moretrim / ccHFM

Community Curated HFM
14 stars 3 forks source link

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

Open kroaala opened 2 years ago

kroaala commented 2 years ago

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 commented 2 years ago

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:

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 commented 2 years ago

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.