Please, please revisit the major's focus trees before adding any more new ones

[Khevenhuller]

Democracies are literally saint, nobody is going to show you american business helping with german rearmament or show real reason, why France and Britain willingly feed Austria and Czechoslovakia to the Reich.

There is no 'willingly' about either case really. In the case of Austria, France was in the middle of its usual 6-monthly government crisis and the British were not going to go to war to prevent a bunch of Germans led by an authoritarian dictator swallow up another bunch of Germans led by an authoritarian dictator (however flabby that dictatorship was).

In regard to Czechoslovakia I'm sort of assuming you mean Munich. Daladier was very depressed by the whole affair and, when confronted by cheering crowds in Paris muttered 'the blind fools'. Chamberlain was more carried away by the public affirmation that he had avoided war, the telegram from Roosevelt (Good Man!) sort of underlined it. Britain was simply unready for war in 1938, as was France. Not only did London fully believe the German propaganda (whipped up by Churchill) but also only one Dominion Government, New Zealand, said they would back Britain up if it came to fisticuffs. It was not willingness, more resignation and a desire to avoid the horrors of the last war.

Then there is the curious case of the Soviet mobilisation to assist the Czechs. Although Voroshilov claimed to have done it, the French Military Attache travelled to the districts where this was said to be taking place and found no evidence of military preparations. One of the issues nagging at the French was whether this was real or simply a bluff, and whether Romania or Poland would allow the transit of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain, instinctively hostile to the USSR, did not believe or trust Moscow for a moment. What is pretty certain is that the USSR becomes convinced that the democracies will simply fold every time and drop the whole anti-fascist/popular front/League of Nations approach of Litvinov in favour of trying to keep Hitler off their backs as long as possible whilst building their own strength. Ironically, Hitler believed they would fold every time as well.

Besides, the Democracies did, generally, behave themselves. Primarily because they benefited from the existing order in the thirties and did not want to rock the boat, whether it be France, Denmark or the USA. It was the desire of the two other ideological groupings to overturn this order and the last effort by Britain and France to defend it that brings about war. Democracies do not tend to go to war against each other: the last time was in 1941 when Britain declared war on Finland, in solidarity with the USSR.

K

 

[Khevenhuller]

It is true. Even into the 1950's. My folks were alive to live through it, and it was an era of polite indifference. The legacy remains. Perhaps that's why, as an American, I try to avoid the subject. I know about it and have studied it, but I don't want to 'play a game' with it. It was wrong. Same way I envision myself as a 'benevolent dictator' of Germany where Jews weren't targeted, and like to play games where I can change history in that respect.

It is the elephant in the room with all WW2 strategic simulations. If you avoid it it looks like you are being cowardly, if you address it gets very grisly. Notwithstanding your concern that some prat will start spewing racist claptrap.

One area that I think could be usefully included is the German's use of conscripted labour from occupied countries. Increases their manpower, also increases partisan activity in those areas.

One thing you really cannot do is escape the ideological straitjackets that these forms of government create and the consequent political choices we, as players, are able to make. That is assuming you want a historically based strategy game, as opposed to simply a WW2 skin on any old game. You may want to think of Hitler as a benevolent dictator when you play him, but benevolent dictators do not go around invading neighbours, undertaking massive programmes of re-armament or having political opponents murdered. Hitler stops being Hitler if that goes. In the same way you cannot have Churchill without his outright hostility to Indian Independence (or even greater autonomy) and support for Edward VIII and Mrs Simpson: if you ever wondered why Churchill was distrusted over Germany in the thirties, things such as this undermined his reputation. But without them Churchill ceases to be Churchill.

Can you envision a USA in the thirties without isolationists, the Neutrality Act and the aftershocks of the Great Depression? How many babies are going to get thrown out with the bathwater until this game is simply flat, colourless and the same as every other thing? Instead of deepening understanding and creating immersion, it is playing to the desire to have no limits on player actions. But limits and choices are challenges, far more so than simply spamming lots of units and coming up with whatever implausible options you can. That is easy, simple, unfocussed and not in the least challenging.

Ok...ranting now.

