Would it be practical to add post-war/Cold War content to the game?

[Emperor_Napoleon]

One of my biggest criticisms of HoI4 - maybe even the biggest - is the complete lack of events and flavour past 1940. It's like the game stops having any connection to history and just becomes a blank-slate war sandbox. Maybe some people like that, but for me, someone whose interest in history trumps my interest in video games, it's very disappointing. I like to feel that I'm interacting with and having an effect on a living, breathing world of geopolitics, not just colouring the map and moving divisions tile to tile.

I feel that the solution to this would be to add more events in general, including during the war, and especially add events for the post-war world. Historically, a ton of interesting and significant things happened in the years after the war that led to both the start of the Cold War and the development of the modern world as we know it now. Things like: the US regime led by MacArthur placed in Japan, the partition of Korea, the mass population movements in Central Europe (and ensuing problems like famine), the dissolution of Prussia, the victory of the communist guerillas led by Tito in Yugoslavia, the civil war in Greece, the independence of the Middle Eastern mandate states, the creation of Israel and the following war with the Arab states, the independence of the Raj nations and the brutal violence there, Western attempts to suppress independence movements in East Asia motivated by the Japanese, and perhaps most importantly, the end of the Chinese civil war and the victory of the communists.

And that's just to name a few of the major events of 1945-48.

But basically none of this is present in the game. For all intents and purposes, after Operation Barbarossa is launched and war breaks out between Japan and the Allies, that's the end of any connection to history. I'd love if Paradox significantly reworked the peace mechanics so that not only is it better in general, but so that situations like what happened historically can actually happen when playing on historical mode. Even though it's unrealistic and will almost certainly never happen, I'd love to get an expansion solely dedicated to fleshing out the post-war world and adding plenty of events, flavour and decisions there. Maybe I'm a bit biased because I find the post-war more interesting than the war itself, though.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

As you can see from the numerous threads that constantly keep showing up, it is hard enough for Paradox to get the events from 1936 to 1946 correct.

Let modders address the post-WWII stuff.

 

[MobiusTwo]

To be honest, I think the Cold War deserves a full-fledged game, more in the vein of Victoria II than HOI4. It's well-known that Paradox tried this before and it ended in disaster, and I think some of the more controversial political issues and lack of direct combat between the superpowers (no war = "boring") are going to prevent us from ever getting a Cold War game.
But if we're never going to get a Cold War game, I'd certainly like to see it expanded in HOI4.

 

[Louella]

in my most recent game, the Soviets, rather than the Americans, were the ones to invade Japan.
France never capitulated, the Soviets never occupied anywhere west of the Baltic states.
Greece didn't enter the war either, as neither Italy nor Germany were in a position to attack them.

So... I'm not sure what post-war or Cold War content would be relevant there at all.

It's the problem of historical-based games when you expand the time period they cover - the longer the game, the more ahistorical the situation at any given point, and the more jarring any historical events become, when the underlying situation is entirely different.

I think @Secret Master has mentioned this in games of Victoria, where it's Time for the Crimean War, regardless of the situation.

 

[Grzegorz Grzybek]

Cold war may be treated as shuffled Concert of Powers from after Vienna Congress. So more politics, more spies, more propaganda, more soft power.
That's why it fits better Victoria franchise, though it'd be strange to expand Victoria's time period to 2nd half of XX century (computers as "everyday" needs?).

Maybe you simply don't want HoI4 in Cold War era, but just better weapons? HoI4 is great game (IMO) as is (and at Steam, CK3 is approaching the daily number of players of HoI4 - or rather HoI4 stays strong). I treat the lower number of events (though I was surprised by "Komet Sighted" event in 1946!) simply as indication that for now - the player and AI are making history .

Cold war era (without real war) focusing on politics would be great though.

 

[Metz]

The game needs more internal mechanics such as building/investing in factories abroad, financing debt, and clandestine military operations.

 

[Iskulya]

No.

The opposite would be more beneficial, but there's little enough point in that. A lot of the more radical changes in political course would make a lot more sense if they occurred over a longer period of time. I think a 1933 start date would be great... but not for Hearts of Iron 4. It would really only make sense for a sequel. You also have to keep in mind this is a war game. Not a political simulator, not a game that's meant to have incredibly in depth economics and a world market. A 1933 start date is still compatible with the core of what the game is, whereas post-war content would require a fundamentally different game with mechanics that have little to no function in the main period of the game.

