will Vicky or HOI be responsible for a WW1 scenario?

[FOARP]

I hope World War 1 stays with Victoria.

• Victoria 2 did World War 1 badly, but this does not mean that Victoria 3 cannot do World War 1 well.
• Victoria is already by far the shortest of the major franchises. Removing the last third of Victoria will kill that franchise.
• "Stand-alone" Clausewitz games suck. This is not my opinion, Sengoku and March of Eagles sold terribly. Unless a stand-alone WW1 game is a definate upgrade over Hot4, it's not going to sell well either.
• An offical Paradox WW1 game with the HoI4 engine would effectively move the start date of HoI4 to 1914. This would effectively make HoI a World War franchise with a historical focus on World War 1. I don't want that.
• Paradox can develop the HoI engine, modders can make a World War 1 with it. That is the most efficient use of everyone's time.

This thread isn't even cold: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/ww1-1914-cold-war-dlc.898678/

1) HOI having a WW1 DLC would not prevent Vicky having Great Wars or a timeline lasting until 1936.

2) Vicky 3 will be under the same constraints that Podcat describes above for Vicky 2: one of which is that it is not a war game. Vicky 3 will not do WW1 well because it, too, will not be a war game.

3) We are discussing whether HOI should have WW1 in it. Not, specifically a stand-alone WW1 game.

4) No, having a WW1 start-date implemented through a DLC will not make HOI4 a WW1 game any more than it made Darkest Hour a WW1 game. This is a silly assertion - all it means is that you can fight WW1 if you wish.

5) Paradox can (and have) expanded their games to include the rich subject matter of other ages - The Old Gods being a particularly magnificent example. The best use of their time, post-release, assuming success of the base-game, is to improve it by including interesting new content through DLCs. WW1 would be an obvious choice for this.

 

[frolix42]

HOI having a WW1 DLC would not prevent Vicky having Great Wars or a timeline lasting until 1936.

It would be a waste of development to create two different WW1 scenarios. I'd much rather have one high quality version of WW1 and for it to be in Victoria 3.

Vicky 3 will be under the same constraints that Podcat describes above for Vicky 2: one of which is that it is not a war game. Vicky 3 will not do WW1 well because it, too, will not be a war game.

HoI suffers because it doesn't have as much depth outside of warfare, which Victoria has. Victoria should be a war game and it should be a peace game. Since Victoria 3 will be released after HoI4, there is no reason why it shouldn't be as sophisticated militarily as HoI is.

We are discussing whether HOI should have WW1 in it. Not, specifically a stand-alone WW1 game.

...

To be honest, neither Vicky or HOI could simulate a ww1 game very well. I think the best idea is to have a seperate game for it.
If I had to chose between the two, I would say HOI, but only with major changes in the gameplay.

You're not wrong, but I was ignoring the rest of the game. I was just trying to come up with an example. Regardless I think it should be standalone.

...actually a lot people people are discussing it. You are too busy posting maps with arrows to listen to other people. I don't think it should be a standalone game or tacked onto HoI4

No, having a WW1 start-date implemented through a DLC will not make HOI4 a WW1 game any more than it made Darkest Hour a WW1 game. This is a silly assertion - all it means is that you can fight WW1 if you wish.

Paradox can (and have) expanded their games to include the rich subject matter of other ages - The Old Gods being a particularly magnificent example. The best use of their time, post-release, assuming success of the base-game, is to improve it by including interesting new content through DLCs. WW1 would be an obvious choice for this.

It's not a "silly assertion", it is a fact. Over 99% of EU4 games start in 1444. For those who own ToG, 867 is the overwhelming start date. For those who own CM, 769 is the overwhelming start date. The chief casualty of CK2's start date being brought back is that there is virtually no more focus on the 1066 start date.

CK2 forum is full of threads about how players never finish campaigns. This is less of a problem for that game, in Hearts of Iron there is a lot of Technology that isn't invented until the late game. I'd hate to miss that. A Hearts of Iron campaign that ends in 1925 seems like a huge waste of Tech Tree.

So making a WW1 DLC is essentially splitting Paradox's focus and annoy people who want a focus on WW2. For modders of things like Darkest Hour that is a fine, but it's a terrible idea for a studio with limited resources. Fortunately @Johan has stated that there will be no 1933 start date, which makes a 1914 start date out of the question.

