Need help from logic experts: "Paradox should incorporate alternate history because that is what people buy"

[hkrommel]

That mechanics are like they are, is ww2 specific. I see neither mechanics for Zeppelin or flying saucer aircraft nor power armoured infantry fueled with unobtainium, psychic powers employed by nation leaders ("Führermana"), cyberwar techs or anything else. Sandbox or not, the mechanics fit WW2. They are, as outlined, historically fit and not alt history.

No, these are not WW2 specific. They are time period specific. They fit Kaiserreich or any other alt history mod set in the same time period just as well as they do WW2. Japan doesn't use flying saucers if they go Communist. The US doesn't stop using fuel because it goes Fascist.

The mechanics are not a differentiating feature between WW2 and a 1930s-40s sandbox.

First, pdx Invest, they don't spend. And they expect that expenditure on content pays for itself, plus interest.

Those are the same thing. Investing is just spending and expecting a return. When I spend money I expect the item I purchase to be worth the money. Thus I spend and expect a return. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "donate," but then why would that be relevant as it was never the case that anyone thought Paradox was a charity?

Edit: I'm guessing there's a misunderstanding on this point. Paradox has a reason to spend its money (which is the point I think you're making). The purpose of this thread as I understand it is to try and analyze what flaws that reasoning may have as a logical exercise, with full knowledge that we don't have sufficient data to reach a full conclusion.

Second: your reasoning implies that Just throwing enough money at, say, AI issues solves the problems we see with it.

I think there is a misunderstanding here:

Every unit of currency spent on content design is not spent on something else, so that argument is simply false at a basic level. Yes, there are issues of diminishing returns but none of us here on the forums have the slightest idea of where that line is, so making the bald assertion that "content does not compete" is absurd without greater insight.

My argument is that you lack sufficient data to make your argument. I never argued that there was sufficient data to show that the converse of your argument was true, in fact I specifically disclaimed that.

Two things here: the actual bottleneck might be the availability of skilled and fitting staff, for as successful as hoi4 is, why would they not hire available staff? It's an Investment. ROI. I see nothing that suggests they don't have the 100k necessary to hire one.

That depends on what their business plan is. Either way I never claimed to know what goes on inside Paradox, only that you don't either so your argument lacks sufficient data and is, on a basic level, implausible due to opportunity costs. It may well be that the next dollar spent on programmers is so useless that it can safely be spent on content designers, but we cannot know that this is the case.

Edited for clarity

 

[Zauberelefant]

No, these are not WW2 specific. They are time period specific. They fit Kaiserreich or any other alt history mod set in the same time period just as well as they do WW2. Japan doesn't use flying saucers if they go Communist. The US doesn't stop using fuel because it goes Fascist.

The mechanics are not a differentiating feature between WW2 and a 1930s-40s sandbox.



Those are the same thing. Investing is just spending and expecting a return. When I spend money I expect the item I purchase to be worth the money. Thus I spend and expect a return. Perhaps the word you were looking for was "donate," but then why would that be relevant as it was never the case that anyone thought Paradox was a charity?

Edit: I'm guessing there's a misunderstanding on this point. Paradox has a reason to spend its money (which is the point I think you're making). The purpose of this thread as I understand it is to try and analyze what flaws that reasoning may have as a logical exercise, with full knowledge that we don't have sufficient data to reach a full conclusion.



I think there is a misunderstanding here:



My argument is that you lack sufficient data to make your argument. I never argued that there was sufficient data to show that the converse of your argument was true, in fact I specifically disclaimed that.



That depends on what their business plan is. Either way I never claimed to know what goes on inside Paradox, only that you don't either so your argument lacks sufficient data and is, on a basic level, implausible due to opportunity costs. It may well be that the next dollar spent on programmers is so useless that it can safely be spent on content designers, but we cannot know that this is the case.

Edited for clarity

I actually tried to make the point that, as you said, mechanics are period specific, they are in, alt history or not. I think we're on the same page here.

