A 3rd 1.2 Information Update

[Agricola12]

While what you wrote was amusing, they've already stated that they're working on the lag issues, in almost every post that has been made about the 1.2 patch.

I would really love it if ALL of the posters to these threads would READ what Johan actually posts BEFORE commenting. I've seen requests for autosliders, autotrade, AI improvements, Japan rebalance, etc... ALL of which Johan has mentioned in the multiple updates about the 1.2 patch he has made.

Well good for Johan and all those happy to buy the game off the shelf in this condition, read the thread and twiddle their thumbs waiting for Paradox to finish the game they sold to them a month ago!

As for myself I would really love it if Paradox would properly test their product before launch. I know, I know it sounds like a crazy concept but I and many others that have always bought their games are no doubt getting a little browned off with the game speed problem every single game they've ever released has!

It's not like I'm running a Pentium 2 with a voodoo3 GPU and 256MB of DDR1 RAM, everyone is having this problem. As a customer I believe I now have the right to come onto these boards and p*** and moan about this problem to my hearts (of Iron!) content until they fix it! That's what having customer support is about, I moan he promises to fix it and I moan until it's fixed then thank Paradox for providing me with the product I originally paid for/was promised.

No offence intended to anyone at Paradox, but when I went to play the game they asked me to register on these forums. They asked for my feedback and I asked for a game that didn't play like a spastic playing Beethoven on a grand piano. Well it seems Paradox got what they wanted atleast! So I'm going to twiddle my thumbs here until it gets fixed,

Yours Sincerely,

Agricola

(A peeved but loyal Paradox fan)

 

[plasticpanzers]

oh darn, just occured to me. i have dailup and this is gonna be a big ol' patch. going to be another all nighter at the computer avoiding disconnects!

 

[unmerged(138489)]

Could we get an option to lose the "slightly" if we want? I like HOI3 a lot so far apart from the wildly a-historical side of its progress.

ditto

 

[Atomcreator]

Just a quick one - Is Churchill finally going to get to become PM ?

 

[unmerged(158277)]

Personally I don't care too much whether or not the game follows the historical facts (USA joins Axis etc...). Most of the comments I have seen are on one side or the other of this particular question.

But to me a more important question is historical EFFECTS: for example, the one-week time delay after combat essentially kills any possibility of Blitzkrieg, and allows gamey ways of stopping an offensive in its tracks by "soaking off" weak units against breakthrough units (a retreating HQ unit stopping 5 Panzer divisions for a week for example). THIS is not historical.In sum, historical play should yield roughly historical outcomes, taking into account random variables and uncertainties (it was not written in stone that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor - they were brought to do that earlier than planned by US sanctions based on a misinterpretation of a decoded Japanese message that resulted in the war starting 6 months earlier than it normally would have).

Another one is that attacking units not synchronized do not attack but are put into the reserve instead (where they also suffer the attack delay).

I understand that such things were probably put into the game to compensate for a weak AI.So perhaps a compromise would be to let the player adjust this delay by means of the preferences (most of us don't know where to find he numbers to edit and don't like to fiddle with the program). This would make the game easier perhaps, but hey, the REAL Soviet leadership in the early weeks of Barbarossa were even worse than the AI...

Henri

There is an upgrade that lowers the wait if you actually played the game youd knew

 

[Grumpyoldman]

Not to harp on about these things but why are people so hung up that the game goes along historical lines? This is simply impossible for several reasons:

1) There was no commander named <insert your name> running <insert your favorite country>

2) If it was 100% historically accurate then it would not be a game it would be a documentary/slideshow!

3) Too many events in WWI-the rematch were knife edge so even small changes make big differences!

Johan, one reason that I play this game is because I want to change how history went (be it an Australian empire or a German world map!) and I like that the game runs itself differently each time. Makes for more re-playability. I hope that your patches keep it as is. Other wise I might as well just go back and play HoI2.

