Why 1939 usage is a bad metric to judge interest in additional start dates

[Lord of Beer]

Let's stay on topic please.

I forgot to add that an earlier start date will just mean more time for the AI to spam 6 width divisions, slowing the game down in 1939 instead of 1941 if the start is 2 years earlier.

 

[SaydaNeen]

I've repeatedly heard low player usage of the 1939 start date as justification for the decision to not include other start dates. While I certainly am not a part of Paradox's long-term strategy discussions, I sincerely hope they don't take that sentiment too seriously because it's simply a bad way to prove the point. Allow me to elaborate.

1. What is the appeal of the 1936 start date vs. the 1939 start date?

Starting earlier allows players much more control over prewar buildup, how one progresses through the focus tree, and in general allows the player more latitude to shape the country they're playing as, including along ahistorical paths. More time allows for more familiarity with the OOB, the industrial capabilities of one's country, and better long-term planning. There are other reasons for the 1936 start date being the most popular, but those are largely variations on the player options element.

2. What would be the appeal of start dates earlier than 1936?

Basically the appeal of 1936, but more so. There are obvious drawbacks to earlier start dates, such as monstrous focus trees, potentially long periods of doing nothing, the overhaul of various realms of mechanics to make such a start date viable, etc. However, such things could be done and an earlier start date has been discussed ad nauseam in the past weeks, so the crux of this thread is more that the reluctance to play 1939 does not translate into reluctance to playing 1935, 1934, or 1933 start dates. The advantages of 1936, the most popular start date, would be more greatly felt in 1935 and so on. Sure there's some balance involved, but again the point of this thread is not to discuss the viability of those start dates.

3. What would be the appeal of start dates later than 1939?

The appeal of later start dates, which I played frequently in earlier HOI games (usually the 1943 and 1944 dates) is twofold.

1. Historical play. We all know there is a sharp divide between people who want more focused historical play, and people who want tons of alternate history options. Personally I think both have their place, and later start dates allow for historical situations, tech progression, troop disposition, etc. Later starts allow you to play the Battle of Kursk, blunt the Axis offensive at the Battle of the Bulge, or pull a stunning come-from-behind victory as Japan playing against its historical disadvantaged position. Games played from 1936 or even 1939 almost never relate to the historical situation at a corresponding date, so later start dates allow this to happen to some extent.

2. Challenge. Right now the game is an absolute breeze unless one arbitrarily buffs the AI. It's far too easy to avoid Germany's historical mistakes (indeed one needs to try to make mistakes to replicate the historical situation). Similarly, playing as the Soviets I've not once had to move my industry east. Later start dates allow a player to put him or herself in the shoes of the Soviets clinging to Stalingrad in 1942, or the Germans desperately trying to regain the initiative at Kursk. I can't express how much I enjoyed earlier HOI games' late starts simply because of the challenge they posed, and my most memorable games started after 1939.

4. Why is 1939 seldom used as a starting point?

It has none of the advantages of earlier starts (ahistorical options, buildup to the war), and none of the advantages of the later starts (challenge isn't really there unless you're Poland or France, and the historical situation is uncomplicated). It's the jack of no trades. I personally never used it in previous HOI games, and I don't recall using it once in HOI4.

5. Why is the low usage of 1939 not a good data point to prove that players don't want more start dates?

See the previous points. Since it has none of the appeal that both earlier and later starts would have, reluctance to use 1939 doesn't translate into reluctance to use other potential start dates. It's all detriment but no benefit (unless one is interested in playing Poland against impossible odds). As such, it doesn't show that people don't want start dates other than 1936, all it shows is that people don't want to play a 1939 start date.

What should Paradox do about this? Nothing, for now. The game has much larger issues that need to be resolved.

However, down the line there should be some serious consideration of adding later starts. Some mods are currently making an admirable effort but the fact is that for compatibility and other reasons, Paradox is the best equipped to at least provide the baseline for new start dates. I would gladly buy a DLC that consists of new start dates.

