Sub-ideologies

[Antimonum]

You forgot to mention the politically neutral monarchist and republican authoritarian regimes wich are not at all well developed in the base game, since they were in fact very flexible in decision making during interwar and WWII periods and the base game shuffles them into the non-aligned boring pile.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I don't think there was a race for Berlin. The Western Allies wanted to liberate as much of Europe as possible, but were willing to leave the 'prize' of Berlin to Stalin, knowing I suspect how much it would cost.

 

[Landsturmamrika]

This thread is a bit off topic.

The original post was about the merits of ideology and sub- ideologies having a bigger impact on trade, diplomacy, and material support.

Just because politics were not well implemented in HOI3 doesn't mean they should not be reapplied with added gameplay value in HOI4. I really hope the devs consider this.

 

[Landsturmamrika]

No it wasn't. It was a battle between two factions. All that "comintern" thing make me sick.
Thing is, what do we want more - grand politic game (more Vic-style, Kaiserreich shows how it can work) or wargame with little politic component. Personally I'm for first approach.

I don't mean that so literally.

@Secret Master, my suggestion should be not be so readily dismissed and discarded as some kind of "warm over" of current mechanics or anything. There really just are not a lot of factors influencing relations between countries at the moment.

@aono , thanks for the suggestion. I'll have to try Kaiserreich in HOI IV to see how that team implements this. Do you know of a mod that does this for WWII?

 

[George_VI]

It probably wouldn't add much in the way of gameplay, but I do really want it for flavour and slightly different historical choices. I want Clem Attlee damn it!

 

[Landsturmamrika]

You forgot to mention the politically neutral monarchist and republican authoritarian regimes wich are not at all well developed in the base game, since they were in fact very flexible in decision making during interwar and WWII periods and the base game shuffles them into the non-aligned boring pile.

@Antimonum - you're correct. I hadn't considered that. I think you're referring to an "old regime" kind of government like King Zog I of Albania or the Yugoslav monarchy. I think they do make sense in the non-aligned pool in the overall sense of gameplay. Still I do have this feeling that autocratic governments should have a bonus to fascist governments and monarchies maybe having a slight bonus to democratic nations as a sort of recognition of the old.

 

[Tisifoni12]

"old regime" kind of government like King Zog I of Albania or the Yugoslav monarchy

The monarchy of Albania was hardly 'old regime' Zog was a dictator who made himself King.

 

[Secret Master]

y suggestion should be not be so readily dismissed and discarded as some kind of "warm over" of current mechanics or anything. There really just are not a lot of factors influencing relations between countries at the moment.

I'm sorry, but I don't find modifiers to relations between countries compelling enough to warrant inclusion of a mechanic of this kind in HOI4.

Consider a few things:

1) Countries join a faction when attacked, regardless of ideology, once the major factions are at war. All the nuance of Falangist Spain in relation to National Socialism in Germany becomes moot if the Allies just DOW Spain. It flips around the other way: all the nuances of the Republicans in Spain become moot if the Republicans win the SCW, but Germany attacks them.

2) Political support for factions is very easy to change right now. Britain or the US can become a fascist haven in a few short years if you put minimal effort into it. Why bother dealing with nuances between liberals and conservatives in Britain and the US, when, as far as the game is concerned, either one being in power is irrelevant to most of the game's rules, and you can press a button and start going fascist immediately.

3) Civil Wars are not interesting enough at the moment to warrant sub ideologies. You can't have situations where there are four or five political factions vying for power in an armed conflict in a country, so why bother tracking sub ideologies?

4) The Axis powers don't really care about ideological nuance in any typical play through. Either you do what the Axis wants, or they invade you. What's that, Salazar? You won't sell me enough tungsten? Time to invade you. No, I don't care about your ideology. What's that, Poland? You're some kind of sub-ideology of fascism? Too bad, I'm running Danzig or War.

If ideology meant more in terms of several other mechanics, like the surrender of Italy, appointment of ministers, and civil wars, then fleshing it out a bit more would be worth the effort. But 90% of the time in an HOI4 game, I don't care about relation numbers between countries.

 

[Holy.Death]

I don't think there was a race for Berlin. The Western Allies wanted to liberate as much of Europe as possible, but were willing to leave the 'prize' of Berlin to Stalin, knowing I suspect how much it would cost.

