Nation vs Nation balance target

[mursolini]

Hi, the question I have for devs is, what will Ger vs GB+Fra, Ger vs USSR and Jap vs China balance target be?
In HOI3 Germany would easilly defeat France in 1939, in fact, I`ve seen Germany destroy Czechs, Poles and French simultanuously when I, as GB refused to sede Sudetland and declared war instead.
Japan can beat China soundly with just the forces it has at it`s disposal. It can build whatever in the proces, carriers, IC, troops, ex.
Ger vs USSR, was balanced around Germany overbuilding infantry and just running out of manpower, while having a huge IC and leadership advantage.

So, with the new HOI4 in mind, what are the "balance targets" for it?

 

[MartinSWE]

My issue is that I like playing as the USSR but still want to risk loosing badly to the German AI. At the same time I want the German AI to have a hard time beating the USSR AI.

I have always been annoyed that whenever I play some other country then Germany wins the war in the East like 75 % of the time.

 

[EmperorTojo]

Well, I'd honestly rather they do not 'focus' one balance target. I want a well represented Sino-Japanese war, phony war, spanish civil war, etc...

I think what HOI need is a real stalemate, something I have not really seen. A stalemate was true for most campaigns during the war at one point or another. But in gameplay terms, a stalemate would be... boring? So I am not sure what to do about it.

 

[Opanashc]

Lothos has a good stalemate going in his TRP for war in China.

 

[TheRomanRuler]

Well, I'd honestly rather they do not 'focus' one balance target. I want a well represented Sino-Japanese war, phony war, spanish civil war, etc...

I think what HOI need is a real stalemate, something I have not really seen. A stalemate was true for most campaigns during the war at one point or another. But in gameplay terms, a stalemate would be... boring? So I am not sure what to do about it.

It would be opposite of boring, it would take skill to draw forces, not too much, from strong points of the front and concentrate offensive on enemy`s weak point. Instead of just moving them forward/back all the time.

 

[EmperorTojo]

It would be opposite of boring, it would take skill to draw forces, not too much, from strong points of the front and concentrate offensive on enemy`s weak point. Instead of just moving them forward/back all the time.

Yeah, I suppose.

 

[mursolini]

Well, I'd honestly rather they do not 'focus' one balance target. I want a well represented Sino-Japanese war, phony war, spanish civil war, etc...

Yes, we don`t need to focus on balancing, Germany IC-whoring, Sealioning GB in 1940 because it buit 4(!)new battleships and then defeating everyone in Asia before 1942 and invading US in 1944 is perfectly fine if there is a 4-month "phony" war.

On a more serious note, there is a need for good balancing, and AI reacting to ahistorical situations, otherwise the game will not be interesting to play more than a few times.

 

[EmperorTojo]

Yes, we don`t need to focus on balancing, Germany IC-whoring, Sealioning GB in 1940 because it buit 4(!)new battleships and then defeating everyone in Asia before 1942 and invading US in 1944 is perfectly fine if there is a 4-month "phony" war.

On a more serious note, there is a need for good balancing, and AI reacting to ahistorical situations, otherwise the game will not be interesting to play more than a few times.

You seem to have misunderstood, but yeah. lol.

 

[Dalwin]

Just my opinion of course, but I think the key balance targets are fairly obvious. Which campaigns, if they always tilt the same way, would ruin the WWII feel of things?

Would it be a problem if the Nationalists almost always won the Spanish Civil War? Would much change if they only won 50% of the time? Not really, so this is clearly not a key balance issue.

On the other hand, if in AI vs AI play Germany almost always crushes USSR or just as bad, fails so badly that it is caving in on itself by the end of 1942, then we have some problems. The same can be said for the Sino-Japanese conflict. It is not good if the Japanese have a cakewalk across China. It is also not good if the Chinese always throw them off the continent before 1940.

I hate to say it, but Franco-German balance is not as important. It would not ruin the game at all if AI Germany rolls through AI France 95% of the time. If on the other hand they get stalled and it turns into a two year war of attrition 40% of the time, we once again have problems.

 

[BBBD316]

The balance will always depend on were the player stands.

But you would hope that in a hands off game that it would be as close to the actual WWII happneings would play out 80-90% of the time, with variations allowing for complete German victory and as also earlier defeat.

 

[degen83]

Just my opinion of course, but I think the key balance targets are fairly obvious. Which campaigns, if they always tilt the same way, would ruin the WWII feel of things?

Would it be a problem if the Nationalists almost always won the Spanish Civil War? Would much change if they only won 50% of the time? Not really, so this is clearly not a key balance issue.

On the other hand, if in AI vs AI play Germany almost always crushes USSR or just as bad, fails so badly that it is caving in on itself by the end of 1942, then we have some problems. The same can be said for the Sino-Japanese conflict. It is not good if the Japanese have a cakewalk across China. It is also not good if the Chinese always throw them off the continent before 1940.

I hate to say it, but Franco-German balance is not as important. It would not ruin the game at all if AI Germany rolls through AI France 95% of the time. If on the other hand they get stalled and it turns into a two year war of attrition 40% of the time, we once again have problems.

Agreed.

Currently in my game Germany steam rolls over Europe and nobody, not even Soviets, stop them. Japan can steam roll through China as well.

Germany should be able to roll right through France and rest of Europe fairly easily (if AI is in control of all countries). It should have trouble with USSR but it should be possible for it to win, and lose, or draw, under AI control.

Japan and China should be a tough long drawn out fight. I've seen Japan take out China quickly, it should take years.

This is for AI vs AI. Throw in a human player(s) and it should be different story. I'd like it if when I'm playing as Japan I don't have to quickly declare war on USSR in order to get spoils because I have to in my DOW before Germany defeats them. Or if I'm USA and the allies are all defeated on mainland Europe, and the only ones left are Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, who are too far away to do anything useful for the war effort.

 

[KevinG]

Yes, we don`t need to focus on balancing, Germany IC-whoring, Sealioning GB in 1940 because it buit 4(!)new battleships and then defeating everyone in Asia before 1942 and invading US in 1944 is perfectly fine if there is a 4-month "phony" war.

On a more serious note, there is a need for good balancing, and AI reacting to ahistorical situations, otherwise the game will not be interesting to play more than a few times.

4 battleships? Try 8 carriers with 32 interceptors and 350 brigade army in 1939. That's just a "standard" Germany MP build using no reserves, no trade exploits, or training law abuses. You could triple those numbers if you were allowed to exploit.

 

[mursolini]

4 battleships? Try 8 carriers with 32 interceptors and 350 brigade army in 1939. That's just a "standard" Germany MP build using no reserves, no trade exploits, or training law abuses. You could triple those numbers if you were allowed to exploit.

I was actually pointing out that against AI, "all" the navy germany "has" to build to make sealion possible is 4 new battleships and 10 transports.

But hey, I did build 120ish IC and 40 regular panzer divisions and a buch of other suff on top of that.

 

[frolix42]

I've always felt that France in 1940 has always been underpowered in the Hearts of Iron series, likely due to the fact that the AI of HoI3 was probably incapable of executing Fall Gelb (or Fall Rot ) with the same precision as General Manstein.

 

[podcat]

The same can be said for the Sino-Japanese conflict. It is not good if the Japanese have a cakewalk across China. It is also not good if the Chinese always throw them off the continent before 1940.

For this case we have always prioritized Japan being somewhat competitive with the US to give fun to US players. This often means they cant really bog down too hard in china because the naval war vs US and island campaigns are much more important. It should be easier to balance this time though in hoi4

 

[Kung Zog]

For this case we have always prioritized Japan being somewhat competitive with the US to give fun to US players. This often means they cant really bog down too hard in china because the naval war vs US and island campaigns are much more important. It should be easier to balance this time though in hoi4

I sure hope so. The "Seize the coast" wargoal was a very bad solution to the problem.

 

[Mannstien]

I sure hope so. The "Seize the coast" wargoal was a very bad solution to the problem.

Very bad

 

[podcat]

it solved the problem though, which was the main thing

 

[Kung Zog]

it solved the problem though, which was the main thing

While introducing a new problem.

 

[FOARP]

Lothos has a good stalemate going in his TRP for war in China.

Which is ahistorical, BTW - the war in China was never a stalemate. Even in late 1944 the Japanese were able to storm across whole provinces, they just chose not to conquer parts of China that weren't worth conquering. It was also unsatisfactory, since a stalemate can always be solved just by committing more resources.

I sure hope so. The "Seize the coast" wargoal was a very bad solution to the problem.

It was at least a solution that kinda-sorta modeled what happened historically (i.e., the Chinese just went on the defensive and even cut deals to make local truces) rather than inflicting a false, ahistorical stalemate.