As a note can new parties randomly appear over time due to conditions? (E.g. espionage, economic situation) There could be a 'database' of party names (just like EU3 had a list of names for a country, e.g. John, Richard, etc. for England) to allow for random... well, yeah.
And if you want a bit more complexity, parties should be able to split, which is common among extremist third-parties and such.
I'd say it's rather unlikely, at least the second, because this game isn't really about politics... but it would be cool.
The Tonight Board – Ask me about it!
Hi Jack... bye Jack!
This mark entitles the bearer to have beer bought by Lurken. ● Owner of a Mr G. cookie. ●
As for the now infamous "joke," there is something to be said for a historical route. For example, if I play the USA, it is pretty much no fun if Japan doesn't attack China, or attack me, for that matter. As the UK, the fun kind of dissipates if Germany doesn't go for the Anschluss or the Czechs, Poland, Norway, etc. Sometimes history can be fun, especially in a historical simulation. Never have I been so peeved than when I play a nation for 3-5 years in eager anticipation of a war, only to have my potential no. 1 nemesis suddenly become a pacifist. A historical road to war option would be fun. Just get me to the DOW and I'll take care of the rest, so to speak.
"We’ve been looking for the enemy for several days now. We’ve finally found them. We are surrounded. That simplifies the problem of getting to these people and killing them."
-Lewis "Chesty" Puller, USMC
Non compost mentis
There *is* a 1939 scenario, you know.
I admit to smoking, but I never exhaled. - B. Durruti
Jayavarman's Concise Summary of Me
Stonewall's Concise Summary of Me
Censored for telling it like it is by: Haru yo koi
At least with party leader names and no pictures you don't have to worry about not including certain ones with no available photo or having placeholders.
"To the slayer, comes a slayer. To the conqueror comes a conqueror. He who plunders is plundered in turn."
I think that I understand your point.Originally Posted by Bullfrog
However, as valid as it is (I played the WWI-mode for HOI2 and no WWI broke out THREE TIMES IN A ROW), I will never forget the one instance where I played Poland (IIRC in vanilla Doomsday), was able to hold Warsaw, but was surrounded by many German divisions and then....Germany DOWed the Benelux states
.
I think that a more dynamic system would be much better.
Also I fear that it will be much more difficult to implement such a system.
Best regards,
Roland
But it adds flavour.At least with party leader names and no pictures you don't have to worry about not including certain ones with no available photo or having placeholders.
That's not the same thing. I, for example, like to prepare my armies myself during those few years before the war. That's why I never played any other scenario in HoI2 other than 1936 (grand campaign).
We should at least have an option in the Settings to make the AI countries more likely to act historically (not strictly, but a bit more historically). HoI3 would be a joke if it couldn't bring WW2 for the player, even though it's a WW2 game (excluding of course those times when player himself prevents WW2 with his actions).
"The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with."
-- Marty Feldman
Sometimes that has to be sacrificed for gameplay, more leaders would also mean more flavor though!
"To the slayer, comes a slayer. To the conqueror comes a conqueror. He who plunders is plundered in turn."
If Japan goes for the Malaysa, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, the Pacific Islands, the Philippines and Burma historically with the U.S and the UK putting up a tough struggle, then I will be happy.
I so want the Allies to challenge me for the Pacific as Japan or as the U.S to fight the Japanese long and hard for the islands up to the Philippines and beyond.
I'll bet anything you want that if things really turn out to be crazy when playing from a 36 start with constantly wild ideologies all over the place and WWII triggered (if at all) by weird countries, the 39 scenario will be by far the most played. Assuming there is a 39' scenario or at least a way to start in 39' like in EU3.
Personally I want to play the WWII and be a decisive factor in it. If I want to play a war game where everyone is out to conquer the world then I'll just play a WAR board-game. Even better, chess.
It is the historical background that gives flavor to Paradox games. Just compare the popularity of Armaggedon scenarios and the 36' scenario. I never even started the Armaggedon scenarios, they don't interest me AT ALL. Has anyone, other then in MP, played those scenarios?
The EU3 route of reducing all countries to the same common denominator made it less fun then EU2. For me at least. I'd say from the popularity of Magna Mundi that I'm not alone though. (No need to go all fanboy...yes EU3 is still a fantastic game with huge improvements over EU2. )
The way I see it, most games go through a lot to create character and flavor for the "factions", parties, or whatever. Paradox has history, possibly the best character and flavor making tool of it all.
If HO3 just turns out to be a game where you are givent the setup of 1936 and then every country is out to do the same thing using the same tools I'll be disapointed. I'll probably play it anyway, and probably have a blast, I'll feel sorry that there isn't any more games on the market that carry that history flavor though.
Wait, I almost feel like deja vú. Oh yes, the same thing happened with EU3
Of course we are only guessing and I'll always want to wait and see what their vision of HOI3 turns out to be, but it is always a good idea to tell what your interests are.
Last edited by Kayapo; 24-11-2008 at 03:00.
