Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make it clear what the colonial railroading decision actually is #127

Open
kroaala opened this issue Aug 16, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Make it clear what the colonial railroading decision actually is #127

kroaala opened this issue Aug 16, 2021 · 2 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@kroaala
Copy link

kroaala commented Aug 16, 2021

So I made a github account just to mention this. The in game description is very vague. Currently the decision is titled "Option: Enable Additional Historical Colonial Conquests," and the description just "This tweak will enable additional colonial conquest events in Africa." Is the default railroaded, and this enables organization events for all colonizers? Or is the default not railroaded, and "additional historical conquests" are the railroad events? Even when I consulted the Features list, I was confronted with apparently mutually conflicting information:

Make colonial railroading an option decision (PR HFM/#157).
Colonial de-railroading: cherry-pick off-the-rails/#3, restoring parity with HFM Derailroaded.
Colonial de-railroading: change the default behaviour to disabled, with the option to re-enable.

Only when I read a two-week old issue thread #120 could I piece together that the default is railroading not enabled, and the decision enables it. Some clearer language would prevent others from sharing my confusion.

@moretrim
Copy link
Owner

The in game description is very vague. […]

The description is vague because the option controls some but not all historical events/decisions. That is to say, there will be some historical colonial happenings no matter what setting the player chooses. Well, which does it control? Why not present that information to the player? Unfortunately the answer to that question involves mostly accidental development history of HFM: there was a time where extra colonial wars were added to the mod as part of update, the overall content ended up gated behind an event (not just the wars), the event was removed, a PR re-added the setting as a decision.

So we find ourselves in a tough spot:

  • we must not give the impression that the settings controls all colonial decisions & events when it doesn’t
  • it’s annoying to describe what is being controlled (“some content in Africa that was added at one point in an older version of HFM, the same that is controlled by HFM Derailroaded”)
  • it’s even annoying to describe the kind of content being controlled beyond the fact that it’s all centred around colonial Africa: there are a lot of wars & a couple CBs, but there’s also GP influence, uncontestable land transfers, and peaceful annexations
  • if we want to put all historical colonial content behind one setting (perhaps with different levels), that would be ideal but a ton of work

All the same we bother with the setting because it has been popular all this time. Which is also what makes this tricky, because people do have strong feelings about decisions & events that produce wars (especially of conquest), uncontestable land transfers, and influence.

Some clearer language would prevent others from sharing my confusion.

I will definitively update the language in the features. I also want to improve the in-game description (likely the title also), but it’s hard when keeping in mind the issue of vagueness I have outlined:

This tweak will enable additional historical colonial conquest events content in Africa.

Even more vague, but perhaps less misleading?

@kroaala
Copy link
Author

kroaala commented Aug 17, 2021

I see the conundrum. Well I can tell you, going in mostly blind, the stronger impression the decision gave me was that it enabled the HFM railroady events, so that at least is a good start. I suppose the best way to solve this problem is to find the most succinct description that includes the critical information you mentioned. Something like, "This decision enables additional HFM content surrounding the Scramble for Africa. Disabled by default, as many players find it too constricting/railroaded." This is similar to the description for the Disable Anarcho-Liberals option, which plainly states that it is there because many find the Anarcho-Liberals to be unrealistic and/or anachronistic. You simply want to get across why or why not a player would want to enable it. "Warning: This decision will severely restrict dynamic, ahistorical colonization of Africa" might also be a good option to append the description with.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants