I suppose we do. I don't enjoy Dark Souls. Far be it from me to deny you dark souls level but don't force it on me.
- 6
This DLC has been disappointing.
- Thread starter TalyonUngol
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I suppose we do. I don't enjoy Dark Souls. Far be it from me to deny you dark souls level but don't force it on me.
Of course it should be possible. It's a sandbox game, anything should be possible! World conquest as Ryukyu should be theoretically possible in EU4, and Bhutan WC should be theoretically possible in HoI4. But those kind of things are such a bonkers fantasy that they should be EXTREMELY difficult. And yes, I think both Sealion and USA invasions are waaaaay to easy in the current patch.
So I will repeat my question: for the sake of giving players the freedom to do whatever they want, should they buff Bhutan, Nepal, Liberia and Panama with *50 manpower and industry?
If your answer is yes, then why do we have different nations at all.
If your answer is no, then why should Turkey be stronger but not these guys?
- 1
I think there is a difference between what you are thinking of a buff and what we are asking for with a change to turkey. Do i think these countries should be buffed? Sure, but not in the ways YOU are suggesting. Should Bhutan be able to go to war with Tibet early on and get at least SOME factories and Manpower? Absolutely. i think Bhutan should get a tree that helps them conquer Nepal and Tibet and even start pushing into the Raj. Does it mean it should automatically get an aunchuluss like Germany? No, but it shouldn't be gimped either like Turkey is with the current tree.
I absolutely think that Panama should be better. Should be able to remove the USA's panama canal early on and be able to dictate who gets through that. I think they should also be able to get wargoals on their neighbors early on before UK starts to guarentee everyone.
As for Nepal? Same as Bhutan.
Liberia? Uh Liberia should be the most OP nation in the game. Cores on teh entire world from the start. Liberia WILL be respected.
Now lets get into the problem with turkey. its not fun. You literally are sitting around doing NOTHING until 1941, trying to deal with the annoying Kurd resistance and hoping to go back to the Ottomans. Do i think Turkey should have an easy time with with what they do? No. I never ONCE asked for an easy time. I had pointed out that the amount of time it takes to get to the meat of the tree. It's CHEESY to just sit there on your line and eat the attrition. It is not logical that Germany would not defeat Turkey. If you have to cheese the game in order to do something, it's a bad design choice for the game. Turkey SHOULD be able to push Germany if you are skilled enough. Not just sit there for six+ years and let them wail on your lines while Soviet Union eats up all the war score, should Germany not actually win of course. I mean, I dont think Germany will care all that much about your line when you only have 3 tiles for them to worry about. They can focus most of it on Soviet Union and this is assuming that Vichy france wasn't formed and in the Axis either, putting them in Africa. It's not fun, it's just cheesey to do your strategy and not engaging.
Turkey needs to be more fun than it is, but this ideal that it HAS to be historical makes it so no one will want to play it. Do I know this for sure? No. But, I am 80% positive that most players HATE the new Turkey tree.
If the only way to succeed in this game is to cheese, than it is a very bad design flaw of the game and you should not be forced to do this.
- 4
- 3
They where in a pretty bad situation if Germany would have prioitised the suez (getting Turkey to either go to war or let armies pass). You can also not forget that the empire was there and vulnerable in many regions. Pro German or at least freedom movments where strong. Withouth suez the med would be lost. German fighter concentration on the channel and not the Blitz would keep the waters at least somewhat safe. And without a doubt would Britain fight good and hard. But Germans had better euqipment and tanks plus more morale. Imagine it Britain where parts of the population would already see suez fall, the empire struggles and then germany landing. Would have been a huge blow. And if you can supply France from Britain you could do the same thing the other way round. Not that I find that ver likley ^^ but It was possible (less than 10 percent and I am very grateful for that ^^)
- 2
Because Turkey was stronger than these nations in 30's era. Well ofc they were not as Strong as Germany or UK in 1936, but the game should allow the player to try and make them a somewhat Strong nation before the war breaks out. But if the earliest time I can wage a war is in 1941, then I have no chance against majors and I might as well not play Turkey at all. After all the reason I play this game is to wage some wars, Gobble up my neighbors and have some fun; instead of caring about realistic immersion.
But, To each their own I guess. You liked this dlc because it was realistic and in your book that means fun and balanced, I was disappointed by it because it turned one of my favorite countries into an absolute cluster****.
- 2
- 1
I really hate this trend of restricting player options even more as updates come out. I miss being able to grab a little bit of land between 1936-1939 in the Balkans if you are clever enough to do so under 25% WT. But now all but a handful of nations are trapped with either dealing with a bunch of arbitrary malus's or surrounded by guarantees.
Which makes the game just a endless cycle of clicking decisions and going down focuses until around 1941. And then the land-grab focus's are all but useless because the countries are either in a faction or don't exist.
Wow! I can declare war on Romania in 1941! Such a useful focus!
Which makes the game just a endless cycle of clicking decisions and going down focuses until around 1941. And then the land-grab focus's are all but useless because the countries are either in a faction or don't exist.
Wow! I can declare war on Romania in 1941! Such a useful focus!
Last edited:
- 3
- 2
- 1
See? This guy gets it. I'm not asking the devs to let Turkey get 10 factories with a 70 day focus. All I'm asking for is: A)lessen the time of 70 days focuses to 35 days. B)Allow me to flip to Fascism or Communism earlier so I can expand earlier; so I have a chance to stand against the Axis or the Allies in case I want to get to a war with them.
- 2
It's a huge problem. Devs are so focus on appealing to the historical crowd (and failing) that the forget the game is supposed to be fun. All countries with custom focus trees should be fun to play. Focuses, upon completion, should feel valuable and significant. Turkey is just boring. Yea, sure, it is closer to history. But who wants to play a country that just sits around most of the game? I'd rather play Germany for the 10,000th time.
On top of the fact they make this massive trees where most of the focus's aren't valuable or cannot actually be achieved because they take too long.
- 4
- 2
- 1
Exactly what I'm trying to say. I would even go on and say Greece and Turkey were more fun to play when they had the generic focus tree
- 3
You mentioned some really good points; however I would disagree with some of them. I suggest you watch alternate history hub's video on "What if Operation Sealion happened?". He points out how that operation was destined to fail.
It is not realistic, HoI4 will never be that - for good reason. But it is well balanced imo. It is a challenge, that can be overcome. If you don't run for achievements activate game rules.
But this thread have derailed into strawmens. But if Turkey is now unplayable you should either a) use a mod, b) not activate it, c) don't buy it.
We have had one dev diary, one stream, the full focus tree was released to look on, and at least one youtuber played the Ottoman route pre-release, more will follow.
We all knew that the route to the Ottoman Empire was long and had a civil war, we all knew of the Turkish debuffs and buffs, and we chose to spend euros equal to 5 cheeseburgers from McDonalds on it.
It was always clear how Turkey was to be, you chose to buy it, you can choose to have it activated or not.
After finishing the achievement to have Italy, Romania, Russia as subjects I will try to restore the Ottoman Empire. Willit be easy? Nope. But it will be fun, we can all disagree without starting to say "I will whoop your a*se in MP" and other arguments that really doesn't respect those who commited the crime of enjoying the DLC and saying why they did so.
- 2
- 2
No. The talking about MP is this arguement that Turkey is fine, the tree is fine, and that they can defeat Germany as per the Ottoman Empire. This was to disprove their theory that Turkey was fine. No one wants to put their money with their mouth is and prove that they are this amazing player than can do this kind of stuff. No one expected Turkey to be this way. No one expected Turkeys tree to take extremely long to reach the Ottomans or the Turanian Empire but instead, we have a terrible boring focus tree that brings nothing to the game. You sit there and you wait while EVERYTHING is gobbled up and you are forced to go to war and still get nothing because of the peace conference mechanics. This game does not support a long wait to go to war, for minors. It supports it for the USA, but this is the SAME reason why USA is BORING. Its tree is way too long to get through.
No one here has provided a legitimate gameplay reason why the tree should remain as it is. I am not the only one here who has found it at fault. That streamer did and im sure other content creators will find it the exact same way. its a problem that isn't supported by the game. You -cannot- just sit there while everything around you is taken and expect any sort of victory and good outcome.
- 7
- 5
If you read the Dev Diary, watched the stream, watched yotubers you would know it takes a long time and that the Turkish Tree is less about warmongering and more about nationbuilding. Basic research, or even wait a day before buying, would have made that much clear . I look forward to my game where I will set the rule for Germany to.revive the Empire and I play as the Ottoman Empire, but my views are.clearly wrong since obviously I only play for realism and allies win and other strawmen.
- 3
- 3
If you are voting for historical, you are voting for the allies win. Thats just how it is. You cannot just pick and choose what 'historical' means.
Now that being said, I dont watch streams. I find it a waste of my time. Sure, I could have known what it was about but it does nott mean I cant voice that the tree is disappointing, poorly done, and has no value in the game. YOu might enjoy playing Nation building simulator and that's absolutely fine but I do not. If I wanted to build a nation, I'd play cities skylines which is amazing.
I understand that you would like Turkey to be a nation build, however, it WOULD be fair to allow both. You can still have a nation build and still be able to build your nation through conquest. You do not have to just sit there until 41/42 before you start off... while being weak. I just watched Tommy Kay and even he was a little frustrated.
- 2
- 1
My strategy for this was just to set it to "No Garrison," letting them eventually get to 90% resistance and revolt, and then annexing them. Doing this removes all the Kurdish Resistance state modifiers, and there's no equipment and manpower loss.
I remember this, it was a dark time. Definitely agree that there's an LTP issue with anyone who has this many complaints about the game. Seriously, if Da9L can do a world conquest as Luxembourg and he's not exactly a metagamer from what I've seen, then surely it isn't impossible to reform the Ottomans.
- 3
- 1
I was not disappointed at all. But then, I have never played any of the countries in it, and it was just a 'mini' DLC, so I had low expectations.
Maybe I wrote it incorrectly. I prefer to play ahistorically and hence my comments.
It has an impact on my play. By playing ahistorically (90% of my games in the last year), I want the implementation of ahistoric goals of countries to be more realistic (more grounded in history). Hence the suggestion to simplify it, speed it up, facilitate it as a bad direction spoiling my fun. Of course, it's subjective, but I have more fun having a more difficult game when consciously choosing a weaker country (and yes, I like the Dark Souls series very much and I think that the difficulty level of the game is not as deadly there as the memes say).
Therefore, I would rather rebuild the Ottoman Empire until 1942-1943 and with higher penalties for it than now, and then try to do something about it. Of course, something would be great during this period, but decisions, the need to deal with unrest (fundamentalists, Kurds, factions in Greece or Bulgaria) and interactions with other countries (such as the demilitarization of the Bosphorus) is a really cool direction in the development of the game for me.
I agree that many minors have some things too easy (Austro-Hungary e.g.) and for my subjective feeling of having fun with the game, I would prefer it to be more complicated. For example, defeating Germany's AI Austro-Hungary in single-player is, in my opinion, too trivial. Of course, in most cases, it is the fault of AI deficiencies.
However, when I play multi, I would like the weak countries to remain... weak. They still have some possibilities, be it development or influence on war, but they are smaller.
For this reason, I like some form of interaction with majors in the path of Bulgaria or Greece. We ask them for some equipment (for civilian factories), we give PP for something, we ask for a decision on some matter or help in our local conflict. This is what it should look like for me and I hope for more interactions like this.
Especially it would be more profitable for minors to buy equipment or licenses from large countries instead of creating their own models. I'm far from banning it, it should just be more difficult. Again, in the new focus trees, I see the beginning of this - my own industry (profit in the long term) or immediate profit through cooperation with foreign countries (it's great for me!).
- 2
And that's fine. It just means that this DLC, for me, minus Greece of course, has been a great disappointment and not a DLC that I wish I bought and I buy them all, including all the cosmetic ones like the Tanks and the radio. I absolutely love Hearts of Iron 4, but the development in the past two expansions have been questionable though my concerns about La Resistance wasn't too much of an issue.
- 2
Let me just add that I suspect that the fixes: AI (in terms of land war, defense, better micromanagment), logistics and peace conference could help a lot for all types of players. Hopefully at least one of these things will turn into the Barbarross DLC.
Of course, multi is another matter. From my perspective, everything works much better with well-matched players (I know, truism).
Of course, multi is another matter. From my perspective, everything works much better with well-matched players (I know, truism).
- 1
I mean, i had fun with the Ottomans, even in late game. It's 1945 almost by now and i have a small yet strong army and i have tons of ressources and manpower, because i cored the territory conquered from the allies.
- Status