That's a very good point. Even makes me reconsider my Operation Barbarossa start date idea.
Why 1939 usage is a bad metric to judge interest in additional start dates
- Thread starter hkrommel
- 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.
I think the obsession with earlier start date is because of the nature of grand strategy games: they let us reshape history. The farther you go back, the more you can shape the world to your liking. In HOI4 especially, going before 36 requires every national focus tree as well as the technology tree to be remade. IMHO its a fault of the devs to have slashed the technology department so much that every country in the game has to start with 36 tech availabe, be it Germany or Bhutan.
If you want an earlier start date, you have to make a tech tree that goes further back and you have to remake every focus tree or lock it until 36.
If you want an earlier start date, you have to make a tech tree that goes further back and you have to remake every focus tree or lock it until 36.
Endsieg with its start dates of 1943, 1944, 1945 at the end of WW2 is pretty popular as a mod.
The Vanilla 1939 start date lacks the same quality. If the 1939 start date is to be successful, it needs to have its own unique flavor events and such in great detail for the Polish Campaign, Fall of France, and Barbarossa since those will be closest to historical. Same goes for any new bookmark.
The Vanilla 1939 start date lacks the same quality. If the 1939 start date is to be successful, it needs to have its own unique flavor events and such in great detail for the Polish Campaign, Fall of France, and Barbarossa since those will be closest to historical. Same goes for any new bookmark.
HOI3 had some interesting dates , but most games did play from 36 or 38
I had a lot of fun in EU3 starting from almost every possible date, not just to mess up with HRE or oother bugs like that
I had a lot of fun in EU3 starting from almost every possible date, not just to mess up with HRE or oother bugs like that
The picture you posted is from PDXCon in 2017. TfV was already released, DoD in development, and podcat was talking about future development. Commonwealth and (probably?) Balkan countries are not included in the left column, as they already had a focus tree by then.
See the video of podcat's presentation.
As for the starting dates:
That's spot on, and Paradox apparently has sufficient data and they made their decision. I think podcat already said all there is to say:
Last edited:
the only things earlier startdates would offer is either a ridiculously early ww2 or extreme railroading to prevent an early ww2, unless specific scenarios like ww1 with their own enddates are added. also, all earlier startdates would have include hitlers rise to power, which, despite the obvious double standard in comparison to the sovjet purges, could lead to a catastrophic pr effect and i can already see the game banned in germany.
I was also something about this tobic:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/make-more-startdates-with-achiements.1069030/
Yes, and new start dates and achiements for its. Exempel 1945 campaing: survaving until year 1946. I have not played singleplayer 1939 campaing because with it I can't get achievements.
focus trees has now problem that in later game (after year 1939) its will be boring when start game 1936.
For later game star dates would make new focus trees for some countries. Focus trees for Szálasi's Hungary and Mussolini's Republic of Salé for later 1944 star date etcetera. And decisions, new generals and advisors as well. Later Germany focus tree would also be very interesting with possible to make peace with western allies and continue war with Soviet union.
I think problem with later start dates is also that developers are lazy to make portrait (lazy to give money for artist) this can see that even now all countries don't have portrait for country leader and there are so few amount of generals.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/make-more-startdates-with-achiements.1069030/
Yes, and new start dates and achiements for its. Exempel 1945 campaing: survaving until year 1946. I have not played singleplayer 1939 campaing because with it I can't get achievements.
focus trees has now problem that in later game (after year 1939) its will be boring when start game 1936.
For later game star dates would make new focus trees for some countries. Focus trees for Szálasi's Hungary and Mussolini's Republic of Salé for later 1944 star date etcetera. And decisions, new generals and advisors as well. Later Germany focus tree would also be very interesting with possible to make peace with western allies and continue war with Soviet union.
I think problem with later start dates is also that developers are lazy to make portrait (lazy to give money for artist) this can see that even now all countries don't have portrait for country leader and there are so few amount of generals.
In that case, I'd say, PDX shouldn't have started all this with colored drawn portraits at all. Take free b&w photos, rework them a bit to blur unneeded background and here you are.
They have f*cked up with plenty anachronist portraits and I'm not sure, they will rework them just because time and money were already invested into the wrong ones.
Already covered that. Most cost calculations include (or should include) opportunity cost.
Actually, no. If compatibility is kept up as long as entirely new systems aren't implemented (which would also involve a balance review of all the other things they've added) they don't need constant maintenance. The big problem with HOI3's start dates was that the logistics system was changed, and the devs didn't update the Normandy landings. I'll go through your specific concerns though.
Not really. They'd just start the game with all divisions unassigned and you'd make it yourself.
Which is why I think they should add new start dates after espionage.
Which is why I explicitly said in my initial post that for now the devs should do nothing on start dates. They should add the major features, then add start dates when subsequent additions will be relatively minor.
So basically your concerns would be valid if I were advocating for the immediate or imminent addition of new start dates. I'm not, I'm saying they should be seriously considered down the road.
See the thing is that's anecdotal experience, which I can counter with my own anecdotal experience and thus it's useless to discuss using that as evidence.
"Yeah, it doesnt make sense to dedicate resources to more start points. In hindsight 1939 was a mistake to leave in also because only 4% play it. Personally I thought the later startpoints could be a lot of fun in HOI3, but they are not popular enough to focus devs on."
He's using 1939 usage as his evidentiary support for that decision for HOI4. Try at least reading the title of the thread before posting please.
To address the HOI3 point, the later starts were at least partially unpopular because they weren't maintained. Also not a good data point.
Last edited:
They've already confirmed they're thinking of making a Time-Line extension where they're also going to redraw the map to make it more historical
1939 start is a scenario that lets you replay WW2.
1936 start is a scenario that lets you do some tweaks before WW2.
An earlier start allows you to play "what-if" alternate history scenarios. The new German focuses seem more relevant with an earlier start as the Monarchy is more relevant in 1933 when the NSADP comes to power than in 1936 when power is consolidated. A military coup would be more appropriate in 1933. The German game would be rearming before the allies attack, the allies would be a preemptive strike, quite different than the outcomes with the current scenarios.
I don't think there needs to be much work done with the focuses. Some can be given year requirements. Countries can use the continuous focuses.
There are about 10 techs that are 1933 or before. 8 tank techs are 1934 year. About 10 techs are doctrine techs which have no year and open the doctrine tech trees. A 1933 start would probably give a few more doctrines available by 1936. Nations can have one tech slot removed at 1933 start and get another slot by 1936.
1936 start is a scenario that lets you do some tweaks before WW2.
An earlier start allows you to play "what-if" alternate history scenarios. The new German focuses seem more relevant with an earlier start as the Monarchy is more relevant in 1933 when the NSADP comes to power than in 1936 when power is consolidated. A military coup would be more appropriate in 1933. The German game would be rearming before the allies attack, the allies would be a preemptive strike, quite different than the outcomes with the current scenarios.
I don't think there needs to be much work done with the focuses. Some can be given year requirements. Countries can use the continuous focuses.
There are about 10 techs that are 1933 or before. 8 tank techs are 1934 year. About 10 techs are doctrine techs which have no year and open the doctrine tech trees. A 1933 start would probably give a few more doctrines available by 1936. Nations can have one tech slot removed at 1933 start and get another slot by 1936.
But there's reasons why they weren't maintained: it was a lot of work, and people didn't play them (who came first, the chicken or the egg
). Too much work for too little gain.Nothing wrong with that. If you have a product that's costly and time-consuming to make, and your consumers/customers do not care for it, that's a pretty strong argument to discontinue that product.
Sure thing. Did you even read my post?
No, he doesn't.
He basically says that the earlier start dates (plural!) were the most popular in HOI3, so they were the ones incorporated in HOI4. Presumably, 194x start dates were even less popular than the 1939 start date. In his second quote he confirms that adding further start dates doesn't make any sense for Paradox. You know, based on their knowledge of player usage and costs, which you, as you stated yourself, do not possess.
Additionally, we can gather that the 1939 start date in HOI4 is less popular than in HOI3.
To put it in other words: HOI3 showed that the 194x start dates weren't justified by player usage, so they were left out in the next iteration. HOI4 showed that the 1939 start date isn't justified by player usage (and will probably be left out in HOI5, in days to come).