 

[Grzegorz Grzybek]

BTW, there was great thread https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/ideas-for-hoi-5.1388033 about HoI5 ideas and potential new start dates (I remember there were many arguments that 1933 date would be perfect).

 

[Sublime Sultan]

I think a setup for the Cold War, e.g., the division of Korea, brewing instability in Greece, a colonial insurgency in SEA would be nice.

 

[JackAlNXT]

As mentioned previously, the main difficulties are that the events that led to the Cold War may simply not happen. You either need stiff railroading or literally thousands of events to account for every possible situation.

For example, imagine that through circumstances, Greece is not invaded by Italy, or turns fascist, or is made a Soviet puppet. How can the Greek civil war happen now? What about Korea? What if Japan does not go to war with the Allies? What if Republican Spain joins the Commintern in WW2? <-- All of these need to be taken into account and new focus trees are only going to make it more complicated.

 

[Darksworthyone]

We need better peace deal mechanics first.

 

[Zeprion]

I agree in principle with your idea and would like to point out that I too am a big fan of historical realism, at least on the historical path. But as you pointed out, after 1940 the game becomes too sandbox for events to keep making sense within that context. The player or players can do anything, that's the idea of the game.

You could have a World War II where Japan never invaded Philippines, or China defeated Japan before USA joined, or Italy won in Africa, and that is strictly the historical path. Even in a historical game you could have things such as: Sweden joins the Allies, Turkey joins the Axis (player intervention), Mexico becomes communist, etc. So there's no way to predict how the world would look like by 1940 due to the very nature of the game. Making creating events there problematic, as they may not fit at all with the current world borders or state of affairs.

After World War II starts, the players become more interested in battles than events. I agree with keeping things historical there, as in having the right leaders, the right ideologies for nations and so on. But not many people are going to bother with events from then on.

 

[xsmilingbanditx]

As much as I like that, as well as a 1933 Start, I doubt it will happen.
The diplomatic and political System imho would need vast improvements and that is just out of scope for HoI.
There are games that model that pretty OK (Supreme Commander) or mods (Cold War Iron Curtain is pretty good).
The thing is, by and after WW2 the whole world changed and through Players actions it pretty much gets screwed up.
In the last game I played, Japan conquered China, the northern part of the SU and Germany while India conquered the southern half and middle east to Saudi Arabia.
Now, you can either railroad all the stuff which pretty much makes it uninteresting as a game or hope for a living, breathing AI that can handle the deviation.

During that run I also realized that the warscore/peacedeal System just doesn't cut it and will never play without "Player led Peaceconference" anymore. Which is just an indicator of how much some Subsystems would need improvement.

 

[kimidf]

I think it is feasible that the game could start in 1933 or 1930, it is true, they should be true since the modders are doing it and I see them more necessary than ever due to the nature of it is becoming a sanbdox and I also believeperfectly the game could go until the early 50s

 

[Crecer13]

I think it is feasible that the game could start in 1933 or 1930, it is true, they should be true since the modders are doing it and I see them more necessary than ever due to the nature of it is becoming a sanbdox and I also believeperfectly the game could go until the early 50s

Quite an interesting idea. Make a start from the 1930s and focus them on the formation of regimes, so to speak, an introduction to war. Political games, many events, civil wars, etc. And in 1936 a big game begins.
The Cold War is a topic for a separate game.

 

[Harin]

If the game had a mechanic that kicked in after wars between majors to deconstruct alliances and reorder friendliness between nations based on some measurement, like more dislike for killing our soldiers in the war, more likes for liberating our provinces, maybe a way to go forward would exist. There would also be a need to end the mass production of weapons between wars or we would have hundreds of thousands of planes and tanks and thousands of divisions. Very unrealistic. Maybe even unplayable.

Currently, after the major war ends, many things that happened historically after 1945 become impossible as alliances and factions have stretched across the globe and even the smallest war leads to another world war right away. To move beyond that, maybe a mechanic could kick in once all major powers are defeated, that realigns the world, with the winning power in control, but its empire broken up into groups of puppets that are trying to break away, while minor nations that are still free try to band together to face this one world power. If this mechanic was sold as a separate DLC and spanned another five to ten years, I would buy it, because I am sure it would require some serious work to pull off.

