Poked my head in here to see how this thread is going, first thing I see is
Way to elevate the conversation, guys
Way to elevate the conversation, guys
advice to Paradox: HoI 2 > HoI 3
- Thread starter nigo
- Start date
-
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.
The only thing I remember from DH was the fact that I got lost in the research department. I could never figure out what I needed to get to medium armour, or something. As a result, I never even made it to the war.
If they have toned it down somewhat, I might give it a try sometime.
If they have toned it down somewhat, I might give it a try sometime.
If you actually cared to read the (usual for alexey) BS tone, You´d notice I just replied in kind. Selective memory? I´m only smug when I recieve smug answers.
The point was very simple, the size of the map is not THAT relevant. Other features and statistics like river crossing penalties and fort malus are just as important, which is why I used Barrosrodrigues France AAR as an example. HOI 2 can end in stalemate? So can HOI 3, as he showed. The only real difference is the extra trouble to position units in HOI 3 and that since there are more provinces it´s harder to expand the Maginot line, while in HOI 2 it´s easier to funnel units into forts and rivers. It´s hardly rocket science.
In other words Paradox games are so complex that changing one variable (in that case, the map) has hardly that much an impact unless combined with the effects of other factors.
Besides that discussion is purely academic as the map won´t revert to HOI 2 size anyway.
Last edited:
If you missed such an easy thing, maybe you shouldn't play HOI at all. And you have 4000 posts, if you made only one of them in DH forum, you would got tons of replies. DH is much more realistic BTW, you can't create entire armor division before 1939, only tank brigades.
Can't agree here. DH has been a big disappointment for me where HoI3 made several steps towards improvements.
btw, dh is so "good", 95% of all AARs are Kaiserreich instead of "vanilla" DH.
It was playable out of box--I played it and it was my first PI game. I still haven't figured out how to get bleeping HOI III vanilla working properly and I've had such a nasty experience that I have no desire to try again.
Are you guys still at this? Seriously? Both HOI2 and HOI3 had good points and bad points and I played both, though I have to admit that I stopped playing HOI2-based games after HOI3 became playable (i.e., after FTM). If you guys really need a reminder of the complaints about HOI2 I advise you to go over to the early posts on HOI3 forum and check out all the criticism of the HOI2 combat system. Here's a doozy:
And he was totally right - in HOI2 it was possible to simply wipe massive armies out by forcing them to retreat and air-attacking them.
Of course, this is tempered by all the complaints that came out about HOI3 once it dropped. Both games had their sucky points, does it really matter which one was 'better' according to arbitrary criteria when we're talking about a new game that we hope will avoid the errors of BOTH games?
And he was totally right - in HOI2 it was possible to simply wipe massive armies out by forcing them to retreat and air-attacking them.
Of course, this is tempered by all the complaints that came out about HOI3 once it dropped. Both games had their sucky points, does it really matter which one was 'better' according to arbitrary criteria when we're talking about a new game that we hope will avoid the errors of BOTH games?
To be fair, they were rather pointless in DH 1.0 unless the weather was absolutely pristine and everything was down to theoretical ideal or you played as USA. Single infantry division with 5% org remaining permanently halted 6x ARM at full organisation with proper air support the very moment snow landed on the ground after you broke through AI's poorly defended line otherwise, was rather common sight based on my experience. Though it was not just ARM, I remember one time one ~30% strenght 10% org infantry division halted 30 infantry divisions of various strength and org for a week just because snow. Add glorious three divisions joining the fight on the defending side and the battle was essentially over.
Never underestimate the power of the Internet.
Last edited:
HoI2 was more polished. It used the same engine as HoI1 and therefore was, in many ways, a cleaned up and streamlined version of the original. It included many UI improvements.
HoI3 utilized the new engine and they tried to pack in everything- plus the kitchen sink. While the scope was admirable, the result became messy, even with the best of UI improvements to the base game. The next game will be as great as HoI2 was compared to HoI1, as Johan said.
HoI3 utilized the new engine and they tried to pack in everything- plus the kitchen sink. While the scope was admirable, the result became messy, even with the best of UI improvements to the base game. The next game will be as great as HoI2 was compared to HoI1, as Johan said.
Where is his quote ? If that is true it is like confessing general disappointment with HOI3 because he didn't say "as great as HoI3 was compared to HoI2".
Yeah, this was especially the case when there seemed to be too much emphasis on adding features, not enough emphasis on making those features work or seeing whether they made sense. The fact that features were added in one expansion that were removed in the suceeding expansions (e.g., the major battle events) is a case in point.
However, before we get carried away about HOI2, read this long list of problems with it that people wanted to see fixed in HOI3..
That "major battle events" thing wasn't even a feature. I can't believe they put that thing as a new feature in an expansion.
I loved HOI2 and hated HOI3. To be very honest it sounds like people are trying to be salesmen for HOI 3. Micromanagement hell has no appeal for me and with less immersion/UI organization sounds like one heck of chore, than a video game.
14,000 provinces was the worst design decision ever. Busy work for busy work's sake. And unimaginative expansion ideas....how about an ealier time period expansion or a risk board game type scenario...
14,000 provinces was the worst design decision ever. Busy work for busy work's sake. And unimaginative expansion ideas....how about an ealier time period expansion or a risk board game type scenario...
Yup. There was even a Dev Diary about it.
Sure, it was in response to something that the community had said (e.g., "I capture Berlin and it's no biggy, please make it more interesting"), but when it came it really sucked - especially the air-battle events, which fired continually.
I am not a sales guy for HOI3, I genuinely mean it when I say I stopped playing HOI2 and its spin-offs after HOI3:FTM came out. With TFH HOI3 did finally become the kind of game I had wanted to play.
The province number was no biggy as far as I am concerned - the real issue was that the UI hadn't kept up with the task the player had to perform, so you were stuck having to issue orders stack-by-stack. I did have some very awesome games with HOI3 though - one game playing as a Fascist Scandinavia in which I ended up being overwhelmed simultaneously from west and east, and several games playing as the UK either liberating Europe or defending France.
The expansions for HOI3, especially Semper Fi, were close to being paid-for patches. TFH had enough in it that I didn't mind paying full-price, but I'm glad I got FTM+SF+HOI3 Vanilla in a special.
However, I guess I should point out that the expansions for HOI2 were (no insult to the devs) pretty lame as well - Doomsday added a fairly interesting scenario with war between the Allies and the Comintern, but there were no events to go with it so it quickly got boring, and the Armageddon scenario was just poor. The extra years that Armageddon and Doomsday added to the game added pretty much nothing - there were no events, and nothing to populate those years with since the war would always finish by the mid-1950's at the very latest. The only thing I can say for them was that they funded more patching of the game which was needed - the patches that cured world-touring navies especially.
Last edited:
What I meant was this: you had a tech in one tab, leading to a tech in another tab which you had to combine with a tech in a third tab to open the tech in the fourth tab. If that is easy, then maybe I am stupid.
That was na hilariously overhyped feature that failed hard, lol. Interceptor lost 1% strength = "You lost the Battle of Dresden!" trololó
Darkest Hour on the other hand managed to pull events from casualties suffered in campaigns succesfully. It´s a nice feature, should be in the next game if well polished. At least for modding purposes.
just saying
PS: HoI 2 (mods and exp) / DH / AoD >>>>>>>>>> HoI 3 (with all exp.)
100% correct.
I loved HOI2, in most of its versions. But after playing HOI3 with some expansions, I never found myself comfortable in the HOI2 world again. HOI2 felt old in some ways. HOI3 had its own challenges and problems, but it was a bold step forward in many aspects.
This is the one part of HOI 3 I hated the most.It felt like a spreadsheet very plain.I enjoyed the way it was done in HOI 2 much more.