Look, I'm sorry for you that you don't get your pet peeve implemented in this game, but Paradox seems to have a very clear view on this matter. And podcat's quotes seem to contradict most of your stated opinions that lead you to believe adding later start dates would be beneficial for Paradox. Of course, you can always pull assumptions out of the blue to convince yourself that 194x start dates would be immensely popular. Nobody can prove you wrong - just like nobody can prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist - but all the available evidence points in the opposite direction.
Last edited:
But there's reasons why they weren't maintained: it was a lot of work, and people didn't play them (who came first, the chicken or the egg
Well yes that's the point. HOI3's development process was vastly different than HOI4's, so we're not talking about analogous evidence here.
Read the initial post. 1939 is a bad data point.
"yeah, start dates take a lot of effort (we never managed to balance all the startdates of hoi3 for example) and very very few players ever play anything but the earliest."
HOI3's development process was vastly different than HOI4's, so we're not talking about analogous evidence here. Poorly maintained start dates will, unsurprisingly, be seldom played. We simply don't know what well-maintained post-1939 start dates will get attention-wise.
"Yeah, it doesnt make sense to dedicate resources to more start points. In hindsight 1939 was a mistake to leave in also because only 4% play it. Personally I thought the later startpoints could be a lot of fun in HOI3, but they are not popular enough to focus devs on."
Here he is directly connecting low 1939 usage to his conclusion that post-1939 starts won't be popular enough to focus devs on. Leaving off for now that he is speaking in present tense, and thus doesn't rule out future additions, the only data points he provides are HOI3 starts (which again were a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of unpopularity), and current 1939 start usage. As I pointed out in my initial post (none of which you have responded to), that's a bad data point. It's still evidence, but it doesn't actually support the conclusion.
Just as you accuse me of pulling assumptions out of the blue, you're doing the same when the devs haven't actually mentioned any further evidence beyond those two points. If there is such evidence that's great, and hopefully it's actually relevant to the conclusion being drawn, but since these two flawed data points are all we have I just don't find it convincing.
Finally, I'd appreciate if you don't commit a straw man. I'm not saying that they will be "immensely popular," I'm just saying 1939 usage is a bad data point and later in the development process, alternate start dates merit some serious consideration. They don't need to be immensely popular to be economically successful. Grand strategy games as a genre aren't all that popular yet Paradox seems to think it's worth it to make them.
I would pay for an alternate start date scenario pack DLC as well. It can't be that hard for Paradox to do. It's not like they would have to create anything new, just shuffle things around.
If my anecdote is "useless", then yours is equally so. But it is not an opinion that 1936 is far more popular. It is not an opinion that adding more start dates would fracture development focus.
That's literally what I said.
Neither of those points address the arguments I've made.
I'm coming at this from a MP perspective but if we could have one alternative start date, it should be 1941 Barbarossa. This eliminates preparation for all countries (we can probably assume USA will just join the war right away). We jump right into the heat of the war. China is raging. North Africa is alive. And the Soviet Union must hold off the Germans. It's also a fairly balanced setup
One of the worst things about Multiplayer is that a competent France and UK player working together can usually check and defeat Germany, so in order to prolong the game the France player must give up their mainland after pretending to fight for it. This is not necessarily the fault of the developer, but is still really annoying from a competitive standpoint. If I believed in multiple start dates, I would propose a 11 July 1940 start date.
I wish there was a 1933 start date like in Darkest Hour, and that the focus trees extended back that far. A lot of the alt-history paths in HoI IV seem very contrived because you have staunchly democratic countries spontaneously turning into their fascist or communist doppelgangers in the span of a year or two, and even historical political/industrial focuses which reflect events that took place over the course of several years can take place in 70 days.|
That being said, this game was hardly a HoI game when it was released. Paradox now has to spend all of it's time fixing the AI, naval combat, adding more focus trees to significant minors and generally just adding the content which would have been in an older HoI release from the beginning, and I'd rather have them finish their 1936 scenario before they add more unfinished scenarios.
That being said, this game was hardly a HoI game when it was released. Paradox now has to spend all of it's time fixing the AI, naval combat, adding more focus trees to significant minors and generally just adding the content which would have been in an older HoI release from the beginning, and I'd rather have them finish their 1936 scenario before they add more unfinished scenarios.