National focus cost 1 politcal point per day

[hkrommel]

They are empty to allow ahistorical play.

If they start filled and you have the current rate of PP gain then nobody would change them and instead they would just cause coups all over the map
If they started filled and you had a much reduced PP gain then anybody who wanted to change them would be out of luck

By starting empty the player has to make decisions about where to focus their country whilst leaving room for ahistorical play.

Sid Meier once said that a game is a series of interesting choices.

(it's not like the people aren't in the game, you're free to choose them if you want)

It's not like this was the only solution to that problem. They could scale PP, change how coups work, etc. Maybe they could leave the minister system as it was and change how PP works in general (maybe shift who has more influence, so a shift towards industry minister helps his bonuses, etc.). Whatever your opinion about these solutions (that I randomly came up with off the top of my head and in no way represent actual proposals), they are in fact alternative solutions and thus prove my point that we don't have an "either/or" situation here.

It's not like it was a choice between "broken game" and "no cabinets." This is the only time I'm aware of that Paradox has done something like this, there are plenty of solutions other than wiping out every government in existence and acting as if it's a blank slate. Paradox's historical games have never been about blank slates.

As for the "series of interesting choices" bit, that fits with Sid's style of games. However, his games have no real setting. The setting is the framework in which those dilemmas and the choices therein must be plausible. It defines the kinds of choices and problems faced. A game setting involving the politics of aristocrats in Victorian England isn't going to have the same types of dilemmas and solutions ("choices") as a game where the player is a shark trying to eat fish.

HoI has a setting. Civilization games do not (other than being on earth). However, even those games are constrained by the laws of physics and the general setting of earth-like, habitable planets with resources and cultures similar to ours.

So you see that "choice" in and of itself is an irrelevant metric. It's choice within the framework of the setting that matters. HoI is a historical sandbox. This means that a player should have freedom given

1. Historical starting point. Paradox games have always been about history being exactly the same until the player takes over. Even in mods like Kaiserreich for Darkest Hour there is an established world that the player is stepping into.

2. Plausibility within the setting. You can't build aircraft carriers in CK2. The technology isn't there. You aren't recruiting phalanxes in HoI. The plausibility isn't there. The choices are limited within the historical context.

My issue is with the first point. Every historical Paradox game has respected the established history to the point the player takes over. Obviously there is a degree of abstraction but if the player can interact with an aspect of a nation in-game, that aspect is modeled as historically as possible within the bounds of the gameplay design. Here, on the other hand, we have an aspect of a nation (the cabinet) that is modeled within the game and allows player interaction with this aspect, and it is completely ahistorical. What is this supposed to represent, that on December 31, 1935 all the ministers I listed above were in office but at 11:59 the night before January 1, 1936 the ministers were all fired and Hitler is running the country single-handedly? It doesn't make sense.

And what is it with this blind allegiance to the "more choice is always better" paradigm? As Germany I'm going to be deciding between building heavy, light and medium tanks. I'm not going to be deciding between building heavy, light, and medium tanks or elephant riders or cyborg commandos. That's absurd, but it would increase choice. You see what the problem is here? Choice is only a relevant metric when applied within the setting.

 

[Denkt]

I would call it competitive sandbox more so then true sandbox as the game is more focused on being interesting then holding true to history.

 

[hkrommel]

I would call it competitive sandbox more so then true sandbox as the game is more focused on being interesting then holding true to history.

That doesn't change anything I've said, as choices are still framed within the setting and everything before the player takes over is historical...except the cabinet stuff.

 

[DaAvenger]

I think you're just looking at it too directly. The way I see it, all of those positions are filled with the historic people (along with many other government/military positions deemed too unimportant to show). As you select ministers, you are either replacing them or throwing your support behind them. It is easy for me to imagine that even good ministers don't necessarily have the political backing/capital to make the big changes that their bonuses represent, so there is no bonus until you either choose to back their plan or replace them.

They could have modelled this by having the various ministers, with an unsupported and supported state with different bonuses, but why? It would just add more steps and micro-management to the process. So, in my mind, they just distilled a complex system like what you would probably want (and perhaps they even started with) down to a system that just highlights the critical decisions.

The important thing is that it looks like the pre-war process of selecting ministers/companies/etc, your route through the national focus tree, and the order in which you do these things look like meaningful choices to me.

 

[hkrommel]

distilled a complex system like what you would probably want (and perhaps they even started with) down to a system that just highlights the critical decisions.

You may be right but I would hardly call the previous system complex. You had a handful of cabinet members and a small list (1-5 usually) of possible replacements.

 

[Amur_Tiger]

I understand why for changing something political power is needed, but why for appointing people to vacant positions? That has always seemed weird to me, where you just have a couple guys running the country because there isn't enough political power to have a full cabinet.

While I understand a desire for reflecting reality this is one area where I think you have to have more leeway. In real life there was no way to know in 1936 that this Messersmit guy is going to be a great aircraft designer in game these decisions are easy and obvious so something has to slow things down.

 

[Joppos]

I understand why for changing something political power is needed, but why for appointing people to vacant positions? That has always seemed weird to me, where you just have a couple guys running the country because there isn't enough political power to have a full cabinet.

I feel this is a very good system to represent the difficulty

They are empty to allow ahistorical play.