Now, for the most part I've always supported ahistorical gameplay mechanics in HOI IV because it is far to unrealistic to try to make a game historically accurate with an outside variable (Player / Players) constantly influencing the game. Although, I agree with what you are saying. Different start dates should not be ignored. I personally played the top 3 scenarios in the picture countless times. I spent quite a few hours using these scenarios alone, and they are definitely missed. With some tweaks Implementing these into HOI IV would be a welcome addition. Not only that but maybe a "Pearl Harbour" start date December 7th 1941, "Liberation of Paris" August 19 1944, then you also need some for Russia "Liberation of Stalingrad" February 2 1943, and how can you forget the starting point of "Operation Barbarossa" June 22 1941.

The "Invasion of Poland" doesn't offer much as an alternative start point i certainly agree, The war only lasted just over a month...

 

[FOARP]

About the only thing I can see being popular and not requiring a re-writing of most of the content is a stand-alone WW1 scenario (i.e., one that ends in 1920 or whenever the same way the present game ends in 1948). Expansions of tech trees into the future would be great but a later start date might not get much play.

Now, for the most part I've always supported ahistorical gameplay mechanics in HOI IV because it is far to unrealistic to try to make a game historically accurate with an outside variable (Player / Players) constantly influencing the game. Although, I agree with what you are saying. Different start dates should not be ignored. I personally played the top 3 scenarios in the picture countless times. I spent quite a few hours using these scenarios alone, and they are definitely missed. With some tweaks Implementing these into HOI IV would be a welcome addition. Not only that but maybe a "Pearl Harbour" start date December 7th 1941, "Liberation of Paris" August 19 1944, then you also need some for Russia "Liberation of Stalingrad" February 2 1943, and how can you forget the starting point of "Operation Barbarossa" June 22 1941.
View attachment 333792
The "Invasion of Poland" doesn't offer much as an alternative start point i certainly agree, The war only lasted just over a month...

You may have played them, but very few other players did. There was a reason why the scenarios were basically broken in HOI3 (you could win the battle of the Bulge as Germany with a single command) and that was because so few people played them that they weren't worth PDX's time to maintain.

 

[SaydaNeen]

About the only thing I can see being popular and not requiring a re-writing of most of the content is a stand-alone WW1 scenario (i.e., one that ends in 1920 or whenever the same way the present game ends in 1948). Expansions of tech trees into the future would be great but a later start date might not get much play.


You may have played them, but very few other players did. There was a reason why the scenarios were basically broken in HOI3 (you could win the battle of the Bulge as Germany with a single command) and that was because so few people played them that they weren't worth PDX's time to maintain.

Maybe I was one of the few to play the scenarios but the forums are divided about a historical and ahistorical playthrough. At this point I see the scenarios that obviously need tweaking from HOI III one of the few possible options to role play WWII. You can't expect to play USA from 1936 to 1941 and be able to role play pearl harbor or events that followed, even 1939 would be a long shot. Or play UK from 1936 and expect to liberate France in August 1944 and rush Berlin. These scenarios would be a good option for the people who want to play historically especially if made properly would be more challenging.

 

[Frobro Swagginz]

I'd rather just see focus trees and techs extended, as to make the game still interesting well into the fifties at least.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd rather just see focus trees and techs extended, as to make the game still interesting well into the fifties at least.

Need to fix 1940-45 before we go extending broken into 1950.

1940-1945 have objectively broken core mechanics, those need the priority for the game to play well. I'd put performance in 40-45 as higher priority too...the game slows down an awful lot.

 

[balmung60]

1. HOI4 is the largest HOI release with much broader appeal than earlier titles, so we don't know how those numbers will translate to HOI4. Comparing HOI4 to CK2 or EU4 frankly doesn't make a whole lot of sense for various reasons.

If anything, this works against your point. It stands to reason that, in general, the more hardcore players would be more likely to play starts other than 1936 than the flock if newer, less invested/hardcore players, who are more likely to default to most years is best years (pick the earliest start for more gameplay-years).

 

[hkrommel]

I forgot to add that an earlier start date will just mean more time for the AI to spam 6 width divisions, slowing the game down in 1939 instead of 1941 if the start is 2 years earlier.

...or they fix it before making new start dates, which is what I said in my post.

IMO, those dates better stay with mods. At least in HOI4, PI made horrible job at maintaining late start dates, in 1944, player would easilly win as Germany, because initial OOB and positions didn`t fit game mechanics. Normandy was over-loaded with allied troops to the point they incurred massive combat penalties and were easilly mopped up, in east, due to new armor mechancs and OOB not being updated, German armor would easilly turn the tide, simply encircling millions, upon millions of Soviet troops, again and again, like 1941-1943 never happened.

That's because the game launched with those dates. If Paradox fixes the current issues and adds the content they want, then adds additional start dates, we'll be in much better shape.

HOI3 had starting dates up to 1944 and smaller scenarios, and those weren`t popular.

Again the issue is whether they are popular enough, and that 1939 starts are not a good metric to gauge interest in other start dates, which is the whole point of this thread in the first place.

The point of this game is to provide a historically inspired sandbox. IMHO, an earlier start date makes sense; a later one does not.

Why? Can a sandbox not start in 1943? What about 1935? 1938? You're engaging in arbitrary line-drawing here.

From a balance perspective, if you assume that when you reach 1936 your army size, tech levels and factory count cannot be much larger than the ones at the 1936 start date, there would not be much to do in that period. Basically all you would do is take focus and decisions.

Which is why other aspects of the game would need to be developed. Again, this is something for much later in the development process and not really the point of this thread.

If anything, this works against your point. It stands to reason that, in general, the more hardcore players would be more likely to play starts other than 1936 than the flock if newer, less invested/hardcore players, who are more likely to default to most years is best years (pick the earliest start for more gameplay-years).

You've really got to define terms here. There are "hardcore" players of this game who love alternate history, and those who hate it. I happen to know several casual players who agree with me on the appeal of later start dates. A whole lot of casuals care about D-Day, Operation Barbarossa, and the Battle of Kursk. They see a WWII game and want to experience that. When the whole war turns to mush and Germany falls in 1940 because it declares war on everyone, it doesn't really give an experience remotely resembling WWII. It's possible to have both, but it requires multiple start dates.

For me the constant 1936 starts all resembling nothing close to historical WW2 are starting to get old.

 

[balmung60]

You've really got to define terms here. There are "hardcore" players of this game who love alternate history, and those who hate it. I happen to know several casual players who agree with me on the appeal of later start dates. A whole lot of casuals care about D-Day, Operation Barbarossa, and the Battle of Kursk. They see a WWII game and want to experience that. When the whole war turns to mush and Germany falls in 1940 because it declares war on everyone, it doesn't really give an experience remotely resembling WWII. It's possible to have both, but it requires multiple start dates.

For me the constant 1936 starts all resembling nothing close to historical WW2 are starting to get old.

I mean it as in people who have prior experience with HOI or other grand strategy games.

Those with less experience with the series or genre almost certainly have a greater propensity to choose the earliest start date, both because it's the default and "more time" syndrome. Only a very particular subset of either experienced players and/or certain kinds of history aficionados are likely to choose a start date other than the earliest.

 

[hkrommel]

I mean it as in people who have prior experience with HOI or other grand strategy games.

Exactly, and as I said there are many in both camps.

Those with less experience with the series or genre almost certainly have a greater propensity to choose the earliest start date, both because it's the default and "more time" syndrome. Only a very particular subset of either experienced players and/or certain kinds of history aficionados are likely to choose a start date other than the earliest.

Did you read my initial post? I addressed the evidence for this sentiment in some detail. People pick 1936 because it's one of two options, the other being 1939. 1939 has none of the appeal that later than 1939 start dates would have, thus using reluctance to use the 1939 start date to prove that people will be reluctant to use post-1939 dates doesn't follow since those two options aren't analogous. Add that 1939 doesn't unfold all that historically anyways and often doesn't have mod support, and you have an entirely disconnected piece of evidence that's logically severed from people's potential playing of future start dates.

And it hardly takes a history afficionado to see "Saving Private Ryan" and want to play a game that represents those events on a strategic level.

 

[balmung60]

Exactly, and as I said there are many in both camps.



Did you read my initial post? I addressed the evidence for this sentiment in some detail. People pick 1936 because it's one of two options, the other being 1939. 1939 has none of the appeal that later than 1939 start dates would have, thus using reluctance to use the 1939 start date to prove that people will be reluctant to use post-1939 dates doesn't follow since those two options aren't analogous. Add that 1939 doesn't unfold all that historically anyways and often doesn't have mod support, and you have an entirely disconnected piece of evidence that's logically severed from people's potential playing of future start dates.

And it hardly takes a history afficionado to see "Saving Private Ryan" and want to play a game that represents those events on a strategic level.

Yes, and I never rejected that people would play pre-1936 start dates. Also, all of your criticisms of 1939 would also apply to later starts. Eg. 1941 (Barbarosa) still has non guarantee of Japan pulling the USA into the war properly or keeping the UK from doing their own Overlord in September, and 1941 (Pearl Harbor) creates the problem of skipping the operation that a plurality of players seem most interested in doing their own version of. Mostly, this seems to be special pleading that HOI's playerbase is significantly different from other Paradox GSG playerbases WRT start dates. However, evidence suggests that it is more likely that fans of non-default start dates are overrepresented on the forums.

And when I say "a certain kind of history aficionado", I mean the kind of person who tries to recreate historical OOBs and insists on playing (selectively) historical playthroughs.

 

[hkrommel]

Also, all of your criticisms of 1939 would also apply to later starts

Only if you ignore the degree of historicity I've talked about.

And when I say "a certain kind of history aficionado", I mean the kind of person who tries to recreate historical OOBs and insists on playing (selectively) historical playthroughs.

So you're talking a vast minority subset of people, like myself, who are interested in later start dates. Your arguments are simultaneously overinclusive and underinclusive. Interesting.

 

[Lemont Elwood]

Speaking purely from self-interest, I would want more start dates in any Paradox game. I probably use 769, 867, and 1066 fairly evenly in CK2, since they're good for different things and allow different nations to be played. I would hate it if Paradox didn't include multiple starts in a future game. Only reason I don't play 1861 V2 or any start date besides 1453 in EU4 is because Paradox did a horrible job making them. They don't support the start dates and didn't give them even the slightest balancing. I once loaded up a game as Revolutionary France and saw that I had eight generals bleeding something like 5 Military Power a month, and I immediately exited out and never tried another start date again.

I would really expect multiple dates out of WW2. It's not like it isn't the most researched event in history, and being as realistic as it is, HOI probably shouldn't have near as many balancing problems as something like EU4.

 

[Killerrabbit]

Only the devs can improve the mechanics and core issues.

Anyone can make an new scenario as a mod.

So I want them to focus on what only they can do to bring the most benefits.

 

[mursolini]

If we went by pure popularity for every decision, instead of what would add to the game, do you think any of the little hidden fun features in many games would even exist?

Why would you use straw man like this? Starting date doesn`t add anything to game, unless it is played. Comparing it to little fun feature is also very strange, considering the amount of work it takes to make start date, and then to balance AI/industry/OOB so scenario is not entirely unbalanced and AI doesn`t go some sort of berserk.

If a feature is not popular enough, let modders do it.

That's because the game launched with those dates. If Paradox fixes the current issues and adds the content they want, then adds additional start dates, we'll be in much better shape.

For how long? This game is suposed to run with DLCs, similar to all new Pi games.

Again the issue is whether they are popular enough, and that 1939 starts are not a good metric to gauge interest in other start dates, which is the whole point of this thread in the first place.

You can come up with different metrics, however the 2 most reasonable ones are: what was played in previous generation of game, and which things modding community worked strongly to implement.

The first is pretty obvious, second one also is. If later start dates were so desirable, there would be multiple good mods or single amaising mod to add them. Alas, WW1 mods are far more popular and more strongly developed, than End Sieg, which means, IMO, the case is pretty clear.

