A plea about how paradox is dumbing down the games.

[nwinther]

I think food (or agricultural produce or whatever) should absolutely be a factor in HOI3.

First of all it was a very real factor in WW2. Hitlers reach for the Ukraine was mainly due to its agricultural ability.

Secondly it'd make other countries much more fun to play. Denmark is uninteresting, as they have little IC and few natural resources. However IRL Denmark had a huge agricultural production that was an important factor in the countrys relation with Germany. It could also make an interesting addition to the diplomatic aspects of the game, such as trade agreements based on certain treaties (non-aggression, guranteeing independence, defence-pact (to borrow from Diplomacy) etc.).

 

[Wulf145]

I would disagree with you. First of all, Vicky is NOT economy simulator. It is STATE simulator with all the aspects - social, economy and military covered.

HoI is NOT an military simulator (like Pazer Genaral) - it is simulator of a state in war scenario. That's why you don't start a game 01/09/1939

Simplyfied social and economic model in HoI is "too" simplyfied for a state in war. If you read "Memories" of Speer, you would probably find how important social and economic issues were; Speer had to himself organize production of all important supplies for army as well as for society. Covering it doesn't have to mean micromanagement, it means that game become to be more "state simulator" then "army simulator".

This aspect of war is missing from HoI. I prefere to see it rather then another "extra dyvision type" or something like this.

I would not say that the aspect is missing from HoI, only abstracted.
If you read the memoires of the Armaments Minister (Speer), guess which aspect of the war you find described in minute detail .
Personaly I am very much against incorporating the Vicki Economic model into HOI, yet the argument for a more detailed economic model is something I cannot refute.

What do think of splitting the present 'generic' IC model into 4 types of IC:

Civilian/Generic Industrial Capacity
Land Unit Industrial Capacity
Aero Industrial Capacity
Maritime Industrial Capacity

Each would cost 0.5 Generic IC for a Year per Province to build. Units would 'cost' a certain amaount of Generic IC as well as 'Specialised' IC, thus taking into account dual use industries.

 

[Hagie Sophia]

I'm no soldier (nor would I wish to be) but I do think the absense of food as a resource is a serious ommision in the HoI games (not just for civilians, but to supply the military as well). It could be argued that Consumer Goods and Supplies serve this purpose, but you need fertile geography to produce food as well, not just IC.

Not sure about the general point of Paradox dumbing down the HoI series either, but food wasn't a resource in HoI1 anyway, so...

Why wouldn't you want to be a soldier? Are you a coward? Your country and freedom are not worth fighting for? Do you believe that "someone else" will always be there to stand up and fight for you if necessary?

Anyway, yes, food production was abstracted a bit in HOI...you have agriculture techs which helped increase manpower and you have supplies. Remember, if you run out of supplies, dissent starts going way up real fast. You also have transport capacity, which affects supply efficiency.

Point is is, this is a strategic game...I don't want to have to click the mouse every time I need an MRE handed out to an individual soldier. The basic idea in HOI, I think, is fine...you have to dedicate some of your IC to producing supplies, you have to research techs to become more efficient, you have to make sure your transport capacity is not overloaded, etc. Those are the things a real government/military leadership has to deal with in war. Let the MREs get handed out by the supply sergeants.

 

[unmerged(59184)]

Okay. Let us assume that Paradox was, indeed, "dumbing the game down".

So what?

In what way is a "dumbed down" game a worse game than one that hasn't been "dumbed down"?

It's worse because it (usually) has fewer options, fewer possible strategies, fewer zany experiments you can do, less to learn and so it will inevitably become boring that much faster.

I have no idea whether HoI3 will be dumbed down or not, just answering your question, which I felt was a bit odd.

 

[unmerged(92421)]

The EU III and EUR forum show the Paradox fanbase to be anything but positive. "Big whiners" probably come closer to describing us.

Whiners do not make positive word of mouth.

