Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Darkest Hour VS Arsenal of Democracy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
ewphoenix123 said:
The multichociemodding is not the problem, the huge database tasks like expanding minister/leader dbs is the real nightmare.
Click to expand...

I have to agree.

I personally dread having to work on ministers/leaders, be it in research, or in events when I need to wake/sleep.

Thankfully Kaiser Franz is a godsend for AAR.

Other nuisances I have are testing (every minute spent on testing is time lost from development) and players going way ahistorical breaking event chains while expecting existing historical events to work (well, mostly trying to account for ahistorical stuff in triggers, who doesn't like playing ahistorical?)

I don't think it is that far fetched to see a major mod or two merged into Vanilla by this time next year.
 
I hate event chains the most. One mistake and you got a game breaking bug when some event doesn't fire when it should.
 
ewphoenix123 said:
The multichociemodding is not the problem, the huge database tasks like expanding minister/leader dbs is the real nightmare.
Click to expand...

I feel some what responsible for that.
 
Hyo said:
If you're talking about depth, AoD definitely has some advantages on the military side in my opinion. Some of its other changes, (Infra to 20, esepcially large ones, but I liked it overall.

Problem was though, one of its neatest features - supply, was also one of its largest pitfalls, because of the massive amount of calculations and lag that came with it. It was still one of my favourites however, since it actually made campaigning more difficult, and places like China were definitely more realistic, with absolute shit ESE for Japan. (Too much that AI Japan almost always gets screwed over though, so... xD).

Either way, both DH and AoD are great games with their distinct advantages and disadvantages. Here's my take on it: Compare them, list what you like and don't like, but don't try to claim superiority over the other. Please, I'd hate to see another fracture / flame war in the HoI community because of inter-game rivalries.
Click to expand...

I share this point of view.

Among the many reasons why AoD went to the classic games forums was the fact that it didn't support the most popular mods.

I enjoy AoD's supply system, battle system and macro economic and social modeling (except for research),

I love DH's speed, map, research, efficiency of its auto-trade function and functionality of its auto-spying system. The manpower model doesn't seem to be very popular but it is a more real representation of what happens in the real life since post-napoleonic times.

They are different games, this isn't like comparing EU3: Heir to the throne like EU3: Divine Wind, were improvements are incremental.

I still dream about a merger of both games, which of course, won't happen.
 
Lord Finnish said:
To be honest I doubt I live to see the day when AAR, NWO and perhaps Kaiserreich are incorporated to the original game. It just sounds too perfect :(
Click to expand...
Hehe, well, then your health might be in a very shape. :D

Lord Finnish said:
I hate event chains the most. One mistake and you got a game breaking bug when some event doesn't fire when it should.
Click to expand...
Well, it's either event chains, or no story. Simple as that, most things you love in HOI2 and DH are only possible by doing them. Either you have more or less complex event chains, or a sandbox like HOI3. Opinions may differ on which of those two is more/less desirable. Imho it's liking.
 
elbasto said:
The manpower model doesn't seem to be very popular but it is a more real representation of what happens in the real life since post-napoleonic times.
Click to expand...

Haven't actually played AoD and only recently bought DH, but I just wanted to pipe in on this point. I'm really enjoying the mobilisation system. My first game I'm playing as Japan in the '33 scenario, and I started out doing my usual prewar build up from HoI2. Very quickly ran out of bodies to fill the projected build, and penalties to industry and research have made it a real decision on how rapidly to expand in peace time.

Currently I'm at mob 7, 750 odd manpower left, december '37, and am lamenting the 30,000 casualties we just suffered in the failed assault on the beaches of Guangzhou, because I really don't like the look of the economic hits I'll have to suffer to go to the next level of mobilisation (Particularly when I intend to face the industrial might of the US later). For me it has given real meaning to combat losses, rather than taking a unit out of the fight for a little while, it's taken 30,000 of my loyal soldiers out of the fight. More or less for good. Previously I wouldn't have even bothered to look other than to take a glance and figure out when the divisions would be ready to try again.
 