 

[FOARP]

It would be a waste of development to create two different WW1 scenarios. I'd much rather have one high quality version of WW1 and for it to be in Victoria 3.

Podcat explained why this wasn't done for Vicky 2 - too close to the end of the game. Same thing goes for Vicky 3 - no doubt it will have great wars, but likely no WW1 start-date.

HoI suffers because it doesn't have as much depth outside of warfare, which Victoria has. Victoria should be a war game and it should be a peace game. Since Victoria 3 will be released after HoI4, there is no reason why it shouldn't be as sophisticated militarily as HoI is.

Vicky 2 came out after both HOI3 and HOI2 released, and was not nearly so sophisticated a war game as either of them. The reasons for this are simple - Vicky is not a war game, making it into a sophisticated war game would be pointless since the player spends most of the game at peace. Moreover Vicky is supposed to simulate the period from 1836, an era when combat was completely different to that of WW1 and which basically means that any combat system in Vicky has to be a fudge.

It's not a "silly assertion", it is a fact. Over 99% of EU4 games start in 1444. For those who own ToG, 789 is the overwhelming start date. For those who own CM, 687 is the overwhelming start date. The chief casualty of CK2's start date being brought back is that there is virtually no more focus on the 1066 start date.

Irrelevant. a WW1 start-date does not require a 1914-48 play-through. As in Darkest Hour you simply let people chose which war they want to fight - and in Darkest Hour plenty of people chose WW2 when they wanted to play WW2 and WW1 when they wanted to play WW1.

CK2 forum is full of threads about how players never finish campaigns. This is less of a problem for that game, in Hearts of Iron there is a lot of Technology that isn't invented until the late game. I'd hate to miss that. A Hearts of Iron campaign that ends in 1925 seems like a huge waste of Tech Tree.

Again, you're assuming a 1914-48 play-through, something that is totally unnecessary for a WW1 DLC. Why do you assume this?

So making a WW1 DLC is essentially splitting Paradox's focus and annoy people who want a focus on WW2. For modders of things like Darkest Hour that is a fine, but it's a terrible idea for a studio with limited resources. Fortunately @Johan has stated that there will be no 1933 start date, which makes a 1914 start date out of the question.

Again, you're assuming a 1914-48 play-through. Definitely a silly assertion, I'm afraid, since a WW1 DLC does not require one.

All of this rather reminds me of the commenters who responded to the announcement of HOI1 to wisely declare that the game would be a disaster because all you had to do was tech-rush nuclear weapons, that it would have too much micro-management, and that it would be gamey and distract from EU1.

Finally, every weapon and tactic of WW1 was in use somewhere in the world in 1936, many of the aspects of WW1 were also present in the conflicts in Spain, China, and in the second world war as a whole. HOI literally has to be able to simulate WW1-style warfare at at least some level otherwise it cannot properly simulate WW2 - so why not just do the logical thing and implement WW1 in it also?

 

[Axe99]

Just my 2 cents, without a heap of thought, but if I was a bajillionaire and had bought out Paradox and they had to bend to my every whim, I'd go for a WWI 'module' in HoI, with a tech tree that could cope with a great war from 1900 through to 1935. In that module, there is a WWI as it was set up scenario, but it would also be possible to export games from Vicky 2 (or 3, pretty please PDS ) into the HoI WWI module, play out WWI, then export them back into Vicky 2/3. Vicky 2/3 could also handle it through the normal flow of gameplay, but with less detail (so you don't need HoI to play great wars in Vicky), because pops, economy and warfare at the HoI4 level would be information overload to the vast majority of even Paradox gamers.

The only thing HoI would need to handle this would be some kind of 'economy lite' model in the WWI module to get an idea of how hard the economy was pushed, so that when the game goes back to Vicky, the economies are aligned appropriately. Something like this in HoI would help with any transition to a cold war period as well, so wouldn't be a crazy thing to throw in.

Thinking about it, I couldn't see why you couldn't work warfare from around the first Franco-Prussian war into HoI, although I'm not suggesting every war in Vicky be exported to HoI and back again, and I don't think this is the kind of thing that'd ever happen, but I can dream .

 

[frolix42]

Irrelevant. a WW1 start-date does not require a 1914-48 play-through. As in Darkest Hour you simply let people chose which war they want to fight - and in Darkest Hour plenty of people chose WW2 when they wanted to play WW2 and WW1 when they wanted to play WW1.