Oh plz, the forum hardly makes up the majority, and even then... its usually more a matter of, this is a great game... but it sucks compared to the last one. People will just find out its a great game, and even if they don't necassarily like the last one.

I'm sure paradox gets wonderful word of mouth.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Why wouldn't you want to be a soldier? Are you a coward? Your country and freedom are not worth fighting for? Do you believe that "someone else" will always be there to stand up and fight for you if necessary?

Anyway, yes, food production was abstracted a bit in HOI...you have agriculture techs which helped increase manpower and you have supplies. Remember, if you run out of supplies, dissent starts going way up real fast. You also have transport capacity, which affects supply efficiency.

Point is is, this is a strategic game...I don't want to have to click the mouse every time I need an MRE handed out to an individual soldier. The basic idea in HOI, I think, is fine...you have to dedicate some of your IC to producing supplies, you have to research techs to become more efficient, you have to make sure your transport capacity is not overloaded, etc. Those are the things a real government/military leadership has to deal with in war. Let the MREs get handed out by the supply sergeants.

Hey, just cause he doesn't want to be Soldier says nothing about courage. Some people have the talents and desire, some don't, and that's fine. This is coming from a professional Soldier. I respect anyone who knows what their limits are.

Anyways, this is a gaming forum. Let's talk about the game.

 

[Evie HJ]

I would disagree with you. First of all, Vicky is NOT economy simulator. It is STATE simulator with all the aspects - social, economy and military covered.

HoI is NOT an military simulator (like Pazer Genaral) - it is simulator of a state in war scenario. That's why you don't start a game 01/09/1939

Simplyfied social and economic model in HoI is "too" simplyfied for a state in war. If you read "Memories" of Speer, you would probably find how important social and economic issues were; Speer had to himself organize production of all important supplies for army as well as for society. Covering it doesn't have to mean micromanagement, it means that game become to be more "state simulator" then "army simulator".

This aspect of war is missing from HoI. I prefere to see it rather then another "extra dyvision type" or something like this.

ALL of them are country simulators.

But the focus of them is on different things. CK's main focus is on dynastic dynamics. Everything else is largely abstraction that exist to support the dynastic game. EU's main focus is on expansion dynamics - everything else exist as mostly abstractions to support that. Victoria's focus is on industrialization (ie, 19th century economics, with, granted, a great deal of social issues as well), and everything else exists (again, mostly as abstractions) to support that. And Hearts focus is on fighting a global war, and everything else is an abstracted sideshow to that.

Yes, economics and social issue where important to war. But they're not the war itself, and the war itself is what Hearts of Iron is built around.

If a game brings up near-victoria level of social and economic simulation, then (because the designers have limited time to make the game, and limited money to make the game, and the players have limited time to play the game) they have to take away something else.

Something else, in Hearts of Iron terms, has to come from the military, because taking away anything that's not the military means pretty much removing that feature altogether (since it's already an abstraction).

Take away military options to increase social options, and you make a game that, first, isn't Hearts of Iron (HoI, to date, being primarily a game focused on fighting the war, with the nation-running elements being abstractions to support the war-fighting), and second, probably isn't what most of Paradox's potential market* (ie, what anyone but the few Vicky fans) want.

*Potential market being here the people who bought and liked HOI1 and 2, the people who have an interest in in-depth world war II strategy games, the people who have a deep interest in WW II, etc. Not the Halo Kiddies).

 

[Terminator]

Vickynomics demand that the player focus a very great deal of attention on them.

Which would make HOI III much more sophisticated and interesting to play

...that is, centered on building units and using them to crush your enemy...

Building plenty of units always depends on effective economy. Economically stronger side wins the war

Vicky is the Economic simulator, Hearts is the global war simulator.

I believe most Victoria fans would disagree with you that Vicky is just an economic simulator. It is much more than that

 

[unmerged(7537)]

It's worse because it (usually) has fewer options, fewer possible strategies, fewer zany experiments you can do, less to learn and so it will inevitably become boring that much faster.

I have no idea whether HoI3 will be dumbed down or not, just answering your question, which I felt was a bit odd.

But nothing says that a more simplified design must lead to fewer and simpler strategies.

If anything, it is too much complexity that has this effect, because the more complex a design is, the more difficult it becomes to identify and balance the various gameplay strategies that can arise from it.

 

[Hagie Sophia]

Hey, just cause he doesn't want to be Soldier says nothing about courage. Some people have the talents and desire, some don't, and that's fine. This is coming from a professional Soldier. I respect anyone who knows what their limits are.

Yes it does. To be unwilling to put your life at risk means you are a coward. People have different talents and desires, yes, and the military life is not for everyone, but to be flat unwilling to serve, in my opinion, makes you less of a man. I have no problem with those unable, or those whose lives take them in different directions, but if you make a point to let people know that you have no desire to serve, I'm going to call you out on it, in person or on these forums.

Anyways, this is a gaming forum. Let's talk about the game.

If you noticed, 95% of my post was about the game, while about 0% of your reply was about the game. So...I don't know...you do the math. Now, if you please, try to refrain from OT posts. But feel free to contact me via PM, as some others have.

Anyway, I've often wondered why Paradox doesn't make more use of the "auto" features. It's a great idea that has been very well implemented in many aspects of their various games. Autosend merchants, let computer handle trades, that kind of thing. Why not do a little more of that for other issues? Instead of having to remember to try and influence a potential ally once a week, why can't I set up automatic payments? Why can't I arrange for 100% infrastructure to be built between Berlin and Moscow, without having to click on every province in between? How about setting up three "basic training" queues, which pop out a new, most current, infantry, marine, or armor division every 2-3 months? Why do I have to manually retreat my sub flotillas?

And so on. Point is, I think it's better to make a more sophisticated game which options to turn off micromanagement for those who don't want that level of involvement, than it is to make a watered down version in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. With a more customizable experience, you can appeal to a wider range of gamers, and those that start playing more casually can actually start to turn on other features as they become more experienced with the game.

I mean, imagine a game where you can play with 20% of the features and get a decent, casual gaming experience, but as you turn on features up to 100% of what's available, you're playing an incredibly rich, deep, sophisticated game. Everybody wins.

 

[Evie HJ]

I believe most Victoria fans would disagree with you that Vicky is just an economic simulator. It is much more than that

Fair enough. The Industrialization socio-economic simulator. There's more to it, but the heart of the game is the socio-economic game.

Which would make HOI III much more sophisticated and interesting to play

For the handful of Vicky fans. Not the vast majority of possible Hearts of Iron customers.

There is a bottom line to remember here, and it's that (as far as we know) Hearts has so far done much better on the sales market than Vicky (hence why Heart is getting a second sequel while there's still just one Vicky). That might give you a clue as to why Paradox should shy away from Vickynomics and focus on what has always been the focus of Hearts...

And so on. Point is, I think it's better to make a more sophisticated game which options to turn off micromanagement for those who don't want that level of involvement, than it is to make a watered down version in an attempt to appeal to a wider audience. With a more customizable experience, you can appeal to a wider range of gamers, and those that start playing more casually can actually start to turn on other features as they become more experienced with the game.

The problem with that is that Paradox has a FINITE supply of money and time. Each feature takes some of both to implement. Automating these features also take money and time.

At the end of the day, they have to chose to implement some features and chose not to implement some others. Being sensible people, they'll focus on those features most likely to make the game a profitable venture, since that's what put food in their plate.

Which, given my above point about "Hearts has, as far as we can figure, sold more than Vicky", means focusing on Hearts-like features military-centered at the expanse of Vicky-like features socio-economic features.

That doesn't mean no socio-economy, just the sort of simplified socio-economic model we had in Hearts I-II

Everybody wins.

Not if Paradox spends so much resource and time on this game that they end up going bankrupt, no.

 

[Tronjer]

Anyway, I've often wondered why Paradox doesn't make more use of the "auto" features. It's a great idea that has been very well implemented in many aspects of their various games. Autosend merchants, let computer handle trades, that kind of thing. Why not do a little more of that for other issues? Instead of having to remember to try and influence a potential ally once a week, why can't I set up automatic payments? Why can't I arrange for 100% infrastructure to be built between Berlin and Moscow, without having to click on every province in between? How about setting up three "basic training" queues, which pop out a new, most current, infantry, marine, or armor division every 2-3 months? Why do I have to manually retreat my sub flotillas?

And what else one had to do then but just watching ?

What makes HoI unmatched is the grand strategy approach. If it boils down to pure warfare it would be boring and there are other games available which deal better with operational combat.

 

[Hagie Sophia]

And what else one had to do then but just watching ?

What makes HoI unmatched is the grand strategy approach. If it boils down to pure warfare it would be boring and there are other games available which deal better with operational combat.

If you don't mind doing the little mundane, repetitive things, then go for it. I don't judge my skill or rate my enjoyment with a game based on remembering to send Italy a check once a week. I prefer to make the decision to send the check to Italy as opposed to Spain. 1000 mouse clicks to get an infantry division training is not fun...deciding whether to build infantry or armor or submarines is what I would rather be doing. Instead of clicking on every single province between Moscow and Berlin to build a highway (infrastructure), I'm more interested in making the decision spending resources on Berlin/Moscow, Berlin/Paris, or Berlin/Rome.

Think about it...in real life, does a commander/president/leader say "ok, now build a road from this town to the next town and from that town to the next one and from that one to the next one..." and so on...or does he say "Build me a road from here to there, do whatever you have to in between"?

 

[Chaplain]

If you don't mind doing the little mundane, repetitive things, then go for it. I don't judge my skill or rate my enjoyment with a game based on remembering to send Italy a check once a week. I prefer to make the decision to send the check to Italy as opposed to Spain. 1000 mouse clicks to get an infantry division training is not fun...deciding whether to build infantry or armor or submarines is what I would rather be doing. Instead of clicking on every single province between Moscow and Berlin to build a highway (infrastructure), I'm more interested in making the decision spending resources on Berlin/Moscow, Berlin/Paris, or Berlin/Rome.

Think about it...in real life, does a commander/president/leader say "ok, now build a road from this town to the next town and from that town to the next one and from that one to the next one..." and so on...or does he say "Build me a road from here to there, do whatever you have to in between"?

I understand what you're saying, and I'll bet you HOI3 reflects those priorities. I'm sure HOI3 will follow the general lead of EU3 in this regard. But in the interest of understanding, let me explain WHY many of us prefer the micro-managing.

The joy of the game for many of us (amateur historians) is the unfolding story of an alternate historical timeline. So a bunch of clicks to train a division (as you put it) actually enhances the story unfolding in our imaginations. So does the decision to send a check to Italy every week, or not. I write these 80-page AAR's (for one one's pleasure but my own) and they're full of rationalizations - why the USSR invaded Persia in 1940, why the Brits failed to intervene when the Czechs went down, why Japan launched an unprovoked attack on the UK in 1939, etc. I could care less who wins. I'm after the story.

So I/we am/are totally in favor of MORE complexity, MORE detail, and MORE economics.

 

[Lazy_Boy]

The point you made in your opening post that players who simply want a wargame should go to other games is all nice and good in theory - and not something Paradox can offer in practice. They cannot make a game "for their fans", because at some point, if Paradox wants to stay alive, the game has to turn a profit. And while the 100 000 members of the Paradox forums might sound impressive, you have to keep in mind that most of them are not current "PAradox fans" - that 100 000 includes people who are here for just one game and couldn't care about the others, people who registered only to report a bug, people who have lost interest in Paradox games or don't have the time for gaming anymore...

