Well, serial, HoI3 is a competitive game, because it pits the players, human or AI, against each other on more or less equal grounds. A (single-player) RPG doesnt do that. There, there is a very clear distinction between the player and the rest of the world - and that rest of the world often even adepts to the player´s strength in modern RPGs. In comparison, this would be like the HoI3-AI seeing you build no tanks and thus build none either (so to not make it too hard for you to progress with the story). The worst thing in an RPG can have game-design-wise (by modern philosophy) is points where you might get stuck and find yourself unable to progress with the story - in a strategy game, this merely equals a lost game - something that needs to be in any strategy game. Thus, the later is competitive, the former isnt. And thus, an optional advantage in the former is truely optional, while in a competitive game, it can become mandatory.
Granted, in SP this is mostly a matter of personal preference, and since HoI3-AI can not real keep up with the scope of the game, it seems, the whole affair gets closer to the RPG-realm, again, where optional advantages remain optional. But in MP, or at a sufficiently high difficulty level, micro-ing can become mandoatory on any level it is avaiable. If fiddling with the mission-priority list gives an advantage, and your equally strong enemy utilitzes it, you´ll have to, too. POP-spliting in VIC is an excellent example: It´s micro-hell, and i´d rather not do it (and dont in SP-games), but if your human buddy starts doing it, there is little choice for you. The game will take twice as long because of it, and half of it is splitting pops, but if you want to win (competition!), or even get close to it, there simply is no other way (and since this was 2-player, i couldnt ´pass´ a house-rule against it).
So, if we´d have something like mission priotity lists, i´d prefer them to be pre-defined and easily choosable from a not-too-long list, so that it is done with in a click or two, but doesnt resemble something like the Dragon Age tactics screen, where you can literally spend hours fine-tuning your party (for every fight). Opportunity makes micro-hell!
EDIT: In general, i devide games into these two camps: ´competive´ and ´story-driven´. Most games fit in one of the two, really good ones (in tendency) in both and really odd ones in none. Strategy games are competive (but sometimes also have a story-element - actually HoI3 does), point-and-click adventures are clearly story-driven. Most games are competive, though, and difficulty or AI-quality is not a qualifier for this. A game of chess is competive, no matter how lousy your opponent.
Granted, in SP this is mostly a matter of personal preference, and since HoI3-AI can not real keep up with the scope of the game, it seems, the whole affair gets closer to the RPG-realm, again, where optional advantages remain optional. But in MP, or at a sufficiently high difficulty level, micro-ing can become mandoatory on any level it is avaiable. If fiddling with the mission-priority list gives an advantage, and your equally strong enemy utilitzes it, you´ll have to, too. POP-spliting in VIC is an excellent example: It´s micro-hell, and i´d rather not do it (and dont in SP-games), but if your human buddy starts doing it, there is little choice for you. The game will take twice as long because of it, and half of it is splitting pops, but if you want to win (competition!), or even get close to it, there simply is no other way (and since this was 2-player, i couldnt ´pass´ a house-rule against it).
So, if we´d have something like mission priotity lists, i´d prefer them to be pre-defined and easily choosable from a not-too-long list, so that it is done with in a click or two, but doesnt resemble something like the Dragon Age tactics screen, where you can literally spend hours fine-tuning your party (for every fight). Opportunity makes micro-hell!
EDIT: In general, i devide games into these two camps: ´competive´ and ´story-driven´. Most games fit in one of the two, really good ones (in tendency) in both and really odd ones in none. Strategy games are competive (but sometimes also have a story-element - actually HoI3 does), point-and-click adventures are clearly story-driven. Most games are competive, though, and difficulty or AI-quality is not a qualifier for this. A game of chess is competive, no matter how lousy your opponent.
Last edited:
