Why is Édouard Daladier the starting leader of France, and not Pierre Laval?

[Dryhad]

The historical paths have always, always taken a back seat to paradox doing meme shit. France is a classic example of this

I would disagree with that, the monarchist branches here are very rudimentary, particularly relative to their popularity (although it's probably not a coincidence that Napoleon is both the most popular path and also the most interesting focus branch). I'd find it hard to attribute any deficiency in the democratic tree to a disproportionate focus on the monarchist tree, given the state of the latter.

 

[MrNewVegas]

I would disagree with that, the monarchist branches here are very rudimentary, particularly relative to their popularity (although it's probably not a coincidence that Napoleon is both the most popular path and also the most interesting focus branch). I'd find it hard to attribute any deficiency in the democratic tree to a disproportionate focus on the monarchist tree, given the state of the latter.

The deficit in France is in the lack of interaction between Vichy and the allies and the lack of interaction between de Gaulle and the allies. They also incorrectly model the prime minister of France in 1936 an don't have any mechanism for the Vichy regime to join the allies except by being annexed by Free France, a situation so wholly unrealistic as to be laughable.

 

[Dryhad]

The deficit in France is in the lack of interaction between Vichy and the allies and the lack of interaction between de Gaulle and the allies. They also incorrectly model the prime minister of France in 1936 an don't have any mechanism for the Vichy regime to join the allies except by being annexed by Free France, a situation so wholly unrealistic as to be laughable.

I agree with all of this, I just think it's self evident that they did not spend a lot of time on the monarchist branches.

 

[MrNewVegas]

I agree with all of this, I just think it's self evident that they did not spend a lot of time on the monarchist branches.

Oh sure and I agree with you

 

[kimidf]

I think the developers of the game should have more cure and affection for the historical path to the same way they do in the alternative paths and not insert paths that are very unlikely simply by obligation. I recognize that in certain countries the historical path is not very fun or stimulating for the type of structure that this game is based on but I think you can create mechanics that to be attractive that part

 

[Jubego]

I'm really interested in this topic because as a french player of hoi4, I have to confess that something like 50% of my games are with a historical France. I try to respect the history as much as I can, until the battle of France begins, of course ...

And frankly, I don't have anything against Léon Blum or Pierre Laval, and I don't care that much about absolutly having Daladier or any other historical guy as my leader.
BUT ! The portraits of these two are reaaaally ugly to me, comparing to Daladier's or any other leader/general in the game.
In fact the problem is not that they're ugly, but rather the style with which they were painted, that is obviously not the same than all the other portraits in the game ; they are much more cartoonish than realistic.

And the result is that it really induces a dissonance in the game, that almost breaks the immersion.

Of course, you might think "oh stop crying little -insert insult about whining and annoying people-, it doesn't prevent you from enjoying the game !" and you are absolutly right, it doesn't affect the gameplay at all and the game remains one of the best (if not the best) of all time.

But the point is that looking at all the beautiful portraits is one of the pleasure I have during my experience of hoi4.
And the fact that now it's not possible to enjoy my favorite country without having to see Blum's or Laval's ugly portraits until 1946 or longer, whenever I open the political tab ... it simply bothers me.

I agree that it would be great to have an idea of the mess of french politic in the 30's with 7 presidents of the council within 4 years. But I can understand that it would be pretty hard for the developpers to set up this chaos ...

That's why I think the simplest solution would be that the artists of Paradoxe remake the portraits of Laval and Blum in a more realistic style.

 

[Iskulya]

And frankly, I don't have anything against Léon Blum or Pierre Laval, and I don't care that much about absolutly having Daladier or any other historical guy as my leader.
BUT ! The portraits of these two are reaaaally ugly to me, comparing to Daladier's or any other leader/general in the game.
In fact the problem is not that they're ugly, but rather the style with which they were painted, that is obviously not the same than all the other portraits in the game ; they are much more cartoonish than realistic.

Nah, it's not just you. Some of the old portraits really are very bad by the standards of the newer ones. Stalin's, for example, is I'm pretty sure a literal portrait of him and it looks incredibly weird and out of place compared to every other one of the game's portraits. Mussolini looks extremely cartoonish and the quality of the art fairly blurry/low detail compared to the newer ones.

They both could definitely use new portraits, although I think Hitler's has hailed up decently.

 

[Emperor_Napoleon]

Try being Australian, paying money for the Together for Victory DLC mostly to play the Australian focuses, and then finding out that Paradox didn't even bother putting in the correct prime minister for Australia - the one they used didn't become PM until 1940! That's just straight up insulting, to be honest.

