Request for a mid-game start option

[pnt]

I have played the 1936 campaign extensively over the years, and still enjoy it with each new major release. Still, while the ability to prepare for what is to come is very appealing, being forced to adapt to a set of circumstances and make the best of things would offer a complementary experience. In this respect, the 1939 start is a little limited since (aside from not being kept quite up to date), it only offers a shortcut around the buildup, but the progression does not change.

Thus, it would be nice to have an option to start when the war was at a tipping point, and all the little details in place that we know from the history books. Fortunately, there is an obvious start date for such a scenario: mid-March of 1943. This is a time when the front line stabilized after Stalingrad, and Rommel's last offensive in Tunisia had failed. On March 10 Rommel, without success, tried to convince Hitler to withdraw from North Africa (which two months later would become the largest since Axis defeat in the West with 300,000 soldiers captured). And on March 13 was came the first realistic attempt (by Tresckow) to assassinate Hitler and have the Army take power.

This opens up two very interesting possibilities. One would be to go down the historical path, with both sides at least initially being fairly balanced, but the other could be to have Tresckow replace Hitler. In the short term this would probably not change much. After all, while they were better than Hitler, Tresckow's people were mostly old school Prussian militarists, and after the Casablanca conference the Allies had a pretty clear view of what they wanted to achieve. Still, it would be possible to introduce a mechanic where excessive allied losses could force a negotiated end to the war in the West (a naval invasion of the US is not really a historically viable option, and the reason is can currently be done in the game is that the US does not have enough steel to build a navy of historic strength). But with a historic path, a mid-game start would also offer some interesting options for the Allies. Would Jalta happen or would, for instance, Britain insist on a free post-war Poland?

And finally, mid 1943 is also interesting from a technological point of view. There is a lot of confusion about this in the typical WW2 narrative, where one is often led to believe that Germany towards the end of the war was technologically superior. The reality was, however, quite the opposite. The German industry by-and-large failed to replace pre-war models on the production lines, and as time progressed fell behind in all areas except high speed flight (swept wings on the Me262) and rocketry (V2). Even so, the Me 262 suffered from inferior engine design and other shortcomings that would have prevented it entering service in any other air force. The last major weapon systems to see action were the Fw190 from 1941 (but in contrast to, for instance, the P-51, it was never successfully fitted with a turbocharger), and the heavy Tiger and Panther tanks. The latter proved useful in defensieve warfare, but one has too keep in mind that they needed engine replacements every few hundred km, making them completely unsuitable for offensive warfare, in which the Panzer IV or Sherman excelleed (the T-34 was somewhere in-between, but the T-34-85 upgrade created a very versatile tank, which in contrast to the Panther packed a punch against non-armored targets). In contrast, Allied advances in electronics, low-drag aerodynamics (P-51 again), proximity-fused and sub-caliber (APDS) munitions, etc, etc - all produced in vast number - turned the Western allies into an almost modern army. Of course, lack of battle experience in particular among US troops evened out the odds a little, but all of the challenge the industrial challenge faced by the Axis late war, when the industry was unable to deliver large quantities of modern weapons (and a more extensive switchover would have reduced output to unacceptable levels), can be part of a 1943 scenario in a way that would never occur in a 1936/1936 start.

 

[Crispin]

It's one of the things I've really enjoyed in older titles, the amount of different and especially later start dates. Unfortunately it seems very few play them so they will never ever do them again. Luckily there are a few decent mods that does this - endsieg - the campaign in the east - the battle of stalingrad comes to mind.

 

[Axe99]

Mid-game starts are most definitely cool, but (from a modding perspective, but I'd imagine it's not too different from a dev perspective in this context) they're quite tricky to pull off, as every time new content is released, each start point needs to be updated (and tested) accordingly - so every extra start point adds a substantial amount of extra work to each 'new content' cycle.

Given this, my bet is we won't see any anytime soon, but maybe there'll be a chance towards the end of HoI4's life - a "start date" DLC as the final or near-final DLC would be a nice send-off for the game, and add a bunch of new gameplay options at the same time.

