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

[SentosKarum]

All the core NF are lacking in some respects.

Some are too short (Japan), some have no choice (US), some are worse than a generic one (Germany). The Soviets is pretty meaty but all about the communists.

I mean, ideally, in a world with unlimited dev resources and instant development times, nations would get major focus trees(not branches, trees) for each ideology. Basically, the name changes on the map = new focus tree.
For a national focus I basically want something of the complexity and fullness of Kaiserreich's Ireland NF tree as baseline what a NF should deliver.
- Something meaty for the development of the country
- Something meaty specific to the political situation of the country
- How the country acts internationally
- Special interactions with other countries
- Separate branches for Army, Air, Naval and defense.

Getting all this is of course slightly unrealistic* but one can hope, no?

* If it was any publisher but Paradox it would be highly unrealistic but Paradox will happily spend over a decade of actively developing a title (looking at you CK2 and EU4) so it is possible.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

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.

Not only more crippling but longer. It was intended to be crippling but beneficial in a long run, which is represented as a said branch. But you lose crippling effects via Lessons of War gambit, and there is no benefits when deciding not to purge. Several generals and org penalty for several years and which will wear off before war is not an equal tradeoff for reserach slot, doctrine discount, and huge boost for armor research. Purge should affect USSR for the duration of first years of the war and affect much more aspects than negligable research malus and org penalty. So far it's just underwhelming, like many other limiting effects, like Great Depression.

 

[kauzer]

Soviet tree also needs some fixes. I dont understand why player can not take both, collectivism propaganda and positive heroism. Would be nice to see focus for transsib rail road construction. Useless focus about women in aviation should be removed or reworked.

 

[permanently_afk]

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.

So what then? Alternatives? Or is this just "I don't like it", since the mechanism does work.

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.

That is a general pacing problem. And yes, HOI4 has them in spades although they got much better since release. For me it seems some trees were balanced early in development and lost focus later.

Not only more crippling but longer. It was intended to be crippling but beneficial in a long run, which is represented as a said branch. But you lose crippling effects via Lessons of War gambit, and there is no benefits when deciding not to purge. Several generals and org penalty for several years and which will wear off before war is not an equal tradeoff for reserach slot, doctrine discount, and huge boost for armor research. Purge should affect USSR for the duration of first years of the war and affect much more aspects than negligable research malus and org penalty. So far it's just underwhelming, like many other limiting effects, like Great Depression.

True, true.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

So what then? Alternatives? Or is this just "I don't like it", since the mechanism does work.

Any solution would work better. Adding manpower, adding tech discount, any other mundane bonuses will already be an improvement over what we have now. Yes, ideally, we should have some unique effects or consequences or event chains but that is given developers have unlimited time.

 

[Duke_Dave]

I think after this year when they are done with the Asia DLC, we might see a free rework of the major nations most likely along the lines of a big Patch and a DLC containing minor states, tbh I would pay for a Baltic, Benelux, Middle East, South America, Latin America, etc. DLC as long as they keep working on the game, yeah there a focus trees for some of these countries available through mods but if seeling these finances a continued devleopment and a rework of base mechanics as we see now (hopefully) with air warfare - fine.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Stalin certainly thought so in 1937-38.

I do not think Stalin's paranoia is a medium through which you can judge the strength of the regime. After all, when the Politbureau turned up at his Dacha after the German invasion he thought they were coming to arrest him, not beg him to return to the helm.

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.

Well, first off the KPD was also an alternative people were voting for and their votes were continuing to increase. The establishment lacked any popular support and Hitler had it. In either scenario Weimar was doomed, and hardly 'established' by any means.

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.

I would not say that it is implausible, just very unlikely. You seem to skate over the issue that these Generals needed outside support, and that foreign policy can have a direct influence on domestic policy. Should this be included in the game? I certainly feel you cannot really hope to have an immersive and realistic experience without it. Hitler's domestic success was fuelled by attaining German revanchist goals without war. If that rug was pulled from under him, they argued, they would then be in a position to topple the regime. You could consider what may have happened if Poland had gone wrong (militarily unlikely) or the West (far more likely before Manstein's chance meeting with Hitler and the Sichelschnitt idea was born).

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.

'Apparently' is not the same as 'Actually' in terms of what is established as an ideology. Nothing is ever immune, but you either have evolutionary change (like the growth of representative democracy in Britain) or revolutionary/imposed change (like representative democracy in Weimar). The latter seems to be far easier to undermine than the former. But, with ruthlessness and a clear idea about what traps to avoid you can do it, as with the USSR. The weakness was Nationalism, as was proved in the nineties. If the Germans had been less ideologically driven they may have been more amenable to encouraging nationalist groups earlier than they did. But, if they had not been so ideologically driven, then they probably would not have been nazis, and probably would not have invaded in the first place.

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.

This seems to have been what the Soviet leadership were most afraid of generally, before, during and after the war. The party seemed to be on constant alert to make sure that no military leader gained enough of a popular following, or a military following, to challenge the party. Khruschev's removal of Zhukov as Commissar for Defence in the fifties is a good example of that. After all, the other potential centres of opposition had been liquidated, but they could not get rid of the military.

K

 

[Khevenhuller]

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.

I do not play continental powers much, but the USSR seems to have been made far more stilted and dull than it really should be. Where are all the show trials? Where is the impact the officer purges had on other countries assessment of the efficacy of the Soviet military? The Nomonhan incident seems to be breezed over as opposed to a potential casus belli. Also it seems to have no impact on the development of technology or doctrine (it may do for Japan, a country I have not really played at all). It is, after all, where Zhukov first shines, and the Soviets realise that biplanes are a really bad idea...

Also, there is no sense of a big foreign policy change with the USSR as there was after Munich. Where is the thirties support for the League, Collective Security and Popular Front Governments? The potential for Soviet intervention in the Sudeten crisis is not even mentioned, yet it was vital to decision making in Paris as to whether it was real or simply rhetoric. What if a player wanted to make it real? What if they had good enough relations with Romania to allow for military access? Instead of some ridiculous notion of a Fascist Luxembourg making heavy tanks, here is a realistic series of options...but do we get them? Do we hellers-like.

K

 

[CrazyZombie]

This seems to have been what the Soviet leadership were most afraid of generally, before, during and after the war. The party seemed to be on constant alert to make sure that no military leader gained enough of a popular following, or a military following, to challenge the party. Khruschev's removal of Zhukov as Commissar for Defence in the fifties is a good example of that. After all, the other potential centres of opposition had been liquidated, but they could not get rid of the military.

Just as I have said, there are way more interesting possibilities for power struggle than simply return of Trotsky.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Just as I have said, there are way more interesting possibilities for power struggle than simply return of Trotsky.

What about if the 1941 Politbureau visit to Stalin's Dacha after the invasion was what Stalin thought: they were there to arrest him? There is a good coup option and one just a scintilla away from reality.

It is butterfly effect really. Rather than Britain becoming fascist 'just because...' there are so many apparently small turning points that could have gone either way. The Yugoslav coup of 1941 is another. What if FDR loses an election? What if he fails to overturn the Neutrality Act which was managed by a single vote. The list of these is long. The Raj gets the ability to go communist, but is there anything on the tree about the Muslim League and Jinnah's backing for the British war effort whilst Congress stayed neutral?

There are some very peculiar omissions and mis-steps...

K

 

[Pyramid_Head]

After all, when the Politbureau turned up at his Dacha after the German invasion he thought they were coming to arrest him, not beg him to return to the helm.

Huh, is there any source for this? Because it was mentioned only in Mikoyan's memoires and he mentioned recording from Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History as a source, but when proof-checked there were no such recordings. Also Kaganovich confirmed it when asked about first hours of war.

I do not play continental powers much, but the USSR seems to have been made far more stilted and dull than it really should be. Where are all the show trials? Where is the impact the officer purges had on other countries assessment of the efficacy of the Soviet military? The Nomonhan incident seems to be breezed over as opposed to a potential casus belli. Also it seems to have no impact on the development of technology or doctrine (it may do for Japan, a country I have not really played at all). It is, after all, where Zhukov first shines, and the Soviets realise that biplanes are a really bad idea...

Also, there is no sense of a big foreign policy change with the USSR as there was after Munich. Where is the thirties support for the League, Collective Security and Popular Front Governments? The potential for Soviet intervention in the Sudeten crisis is not even mentioned, yet it was vital to decision making in Paris as to whether it was real or simply rhetoric. What if a player wanted to make it real? What if they had good enough relations with Romania to allow for military access? Instead of some ridiculous notion of a Fascist Luxembourg making heavy tanks, here is a realistic series of options...but do we get them? Do we hellers-like.

Soviets had opportunity to prevent Anchluss, ending up in a very different alliance and war with completely different set of allies and enemies, pre-war diplomacy was wild and so intense that every possability could be turned into events which could present USSR with wide range of decisions for choosing sides.
USSR should have much more severe maluses because now it is easily turned into a near unstoppable behemoth even under semi-decent player control. USSR had almost half of its tanks out of order due to malfunctions and lack of ways to maintain them properly at the start of Barbarossa, yet it is almost impossible to NOT have full-strenght divisions by the time Germans attack. Anecdotal "one rifle per 3 men" is of course a myth, like polish cavalry vs tanks attack, but nevertheless infantry equipment problem was very very severe. Which is nowhere near represented in the game where we have tens of thousands of excessive INF equipment right at 1937. Conscripted soldiers faced severe problems with training due to veriety of weapon models used for training and ammo shortages for that various models, yet USSR is one of the fastest countries to train divisions to regulars exp. level, which is ridiculous.

 

[--Yigito123--]

Huh, is there any source for this? Because it was mentioned only in Mikoyan's memoires and he mentioned recording from Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History as a source, but when proof-checked there were no such recordings. Also Kaganovich confirmed it when asked about first hours of war.

Soviets had opportunity to prevent Anchluss, ending up in a very different alliance and war with completely different set of allies and enemies, pre-war diplomacy was wild and so intense that every possability could be turned into events which could present USSR with wide range of decisions for choosing sides.
USSR should have much more severe maluses because now it is easily turned into a near unstoppable behemoth even under semi-decent player control. USSR had almost half of its tanks out of order due to malfunctions and lack of ways to maintain them properly at the start of Barbarossa, yet it is almost impossible to NOT have full-strenght divisions by the time Germans attack. Anecdotal "one rifle per 3 men" is of course a myth, like polish cavalry vs tanks attack, but nevertheless infantry equipment problem was very very severe. Which is nowhere near represented in the game where we have tens of thousands of excessive INF equipment right at 1937. Conscripted soldiers faced severe problems with training due to veriety of weapon models used for training and ammo shortages for that various models, yet USSR is one of the fastest countries to train divisions to regulars exp. level, which is ridiculous.

Maybe have them start out with a "Inefficient Industry" National spirit (A + to production cost and a - max production line efficiency and equipment reliability?) that needs them to complete their industrial tree to get rid of? This would not only hamper their equipment stockpile, but also have them consider pretty seriously whether or not to train divisions before the war starts and start out with a smaller equipment stockpile due to training attrition. This could also make a pretty big conundrum of "should I do focuses on industry to get rid of the penalties ASAP, or should I go for the diplomatic focuses which will become irrelevant once the war really gets going?"

 

[Pyramid_Head]

The problem for both USSR and USA is that once war starts diplomatic focuses are rendered useless.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Huh, is there any source for this? Because it was mentioned only in Mikoyan's memoires and he mentioned recording from Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History as a source, but when proof-checked there were no such recordings. Also Kaganovich confirmed it when asked about first hours of war.

Soviets had opportunity to prevent Anchluss, ending up in a very different alliance and war with completely different set of allies and enemies, pre-war diplomacy was wild and so intense that every possability could be turned into events which could present USSR with wide range of decisions for choosing sides.
USSR should have much more severe maluses because now it is easily turned into a near unstoppable behemoth even under semi-decent player control. USSR had almost half of its tanks out of order due to malfunctions and lack of ways to maintain them properly at the start of Barbarossa, yet it is almost impossible to NOT have full-strenght divisions by the time Germans attack. Anecdotal "one rifle per 3 men" is of course a myth, like polish cavalry vs tanks attack, but nevertheless infantry equipment problem was very very severe. Which is nowhere near represented in the game where we have tens of thousands of excessive INF equipment right at 1937. Conscripted soldiers faced severe problems with training due to veriety of weapon models used for training and ammo shortages for that various models, yet USSR is one of the fastest countries to train divisions to regulars exp. level, which is ridiculous.

The story comes from Maisky, but you are right in that it is contradicted. Certainly Stalin dropped out of public sight until 3rd July though he still appeared at meetings at the Kremlin. Colonel-General Voronov, who was on the spot, describes Stalin's appearances as 'erratic' and that he showed signs of 'extreme nervousness'. When I get the time I will look at Khruschev's memoirs, but they are two large volumes and pretty erratically arranged. Rather like the man himself...