The thing about investing was simply that pdx so that because they expect ROI, aka excess revenue over cost. So, whatever we think about AI priority, they do what generates revenue.

The point about content does not compete wasn't about diminishing Returns (and since you don't know where that line is, either - why do you argue that it's not touched yet?), It was about the fact that content designers cannot substitute AI programmers, but are needed to create stuff that generates revenue, which AI doesn't. Or what would you say if they decided to paywall proper AI im form of a DLC?

But: we cannot know. No one does. This thread is highly speculative and theoretical.

For all I can say, pdx probably do act on the best data they have. And the best data I have tells me that WW2 flavour is popular, while actual WW2 history buffs are rare.

I therefore assume pdx sell a WW2 flavour game to a wider audience than a hardcore WW2 sim could appeal to.

Then again, I and they might be wrong by a large degree.

 

[hkrommel]

The thing about investing was simply that pdx so that because they expect ROI, aka excess revenue over cost. So, whatever we think about AI priority, they do what generates revenue.

They do what they think will generate revenue. That doesn't mean it will be the right or optimal decision.

The point about content does not compete wasn't about diminishing Returns (and since you don't know where that line is, either - why do you argue that it's not touched yet?)

I never argued that. Not once. I suspect it isn't touched but I don't have enough information to argue it.

It was about the fact that content designers cannot substitute AI programmers, but are needed to create stuff that generates revenue, which AI doesn't. Or what would you say if they decided to paywall proper AI im form of a DLC?

The fact is that a million people bought HOI4 and far fewer than that number play it on a regular basis. Only people who play the game (or mods that require DLC) buy the DLC. So the question isn't what "sells" only on DLC terms, the question is what the follow-on effects of AI (and other things, but limiting this to AI) are.

If people stop playing because of the AI, they aren't buying DLC, so Paradox isn't making money. It isn't nearly as simple as paywalls and that sort of thing, it's that you need to get people to play the game before selling them addons to the game. If the AI was better, more people would play, and more people would buy DLC. The question is how many, and that's speculation. But the basic point is that the free updates have a potentially significant influence on how well DLC sells, and it's illogical to view content creation as a 1:1 relation to making money. The state of the base game multiplies the money-making potential of a given DLC.

For all I can say, pdx probably do act on the best data they have. And the best data I have tells me that WW2 flavour is popular, while actual WW2 history buffs are rare.

I therefore assume pdx sell a WW2 flavour game to a wider audience than a hardcore WW2 sim could appeal to.

I think you have set up a false dichotomy of what HOI4 could be, but that's another discussion. I'm more curious as to what data you have? In an earlier post I outlined how there are lots of statistical issues with the way Paradox presents its data to the players. I'm sure they have better data on the backend but still, they often run off of percentages which do not account for survivor bias and self-fulfilling prophecy, both of which are major issues.

Plus, there's the significant problem of HOI4 increasingly becoming indistinguishable, in market terms, from some of its mods. The greater the extent HOI4 becomes a sandbox, the greater the extent to which people will only buy HOI4 to play Kaiserreich or some other mod like that, or to play one of the historical mods, etc. I don't think the developers want people to buy their games just to play overhaul mods, and I certainly don't think that kind of thing bodes well for the series. I think it's far better to create a distinct and focused experience, but allow mods to turn it into something like Kaiserreich, Old World Blues, etc.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

The way I see it the Historical stuff has always been the focus of the game and what the game is built and Balanced around. Just look at how quick a game can collapse into spam and stalemates with Historical off.

Some ahistorical stuff can be an interesting what if moment. The crazy stuff can gets into fan fiction territory though but thankfully it can be avoided.

The Memes are what make it in the YouTube Vids though: ( LMAO Albania wins WW1 and Presitdent Hitler) They get the game free advertising above being another WW2 game. Those Vids are free advertising and what will keep the lights on at PDX.