That said, I could well be wrong - for all I know, we might get a Jun 1941 start date with the next DLC

 

[George Parr]

I have played the 1936 campaign extensively over the years, and still enjoy it with each new major release. Still, while the ability to prepare for what is to come is very appealing, being forced to adapt to a set of circumstances and make the best of things would offer a complementary experience. In this respect, the 1939 start is a little limited since (aside from not being kept quite up to date), it only offers a shortcut around the buildup, but the progression does not change.

Thus, it would be nice to have an option to start when the war was at a tipping point, and all the little details in place that we know from the history books. Fortunately, there is an obvious start date for such a scenario: mid-March of 1943. This is a time when the front line stabilized after Stalingrad, and Rommel's last offensive in Tunisia had failed. On March 10 Rommel, without success, tried to convince Hitler to withdraw from North Africa (which two months later would become the largest since Axis defeat in the West with 300,000 soldiers captured). And on March 13 was came the first realistic attempt (by Tresckow) to assassinate Hitler and have the Army take power.

I had been thinking about somethng similar lately. Even to the point of creating such a start-date for myself, before deciding that the work required to set up all nations properly would take ages. Everyone needs their focuses and technologies set. They need proper units and production. You need to set up who is controlling what territory, and put everyone's units right where they need to be to represent the situation of that time. The last part is particularly tricky, because you are dealing with a wartime situation now.
Sometimes it is quite nice to play with a different situation though. Instead of building things up from the get go, you are forced to live with a situation that has already been established.

I guess it isn't really worthwhile for Paradox to create these sort of start-dates though. They take a lot of effort to set up, and apparently they aren't used all that often by players.

And finally, mid 1943 is also interesting from a technological point of view. There is a lot of confusion about this in the typical WW2 narrative, where one is often led to believe that Germany towards the end of the war was technologically superior. The reality was, however, quite the opposite. The German industry by-and-large failed to replace pre-war models on the production lines, and as time progressed fell behind in all areas except high speed flight (swept wings on the Me262) and rocketry (V2). Even so, the Me 262 suffered from inferior engine design and other shortcomings that would have prevented it entering service in any other air force. The last major weapon systems to see action were the Fw190 from 1941 (but in contrast to, for instance, the P-51, it was never successfully fitted with a turbocharger), and the heavy Tiger and Panther tanks. The latter proved useful in defensieve warfare, but one has too keep in mind that they needed engine replacements every few hundred km, making them completely unsuitable for offensive warfare, in which the Panzer IV or Sherman excelleed (the T-34 was somewhere in-between, but the T-34-85 upgrade created a very versatile tank, which in contrast to the Panther packed a punch against non-armored targets). In contrast, Allied advances in electronics, low-drag aerodynamics (P-51 again), proximity-fused and sub-caliber (APDS) munitions, etc, etc - all produced in vast number - turned the Western allies into an almost modern army. Of course, lack of battle experience in particular among US troops evened out the odds a little, but all of the challenge the industrial challenge faced by the Axis late war, when the industry was unable to deliver large quantities of modern weapons (and a more extensive switchover would have reduced output to unacceptable levels), can be part of a 1943 scenario in a way that would never occur in a 1936/1936 start.

Yeah no, that's just cherry-picking and making random claims that don't match reality. You pick out single allied technologies and jut ignore similar ones on the other side. Or you just pretend that they weren't in any way useful.
The Me 262 would easily have entered service in basically every country. The main issues came from Germany's lack of resources and lowering quality of materials. As well as a lack of fuel to test and train stuff. You are basically downplaying technology due to failures created in other areas. Even the best and most reliable designs will fail if the quality of material and production suffers a lot. Germany did develop powerful new types of ammunition, and then barely could use them due to not having resources to produce them in larger numbers. They also developedassault rifles way before anyone else did. None of that has to do with a lack of technological advances. Instead it has to do with the general situation in the war. If you don't have the resources to produce something, the thing you want to produce doesn't somehow turn bad. A mercedes formula 1 car isn't suddenly not a great car anymore just because the industry doesn't have enough rubber to produce enough tires.

With the Tiger, the exact opposite of what you say is true. The Tiger was explicitly an offensive weapon, and the issues came from having to use it as a fire-brigade that was rushed to defend every spot that was currently threatened. The tank was perfect for the role it was supposed to play, which was to be brought to a frontline that needed to be broken, cause a breakthrough, and then let the medium tanks exploit the gap. It would then have the required maintenance, and be transported to the next line that needed to be broken. Issues only arose when the tanks were rushed from one hotspot to another, with no breaks in between for maintenance, often running long distances themself without being transported, and then having to deal with prolonged combat-actions against the enemy's strongest attacks. In short: the tank suffered from arriving at a time where the situations it was designed for barely existed anymore, because Germany was mostly on the defensive. It then was used in the exact way it wasn't supposed to be used, being rushed from one battle to another with little to no maintenance. If the T-34 or M4 had been used in the way the German used their Tigers, they would have looked as if they had horrible reliability as well.

It's also somewhat odd to gloss over what the Panther was capable of, while pretending that the T-34/85 was all around awesome. Needless to say, issues arise when you bring things to battle which you haven't tested yet, and which you haven't allowed your crew to train with. Because then you are left with a product that still has its kinks, and crews who not only do not know how to use the item to their best advantage, but also do not know how to make it run as reliable as possible. Just look at the T-34 and its god-awful reliability during Barbarossa. Of the hundreds of tanks available, most hadn't been in use since being driven out of the factory. barely any crew knew how to handle the tank, and it showed when the tanks broke down in collossal numbers before even reaching the combat zone.

None of the big nations was really technically superior to the others. They all had their fields in which they were strong in, and their fields in which they were not so strong in. And technological advances mean little if they cannot be put into use, or simply get dwarfed by superior numbers. Fighting on more or less one front is easier than fighting on multiple fronts, fighting with a ton of resouces is easier than fighting with a lack of them, and technological advances mean little when your industry is in such a dire shape, that your quality suffers and maintenance is hardly possible anymore. That isn't a problem of technological advances, that's a problem of availablity.

 

[goodcigar]

That be nice but they not even support 1939 right. 1939 startdate has many many problem.

 

[Algarde]

Honestly, I don't think it's feasible in HOI IV, it's not a real wargame and if the war in sky, land and sea doesn't become more complex and refined it doesn't make sense to start in 1943. It's a date, 43-44 which instead has a lot of sense in real tactical wargames, maybe turn-based like Unity of Command or PanzerCorps, or in RTTs like Steel Division 2. In HOI which is basically a grand strategy game whose focal point is planning the war, in my opinion, it makes no sense to start when everything is already planned and decided, because the game lacks fundamentals when it comes to pure warfare.

 

[pnt]

Hi guys,, thanks for all the comment! Let me in turn briefly try to comments on two issues.

1. The question of how often people play a scenario is a valid one - but perhaps it is also a bit of a chicken - egg problem. If there was a good and well maintained March 1943 scenario, people would perhaps be more likely to play it. And it seems that this would be en ideal project to subcontract (at least in part) to make sure that all the units and commanders are in the right place, etc. And a mid-game scenario would actually have a purpose other than "skipping ahead" as in the 1939 one.

2. I would like to briefly try to address the issue of technology. Normally I would have tried to avoid it, since this can lead to endless discussions, but it is relevant since HOI4 is one of the few games that could actually correctly simulate the relative post 1943 decline in Axis technology compared to the Allies. This is not in to say that I completely disagree with George's post - but I am talking about something slightly different perhaps best summarized as technology vs design as well as industrial limitations. Let me try to illustrate this in three ways.

A. The Me262 example is limited but illustrative. The Me262 was a very nice design, which in many ways influenced post-war aircraft development. Technologically its strength was stable flight at high subsonic Mach numbers due to well understood aerodynamics at these speeds (one of few fields where the Germans were ahead). With Rolls-Royce Welland engines, it would have been a great plane. However, the Jumo jet engine was primitive and unreliable. To develop a fully functional jet engine would have required much more R&D, which Junkers was unable to do at the time, and have a manufacturing process suited to the particular requirements of jet engines. This was a technological limitation that was difficult for the Germans to overcome. As it was, the Me262 pilots knew that any change in fuel flow tended to switch the engine off, so every time they tried they had to cross their fingers and gently ease the throttle hoping for the best. The conversion training was done by having pilots fly a Bf110 with the throttle at max power from start to landing. This flaw was particularly serious when combined with the short-range, slow-firing MK108 cannons, since even when approaching an allied bomber from the rear, the Me262 could only get off a few shots before having to take evasive action to avoid a collision. Some pilots who wanted to score kills approached at lower speed, but those where easily shot down by the escorting fighters. Thus, even though 1430 were made, the Me262 was a very limited success with almost no impact on the air war.

B. The engines were, however, not only a limitation for the Me262. Even when technology did advance, the industry was usually unable to implement it on a large scale. The DB601 was bored out to become the DB605 and give the BF109G a few extra hp (although this version understandably never worked as well as the original one), but the industry failed to replace it on the production lines, and even in 1945, due to the lack of better engines, the Bf109 remained the most-produced fighter even in 1945, when even the last versions were obsolete. In game terms, this would mean keeping a very heavily modified 1936 fighter in production throughout the game, which is very rare in an early start. Of course, this issue was not limited to the DB605. The BMW801 availability limited Fw190 output, and while the solution of putting a bomber engine into the Fw190D worked out surprisingly well in terms of performance, it still lacked the turbo charger that was state-of-the-art in 1944 and always have the P-51 an edge at altitude. But the failure to switch over to modern technologies either at the design or production stage was everywhere. Even in such simple devices as rifles, the shortened WWI Mauser (K98k) still outproduced the G43 and StG44 in 1945. And in some areas, progress was not even attempted. The German artillery saw no changed during the war, except an attempt to put the leFH19 on the Pak40 carriage, which was discovered not to be strong enough for prolonged use, creating an item that was worse than the original pre-war piece.

C. And finally, there was the issue of shifting priorities. The Panther example is a good one. Technologically, the main advance of the early German tanks was the torsion bar suspension. The combination of this and a large turret ring enabling it to carry a high-velocty gun, combined with a high level of automotive reliability was what made it so successful. The Panther, on the other hand, was a heavy tank by WW2 standards (same weights as the M26 and IS-2m). Its main achievement was that it aimed to retain the tactical mobility despite the large weight. However, to do so it had to compromise armor protection and armament. The 75 mm L/70 cannon had a high muzzle velocity, but a high velocity not only meant that fewer shots could be fired before the barrel was worn out but also that the HE shell walls had to be thicker and less actual explosives could be fitted, so the Panther was actually less capable than the Panzer IV against anything except tanks. Thus, the Panther could never replace the Panzer IV which remained in production throughout the war. Attempts to alleviate the automotive issues experienced by the Panther resulted in some improvements, but the design of the engine compartment could not be changed and the only way to prevent overheating often leading to engine fires was reliance on huge high-powered fans. Of course, at the time when the German army no longer could mount any strategic offensives, the lack of strategic mobility experienced by the Panthers and Tigers did not matter too much . They basically just had ro drive to and from the local railway station on their own. But had the Panther appeared in 1940, it would probably have been rejected as an impractical vehicle and MAN would have to go back to the drawing board. The nice thing, though, is that in a mid-game start, the one can start with inventories of tanks and other equipment that suffers from the various issues that historical vehicles experienced. It will then be up to the player to decide what to do about it. And this is something that would never happen in a 1936 start (unless the AI is heavily scripted to produce historic outcomes).

 

[frolix42]

I would vastly prefer PDS to spend their development time on the outstanding issues the 1936 start date. After these are taken care of, they can work on the 1939 start date.

