Wow! Semper Fi has some great game features. I am really looking forward to it.
Cheers,
Sword
Cheers,
Sword
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Trade AI is a great improvement, good to hear
. But I do have 1 concern: the battle events. It s possible that they can give some weird side-effect if they are not kept within a certain period of time, so will for example the specific "Battle of Moskva" event (View attachment 24438) only fire between October 1941 and Januari 1942?
The problem I can see is that a A-historical player can get "hisorical events" while he is playing a very A-historical game. For example Russia is only conquered in 1945 because Germany first conquered the UK: will the event then also fire?
As for this it could be handy for players who want to play a very very A-historical game to be able to disable the historic events so they don't get a "confusing" gameplay experiance?
Another question I have is: If the events won't pop up when they only show during the historical period of time then will a player who plays 100% ahistorical get 0 battle events?
I know it is a hard balance of making a game and keeping historical flavor as too much historical features may create a game that is to fixed and has a much lower replayability value (like watching an historic WWII documentary). Therefor I like the approach of haven a plausible path that you can follow (the historical WWII story) and a choice not to do so, but what I do still miss a bit is the Historical Role playing aspect: it is possible to have choices in a game while still being very historical. This way an Ahistorical player can have 'historical choice events" that enable him to choose the a-historical option in an historical choice. This way more A-historical players also get some historical flavor from the historical background.
It would be best discribed as having historical choices. For example: the SU occupied the Baltic states and when the germans moved into them they were greeted as liberators: the germans had a choice to use this to their advantage.
Last edited:
I think you have made a good point, and I agree Paradox has struggled in the arena of executing certain features well.
That being said:
- Paradox has worked on fixing this. The series of developer diaries, and the increasing dev feedback we see in them (King in Vicky 2), is a great example of this.
- More PI employees are involved in the forum today than they were 2 or 3 years ago.
- The bug fix thread and the dev diaries have shown a pretty strong inclination to follow player feedback.
- Finally, for our part, it is important to keep in mind that it is much easier to say something than to create and implement it. Modders understand this better than anyone, of course.
In sum, I agree Paradox needs to improve implementation, but I do think they are on a better trend of involvement in the community. They have been opening up a bit more, and while I understand their need to be tight lipped, it never hurts to say "we'll look into this".
Using this brigade upgrade system gave me an Idea to reduce micromanagement.
What if you could reinforce already existing divisions with an extra brigade in a single click aswell?
Then instead of the current following steps:
1.) Find division
2.) Go into Production
3.) Click deployment queue when ready
4.) Find division again
5.) Deploy brigade in same province
6.) Merge them into the same division
You would just have:
1.) Find division
2.) Go into production
And the rest would use the same mechanics to auto-deploy you "extension" brigade to the correct target once its ready.
What if you could reinforce already existing divisions with an extra brigade in a single click aswell?
Then instead of the current following steps:
1.) Find division
2.) Go into Production
3.) Click deployment queue when ready
4.) Find division again
5.) Deploy brigade in same province
6.) Merge them into the same division
You would just have:
1.) Find division
2.) Go into production
And the rest would use the same mechanics to auto-deploy you "extension" brigade to the correct target once its ready.
You guys answer only to an extent. But like another poster said you guys are silent for months/years and then just come out and say you're doing something. Feedback on ideas are hardly touched upon unless its to shut that person's ideas down.
Johan the two times I have been directly answered by you was to say that you don't like what i'm saying.
You don't have to read every post/every thread, but you could start threads asking your own questions for ideas and feedback.
On the other hand you could do nothing like what Bioware has recently done in the past year. Before they would talk to those on the forum, but since Dragon Age came out there rarely do so but to make annoucements. This is problematic since their latest patch for Dragon Age 1.03 is a buggy disaster, and so many people get CTDs and in game bugs that they have to deal with that quite a few post that they cannot even play the game at all. Yet there is no reply on another patch for the game, and they keep putting out more DLC!!! Their latest expansion is one of the most bug filled quagmires that a significant portion of it is missing because of the bugs.
I had the greatest respect for Bioware, but lately they have become closed off to their customers.
Johan gamers like transparency with the direction the company is going, and they like to contribute or to at least know why things are chosen for whatever reason. And like I said, this doesn't require you to read and respond to every post, my god that would take up an entire day pretty much just for all your games.
And Johan please don't take what i'm saying personally, because regardless of my rant, I still think you guys are one of the premier gaming companies out there. As you could find from one of my posts in page 4 of this thread.
Last edited:
An interesting idea but this could bypass the 'new units deploy only in land-connected to capitol provinces' restriction. Some provision would have to be made to account for that.
With regard to the historic events, will there also be some a historic ones? for instance a battle for Washington or New York? a Japanese invasion of California or a Soviet attack on India?
I realise this is a WW2 game and you are trying to give it a historic feel but a historic events would also be good, something like bitter peace.
I realise this is a WW2 game and you are trying to give it a historic feel but a historic events would also be good, something like bitter peace.
Isn't the same problem already present with the upgrade mechanics?
I at least consider them to be pretty much new units where you just are able to retain the experience from an old brigade.
Last edited:
Not exactly since the upgraded units aren't 'new units' just retrained ones.
The placing of them in the production que is just a mechanic to change the unit type I don't think it's supposed to represent them returning home for retraining.
Did you even consider that maybe Paradox looked at all the recommendations people made and decided to make use of their ideas, but implemented in a manner they felt they could accomplish?
Really, this probably sounds a bit nasty but try and stick with me here. I read that and I see "Someone (or I) made a recommendation that would have worked great but I don't see it coming through in your implementation. If you had talked with us beforehand we could have worked it out and it would have been so much better!"
But it doesn't work like that. What happens if Paradox said we're going to do it this way, and the community comes up with something they feel is better but it can't be done? As proven on this thread and others, just saying it can't be done isn't the end of it because people will complain it CAN be done, Paradox just doesn't want to do it or something like that.
There are a lot of reasons why game companies don't push ideas past their entire public-speaking user base.
How would talking about a release before-hand allow a company to track down bugs about the release?
The new equipment (lets say trucks if we upgrade INF to MOT) still needs to be shipped to say Africa if they are stationed there.
What is the difference in upgrading them and adding a new brigade?
Hm, that got me thinking... If I set the Superiour training Law and have 30% Exp infantry, then set them to upgrade to Paratroopers, and set it on Minimal training.... Will that be done faster than superiour training, without problems?
Wouldn't that mean you give the player a small edge over the AI through this feature?
"Upgrading" as it currently stands just means getting a new shipment of equipment.
Changing a division type is another matter entirely. Short of going from walking infantry to motorized infantry (or, if they implement a militia to infantry), there is a pretty drastic difference in unit types. Marines/Mountaineers/Paratroopers all require significant training above and beyond most other units. Change Armor types wouldn't require much re-training, but the unit would have to adjust to the new limitations (or new options) available, as well as how to maintain the new equipment, and how to adopt their new tactics (trying to use a light tank like your former heavy unit would be a big change). Some of that might sound easy and straight-forward, but it usually isn't especially when you factor in coordination as a unit.
It isn't and thats why i'm not refering to this expansion, yet I wasn't the one who brought up all the dirt being flung. Try going after those I am semi-agreeing with. What I would like to see is a discussion of ideas, and more transparency with where they are going like Stardock does.
Stardock is an independent company who made money selling aps before seriously getting into games and they fund themselves. They like making strategy games, and make a good AI. They have their own game selling download program like steam . . . Sound familiar?
Ok so lets compare the two together with how they deal with forum feedback. http://forums.elementalgame.com/
Go and read for a while before spouting off BS like this.
Then there are always the people that say "Johan can do what he wants because it's his own company." Well fine, I never said otherwise. Regardless I prefer the Stardock approach.
At least he wouldn't have half the hell he's been getting since HOI3 was released if he did things similar to them.
Seriously mate, do you know many game development studios, that have the devs posting on the forums on a daily basis, providing info and answering questions?
Not to mention the constant development reports, that actually provide specific information on features. For most of the few other studios out there, that do release dev reports, they tend to read like wishlists and are packed with PR speak. e.g. They would claim the new game would have "improved AI" as opposed to, and I quote from dev diary #3, "...the AI is much better at detecting potential pockets... and withdrawing from them if it does not have the overall front initiative.".
What you need to understand is that, by providing so much specific information, they open themselves up to potential scrutiny and criticism. Having built expectations, if they fail to deliver on what was promised on those dev diaries, the backlash could end up costing them customers. And they don't have to take that risk. Most companies don't and have their PR reps talking as vaguely as possible, until the last possible moment, when they present a playable version of the game to some expo for the journalists to try.
Also, one other thing to keep in mind, is that the people who frequent these forums do not comprise everyone who purchased the game. We are not even the majority. If we were, Paradox would probably be bankrupt by now... Keeping close contact with the core fanbase is good marketing, but it is not the only effective marketing choice they could make.