Thread winner ^ and exactly the reason the game should remain mostly ahistorical. A "slight" change for historical reasons is going to be ok. Just no MAJOR changes. I'm anxiously awaiting the slight changes and then of course the forum explosion because X is still doing Y and this is a fantasy game and all the other blah that goes on after a release and/or patch.

 

[POemil]

Great post, but sadly those people do not want to hear your suggestions. They expect to play HOI3 just as they played HOI2, with no strategy, and they expect it to work, and if it doesn't they immediately post a thread here.

It needs a little tweaking, mainly the Theater AI and then everything will be fine.

On an unrelated not nice to see a fellow Texan on the forums!

Don't make posts like that will you? It is very inviting to start a flamewar.

And try to understand that people that want the game to unfold more historically, do NOT want a 100% historical game. Just that if you behave historically, there is a fair CHANCE that things will continue historically... or at least plausible. Well and if you do not behave historicaly (like going to war in 1936), then it makes sense things go completely crazy.

Anyway, ideally there would be an option somewhere before loading a new game, that decides how historical ur game is going to be, something that would please us both. A slider with percentages that would influence the (historical, or not) options chosen in events by AI nations, or something like that.

But this is ofcourse the real worl, and in the real world only rarely everyone gets what he wants, so they should just try to please the majority. If the majority wants it ahistorical like it is now, well fine by me, then I'll wait for a good mod. If the majority wants it more historical, or at least historically plausible then they should do just that. Ofcourse, personally, I would like the second option more. But hey, que sera, sera.

Either way, please do not make posts insinuating ur view on this, is somehow superior. I do not know if you intended it like that, but I read it like that.

 

[unmerged(148298)]

History?

For my part, if the game follow history like, ( 1 sept 1939 poland, italy join axis at paris or june 10 1940, barbarossa june 22 1941, and a day of infamy dec 7 1941 ) this can be enough. But if you tell me that usa join allies in 1939 and manchouko get puppet by china and romania join the commintern and finland join allies and more and more and more, then i need a cyanur pill and a gun.:wacko:

 

[The Disaster]

The "Historical means you might as well watch a WWII video" argument again.

Historical to me means an opportunity to explore realistic alternate history - eg what if the Germans had invaded Britain in 1940? What if the Allies reacted in 1936 instead of allowing Germany's massive military build-up? What if I invade Holland instead of Normandy in 1944? These questions are exciting because you get a chance to try out your own theories. Like it used to say on Avalon Hill wargame boxes "Can YOU do better than Eisenhower?" That challenge only makes sense if the game world is sensible. The US going communist and Japan joining the allies is nonsense - the US feared the communist USSR just as Japan feared the US's military and industrial might. Argentina invading Germany? Not even fantasy.

 

[unmerged(50895)]

The "Historical means you might as well watch a WWII video" argument again.

Historical to me means an opportunity to explore realistic alternate history - eg what if the Germans had invaded Britain in 1940? What if the Allies reacted in 1936 instead of allowing Germany's massive military build-up? What if I invade Holland instead of Normandy in 1944? These questions are exciting because you get a chance to try out your own theories. Like it used to say on Avalon Hill wargame boxes "Can YOU do better than Eisenhower?" That challenge only makes sense if the game world is sensible. The US going communist and Japan joining the allies is nonsense - the US feared the communist USSR just as Japan feared the US's military and industrial might. Argentina invading Germany? Not even fantasy.

Exactly my thoughts. Viable alternate history is what I am looking for in this game. With the patches and the upcoming mods this will come for sure.

 

[bz249]

The "Historical means you might as well watch a WWII video" argument again.

Historical to me means an opportunity to explore realistic alternate history - eg what if the Germans had invaded Britain in 1940? What if the Allies reacted in 1936 instead of allowing Germany's massive military build-up? What if I invade Holland instead of Normandy in 1944? These questions are exciting because you get a chance to try out your own theories. Like it used to say on Avalon Hill wargame boxes "Can YOU do better than Eisenhower?" That challenge only makes sense if the game world is sensible. The US going communist and Japan joining the allies is nonsense - the US feared the communist USSR just as Japan feared the US's military and industrial might. Argentina invading Germany? Not even fantasy.