Whenever any pack comes out Paradox always dives into the Historical side first and leaves the meme stuff for the youtubers.

 

[permanently_afk]

At the risk of not being current, but I think the question deserves some answering.

I don't see the connection between

"I believe that the plausible alternative history is not the same as the totally fantastic history, for example recreating a new Byzantine empire in which the Greeks or Bulgarians of the mid-30s never or if raised in any way aPolitically plausible concept but a free fanservice that would be historical anachronisms without any sentimental value for these countries."

and

"There is this ridiculous theory that Germany could have won ww2."

Help me connect the dots between the two statements please.

Each statement makes sense by themselves.

Kimidf appears to be arguing against having HoI4 recreate a new Byzantine empire "totally fantastic history"
TalyonUngol appears to be stating that it is a totally fantastic history that Germany could have won WW2.

I suppose the two statements are connected by saying, "If Germany could win WW2, then Greece can resurrect a 1500 year old dead empire."

Did I get that right?

They are mostly fighting about what they consider "plausible" instead of "fantastic" alternate history (AH). Problem for me is, that it is very much dependent on the biases and morality of the one making the statement. Which probably also confuses you.

For example, imagine telling a frenchman in 1920 that in a hundred years their closest ally would be Germany, who'd they'll fight another war with and have their greatest war hero lay down a common wreath at Verdun with the german chancellor shortly after. And the rest of the world would be talk of the "Axis Paris-Berlin". If they don't resort to violence, you'd at least be called crazy and a phantast and be reassured that the germans have always have been and forever will be the enemy of the french. And that it is more likely that the french border will be on the Rhine than your crazy scenario. More arguments that are likely: After all, there are plenty rhenish separatists and there is historical precedent. And that thing called the German Reich is just a measly 50 years old. An artificial construct as the natural state of Germany is a lot of little states with some under the benevolent protection of France.

A bit more abstract/structured with a few term definitions first:

• OTL (Original Time Line): History as it has happened in "real" history. Notably, this is the exact sequence of events. Which means a WW2 which does not involve a battle of Stalingrad (instead a confrontation happens in Saratov) does NOT qualify. If you want, you can refer a world wide war which involves USA/UK/FR/UDssR vs GER/ITA/JAP as OTL-ish, imho you should not expect it to behave anything like history. Which leads us to the
• ATL (Alternate Time Line): Which is any sequence of events not OTL (which means, by definition, every game of HoI4 is an ATL - in turn rendering complaints like "There is no guaranteed battle of Stalingrad" moot, because they are not even wrong). If an event has a "rough pendant" in OTL, you can prefix it with "alt-" (Which, when applied to the statement of @TalyonUngol renders his statement both true [since Germany didn't win OTL WW2] and false [since there is goodly amount of data which implies that Germany could win an alt-WW2 and would not even need an undue amount of luck for it]). A classical fallacy in this range is that people see outcomes of OTL and do not question why that outcome came about, instead setting it as an immutable characteristic of that actor. An ATL diverges at the:
• PoD (Point of Divergence): The point(s) in time an ATL starts diverging from OTL. This can be a single event (Princips weapon jams a second time leading Franz Ferdiand to survive, averting the WWs and reforming AH into a Danubian Federation), broad strokes which can't be pinned down to a single item (over time the various skirmishes in Weimar go more in favor of the communists, leading to a Red Reich which triggers a Red Tide in alliance with the UdSSR) or a set of distinct but indepenent events (which are not broad enough to cause significant diversion on their own, but add up. Sorry, no example)
  In general, all PoDs are subject to the want-of-a-nail rule. This means, the further you go from a PoD the more doors open. Which means if I deal with a PoD of 1900, 2020 can look unrecognizably different. Which often a subject of contention, how fast and how far those doors open.
  For me there is also what I call the hollywood collorary, which states that the more an ATL diverges from the narratives of OTL more hostility it will recieve. For example , many ATLs feature the USA going onto a sudden anti-fascist crusade in 1942 (or 1945), despite having diverged significantly before (say, President Lindbergh). If I had to guess, this is due to the authors wanting the USA to be on the "right side of history" as the were OTL, while forgetting that history is written by the winners. Which leads scenarios such as an alt-1940s where everything but a constitutional monarchy is seen as irrational in in Europe, and a presidential republic is "an american thing" seldomly being considered. We even have a thread in these forums about that disconnect currently.
  Personally, I think few people are able to rationally handle a PoD previous to 1945 and will subconsciously try to nudge it toward an outcome similar to OTL. When you go pre-1914 you'll get a lot of flack for making scenarios where the Germans are not moustache-twirling villains or immediately comply with anything the UK/France/Russia demand of them.
• One more thing: The concept of escalating advantage (also known as Matthew effect) which OTL is traditionally the domain of the USA. If somebody else (say, the Germans in an alt-Barbarossa) suddenly profits from it, people often have problems reconciling it with their expectation of "proper" alternate history. In my eyes, this is a continuation of the fallacy that ascribes outcomes as inherent values to actors without acknowledging how those outcomes came about (namely in OTL, the germans f-ing up and having to divide their forces while the Soviets rallied while being aided by the WAllies). Which makes statements like "any alt-WW2" indefensible.
  And this is before nationalism of the author or statistics "modified" by a government come into play.

So, having written all that:
As previously stated, the statement "There is this ridiculous theory that Germany could have won ww2." is both true and false (since Germany did loose OTL WW2, while the assertion that Germany would loose any alt-WW2 is a bit of a stretch).
The other bit is: " totally fantastic history, for example recreating a new Byzantine empire in which the Greeks or Bulgarians of the mid-30s never or if raised in any way" which is correct (it wasn't raised in OTL) but misleading (since if a fascist/revanchist Greece does well enough with a PoD around 1936, you bet the will seize upon that mantle). They just never did well enough in OTL to entertain that thought.
For HOI4, that means the more "out there" they should be low on the focus tree or locked behind stiff prerequesites. And there is the problem that HOI4 has no prologue to model diversions prior to 1936. Or just implicitly via the first focus in a tree.

As for your original assertion: Many hardcore WW2-games outright deny the escalating advantage, often by offering only a set of scenarios or outright wiping any advantage you might have gained. This is probably an attempt to enforce the outcome "Germany looses" no matter how good the German player is or how much the soviet player fs-up. Which makes these kind of games uninteresting to me, since I have no love for counting bullets and blankes or reenacting OTL.

Edit: Good god, that got long oO

 

[Aeroclub]

At the risk of not being current, but I think the question deserves some answering.

They are mostly fighting about what they consider "plausible" instead of "fantastic" alternate history (AH). Problem for me is, that it is very much dependent on the biases and morality of the one making the statement. Which probably also confuses you.

For example, imagine telling a frenchman in 1920 that in a hundred years their closest ally would be Germany, who'd they'll fight another war with and have their greatest war hero lay down a common wreath at Verdun with the german chancellor shortly after. And the rest of the world would be talk of the "Axis Paris-Berlin". If they don't resort to violence, you'd at least be called crazy and a phantast and be reassured that the germans have always have been and forever will be the enemy of the french. And that it is more likely that the french border will be on the Rhine than your crazy scenario. More arguments that are likely: After all, there are plenty rhenish separatists and there is historical precedent. And that thing called the German Reich is just a measly 50 years old. An artificial construct as the natural state of Germany is a lot of little states with some under the benevolent protection of France.

A bit more abstract/structured with a few term definitions first:

• OTL (Original Time Line): History as it has happened in "real" history. Notably, this is the exact sequence of events. Which means a WW2 which does not involve a battle of Stalingrad (instead a confrontation happens in Saratov) does NOT qualify. If you want, you can refer a world wide war which involves USA/UK/FR/UDssR vs GER/ITA/JAP as OTL-ish, imho you should not expect it to behave anything like history. Which leads us to the
• ATL (Alternate Time Line): Which is any sequence of events not OTL (which means, by definition, every game of HoI4 is an ATL - in turn rendering complaints like "There is no guaranteed battle of Stalingrad" moot, because they are not even wrong). If an event has a "rough pendant" in OTL, you can prefix it with "alt-" (Which, when applied to the statement of @TalyonUngol renders his statement both true [since Germany didn't win OTL WW2] and false [since there is goodly amount of data which implies that Germany could win an alt-WW2 and would not even need an undue amount of luck for it]). A classical fallacy in this range is that people see outcomes of OTL and do not question why that outcome came about, instead setting it as an immutable characteristic of that actor. An ATL diverges at the:
• PoD (Point of Divergence): The point(s) in time an ATL starts diverging from OTL. This can be a single event (Princips weapon jams a second time leading Franz Ferdiand to survive, averting the WWs and reforming AH into a Danubian Federation), broad strokes which can't be pinned down to a single item (over time the various skirmishes in Weimar go more in favor of the communists, leading to a Red Reich which triggers a Red Tide in alliance with the UdSSR) or a set of distinct but indepenent events (which are not broad enough to cause significant diversion on their own, but add up. Sorry, no example)
  In general, all PoDs are subject to the want-of-a-nail rule. This means, the further you go from a PoD the more doors open. Which means if I deal with a PoD of 1900, 2020 can look unrecognizably different. Which often a subject of contention, how fast and how far those doors open.
  For me there is also what I call the hollywood collorary, which states that the more an ATL diverges from the narratives of OTL more hostility it will recieve. For example , many ATLs feature the USA going onto a sudden anti-fascist crusade in 1942 (or 1945), despite having diverged significantly before (say, President Lindbergh). If I had to guess, this is due to the authors wanting the USA to be on the "right side of history" as the were OTL, while forgetting that history is written by the winners. Which leads scenarios such as an alt-1940s where everything but a constitutional monarchy is seen as irrational in in Europe, and a presidential republic is "an american thing" seldomly being considered. We even have a thread in these forums about that disconnect currently.
  Personally, I think few people are able to rationally handle a PoD previous to 1945 and will subconsciously try to nudge it toward an outcome similar to OTL. When you go pre-1914 you'll get a lot of flack for making scenarios where the Germans are not moustache-twirling villains or immediately comply with anything the UK/France/Russia demand of them.
• One more thing: The concept of escalating advantage (also known as Matthew effect) which OTL is traditionally the domain of the USA. If somebody else (say, the Germans in an alt-Barbarossa) suddenly profits from it, people often have problems reconciling it with their expectation of "proper" alternate history. In my eyes, this is a continuation of the fallacy that ascribes outcomes as inherent values to actors without acknowledging how those outcomes came about (namely in OTL, the germans f-ing up and having to divide their forces while the Soviets rallied while being aided by the WAllies). Which makes statements like "any alt-WW2" indefensible.
  And this is before nationalism of the author or statistics "modified" by a government come into play.

So, having written all that:
As previously stated, the statement "There is this ridiculous theory that Germany could have won ww2." is both true and false (since Germany did loose OTL WW2, while the assertion that Germany would loose any alt-WW2 is a bit of a stretch).
The other bit is: " totally fantastic history, for example recreating a new Byzantine empire in which the Greeks or Bulgarians of the mid-30s never or if raised in any way" which is correct (it wasn't raised in OTL) but misleading (since if a fascist/revanchist Greece does well enough with a PoD around 1936, you bet the will seize upon that mantle). They just never did well enough in OTL to entertain that thought.
For HOI4, that means the more "out there" they should be low on the focus tree or locked behind stiff prerequesites. And there is the problem that HOI4 has no prologue to model diversions prior to 1936. Or just implicitly via the first focus in a tree.