From Winston Churchill to Franklin Delano Roosevelt:

"The Russian armies will no doubt overrun all Austria and enter Vienna. If they also take Berlin will not their impression that they have been the overwhelming contributor to our common victory be unduly imprinted in their minds, and may this not lead them into a mood which will raise grave and formidable difficulties in the future? I therefore consider that from a political standpoint we sohuld march as far east into Germany as possible, and that should Berlin be in our grasp we should certainly take it."

It was a matter of prestige. In Hearts of Iron 3 I made victory conditions in a way that excluded the possibility of both the Allies and the Comintern being able to win. Taking Berlin was one of them. It was supposed to create tensions between East and West and stimulate the race in question that took place.

 

[Landsturmamrika]

I'm sorry, but I don't find modifiers to relations between countries compelling enough to warrant inclusion of a mechanic of this kind in HOI4.

Consider a few things:

1) Countries join a faction when attacked, regardless of ideology, once the major factions are at war. All the nuance of Falangist Spain in relation to National Socialism in Germany becomes moot if the Allies just DOW Spain. It flips around the other way: all the nuances of the Republicans in Spain become moot if the Republicans win the SCW, but Germany attacks them.

2) Political support for factions is very easy to change right now. Britain or the US can become a fascist haven in a few short years if you put minimal effort into it. Why bother dealing with nuances between liberals and conservatives in Britain and the US, when, as far as the game is concerned, either one being in power is irrelevant to most of the game's rules, and you can press a button and start going fascist immediately.

3) Civil Wars are not interesting enough at the moment to warrant sub ideologies. You can't have situations where there are four or five political factions vying for power in an armed conflict in a country, so why bother tracking sub ideologies?

4) The Axis powers don't really care about ideological nuance in any typical play through. Either you do what the Axis wants, or they invade you. What's that, Salazar? You won't sell me enough tungsten? Time to invade you. No, I don't care about your ideology. What's that, Poland? You're some kind of sub-ideology of fascism? Too bad, I'm running Danzig or War.

If ideology meant more in terms of several other mechanics, like the surrender of Italy, appointment of ministers, and civil wars, then fleshing it out a bit more would be worth the effort. But 90% of the time in an HOI4 game, I don't care about relation numbers between countries.

1) Of course, but the war doesn't happen usually until later in the game. The years before the outbreak of war still, which is a big part of this idea, are benefited from this feature.

2) Nuances between liberal and conservatives - shades of ideology along a political spectrum can make it more engaging, gradual, and time consuming than simply pressing a button and going fascist within a year or so. Besides the the sub-ideologies themselves could offer bonuses to the nation like decreasing build time for military factories if you are National Socialist or infrastructure or lower the amount of time needed to build civilian factories as Stalinist. I'm looking at the sliders from Hearts of Iron II.

3) Civil wars need work. Of course. Why do you feel that you can't have four or five political factions vying for power in an armed conflict in a country? That very much fits the bill of the factions involved Spanish Civil War, which currently treats the Nationalists treated as monolithic fascist entity.

Maybe you want the Nationalists to win as Social Conservatives to later join the Allies if the Comintern faction has turned the Republicans full-on Stalinist and the Axis is weak and strategically would be an unwise faction to align with or maybe you want the Nationalists to win as Falangists to win join the Axis? Maybe being Falangist would offer benefits as a government type that would be preferable to standard Fascist? - I'm thinking the different sub-ideologies offer different ministers, technology blueprints or production bonuses as well.

4) Are you talking about the AI? I mean it's hard to disagree with that, but it sort of seems sometimes that the AI is declaring war often based off of NFs. I think ideological preferences should be a factor in this consideration.

Everything you say in the end is a good idea. I'm not only arguing solely on behalf of relationship numbers but believe that ideologies could also be implemented to provide access to different ministers, technology blueprints, or production bonuses that are unique to specific ideologies.

 

[Secret Master]

3) Civil wars need work. Of course. Why do you feel that you can't have four or five political factions vying for power in an armed conflict in a country? That very much fits the bill of the factions involved Spanish Civil War, which currently treats the Nationalists treated as monolithic fascist entity.

I agree. But until the game is set up to do that, it makes sub-ideologies kind of "meh."

Everything you say in the end is a good idea. I'm not only arguing solely on behalf of relationship numbers but believe that ideologies could also be implemented to provide access to different ministers, technology blueprints, or production bonuses that are unique to specific ideologies.

While I don't think bonuses on production are the way to go, making ideology more important in other mechanics than relationships is a good idea.

In HOI3, I really felt that a golden opportunity was missed to make some use out of the fractured government modifier and ministers. Right now, I just appoint Goering if I want his stupid bonus. But wouldn't it be better if I thought appointing (or keeping) Goering was politically necessary to prevent ideological drift, because I have also appointed too many old school Junkers?

 

[SeekTruthFromFx]

You forgot to mention the politically neutral monarchist and republican authoritarian regimes wich are not at all well developed in the base game, since they were in fact very flexible in decision making during interwar and WWII periods and the base game shuffles them into the non-aligned boring pile.

Yes, this is where things get interesting, especially in ahistorical games. Turkey could easily have joined either side of its internal politics had become more liberal or imperialist. The KMT in China is described at non-aligned, but was closer to the Soviets and the Americans at different points in history.

Well, game represents USSR as one state. Also let's make US a faction as well!
Seriously, if we had a faction called USSR, with integrated puppets of RSFSR for every other soviet republic, it would be better. Completly ahistorical in practical means, but better.

Not completely ahistorical, actually. When the UNO was created, the USSR was concerned that they would be eternally outvoted in the General Assembly. Not only would the Latin American states have their votes dictated by Washington, but also Moscow expected India, Burma and other ex-colonies to follow the line taken by London and Paris. (If ever you needed proof that the supposedly scientific laws of Marxism gave the Soviets absolutely no help in predicting future politics, here it is!) The Chinese were even blocking the admission of Mongolia, one of the few reliable Soviet votes, because the RoC claimed its territory. Communist media therefore began to argue that the SSRs should be admitted separately to the General Assembly. US officials then briefed, more or less facetiously, that all of their 48 states should be admitted! The Soviets backed down, but as part of the manoeuvring for position, some states were admitted separately into some UN agencies. For example, Belarus and Ukraine had their own seats and votes in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). I have also seen Alaska and Hawaii listed separately from the US in an old ITU document, but I don't know whether that was a result of this dispute or of the different geographical positions (which are often important when considering technical issues like satellite coverage and radio interference).

UPDATE: Actually, Wikipedia says Byelorussia and Ukraine were admitted separately to the General Assembly, not just some agencies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mem...d_Nations#Union_of_Soviet_Socialist_Republics

 

[aono]

When the UNO was created, the USSR was concerned that they would be eternally outvoted in the General Assembly.

Yes, I know. But no-one in sane thought never even started to say that Ukraine and Byelorussia were independent states. Quite the opposite.
It was a dialog like this:
USSR: "Hey, you want your colonies into UN, they're going to be your pawns there. If you want India and Philippines in, I want every my SSRs in! I have 15."
USA: "Ok, I do agree, so I want every my state in. I have 48."
USSR: "Oh shi... ok. Let me get TWO of them, to have three voices, and call it a deal with your colonies."
But yeah, such cases are the reason why breaking USSR into Soviet Republics is better then just creating Comintern faction. It's ahistorical because the last act said republic made independently before 1991 was admission into USSR, but it's better then taking party international and making it military alliance existing in 1936.

I have also seen Alaska and Hawaii listed separately from the US in an old ITU document, but I don't know whether that was a result of this dispute or of the different geographical positions (which are often important when considering technical issues like satellite coverage and radio interference).

Alaska and Hawaii became states in 1959. Until that they formally was territories ruled by US officials, but not parts of US.
The same status today have Puerto Rico, and Puerto Rico has its own country-level domain, for example.

 

[lardmeister_2499]

The sub-ideologies are a very good idea that should be developed further. For example, socialist nations can get diplomacy/trade benefits with Marxist nations (but not Leninist), and conservative nations with Fascist (but not Nazi). This will also add flavour, like if I want to go soc-dem rather than communist within the leftist spectrum.

 

[Tisifoni12]

I generally feel that although building in a facility to change ideology is an interesting idea the way it is currently done is unconvincing.

Currently you use a 'political slot' to instal a rival to the dominant ideology and wait for the ideology shift to 'tick up' to change.

The exception to this, admittedly not an 'ideology change' is the potential replacement of Stalin by Trotsky, but that is a National Focus driven event.

Better perhaps to build in an option to change one, or a limited number of changes, not necessarily to the player controlled state and let some background mechanism handle the ideological drift and change of government (non player state) or present options to the player. Alterations to other states than the player controlled state could result in a penalty on the player's score.

 

[DorostheConquer]

I don't know, I'm glad that Paradox didn't fully implement this. Subs should not have their own ideologies; subs should have whatever ideology the rest of the Navy has, too.

 

[Khevenhuller]

Stop. You're making Winston Churchill blush.

More on topic:

We had sub ideologies in HOI3.... that didn't do anything. It was more or less a wasted mechanic.

Until ideology has more impact on the game, I don't think it's worth including. The OP's suggestions are basically just warming over the current mechanics.

We'd probably need something a bit closer to Vic2's political system for finer divisions in ideology to be worth including for anything other than flavor.

(In which case, I'll be the first to mod in Bonapartism for France just for the lulz.)

I think the way they could work in one way is by linking ministerial choices to parties. So you would only get Attlee or Bevin when the Labour Party is in the government, and they refused to serve under Chamberlain or Halifax. You would not get Beaverbrook unless Churchill was PM, and the only way Churchill could be PM is through a coalition. I am sure there are things more marked for other countries too of course, but having elections mean something in democracies, and how those changes affect domestic and foreign affairs is a huge missing link in HOI4.

Lots of opportunities for growth here.

K

 

[Kovax]

Agreed, politics, particularly the different shades of ideology, was all but pointless in HOI3 (only inflicting a "fractured cabinet" penalty and competing with your own sub-group for popularity), and totally pointless in HOI4. Problem is, Paradox missed a golden opportunity to make politics more meaningful, rather than gutting it further with each expansion.

Even a relatively simple system where the amount of diplomatic drift toward or away from rival ideologies differed slightly between the sub-ideologies could have been meaningful. A "conservative republic" with Fascist leanings should still be far more willing than its hardcore National Socialist cousin to deal with a conservative democracy, and have a small component of drift in that democratic direction, in place of a small part of its general Fascist drift. A labor party of the democratic ideological group should have a small drift toward politically nearby Communists and away from distant Fascists, despite having an somewhat stronger drift toward other democracies. Instead, HOI3 treated them all equally for Relations, Drift, and Threat purposes. HOI4 doesn't even use the other sub-ideologies, they're only present in the code for the convenience of mods or (hopefully) future expansions.

 

[Rubidium]

Yeah, I got it couple of minutes later, and wrote an UPD.
Thing is, it wasn't "faction vs. faction", it was "country vs faction" (and in-game it would be "country vs country vs country vs country...", because it's how current peace conference system works).

There were definitely splits among the partisan/resistance groups. Communist and anti-communist partisan groups spent quite a bit of time sniping at each other in places like Yugoslavia. The communists played a major role in the French resistance in particular; I remember reading one historian commenting that "the French hoped to be liberated by the USSR, while the Poles hoped to be liberated by the Western Allies" or words to that effect.

The Communist/Capitalist also played quite a strong role in diplomacy before the war; in addition to things like the unwillingness of the Western Allies to make common cause with the USSR in the 1930s, a lot of Communist parties and sympathizers in the 1939-1941 period were actively supporting the Axis as part of Moscow's efforts in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. While the USSR was the only major Communist country at the start of the war, the ideological aspects were extremely important in mobilizing both support and opposition.

Of course, most of this isn't important in the game, but that's a matter of future content having a decent base to start with.

 

[aono]

Communist and anti-communist partisan groups spent quite a bit of time sniping at each other in places like Yugoslavia.

Yes, but not because they were parts of enemy factions, right?

The communists played a major role in the French resistance in particular; I remember reading one historian commenting that "the French hoped to be liberated by the USSR, while the Poles hoped to be liberated by the Western Allies" or words to that effect.

Yes, but it's already achieved by ideology system, not by faction one.

The Communist/Capitalist also played quite a strong role in diplomacy before the war; in addition to things like the unwillingness of the Western Allies to make common cause with the USSR in the 1930s, a lot of Communist parties and sympathizers in the 1939-1941 period were actively supporting the Axis as part of Moscow's efforts in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. While the USSR was the only major Communist country at the start of the war, the ideological aspects were extremely important in mobilizing both support and opposition.

Yes, but it's not validate existence of the faction here. You see, it made sense in previous games, where alliances were hardcoded. But today it's entirly possible to create any number of factions. US don't get a faction "Pan-American Alliance" when finishing Doctrine Monroe tree, right?