What Paradox has been doing is quite rare and it is something that we should be positive towards and not critical. Until now, I thought they were the only company that acted in this manner. From reading your post today, I learned, that Stardock acts in a similar fashion. That's a grand total of two... Therefore, I'd be a bit wary of complaining that 75% is not enough, when mostly everyone else is providing 10%.
Just my two cents...
edit: About the discussion that has been going on, on how Paradox treats feature recommendations from forum posters:
I just wanted to say, that a forum with dozens or hundreds of members, may be a great environment for the Paradox devs to get new ideas and see things from an angle they might not have considered before. However, when it comes to actually implementing those ideas, debating the details in such a public and crowded environment is imho not the best choice to get things done. At least from my experience with trying to make decisions in a group.
Last edited:
I was just thinking. If we get the option to upgrade units to different unit types, there could be an option to convert regulars into reserves and reserves into regulars as well! I would use that for sure
I was just thinking. If we get the option to upgrade units to different unit types, there could be an option to convert regulars into reserves and reserves into regulars as well! I would use that for sure
Can this will be to applied to ships as well?
Like convert the battleships and cruisers into hybrid battle carriers?
Every single one of you has completely missed my point. If you read what I wrote, I did write that they 1) eventually get all the good ideas in, and 2) do read the forum / listen.
The problem is the implementation phase. Any single idea has MULTIPLE ways of being implemented.
For example: The OOB Browser could have been an OOB screen (like production, diplomacy). The Conversions could have been on-map or off-map.
Interaction by Paradox in Developer-Diaries is, if you read what I wrote, an after-the-fact thing. By the time a DD is posted, everything in it is more or less solid as stone. Let's assume person X got idea Y of a better way of doing Z. Paradox won't just go "oh good idea, we'll change it" even if they agree - and I understand why not - they have a schedule to stick to, and they don't have time to redo things.
Once again, I am not talking about Paradox's "listening to the community skillz" in general, but one specific phase which seems to be weak to me: the feedback on implementation phase during the conception of the plan.
For example: either on-map or off-map conversions are possible/rational ways of doing the conversion. I have a feeling that many people would have preferred on-map conversions. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that this is correct. If Paradox had started a poll-thread asking "on-map or off-map conversions?", maybe it could have affected their thinking at the conception phase of Semper Fi, and we would be looking at an on-map conversion DD today.
In fact, let's look at a counter-example that proves the point. Here is a thread with ~24,000 views where Jackda and I had a debate about whether or not an OOB of 220 Para-Divs was an exploit or not. I eventually agreed with Jackda that it was an exploit, and we suggested reducing the Paradropped supply pool to 7 days. On on the 1.4 Dev Video, King actually mentioned the thread as something that informed them of an exploit. And they actually did implement a paradropped-specific supply pool of 7 days, so I'm assuming they either 1. got the same idea for a fix or 2. got the idea from the thread. So they are listening, even when we don't know if they are there. But there were many ways to nerf the Paratroopers to deal with the issue. They happened to use what I consider to be the best way, which is great. But they could just have easily have used other methods... A hard IC-ParaBrg ratio cap? Nerfing Para AT abilities? There were plenty of bad ways of doing this available. Now imagine, again, for the sake of argument, that Paradox had decided that nerfing paratrooper AT stats was the way to go. I personally think they would never have gone for that, but again, let's just imagine to prove an abstract point. We wouldn't have had a chance to offer counter-arguments until the 1.4 RC release, at which point there would have been little chance to change their implementation EVEN if we could have changed their mind - they are on a schedule, and don't have time to redo things 10 times over.
Now of course, this is not to say that Paradox has to run everything by us. Obviously most users aren't programmers or software engineers. Sometimes forum users ask for crazy things which are either impossible, would take supermagic computers from the future, impossible man-hours, or are just plain unworkable from a UI perspective.
That said, I don't think that on-map VS off-map conversions falls into these categories. It was clearly a choice where either one would have been workable if decided on during the Semper Fi planning phase.
Maybe Paradox mulled this over for hours/days/weeks, before deciding for a host of reasons unknown to us that off-map was best. Maybe Paradox didn't really think about it much at all, and on-map as just a fleeting thought - perhaps it was always going to be off-map and nobody really seriously challenged this point.
So to summarize, I'm saying that there is ONE specific phase where I think that Paradox doesn't take enough advantage of their user-base: the phase where they decide HOW they will implement a certain new feature when there are multiple possible ways of doing it.
You know how at the end of a wedding ceremony the officiator says "If anyone has any objection, speak now or forever hold your peace!"...
There's a reason it's asked.
Last edited: