WWI Expansion?

[FOARP]

I think a 1936 start itself is enough for HOI4 but i do hope they make a 1914 DLC or something, HOI4 techs can be used for WW1 easily on.ly the National Focus need to be changed and some techs altered slightly.
HOI 1 & 2 had WW1 mods which were bad, HOI 3 mod was ok but still could have improved a lot.

Agreed. The HOI2 WW1 mod suffered from a disastrous lack of focus (they ended up taking the start date right back to 1898 for some inexplicable reason) which meant the implementation of WW1 was poor. It certainly didn't stop the WW1 scenario for DH being a big selling point.

The HOI1 WW1 mod was basically never finished.

The HOI3 WW1 mod was OK but it too several years to reach that state and it still isn't as good as professionals can do with access to the .exe. With all the respect in the world to @dizzle3 and his mod team there's only so much you can achieve through soft-coding.

The only thing I hope is that if Paradox plan to do a WW1 DLC they should announce it with the first ~2 years post-release to avoid people wasting their time trying to make a WW1 mod. If they don't plan to make a WW1 DLC then hopefully they'll also say so to avoid discouraging people from making the mod.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Funny we're talking about a WW1 DLC when we don't even have WW2 done yet

I too hope to see a WW1 DLC someday. For me, the major issue would be a tech tree that allows a significantly more interesting Western Front that's still historically plausible. It might be pretty boring if the Western Front game runs like the historical events - 4 long years of static trench warfare.

I don't think it had to be that way, but the tech tree would have to reflect a historically plausible path from old tactics and weapons to modern ones. A bit of a sandbox perhaps?

 

[shri]

Agreed. The HOI2 WW1 mod suffered from a disastrous lack of focus (they ended up taking the start date right back to 1898 for some inexplicable reason) which meant the implementation of WW1 was poor. It certainly didn't stop the WW1 scenario for DH being a big selling point.

The HOI1 WW1 mod was basically never finished.

The HOI3 WW1 mod was OK but it too several years to reach that state and it still isn't as good as professionals can do with access to the .exe. With all the respect in the world to @dizzle3 and his mod team there's only so much you can achieve through soft-coding.

The only thing I hope is that if Paradox plan to do a WW1 DLC they should announce it with the first ~2 years post-release to avoid people wasting their time trying to make a WW1 mod. If they don't plan to make a WW1 DLC then hopefully they'll also say so to avoid discouraging people from making the mod.

I totally agree, with the "Great War" in its centenary years, this is probably the best time for gaming companies to cash in on it. Soon after, the Great War will be relegated to the dustbin like the Napoleonic Wars have been.
HOI3 WW1 Mod's great problem was that - it just didn't showcase the several problems of WW1, it basically superimposed the WW2 philosophy on WW1.

You basically have 3 types of Wars in the Great War- Mobile on the Eastern front with a lot of huge battles and major changes in land holdings, a series of major battles but overall "Sitzkreig" on the Western/Italian fronts, semi-Blitzkrieg in the Balkans on the arrival of Mackensen coupled with semi-Blitz on the Sinai and Syrian fronts by Allenby in 1918.
But you also have incredibly painful positional warfare in the Caucasus and in Mesopotamia with extremely poor supply situations, a brilliant "War of the Atlantic" with Political and Military aspects (the whole - "Unrestricted Sub Warfare question") and of course the Elephant in the Room - USA.
Showcasing all these aspects successfully is a challenge.

Funny we're talking about a WW1 DLC when we don't even have WW2 done yet

I too hope to see a WW1 DLC someday. For me, the major issue would be a tech tree that allows a significantly more interesting Western Front that's still historically plausible. It might be pretty boring if the Western Front game runs like the historical events - 4 long years of static trench warfare.

I don't think it had to be that way, but the tech tree would have to reflect a historically plausible path from old tactics and weapons to modern ones. A bit of a sandbox perhaps?

The Great War is not the -WESTERN FRONT alone. There is also the - Italian Front, Balkan Front (s), Constantinople Front, Caucasus Front, Mesopotamia Front, Sinai Front, Atlantic War and Mediterranean War fronts and of-course the biggest of all (till 1917) - Eastern Front. With some far-eastern front and African fronts thrown in for extra suspense.

 

[Evan05]

-36 and -39 is enough.
These bookmarks have lots of work and i would like to see that work spended on the game it self, not some historic game starts.
People can greate them on their own, or play old saves.

