Semper Fi - Development Diary #6

[6354201]

I have to disagree, as I personally prefer ahistoric outcomes. I know how WWII turned out irl, and I'm more interested in not repeating it! As long as there are options to go either way, I have no problem with the historical trend.

Good GOD. Why is it that people who prefer ahistorical random craziness always say that having more historical flavor in the game somehow equates to REPEATING WW2 (or my other favorite "why don't you go read a history book instead!"). Who in their right mind would honestly want to repeat the war, and who in their right mind would think someone would want that. It's about having a game that is actually about WW2, with historically plausible divergent paths that can happen (like Germany defeating Russia, or Italy building aircraft carriers).

 

[Thomas Kenobi]

1. I posted about Paradox soliciting more feedback on the implementation of features.
2. Daelyn75 agrees. He thinks a company called Stardock does this well.
3. You reply that Paradox can't do this because they would end up breaking promises, completely missing our point.
4. Daelyn75 gives examples of two companies that broke promises, and explains why that is not what we are talking about - Stardock solicits user feedback on feature implementation without breaking promises or making them.
5. Your reply seems to indicate that you do get what the original point was (then why say you don't follow?), and you basically say that Paradox would gain nothing from the debate that would ensue from solicitation of user opinion on implementation, or that the solicitation itself would piss-off those who didn't get their way.

Well, I have to disagree... I've explained why it might be of great use, and Daelyn75 gives an example of a company that does it just right. Everybody would gain from this.

I'm not quite certain of what you're so afraid of. Your reasons seem to be half-hazard or almost satirical at best (we gain nothing from debate! it's dangerous!).

Edit: Re-reading your post, you do make one good, if perhaps unwarranted point: design-by-committee is bad. I agree, but I don't think anybody wants or expects that. The purpose is not to have Paradox go Soviet on us. They're great at using their user-base on every phase but this particular one, that's all. There are plenty of good implementation ideas that probably go un-voiced, only to be posted after it is too late.

Ok for starters ease up a little bit. We're having a civil discussion here. Calling my arguments satirical and trying to portray me as a free speech hater isn't helping matters.

Now to explain:
A). I did not miss the point in my first post. It was not the argument on feature implementation feedback I was reacting to, but rather the tone of Daelyn75's post I quoted, which I felt was overly dismissive of what Paradox is already doing. Now I could certainly have misread his intent and attitude, but at the time that is how I personally felt reading it.
Therefore, my response was about showing Paradox more recognition about what they are already doing, regardless of what each of us feels should be offered in addition.
(Facing backlash from broken promises was really a minor part of my post and I don't see why you chose to focus on it.)

B). "I don't follow": By that, I meant quite literally that I had difficulty understanding the actual text of Daelyn75's second response, its structure and the arguments within. Evidently, as your own words testify, I did in fact understand correctly, but when I made my post, I wasn't sure of it. Hence "I don't follow" to indicate, that I may have misread what he was trying to say.
My intention here was to avoid a misunderstanding.

C). As to your actual argument on implementation feedback, I don't really have a strong opinion. This is evidenced by the fact that my first comment on the matter was only a postscript. Since you have chosen to portray me as an anti-debate anti-feedback lobbyist I feel I need to clarify here: My arguments were on the possible reasons Paradox might have chosen not to provide such information to the fanbase.
My personal opinion on the matter is, quite simply, that if Paradox feels they could make such feedback work, that would be nice. If not I won't miss it.

I do hope I have clarified my opinion here and rectified any misunderstandings.

edit:
Why is this discussion taking place in a dev diary thread to begin with? This thread is about discussing the features introduced in this specific diary. Discussing Paradox's public relations policy in general, would, imho, be better served by opening a new thread on the matter.

 

[dermeister]

I do hope I have clarified my opinion here and rectified any misunderstandings.

Yep, no hard feelings.

Why is this discussion taking place in a dev diary thread to begin with?

If you'll read back to the 7th page or so, it was in reaction to deciding to implement the conversion feature as off-map versus on-map. I made the argument for on-map, and then broadened to argue for the general process by which we might have had a useful public debate about on-map versus off-map conversions rather then debating it now when it's too late.

HOI3 was a great leap forwards compared to the off-map strategic re-deployments of HOI2. This feels like a step backwards. Unfortunately the die is cast. Hopefully we can avoid this in the future.

 

[Daelyn75]

Yep, no hard feelings.



If you'll read back to the 7th page or so, it was in reaction to deciding to implement the conversion feature as off-map versus on-map. I made the argument for on-map, and then broadened to argue for the general process by which we might have had a useful public debate about on-map versus off-map conversions rather then debating it now when it's too late.

HOI3 was a great leap forwards compared to the off-map strategic re-deployments of HOI2. This feels like a step backwards. Unfortunately the die is cast. Hopefully we can avoid this in the future.

dermeister you have a sharp mind, and I'd hate to debate you on a subject at length. Good call on all your points they are precise and cut through the bull. I especially like the chart. I do hope Johan reads through all our posts and actually internalizes them for the betterment of Paradox in the future.

 

[Federkiel]

I basically am indifferent on on-map vs. off-map conversion. They both have their pros and cons. I only wish to have:

- ability to upgrade ships

- a bonus on practical for upgrading units. It otherwise isn't possible to keep a good practical without continuosly building more and more units. Since practical is important for research as well, a bonus for finished upgrades would make sense and also avoid the necessity of eternal unit spamming

 

[Thomas Kenobi]

Yep, no hard feelings.

Ok, now that I went back and read all of the discussion, I see that you received quite a bit of negative reaction regarding your idea. I can understand how it would have been easy to think from my posts, that I was adding to that, even though I wasn't.

HOI3 was a great leap forwards compared to the off-map strategic re-deployments of HOI2. This feels like a step backwards. Unfortunately the die is cast. Hopefully we can avoid this in the future.

Regarding the issue of on map/off map brigade upgrade, I see it more as an aesthetic issue. I must say I'm more concerned with the fact, that if you cancel an upgrade you lose the brigade. I don't mind the brigade not being represented on the map while it upgrades, but I do mind not being able to cut the training short in case of an emergency. Now, I don't really see this as being a problem, as, due to the increased cost of upgrading, I don't foresee people doing it in more that a few brigades at a time and it will be mostly for flavour, rather than for power gaming purposes.
Still it could result in some partially annoying, partially hilarious situations:
-"Hurry up mates, the Germans are landing in Dover!"
-"Oh we're terribly sorry, but we're busy for another month. We're learning how to drive those spiffy new Kangaroo APCs!"



PS: Still, we're finally getting the ability to upgrade existing units. Yey!!

 

[Joppos]

Great update.

Though i think would rather have had the battle info text describing the ahistorical event that was actually being played out. For example seeing the 'battle of moskva' text describing how the germans in this case actually pushed forward and succeded in taking the city.

 

[SolSara]

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?

No battle events have a restricted time period, i.e they will not only fire between this or that date.

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?

Yes, if the requirements for the events is met.

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?

Don't really understand what you mean with a "confusing" gameplay experience, the battle events are more flavour events. I think that even a-historical players would like to learn more about various battles that happened during WW2.

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?

No battle events have a restricted time period, i.e they will not only fire between this or that date.

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.

Well, you can do this yourself by doing what the Axis, the Allies or the Comintern did during WW2 and follow in their footsteps as to say. It's a sandbox game which gives you, the player, the opportunity to play the game as you like.

 

[Broaz]

Inf --> eng ?

On the screenshot, the player is allowed to upgrade his INF brigade into ENG.

Does that mean that in Semper Fi the ENG are a frontline brigade and no longer a support one ? Will ENG become something like the French Fortress Infantry of the Maginot Line ?

 

[Modo]

Well, you can do this yourself by doing what the Axis, the Allies or the Comintern did during WW2 and follow in their footsteps as to say. It's a sandbox game which gives you, the player, the opportunity to play the game as you like.

On that note, multi-choice decisions could show the player which choice is historical.

 

[Slan]

On that note, multi-choice decisions could show the player which choice is historical.

That's what books are for

 

[Drewoid13]

Good GOD. Why is it that people who prefer ahistorical random craziness always say that having more historical flavor in the game somehow equates to REPEATING WW2 (or my other favorite "why don't you go read a history book instead!"). Who in their right mind would honestly want to repeat the war, and who in their right mind would think someone would want that. It's about having a game that is actually about WW2, with historically plausible divergent paths that can happen (like Germany defeating Russia, or Italy building aircraft carriers).

well sir, if you had continued to read past that initial post at my subsequent discussion with Federkiel, you'd have seen that I want flavor, but I don't want to be limited in my ahistoric choices. The latter is something that, imho, it seems changes in SF will do.

Although part of your post would agree with mine, that, to quote yourself:

Who in their right mind would honestly want to repeat the war, and who in their right mind would think someone would want that. It's about having a game that is actually about WW2, with historically plausible divergent paths that can happen

I do agree with.

 

[unmerged(32292)]

Those who are criticizing Paradox for not taking feedback on implementation:

Implementation is the job of the game designer. of course they solicit feedback regarding features that players want, but ultimately they (the designers and developers) exist for the purpose of implementing sound game systems. A good chef will adjust his cooking to the tastes of his audience, but he will not invite them to submit their own recipes. If you want to make games, then make games. Don't try to micro manage those who have made the decision to make games. Please, give feedback, but don't expect a two way line of communication to exist. Let the creator create, and decide for yourself whether it is fit for your consumption.

Honestly, I'd rather they did a better job in the general sense of delivering products that work well right out of the box, and not have to worry at all about whether the specific implementation of something is matches what an unofficial and self appointed "majority" asks for on the forums. I don't think those choices are mutually exclusive, per se, but I think one of them is a very legitimate thing to expect, and the other is not.