I like the mobilisation system as well. It is much more realistic, as there is a real relationship between MP and IC and you gain access to your MP reserve quickly, but forming new divs still takes a lot of time (but it gets shorted with higher mobilisation levels, which is nice).
 
Shosho Tanaka said:
it's taken 30,000 of my loyal soldiers out of the fight.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly!

In previous HoI games manpower represented mere minions, now they are priceless individuals!
 
my main qualm with DH is that all one can do is replay history. It might be a much better rendition of ww2 than ddarma gave but its still only a rendition of ww2. in aod, one can much more easily go alt history (my favorite is a czech-german-polish-romanian alliance with BCF in late 36).

ive heard hoi 3 is much more sandboxy like ddarma/aod but i cant learn it sadly
 
PanzerMan7 said:
my main qualm with DH is that all one can do is replay history. It might be a much better rendition of ww2 than ddarma gave but its still only a rendition of ww2. in aod, one can much more easily go alt history (my favorite is a czech-german-polish-romanian alliance with BCF in late 36).

ive heard hoi 3 is much more sandboxy like ddarma/aod but i cant learn it sadly
Click to expand...

1.6.0 AAR will let you play alternate history quite well....at least that is our goal.

Anyway, wait for AAR-KR-NWO2....it'll happen....soon (tm) :D

(not really soon, and maybe not definitely based on how well enthusiasm translated to reality for the Magna Mundi team, but I think quite a few of us want to see it happen)

________
In vanilla, I took over Hungary, Austria, and Romania as Czech. Then I stalled Germany for a long time, and provoked a war between Germany and Italy (DoW Austria = Italy DoW's me, and Ger DoW's Italy cause Ger guarentees me xD). I would say that is fairly ahistoric. :D.

Also, was first to get nukes as Super Czech. xD
 
indeed for mods, i love DH. it runs so smooth, better ai, ect, but even in mods you have to follow the storyline because of DHs manpower and production system

that said, KR for DH is one of my favorite mods ive ever played
 
indeed for mods, i love DH. it runs so smooth, better ai, ect, but even in mods you have to follow the storyline because of DHs manpower and production system
Click to expand...
?
You can build whatever you want as long as you have proper techs, it may just take longer. You can build STRATs when playing as Germany, for example, despite the fact that Germany didn't really have strategic bombers IRL for various reasons. You can also build carriers as Italy, even though they didn't have any IRL. The real restrictions are tech teams and IC. The only thing I don't like is that tech teams don't really change, which is good for WWII, but not good for games which use the extended timeline. It is rational that your resources are limited in 1936+ and early 1940s, but if you have been developing carriers/rockets/whatever since 1936, then you should become more proficient at it by 1946.
 
Cybvep said:
?
It is rational that your resources are limited in 1936+ and early 1940s, but if you have been developing carriers/rockets/whatever since 1936, then you should become more proficient at it by 1946.
Click to expand...
Inability to start a nuclear program with most countries is rather frustrating too.
Game desperately need a tech team creation/upgrade system.
 
Kannon said:
Inability to start a nuclear program with most countries is rather frustrating too.
Click to expand...
I think that the devs need to rethink all things connected with nukes in general if they want to give us proper 1945+ gameplay. Otherwise, North Korea will be nuked the day the USA DOWs them and you will still be allowed to nuke everything in sight with no real consequences. ATM you can nuke German-occupied Paris and nobody will mind. Seriously, this is ridiculous.
 
It's the old engine. We are talking about a game first released in 2005 based on an engine developed some time before 2000.
 
Cybvep said:
So...? What's the point of supporting post-1945 era if it cannot be properly represented, then?
Click to expand...
I don't think DH will ever properly model Cold war era. With just one programmer, we simply can't do it. We can only support it DB-wise and open as many modding possibilities as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back