If they start filled and you have the current rate of PP gain then nobody would change them and instead they would just cause coups all over the map
If they started filled and you had a much reduced PP gain then anybody who wanted to change them would be out of luck

By starting empty the player has to make decisions about where to focus their country whilst leaving room for ahistorical play.

Sid Meier once said that a game is a series of interesting choices.

(it's not like the people aren't in the game, you're free to choose them if you want)

People would most definitely change people if the current modifiers weren't favourable to a planned strategy.

That said, there are reasonable explanations to why the current design is such as it is. See the slots as not only cabinet positions but also enabling opportunity for those people to act out their strategies. Somewhat like when choosing a manufacturer in-game. Choosing one doesn't mean that the others are out of business. It simply means that this one is given a certain focus and resources over the others.

 

[hkrommel]

I feel this is a very good system to represent the difficulty

There is no difficulty in appointing cabinet ministers in most cases, and especially not in authoritarian governments. You don't need political capital if you are the government.

That said, there are reasonable explanations to why the current design is such as it is.

None that I've seen the devs give or that are plausible when scrutinized.

Choosing one doesn't mean that the others are out of business. It simply means that this one is given a certain focus and resources over the others.

Then the system makes even less sense because then you have something like 4 or 5 chiefs of the army active at the same time.

There comes a point where something is too abstracted. I believe this has reached that point.

 

[GsusNSV]

There is no difficulty in appointing cabinet ministers in most cases, and especially not in authoritarian governments. You don't need political capital if you are the government.

Ehh, yes you do need political power, even in authoritarian regimes. I think especially in something like NS-Germany it is difficult to just throw out political leaders. Hitler in '36 can't just replace Göring, Himmler or Goebbels, without some fabricated claims, which he then must push through, what will cost him probably influence aka political power.

 

[jamesd]

I think all positions should be filled as at 1 Jan 1936 with the historical incumbents, and if the player wants to change then it costs political points. It looks like a country can accumulate enough points to comfortably make 1 appointment per year, but all of the countries have existed for years prior to game start and so should have positions filled.

An alternative could be to give each country a starting pool of points so that the player can fill a number of positions from day 1. This would allow maximum player choice for those who want the full sandbox experience.

 

[FUregistration]

It just doesn't make sense.

(I apologize if I sound harsh, it just seems that Paradox totally departed from their usually good record with this decision and that bothers me)

I understand your point, it doesn't make sense and it does seem that Paradox departed from what (at least I) expected of them, and those unorthodox decisions keep stacking.
However I also see that they want to make the game more approachable and easier to manage, while I disagree with half of the decisions they made on this regard, I agree with the other half.

By starting empty the player has to make decisions about where to focus their country whilst leaving room for ahistorical play.

And this is a good reason to have them start empty, or at least have the option when you start a game if you want to start empty or start filled.

 

[Ksyr]

They are filled, but there is always bickering and political backstabbing going on so the person can't do his job properly. One day the leadership(player) decides enough is enough and make it clear to everyone that person X shall be in charge of the navy and persons Y, Z and W can just shut up.

When proposing changes please keep in mind what the change actually accomplishes. Does it add management for no real change? Does it remove options by adding no-brainer decisions? If you "always" choose minister X, Y and Z for Germany then you don't have more choices, you actually have less. If you have to choose between X, Y and Z then thats exactly what you have to do. Make a choice and live with it.

Also, lets say you want the game to start with minister bonuses already active. What if Germany start with a minister that gives a bonus to military factories? You then need to rebalance the game. You have to remove some factories from Germany at start and perhaps also make them more costly to build to compensate. In the end the result is the same, but the game is more difficult to balance and it gives the player another advantage against the AI.

 

[Alliegorical]

I understand why for changing something political power is needed, but why for appointing people to vacant positions? That has always seemed weird to me, where you just have a couple guys running the country because there isn't enough political power to have a full cabinet.

It really seems like strictly a gameplay decision, but in this case I'm okay with it. Just imagine that the positions are initially held by some other unexceptional dudes.

 

[GsusNSV]

Actually we are all talking about something, that is not even in the game. (Purely technical speaking)
HoI 4 has NO cabinet. The 3 empty slots under Government are Political Advisor. So that could be anyone, not only minister.

One could argue that the Chief of Army/Navy/Air should be filled, but for me this is a gameplay reason. It would give some countrys just an unfair advantage.
To stay historical you would also need to implement someone like e.g. Ernst Udet. He was resposible for re-arming the Luftwaffe before the war and was so enthusiastic about dive bomber, that he practically stoped the development of any other bomber type than CAS. Which would turn into a, wait until you have enough PP to finaly kick this guy out, type of chore.

 

[Joppos]

There is no difficulty in appointing cabinet ministers in most cases, and especially not in authoritarian governments. You don't need political capital if you are the government.

I'm sorry, my whole paragraph seemed to have been cut off.

Anyhow; Sure, you can appoint people with relative ease, but we should not pretend that enacting ones vision and potential in government is a trivial thing. There is a very complex and demanding game going on there, which i think is very adequately represented in having to pay some abstract unit for.

I guess you imagine the bonuses given are just from the individual being there in government, but this is not really a better representation.

 

[jaredstanko]

i just thought of a fun game-play modifier for a ruler or party or government or whatever

change the amount of PP that can be given to a focus each day, without changing the amount of PP earned. might be OP, especially because it looks like there isn't much to spend PP on once you fill out your cabinet, minus free-form stuff like organic diplomacy, and more NF's. but it was a nice thought.