Because I want to Believe Paradox Cares - My constructive Criticism

[unmerged(119131)]

Okay, I'm a pretty infrequent participant on the boards and don't do a lot of modding (and frankly, I shouldn't have to to play a working product). I've played three games now and they have, for the most part, all turned out the same. In each, I've played the U.S. and tried to play them fairly historically but have joined the Allies as soon as invited (in two cases, mid 1940, in one case late 1940). I haven't attempted a land invasion in Germany (but did take Iceland away from them once when they landed a para division there).

In all three games, they've bent history to a huge degree. In all three, Japan has completely overrun China by early to mid 1940. In all three games, Germany has pretty much overrun Russia, stalling only when they run completely out of manpower. Russia is usually so weak before the Germans invade that they're nothing but a sheet of paper a unit or two deep.

In all three games lots of countries have joined ahistsorical sides and far too many countries are joining sides instead of remaining neutral. Peru joins the Axis, seriously? Stranger still is the number of countries who have aligned but NOT gone to war. In my last game, the Axis had about two dozen member countries, but only Germany and Slovakia were actually at war. Is that supposed to happen? I had a game where Canada joined the Axis but never entered the war.

So I guess in order, my complaints and desire to see fixed are, in order:

1. Manpower
2. Issue of countries joining factions but failing to enter the war
3. Still think weather model needs tweaking. How come this worked well in HoI 2 but not HoI 3?
4. AI build policies.
5. Lag. After a lot of play, games slows noticeably
6. Possibly an option to play a "more" historical game?
7. Too much Headquarters stuff. As a more casual player, I don't know if I'll ever figure it all out, and that's kinda tiresome.
8. Short of playing as them, Germany seems undefeatable.

I guess in short that while I'm enjoying some aspects of the game, the rest is still so flawed that it drives me insane because I think of what could have been (and maybe will be). Why can Germany drive 2/3 of the way to Moscow in two months and overrun Russia in six, but struggles for two years to subdue Sweden? I feel like I can practically write a script for this game at this point.
8. Lag. After a lot of play, games slows noticeably

 

[ve3609]

The AI definitely needs work. But you have to remember that this isnt a WW2 sim. its a Grand Strategy game set in 1936-1946 (or whenever it ends) I prefer HOI2 b/c it is more historical

 

[makotech222]

they need to just start over. a lot of these problems are at the core of the programming. need HOI4 lol

 

[unmerged(119131)]

The AI definitely needs work. But you have to remember that this isnt a WW2 sim. its a Grand Strategy game set in 1936-1946 (or whenever it ends) I prefer HOI2 b/c it is more historical

Surprisingly maybe, I'm pretty okay with this. I like the fact that there's a lot of randomness. I do think maybe it's a little too random, but it was interesting playing as the U.S. to see Canada drifting towards and finally joining the Axis. Then they never bothered to join the war, as most Axis powers did. In my last game, there were two dozen countries in the Axis but only two of them were at war.

I guess its been odd from reading some of the other threads here tonight that Japan has creamed China in all the games I've played, and usually done so by mid-1940.

 

[unmerged(119131)]

they need to just start over. a lot of these problems are at the core of the programming. need HOI4 lol

At this point I'm inclined to agree with you. There just seems to be so much stuff that's broken. Hopefully PI wont pull this stunt again.

What's funny to me was reading the reviews of this game, which were almost all universally great. Who were the people playing the initial release of this game and giving it such high marks?

 

[Tan_Binrui]

At this point I'm inclined to agree with you. There just seems to be so much stuff that's broken. Hopefully PI wont pull this stunt again.

What's funny to me was reading the reviews of this game, which were almost all universally great. Who were the people playing the initial release of this game and giving it such high marks?

Broken? If your screen name giving away that you were sent here to deceive mankind!?

The game runs fine. You're nitpicking a design decision and blowing out of proportion a few problems, ones that will be refined in the coming patches.

If you're having such a problem with this game, play another one. Like my mom always said, "If you're not having fun, it's not a game anymore." As of now, Paradox is always working on improving their games for the community. That's how it's always been, and that's how it always will be. You just have to wait. Just remember, games with the popularity of Starcraft were "broken" until patch number 30-something, three years after its expansion's release. There are always going to be issues. They will always be fixed, given enough time.

 

[jasonxfri13th]

What I hate is the HQ system.
I want to merge my divisions like in HOI2, HQ system doesn't help or do shit for me.

IF there is a way can someone tell me how to easily merge divisions into easy to pick groups? I like to easily select 3, 9, or 12 divisions led by the same general. I don't want to have to go through the whole system and individually selecting units or finding whatever the level is. (the level where you have like 3 divisions or whatever)

 

[unmerged(181530)]

This game is the first game of this company i'm playing. I'm a big fan of ww2 and so far this game has been the best one i've played. The level of details and realism wipe out all competition in my opinion.
It's complexe, long to learn but I enjoyed it very much so far.
But of course the game is not perfect, no game is and this company is at least caring enough about the fan of the game to open a thread asking what issues the gamers want them to fix. I don't know many companies that are doing that. I find it sad to see thread like this one where people talk so negatively about the game.
I agree that it would be nice if when we start a game we could choose to play historically or random. I agree, the system where we choose who leads head quarters, armies, etc is complexe.
But it's still a good game. And they still improve it. And the forum is awesome, every time I had a problem people write back and help me.

 

[loki100]

What I hate is the HQ system.
I want to merge my divisions like in HOI2, HQ system doesn't help or do shit for me.

IF there is a way can someone tell me how to easily merge divisions into easy to pick groups? I like to easily select 3, 9, or 12 divisions led by the same general. I don't want to have to go through the whole system and individually selecting units or finding whatever the level is. (the level where you have like 3 divisions or whatever)

organise your divisions into 3 division corps, select the corps HQ, select all the units ... move them as a batch - problem solved

 

[winterwatchers]

What I hate is the HQ system.
I want to merge my divisions like in HOI2, HQ system doesn't help or do shit for me.

IF there is a way can someone tell me how to easily merge divisions into easy to pick groups? I like to easily select 3, 9, or 12 divisions led by the same general. I don't want to have to go through the whole system and individually selecting units or finding whatever the level is. (the level where you have like 3 divisions or whatever)

The HQ system is one of the great things about this game. Sure it take a while to get used to and to setup, but once you do battles just feel right. The HQ AI is obviously not going to ever be as good as a human player, but with a little human manual touch here and there it performs great.

To select all units below a HQ, click on the tab right below the HQ brigade

 

[womble]

What I hate is the HQ system.
I want to merge my divisions like in HOI2, HQ system doesn't help or do shit for me.

IF there is a way can someone tell me how to easily merge divisions into easy to pick groups? I like to easily select 3, 9, or 12 divisions led by the same general. I don't want to have to go through the whole system and individually selecting units or finding whatever the level is. (the level where you have like 3 divisions or whatever)

Start your game by building your OOB (order of battle). If you always play a certain nation, once you've built it, save it and you can come back to a setup you like each time you start. 3 Divisions is a Corps (or 2, or 4 or later 5 if you prefer). 9 or 12 Divs is an Army.

Or you can just drag a box over an area on the map and deselect the divisions you don't want to use. If you're not using the HQ system, it won't really matter which general ends up in charge.

 

[unmerged(11606)]

The AI definitely needs work. But you have to remember that this isnt a WW2 sim. its a Grand Strategy game set in 1936-1946 (or whenever it ends) I prefer HOI2 b/c it is more historical

Well, I was going to say that the game description on Gamersgate would disagree with you, but it seems like they changed it... Now the only reference to WWII is "The Hearts of Iron series has become renowned for being the biggest, most detailed and complete strategic game series on World War 2 ever made."

 

[kunadam]

2. Issue of countries joining factions but failing to enter the war

Remember one of the specilities of the Axis? Limited war. It is historically accurate that the Axis was going to war as a block, rather as individual nations.

 

[unmerged(54182)]

I can see why Japan gets over run, am paying as Japan atm, it is only late 37' and i have annexed the shanxi it was a quick race to create a front line against the commies and nats. I reached the gates of Yan'an and thought it was going to be a matter of time before they were forced out of the war only to have every unit in the north go out of supply. Their org is almost out due to fighting. It wont be long before it turns into a rout. The force in the south is stable tho.

 

[Red Jacket]

So I guess in order, my complaints and desire to see fixed are, ...

There is a thread running the last couple of days titled Your top five issues? started by Kallocain, one of the game developers. Be encouraged, and put your issues there for him to see.

Really, it seems that Paradox does care. Imho, there is some small irony that these two threads show up nearly side by side when I visit the forum today.

 

[Kallocain]

In all three games, they've bent history to a huge degree. In all three, Japan has completely overrun China by early to mid 1940.

I've read more complains about Japan being overrun by China. I guess it will differ in different sessions.

In all three games lots of countries have joined ahistsorical sides and far too many countries are joining sides instead of remaining neutral.

We do not strive to repeat history. We want it to be a game first and foremost.

...issues...

A lot of these issues are mentioned in the thread I made for this purpose. They will be discussed, and some will be addressed in 1.4 already.

 

[Shabz]

What I hate is the HQ system.
I want to merge my divisions like in HOI2, HQ system doesn't help or do shit for me.

IF there is a way can someone tell me how to easily merge divisions into easy to pick groups? I like to easily select 3, 9, or 12 divisions led by the same general. I don't want to have to go through the whole system and individually selecting units or finding whatever the level is. (the level where you have like 3 divisions or whatever)

I seriosly do not understand how can you prefer the unrealistic army bunches of HoI2 to sleek, elegant and realistic chain of command of HoI3. This thing is single greatest feature in this great game. Now if they only could make a separate chain for navy and airforce, or at least separate HQs.

 

[bbasgen]

I've read more complains about Japan being overrun by China. I guess it will differ in different sessions.

Quite curious indeed.

We do not strive to repeat history. We want it to be a game first and foremost.

Of course. Yet, there is a balance. This is, after all, a WW2 game and not a complete fantasy game. The Danzig decision is a perfect example: In HoI2 it always occurred on August 31st, 1939. In HoI3, it always occurs on May 1st, 1939. How is this a better situation?

 

[unmerged(119131)]

Broken? If your screen name giving away that you were sent here to deceive mankind!?

The game runs fine. You're nitpicking a design decision and blowing out of proportion a few problems, ones that will be refined in the coming patches.

I'm sorry, but the game does NOT run fine. Far from it. You see that 11 or 12 page thread where PI is actively asking people to point out flaws in the game? That should be your first indicator that the game is not running fine. That and the fact the game was for most parts unplayable until the 1.3 three patch and is questionable now.

I'm not trying to pick at this scab here on the boards, but claiming this game runs fine is silly.

At this point - at least for me - it's a matter of the fact that I plunked down a part of my hard earned money for a broken product. I want my money back, or I want the product to work. I think that's a pretty fair deal.

 

[kunadam]

I seriosly do not understand how can you prefer the unrealistic army bunches of HoI2 to sleek, elegant and realistic chain of command of HoI3. This thing is single greatest feature in this great game. Now if they only could make a separate chain for navy and airforce, or at least separate HQs.

The chain of command is great. The fact that they are separate HQs and stuff is not. I would have preferred the same setup as in HoI2 except that each division could have its own commander, also for corps, armies, etc. That is indeed a cool feature.