I agree with you, Kayapo.
At least from my experience, in EU3 it felt like every country was acting the same way. Minor countries were pretty randomly declaring wars on each other and so were major countries. Of course it didn't matter that much in EU3 since I'm not too familiar with that period of history. But if HoI3 was the same as EU3, I wouldn't buy it. People might say "you're going to buy it anyway", but the thing that made me to like Paradox games so much was the history. I really liked to prepare for Winter War as Finland, or join Axis as Italy and help Germany to conquer Europe. But if HoI3 was like EU3, the Winter War wouldn't actually be Winter War. It would just be a random war that the AI thought to be useful one, just because Finland is weaker compared to USSR. Doesn't feel that fun...
Of course the game's events should not be as strict as they were in HoI2, since making unhistorical decisions usually messed up the whole system and events stopped triggering and the player ended up with a crazy deathmatch or a situation where nobody would do anything.
If I could decide, there would be a slider from Historical to Free (not Unhistorical since it might still go historically even if there were no events). In Free, there are absolutely NO historical events (other than those random ones) and everything would be upto the player and AI to decide. In Historical, it would be more like HoI2. And between those two there would be 2-3 stages, that either reduce or increase the amount of events. Instead of this kind of a slider there could also be a slider that defines how historically the AI behaves. The most historical Germany AI tries to go for Poland, then Allies etc. and the most free Germany AI would just check if it was actually useful and possible to conquer Poland. If not, then it wouldn't do that.
"The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with."
-- Marty Feldman
If you're "preparing" for the war, you are changing history. Why should everyone else act the same as they did historically while Finland is stockpiling weapons and building new divisions like crazy?
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by.
It ended abruptly in the middle of nowhere; would not pick again.
A traveler
I approve of the split in oil production in provinces and fuel production linked to industry and technology.
But does it have to be based on total IC? Thinking of Germany's vulnerability with regard to fuel production and the allied air campaign being directed towards refineries and the consequencs for Germany later in the war affecting both operational aircraft, training and mobility of land forces....I am basically asking for refineries to be separate entities that have to be built and are located in specific provinces and can thus be targeted by e.g. an air campaign?
Um... So? What's wrong with changing history? If you don't want to do that, buy a movie instead (it might be unhistorical, but at least that's not because of you). In the part you quoted, I was just saying that I like to create my army myself and not have a full army made by Paradox.
And as I already said, the player should be able to make (with a slider or something) the AI controlled countries to behave more historically. They would still do some things differently from time to time, however, Germany would always start WW2 (with the most historical settings). With the same slider, the player should also be able to start a "free" campaign, where there are no strict historical events and all decisions are made by the AI and the player. So if Poland for some reason gets a mighty army, Germany wouldn't even consider invading.
"The pen is mightier than the sword, and considerably easier to write with."
-- Marty Feldman
Specific plants for oil would be the best solution.
But Paradox wants a simple production aspect. It's the reason why the IC is kept. So introducing new plants would add complexity...
"A poil !"
Homer Jay Simpson
Like a rocket test site or Nuclear plant...good idea. It would add a max level of IC that could be put into coal refining to fuel and perhaps aid the future techs related to refining. As far as having to build it in order to make fuel, I think that would be good only for coal to fuel not for oil to fuel. Oil to fuel should remain abstracted, based on tech and IC. No oil trading partners (aside from Romania) and low national production would still plague the Axis.
"We’ve been looking for the enemy for several days now. We’ve finally found them. We are surrounded. That simplifies the problem of getting to these people and killing them."
-Lewis "Chesty" Puller, USMC
Non compost mentis
I did not had will to go through all the pages so maybe somebody else wrote it already, but more provinces in the south is just what I thought last time, that it's not right have London just next to Dover. Nice!
One more though, how about Portsmouth? :-) I know the anchor is for it there already, but still... there would be place for it between Southampton and Brighton... maybe...
And, the most vital question - will it be possible to sail out on sea with HMS Victory(First class ship of the line) and HMS Warrior?
Last edited by llib; 24-11-2008 at 20:31.
This bodes well for HoI3: Doomsday Armaggedon.
"We must teach them. We must take away their planes, their automatic weapons, their tanks, their artillery and teach them dignity".
-For Whome the Bell Tolls.
"Win first, and then fight."
-Sun Tzu.
so it is the great precept of nature to love ourselves only as we love our neighbour, or what comes to the same thing, as our neighbour is capable of loving us.
Adam Smith, -Theory of Moral Sentiments.
That's just what I would like to see happen depending on how you play the game. Or did you just mean with the AI? I would like to have things happen like that from time to time, but especially for the country I'm playing as ... I want to have control enough to put in place whatever direction or politics I deem. Again ... just have an option before starting a game for if you want to have to deal with historical politics or dictatorial control over a nation(s).
Member of the ahistoric association
Long Live Prussia!
Setzen wir Deutschland, so zu sagen, in den Sattel! Reiten wird es schon können ~OVB
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote