Not very fun playing small countries

[bizkit]

I'm surprised no one mentioned Turkey. It's a lot of fun to play with Turkey. You can grab Greece before war starts without provoking majors. Join axis after Poland falls, blitz through Levant and Egypt. Exploit the Yugoslavian war and grab until Montenegro for resources. Grab Bulgaria for spite and for the lulz. Walk over Iraq and Saudis and Yemen laughing at their primitive technology and BOOM you're now Ottoman (it's ridiculous yeah) and a major power with 2 million manpower. Your biggest problem is steel, though, you can trade tons from Germany. After Barbarossa, join the war and take Caucasians which cripples Soviets. Oh God I will start a new game tonight..

 

[mpop]

Maybe give an option to develop resources and extra industry at cost of a lot of PP. Because when you are playing minor the game is usually around 1945 when you have maxed your province slots and used all your PP on more important stuff. That would be nice when the war is still dragging on due to Allies horrible AI getting stomped by the Axis with no one to trade with. That at least gives the minor small benefit for people that likes to play them without using cheese tactics.

 

[safe-keeper]

In HOI4 you can restore the Byzantine empire as Greece, and in an upcoming expansion they will allow Morroco to reform Al Adalusia, despite there not being a major Muslim prescence in Iberia for atleast 400 years.

Yes, that's the player taking a country down a different route than in reality, and a staple of PDX games.

What's also been a staple of PDX games, however, is that some countries just are far stronger than others. Byzantines and the Mongol hordes in Crusader Kings II, China in Europa Universalis, Britain in Victoria II. In the Europa Universalis games you are even locked into tech groups forcing you to research more slowly than the Westerners. If you're playing Europa Universalis IV, you are going to be weaker and have far fewer options as Norway than as the English. Deal with it or buy another game.

It's one thing to just take your country down a different route, because you are a player with free will, it's another to arbitrarily decide that your country can suddenly make nuclear bombs, or even just tanks or airplanes.

Edit: in fact, different tiers of options is a staple of video games in general. If I play Gran Turismo and get in a street car, I shouldn't expect it to be able to perform as well as a high-end race car. I can't get into a Nissan Leaf or a Toyota Aygo and say "but I have player agency, so I should be able to overtake that Lamborghini going at 300+ kph!".

 

[safe-keeper]

For perspective, here is the Bhurmese army as of the 20th century.

Granted, that's very early 20th century. By the 40s, with Indian help, they had massed an army of... 240 men. They probably even had rifles and everything.

But sure, as a Burmese player you should totally have nukes by 1945.

 

[Dlin369]

I kinda wish the industry branch for the generic tree gives bonuses based off your current factory count - like efficiency buffs instead of factories if you have <10 factories or maybe less consumer goods factory count (since that scales to your industrial size). Only the last or late Industrial tree should give you factories

that way there is some advantage to local, centralized rule with autonomous puppets over a big empire directly ruled by the metropole, but not a boost of GDP that is several times the starting amount

 

[Josar]

I

For perspective, here is the Bhurmese army as of the 20th century.

View attachment 543930

Granted, that's very early 20th century. By the 40s, with Indian help, they had massed an army of... 240 men. They probably even had rifles and everything.

But sure, as a Burmese player you should totally have nukes by 1945.

I don't know what to tell, but I do not think they are going to lock nukes to certain nation's. There are certain abstractions to the game. They may if had a army if 240, but they likely had a much larger recruitable population, and money is not represented in game.

 

[safe-keeper]

I kinda wish the industry branch for the generic tree gives bonuses based off your current factory count - like efficiency buffs instead of factories if you have <10 factories or maybe less consumer goods factory count (since that scales to your industrial size). Only the last or late Industrial tree should give you factories

that way there is some advantage to local, centralized rule with autonomous puppets over a big empire directly ruled by the metropole, but not a boost of GDP that is several times the starting amount

That's a great solution. I've been advocating tiered national focus trees, but just making it percentage increases would be a lot less hassle .

I don't know what to tell, but I do not think they are going to lock nukes to certain nation's. There are certain abstractions to the game. They may if had a army if 240, but they likely had a much larger recruitable population, and money is not represented in game.

I wasn't talking about hard-locking anything, just that nations should be as strong or weak as they were historically, balance permitting (obviously they had to nerf the US pretty heavily, for instance).

 

[Tuktuk]

They generally don’t have much fun in this era - it’s good that you are generally given to play for them.

Small countries at this time tried not to notice them.

 

[ashbery76]

I dont think it was very fun being a small nation in WW2 historically.

Dunno most did not have 100k+ of death to deal with.

 

[Jango40]

Small countries are pretty fun to play IMO, the problem is you're on speed 5 a lot and the 1940 slowdown just makes playing a chore.

 

[seattle]

If you want campy fun with minor nations, just use the Road to 56 mod.
Brazil becomes a world beater and even the likes of Iran, Iraq and Venezuela are fit for world conquest.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I wasn't talking about hard-locking anything, just that nations should be as strong or weak as they were historically, balance permitting (obviously they had to nerf the US pretty heavily, for instance).

Quoted is a self-contradiction of standards.

 

[hkrommel]

Quoted is a self-contradiction of standards.

Nope, you just don't understand the nuance, as usual. Hard locking something would be simply preventing Bhutan from even attempting to have a nuclear program. @safe-keeper isn't saying that should happen. He/she is saying that Bhutan should be able to attempt to start a nuclear program, but that it should face its historical inadequacy when doing so. In effect that means Bhutan could put every ounce of its national effort into trying to develop nukes, and of course wouldn't come close to doing so (without mods/cheats etc.), but that's not the same thing as preventing them from trying it at all.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Nope, you just don't understand the nuance, as usual. Hard locking something would be simply preventing Bhutan from even attempting to have a nuclear program. @safe-keeper isn't saying that should happen. He/she is saying that Bhutan should be able to attempt to start a nuclear program, but that it should face its historical inadequacy when doing so. In effect that means Bhutan could put every ounce of its national effort into trying to develop nukes, and of course wouldn't come close to doing so (without mods/cheats etc.), but that's not the same thing as preventing them from trying it at all.

He is also saying it is sometimes okay to model said historical inadequacy, but other times it isn't, with "balance" as the basis provided.

 

[hkrommel]

He is also saying it is sometimes okay to model said historical inadequacy, but other times it isn't, with "balance" as the basis provided.

Yep. Not everything is all-or-nothing as you would have it. It would be game breaking to have the US modeled at historical strength, so having some balance there is appropriate. That's a decent standard right there, it's a question of how much something upsets the balance where stuff that's game breaking definitely gets changed away from historical parameters.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yep. Not everything is all-or-nothing as you would have it.

"All or nothing" is not a valid refutation to incoherent standards. If "balance" as a standard is okay in some situations and not in others, there needs to be a reason for that which explains why the same argument doesn't count consistently. So far, that basis has not even been suggested.

It would be game breaking to have the US modeled at historical strength, so having some balance there is appropriate. That's a decent standard right there, it's a question of how much something upsets the balance where stuff that's game breaking definitely gets changed away from historical parameters.

I see where you're coming from with this at least, but it's a strange priority set. Stated proposition is:

1. Historical consistency most likely to impact the game should be altered in favor of "gameplay balance".
2. Minor historical consistency that only minimally alters play experience with deviations should restrict the deviation.

That comes off as somewhat back to front. If a balance change that makes the game more playable despite being a deviation from history that drastically effects the war is deemed okay, it doesn't make sense to reject a balance change that makes a country more playable which minimally effects the war.

 

[hkrommel]

I see where you're coming from with this at least, but it's a strange priority set. Stated proposition is:

1. Historical consistency most likely to impact the game should be altered in favor of "gameplay balance".
2. Minor historical consistency that only minimally alters play experience with deviations should restrict the deviation.

That comes off as somewhat back to front. If a balance change that makes the game more playable despite being a deviation from history that drastically effects the war is deemed okay, it doesn't make sense to reject a balance change that makes a country more playable which minimally effects the war.

Except that's not what I'm saying. If historical consistency would be game-breaking or create issues with not replicating historical outputs (for example, France being nerfed because if it had historical equipment it would stop Germany every time), then it gives way to balance.

Bhutan having the capacity for a nuclear program is neither a historical input (Bhutan didn't have that capacity) nor a historical output (Bhutan did not, and could not develop one in the game's timeframe). Therefore it should not be in the game for either reason. Basically the principle is you start with historical inputs (as the mechanics allow, of course) and you see if those get you to historical outputs if everyone acts historically. If not, then you need to tweak them. Layer on the limitations of the mechanics being imperfect representation, abstractions, etc.

Now, since this is a standard there will be edge cases that you could argue either way, but that doesn't make a standard inconsistent or incoherent, that's just what a standard is. A judgment call based on some purpose or principle with uncertainty at the margin.

 

[safe-keeper]

He is also saying it is sometimes okay to model said historical inadequacy, but other times it isn't, with "balance" as the basis provided.

Of course I am. The US simply can't be the powerhouse it was in reality, for instance. France can't be more powerful than Germany as in reality, because Germany needs to beat them close to hundred percent of the time.

That doesn't, of course, mean that every minor should be far stronger than in reality.

 

[kimidf]

It is logical that it is not fun with these countries due to the lack of flavor and content that stimulates playing with these countries especially in the game in vanilla in which most still have a generic tree that I find too rigid and not very immersive that it doesn't help to encourage people to play with them

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Except that's not what I'm saying. If historical consistency would be game-breaking or create issues with not replicating historical outputs (for example, France being nerfed because if it had historical equipment it would stop Germany every time), then it gives way to balance.

Bhutan having the capacity for a nuclear program is neither a historical input (Bhutan didn't have that capacity) nor a historical output (Bhutan did not, and could not develop one in the game's timeframe). Therefore it should not be in the game for either reason.

France being gimped is neither a historical input (they had more stuff) nor a historical output (they were not overrun by German superior numbers across the front in late 1939). An output without the historical input is not historical, and that's not a matter of opinion. History did not ignore causality, and that *is* what you're suggesting with the above.

In a normal HOI 4 game Bhutan will never produce a nuke during 1936-1948 right now, so I don't see the issue. If they somehow manage to grab more territory + people, it's somewhat more plausible, but still unlikely (and this still holds in the game, nukes take a lot of IC). If they somehow take 2/3 of the world having nukes stops being implausible at all compared to the rest of the scenario at that point.

Anyway, we might be arguing different things as a premise before this discussion. I am not in favor of buffing minor nations, they're already strong enough to WC in single player if optimized. That's more than enough. I would be opposed to the concept that Bhutan or whoever would still be incapable of producing nukes even if they, for example, full annexed the United States (which the game allows), because blocking nukes at that point would be silly and internally inconsistent.

Of course I am. The US simply can't be the powerhouse it was in reality, for instance. France can't be more powerful than Germany as in reality, because Germany needs to beat them close to hundred percent of the time.

That doesn't, of course, mean that every minor should be far stronger than in reality.

Buffing/nerfing nations for gameplay and refusing to buff/nerf nations for gameplay at the same time isn't a coherent preference set.

Now, since this is a standard there will be edge cases that you could argue either way, but that doesn't make a standard inconsistent or incoherent, that's just what a standard is. A judgment call based on some purpose or principle with uncertainty at the margin.

Standards in the context we are using them don't work that way. If your threshold for acceptability changes this way, it does not conform to a standard at all.

When a standard is "we only accept scores of 70 or higher to pass the course" or "you must have scored at least X on exam to be considered when applying", that is not a judgment call.

Similarly, the standard actually used in HOI 4 is that history is the theme. Conforming to historical outcomes is not, and neither is conforming to historical capabilities. There's no basis for randomly making exceptions. There is some consistent basis for denying Bhutan nukes from a gameplay perspective...but the game already does that without needing to self-inconsistently invoke history in the discussion. The rules alone are good enough.

Nations with terrible IC + few research slots can't nuke anything in meaningful timeframe in HOI 4. That's true for all nations and is adaptive to situations that actually present in the game while being consistent with the rules elsewhere. Bhutan isn't an exception and doesn't need to be. Neither does France, Argentina, or USA.