Meteor Sighted
A) It's an omen. (-1 national unity)
B) Ignore the Bolshevik rabble! (-1 national unity)
A) It's an omen. (-1 national unity)
B) Ignore the Bolshevik rabble! (-1 national unity)
-
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.
lol, here's another one:
Information regarding Goering's morphine addiction have leaked into the German public
A) Execute him. (-5 national unity)
B) He's a friend after all... (Germany gets -10% morale for all air units until 1945)
Please no.
As others have said, this is a game, and while a small group may like the historical feel of being able to lose their general, I am going to hazard a guess that the average gamer (eg, the people Pdox need to sell game to to pay the bills), would find "It is 1941. Rommel dies in a car crash" incredibly frustrating. Particularly if they have any knowledge of WW2, and know perfectly well Rommel died (by "suicide") after operation Valkyrie.
I was all for dynamic events in EU III, and still am, but in HOI III, events should be much more largely fixed, including leader deaths (except maybe for deaths in battle, but even those should be incredibly rare, if they happen at all).
As others have said, this is a game, and while a small group may like the historical feel of being able to lose their general, I am going to hazard a guess that the average gamer (eg, the people Pdox need to sell game to to pay the bills), would find "It is 1941. Rommel dies in a car crash" incredibly frustrating. Particularly if they have any knowledge of WW2, and know perfectly well Rommel died (by "suicide") after operation Valkyrie.
I was all for dynamic events in EU III, and still am, but in HOI III, events should be much more largely fixed, including leader deaths (except maybe for deaths in battle, but even those should be incredibly rare, if they happen at all).
On the other hand, we have five fingers...
No, seriously, I think that having such random events would add a lot of life to the game, particularly for those people who enjoy playing many games over a long period of time. It would add spice and randomness, along with challenge and welcome variability.
But it should be something the player can turn off or on, or it would even drive me batty the first time I saw, say, Patton court-martialed and sent home for striking a wounded soldier in Sicily, or Zhukhov dieing after drinking bad vodka! :rofl:
No, seriously, I think that having such random events would add a lot of life to the game, particularly for those people who enjoy playing many games over a long period of time. It would add spice and randomness, along with challenge and welcome variability.
But it should be something the player can turn off or on, or it would even drive me batty the first time I saw, say, Patton court-martialed and sent home for striking a wounded soldier in Sicily, or Zhukhov dieing after drinking bad vodka! :rofl:
Gawd, I thought this was going to be about things like a hurricane or typhoon or tsunami causing catastrophic damage to IC values in various provinces. Could that be in there?
Bad memories of Katrina, eh? Makes what man can do seem pretty puny by comparison. Hope you got through that OK, mate.
I really don't think that it should be forced upon people. If it was a option that could be turned on and off at the start of the game then it would be fine. But if forced upon us I don't think so.
Sounds a bit like the random deaths in old adventure games. "You stepped into a dark room, you stumbled around trying to find a light switch and ended up triggering a trap, you are dead." Not that loosing a general is equal to game over, but still. If there are going to be such events I rather they were historical than random, but I think Paradox will leave that to modders since they seem to be trying to make the game less restricted to historical events.
If the game can create generic (non-existent IRL) ministers and leaders then I'd support this idea, but otherwise what if the US gets unlucky and from the period of 1936-1945 has like eleven ministers randomly die. You'd wind up with Communists, Autocrats or Fascists getting in positions they'd realistically have zero chance of getting into. This happens in HOI2 too (Kenneth G. Althaus, incorrectly portrayed as a Nazi when IRL he'd be Social Conservative) and would worsen with this system in place.
Although there's one issue, what if it happened to, say, Tannu Tuva? 11 ministers die, then the entire minister list would be wiped out by 8.
Although there's one issue, what if it happened to, say, Tannu Tuva? 11 ministers die, then the entire minister list would be wiped out by 8.
Last edited:
Regarding the OP's suggestion, there is an event for commandoes to destroy forts and I'm not too sure about killing generals though. Anyone else confirm this?
I don't like this idea.
The number of generals that died in the war (except in the endgame) was very low. Normal fighting was a pretty safe environment for generals. They had skilled drivers, big cars, excellent diet, the best health care of the time and was generally far away from the actual killing. It would not surprise me if a statistic would find out that generals in WW2 had a longer life span in wartime, then a normal civilian had in the same country in peace time.
There is a lot of history freaks playing this game. If a random event killed your favorite general, many would be irritated and just reload or abandon the game.
One very popular mod in HOI2 is the "No leader death", that removes all the historical death dates. We just love our generals...
I don't want "Catastrophic events" in the game. Catastrophic implies that it will have HUGE effect on game play. I believe that sort of events would just irritate and frustrate most players. Positive and negative events that effect gameplay has been in every Paradox game. We love that. It ads texture and adventure. Paradox has made some excellent events so far. And as we all know, after the initial release the mods will give us a flood of events. But even they don't make "Catastrophic events".
You can always make some yourself:
"The generals meeting in Berlin was hit by an asteroid. Your 164 best generals has died."
or
"A tsunami has hit Japan. 65% of your IC was destroyed."
But I don't want them.
The number of generals that died in the war (except in the endgame) was very low. Normal fighting was a pretty safe environment for generals. They had skilled drivers, big cars, excellent diet, the best health care of the time and was generally far away from the actual killing. It would not surprise me if a statistic would find out that generals in WW2 had a longer life span in wartime, then a normal civilian had in the same country in peace time.
There is a lot of history freaks playing this game. If a random event killed your favorite general, many would be irritated and just reload or abandon the game.
One very popular mod in HOI2 is the "No leader death", that removes all the historical death dates. We just love our generals...
I don't want "Catastrophic events" in the game. Catastrophic implies that it will have HUGE effect on game play. I believe that sort of events would just irritate and frustrate most players. Positive and negative events that effect gameplay has been in every Paradox game. We love that. It ads texture and adventure. Paradox has made some excellent events so far. And as we all know, after the initial release the mods will give us a flood of events. But even they don't make "Catastrophic events".
You can always make some yourself:
"The generals meeting in Berlin was hit by an asteroid. Your 164 best generals has died."
or
"A tsunami has hit Japan. 65% of your IC was destroyed."
But I don't want them.
GAME being the key word there
I'm not looking for a "oh for the love of god...." feeling in a game, and that's what those random events do most of the time
Overall, it is an interesting idea. But I must agree - players won't like it this way. I will just load the last autosave if possible, if not will be just upset.
On the other hand every disaster gives something in return e.g. experience. So in case of an ammunition depot player can have a choice: depot explodes and:
a. Improve safety protocols (clean depot from wet/old ammunition): player loses 50% supplies in this depot and 5% in all other depots, probability of such an event decreased by 5%, supply lines are 2% more resistant to strategic bombings
b. Save as much supplies as possible: player loses only 25% of supplies in the current depot; desaster probability +2%, bombing resistance -2%
This way we still can have random events but players will at least get something out of it.
Bad memories of Katrina, eh? Makes what man can do seem pretty puny by comparison. Hope you got through that OK, mate.
No kidding, but not only Katrina, but Gustav and Ike, too.
I've got the Emergency Service Medal to prove it too....
I think everyone is getting hung up on the first mentioned about a general dieing, and there has been little discussion on the other events.
# Leader contracts malaria and is out of action for a couple of in-game weeks.
# Planes get lost traversing the Pacific or Atlantic
# The explosion of a Supply Depot while loading or unloading supply which would cause units to loose there supply chain for a day or two.
These seem to to be more popular and was wondering if anyone would care to discuss the pros and cons of these.
In addition we have gotten another good example from the discussion of adding earth quakes and tsunamis, or bad hurricanes. I am sure historical information exists on these events for that time and maybe IC, logistic, or manpower for that region could be effective.
For everyone saying that this is a historical game I counter that it is for the minute you movie a unit or change a slider the outcome is going to turn out different. And if you truely believe that then you would never play a German or Japanese player because you were destined to loose.
# Leader contracts malaria and is out of action for a couple of in-game weeks.
# Planes get lost traversing the Pacific or Atlantic
# The explosion of a Supply Depot while loading or unloading supply which would cause units to loose there supply chain for a day or two.
These seem to to be more popular and was wondering if anyone would care to discuss the pros and cons of these.
In addition we have gotten another good example from the discussion of adding earth quakes and tsunamis, or bad hurricanes. I am sure historical information exists on these events for that time and maybe IC, logistic, or manpower for that region could be effective.
For everyone saying that this is a historical game I counter that it is for the minute you movie a unit or change a slider the outcome is going to turn out different. And if you truely believe that then you would never play a German or Japanese player because you were destined to loose.
I think they should remove most historical general deaths but put in random deaths. But not for ministers. Then in balances out.
I would like the idea of supply depots exploding and transport ships getting lost, losing supplies for a day or two.