Exactly, that's why it is a WWII Grand Strategy game not a sandbox strategy one. What I would like also in this genre is to tweak and twist history, not ruin it.

 

[kokskarl]

yes, the events in the game need to be historically plausible. what is currently happening is just retarded (ireland invading koenigsberg in 39, china walking over japan and similar stuff happens every game).
if that's really the way paradox wanted hoi3 to be like, then we should probably add random alien attacks to make it even more "interesting and alternative"

 

[Sirveri]

As a customer I believe I now have the right to come onto these boards and p*** and moan about this problem to my hearts (of Iron!) content until they fix it! That's what having customer support is about, I moan he promises to fix it and I moan until it's fixed then thank Paradox for providing me with the product I originally paid for/was promised.

That's great...

But asking questions that have already been answered with the very first post in the thread you're replying to is... retarded.

I would like the game to run faster for myself as well! But asking if they're going to fix the lag with this patch, when the thread is an update about that patch, by one of the programmers, where he SPECIFICALLY says they're trying to fix a lot of lag issues with the patch, IS DUMB. Wait for the patch, THEN bitch if the stuff isn't fixed. Doubly so if they said they were going to fix it. Then they'll post about 1.3, READ IT, and bitch about stuff that isn't already on the list! It's all about CONSTRUCTIVE bitching.

Also it's a waste of bandwidth, and wasting bandwidth makes it harder for me to pull down large volumnes of porn. You see it's all connected.

 

[e_quality]

The "Historical means you might as well watch a WWII video" argument again.

Historical to me means an opportunity to explore realistic alternate history - eg what if the Germans had invaded Britain in 1940? What if the Allies reacted in 1936 instead of allowing Germany's massive military build-up? What if I invade Holland instead of Normandy in 1944? These questions are exciting because you get a chance to try out your own theories. Like it used to say on Avalon Hill wargame boxes "Can YOU do better than Eisenhower?" That challenge only makes sense if the game world is sensible. The US going communist and Japan joining the allies is nonsense - the US feared the communist USSR just as Japan feared the US's military and industrial might. Argentina invading Germany? Not even fantasy.

Word.

If there ever was a strawman argument that deserved to be put out of its misery it's that one.

Die strawman, die!

 

[hoot69]

so cool

sounds so good.... can't wait for 1.2

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Havent got HOI3 yet but is there (or will there) be a facility to upgrade units, ie-foot infantry to motor infantry; as happened so many times in WW2?

 

[MicBass]

The "Historical means you might as well watch a WWII video" argument again.

Historical to me means an opportunity to explore realistic alternate history - eg what if the Germans had invaded Britain in 1940? What if the Allies reacted in 1936 instead of allowing Germany's massive military build-up? What if I invade Holland instead of Normandy in 1944? These questions are exciting because you get a chance to try out your own theories. Like it used to say on Avalon Hill wargame boxes "Can YOU do better than Eisenhower?" That challenge only makes sense if the game world is sensible. The US going communist and Japan joining the allies is nonsense - the US feared the communist USSR just as Japan feared the US's military and industrial might. Argentina invading Germany? Not even fantasy.

+1

plausible yes, determined no, randomly chaotic no

I'm anxiously awaiting the slight changes and then of course the forum explosion because X is still doing Y and this is a fantasy game and all the other blah that goes on after a release and/or patch.

It's not called blah, it's called opinion. You have one, too.

 

[The Disaster]

It's not called blah, it's called opinion. You have one, too.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I love this comment.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

[Morbid]

Yeah, that is true, but if you have read Grumpyoldman's posts, you would notice that there is a major difference in quality.

 

[cynicalyouth]

plausible yes, determined no, randomly chaotic no

perfect, now if the people arguing that this is what they want could understand that some(most) of the odd behavior they are seeing are related to bugs and are not WAD then we will all live happily awaiting this weeks patch.

but I'm sure if that happened pigs would fly cats and dogs living together it would be madness.