(This is not for you Even05, just in general)
If i remember right Johan said that paradox games don't have these millions of bookmarks in the future. All games like Victoria 3 or EU5.
Most people don't use them anyway.
I have always started the HOI3 from 1936. Same thing with Victoria and EU all from the beginning.
I don't understand anyway why would somebody start the game in HOI3 from lets say 1943 and then have everything in auto and then just "Play" that way.
It's just looking the game. These people should watch gaming streams or videos not nagging about there is no longed option to but everything on AI. Just stubid.
It was right from the beginning to not have game that runs it self. Well done.

Perhaps people would like to be able to see if they could pull off Barbarossa with the exact same geo-political and military situation that Germany was in, in real life?

Also, three bookmarks isn't "millions of bookmarks" and 1941 is not that late.

 

[CrasherZZ]

The Great War is not the -WESTERN FRONT alone. There is also the - Italian Front, Balkan Front (s), Constantinople Front, Caucasus Front, Mesopotamia Front, Sinai Front, Atlantic War and Mediterranean War fronts and of-course the biggest of all (till 1917) - Eastern Front. With some far-eastern front and African fronts thrown in for extra suspense.

Totally agree, but I won't be interested in playing WW1 without a more interesting Western Front. Just pointing out that it would need to be possible to make the Western Front more dynamic to make it more fun. IMO, the Western Front could very well have been different, historically, had either side had more enlightened leadership. National Focus/Tech Tree could go a long way in doing that.

 

[EmpireMagnis]

I feel a WWI standalone will become much like March of the Eagles and Sengoku.
Might as well as equip it on a major title. They would probably need to expand the tech tree a lot to compensate WWI tech.

 

[FOARP]

They would probably need to expand the tech tree a lot to compensate WWI tech.

Which 1914-18 tech wasn't in use in 1936? None as far as I can see. In reality this would just be completing the tech tree to include the things it will have to include anyway to properly model the 1936-48 period.

 

[Sweed Raver]

I knew there was an argument I'd left out: there's absolutely no need to model the interwar period or produced a connected scenario to model WW1, as it can be in a standalone scenario. Some people may want to have a connected timeline, but its not actually necessary to model WW1.

As for this project being to big for a DLC - I see no reason to believe it would be more complex than the TOG DLC for CK2 was, which added several hundred years to the game, a whole new set of leaders, technologies, religions, cultures, and several new game mechanisms. By contrast, as discussed above, HOI should already include all the technologies and tactics of WW1 as these were all still in use in 1936.

Don't get me wrong, I would like a WW1 DLC as much as the next guy, but I want a WW1 and Interwar standalone title even more. That said though, I'm more of a "take what I can get" kind of person. I have already raised my concern for the amount of time they would have to put into the DLC, however, which is why I find the other option more viable. As I have a feeling that they go more in depth in history research when making the titles that have shorter timespans (compare Vic to EU or CK, or HoI to Vic), the extended timespan would likely be more time consuming than a similarly increased time span for another title.

This is because in CKII, they have abstracted units to different types, but do not care about individual models of a type of unit, and in EU4 and Vic2 the models are still not unique for each country. Furthermore, they would have to create new national focus trees for the major countries, as well as new generic ones. To add to this, they would also have to add new technology to the mix.

So since comparing the years intervals between games might be irrelevant, it could be more relevant in terms of percentage increased in game time. The original game is around 12 years (I think it is from 1936-1948), and if the interwar period is skipped as you suggest, and they decide on just the timespan 1912-1920, we will have increased the total in game time to 20 years. That is, an increase of 2/3 the original game time. For Crusader Kings II, the original time span was 1066-1453, which is 387 years. An increase of 2/3 to 387 gives us an additional 258 years. That brings us halfway between the start dates of TOG and CM. By comparison, TOG increased the total time span by 199 years, or about 51%.

 

[shri]

Totally agree, but I won't be interested in playing WW1 without a more interesting Western Front. Just pointing out that it would need to be possible to make the Western Front more dynamic to make it more fun. IMO, the Western Front could very well have been different, historically, had either side had more enlightened leadership. National Focus/Tech Tree could go a long way in doing that.

You cannot really blame them too much. Hindsight 20/20 is often far too critical.
Till the Napoleonic Wars, there was no concept of "Flanks & Fronts", there was mobile battles wherein armies tried to move around like "Chess Pieces" without actually doing combat.
Napoleon decided to use the "levee en masse" and do - frontal and brutal battles (by frontal i do not mean unimaginative ones).

Then, the advent of defensive improvements like - Howitzers (a legacy of Napoleonic Wars), machine guns etc made the defensive actions progressively stronger from - Crimean War, US civil war, Franco-Prussian war (the only 2 short and decisive victories in mid and late 19th century were won by von Moltke's Staff tactics), the Balkan Wars and the Russo-Japanese war.
The Great War was a culmination of all these wars and their lessons.