Again, you're assuming a 1914-48 play-through, something that is totally unnecessary for a WW1 DLC. Why do you assume this?

I think you are contradicting yourself.

We are discussing whether HOI should have WW1 in it. Not, specifically a stand-alone WW1 game.

So you're imagining that the WW1 DLC (that Paradox will never make) will be a stand-alone scenario, which you're also asserting incorrectly that no one is discussing

If the WW1 scenario you're imaging doesn't include the option to continue into the WW2 era at all, why even make it a DLC for HoI4? This is absurd...there is no way that Paradox wouldn't give the player the option to continue on through WW2. How much appeal has a stand-alone Clausewitz game (oops I mean stand-alone Clausewitz DLC!) that ends after only four years?

But all of this is a nonsense hypothetical. I'm fairly confident Paradox isn't going to make a World War 1 scenario for HoI4. The only coherent thing that you're saying is that 'Darkest Hour' is the proper way to play WW1 in a HoI skin.

Paradox can develop the HoI engine, modders can make a World War 1 scenario with it. That is the most efficient use of everyone's time.

so @FOARP apparently disagrees with himself.

 

[Evan05]

I think I've made my point: WW1 was not blitzkrieg, but (as the above maps show) there were significant campaigns of manoeuvre throughout the conflict of exactly the kind that HOI is good at modelling. People fixate on the Western Front between the years 1915 and 1917, but this was far from the whole story, and even that front saw significant movement in 1914 and 1918.

WW1 belongs with HOI - it's that simple.

The movement that was carried out is absolutely nothing compared to both previous and future wars. The dynamic of world war one is unique enough that neither HOI4 nor Vicky2 could properly do it, but if I had to go with one game, I'd put WW1 with HOI. But again, neither can do it justice.

That's why if Paradox ever tries to do WW1 right, I think it would it should be apart of a sub-game to the Hearts of Iron series, like how EU: Rome is.

But who knows? Maybe if paradox does make Vicky3, they would do WW1 well.

 

[MarcoRossolini]

I'm not sure it's possible for a Grand Strategy game to adequately cover World War 1 realistically. The changes required for Trench Warfare to go to 100 days-esque manoeuvre warfare are in my opinion, too deep and too at the tactical level to be adequately represented. You'd end up with a few number changing and "suddenly" the deadlock is broken, doesn't sound like compelling gameplay to me. That said, if there is a WW1 game that can cover that sort of warfare satisfactorily, please tell me. That said, from a grand strategy standpoint, the main Western Front would be pretty tedious for a long time, attack, lose (in HoI terms anyway), attack, lose, etc until you research a technology and Blam! away you go.
I'd go deeper into this but it's late. :/

 

[smug]

• If the WW1 scenario you're imaging doesn't include the option to continue into the WW2 era at all, why even make it a DLC for HoI4? This is absurd...there is no way that Paradox wouldn't give the player the option to continue on through WW2. How much appeal has a stand-alone Clausewitz game (oops I mean stand-alone Clausewitz DLC!) that ends after only four years?

  The point to making a standalone WW1 DLC is it would be enjoyable and the only real way we could get to play a proper WW1 scenario. The reason why it should be stand-alone is because HOI can't do peace very well just like how Vicky cant do war very well. And as for the appeal of stand-alone WW1 Clausewitz DLC that last six years , well just look at regular HOI, a series of WW2 Clausewitz games that last ten years, Do you see the similarities between them.

 

[FOARP]

I'm not sure it's possible for a Grand Strategy game to adequately cover World War 1 realistically. The changes required for Trench Warfare to go to 100 days-esque manoeuvre warfare are in my opinion, too deep and too at the tactical level to be adequately represented. You'd end up with a few number changing and "suddenly" the deadlock is broken, doesn't sound like compelling gameplay to me. That said, if there is a WW1 game that can cover that sort of warfare satisfactorily, please tell me. That said, from a grand strategy standpoint, the main Western Front would be pretty tedious for a long time, attack, lose (in HoI terms anyway), attack, lose, etc until you research a technology and Blam! away you go.
I'd go deeper into this but it's late. :/

The WW1 mod actually did a fairly good job of modelling this, so I doubt it is a killer problem. However, there are always things that it is difficult to implement in a mod because they require work on the .exe to achieve.

 

[FOARP]

The movement that was carried out is absolutely nothing compared to both previous and future wars. The dynamic of world war one is unique enough that neither HOI4 nor Vicky2 could properly do it, but if I had to go with one game, I'd put WW1 with HOI. But again, neither can do it justice.

That's why if Paradox ever tries to do WW1 right, I think it would it should be apart of a sub-game to the Hearts of Iron series, like how EU: Rome is.

But who knows? Maybe if paradox does make Vicky3, they would do WW1 well.

The series of maps I posted earlier shows large scale maneovres over country-sized territories lasting weeks/months, I could have posted a number of other maps (Mesopotamia, Caporetto, East Africa, the breakout from Salonika and the liberation of Serbia etc.) Showing similar campaigns. What is more, ALL of the weapons and tactics of 1914-18 existed and were in use in various parts of the world in 1936. Are you really saying that HOI shouldn't be able to model them?

I think you are contradicting yourself.


So you're imagining that the WW1 DLC (that Paradox will never make) will be a stand-alone scenario, which you're also asserting incorrectly that no one is discussing

If the WW1 scenario you're imaging doesn't include the option to continue into the WW2 era at all, why even make it a DLC for HoI4? This is absurd...there is no way that Paradox wouldn't give the player the option to continue on through WW2. How much appeal has a stand-alone Clausewitz game (oops I mean stand-alone Clausewitz DLC!) that ends after only four years?

But all of this is a nonsense hypothetical. I'm fairly confident Paradox isn't going to make a World War 1 scenario for HoI4. The only coherent thing that you're saying is that 'Darkest Hour' is the proper way to play WW1 in a HoI skin.



so @FOARP apparently disagrees with himself.

A stand alone game =/= a stand alone scenario. Please actually read people's comments before responding to them.

 

[frolix42]

• The point to making a standalone WW1 DLC is it would be enjoyable and the only real way we could get to play a proper WW1 scenario. The reason why it should be stand-alone is because HOI can't do peace very well just like how Vicky cant do war very well. And as for the appeal of stand-alone WW1 Clausewitz DLC that last six years , well just look at regular HOI, a series of WW2 Clausewitz games that last ten years, Do you see the similarities between them.

You are making two assertions.

• A WW1 DLC would be enjoyable

I don't know. March of Eagles and Sengoku were ok, but they weren't nearly at the level of quality of VIC2, CK2 or EU4.

• Victoria 3 isn't going to do World War 1 well.

I tend to be optimistic. Given how much Paradox has improved over the past 4 years, who knows what they will be capable of in 2018.

To your point is that World War 1 is similar to World War 2, you've made a case against Paradox wasting time retreading these waters. For a company that purports to be innovative, reskinning World War 2 into a World War 1 package and then charging money for it is something an untalented EA subsidiary would do. It's something a mod team could do really well, so I strongly believe that the most popular mods for HoI will be timeline extensions.

If a talented group of modders can make a very good WW1 mod, why anyone play $$$ for a WW1 DLC? I'd buy a Darkest Hour like version of HoI4 someday, but from Paradox I expect something more innovative which moves their franchises forward.

A stand alone game =/= a stand alone scenario. Please actually read people's comments before responding to them.

Physician heal thyself...

So you're imagining that the WW1 DLC (that Paradox will never make) will be a stand-alone scenario, which you're also asserting incorrectly that no one is discussing

If the WW1 scenario you're imaging doesn't include the option to continue into the WW2 era at all, why even make it a DLC for HoI4? This is absurd...there is no way that Paradox wouldn't give the player the option to continue on through WW2. How much appeal has a stand-alone Clausewitz game (oops I mean stand-alone Clausewitz DLC!) that ends after only four years?

Spitting hairs between an imaginary stand-alone DLC and an imaginary stand-alone game is very silly. Almost as silly as the idea of creating a earlier start date within HoI4 and then denying the player the ability to link it to main campaign. It would be as if ToG started in 867, but then ended in 955, and there were no way to export that game to 1066.

 

[wingo]

It should be in both, in Vicky as a general "Great war" (or one of several Great wars), in HOI4 as a standalone DLC scenario. Stand-alone game makes no sense IMHO, not enough positives and too many negatives.

HOI4 one will also have the benefit of probably improving core mechanics for the base game, as these DLCs always do (maybe trench/dig-in mechanics...?). Unlike CK2/EU4, which are focused on long term development so short stand-alone scenarios make no sense in them, HOI4 is itself a short stand-alone scenario of WW2, so a WW1 short stand-alone scenario makes perfect sense in it. With a bit of tweaking, there is no reason HOI4 could not simulate both stalemates and broad-front advances when conditions are right, HOI3 could already do that.

People should stop saying WW1 = trench warfare, WW2 = blitzkrieg, because it is just false. Plenty of fast advances, breakthroughs, encirclements, broad front offensives and years long stalemates in both, French front was not the only front in both wars. Warfare was the same, the only difference being new toys giving new capabilities, like planes actually being able to do meaningful damage and motorized and mechanized units being able to move faster than standard infantry.

 

[Dromido]

You are making two (@FOARP might call them silly) assertions.

• A WW1 DLC would be enjoyable

I don't know. March of Eagles and Sengoku were ok, but they weren't nearly at the level of quality of VIC2, CK2 or EU4.

• Victoria 3 isn't going to do World War 1 well.

I tend to be optimistic. Given how much Paradox has improved over the past 4 years, who knows what they will be capable of in 2018.

To your point is that World War 1 is similar to World War 2, you've made a case against Paradox wasting time retreading these waters. For a company that purports to be innovative, reskinning World War 2 into a World War 1 package and then charging money for it is something an untalented EA subsidiary would do. It's something a mod team could do really well, so I strongly believe that the most popular mods for HoI will be timeline extensions.

If a talented group of modders can make a very good WW1 mod, why anyone play $$$ for a WW1 DLC? I'd buy a Darkest Hour like version of HoI4 someday, but from Paradox I expect something more innovative which moves their franchises forward.



Physician heal thyself...


Spitting hairs between an imaginary stand-alone DLC and an imaginary stand-alone game is very silly. Almost as silly as the idea of creating a earlier start date within HoI4 and then denying the player the ability to link it to main campaign. It would be as if ToG started in 867, but then ended in 955, and there were no way to export that game to 1066.

"You are making two (@@FOARP might call them silly) assertions.

• A WW1 DLC would be enjoyable"

That doesn't even make any sense, who are you to say that a WWI DLC wouldn't be enjoyable for HOI4? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean everyone else follows your path, and don't like it? Don't have to get it, simple as that. I played the WWI mod for Hearts of Iron III and it worked very well, actually more enjoyable than WWII! So no it is not impossible, just a few different mechanics here and there and it would be fine.

"If a talented group of modders can make a very good WW1 mod, why anyone play $$$ for a WW1 DLC?"
That is like saying "If a talented group of modders can make a very good Civil War Scenario for Victoria II why would anyone pay money for a Civil War DLC (A House Divided). Because it is REFINED, specific mechanics for WWI like hey maybe a rework of those complicated economics, along with sprites. WWI mod for HOI3 was good but it wasn't perfect, usually Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire would overrun the Russians quick n easy by 1916 sometimes even 15.

"It would be as if ToG started in 867, but then ended in 955, and there were no way to export that game to 1066."
You know how silly you sound comparing The old Gods to WWI? They are not the same thing it is literally like saying well if WWII started in 1939 but ended in 1945 why is there no way to export it to a cold war game (assuming there was a cold war game ). Simple because WWI is over, you did it you fought and it is over, nobody would want to continue you realize how much people by then would have altered the timeline? It is literally like playing Victoria II from 1836-1914 and expecting WWI to happen the same way it did in real life, no it doesn't work like that. I would only suspect that it could go a little for Russian Civil War 1918-1923 and cover the early european revolutions and turmoil such as the Hungarian Communist Revolution and Hungarian-Romanian war, Mexican Revolution, Finnish Civil War, Polish-Soviet war, Czechoslovak-Polish War, which would be fun. It is fine

Basically I don't know why you are freaking out so much about this, Victoria III obviously won't have good military system to play WWI, unless you like moving big blobs of soldiers to gigantic provinces and sieging it calling it WWI. I also don't understand why you think a WWI start date would "force" people to play from 1914, people have choices you know? When I played Darkest Hour I could choose either WWI or WWII, it was THAT easy. Also if you don't like WWI DLC like I said don't have to buy it there isn't an invisible hand forcing you to buy it.

 

[griffor]

a stand alone dlc would be cool play from 1910 or 12 to 1920 or 22 or something along those lines.

i and a lot of other people would rather give paradox tons of our money than rely on modders to make the games we want and enjoy, but maybe i'm in the minority here.

 

[frolix42]

That doesn't even make any sense, who are you to say that a WWI DLC wouldn't be enjoyable for HOI4? Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean everyone else follows your path, and don't like it?

I literally said:

I don't know. March of Eagles and Sengoku were ok, but they weren't nearly at the level of quality of VIC2, CK2 or EU4.

I think you should follow your own advice when trying to scry the future:

Victoria III obviously won't have good military system to play WWI, unless you like moving big blobs of soldiers to gigantic provinces and sieging it calling it WWI.

So you're certain that HoI4 will be good for WW1 and you're also certain that Victoria III won't be good for WW1. Unlike you, I'm not trying to say that I know the future. I'm definitely not "freaking out"...if I were freaking out I'd say something grammatically suspect and use captial letters as hysterical punctuation, for example: "Just because YOU don't like Victoria III doesn't mean everyone else follows your path, and don't like it?"

You know how silly you sound comparing The old Gods to WWI? They are not the same thing it is literally like saying well if WWII started in 1939 but ended in 1945 why is there no way to export it to a cold war game (assuming there was a cold war game ).

You appear to be unaware, there was actually a gap of roughly 21 years between the end of WW1 and the start of WW2. So if you were to export an imaginary HoI4 WW1 to HoI4 actual, there is a huge hole that should be filled from 11 NOV 1918 to 01 JAN 1936. I'll be generous and allow the imaginary WW1 DLC to end on 31 DEC 1919, there remain over 5,840 time increments missing.

Assuming that nothing happens for 16 years of the 20th century is a terrible design choice. The only alternative is that HoI4 forces the player to play 16 years or more of repetitive interwar peacetime lethargia. And remember how bad HoI is at "peace"! This is just one of many lose-lose choices that Paradox would have to make if it spent time on a WW1 boondoggle. The Victoria series actually has some interesting inter-war political stuff going on involving the rise of Facism and Communism.

That is like saying "If a talented group of modders can make a very good Civil War Scenario for Victoria II why would anyone pay money for a Civil War DLC (A House Divided). Because it is REFINED, specific mechanics for WWI like hey maybe a rework of those complicated economics, along with sprites.

If unpaid modders could make something with the quality of 'A House Divided', there would be no need to buy the DLC. Unless Paradox devotes a considerable amount of resources into making a 'WW1 DLC' different and much better than a mod team could, there is no point in buying this imaginary ' HoI4 WW1 DLC'. Especially since it woiuldn't be connected to any other franchise.

There are so many other things Paradox could and should spend it's time on.

 

[Saint Gwynllyw]

I rather have vicky do it, WW1 just feels like WW2 with less stuff, why not just play WW2 instead.

greatest description of WW1 ever

 

[WeissRaben]

The problem with WWI is that, while the war itself would be more at ease in the general HoI environment (with a lot of needed changes), everything leading to it and coming from it are so evidently in Victoria's territories that it isn't even funny. It's hard to place, really.

 

[smug]

You are making two assertions.

• A WW1 DLC would be enjoyable

I don't know. March of Eagles and Sengoku were ok, but they weren't nearly at the level of quality of VIC2, CK2 or EU4.

• Victoria 3 isn't going to do World War 1 well.

I tend to be optimistic. Given how much Paradox has improved over the past 4 years, who knows what they will be capable of in 2018.

To your point is that World War 1 is similar to World War 2, you've made a case against Paradox wasting time retreading these waters. For a company that purports to be innovative, reskinning World War 2 into a World War 1 package and then charging money for it is something an untalented EA subsidiary would do. It's something a mod team could do really well, so I strongly believe that the most popular mods for HoI will be timeline extensions.If a talented group of modders can make a very good WW1 mod, why anyone play $$$ for a WW1 DLC? I'd buy a Darkest Hour like version of HoI4 someday, but from Paradox I expect something more innovative which moves their franchises forward.

• I am making the assertion that a WW1 DLC will be fun because I enjoy HOI, like the theme of WW1 and believe that the paradox team can make this DLC well.
• As for Vicky 3 I hope it has the biggest and best military gameplay of all the paradox games but I also want it to be the complex diplomatic game that the Vicky franchise is known for and as far as I can see it would be unrealistic to assume that the paradox team could do both.
• As for this being something "an untalented EA subsidiary would do" paradox has released new scenarios like this one before, like TOG, it's just their business strategy, I fail to see how this DLC is any different to all the DLC they have released before.
• Finally as for why I would want a DlC over a WW1 mod, well Dromido put it brilliantly.
  

