Because I want to Believe Paradox Cares - My constructive Criticism

[jalefkowit]

Interestingly enough, War Plan Orange was made anticipating a war between the USA and a UK-Japanese Alliance.

Indeed. But the Anglo-Japanese alliance that had prompted that scenario had fallen apart by the mid-1920s. By 1936 it was as hypothetical as War Plan Crimson (an invasion of Canada).

 

[TheLoneGunman]

Indeed. But the Anglo-Japanese alliance that had prompted that scenario had fallen apart by the mid-1920s. By 1936 it was as hypothetical as War Plan Crimson (an invasion of Canada).

Oh I was never saying it was going to happen. Just interesting to note.

Maybe if HOI3 started in 1920 or 1919 we could have it as a possibility.

 

[unmerged(177078)]

Oh I was never saying it was going to happen. Just interesting to note.

Maybe if HOI3 started in 1920 or 1919 we could have it as a possibility.

Unfortunately we start much later than that, and yet it's still a possibility

Loving the posts by jalefowit and TheLoneGunman at the moment. Right in there with you fella's, but you doing a fab job that I don't need to add anything.

This is meant to be a realistic game where anything realistic can happen, not a fantasy game where orcs & elves battle for NZ while Finland attacks Australia because the former has a national sand shortage.

 

[themousemaster]

Unfortunately we start much later than that, and yet it's still a possibility

Loving the posts by jalefowit and TheLoneGunman at the moment. Right in there with you fella's, but you doing a fab job that I don't need to add anything.

This is meant to be a realistic game where anything realistic can happen, not a fantasy game where orcs & elves battle for NZ while Finland attacks Australia because the former has a national sand shortage.

I thought it was a "loosely based on history game" myself.


I just rationalize (while playing USA) when Austrailia, New Zealand, Canada, or the like going Axis because the AI player in charge of Germany thought "hey, ya know, I pretty much know what happens to me if I go to war int he historical way... maybe I'll spice things up this time by trying to persuade Turkey to declare on USSR with me", and going spy-happy in a location that the Allies would NEVER expect, and therefore, not spy-counter ;p

 

[TheLoneGunman]

I thought it was a "loosely based on history game" myself.


I just rationalize (while playing USA) when Austrailia, New Zealand, Canada, or the like going Axis because the AI player in charge of Germany thought "hey, ya know, I pretty much know what happens to me if I go to war int he historical way... maybe I'll spice things up this time by trying to persuade Turkey to declare on USSR with me", and going spy-happy in a location that the Allies would NEVER expect, and therefore, not spy-counter ;p

Yeah but the AI not spy-countering is my entire problem.

It's not like the powers that be in Canada or any other nation would allow their populace to be subverted by a bunch of fascists and communists without a fight.

It can still be a loosely-based World War 2 game, I just think there needs to be some sort of framework to start with and an AI that understands that framework and is actually working to accomplish some sort of goal within it.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

This is meant to be a realistic game where anything realistic can happen, not a fantasy game where orcs & elves battle for NZ while Finland attacks Australia because the former has a national sand shortage.

But once one event changes, the restrictive scope of "plausible-alternative-history" widens, and this will happen in exponential fashion as a split road producing another split road analogy may show.

 

[RDG]

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.

Exactly.

 

[sbr]

More work on polish, support and the fixing of problems, less work on buy-able cosmetic down-loadable content like music and sprite packs. )

This is the bugbear that always makes me laugh. They have an artist/graphic designer on staff; should the artist be figuring out why the Steam version of the game is screwed, or implementing a search function on the forums? No. It isn't like the AI programmer took a few weeks off to dabble in making sprites. They have an artist and a composer, they get paid to make sprites and music.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

This is the bugbear that always makes me laugh. They have an artist/graphic designer on staff; should the artist be figuring out why the Steam version of the game is screwed, or implementing a search function on the forums? No. It isn't like the AI programmer took a few weeks off to dabble in making sprites. They have an artist and a composer, they get paid to make sprites and music.

Some of those sprite packs are user made as well, not made by PI.

 

[unmerged(177078)]

But once one event changes, the restrictive scope of "plausible-alternative-history" widens, and this will happen in exponential fashion as a split road producing another split road analogy may show.

Don't give me that chaos theory BS. There is nothing that would ever convince those countries to conduct invasions like those that I listed. Nor anyway that the majority of people in Canada, NZ, Oz, could be convinced to switch to the axis! If England invaded any of those countries, then the locals would drop weapons and go hug the invaders, as they pretty much considered themselves to be English but living in a different country. A few spy's in the country going "hey the King smells funny, but hitler is really cool" would not change this!

EVEN if Finland decided it needed a pacific empire, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to get one! It's more likely that they are going to recruit sharks and attach laser beams to their heads.

 

[jalefkowit]

EVEN if Finland decided it needed a pacific empire, it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to get one! It's more likely that they are going to recruit sharks and attach laser beams to their heads.