I am unsure as to how the USSR could have prevented the Anschluss. Could you elaborate?

I fully agree that the USSR starts this game far stronger than it should be, and can keep growing ever stronger until 1941 by which time it really is a Frankenstein's monster. It seems strange that the USSR has so much equipment when France, which had lots of WW1 kit in storage, starts with a huge deficit of everything. Maybe the designers thought all Soviet factories started like 'Tankograd' in 1936 and the purges had no effect on management or economic efficiency?

K

 

[CrazyZombie]

The story comes from Maisky, but you are right in that it is contradicted. Certainly Stalin dropped out of public sight until 3rd July though he still appeared at meetings at the Kremlin. Colonel-General Voronov, who was on the spot, describes Stalin's appearances as 'erratic' and that he showed signs of 'extreme nervousness'. When I get the time I will look at Khruschev's memoirs, but they are two large volumes and pretty erratically arranged. Rather like the man himself...

I am unsure as to how the USSR could have prevented the Anschluss. Could you elaborate?

I fully agree that the USSR starts this game far stronger than it should be, and can keep growing ever stronger until 1941 by which time it really is a Frankenstein's monster. It seems strange that the USSR has so much equipment when France, which had lots of WW1 kit in storage, starts with a huge deficit of everything. Maybe the designers thought all Soviet factories started like 'Tankograd' in 1936 and the purges had no effect on management or economic efficiency?

K

Soviet Union had pretty big amount of stored old WW1 equipment IRL. Also it doesn't have heavy and medium tanks: heavy - no idea, why, when it should, medium - becausd they have build the tech tree for germans with all their restrictions of arms development.

 

[Pyramid_Head]

I am unsure as to how the USSR could have prevented the Anschluss. Could you elaborate?

Damn, my mistake, not, Anchluss, but Checkoslovakia's fate. There were a long and troublesome and eventually fruitless diplomatic movements in 1938 based on USSR's guaranteing Checkoslovakia's independance and support against Germany on terms of Poland or Romania allowing Red Army's passage to Checkoslovakia, which, nor France, not Poland, nor Romania would not accept. Still could be a separate events for non-historyc branching of gameplay.

Soviet Union had pretty big amount of stored old WW1 equipment IRL. Also it doesn't have heavy and medium tanks: heavy - no idea, why, when it should, medium - becausd they have build the tech tree for germans with all their restrictions of arms development.

Lots of different equipment which required lots of different ammunition and maintenance. It was a mess. Still, GB, France and Germany suffered from this as well, but to a lesser margin.

 

[albso437]

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

That is debatable.

In 1967 Israel attacked Lebanon.

The football war in 1969 between El Salvadore and Honduras.

The Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

The war in 1981 between Ecuador and Peru.

Various conflicts between India and Pakistan.

To name a few.


One can argue that the true reason to why there are so few wars between Democracies is that all powerfull Western countries are democracies and that a war between for example UK and France would cost so much, that a war is totally out of the question.

 

[amalric de g.]

Well, first off the KPD was also an alternative people were voting for and their votes were continuing to increase. The establishment lacked any popular support and Hitler had it. In either scenario Weimar was doomed, and hardly 'established' by any means.

The KPD was never a threat for the Weimar Republik, not after the Spartacus rising. The best election was in 1928 with 12,8 %, thats hardly a big support for the KPD. The Weimar Republic was not doomed because of the KPD or the Nazis, thats nonsense.

The Republic was doomed because:

- Versailles Treaty
- No trade with France and UK
- The great depression
- The USA stopped the trade with Germany in 1929

 

[Khevenhuller]

That is debatable.

In 1967 Israel attacked Lebanon.

The football war in 1969 between El Salvadore and Honduras.

The Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

The war in 1981 between Ecuador and Peru.

Various conflicts between India and Pakistan.

To name a few.


One can argue that the true reason to why there are so few wars between Democracies is that all powerfull Western countries are democracies and that a war between for example UK and France would cost so much, that a war is totally out of the question.

None of which included a Declaration of War. I am also not sure Turkey was a democracy when it invaded Cyprus...

K

 

[CrazyZombie]

None of which included a Declaration of War. I am also not sure Turkey was a democracy when it invaded Cyprus...

K

Everyone, who says that "democracies do not fight with democracies" forget about second part of this rule. "If democracy attack democracy, second state is claimed to be not democratic".