Why is Kaiserreich so much more immersive than the base game?

[Dalwin]

I see two reasons why an alternate history mod, like Kaiserreich, can be more immersive if enough work has been put into it.

1.) Historical accuracy: There are no immersion breaking mistakes in historical accuracy. The group made up their own history so it is hard to say that any of it is wrong.

2.) Exploration: As much as I like WWII, we have been over that ground hundreds if not thousands of times. With a new history you get back to playing in a situation where you do not have perfect foresight. Where things can still surprise you.

This latter is a point that I try to make with the part of the historical faction that seem to insist on things being repeated too closely to the original script. It is those same ones who complain that there is any randomness at all to it. They don't like that there is even a small chance of Poland caving to the Danzig Ultimatum or any of the other small handful of similar decisions points each of which has a small chance of variation.

The chant of "let all the variation be in ahistorical mode" is off the mark as well. With Historical off the game varies far too much instead of merely introducing a bit of uncertainty and suspense. A game in which you do not know with 100% certainty how the AI will react to certain decisions is much more immersive than one in which you have perfect foresight.

 

[qer]

I don't really like the Kr Hoi4 version, I always think it was kind of bland compare to the DH one. But I can get where you are getting too as I really like the equestria at war mod, beyond all the ponies it has very solid gameplay and Tress

However I don't think that being based on alt- history makes a mod more immersive. Black ice for hoi3 and edge of darkness for DH are both mods that significantly improve the WW2 experience. Not that it matters that much for Hoi4 as most of the Alt-history paths aren't based on history anyways

 

[Fulmen]

Kaiserreich has nothing to do with History, its basically complete fantasy, so of course they can add all kinds of content to that, it doesn't need any research and it doesn't have to be plausible. In Kaiserreich every second country has a civil war and unimportant states get huge focus-trees that are completely unbalanced. And there isn't any big war, just lots of random conflicts that can end up very disappointing.

This.

Why is Kaiserreich more immersive?

It’s not. It’s a Syndacalist fanboy’s wet dream, and loses all immersion upon opening the box.

Many years ago when I spoke to some of the then core developers of KR, I definitely noticed some far-left tendencies among them. The mod has always reeked a bit of Marxist fanboyism IMO. It's still a mostly decent mod though, especially for DH, even if most of it doesn't make any sense.

I don't really like the Kr Hoi4 version, I always think it was kind of bland compare to the DH one.

Totally agree with this. The mechanics that were so integral in making KR interesting back in HoI2 and then DH, just aren't there in HoI4.

 

[Meglok]

The devs claim that they only focus on the major nations because the players mostly play the major nations,

Bratyn was polite. I will say the devs have never ever claimed that and I know Podcat has said differently at PDXCons. The 1st 2 DLCs were all about minor countries. PDX will look at the popularity of a nation as one of many factors in whether that nation gets a revised focus tree and more content added.

 

[hkrommel]

Many years ago when I spoke to some of the then core developers of KR, I definitely noticed some far-left tendencies among them.

That's funny, based on the DH version and how many insane bonuses (and free ships) Russia gets I always thought it started out as a "Russia STRONK" mod.

 

[kaguravitro]

I see two reasons why an alternate history mod, like Kaiserreich, can be more immersive if enough work has been put into it.

1.) Historical accuracy: There are no immersion breaking mistakes in historical accuracy. The group made up their own history so it is hard to say that any of it is wrong.

2.) Exploration: As much as I like WWII, we have been over that ground hundreds if not thousands of times. With a new history you get back to playing in a situation where you do not have perfect foresight. Where things can still surprise you.

This latter is a point that I try to make with the part of the historical faction that seem to insist on things being repeated too closely to the original script. It is those same ones who complain that there is any randomness at all to it. They don't like that there is even a small chance of Poland caving to the Danzig Ultimatum or any of the other small handful of similar decisions points each of which has a small chance of variation.

The chant of "let all the variation be in ahistorical mode" is off the mark as well. With Historical off the game varies far too much instead of merely introducing a bit of uncertainty and suspense. A game in which you do not know with 100% certainty how the AI will react to certain decisions is much more immersive than one in which you have perfect foresight.

i agree

 

[Big Dead One]

While I agree that Kaiserreich has more contents, PDX developers have to develop core game mechanics too. Kaiserreich has a larger team, as other people have mentioned, and the contents they add are mostly focus trees and events with the occasional mechanic modifications. They mostly build the mod on the existing core mechanics. The HOI4 team is smaller, and has to spend time developing new core mechanics, like the ship designer, and overhauling existing ones, like the upcoming naval combat stuff.

 

[jibby123]

I am lucky to have both vanilla and KR and thankful for that. £ per hours entertainment they're both up there with the first Stone Roses album and Football Manager. Thanks to all. Isn't that enough? Kudos to Paradox for making the game so mod-able.

 

[Zeprion]

The paradox team is limited by history. This is no dig on alt history which I enjoy as well.

That's what I meant by:

Of course you can't make Vanilla like Kaiserreich where something interesting happens in every part of the globe because you can't make up scenarios, but a lot of improvement can be made to make the nations feel more enjoyable. There's hardly a shortage of ideas, if you read the history of each country in World War II there's a lot that can be added in their focus tree in the historical path alone, let alone the fictional alternative paths.

Even if the paradox team is limited by history, there's hardly a shortage of historical events that can be added in the game to make it more immersive. And as a history hobbyist with a historian father, I can tell that Vanilla Hearts of Iron 4 has certain historical inaccuracies, minor ones, but annoying for those with historical OCD.

Why is it more immersive?

Well OP, it's because of your preferences, nothing more, nothing less.

I find the base game to be more immersive, because I would prefer a WW2 game over the Kaiserreich scenario. Preferences.

A whole bunch of spam events and civil wars aren't really my thing.

This is not about preference, if it was about preference I'd prefer a World War II scenario over an alternate history scenario.

This is about: Better represented state borders (regions), so many events, so many news (for lore), almost every leader and national idea has a description, a lot of nations have focus tress with a historical path but also alternative paths, unique portraits, even that small +20 Political Power during the national day with a news event that describes the significance of the national day adds more flavour, etc.

I see two reasons why an alternate history mod, like Kaiserreich, can be more immersive if enough work has been put into it.

1.) Historical accuracy: There are no immersion breaking mistakes in historical accuracy. The group made up their own history so it is hard to say that any of it is wrong.

2.) Exploration: As much as I like WWII, we have been over that ground hundreds if not thousands of times. With a new history you get back to playing in a situation where you do not have perfect foresight. Where things can still surprise you.

This latter is a point that I try to make with the part of the historical faction that seem to insist on things being repeated too closely to the original script. It is those same ones who complain that there is any randomness at all to it. They don't like that there is even a small chance of Poland caving to the Danzig Ultimatum or any of the other small handful of similar decisions points each of which has a small chance of variation.

The chant of "let all the variation be in ahistorical mode" is off the mark as well. With Historical off the game varies far too much instead of merely introducing a bit of uncertainty and suspense. A game in which you do not know with 100% certainty how the AI will react to certain decisions is much more immersive than one in which you have perfect foresight.

1) Vanilla Hearts of Iron 4 already has certain historical inaccuracies. But I agree that it's easier to make KR lore because there's no such thing as "historical inaccuracy" in an alternate history mod. However, at least basic research isn't difficult for Vanilla either. Adding descriptions for leaders and national ideas can be done quickly by one person and the devs can always consider consulting a historian for historical inaccuracy in complex things such as focus trees or events.

2) There can be exploration in Vanilla Hearts of Iron 4. With historical mode on all nations will act the same as before (surprsignly, KR also has a 'historical path') but the play can choose to do whatever he wants. Basically every nation has 4 choices: Go left, go democratic, go right, or stay neutral. But each nation has an unique situation with unique events that shapes its strengths, interests and relations for better or worse. Those are what makes the difference between a generic and a specific focus tree.

Perhaps there should be 3 options: Historical, Mixed, Ahistorical. The difference between Mixed and Ahistorical is synchronization. You will have a scenario where Italy goes democratic and France fascist, or where Germany goes democratic but UK goes fascist. I think this is how KR does it so that the ahistorical paths have some unpredictability without varying too much, where something different happens but the behaviour of all other countries still makes sense.

I'm happy to see this topic got a response from a content designer dev explaining the reason why Vanilla can't be more like Kaiserreich, the small development team and the fact that they have to work on the core game mechanics too.

 

[BeauNiddle]

Immersion means different things to different people. It seems your definition of immersion is lots of news style popups telling you what's happening with the possibility of asking the player for input.

In theory this is fine but I played Vic2 for a while and that demonstrates clearly the downside. initially the popups were interesting, I'd look up the area involved, check how it's doing then make the choice relevant for that place. After a couple of playthroughs I'd just choose the same option continuously because the reward vs time spent just wasn't there. Some people love the lore and detail offered by news style stories, others just find them a nuisance and distraction. (surplus fish is the popup I'm thinking of here if anybody is interested, playing as UK)

I do agree with more NF trees and more interconnectedness between the trees tho.

 

[Ninaran]

A whole bunch of spam events and civil wars aren't really my thing.

Not to mention the horrible performance of Kaiserreich due to that.

 

[Secret Master]

A game in which you do not know with 100% certainty how the AI will react to certain decisions is much more immersive than one in which you have perfect foresight.

Let me expand on you here.

It's immersive because of the "pucker" factor. That feeling you get in your lower body when you are waiting to find out if your gamble or bluff is going to pay off. Just like your historical counterparts.

Let's take Munich as an example. How many German players even bother to have troops on the border when they start the Munich chain with historical on? Not many, I wager. So, instead of Munich being a high stakes gamble with an uncertain outcome, it's just a thing you do to get some IC and manpower. You might manipulate the situation to reduce WT or time it in a way that benefits your fellow Axis powers, but it's still just a freebie.

Our current MP game shows how the "pucker factor" comes into play. Finland caving over Karelia threw everything into chaos for the Soviets. One of the Soviet players was threatening to purge other human players in his faction over the issue (alcohol may have been a factor). But having the possibility in place made the ultimatum a pucker moment. And then Estonia decided not to cave, so we had another pucker moment we didn't expect.

Luckily, one of the Soviet co-ops was smart enough to put troops on Estonia's border just on the off chance they said no. (Alcohol may not have been a factor in that decision.)

I like some amount of pucker factor, but I also understand how some players don't want that pre-war pucker factor. Part of this is because there are NFs and national spirits that depend on the outcome of various things not under human control. MEFO is a big one. China caving and throwing the timing of Japanese stuff is another.

I can see it both ways. And it even varies for me. Sometimes I want that historical pucker factor. Other times, I just want to roll some panzers into other countries and crush them.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

That's funny, based on the DH version and how many insane bonuses (and free ships) Russia gets I always thought it started out as a "Russia STRONK" mod.

It did. It started out as the 'All the Russias' mod for old HoI2 and grew from there.

 

[hkrommel]

I can see it both ways. And it even varies for me. Sometimes I want that historical pucker factor. Other times, I just want to roll some panzers into other countries and crush them.

There's always the issue of who you're playing as too. If I'm playing as the US and Germany gets stomped over Munich, then what's the rest of the game about? I can intervene in China maybe but that won't take much time, the Soviets might do something but most likely they'll derp around with their non-responsive focus tree. It works much better in multiplayer I think.

 

[Secret Master]

If I'm playing as the US and Germany gets stomped over Munich, then what's the rest of the game about?

Yeah, that's also a problem.

Some people (like yourself) want a challenge. If Germany fails because the French oppose the Rhineland, then the US is just sitting around until Japan makes a mistake. And even then, 100% of US effort against Japan is a bit like crushing a walnut with an industrial press.

 

[Dalwin]

Let me expand on you here.

It's immersive because of the "pucker" factor. That feeling you get in your lower body when you are waiting to find out if your gamble or bluff is going to pay off. Just like your historical counterparts.

Let's take Munich as an example. How many German players even bother to have troops on the border when they start the Munich chain with historical on? Not many, I wager. So, instead of Munich being a high stakes gamble with an uncertain outcome, it's just a thing you do to get some IC and manpower. You might manipulate the situation to reduce WT or time it in a way that benefits your fellow Axis powers, but it's still just a freebie.

Our current MP game shows how the "pucker factor" comes into play. Finland caving over Karelia threw everything into chaos for the Soviets. One of the Soviet players was threatening to purge other human players in his faction over the issue (alcohol may have been a factor). But having the possibility in place made the ultimatum a pucker moment. And then Estonia decided not to cave, so we had another pucker moment we didn't expect.

Luckily, one of the Soviet co-ops was smart enough to put troops on Estonia's border just on the off chance they said no. (Alcohol may not have been a factor in that decision.)

I like some amount of pucker factor, but I also understand how some players don't want that pre-war pucker factor. Part of this is because there are NFs and national spirits that depend on the outcome of various things not under human control. MEFO is a big one. China caving and throwing the timing of Japanese stuff is another.

I can see it both ways. And it even varies for me. Sometimes I want that historical pucker factor. Other times, I just want to roll some panzers into other countries and crush them.

The issue with MEFO is not a suitable example here. That had nothing at all to do with randomness. We were merely victims of an unfriendly UI and the questionable design decision to make something as influential as MEFO require repeated manual renewals. The game didn't randomly cancel MEFO. German #1 merely neglected to renew it in a timely fashion.

I disagree on China, completely. Though I disagree with those who want the safety net of certainty, those who would rather follow a set plan and script that does not require any adaptability, I still can sympathize with their stance. I think there is one important distinction to which kinds of events are bad uncertainty versus good. That distinction is whether there are any tradeoffs or is it purely a random chance at being bad for one side. If the badness is minor or only forces one to develop an alternate plan instead of being a pure penalty then I still think the uncertainty enhances play.

China: This one has so many tradeoffs that it is completely unclear which side was favored by that. I know that your team has a vocal pessimist who rants about every surprise being bad, but that is not an objective assessment. Obviously the fact that the United Front didn't form favored the Axis. Some of this is due to our mod with high partisan activity and the method of avoiding capitulation by the Nationalist Chinese. No UF meant we get to annex some of the warlords.

However, caving on Marco Polo did not prevent the UF. War with the Communists did. Combining Marco Polo and no UF and all of it leads to a bottom line of we will get better occupation in China, somewhat, in exchange for a big spike in WT earlier than we had planned. I know some things are gated behind war support rather than WT, but that spike still helped the Allies.

Danzig: This didn't happen this game but we have seen it. If Poland actually caves to the ultimatum, it is not the end of the Reich. It is merely time for Plan B. It is very interesting when this happens.

Finland: In vanilla this is purely bad for the Soviets, though not the end of the world as some claim. In our mod, however, the trade off with getting a safe border with Finland since they will no longer be inclined to join the Axis is a fair offset. There is even a fair chance (27%) that at least one of the Baltics will refuse their ultimatums and you will still get your Lessons of War in a timely fashion.

One randomness that had the potential to be a pure penalty to one side is an extremely late SCW combined with pacifist play by the Axis avoiding any early WT had the potential to trap the UK behind Shadow Schemes. It was statistically very unlikely. We already fixed that by setting an alternate trigger for Shadow Schemes of mid 1937.

In conclusion, I don't think that any of the randomness we have left in the game is bad. It adds uncertainty without simply being a chance for one side or the other to face a random penalty with no offsetting factors.

(EDIT: note that I did not mention either Rhineland or Munich since we have always had house rules forbidding opposing the Germans on those two things. Doing so obviously derails the war almost completely.)

 

[Secret Master]

The issue with MEFO is not a suitable example here. That had nothing at all to do with randomness.

It can be if the Czechs refuse Munich and Germany has to go to war. Once that war ends, MEFO has to be repaid. And you don't get MEFO anymore.

Unless I am wrong, there is a small chance the Czechs refuse even if France and Britain (under human control) tell them to get stuffed.

 

[Dalwin]

It can be if the Czechs refuse Munich and Germany has to go to war. Once that war ends, MEFO has to be repaid. And you don't get MEFO anymore.

Unless I am wrong, there is a small chance the Czechs refuse even if France and Britain (under human control) tell them to get stuffed.

Actually I think you are wrong about the Czechs, but I suppose it is possible. Then again the MEFO business is not the huge crisis it was made out to be. Yes we lost some production, but we gained a lot of PP in exchange. This has allowed us to hire key ministers sooner and offset much of the lost production among other things. Some of those other things will only become evident as the war progresses so I don't with to go into detail now.

 

[Rebel1776]

Why is Kaiserreich so much more immersive.....

It's almost as if they've been working on its finer details for.....years longer than HoI4 has existed.

 

[hkrommel]

Some people (like yourself) want a challenge. If Germany fails because the French oppose the Rhineland, then the US is just sitting around until Japan makes a mistake. And even then, 100% of US effort against Japan is a bit like crushing a walnut with an industrial press.

I think a lot of it depends on what the AI or player does. If Germany gets called out over Munich, and thinks it can still win, an early war can be quite interesting and may give Germany the edge if played correctly. Unfortunately it usually results in Germany getting defeated in a year or so if played by AI, because the AI never seems to understand how vulnerable it is.