets and the Western Allies have overwhelming economic strength vs the Axis. Yet with the deadline dates, they can't take their time about it. And only one of the two, the Soviets or the Western Allies will win. The other one will lose.

Just looking at the economies of the majors in 1936, shows some of the issues. Japan, Italy and the Soviet Union are overpowered in terms of their factory count. Germany and the US don't have enough. Once the game starts, it will vary as players have different play styles and will react differently to historical events.

All @hkrommel and others like him (including myself) are asking, is that the game present us with the same historical dilemmas those nations had to face. Having alt-history options, even the far out ones is fine, as long as it is a choice I can make.

Alright, thank you. I appreciate your input. My only issue, and its not really that big of a deal cause it could easily be handled. The win conditions... kind of seem lame. You just get to a point of time and the game is over. I mean yea, its in the game right now but THAT win condition just seems... meh to me. It makes too much of a defensive game imo instead of an aggressive game. I would like to actually see Germany attempt to do things like Sea Lion and the Z-plan against America, and japanese land troops there.

however, and I think this would be amazing. Split Historical and Alt-history using the options. If you are going to do historical content, you select the historical box for the AI focuses and then non-historical for non historical.

I have no issue with historical things as long as it doesn't affect the game as a whole, affecting both alt-history and history. Neither side should have to suffer from each other.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

You just get to a point of time and the game is over. I mean yea, its in the game right now but THAT win condition just seems... meh to me. It makes too much of a defensive game imo instead of an aggressive game. I would like to actually see Germany attempt to do things like Sea Lion and the Z-plan against America, and japanese land troops there.

But that is kinda the point. WWII ends 1946 or so. If it doesn't, you are not gaming WWII. You are gaming with a WWII flavor. And Germany does have aggressive options to win. Take out two (2) majors. France is usually the first one. Then UK or the Soviets. There are conditional events that if they occur would have the Soviets collapse early. That is the historical basis of WWII.

Germany or Japan invading America are not historically possible. Fine as a alt-history, with major amounts of fairy dust thrown in,. But not WWII.

Split Historical and Alt-history using the options.

We already have this no? Historical focuses on or off.

I have no issue with historical things as long as it doesn't affect the game as a whole, affecting both alt-history and history. Neither side should have to suffer from each other.

Agree.

 

[hkrommel]

Okay fine. How would you make this game WW2 -based- where it's -NOT- a game called Allies win 2.0.

Please. Please do. You've not once given -ANY- sort of actual constructive arguements except "nerf germmany plz."

You've not once. I looked at your posting. If you're going to bash the historical side as being trash, how would you improve it and I'll gladly argue with you, but you've only posted "Historical good, alt-history bad, nerf germany plz".

You clearly didn't read my post. Again. I suggested a mod that I think does a good job, go check it out.

Some nerfs would be nice, yes. Germany being too powerful makes it less interesting for folks like me who enjoy overcoming the historical disadvantages nations had. Overcoming those challenges is half the fun for people like me, and removing those challenges loses that. Take a look at World Ablaze and how it handles German economics as a good example of what I mean.

If you simplify that to "nerf germany plz" then you're clearly not reading. I clearly asked for Germany to face some historical challenges, and that this would make things more interesting for me and others like me. You were calling that a "nerf" so I obliged you. But you can't turn around and argue that I meant the more simplistic meaning of "nerf" since that's clearly not the case. That's called equivocation.

You have yet to point out where I say "alt history bad." In fact, I clearly say "alt history good" though clearly not in the caveman dialect you seem so fond of here:

France surviving was very much in the cards, and what they would have done afterwards is very much a plausible outcome. That's one of the most interesting situations in my opinion, and I would love for that to be fleshed out better than it is.

So you're pulling that straw man out of thin air as well.

So we've now clearly seen that you don't read other people's posts, instead you assume they are arguing some straw man, knock that down, and then pat yourself on the back.

Finally, though I've addressed this point by providing an example, it's not my job to say how I would change the historical aspect of the game. I am a customer, not a developer. I was promised a WWII grand strategy game and I am dissatisfied with the current product. If I were to refuse giving suggestions altogether, that would be a perfectly logically valid position and you have no logical grounds on which to attack it. Stop acting like it's my job (or anyone else's) to fix a product they don't like. If I buy a car and find out it has a weaker engine than was promised, it's not my job to get the engine replaced.

Even still, I've provided an example and discussed a bit of what I would like to see. You haven't read either of my posts so far since you're responding to points that I've never made and positions I actively argued against. Since you didn't read those, I doubt you'll truly read this. And with that, I'm actually done. Time to leave these forums again, good to know they haven't changed much.

 

[TalyonUngol]

But that is kinda the point. WWII ends 1946 or so. If it doesn't, you are not gaming WWII. You are gaming with a WWII flavor. And Germany does have aggressive options to win. Take out two (2) majors. France is usually the first one. Then UK or the Soviets. There are conditional events that if they occur would have the Soviets collapse early. That is the historical basis of WWII.

Germany or Japan invading America are not historically possible. Fine as a alt-history, with major amounts of fairy dust thrown in,. But not WWII.



We already have this no? Historical focuses on or off.



Agree.

Im not good at this quoting thing, so Im going to try and respond the best I can.

True, its WW2 flavor but I think it's a fair thing to let Alt-history folks have this one as it doesn't really affect the historical all that much. And as for the aggresive options, sure, but it would be really lame over all that you can't map paint as again, this won't affect the historical side. This is just for the alt-history.

And the historical focuses one should be expanded. So if you click the historical side, you cannot go alt-history and it locks you out of there and your win conditions are put in place. You click the non-historical, and everything is thrown out the window. Chaos and madness become the king and you can do anything you want. So you can see the meme videos of Luxemborg and Bhutan conquering the world. That way, both sides of the aisle will get their cake and eat it too.

So, I think its fair that the historical side can get their mechanics or what not that improves their QoL that doesn't affect the current state of Alt-history. So like World Conquest. Sure, its not historical but including it in the game doesn't hurt historical either. Its there if you want to do it but its by no means FORCED upon you. Where as, nerfing Germany and Italy while buffing the allies would serve to hurt the game overall instead of just helping out the historical side. We don't even know if Germany needs one when the AI is so bad. If the USA could naval invade properly and do it right, like going for Italy and Normandy, that would be great.

We could also stand to have a logistics update but thats for another topic.

The focus trees are fairly equal in terms of Alt-history vs Historical. The reason I say that is simple. The historical side of things. You have Germany going Facist... but you have plenty of other ideologys to choosse from in the game so they give each path equal amounts of focus. So take Germany. The facist side actually is larger than the Non-aligned path but theres two non aligned paths and one democratic so sure, alt-history focus tree combined between all three surpass the historical side, but that's not really fair as each one is about equal or smaller than the historical side. Plus what could they add really to make it equal? Not to mention, theres plenty of other nations that need to be updated or given focus trees first before this is even thought about. Theres alot of work to be done on the game after all.

 

[Spelaren]

I don't mind alt history as long as it isn't too outlandish like Russia becoming monarchist or fascist or communist USA. The problem with alt history however is that paradox focuses too much on it at the expense of the historical paths, why can't the historical paths be as immersive as mexico?

 

[merulaalba]

Just going to chime in real quick and point out that many posters (one in particular) continually miss the point on these sorts of threads as to why people object to the more ridiculous alt-history.

HOI4 is a WWII game. It was advertised as a WWII game. It is still advertised, on its Steam page, as a WWII game.

WWII is unsatisfying to play for many. It's unsatisfying historically as the historical aspects of the game tend to be under-developed compared to where they should be as the supposed focus of the game. Plausible alternate history is likewise underdeveloped compared to the kind of content ridiculous alt history gets. The devs show no interest in changing this trend.

Sure the stats show that alt history is popular, but statistics without context are misleading for a couple of reasons. First, if alternate history trees get the most developer attention, then of course they will be the most popular! More dev time tends to result in a better product, and people want to play a better product over a worse product. Second, those statistics don't count people using mods. A good deal of people who are interested in more historical gameplay use one of the many historical mods out there, which have various degrees of imbalance and complexity to suit different tastes. You have ULTRA, World Ablaze, Total War, Hearts of Oak, BICE, and others. So these stats are both self-reinforcing (develop with a focus on alt history, people play alt history, respond to that by developing more alt history) and have people selecting out of the sample size by opting for mods instead of vanilla.

All that to say simply this: It's great that you all enjoy alt-history. It's great that you all have fun conducting world conquests as Greece after reforming Byzantium. I have no problem with that.

Just don't forget that dev time spent on that is dev time not spent on historical content, which is the content many of us bought this game expecting. It's what this game is still advertised as focusing on even though most of the new content development has revolved around alternate history. That's why people like me are unhappy with the state of things. It's why I will take a hard look at HOI5 before deciding whether to buy it, and have all but stopped playing HOI4.

Hear, hear.

I think that this is a perfect summary of the issues presented in this thread. But as much we complain and discuss, I doubt that devs are listening. As, as someone said before, the main audience for HoI4, and all those crazy alt paths, are youtubers and similar people...

Sadly PDX is moving from its roots and making games that are meme material, and that is just courting history, not incorporating it within the game.

We can only hope that HoI5, when it releases, it will be better.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

why can't the historical paths be as immersive as mexico?

Because it doesn't sell as well.