  "If a talented group of modders can make a very good WW1 mod, why anyone play $$$ for a WW1 DLC?"
  That is like saying "If a talented group of modders can make a very good Civil War Scenario for Victoria II why would anyone pay money for a Civil War DLC (A House Divided). Because it is REFINED, specific mechanics for WWI like hey maybe a rework of those complicated economics, along with sprites. WWI mod for HOI3 was good but it wasn't perfect, usually Germany and the Austro-Hungarian empire would overrun the Russians quick n easy by 1916 sometimes even 15.

 

[FOARP]

The problem with WWI is that, while the war itself would be more at ease in the general HoI environment (with a lot of needed changes), everything leading to it and coming from it are so evidently in Victoria's territories that it isn't even funny. It's hard to place, really.

There's three answers to this:

- A WW1 DLC would not need to simulate the run-up/run-down as a minimum viable product. All it needs to do is simulate the actual 1914-18 war itself. Of course, it is desirable to also be able to play through the Balkan Wars and the Russian Civil War, but not absolutely necessary in order to fight WW1.

- HOI4 at least appears to have some mechanisms (e.g., dynamic civil wars) that would allow better simulation of the 1912-22 period. The Balkan Wars were a fight between the Ottoman Empire and a coalition of Balkan countries, and then a fight over the spoils of the first war between those same Balkan Countries - something that is possible to simulate with event-chains. The Russian Civil War was a fight primarily between the Whites and the Reds (of course there were other parties, but for simplicity's sake let's start with only these two), something that HOI should be able to simulate as well.

- Actually the same is true of the years before 1936 (and even the 1936-38 period) and the years after 1948 (and maybe the 1945-48 period) - Vicky might simulate them better than HOI does as Vicky has a more detailed economic and diplomatic model - but it's not relevant to a game that focuses on fighting a specific war.​

 

[frolix42]

I am making the assertion that a WW1 DLC will be fun because I enjoy HOI, like the theme of WW1 and believe that the paradox team can make this DLC well.

I think they can do it well, but I think modders are capable of doing it probably well as Paradox, given that Paradox has many different focuses. Past sales performance of stand-alone games (Sengoku, March of Eagles) indicate that it's not going to make Paradox any money. And I'm personally not worried that I'm going to have no WW1 HoI4 scenario. Simply browsing the most popular mods of EU4, CK2 and Vic2, they are all timeline extensions.

As for Vicky 3 I hope it has the biggest and best military gameplay of all the paradox games but I also want it to be the complex diplomatic game that the Vicky franchise is known for and as far as I can see it would be unrealistic to assume that the paradox team could do both.

Warfare in Victoria should be different than in Hearts of Iron. Victoria 3 should also be in general better and more advanced than HoI4, otherwise no one would ever buy Vic3 but instead keep on playing HoI4 forever. To say something sweeping like "World War 1 doesn't belong in Victoria" is to severely underestimate Paradox's potential.

World War 1 could go into Hearts of Iron, I just don't think Paradox should be the one to put it there.

As for this being something "an untalented EA subsidiary would do" paradox has released new scenarios like this one before, like TOG, it's just their business strategy, I fail to see how this DLC is any different to all the DLC they have released before.

So I strongly feel that releasing WW1 as a HoI4 DLC is a terrible business decision and Paradox would never do it. If World War 1 is not connected through a campaign to World War 2, it doesn't make sense for Paradox to put something stand-alone behind the paywall of owning HoI4. Steam doesn't give companies the prominence to advertise DLC and games in the same way. If Paradox sells WW1 as it's own game they'll be able to price it higher, they'll be able to hype it more, they'll be able to emphasize it's differences. Paradox marketing will better be able to make a case that it's not simply a cash-grab reskin of HoI4 if it's not a HoI4 DLC.

But really, however it's sold, if it's made it will probably be a disappointment. It's not really like ToG, a DLC which is an earlier start date connected to the main campaign. ToG improved the grand CK2 campaign. A WW1 scenario connected to nothing will improve the main HoI4 campaign not at all. Like I said before:

It would be as if ToG started in 867, but then ended in 955, and there were no way to export that game to 1066.

Any way you look at it, a stand-alone WW1 is most similar to March of Eagles or Sengoku, which have much worse reputations and sales figures. Most consumers are going to look at it and assume it's HoI4 but less advanced and shorter.