As I said. Ultimately, Paradox has to turn a profit (if they want to eat), and that means making a game that will appeal to a (much) broader audience than just the people on these forums.


At that point, for every possible addition to the game, the question become "How much does this feature cost" and "How much is it likely to help the game be more popular" (ie, sell more). If a feature requires a lot of time and ressource to implement (one would assume the Vickynomics, for example, fits somewhere in this category), and isn't likely to be a big selling point (one would ALSO assume Vickynomics fits somewhere in this category - vicky has its fan, but they're few and far between, and most of the rest of the people who know of Vicky consider it an experiment in mind-numbing number management gone very, very wrong), then Paradox should avoid it like the plague.

That failed logic is why so many games these days are mediocre watered down garbage. The only way to make a successful game as a small developer is to make it appeal greatly to a hardcore fan niche. As long as the gameplay and interface is good it spreads from there. I've converted a few people to Hoi2 myself. No one goes "oh this obscure game looks easy I think I'll buy it".

You are right about Vicky though. That system is plain broken. But there's no reason to not use a few of the good ideas. Factories and resource conversion in Vicky are great ideas. POPs aren't. Just needs a bit of automation to it. But building separate factories and worrying about resources in a deeper way isn't bad if it stays basic and doesn't require constant micromanagement.
Every problem in Hoi2 is that same over micromanagement that just needs automated systems where you can make overall decisions that automatically do things. But NOT make things more abstract. More complicated but easier to manage is the optimal route.

 

[Rompa]

I understand what you're saying, and I'll bet you HOI3 reflects those priorities. I'm sure HOI3 will follow the general lead of EU3 in this regard. But in the interest of understanding, let me explain WHY many of us prefer the micro-managing.

The joy of the game for many of us (amateur historians) is the unfolding story of an alternate historical timeline. So a bunch of clicks to train a division (as you put it) actually enhances the story unfolding in our imaginations. So does the decision to send a check to Italy every week, or not. I write these 80-page AAR's (for one one's pleasure but my own) and they're full of rationalizations - why the USSR invaded Persia in 1940, why the Brits failed to intervene when the Czechs went down, why Japan launched an unprovoked attack on the UK in 1939, etc. I could care less who wins. I'm after the story.

So I/we am/are totally in favor of MORE complexity, MORE detail, and MORE economics.

Good points all, but the question is wether the majority wants a game made to please amateur historians?

I think it should be inviting to new paradoxians, not shutting them out by intimidating complexity

 

[Hagie Sophia]

I understand what you're saying, and I'll bet you HOI3 reflects those priorities. I'm sure HOI3 will follow the general lead of EU3 in this regard. But in the interest of understanding, let me explain WHY many of us prefer the micro-managing.

The joy of the game for many of us (amateur historians) is the unfolding story of an alternate historical timeline. So a bunch of clicks to train a division (as you put it) actually enhances the story unfolding in our imaginations. So does the decision to send a check to Italy every week, or not. I write these 80-page AAR's (for one one's pleasure but my own) and they're full of rationalizations - why the USSR invaded Persia in 1940, why the Brits failed to intervene when the Czechs went down, why Japan launched an unprovoked attack on the UK in 1939, etc. I could care less who wins. I'm after the story.

So I/we am/are totally in favor of MORE complexity, MORE detail, and MORE economics.

I don't think you do understand. Or at least, your reply doesn't seem to indicate that you understand what I am saying.

More clicks does not equal more fun. Everything you mentioned that you enjoy (and that I enjoy as well) can be accomplished without having to sprain my button clicking finger. I want to spend time on the strategies and prosecuting my war, not on the mechanical necessities of making the program do what I want. Everything you mentioned that you like could theoretically be accomplished with no physical contact with a keyboard or mouse at all...if some sort of voice recognition could be built in, I could say "Start building infantry and upgrade when a new version is researched" or whatever..."start improving infrastructure in every province between Berlin and Moscow"..."influence Italy every week for the next 6 months", and so on. Now, what about this would inhibit the way you play your game? How does it inhibit your ability to rationalize your decisions or roleplay your country?

As I said, the complexity and fun of a game is not proportional to the number of mouse clicks necessary to complete any given task.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

Why wouldn't you want to be a soldier? Are you a coward?

No, I'm just not an idiot.

 

[unmerged(81228)]

ALL of them are country simulators.

But the focus of them is on different things. CK's main focus is on dynastic dynamics. Everything else is largely abstraction that exist to support the dynastic game. EU's main focus is on expansion dynamics - everything else exist as mostly abstractions to support that. Victoria's focus is on industrialization (ie, 19th century economics, with, granted, a great deal of social issues as well), and everything else exists (again, mostly as abstractions) to support that. And Hearts focus is on fighting a global war, and everything else is an abstracted sideshow to that.

Yes, economics and social issue where important to war. But they're not the war itself, and the war itself is what Hearts of Iron is built around.

If a game brings up near-victoria level of social and economic simulation, then (because the designers have limited time to make the game, and limited money to make the game, and the players have limited time to play the game) they have to take away something else.

Something else, in Hearts of Iron terms, has to come from the military, because taking away anything that's not the military means pretty much removing that feature altogether (since it's already an abstraction).

Well, not neccessary. I would agree with that nothing existing should be taken away. If we discuss about brand new game I would probably say you are 100% right.
But it is not, it is next one after HoI2 and all the features you have mentioned are already in place. All they have to do is work out details they didn't so far. For me, military aspect of HoI is almost fully covered. I would be happy if social and economical would be too. As somebody mentioned, many of IIWW campaigns was caused by economical issues. It shouldnt be missing as it is now. Also, the whole aspect of internal policy is missing now. It is a pity, this game could be more better then it is.

Hearts has so far done much better on the sales market than Vicky (hence why Heart is getting a second sequel while there's still just one Vicky). That might give you a clue as to why Paradox should shy away from Vickynomics and focus on what has always been the focus of Hearts...

I wouldn't say it has anything to do witha complexive economic-social system implemented into Vic. For me it is functon of popularity of historical periods; 2WW is simply popular to play.

 

[Evie HJ]

But it is not, it is next one after HoI2 and all the features you have mentioned are already in place. All they have to do is work out details they didn't so far.

And here is the point where you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Hearts of Iron is part of a series, yes. That doesn't mean Paradox can just take the existing HOI code and start adding stuff to it! In fact, it would be an extremely bad idea to do so.

Why?

Because HOI II is built around the excessively old Europa game engine, that has been in use since Europa Universalis I. That's an antiquated engine, that has significant limitation, and not particularly apt to taking advantage of modern technology. The fact that Paradox has released the Europa engine for fans to design their own games on and "patch" the old Europa-engine games is pretty telling there: Europa is old and its time has gone.

Particularly as, since 2007, Paradox has a brand new engine available - the Clausewitz engine - and one that has already largely proved itself as a robust engine with immense potential in the form of EU III. Europa III In Nomine is realms beyond Europa II fully patched, and all the robust modability Paradox could add to Europa III has allowed Magna Mundi to do things AGCEEP and other mods like it could hardly even dream of.

However, switching engine means rebuilding the game from the ground up, so they cannot simply say "Okay, all this works well, now it's time to add more stuff".

Once they are done laying the groundwork with the base game, I'm reasonably certain that later expansions will add amazing new features that had lots of depth to the game in secondary areas. Perhaps it will be a whole new (and far superior to HOI II) intel system. Or some socio-economical system (I doubt Vicky-detailed, but more detailed). Or maybe something else entirely.

But that's where those things belong - in expansions. What Paradox needs to do now is build a solid game with solid features focused on its core experience: the world-at-war. Once they have that, they can go with the rest.