 

[Dlin369]

One of the problems with France is a historical run basically involves deliberately sabotaging yourself since France kept changing blocs and coalitions. In-game you manage to keep one consistent coalition throughout, which is a-historical but allows for a more linear focus tree. I guess if I had to design the focus tree to be "historical" I'd make it so if your stability drops below certain thresholds (maybe intervals of -10%) you can either pay political power or see a coalition change. And shifting coalition locks you out of your old moderate democratic tree and starts the other tree. And you can flip flop back and forth

 

[MobiusTwo]

Nah, it's not just you. Some of the old portraits really are very bad by the standards of the newer ones. Stalin's, for example, is I'm pretty sure a literal portrait of him and it looks incredibly weird and out of place compared to every other one of the game's portraits. Mussolini looks extremely cartoonish and the quality of the art fairly blurry/low detail compared to the newer ones.

They both could definitely use new portraits, although I think Hitler's has hailed up decently.

How about Hirohito? That's easily the worst portrait in the game since it looks absolutely nothing like him.

Try being Australian, paying money for the Together for Victory DLC mostly to play the Australian focuses, and then finding out that Paradox didn't even bother putting in the correct prime minister for Australia - the one they used didn't become PM until 1940! That's just straight up insulting, to be honest.

They didn't even get the starting prime minister right, but they took the time to add a literal immersion-breaking meme (Rod Hull) for whenever Australia gets puppeted by a non-aligned nation. In all the years I've played HOI4 I haven't even touched Australia since the game portrays it as weaker and more isolated version of Canada.

 

[kimidf]

I believe France could have decisions in the style of the BOB countries that would reflect in a better way the weak collations that the French governments had during the final period of the Third Republic that could lead to Daladier andReynaud could be the main figure of the Gallic country

 

[Fulmen]

Try being Australian, paying money for the Together for Victory DLC mostly to play the Australian focuses, and then finding out that Paradox didn't even bother putting in the correct prime minister for Australia - the one they used didn't become PM until 1940! That's just straight up insulting, to be honest.

Either at release or in the beta (don't remember which) Finland's leader in both start dates was President Ryti (President IRL Dec 1940 - Aug 1944). After complaints they replaced him with Kallio (Mar 1937 - Dec 1940) in the 1936 start date. Many months post-release they replaced Ryti with Kallio in the 1939 start date as well, which is the only start date to have the correct leader for FIN in HoI4 so far. The correct leader for 1936 would be Svinhufvud (Mar 1931 - Mar 1937).

Most of these incorrect leaders are a casualty of PDX's decision to abandon the use of historical photographs in favour of portraits that PDX has to spend time and money on to make. Remember the game at release? Most countries in the world didn't have unique portraits even for their historical leaders, let alone ahistorical ones; only the majors and a few minors did, most notably several countries in Europe.

By comparison, all previous HoIs at release had correct leaders for all countries in all start dates, coupled with historically accurate photographs, in all but a few cases. Furthermore, in at least HoI2 and its spin-offs, most historical leader changes within the game's timeframe were also represented through events, again with historically accurate photographs.

 

[Emperor_Napoleon]

Either at release or in the beta (don't remember which) Finland's leader in both start dates was President Ryti (President IRL Dec 1940 - Aug 1944). After complaints they replaced him with Kallio (Mar 1937 - Dec 1940) in the 1936 start date. Many months post-release they replaced Ryti with Kallio in the 1939 start date as well, which is the only start date to have the correct leader for FIN in HoI4 so far. The correct leader for 1936 would be Svinhufvud (Mar 1931 - Mar 1937).

Most of these incorrect leaders are a casualty of PDX's decision to abandon the use of historical photographs in favour of portraits that PDX has to spend time and money on to make. Remember the game at release? Most countries in the world didn't have unique portraits even for their historical leaders, let alone ahistorical ones; only the majors and a few minors did, most notably several countries in Europe.

By comparison, all previous HoIs at release had correct leaders for all countries in all start dates, coupled with historically accurate photographs, in all but a few cases. Furthermore, in at least HoI2 and its spin-offs, most historical leader changes within the game's timeframe were also represented through events, again with historically accurate photographs.

I really like the custom-made portraits that Paradox use for HoI4 (at least the more modern ones, the early release ones tended to be of a poorer quality compared to now) and I'd prefer them over photographs, but if there's going to so many inaccuracies or omissions I'd prefer they return to photographs.