As for your original assertion: Many hardcore WW2-games outright deny the escalating advantage, often by offering only a set of scenarios or outright wiping any advantage you might have gained. This is probably an attempt to enforce the outcome "Germany looses" no matter how good the German player is or how much the soviet player fs-up. Which makes these kind of games uninteresting to me, since I have no love for counting bullets and blankes or reenacting OTL.

Edit: Good god, that got long oO

This is very good and on point. The real question is not whether alt-history should be included, but rather what alt-history even is.

The truth is that almost any kind of player input will change the course of war and make it not a day-by-day reenactment of the real WW2, making it alt-history. However, it's one kind of alt-history if you purge Rokossovsky instead of Tuchachevsky as the SU, but another kind of alt-history if you recreate Al Andalus.

So until we agree on the clear distinction between "plausible" alt-history "crazy bonkers" alt-history, there can never be a good answer to the question of whether (and what kind of) alt-history should be included.

Case in point is Germany winning against the SU. Some people think it was plausible, some think it was a total fantasy, some think that it was a fantasy (but a player should be able to override that and achieve it anyway). I think the only way to approach this is to give the players an opportunity to do things differently with an option to switch it off if they don't feel like it. But that's pretty much the way things are right now with a Historical Foci toggle.

 

[TalyonUngol]

This is very good and on point. The real question is not whether alt-history should be included, but rather what alt-history even is.

The truth is that almost any kind of player input will change the course of war and make it not a day-by-day reenactment of the real WW2, making it alt-history. However, it's one kind of alt-history if you purge Rokossovsky instead of Tuchachevsky as the SU, but another kind of alt-history if you recreate Al Andalus.

So until we agree on the clear distinction between "plausible" alt-history "crazy bonkers" alt-history, there can never be a good answer to the question of whether (and what kind of) alt-history should be included.

Case in point is Germany winning against the SU. Some people think it was plausible, some think it was a total fantasy, some think that it was a fantasy (but a player should be able to override that and achieve it anyway). I think the only way to approach this is to give the players an opportunity to do things differently with an option to switch it off if they don't feel like it. But that's pretty much the way things are right now with a Historical Foci toggle.

Thats how it is for alt-history in the game right now. You don't HAVE to do it. Its there as an OPTION, but you are not forced to form Al Andalus. You -can- if you want to but not by any means are you forced to.

 

[Vlad123]

Then possible chronology:
-Germany defeats the SU
-Sea lion (not very much, but it was feasible and the British themselves prepared for an invasion, so it was a possibility)
-Italy remains out of the game (neutral).
-The UK is less of an idiot and does not play the alliance with Italy (frustrating Stresa, allowing the rearmament of Germany, when Italy was against it, not being hypocritical for colonialism in Ethiopia, it does not kidnap and then released the Italian shipping before it entered the war) and then Italy joined the allies.
-Spain enters the axis if the axis is winning or if it helps Franco to recover.
-Idem turkey.
-Japan ignores the American embargo and does not make Pearl Harbor and attacks Indonesia for oil and rubber.
-Roosvelt loses the election
Things not possible:
Roman Empire
Al-andalus
Byzantium (but the megal idea, with fascist greece yes!)
More fanciful states ...

 

[TalyonUngol]

Then possible chronology:
-Germany defeats the SU
-Sea lion (not very much, but it was feasible and the British themselves prepared for an invasion, so it was a possibility)
-Italy remains out of the game (neutral).
-The UK is less of an idiot and does not play the alliance with Italy (frustrating Stresa, allowing the rearmament of Germany, when Italy was against it, not being hypocritical for colonialism in Ethiopia, it does not kidnap and then released the Italian shipping before it entered the war) and then Italy joined the allies.
-Spain enters the axis if the axis is winning or if it helps Franco to recover.
-Idem turkey.
-Japan ignores the American embargo and does not make Pearl Harbor and attacks Indonesia for oil and rubber.
-Roosvelt loses the election
Things not possible:
Roman Empire
Al-andalus
Byzantium (but the megal idea, with fascist greece yes!)
More fanciful states ...

Sea Lion was not feasible. The German navy could not cross the seas nor could their airforce defeat tthe navy and the royal air force.
Germany beating SU was not feasible because the Soviet Union would not have surrendered. They could have been pushed back past the Urals and they would have still fought on. This had been discussed and debated by a ton of historians.
Italy reamins out of the game? Fine. Whoopdey doo. Such good gameplay.
UK being less of an idiot? Happy to hear it.

Spain entering the axis? I'd love to have it. If they could get Germany to use the Alliance with Spain and maybe even buff the focus so it gives Spain a good chunk of factories, I'd like to see it.
Japan ignoring the embargo? Sure. That could be interesting.
Roosevelt loosing the election? Eh, not sure what this will do for the game. If Japan attacks, America will enter the war.

Not being possible? Roman Empire was just as possible as the Soviet Union being defeated. Mussolini wanted the Roman Empire so it WAS possible in the time period by the logic that Germany could beat the SU. But you're right, it wouldn't be possible.


Feasible also has to contend with gameplay. Even if the alt-history is feasible is it really worth putting in just for a few games of difference? Probably not. Where as these formable nations open up a ton of different gameplay options for SP and MP. MP especially cause you and your friends could make a fun game.

Like Morroco, Poland, Sweden all form the New Axis Powers. Al Andalus, The Lithuanian empire and Nordic Empire. Thats just a very extreme example, but another example is Dutch East Indies forming their nation, going with a facist Manchuko forming the Chinese Empire((This is fantasy too btw.)), and then... Oh New Zealand and the Polynesian Empire. Just adds alot of gameplay ideas.

And if we could have a better AI system especially with puppets, it opens up gameplay ideas for SP too. Like making pupptes of the DEI and New Zealand, giving them their land and boom new empires. Would open up a ton of gameplay optinos.

 

[hkrommel]

I see we’ve gotten waaaay off topic yet again. @billcorr perhaps you should have asked for “reading the OP experts” as well

 

[GrandVezir]

I see we’ve gotten waaaay off topic yet again. @billcorr perhaps you should have asked for “reading the OP experts” as well

The original topic included:

What systematic errors could be applied evaluating the thesis "Paradox should include alternate history to HoI4 because the alt-hx sells" ?

I don't think addressing potential assumptions, biases, or flaws in the OP's definition of "alternate history" is off topic. Because, you know, it's right there in the topic. His entire reason for the post is to explore the notion that Paradox may be wrong that "alt-hx" sells.

But what if that premise is itself a conclusion: that Paradox's base game is alt-hx on install, rather than becoming so due to player choice?

 

[qer]

The only correct answer I can think of is that we don't know. There are too many factors to take into account. In fact, the definition of Alt-history is too broad to even make a correct analysis. What I can say is that Pdx sticks to this model right now, and if it works there is little reason to change it even with theorical better alternatives .

 

[hkrommel]

The original topic included:

I don't think addressing potential assumptions, biases, or flaws in the OP's definition of "alternate history" is off topic. Because, you know, it's right there in the topic. His entire reason for the post is to explore the notion that Paradox may be wrong that "alt-hx" sells.

But what if that premise is itself a conclusion: that Paradox's base game is alt-hx on install, rather than becoming so due to player choice?

Edit: OP put it better than I did:

The dialectic requires that contradictory views be presented and explored.

The thesis of this thread is:
"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4."

The implied antithesis is:
"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might not distort the potential market for HoI4."

The "mights" are too wishy-washy. For the sake of the dialectic, remove 'em.

Establishing the thesis and antithesis now propels this thread towards a synthesis.

(as an aside, this thread's thesis is a bit of an antithesis to the quote in the OP. Exploring possible systemic errors in measuring customer preference is in response to the statement "They're a lot of restorationist stuff because it sells a lot according to telemetry. "

So what the definition of what alt-history is, precisely, has nothing to do with systematic errors in measuring consumer preference. Further, any mention of the definition tends to spawn a nonesensical discussion on that topic which derails threads on these forums left and right, so it's unproductive at best, irrelevant and distracting at worst.

 

[GrandVezir]

Then you disagree with the premise of the thread and there's no need to engage, since the whole purpose of this thread is to theorize about things assuming that premise.

Er, what?

The whole purpose of the original post may have been that, but if the premise is flawed, then there's plenty of need to engage. You know, to point out that the original premise is flawed, and that therefore any conclusions drawn can only be correct by happy accident.

 

[hkrommel]

Er, what?

The whole purpose of the original post may have been that, but if the premise is flawed, then there's plenty of need to engage. You know, to point out that the original premise is flawed, and that therefore any conclusions drawn can only be correct by happy accident.

There's a difference between a flawed premise and one you merely dismiss. What you posted sounded like a summary dismissal because whatever "potential assumptions, biases, or flaws" there were in the use of the term "alt history," they were ancillary, at best, to the main purpose of this thread and the main premise of it. Which, to restate, was that:

"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4."

 

[Aeroclub]

There's a difference between a flawed premise and one you merely dismiss. What you posted sounded like a summary dismissal because whatever "potential assumptions, biases, or flaws" there were in the use of the term "alt history," they were ancillary, at best, to the main purpose of this thread and the main premise of it. Which, to restate, was that:

"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4."

Yeah but discussion of what alt-history is in the first place very much falls within the scope of such thesis.

If a player beats the USSR as Germany on historical foci, should he/she count as a player preferring alt-history or as a player preferring sticking to history? You can't answer the question on whether their measurement of customer preference is correct until we understand what and how do they measure in the first place.

 

[GrandVezir]

"Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4."

Since those "systemic errors" are in measuring the market for (OP's definition of) "alternate history", OP doesn't get to hand-wave that into a given, when it might be his definition that is the major flaw in the argument.

As a debating trick to shut off opposing views, it's not bad. But it's just a debating trick.

 

[hkrommel]

Since those "systemic errors" are in measuring the market for (OP's definition of) "alternate history", OP doesn't get to hand-wave that into a given, when it might be his definition that is the major flaw in the argument.

As a debating trick to shut off opposing views, it's not bad. But it's just a debating trick.

No, it's the market for HOI4. The systemic errors in and of themselves have nothing to do with alternate history, they have everything to do with measuring data affected by survivor bias, self-fulfilling prophecy, and other such things. That those errors happen to fall along alternate history lines is a coincidence of the market which has nothing to do with the actual argument, which takes place at a higher level than that.

It's not a debating trick to point out what the premise of the thread is, and how summary dismissal mean you aren't actually engaging with the argument.

 

[GrandVezir]

The premise of the thread is the entire original post.

Restricting the premise to the equivalent of "Paradox may or may not be wrong" after pushback, is the OP trying to not actually engage with counter-argument.

 

[hkrommel]

The premise of the thread is the entire original post.

That's not what a logical premise is. At all. "Systematic errors in measuring customer preference might distort the potential market for HoI4" is the initial argument, but there are multiple premises underlying that argument.

Restricting the premise to the equivalent of "Paradox may or may not be wrong" after pushback, is the OP trying to not actually engage with counter-argument.

...OP didn't do that though? OP clarified and, since OP is human and as prone to miscommunication and imperfect wording as the rest of us, OP has the ability to do that. It's a rather annoying feature of modern society where people refuse to accept clarification. In academic circles and professions where people "do" logic for a living, clarification of an initial argument is welcomed, not held over someone like Damocles' Sword. I suggest you follow that example.