The role of ministers: give them more personality instead of merely being modifiers

[Dalwin]

Exactly, such systems work well, I would even say are required for balance, in a game covering the ACW. I don't know how any real command competence system could be incorporated into a WWII game. It might be interesting to see someone try, however.

 

[Nilmerf]

For some reason this thread reminded me of playing Sim City 2000 as a kid, and one of the ministers having a hysterical breakdown if you decrease road funding.

 

[Amoral]

Having a loyalty system would do give more choices, not limit them. If you pick only high loyalty ministers your nation will likely be suboptimal as you will be losing out on bonuses and getting penalties you otherwise would not be getting. If however you choose the optimal ministers for each position, you'll likely have ones with low loyalty which could result in a coup, again causing trouble for your nation (maybe open rebellion, big penalties to production or combat, etc.). As long as the system is designed so that one side isn't obviously better than the other, this will be a meaningful choice that could enhance gameplay.

'

To enhance game-play a choice has to be both MEANINGFUL and CLEAR. The problem with minister choices is that the results are very unclear. You're talking about a system where the negative impact of a decision might not be felt for years. How would that be communicated back to the player?

How many of you can explain how minister choice in HOI 3 affected national unity? That was a simple system that was easily understandable, and yet I doubt more than 1 in 10 people considered the ministers party affiliation when making choices. Now imagine the flood of of confused postings to the forum if minister choice in HOI 3 was meaningful; if bad choices actually wrecked your national unity, instead of just being a tiny malus.

I'm not in favour of a new system that has no meaningful impact on game-play. Nor am I in favour of a system that is so shrouded in obscurity that only people who read the forums will understand how and why it works.

 

[208]

I'm not sure I really get what the OP is driving at. You say you don't want ministers to just be a set of modifiers, but then your suggestions are all about adding even more modifiers...?

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

'

To enhance game-play a choice has to be both MEANINGFUL and CLEAR. The problem with minister choices is that the results are very unclear. You're talking about a system where the negative impact of a decision might not be felt for years. How would that be communicated back to the player?

How many of you can explain how minister choice in HOI 3 affected national unity? That was a simple system that was easily understandable, and yet I doubt more than 1 in 10 people considered the ministers party affiliation when making choices. Now imagine the flood of of confused postings to the forum if minister choice in HOI 3 was meaningful; if bad choices actually wrecked your national unity, instead of just being a tiny malus.

I'm not in favour of a new system that has no meaningful impact on game-play. Nor am I in favour of a system that is so shrouded in obscurity that only people who read the forums will understand how and why it works.

Ministers party affiliation affected things in HOI3?

I knew that changing ministers affected your dissent, 2% per change for Germany, but when apoinnting people that give +5% IC and +5% resources... bahaha the dissent doesn't even make a dent.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

Well, it would certainly be cool to see domestic politics work more meaningfully in HOI4 apart from the "unity" effect it had before. I'm not sure that a richer use of ministers would be the most desirable way to achieve that.

 

[seattle]

I'm not sure I really get what the OP is driving at. You say you don't want ministers to just be a set of modifiers, but then your suggestions are all about adding even more modifiers...?

Well, obviously it all comes down to numerical parameters in the end. But instead of having a set of generic ministers with 1-2 traits like +5% IC, I would like more personalized leaders. Obviously only a few dozen important figures, not hundreds of them.
Those famous ministers like Himmler should then be fully fleshed out and unique. Look at Himmler in "Darkest Hour":

That's thus far the best implementation of ministers we had in HoI games. In the end it's only more modifiers than in vanilla though.
So I'd go for more personal traits like loyal, zealous, timid, reckless, sick (like FDR, give him a monthly chance to die due to his illness) etc.
Traits that make the person come alive, like the CK-characters.

 

[BBBD316]

The problem will be if you include it for majors then people will whine about the lack of depth for minors.

I think the Himmler stuff above looks great, however what about events that change those values over time. Maybe something about the SS and the mysticism that they delved into and perhaps this increasing the loyalty of police/garrison troops but having some other negative response from the population or the general army?

 

[Darkrenown]

Well, obviously it all comes down to numerical parameters in the end. But instead of having a set of generic ministers with 1-2 traits like +5% IC, I would like more personalized leaders. Obviously only a few dozen important figures, not hundreds of them.
Those famous ministers like Himmler should then be fully fleshed out and unique. Look at Himmler in "Darkest Hour":

That's thus far the best implementation of ministers we had in HoI games. In the end it's only more modifiers than in vanilla though.
So I'd go for more personal traits like loyal, zealous, timid, reckless, sick (like FDR, give him a monthly chance to die due to his illness) etc.
Traits that make the person come alive, like the CK-characters.

Really? A super white-washed history of Himmler and a huge mishmash of modifiers is the best implementation of ministers for you? I have to say, that does not appeal to me.

 

[FOARP]

That's thus far the best implementation of ministers we had in HoI games.

Having the number of statically-coded modifiers seen in the above picture is not "a better implementation", it simply increases the number of statically-coded modifiers to the point where you'd have to get out a calculator to see the actual effect. And what's the bet that if I check out the Nepalese communist chief-of-staff in DH I'm going to see rather fewer characteristics?

CKII did this much better - you have a headline number for a few areas of activity, with modifiers that can be gained/lost that sum to that headline figure. Against this you set their loyalty. Two figures, easily taken in at one glance, making for easy, but meaningful decision-making, that changes as the game progresses.

That's what I want to see in HOI4.

I want to be able to appoint Albert Speer to the post of munitions minister (or whatever) because I know that he has good base-stats and is loyal to the party, even if his lack of experience means he has few modifiers, and watch him gain experience (i.e., modifiers) whilst on the job.

I want to decide whether I should keep Canaris in the post of minister of intelligence (or whatever) because, despite his high intelligence stats, he is disloyal.

I want to worry about which ministers I have as Japan as defeat approaches - should I chose high-ability ones regardless of their loyalty, or loyal ones regardless of their ability? Chose General Anami as prime minister and I might have a government that will carry on the war, but not a good one.

Some people seem to be getting hung up on the game "not being CKII" and "not playing Hitler". This is rather closed-minded. It is very obvious that changes in the supreme leadership can have an effect on a country's war-effort and the player should want to avoid them where possible - including through minister-selection.

One more thing: we need a generic-minister-generator just as much as we need a generic-leader-generator.

 

[illathid]

'

To enhance game-play a choice has to be both MEANINGFUL and CLEAR. The problem with minister choices is that the results are very unclear. You're talking about a system where the negative impact of a decision might not be felt for years. How would that be communicated back to the player?

How many of you can explain how minister choice in HOI 3 affected national unity? That was a simple system that was easily understandable, and yet I doubt more than 1 in 10 people considered the ministers party affiliation when making choices. Now imagine the flood of of confused postings to the forum if minister choice in HOI 3 was meaningful; if bad choices actually wrecked your national unity, instead of just being a tiny malus.

I'm not in favour of a new system that has no meaningful impact on game-play. Nor am I in favour of a system that is so shrouded in obscurity that only people who read the forums will understand how and why it works.

I don't see how the proposed system would not be meaningful or clear. Let us imagine for a moment this system was used in EUIV. So advisers would have a loyalty score in addition to the monarch point score and secondary benefit given. When you scrolled over the loyalty score it would say something like "this indicates how loyal the character is to the regime. Be careful, low loyalty advisors could plot to kill your ruler, start rebellions, etc." You as a player would then have a meaningful choice to make, do I get the best adviser regardless of loyalty, get only the most loyal ones, or do I try to meet somewhere in the middle. In other words, do I go for the riskier option with bigger payout or do I get the safe choice that may not be as good.

 

[FOARP]

I don't see how the proposed system would not be meaningful or clear. Let us imagine for a moment this system was used in EUIV. So advisers would have a loyalty score in addition to the monarch point score and secondary benefit given. When you scrolled over the loyalty score it would say something like "this indicates how loyal the character is to the regime. Be careful, low loyalty advisors could plot to kill your ruler, start rebellions, etc." You as a player would then have a meaningful choice to make, do I get the best adviser regardless of loyalty, get only the most loyal ones, or do I try to meet somewhere in the middle. In other words, do I go for the riskier option with bigger payout or do I get the safe choice that may not be as good.

Exactly. To be honest, since Amoral basically admits that the HOI3 system didn't work, I don't know why he is so dead-against implementing a more meaningful system.

 

[Amoral]

Exactly. To be honest, since Amoral basically admits that the HOI3 system didn't work, I don't know why he is so dead-against implementing a more meaningful system.

I'm not against a more meaningful system. I'm against a poorly hashed out system with unclear game-play results.

My point about HOI3 is more "this is what paradox comes up with when they half-ass something". Balancing minister choice with national unity in HOI3 is confusing and ultimately unrewarding. To do a better job this time around the development team would have to jump in with both feet, and that would mean cutting way back in some other area. What do you want to sacrifice to have a cabinet building mini-game?

I think paradox should cut their losses and dumb this part of the game way down. Focus on the air or naval systems. When a game is only 5 years long it should focus on conflict and generalship, not nation building.

 

[illathid]

Yes, but the human element was a large part of why events played out as they did. Not including it in some way seems wrong. To use a non-german example, If Reynaud had been succeeded by de Gaulle instead of Pétain, the battle of France would have lasted much longer than it did. Is this unlikely? yes, but it shows how different things could be based on minister choices. I would argue that with a game as focused as HoI is, it is even more important to take this human element into account.

 

[Liquid Sky]

Seems like a waste of effort when all that is going to happen is the same 5-6 guys are going to be put in government.

 

[RickInVA]

What is always missing from games is the other reason that historical events happen. In a game the player will always choose the "best" option, unless they have restricted themselves or are engaged in role-playing the game. Lets take Herman Goring. Were there better administrators/leaders for the Luftwaffe? Were there better people to run the 4 Year Plan? Certainly. So why did he end up one of the highest ranking and most important figures in Nazi Germany? Some reasons might matter to gamers; highly decorated WWI Ace, leader of the famed Flying Circus at the end of WWI. Some other reasons that probably wouldn't matter to gamers; early member of Nazi Party, successfully organized the SA, shot during the Putsch, loyal to Hitler. IMHO until game designers can find a way to make gamers care as much about the second set of factors as the "what helps me do better in this game" set of factors, attempts to make this part of the game better will be very difficult.

To that end I can conceive that there could be some bonus for countries to have historical or near-historical cabinets, or for having "loyal" ministers, etc. Perhaps Hitler's modifiers would become worse and worse the fewer "loyal" ministers are in the cabinet. Who knows? Hopefully something can be devised that will make this a more robust process.

 

[SFSLovenought]

When a game is only 5 years long it should focus on conflict and generalship, not nation building.

The game lasts from 1936 to 1948, and while some games do end before 1941 I don't think that would happen most of the time.

 

[FOARP]

I'm not against a more meaningful system. I'm against a poorly hashed out system with unclear game-play results.

My point about HOI3 is more "this is what paradox comes up with when they half-ass something". Balancing minister choice with national unity in HOI3 is confusing and ultimately unrewarding. To do a better job this time around the development team would have to jump in with both feet, and that would mean cutting way back in some other area. What do you want to sacrifice to have a cabinet building mini-game?

I think paradox should cut their losses and dumb this part of the game way down. Focus on the air or naval systems. When a game is only 5 years long it should focus on conflict and generalship, not nation building.

Err . . . I still don't get what your issue here is, and I'm not sure you do either. The system in HOI3 was much the same as the system in HOI2 and HOI1. A "cabinet minigame" as you call it has existed in all those games. Either you make it meaningful, or you cut it completely from the game - but leaving it half-assed is no solution.

 

[Snow Wolf]

I for one would love having to make the best out of a Hitler-situation. In one game I would simply cave in and do everything he demands and see if I can still win the war. In the next game I'd oppose him and so on.

What do you think? Minister fine as they are or do you want "real" people?

That's impossible, as he was a lunatic. He did have good ideas early in the war (France and Poland; the entirety of the staff didn't trust him and thought that they are doomed), but the more war he did the "weirder" he got. I've seen a documentary about Kursk/Crimea where he even intervened on Corps-level just so that they could hold the line/reach for Rostov.


However, this topic is about ministers, and I like quite a few ideas posted here. Maybe some sort of loyalty system so that ministers gain loyalty/morale and give better bonuses? (I promise Minister A I'll be done with poland before 1940, his Land Organization rises from +5% to +7% or something)

 

[Phi]

Really? A super white-washed history of Himmler and a huge mishmash of modifiers is the best implementation of ministers for you? I have to say, that does not appeal to me.

This. The description is pure white-washing and the modifiers look like an obvious paraphrase of Himmler crimes against humanity. If one describes leading Nazis in any detail, then one has to include their crimes.