 

[Ingtar]

Perhaps I have found my place to mod: a pop up for the player at the beginning of the game that offers to turn on a switch to hide all these events. It should not be difficult to add. Then both sides of that discussion can have their preference.

 

[Munin]

Don't really understand what you mean with a "confusing" gameplay experience, the battle events are more flavour events. I think that even a-historical players would like to learn more about various battles that happened during WW2.

I mean that a player is playing a game scenario completely outside the historical playbook, he wants to try something completely different than what happened historically. Imagine a scenario where a player wants to do the completely opposite of the historical scenario and then ends up with an event describing a part of the real historical scenario he did not want to play (because he consciously chose to do an A-historical scenario he had in mind).

It might be confusing for this player playing a more extreme A-historical scenario to get an event saying something different than what he is doing or what he did just do. Extreme things like Germany allies with poland, the US allies with Germany, ... could be what make the historical events that are still in the game somewhat confusing if you look at the in game reality that is so much different from the historical reality displayed in the events.

Well, you can do this yourself by doing what the Axis, the Allies or the Comintern did during WW2 and follow in their footsteps as to say. It's a sandbox game which gives you, the player, the opportunity to play the game as you like.

Yes, indeed you can do this but you do not get the advantages of an ahistorical choice in an historical background. For example: If Germany would have treated the Baltic states more friendly they would be more inclined to "not rebel" against them and give a german player more troops, ... . And because the people are already friendly towards you (they think you are their liberator) they might grant you additional advantages.

But maybe I m wrong here and is this already incorporated in the game under "occupation mode" (collaboration government). Or maybe I ve expected more positive results from it than just the occupation mode advantages because I think these are "special" historical examples.

It s just that this part of History is a bit fascinating to me: the Ukraine example is maybe even better, as even there the Germans were greeted as liberators. There were even Cossack units in the German army: http://axis101.bizland.com/CossackShields02.htm

Or maybe that kind of in game coöperation is a too detailed historical picture and should be kept for mods (Some mods are already working on it, I think Didays mod has enabled that cavalry units should be renamed after cossack units)

But already thank you for your elaborate reply, I apreciate it

 

[krieger11b]

Well I think the brigade upgrade is one of the best features ever. No longer will I hold off building units because the right tech isn't there yet, i.e. not building armor until medium tanks arrive. Now I can do something too with those initial light tanks that become ever increasingly useless. Not to mention it was not unusual for an infantry unit to be upgraded to mot or mech in the war, now we can do that. Especially useful for mechanized that comes out mid war.

It was also normal to upgrade battle hardened units first, and not a bunch of newbies where the new equipment is not as efficiently used at first. Except Germany had a nasty habit of upgrading based on racial purity (S.S.) a bit too much, but that is another matter.

 

[Sinbuster]

Don't really understand what you mean with a "confusing" gameplay experience, the battle events are more flavour events. I think that even a-historical players would like to learn more about various battles that happened during WW2.

Mmm, flavour events...

I'm wondering if "half the TRP team" Lothos referred to are involved here? Whoever it is, it's much appreciated.

Question though, how much depth are you going to go to here? If we met the conditions, would we be seeing Operation Husky, Dragoon, Ichi-Go, Fall Blau and the like, or will it be the more typical Winter War, Barbarossa, Weserübung, etc. - essentially those events that are already coded into the game?

Also, if you don't mind me asking, which member of the Paradox team are you SolSara?

 

[Panncakemouse]

A reserve unit can be upgraded to a regular unit?

Not atmo, but that's an interesting idea.

Even better: include limited mobilization of selected divisions, corps, armies or whatever the player choose to mobilize.

This would be extremely helpful if you are a colonial power and need to mobilize in one geographic region but want to keep the rest as reserve troops.

 

[SolSara]

Mmm, flavour events...

I'm wondering if "half the TRP team" Lothos referred to are involved here? Whoever it is, it's much appreciated.

Question though, how much depth are you going to go to here? If we met the conditions, would we be seeing Operation Husky, Dragoon, Ichi-Go, Fall Blau and the like, or will it be the more typical Winter War, Barbarossa, Weserübung, etc. - essentially those events that are already coded into the game?

Also, if you don't mind me asking, which member of the Paradox team are you SolSara?

There are land, air and naval battle events in Semper Fi. Some of these are "Operation this-or-that" (Operation Jericho for example) but mostly they are about famous battles of various sorts.

I'm one of the scripters, I write events, OOB's and other things that are needed.

 

[Balesir]

Even better: include limited mobilization of selected divisions, corps, armies or whatever the player choose to mobilize.

This would be extremely helpful if you are a colonial power and need to mobilize in one geographic region but want to keep the rest as reserve troops.

Mobilisation by HQ - excellent idea! Maybe for EP2?