Till the Tank and Bombers and other inventions were made and updated, there was no way to dislodge an enemy - who was well dug in and determined to hold on.
Trust me, the French tried several useless offensives and the British tried the "Somme and Ypres campaigns". Even the Germans failed at Verdun, though against armies with lesser determination they did succeed heavily- Belgrade, Romania, Gorlice-Tarnow, Caporetto, post-Brusilov and post-Kerensky counter-offensives, Lake Naroch etc are famous victories of a "crude combined arms offensive- Shock Troops, Artillery, Smoke, Gas and then mopping-up infantry".

With Hindsight, i think it was the decision to fight at - Verdun that did the Germans more harm, almost as much as the second phase of "Unrestricted Sub Warfare".
Falkenhyn thought that he could bleed the French White and win, forgot that the Anglo-French had more population to mobilise in the long run.

 

[Enriador]

On the matter of bookmarks: I believe that just one for the vanilla game is enough (1936); the few people who loves lots of bookmarks and actually plays them uses mods for that purpose anyway.

A well-made 1936 bookmark will free Paradox to make the 1911 (Italo-Turkish War) and 1962 (Missile Crisis) bookmarks! ^^

I wonder if the scenarios will make a comeback. They could be perfect for multiplayer.

 

[FOARP]

Don't get me wrong, I would like a WW1 DLC as much as the next guy, but I want a WW1 and Interwar standalone title even more. That said though, I'm more of a "take what I can get" kind of person. I have already raised my concern for the amount of time they would have to put into the DLC, however, which is why I find the other option more viable. As I have a feeling that they go more in depth in history research when making the titles that have shorter timespans (compare Vic to EU or CK, or HoI to Vic), the extended timespan would likely be more time consuming than a similarly increased time span for another title.

This is because in CKII, they have abstracted units to different types, but do not care about individual models of a type of unit, and in EU4 and Vic2 the models are still not unique for each country. Furthermore, they would have to create new national focus trees for the major countries, as well as new generic ones. To add to this, they would also have to add new technology to the mix.

So since comparing the years intervals between games might be irrelevant, it could be more relevant in terms of percentage increased in game time. The original game is around 12 years (I think it is from 1936-1948), and if the interwar period is skipped as you suggest, and they decide on just the timespan 1912-1920, we will have increased the total in game time to 20 years. That is, an increase of 2/3 the original game time. For Crusader Kings II, the original time span was 1066-1453, which is 387 years. An increase of 2/3 to 387 gives us an additional 258 years. That brings us halfway between the start dates of TOG and CM. By comparison, TOG increased the total time span by 199 years, or about 51%.

I'm sorry, but this kind of handwaving doesn't substantiate your point: 8 years of WW1 using weapons and tactics that all existed and were in use in 1936 anyway is not nearly as hard to model as implementing several hundred years of cultures, religion, and political systems that did not exist in the base game.

Again: which technologies, what political systems, existed in 1914-18 that weren't extant in 1936-48? None of any significance.

Indeed, the equipment used by a French infantry division of 1936 differed little to one of 1919. Even fast-forwarding to 1945, a British infantry division had equipment that was either the same as or incremental improvements on weapons systems used in 1914-18 - the Lee-Enfield was originally made in the late 19th century, the 4.2 inch mortar an improvement on the WW1 Stokes mortar, the Mills grenade was a WW1 development, the Bren was an improvement on a Czech gun that was in turn based on a WW1 design, the Vickers machine gun a WW1 design, the 25-pounder an improvement on the 18 pounder, the Sten was a simplified version of the MP-18 Stormtrooper weapon. Only the anti-tank and anti-air weapons differed significantly.

So no, I really can't agree that a WW1 DLC would be any more difficult to code than TOG.

 

[Sweed Raver]

I'm sorry, but this kind of handwaving doesn't substantiate your point: 8 years of WW1 using weapons and tactics that all existed and were in use in 1936 anyway is not nearly as hard to model as implementing several hundred years of cultures, religion, and political systems that did not exist in the base game.

Again: which technologies, what political systems, existed in 1914-18 that weren't extant in 1936-48? None of any significance.

Indeed, the equipment used by a French infantry division of 1936 differed little to one of 1919. Even fast-forwarding to 1945, a British infantry division had equipment that was either the same as or incremental improvements on weapons systems used in 1914-18 - the Lee-Enfield was originally made in the late 19th century, the 4.2 inch mortar an improvement on the WW1 Stokes mortar, the Mills grenade was a WW1 development, the Bren was an improvement on a Czech gun that was in turn based on a WW1 design, the Vickers machine gun a WW1 design, the 25-pounder an improvement on the 18 pounder, the Sten was a simplified version of the MP-18 Stormtrooper weapon. Only the anti-tank and anti-air weapons differed significantly.

So no, I really can't agree that a WW1 DLC would be any more difficult to code than TOG.

The technologies and doctrines are not the only things they need to add though, and you have chosen to simply not comment on any of the things I mentioned earlier that need to be added as well. I will compile the complete list of things I mentioned, and hopefully you will notice that you only replied regarding the last one.

• New individual national focuses for major countries.
• New generic national focuses for non-major countries.
• New unit models for individual countries.
• Historical events
• Historical decisions
• New nodes in the technology tree.

You mentioned yourself many different models of weaponry, yet you never even once realized that it was exactly this I was referring to in my previous post. In the other series (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria), separate unit models are not included. Instead, they are generalized to various degrees. While in Hearts of Iron, the technology for the models may be the same that is used in 1936, the models are, as you state yourself, different and that is modeled in Hearts of Iron (especially so when it comes to vehicles, both land/air/naval).

Also, I never mentioned anything about changes in political systems. The reason for this is because Paradox have intentionally chosen to not model them correctly in the first place, so I did not even have that in mind when writing the previous comment. If you want to comment on my statement, you really ought to comment on things I actually said.

Finally, regarding their modeling of religion in Crusader Kings, they had already included in the original game for instance Norse mythology, since there were characters in Scandinavia where were still following that religion. In fact, the main feature is not that Norse mythology and Zoroastrianism was added, but rather that they were turned playable. Modeling that is as easy as the flick of a boolean field in their game engine. Also, if I remember correctly about Crusader Kings, what they did was disabling the continuous history between 867 and 1066, so that they only needed to set the world to the state it was in at that specific date, so technically, the "several hundreds of years" does not even matter when modeling the religion of the people. They only need to set the characters' religions to how they were back at that specific date, and not at every single date between 867 and 1066.

 

[FOARP]

The technologies and doctrines are not the only things they need to add though, and you have chosen to simply not comment on any of the things I mentioned earlier

Stop right there. The evidence you cited was the comparative lengthening in time, but, as I pointed out in my comment, this argument essentially does not demonstrate anything because 1914-18 is similar enough to 1936-45 that much the same systems can be used, which is not even nearly true of the difference between 800AD and 1066.

New individual national focuses for major countries.

Standard fair for a DLC.

New generic national focuses for non-major countries.

Arguably not necessary because, as I pointed out before, 1914-18 is similar enough to 1936-48 that the same generic focuses may be used.

New unit models for individual countries.

Standard fair for a DLC.

Historical events

Again, standard for a DLC.

Historical decisions

Ditto.

New nodes in the technology tree.

Again: what technology existed in 1914-18 which was not in use in 1936-48? If HOI4 does not include these technologies, it will be because it is incomplete as a WW2 game.

You mentioned yourself many different models of weaponry, yet you never even once realized that it was exactly this I was referring to in my previous post. In the other series (Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria), separate unit models are not included. Instead, they are generalized to various degrees. While in Hearts of Iron, the technology for the models may be the same that is used in 1936, the models are, as you state yourself, different and that is modeled in Hearts of Iron (especially so when it comes to vehicles, both land/air/naval).

I'm sorry, but it is really is like you aren't listening: all of these models were used in 1936-48. All of them. ALL. OF. THEM. If the base game does have them then it is falling down as a WW2 game.

 

[Sweed Raver]

The evidence you cited was the comparative lengthening in time, but, as I pointed out in my comment, this argument essentially does not demonstrate anything

I see no reason to believe it would be more complex than the TOG DLC for CK2 was, which added several hundred years to the game

I think you missed the point where you in fact argued that the TOG DLC for CK2 was larger because it added several hundred years of game time. Technically, it added a start date with the world represented as it was (lower starting level on technology, different owners of titles who have different cultures and religions).

because 1914-18 is similar enough to 1936-45 that much the same systems can be used, which is not even nearly true of the difference between 800AD and 1066.

And the exact same models used in CKII original game are used in CKII: TOG, because of the very reason I mentioned earlier, it uses a much simpler model than that of Hearts of Iron, where you take into account nation specific details, among other things.

You claim that it is standard fair for a DLC in Hearts of Iron IV to add new national focuses for major countries, but as far as I can see this is already done, and so new content through DLC for WW2 will not require new national focuses for all of the major countries. I should have also been more clear, that with a WW1 DLC, they would have to create new units, events and decisions for all countries, and not just the country that the DLC is aiming towards adding flavor to. Thus, not standard fair for a DLC.

As you said yourself, the technology in WW2 is based on WW1 technology, and I never said anything differently. I said that in the tech tree, they would have to add technology that came before WW2, as new nodes in the same tech tree. That is still a task that has to be done, but only for time extending DLCs such as a WW1 or Cold War DLC.

 

[3ishop]

One big issue I see is submarine warfare...pretty mucn no direct counters to the subs during the war. Could defend ports/naval bases but no sonar which is an issue.

Plus gas, as it was such a iconic element if not effective it would still be needed.

I'd also be worried on how much they'd railroad the game.

 

[TheDungen]

It's not a perfect fit but ww2 has more in common with ww1 than the early 19th century does (as it is now it' part of vic).
Then again there are very few scenarios for the end of ww1 that actually result in ww2. I'm sorry but the entant pretty much screwed up as much as was possible to with the peace deal.

 

[CrasherZZ]

In a way, WW1 can be a more appealing ahistorical sandbox than WW2 if doesn't have to end in 1918. WW2 can potentially end with Europe or the whole world being destroyed by nuclear warfare. At the end of my last HOI3 game I was delivering atom bombs by V2 missiles and jet powered strategic bombers in 1947.

A WW1 game can go from 1914 to 1926, develop tank divisions, mechanized infantry, strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, paratroopers, etc., without destroying human civilization. It would have an interesting mix of empires, colonies, warlords, unexplored territory, and undiscovered resources.

The old monarchies, and empires were still dominant, and the US and Russia were not so overpowering yet. Depending on how differently WW1 turns out, a WW2 would be completely different if it even happens. Or perhaps WW1 never ends, and we would be celebrating its recent ending, or suffered nuclear annihilation decades ago.

Th possibilities are mind boggling

 

[TheDungen]

In a way, WW1 can be a more appealing ahistorical sandbox than WW2 if doesn't have to end in 1918. WW2 can potentially end with Europe or the whole world being destroyed by nuclear warfare. At the end of my last HOI3 game I was delivering atom bombs by V2 missiles and jet powered strategic bombers in 1947.

A WW1 game can go from 1914 to 1926, develop tank divisions, mechanized infantry, strategic bombers, aircraft carriers, paratroopers, etc., without destroying human civilization. It would have an interesting mix of empires, colonies, warlords, unexplored territory, and undiscovered resources.

The old monarchies, and empires were still dominant, and the US and Russia were not so overpowering yet. Depending on how differently WW1 turns out, a WW2 would be completely different if it even happens. Or perhaps WW1 never ends, and we would be celebrating its recent ending, or suffered nuclear annihilation decades ago.

Th possibilities are mind boggling

I don't know how long any of the involved countries could have kept up the fighting in ww1.

 

[shri]

I don't know how long any of the involved countries could have kept up the fighting in ww1.

Well, in an alternative timeline, Imperial Germany doesn't declare "Unrestricted Sub Warfare" which makes the entry of an Isolationist USA even more difficult in the years 1917-1918.
(USA was not ready for entry and the Irish-Americans as well as German-American groups openly opposed war in favour of the hated English).

If this happens, UK will need to send more troops to the French front and reduce its commitments in the Sinai and in Greece and also the aid to Italy. This could have triggered near-permanent stalemates in the Sinai, Mesopotamia and the Bulgar-Greece front-lines.
With the collapse of Russia more or less certain, the Germans may have actually hit the Italians again in 1918 instead of France and could have triggered an Italian armistice (after Caporetto Italy was quite shaky and a second Caporetto would have finished them off). Also with the USA not entering the war and a peace treaty in Russia, this would have left the Germans with numerical superiority on the Western Front for the first time since August 1914.
Who knows? a better planned offensive and the French would have collapsed (they had a partial collapse in 1917).

WW1 more than WW2 was not entirely sure of a result till late 1917/early 1918, in contrast from 1942 it was more or less sure that the Allies will win.

 

[FOARP]

WW1 more than WW2 was not entirely sure of a result till late 1917/early 1918, in contrast from 1942 it was more or less sure that the Allies will win.

Indeed. This is one of the main attractions of a WW1 DLC. Add to this the fact that battleships can be modelled historically and yet still be the most powerful thing on the map, and that there are arguably more potential "what-ifs" in WW1 since some countries could have joined the war on the other side.