 

[Grave461]

I think some of the more controversial political issues and lack of direct combat between the superpowers (no war = "boring") are going to prevent us from ever getting a Cold War game.

I agree that the Cold War deserves it's own game, instead of being a DLC expansion to a WW2 game. But, I don't think a lack of direct conflict would make such a game "boring" because there were lots of proxy wars that a player could participate in; Korea, Vietnam, Soviet-Afghan War, etc.

A Cold War game, I'd imagine, would mostly focus on economy and espionage to try and contain the enemies ideology, while also trying to spread yours across the globe. Still a map painter, but in a different way.

As far as a direct US-Soviet conflict (nuclear war), they could always make an Armageddon DLC for it.

 

[Secret Master]

I think @Secret Master has mentioned this in games of Victoria, where it's Time for the Crimean War, regardless of the situation.

Yep. It was one of the things in the original Vicky that, while well intentioned, created far more insanity than it solved by being forced.

To quote myself on the issue:

Losing 20,000 more men in Poland is small deviation that matters little in the big scheme of things.

Failing to defeat France by June of 1941 is taking history off the rails. Hell, at that point, we are in uncharted waters, and the historical focuses probably don't even make any sense anymore.

I've played Paradox games where the AI just did the "historical" thing no matter what was happening. It's always insane.

Let's take the Crimean War in Vicky: So, the Russian Empire gets an event that starts the Crimean War for them automatically around the historical date. Sounds good, right? Well, unless the Russian Empire just finished a war with the Ottomans. Oh, you just fought gigantic war with the Ottomans that involved other Great Powers? Too bad, time for the Crimean War. Russia is allied to the Ottomans? Too bad, time for the Crimean War. Russia has already turned the Ottoman Empire into a satellite state and annexed half the country? Too bad, time for the Crimean War. Russia is fighting three other Great Powers in a war of survival at this moment in time? Too bad, time for the Crimean War. Russia isn't a Great Power anymore? Too bad, time for the Crimean War.

France falling is a reasonable pre-condition for AI Germany to attack the Soviet Union even with historical focuses on. Sure, it's technically "historical" for Barbarossa to start around June of 1941, but if AI incompetence has resulted in France still holding Paris and war between Germany and France, the "historical" option is already long since ruined.

Scripting the post-war world while expanding the HOI4 timeline would result in more screeching and ragequits than you could possibly imagine.

 

[kimidf]

I agree that the Cold War deserves it's own game, instead of being a DLC expansion to a WW2 game. But, I don't think a lack of direct conflict would make such a game "boring" because there were lots of proxy wars that a player could participate in; Korea, Vietnam, Soviet-Afghan War, etc.

A Cold War game, I'd imagine, would mostly focus on economy and espionage to try and contain the enemies ideology, while also trying to spread yours across the globe. Still a map painter, but in a different way.

As far as a direct US-Soviet conflict (nuclear war), they could always make an Armageddon DLC for it.

But certain conflicts that occurred in the early 50s or 60s, such as the decolonization wars, could represent in some way in HOI IV, and being a sanbdox, they could occur in the period of the game and also certainTechnologies from the late 40s like the first helicopters, I think it will be feasible to introduce them to the game

 

[Alpha2518]

To be honest, I think the Cold War deserves a full-fledged game, more in the vein of Victoria II than HOI4. It's well-known that Paradox tried this before and it ended in disaster, and I think some of the more controversial political issues and lack of direct combat between the superpowers (no war = "boring") are going to prevent us from ever getting a Cold War game.
But if we're never going to get a Cold War game, I'd certainly like to see it expanded in HOI4.

Yes but it ended in disaster due to it relying on an antiquated engine. With PDX having newer and better engines, increased threading capabilities, it may be worth reviving a Cold War game and improving from where they left off. As for the lack of direct combat, you don't need direct combat for the game to be interesting. Victoria is completely playable as an interesting economic game and my focus is mostly there as opposed to roflstomping around the world. Even so in the old EvW title direct combat was still an option between the superpowers. It may also be worth noting that it may also be theoretically possible for a multipolar cold war depending on how China and India develop in the hands of competent players.

However, a multipolar cold war should be best left in the hands of an expansionf or a cold war game. The base game should focus at first on the conflict between the USA and the USSR and at least have a solid foundation here. And that is the key, not to have it correct or accurate as there will always be inaccuracies somewhere, but to have a solid foundation of which to build upon and expand.