I like playing late-war, but that's predicated on the early war not being shambolic with nonsensical peace-deals and events misfiring.

Even if HoI AI was satisfactory, I still would value an air-war and nuke rework far more than a new start date.

 

[pnt]

These are good points, but if Paradox would, for instance, outsource scenario creation like they did with the last DLC, then that would not interfere with the work on basic game mechanics that the core teams develops. If they want to do it, there is always a solution.

 

[frolix42]

These are good points, but if Paradox would, for instance, outsource scenario creation like they did with the last DLC, then that would not interfere with the work on basic game mechanics that the core teams develops. If they want to do it, there is always a solution.

I don't know what you're referring to. In what way did PDS outsource scenario creation with the Bosph DLC?

 

[pnt]

Freelance CD Busby, working from Australia.

HOI4 Dev Diary - Greece

Hey all! After a long break over the summer, we are back with our regularly-scheduled dev diaries! Before we delve into today’s main topic, let me give you some info on what we will be doing next and how this dev diary fits into the overall...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[goodcigar]

Before work on new startdate, first have to fix 1939 startdate problem. And fix Naval OOB and ship design many problem.

Steam Workshop::1939 Start Fixed

steamcommunity.com

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/wrong-and-missing-ships-guide-to-improve-them.1363273/

 

[bitmode]

I think there are two big problems related to DLC for PDS when adding (or even just maintaining the existing) later start dates.

One is the compatibility matrix. For each of the existing and upcoming DLC the bookmark would need to handle their presence or absence. I.e. a country might have a spy agency with certain upgrades or it has extra buildings instead. It has advanced MtG ship designs or it has somehow similar variants from the base game. Basically every notable feature of every DLC would need to be handled in these bookmarks, multiplying the effort.
In this regard I agree with @goodcigar that the bugs caused by MtG in the 1939 bookmark are an omen what will/would happen with added DLC and start dates.

And the other problem is the sales appeal of the DLC themselves. They lean very heavily on early game buildup and alt-history content. By skipping forward to a late, historical bookmark, a lot of the appeal of the DLC gets diminished. The players enjoying such a scenario are not as profitable for PDS' sales strategy. The only instance where I would have seen a chance for a revival of late bookmarks would have been with MtG if the US had gained a lot of interesting late-game choices where players might have wanted to skip over the early years. Instead they did the opposite and made early game content for the US.

 

[pnt]

I agree that with both points - the need for scenario "maintenance" and the diminished pre-wra alt-history impact. However, the first part is not terribly expensive to do compared with launching a new DLC. And for the latter, one can easily imagine alt-history post-war contents that could be much more interesting than the pre-war alt-history, for which Paradox is anyway running out of ideas by now. It all depends on where they want to go with the game. But the timeline already extends to 1950 - with very little relevant contents towards the end (historic or not). Focusing on the later years could be a way to make the title interesting again for people who already have done the 30's a hundred times.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

In HOI which is basically a grand strategy game whose focal point is planning the war, in my opinion, it makes no sense to start when everything is already planned and decided, because the game lacks fundamentals when it comes to pure warfare.

Hoi 3 had later startdates. They were not included in HoI 4 because of low player numbers.

 

[Vlad123]

I want to add my two cents: A historical friend of mine, Italian, told me that the Germans succeeded almost in the impossible: Change military systems during the war. What does this sentence mean? That you MUST PREPARE for war. Italy was prepared for a DEFENSIVE war IN ITALY! the CV33 was easy to repair (even in the middle of the desert, to repair the tiger you needed "the mega galactic workshop" even for simple things!), it could easily pass through the mountain passes (the panzer IV NO!). So if tomorrow they invent the time machine and go talk to Mussolini, when in 40 he will go to war (because to design and create a tank you don't need 10 minutes) with the P40 and / or P43 bis with the 90/53 cannon with ammunition anti-tank. Realistically + or - at that time it took, like, 5 years to prepare for a war. The allies, the axis and everyone were preparing, but the question is: Since when? The allies in about 41/42 were "ready" Italy in 43 (when by now there was nothing more to do, in fact the first real wagons were released in 43, for Italy the phrase "too little or too much late for the equipment ", same for germany.) But why was germany so strong? What did he do? Well: The skodas. Yes, the Czechoslovakian tanks allowed victory in France. Victory in Poland would also come 1vs1 (maybe instead of falling in a month, it fell in 2), Denmark and Norway were made to protect the precious Swedish metal, without which German production would have had severe repercussions. The Germans anticipated the Allied "attack" on Norway by a few days. The skoda tanks (the p38t) were ESSENTIAL for the victory in france. But germany could reassemble its war machine because it literally had half of europe's industry and a lot of workers (more or less paid in some cases), access to additives (via spain to portugal) when the additive flow ended ( with the French campaign completed) German metals began to become like Italian ones. By the way, tungsten steel costs much more than silicon steel etc ... and Italy used it only for ... ships ... yes, Italy was also able to bypass but mussolini, you see he preferred to have a very strong fleet rather than a very strong land army (also because tungsten steel has a considerable cost compared to silicon steel). Also because, IRL, EVERYTHING had a cost! ALL! On hoi4 not only is it abstract, but it is abstract too bad!

 

[Algarde]

Hoi 3 had later startdates. They were not included in HoI 4 because of low player numbers.

Ask yourself why they had low player numbers...

 

[CantGetNoSleep]

HOI2 had a 1944 start - Gotterdammerung, which was incredibly challenging and fun. I'd love to see a 1943 start also, but I suspect it's not been offered because it breaks the game mechanics. If Germany gets to the 1943 real borders, the Soviet Union is toast in game. Whether that means the game is truly broken, or they should do something better with the rellocate to Urals decision is not clear to me.

 

[pnt]

In a March 1943 scenario, the developer would need to balance the strengths on both sides to reflect the historical situation. By this time, the Red Army was numerically superior and had a strength that was broadly comparable to the Axis armies deployed on the eastern front. The Soviet production of tanks, small arms, artillery, and light aircraft (fighters and CAS) was also higher than that of Germany, and lend-lease provided not only a lot of weapons, but also a huge influx of reliable trucks that allowed for motorization of the armored formations and created the logistics base needed for a broad offensive (supplies in the east went by rail, but having to use horses to move them from the railway stations to the front lines greatly reduced effectiveness, giving the Soviets an important advantage over the Axis armies which by this time mostly relied on horse-drawn transportation), and making possible the massive use of artillery that became the key to their success. This is why the last German major offensive of the war (the Battle of Kursk in the summer of 1943), only had a very local aim of eliminating the Kursk salient. While the losses were high on both sides, the German panzer divisions never recovered while the Soviets were able to replace their losses fairly quickly. Even with a more competent plan (Manstein suggested to instead bait the Red Army into an offensive in the south followed by a flanking maneuver) at this point the best the Germans could hope for was a limited success. A Soviet collapse was not imminent, and would have required a series of decisive Axis victories (which, of course, could happen in a game).

A mid-game scenario would be the perfect tool to address this issue. As it is now, the Italian AI tends to put large forces in sub-Saharan Africa, and once these are contained or defeated, there Allies quickly take lightly garrisoned Italy or even France, triggering a redeployment of forces that enables a Soviet offensive. However, if this early loss is avoided, even with high resistance Germany ends up with almost unlimited production and manpower (after changing policies) as they did before. I have never seen the AI recreating a somewhat historical situation by 1943. While this is all fine since one can argue that the historic outcome was far from likely (and how can one tall?), it would still be interesting to have a historically rooted mid-game start, whereas the early start could continue to focus on balance rather than recreating historic events, which is hard to do so many years in advance no matter how you "seed" the AI.

 

[jpd]

Later dates might not be as popular as you might think.

Why is it, for example, that MB/Avalon Hill has created earlier start date game boxes for their Axis & Allies board game (the original one started in spring 1942, just after the japanese conquest of the pacific), but never a later one? Could it be their market research has determined it would sell so little it would not be worth the effort?