Not very fun playing small countries

[hkrommel]

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.

The problem here is that you're getting too specific and essentially assuming your conclusion on the output. The desired output is that Germany beats France in 1940. Exactly how that happens is relevant, but less relevant. Obviously the closer the game gets to representing the historical means of victory, the better, but when it matters (i.e. when the game is proceeding historically and the player is not intervening ahistorically) the crucial issue is whether France falls, not precisely how it does.

I am also not suggesting we ignore causality. For some reason you just can't understand prioritization. I clearly spelled out that under my preferred approach, you start with historical inputs to the extent possible. This will necessarily "ignore" a lot of causality because game mechanics do not represent the entire universe of causes to each historical event, and they cannot represent that because the entire universe of causes is unknown. So you're already starting with approximation and abstraction. The difference between you and me is that I think that's perfectly OK, whereas you seem to think it's some sort of Pandora's Box, binary scenario where the second you open up the slightest bit of uncertainty, the whole system gets thrown out the window.

Then, to the extent that historical results are not reached due to limitations in AI, mechanics, etc., you tweak the inputs. Not to make them entirely ahistorical, because that means the real issue is with your mechanics and so you should focus on fixing those, but when the mechanics are "close enough" you can make the historical inputs "close enough" too, in order to get historical outputs. And, since we're discussing historical outputs on a more general level, they don't need to be exact. Japan just needs to stall out in China without player intervention. It doesn't matter the exact provinces where they stall out.

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.

Sure, I just want balance where that sort of thing isn't possible without exploits. It's too absurd. And before you ask, no there isn't some absolute rule on what's "too absurd." And before you say it, no that doesn't mean we throw up our hands in despair and decide that anything goes. The world isn't binary like that.

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.

1. We're talking about a judgment call in game design, not some binary rule or some coding question. So no, it's not a threshold problem. There are things that are definitely OK, some that are definitely not, and a decent amount of gray area. It's a question of what you or I want out of the game in terms of experience and what balance targets would work best to design the game around. That's absolutely a judgment call.

2. We're talking about a theoretical standard, obviously not the one that exists, so I'm not sure how that's relevant.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The problem here is that you're getting too specific and essentially assuming your conclusion on the output. The desired output is that Germany beats France in 1940. Exactly how that happens is relevant, but less relevant. Obviously the closer the game gets to representing the historical means of victory, the better, but when it matters (i.e. when the player is not France) the crucial issue is whether France falls, not precisely how it does.

The same should count for Bhutan then. The *reason* they can't build and fire a nuke shouldn't matter, because in HOI 4 the AI Bhutan will never do it and the player must do some pretty outlandish stuff that's even less plausible than the nukes themselves to make it possible.

I am also not suggesting we ignore causality, for some reason you just can't understand prioritization. I clearly spelled out that under my preferred approach, you start with historical inputs to the extent possible. This will necessarily "ignore" a lot of causality because game mechanics do not represent the entire universe of causes to each historical event, and they cannot represent that because the entire universe of causes is unknown.

"To the extent possible" is a packed statement. When you unpack it, you find you will have to have some threshold/point at which you are willing to claim that being more historical "isn't possible". In practice, more historical is "possible" at significant gameplay expense. This threshold represents your standards, and it should be internally consistent if you consider your preferences coherent.

I suspect you actually do have coherent preferences, but are not articulating them accurately in this discussion because it's hard to do that and it won't actually change the game.

The difference between you and me is that I think that's perfectly OK, whereas you seem to think it's some sort of Pandora's Box, binary scenario where the second you open up the slightest bit of uncertainty, the whole system gets thrown out the window.

I'm asking for a consistent degree of abstraction.

Sure, I just want balance where that sort of thing isn't possible without exploits. It's too absurd. And before you ask, no there isn't some absolute rule on what's "too absurd." And before you say it, no that doesn't mean we throw up our hands in despair and decide that anything goes. The world isn't binary like that.

I'm reasonably confident you don't even know for certain what you mean when you say "exploit" . But right now it's true regardless, Bhutan can research whatever but it will not actually develop a nuke unless player manages to, for example, snag all of India + SEA and/or Russia. Possible for very experienced players in SP, not happening in MP if anybody opposing Bhutan is kind of trying.

1. We're talking about a judgment call in game design, not some binary rule or some coding question. So no, it's not a threshold problem. There are things that are definitely OK, some that are definitely not, and a decent amount of gray area. It's a question of what you or I want out of the game in terms of experience and what would work best to design the game around. That's absolutely a judgment call.

I know this isn't your fault, but lack of consistent standards has outright damaged games, including Pdox games. We see weird patch changes/implementations as examples fairly often. Consider starting cores in EU4, or the right-click planning nerf in HOI 4, or the HOI 4 naval game in general for that matter (want to defeat every navy in the world with pre-1930 ships and 10 dockyards? You can!). Or how puppets usually interact vs how focuses break them.

The reason we get broken outcomes in theses cases stems from self-inconsistent standards (among other things). The rules for puppets should be good enough, and if they're not they should be improved until they are. But instead, we get focuses that bypass the established game rules, breaking internal consistency.

Same goes for Bhutan vs say Germany getting nukes. If you ban nukes to Bhutan, you could get a scenario where Germany is an OPM in the Caribbean and can develop a nuclear program while Bhutan with 2/3 of the world can't. That's stupid, and the game doesn't need to do it in order to ensure minors can't normally fire nukes. It can just use the rules it already has, which in this case actually work well enough as an abstraction.

 

[Blackxoul]

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.

Hmm nope that's Bhutanese solider i guess

typical Burmese militia would look like this : https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/asia/burma/def/w2b-bd41.html

before ww2 starts, Myanmar have two type of military route for typical person; 1. service under UK crown and 2. training under Japan to fight independence during ww2 ( only few were selected until invasion of Japan to UK controlled Burma begin.

 

[Aeroclub]

When talking about minors being OP, think about this:

Liberia, Bhutan or Tannu Tuva can get up to 4 mils just from their generic foci (meaning without any kind of investment) in 1936, which is almost a half of the initial industrial capacity of the US at the time. Do I need to say more?

 

[RELee]

Necromancy is discouraged.