 

[safe-keeper]

Now, for the most part I've always supported ahistorical gameplay mechanics in HOI IV because it is far to unrealistic to try to make a game historically accurate with an outside variable (Player / Players) constantly influencing the game. Although, I agree with what you are saying. Different start dates should not be ignored. I personally played the top 3 scenarios in the picture countless times. I spent quite a few hours using these scenarios alone, and they are definitely missed. With some tweaks Implementing these into HOI IV would be a welcome addition. Not only that but maybe a "Pearl Harbour" start date December 7th 1941, "Liberation of Paris" August 19 1944, then you also need some for Russia "Liberation of Stalingrad" February 2 1943, and how can you forget the starting point of "Operation Barbarossa" June 22 1941.
View attachment 333792
The "Invasion of Poland" doesn't offer much as an alternative start point i certainly agree, The war only lasted just over a month...

What I would like even more than scenarios is the ability for players to easily create scenarios of their own. Yes, I know you could do this in HOI3, too, but it took a lot of tinkering with text files, ain't nobody got time for that. Simply using that in-game game editor to mark provinces for inclusion and place divisions, infrastructure, and so on would be so neat.

 

[hkrommel]

You can come up with different metrics, however the 2 most reasonable ones are: what was played in previous generation of game, and which things modding community worked strongly to implement.

Those are fine metrics for measuring total popularity. I’m not talking about measuring total popularity.

If the cost of creating the DLC is greater than the revenue from people willing to buy it, then it’s not worth it. If the cost is less, then it’s worth it. It doesn’t matter if 90%, 40%, or 10% of the players play new start dates, just as long as enough do to justify the cost.

That is my point, and it’s gone unaddressed. My other point is that 1939 popularity is a poor indicator for other start dates since it’s not analogous, but you don’t seem to be disputing that.

Absent actual data showing interest in additional start dates we honestly don’t have a lot to go off of in determining whether such a DLC would be worth producing, which is another reason why I’ve tried to stay on topic here. We just don’t know either way. However, we do know that solely relying on the popularity of a non-analogous start date is not a good data point.

 

[Dr. Plebeian]

I definitely agree, the lack of interest for the 1939 starting date does not conclude that there is too little interest for a later or earlier starting date. Personally, I would like to see a later starting date (1944 - 1945) because the tight position the Axis is in captures my interest. I'd like to see how much of the playerbase is willing to support a starting date other than 1939.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Those are fine metrics for measuring total popularity. I’m not talking about measuring total popularity.

If the cost of creating the DLC is greater than the revenue from people willing to buy it, then it’s not worth it. If the cost is less, then it’s worth it. It doesn’t matter if 90%, 40%, or 10% of the players play new start dates, just as long as enough do to justify the cost.

That is my point, and it’s gone unaddressed. My other point is that 1939 popularity is a poor indicator for other start dates since it’s not analogous, but you don’t seem to be disputing that.

Absent actual data showing interest in additional start dates we honestly don’t have a lot to go off of in determining whether such a DLC would be worth producing, which is another reason why I’ve tried to stay on topic here. We just don’t know either way. However, we do know that solely relying on the popularity of a non-analogous start date is not a good data point.

Actually that's not true. Just because something is profitable isn't a good reason to do it since there is also the opportunity cost. If they work on a new start date DLC and they think it will make X then it's competing with the naval rework DLC that they could also make which they think will make Y.

The check they have to make is not is X > 0 it's is Y > X.

The main problem with start dates is they are ONGOING work. When licencing was added they should have gone through the 1939 start date to make sure it's correct. When chain of command and decisions are added they would have had to gone through all the start dates. When espionage is added they will need to go through all the start dates, etc. EVERY single release they will need to do a full pass on all the start dates to make sure nothing is broken.

If they change the naval system then they don't need to revisit that code until they want to, certainly not every single DLC after that.

 

[frolix42]

For me and all my friends, 1936 is when HoI4 starts so development resources directed toward any other start dates are a waste. 1936 is where I feel the full HoI4 begins, starting it later is like starting a movie 30 minutes into it's playtime. In a game with as many development gaps as HoI4 has now, wasting resources on other start dates is disappointing. The game's development has to be focused on a concrete starting point and 1936 is a good compromise date.