K

 

[Brucesim2003]

I agree that a lot of the majors do indeed need more detailed focus trees but with an update we get into the slippery slope of how much alternate history is good and what is plausible and what isn't? I feel like regimes which were already well established such as National Socialist Germany. Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union and Empire of Japan should get more detailed focus trees for everything but change in politics. I don't see focuses that make any of those nations fascist, communist or democratic at all historically plausible and will really just kill the world war two feeling of the game. Just my honest opinion that at that point it would get to be to wild to be at all believable. Same goes for the restoration of monarchies in Germany and Russia which would never happen and is just not plausible at all. I don't mean to be rude but I know a lot of people think monarchy is great because apparently paradox fans agree with it politically and it attracts the CK II and EU IV crowd but it doesn't fit in with world war two unless you are talking about the existing monarchies of the period or a monarchy in name without a monarch, like Hungary

I disagree with this. In 1933 German democracy was (very roughly) as well established as was Russian communism, yet it fell to the Nazi's. Italian fascism was in the same league, yet it collapsed under the rigors of war. The various German monarchies vanished after being in place for (in some instances) 1000 years. American democracy is over 200 years old, yet since 9/11 has been steadily eroded to the point that I'm sure the founding fathers wouldn't recognise it for what it has become. (Yes, fascism can happen in the USA. It is no more immune to it than any other demoracy.)

The point is, no system is immune to being overthrown. German fascism is (at the start of the game) not well established at all. It has only been in power 3 years, and, with a bit of British encouragement, could have been ousted in October 1938.

If you want an historical WW2 game, turn on historical focuses. If you want a 'snap in time start' with 'where can we go from here', leave them off and have at some of the political alternatives.

The real problem is the major FT's don't make any sense with an ideological change in effect. That needs to change. If that means that only 1/3 of the political tree can be used in any one playthrough, so be it.

 

[JostyNL]

I'm surprised nobody actually pointed to the historical aims of Germany in WW2: the Germanic Empire.

 

[Sidetrack Nick]

I'm surprised nobody actually pointed to the historical aims of Germany in WW2: the Germanic Empire.

See post #30

 

[JostyNL]

You mean the 'Germanic alliance' part in post number 25?

Post 30 does not mention anything specifically related to this, only that the Kaiser somehow gets back from House Doorn to his lost throne.

 

[OCM]

Revamp focus tree for majors.
China is a major without focus tree.
D:

 

[Drewoid13]

Revamp focus tree for majors.
China is a major without focus tree.
D:

You'll be able to buy that as dlc for $10.99 I'm sure.

 

[Meglok]

You'll be able to buy that as dlc for $10.99 I'm sure.

China? Most likely because it doesn't exist currently. Revamping the majors and charging for it would probably be even more unpopular than the spearhead enhancement.

 

[Constans]

The fact that you even mentioned segregation in regards to the United States is extremely depressing. Also that you have this idea of creating racial states out of the United States. I don't mean to be a bummer but I really don't mind reporting this. The fact that you want this idea of existing states to be separated on racial lines says a lot. The fact that you want the United States of America split between so called "whites" . Native Americans and African Americans is highly upsetting. Though you might not find this offensive but the idea of splitting my country on so called "racial lines" is white nationalist. Reported and done. I don't mean to end this thread but you totally derailed it. I spoke of historical plausibility and you brought up this idea of separate racial nation states in North America....Where the hell did that even come from?

The US was highly fragmented along racial lines in this time period. Still is today to a degree, though certainly not at the same level.

 

[Khevenhuller]

I disagree with this. In 1933 German democracy was (very roughly) as well established as was Russian communism, yet it fell to the Nazi's. Italian fascism was in the same league, yet it collapsed under the rigors of war. The various German monarchies vanished after being in place for (in some instances) 1000 years. American democracy is over 200 years old, yet since 9/11 has been steadily eroded to the point that I'm sure the founding fathers wouldn't recognise it for what it has become. (Yes, fascism can happen in the USA. It is no more immune to it than any other demoracy.)

The point is, no system is immune to being overthrown. German fascism is (at the start of the game) not well established at all. It has only been in power 3 years, and, with a bit of British encouragement, could have been ousted in October 1938.

If you want an historical WW2 game, turn on historical focuses. If you want a 'snap in time start' with 'where can we go from here', leave them off and have at some of the political alternatives.

German democracy was no where near as well established as Communism in the USSR by 1933.The Russian Civil War had gotten rid of many opponents by a process of competetive examination, so to speak, whilst the army was wholly under party control. Politically, the Bolsheviks are secure as they have no opponents, and no alternative exists to the system in place.

Germany in 1933 is wholly different. Only a minority of political parties actually believe in Weimar. On the left, the KPD doesn't and their support is growing. On the right the NSDAP and the DNVP don't and support for the former is growing. in the centre, the parties that had been saddled with running Weimar such as the DVP, were in many ways revisionist in the East, certainly did not accept Versailles as just, and were tainted with a failing system in light of the Depression. The Zentrum would accomodate to anyone (they voted for Hitler's enabling law) which leaves the SPD. Even then they were hamstrung by KPD attacks from the left and had avoided government in the twenties, having the bad luck to resume government participation just before the global economy collapsed. In 1923 there was no real alternative, so Weimar limped on despite inflation and the Ruhr crisis. In the early thirties there was an alternative and people voted for it.

In 1938 it is true that German Generals proposed to the British (through the medium of Peter Ustinov's dad of all people) that if the British stood firm over the Czech crisis they would be in a position to bring down Hitler. The British simply were not prepared to take that gamble. Besides, what sort of Germany were they proposing? Certainly not a return to Weimar-style democracy. I would suspect a bunch of elderly, conservative, probably monarchist German generals would have much preferred a regime akin to Poland or Hungary than the 'circus' of parliamentary democracy.

Italy? Well, you only have to read about the nature of the regime and you understand how superficial it was. AJP Taylor described Italy as being ruled 'by a mixture of terror and glamour'. It survived precisely because no pressure was put on it, it brought a certain degree of social and political stability and Musso was widely lauded. But things start to go wrong when he starts wanting to play an aggressive, international role. In 1939 key members of the regime, like Balbo and Ciano, are well aware that staying out of wars is by far the best way for the regime to survive. It has ceased to be revolutionary, and is instead the establishment, corrupt and full of place-seekers. A good counterfactual option for HOI, and a very realistic one, is what if they succeeded generally? After all, if that had been the case there is no reason to believe Italian fascism would not have survived like Franco, certainly up to Musso's death.


K

 

[Brucesim2003]

German democracy was no where near as well established as Communism in the USSR by 1933.The Russian Civil War had gotten rid of many opponents by a process of competetive examination, so to speak, whilst the army was wholly under party control. Politically, the Bolsheviks are secure as they have no opponents, and no alternative exists to the system in place.

Stalin certainly thought so in 1937-38.

Germany in 1933 is wholly different. Only a minority of political parties actually believe in Weimar. On the left, the KPD doesn't and their support is growing. On the right the NSDAP and the DNVP don't and support for the former is growing. in the centre, the parties that had been saddled with running Weimar such as the DVP, were in many ways revisionist in the East, certainly did not accept Versailles as just, and were tainted with a failing system in light of the Depression. The Zentrum would accomodate to anyone (they voted for Hitler's enabling law) which leaves the SPD. Even then they were hamstrung by KPD attacks from the left and had avoided government in the twenties, having the bad luck to resume government participation just before the global economy collapsed. In 1923 there was no real alternative, so Weimar limped on despite inflation and the Ruhr crisis. In the early thirties there was an alternative and people voted for it.

It may well have been unstable, but it was about as well established as an immature democracy could be. As for people voting for it, the nazi's were starting to shed votes in 1932. The only reason Hitler got into power was because the establishment blinked 1st.

In 1938 it is true that German Generals proposed to the British (through the medium of Peter Ustinov's dad of all people) that if the British stood firm over the Czech crisis they would be in a position to bring down Hitler. The British simply were not prepared to take that gamble. Besides, what sort of Germany were they proposing? Certainly not a return to Weimar-style democracy. I would suspect a bunch of elderly, conservative, probably monarchist German generals would have much preferred a regime akin to Poland or Hungary than the 'circus' of parliamentary democracy.

That well have been the case, but (one of) the issue in this thread is not whether outsiders will support and given new government, but whether having the ability to change direction should be in the FT's Some here have said that a '30's Germany without nazi's is implausible. Your paragraph above says that it was indeed plausible, but no-one had the fortitude to give it a go.

Italy? Well, you only have to read about the nature of the regime and you understand how superficial it was. AJP Taylor described Italy as being ruled 'by a mixture of terror and glamour'. It survived precisely because no pressure was put on it, it brought a certain degree of social and political stability and Musso was widely lauded. But things start to go wrong when he starts wanting to play an aggressive, international role. In 1939 key members of the regime, like Balbo and Ciano, are well aware that staying out of wars is by far the best way for the regime to survive. It has ceased to be revolutionary, and is instead the establishment, corrupt and full of place-seekers. A good counterfactual option for HOI, and a very realistic one, is what if they succeeded generally? After all, if that had been the case there is no reason to believe Italian fascism would not have survived like Franco, certainly up to Musso's death.


K

Which reinforces my argument that no ideology, no matter how well it is apparently established, is immune to overthrow. And that option should be represented in the FT's. Those that don't like them can have historical focuses turned on.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Which reinforces my argument that no ideology, no matter how well it is apparently established, is immune to overthrow. And that option should be represented in the FT's. Those that don't like them can have historical focuses turned on.

The rebellion of Soviet military could be reworked to add option of Napoleon-style coup. Why should victorious leader of military, who has succeeded in his officers rebellion, give power to Trotsky? Especially, when mentioned person is sitting somewhere outside the state.
Why not to take it for yourself, claming youself "savior of Russian revolution and etc." Trust me, there are plenty of ways to hide nationalist tendencies behind beautiful words about "return to the only right way of Lenin's and Marx's communism building".

Still, there are a couple of problems - lists of ministers and commanders should be expanded to cover all possible variations of political purges after all possible political turns.

And it could be great if PDX reworked Russian portraits - having half of generals in post-war marshal uniforms from 50-60-s is not even funny. Especially, when photos of each of them can be found from period of 20-40-s.

 

[Sidetrack Nick]

The rebellion of Soviet military could be reworked to add option of Napoleon-style coup. Why should victorious leader of military, who has succeeded in his officers rebellion, give power to Trotsky? Especially, when mentioned person is sitting somewhere outside the state.
Why not to take it for yourself, claming youself "savior of Russian revolution and etc." Trust me, there are a plenty of ways to hide nationalist tendencies behind beautiful words about "return to the only right way of Lenin's and Marx's communism building".

Still, there are a couple of problems - lists of ministers and commanders should be expanded to cover all possible variations of political purges after all possible political turns.

And it could be great if PDX reworked Russian portraits - having half of generals in post-war marshal uniforms from 50-60-s is not even funny. Especially, when photos of each of them can be found from period of 20-40-s.

Good points. As far as new ministers and generals, I am not in favor of reinventing the wheel. Maybe an exceptional character or two exists for countries that would or wouldn't fight for a particular political party/leader, but nothing sucks more than having a revolution only to find that your entire minister and general pool has been replaced with placeholders. That's not fun at all! Just leave them in there.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

USSR focuses are horrible in HoIIV in both implementation and logic.
Women in Aviation - already had a thread about it. THE most useless NF in the game, with the result of adding...portraits. Portraits for 70 Hitler mana. It's even worse than a placeholder.
Transformation of Nature - add 6 rubber. SIX. RUBBER. That's 2 synth. refineries but they also provide you with oil.
Socialist Science - adds recruitable population. Science. Not research speed, but population. Naming it propaganda or somthing would make more logic.
New Soviet Man - kamikaze strikes. As with Women in Aviation it looka like a placeholder and devs though, "what should we shove here? Why not aircraft kamikaze strikes! Because that's what USSR were famous for during WWII"
Purge - The biggest disappointment. Deserves its own thread but such a huge factor in Russian history, with consequences for WWII and leadership degraded to 4 simple choices. With results that could be countered by a simple DoW cheese with beelining to Lessons of War. It's almost a no-brainer to Purge fast because refusing Purge meant you are locked from tremendous benefits of entire branch, losing research slot, numerous -50% time discounts, doctrine discounts etc.
Improve Railway Network - 3 RANDOM(!) provinces in USSR(!!) gets three(!!!) infransructure. Russia have thousands of provinces. That's like drop in a sea. Drop that costs 70 PP.
Found the PCDI - 270 days to open diplomatic options and the most useless bonus for factory conversion.
Anti-capitalist\fascist diplomacy - another 270 day focus just to be able to get to useful ones.
Entire diplomatic branch is, just like for USA, useless. All its focuses come by the time the war is over. Molotov-Ribbentropp makes half of the branch void as it's just skipped. If you are selecting anti-capitalist diplomacy, then you are most probably signed the pact, yet branch have all the decisions to demand this and that, which you could earn twice as cheaper by simply sending an ultimatum to all countries, listed in national focuses. This is ridiculous.

 

[Dalnar]

The Soviet tree is odd indeed, but I have never seen a thread that would offer alternatives via important events / politcal choices that happened during that time. It can be really frustrating to create a tree that has good history feel, yet provides plausible benefits. For me the Soviet tree lacks soul and it's just a bunch of bonuses and I do not envy the one in Paradox that will eventually have to redo it.

If I had to rate the current trees, I would put South Africa on the top, because it has everything I expect from a good tree, although I would love to see more interactions with colonies (claims, puppets etc.).

 

[CrazyZombie]

USSR focuses are horrible in HoIIV in both implementation and logic.
Women in Aviation - already had a thread about it. THE most useless NF in the game, with the result of adding...portraits. Portraits for 70 Hitler mana. It's even worse than a placeholder.
Transformation of Nature - add 6 rubber. SIX. RUBBER. That's 2 synth. refineries but they also provide you with oil.
Socialist Science - adds recruitable population. Science. Not research speed, but population. Naming it propaganda or somthing would make more logic.
New Soviet Man - kamikaze strikes. As with Women in Aviation it looka like a placeholder and devs though, "what should we shove here? Why not aircraft kamikaze strikes! Because that's what USSR were famous for during WWII"
Purge - The biggest disappointment. Deserves its own thread but such a huge factor in Russian history, with consequences for WWII and leadership degraded to 4 simple choices. With results that could be countered by a simple DoW cheese with beelining to Lessons of War. It's almost a no-brainer to Purge fast because refusing Purge meant you are locked from tremendous benefits of entire branch, losing research slot, numerous -50% time discounts, doctrine discounts etc.
Improve Railway Network - 3 RANDOM(!) provinces in USSR(!!) gets three(!!!) infransructure. Russia have thousands of provinces. That's like drop in a sea. Drop that costs 70 PP.
Found the PCDI - 270 days to open diplomatic options and the most useless bonus for factory conversion.
Anti-capitalist\fascist diplomacy - another 270 day focus just to be able to get to useful ones.
Entire diplomatic branch is, just like for USA, useless. All its focuses come by the time the war is over. Molotov-Ribbentropp makes half of the branch void as it's just skipped. If you are selecting anti-capitalist diplomacy, then you are most probably signed the pact, yet branch have all the decisions to demand this and that, which you could earn twice as cheaper by simply sending an ultimatum to all countries, listed in national focuses. This is ridiculous.

I double all this. USSR had a rich history of mutual relations between most major powers and neighboring states in this period, trying to build own combination of allies, neutral countries and enemies. Statuses of states in this system were changing, plans of future war were evolving because of this. What do we have in game? Two branches of "annex X", "annex Y", annex Z", "big war with N". And two focuses which waste 210 days (and time is the most valuable resource in HOI4) for what? Buff/debuff to diplomatic relations, about which AI doesn't care at all? Are you serious?
Technological parts of trees are small in comparison with other minor (!!!) states and illogical. Why development of rocket weaponry, nuclear research and armored tech are tied to Great Purge? Why is fleet development just as army and air forces reform are so poor? Where is normal development of military doctrine - "theory of deep operation"? In late 1930-s army is reforming from militia type to regular one. Where is opportunity for me, as a player, decide, what path will it go?
Internal politics branches - fail, political struggle choice - fail, diplomacy and trade relation - fail, armed forces reforms - fail, industrial and scientific development - fail. Excuse me, what is the problem? Yes, I know, everyone is playing as Germany... Ofc, everyone does, when Germany has way more immersion than "world's biggest threat to all civilized states".

 

[CrazyZombie]

The Soviet tree is odd indeed, but I have never seen a thread that would offer alternatives via important events / politcal choices that happened during that time. It can be really frustrating to create a tree that has good history feel, yet provides plausible benefits. For me the Soviet tree lacks soul and it's just a bunch of bonuses and I do not envy the one in Paradox that will eventually have to redo it.

If I had to rate the current trees, I would put South Africa on the top, because it has everything I expect from a good tree, although I would love to see more interactions with colonies (claims, puppets etc.).

Thing is that PDX could always operate with "possibilities". They already made the first step - has added Trotsky (and possible civil war, but the way they did the last... Well, I'd avoid any characteristic to preserve myself from ban). What was the problem with adding possible ways for "counterrevolution", hidden behind catchy slogans about "continuity of Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky/Bukharin/whoever else way". That already happened in late 90-s, when Party turned to be new oligarchy and "democratic" political elite.
Kerensky as leader of "democratic opposition" in SU? Seriously? The man, who lost all his authority even in future white movement during his not so long rule? Rodzaevsky as fascist leader? Makes more sense, when SU becomes puppet of Reich/Japan, but why not some general, if it is player's choice? As I already said, nationalist turn can be hidden by political rhetoric, and a lot of generals were loyal to state first of all, and then - Stalin as it's ruler. Just in this order.

 

[permanently_afk]

The general problem with your criticism is that, as with the USA, the USSR tree is supposed to lock them to indirect means at the beginning of a 1936 game. From a game design perspective this is good, because not doing so would be well...gamebreaking.

USSR focuses are horrible in HoIIV in both implementation and logic.
Women in Aviation - already had a thread about it. THE most useless NF in the game, with the result of adding...portraits. Portraits for 70 Hitler mana. It's even worse than a placeholder.
Transformation of Nature - add 6 rubber. SIX. RUBBER. That's 2 synth. refineries but they also provide you with oil.
Socialist Science - adds recruitable population. Science. Not research speed, but population. Naming it propaganda or somthing would make more logic.
New Soviet Man - kamikaze strikes. As with Women in Aviation it looka like a placeholder and devs though, "what should we shove here? Why not aircraft kamikaze strikes! Because that's what USSR were famous for during WWII"

With these, a rebalance is in order. Also, calm down. Your case is helped more if you remain calm like with the volunteer suggestion.

Purge

- The biggest disappointment. Deserves its own thread but such a huge factor in Russian history, with consequences for WWII and leadership degraded to 4 simple choices. With results that could be countered by a simple DoW cheese with beelining to Lessons of War. It's almost a no-brainer to Purge fast because refusing Purge meant you are locked from tremendous benefits of entire branch, losing research slot, numerous -50% time discounts, doctrine discounts etc.

While I do agree that if you purge its a no-brainer. But locking the "goodies" behind it is not. Should they come out, the purge has to be far, far more crippling in game terms.

Improve Railway Network

- 3 RANDOM(!) provinces in USSR(!!) gets three(!!!) infransructure. Russia have thousands of provinces. That's like drop in a sea. Drop that costs 70 PP.
Found the PCDI - 270 days to open diplomatic options and the most useless bonus for factory conversion.
Anti-capitalist\fascist diplomacy - another 270 day focus just to be able to get to useful ones.
Entire diplomatic branch is, just like for USA, useless. All its focuses come by the time the war is over. Molotov-Ribbentropp makes half of the branch void as it's just skipped. If you are selecting anti-capitalist diplomacy, then you are most probably signed the pact, yet branch have all the decisions to demand this and that, which you could earn twice as cheaper by simply sending an ultimatum to all countries, listed in national focuses. This is ridiculous.

The problem with these is that they serve as delaying moment for the USSR. Which means, you are not really meant to benefit from them greatly. If you look at the community made polish focus tree, the tank and naval branch contain a few of these. If you wish for this aspect to be removed, please suggest a different delaying mechanism for the USSR.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

It baffles me how poor are National Focuses for major countries. yes, 40% are playing Germany but there's still other 60% who do not.
USSR is a prime exapmple of "placeholder" focuses, which serve just to fill the icon slot. I bet others can present the same examples for other countries just as OP described USA focus problems.
Usually, by 1943 the war is either already ended, or in its final stages, and "Declare War" focuses are useless. It is better to remove them completely and replace with something useful, as simple justification would work the same. Wo cares if its Puppet or Conquer, everyone just annex everything and puppet the leftovers. We are not talking about roleplay parties, of course.