This point illustrates how there are really two components to why unlikely things are unlikely:

1) MOTIVATION: Some things are unlikely because they don't make sense. In real life, Finland is unlikely to invade China because doing so doesn't advance Finland's strategic interests in any meaningful way. The motivation does not exist.

2) CAPACITY: Some things are unlikely because they are really, really hard to do, even if doing them would advance your strategic interests. In real life, Finland is unlikely to invade China because doing so would be beyond their logistical capability -- it would require a long train of bases, naval support units, and so forth that they don't have and can't afford to build. The capacity does not exist.

The unlikely things that are most likely to actually happen are those that are only unlikely in one of these ways. For instance, America invading Iraq after 9/11 probably seemed to the rest of the world to be a truly unlikely action -- as if the country were being run by the HOI3 AI

But it happened, because it was only motivationally unlikely -- there was no real reason to do it, but the capacity to do it existed (bases already existed in the region, sufficient military force had already been built up, war plans for an invasion of Iraq doubtlessly were already in place, etc.). America invading, say, Brazil, would have been a quite different matter, because logistically speaking the puzzle pieces are not in place for the US in South America the way they are in the Middle East.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Don't give me that chaos theory BS.

Sigh chill out there big guy, it's not chaos theory "BS" I'm talking about. It is completely reasonable that smaller changes can plausible create a strikingly different situation if given enough time for the effect to accumilate given how calculation of multiple probability works (even though I personally don't believe this at all, as only "historically plausible outcome" for my personal reasoning is the events that actually happened and nothing else; if it didn't happen, it has probably of 0). I only raised the point not to specifically defend Finland creating pacific empire (maybe it should if it conquered entire northern europe and become a major power), but there are many who expect historical accuracy to the point where all the famous invasions take place on historical date regardless of the world's condition up to the point.

jalefkowit did raise good points on plausibility of alternative solutions, and I agree that some are obviously more plausible than others, and this game does create lot of unplausible situations when compared to history of that time but I still think it's flawed to look at each year outside the context of what just happened in the game previous year.

If you started the 1936 GC and funky stuff are going on around 1942, you should not be comparing the game's 1942 to real life counterpart as mirror image. Instead, think of what happened from 1936 - 1942 in the game. I just wanted to raise this point and perhaps quoting you wasn't the most necessary move as you were upset by more extreme divergence, but well i'm here to clarify what I was trying to say.

But moving on, because of the game's crude approach to politics and intelligence system, the type of "plausible" history would only consistently be taken if there was no way to mess with politics and intelligence system. I would rather take this crude system over absence of any choice. Because this is a grand strategy game first before being a WWII grand strategy game, I rather see what you would reasonable label as "fantasy" events than be bored with the flow of the game that I know and expect from having advantage of hindsight.

And besides, if you play non GC scenarios, there are less events that could go ahistorical, so why not just go with those where the factions are almost already locked in? Unless you want to play your nation ahistorically while watching the world go historically?

1) MOTIVATION: Some things are unlikely because they don't make sense. In real life, Finland is unlikely to invade China because doing so doesn't advance Finland's strategic interests in any meaningful way. The motivation does not exist.

This game could probably benefit from some additional parameter to create more "sensible" set of goals that each country pursues. Currently the only "motivation" the AI have is win wars. It feels like it has no political goals.

 

[themousemaster]

Yeah but the AI not spy-countering is my entire problem.

Fair enough.

Though we, of course, are assuming a 1v1 comparison... If Germany starts persuading Canada, and Canada starts countering, but then Japan, Italy, and for argument's sake, everyone else even remotely in the Axis then ALSO starts pushing Canada BEFORE they enter the allies... it might be overwhelming.

Canada may not WANT to like the Axis, but if, say, spies were successful in blowing up 40 different national monuments/factories/airports/harbors simultaneously with "all of the evidence pointing to the UK", and all of their imports of new materials were coming from Germany... that might be enough to make them think, not that we "like axis", but that we have to "join axis to have a chance at preventing UK from stomping us"

Ahh, abstraction... ;p

 

[VetMax]

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

It is possible to understand ww2 sim in different way. If it makes possible what was possible then it is sim or not? And remember this game is not about LoTR anyway.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

Fair enough.

Though we, of course, are assuming a 1v1 comparison... If Germany starts persuading Canada, and Canada starts countering, but then Japan, Italy, and for argument's sake, everyone else even remotely in the Axis then ALSO starts pushing Canada BEFORE they enter the allies... it might be overwhelming.

Canada may not WANT to like the Axis, but if, say, spies were successful in blowing up 40 different national monuments/factories/airports/harbors simultaneously with "all of the evidence pointing to the UK", and all of their imports of new materials were coming from Germany... that might be enough to make them think, not that we "like axis", but that we have to "join axis to have a chance at preventing UK from stomping us"

Ahh, abstraction... ;p

If Japan, Italy, and Germany all work together to push Canada into the Axis, I'll never complain about ahistorical problems or bad AI ever again

 

[Kaiser Bill]

If Japan, Italy, and Germany all work together to push Canada into the Axis, I'll never complain about ahistorical problems or bad AI ever again

Amen to that brother!

 

[plasticpanzers]

The more a county (or countries) would persue blowing up stuff the more likely it
would become that its obvious who the real culprit was. That the game currently
uses spies to influence countries is an error in design that haunts the game.

 

[Tanaka]

After posting a few times earlie on I’ve been following this topic from a distance.

A few people here have come here and typed more or less what I would have typed. As such didn’t feel the “need” to post anything…

I will start by remembering one little part of one of my posts…

... I’ve yet, read well please, I have yet to see a single person come here to the forum and show us a historical game. A development game (36/38) where for instances the 2nd WW isn't started by the AI in the spring/summer of 39 and so on… If you know of such example, please, kindly point me to it...

People who love this sandbox game, don’t mind (don’t see anything wrong) for instances with a 30’s/40’s Social Democratic country “teaming-up” with a Nazi one, have to notice one thing:

• Please, of 100 games, can I have 1 historic game? Just 1, you sandbox gamers can have the other 99…

I have yet to see anyone coming here from a 36/38 campaign showing a single historic first 6 months of war. So, please look into your save games, and look for that single game that would make a weirdo like me happy

(btw, please lets all be intelligent here, obviously I’m not talking about when the player himself changes/interacts and imposes the game “pace”… but even then, :rofl:, USA will be in the Axis or Allies by 39… there is a small, small chance it won’t be in any, but unlikely)



One last thing, a few posts back, the usual uniformed minds jumped into the topic and typed about this wasn’t a “historical simulation”… if it was “Germany would lose every time” and that wouldn't be “fun” “Just go see a movie” ! That kind of argument... :wacko:

I’ve been playing war games of all kinds for more than 20 years; most against other non-AI players…

In many good war games “winning” is all about “who does better than historically was done”… not, “the last man standing wins”. Grand strategy is all about real options, doing the best with what you have, that’s the real fun to me… Playing Axis in good, solid WW2 games is all about having the advantage of the initiative… playing Allies is all about having the resources, prioritizing their aplication by answering efficiently to Axis initiatives (after all, the Allies back then didn’t went around invading countries as preemptive measure… yes, please, talk about the all French North Africa “dance”) and knowing in the end you will very likely overwhelm the Axis. The all question is when… 46? Axis victory… 44? Axis defeat...After that, now the Allies want to try the Soviets, this is a game try it...

There is no interest in a person like me of what would happen if Finland did a preemptive strike in Scotland even though it had the big Soviet empire right on its border…​

The above is not intended for anyone to “enjoy” war games the way I do… we are all different, different ages, different knowledge (mostly we don’t want what we don’t know) and as such enjoy things in a different way.

I’m just typing the above so the “other” kind of players sees the root of the problem… All I’m asking is a 1 in 100 controllable option of having a sort of historical game… not the 100% non historical game we have now

I bough every game Paradox has developed since EU1... Some of them I didn't play much, they just weren't my cup of tea, I saw them just as support of a company that developed games the others didn't...

With HoI3... after all this time after release, it is different... I feel basically cheated in many different levels... I bought HoI3 on the trail of HoI2/1; HoI3 carries the name of HoI with it and that meant something...

Now, guys, if this was EU3 36-48 I would be shut-up long time ago, yes, likely I would have bought it just for that 1 or 2 games... Please, have at least the decency of changing the country names. For instances, just name it elfland, why Switzerland?!

As suggested, just name the game what it is, Orcs vs. Elves with a little bit of Gnomes on the side (I let you guys guess who are the, the Orcs, the Elves and the Gnomes ).

 

[unmerged(168102)]

Not sure if you are taking into account that DD and SS units in game, do not represent individual ships, but flotillas of several ships.

Also, the number of 90,000 men in the Sixth Army you mentioned in the previous post, I think is not accurate. If I remember correctly, this is the number that survived the siege of Stalingrad (most of them dying later in captivity). The original strengh of the Sixth Army and other units in the Stalingrad bag, was around 250,000, with enough material to equip 25% of the Wermacht. Major disaster indeed.

In HOI3, brigades are 3,000 or 1,000 strong. With a typical division being around 10,000 strong. Again, if memory serves me well, the standard German infantry division in 1936 was almost 18,000 strong, whereas the Russian equivalent would be around 1/2 of that.

For different reasons, you can not take all numbers in HOI as an exact representation of reality, but just an approximation.

No you are correct with the Stalingrad it was actually at it's height a million strong but by the time they surrendured they were only 90,000 strong that was what I meant to say but anyhow lol.

 

[AlanC9]

The more a county (or countries) would persue blowing up stuff the more likely it
would become that its obvious who the real culprit was. That the game currently
uses spies to influence countries is an error in design that haunts the game.

Well, haunts is a little strong. You don't have to use this stuff if you don't want to, except for lowering your own neutrality.