Constructive community anyone?

[lihp]

Accordingly, while issues exist, many things have been fixed and to say things are still similar after 10 months at the 'air warfare', 'land warfare' or 'naval warfare' isn't accurate. It is the case that some issues within parts of those systems haven't been fixed, but that's most likely a case of priorities.

From day one on we had AI nations redploying whole armies from one front to another. We still do after 10 months. And that one is game breaking.

From day one on the aerial system as such has beaming planes. As a result one cant stop strategic bombers on their flight to an aerial zone - only in the target area. We still have that issue. Apart from that the aerial system is prone to extremes (1-5 plane squads etc etc etc). (Does it still apply? I didnt test after last patch)

From day one on U-boats are subpar (actually neglectible) and the AI suicides its surface fleets. As such naval combat actually does not exist - its either: slaughter or be slaughtered.

---

Those are the issues we talk about here. Those are day 1 issues. They are not addressed (aka solved) in a patch.

 

[Axe99]

From day one on we had AI nations redploying whole armies from one front to another. We still do after 10 months. And that one is game breaking.

From day one on the aerial system as such has beaming planes. As a result one cant stop strategic bombers on their flight to an aerial zone - only in the target area. We still have that issue. Apart from that the aerial system is prone to extremes (1-5 plane squads etc etc etc). (Does it still apply? I didnt test after last patch)

From day one on U-boats are subpar (actually neglectible) and the AI suicides its surface fleets. As such naval combat actually does not exist - its either: slaughter or be slaughtered.

---

Those are the issues we talk about here. Those are day 1 issues. They are not addressed (aka solved) in a patch.

I wasn't saying that some of the issues on day one aren't here now - more that taken as a whole, those systems have improved since day one (and that the things that haven't improved are either prioritisation - naval in particular - or because it's a tough not to crack - front redeployment, something HoI3 still does as well). The team have clearly been working on stuff since launch, it's not a case that things aren't being improved (just go back through the patch notes) - but rather the case that it's a very big and complex simulation and there's a lot to do.

 

[lihp]

something HoI3 still does as well.

No, HOI3 doesnt redeploy a whole front and leave it unguarded in favor of another front. And I still play HOI3 a lot.

The team have clearly been working on stuff since launch, it's not a case that things aren't being improved (just go back through the patch notes) - but rather the case that it's a very big and complex simulation and there's a lot to do.

As stated earlier: they might be working 3.000 hours on it since launch. Maybe even 10.000 hours. The AI still redploys whole fronts to another even right at declaration of war after 10 months. It still makes whole nations collapse for nothing.

Goal not achieved. Its still game-breaking.

 

[Axe99]

No, HOI3 doesnt redeploy a whole front and leave it unguarded in favor of another front. And I still play HOI3 a lot.

If I'm playing as the Allies and I land in Europe in force, German regularly lets the Soviet front collapse (and then has been known to send more troops back to the Soviets than it should once it realises this). It's worse in HoI4, no question about that, but it was an issue in HoI3. However, rather than get lost in the details, the argument you made that I was responding to was that ai shuffling, aerial combat and naval combat had issues, that were as they were at launch. My response was that all three have improved, so that while there are still issues, improvements have been made. Air warfare has improved substantially, the other two by less but still importantly and noticeably.

 

[lihp]

If I'm playing as the Allies and I land in Europe in force, German regularly lets the Soviet front collapse (and then has been known to send more troops back to the Soviets than it should once it realises this). It's worse in HoI4, no question about that, but it was an issue in HoI3. However, rather than get lost in the details, the argument you made that I was responding to was that ai shuffling, aerial combat and naval combat had issues, that were as they were at launch. My response was that all three have improved, so that while there are still issues, improvements have been made. Air warfare has improved substantially, the other two by less but still importantly and noticeably.

That is the point where we disagree. You call it "improvements", I call it "changes" at best. And no, I do not consider those points "issues", I consider them game-breaking and exactly the opposite of what is written in steam shop advertisement of HOI4 (which I just read - again).

A lil bit more detail about game-breaking in my opinion:

• Redeploying/abandoning fronts makes the major player in this conflict easy prey: Germany.
• "Poor naval combat" of slaughtering or being slaughtered makes another major player in this conflict a much too easy prey: UK. And also USA in the long run. Also it renders a German submarine strategy moot.
  
• "Poor air combat" of beaming planes makes eg strat bombers overpowered. Same goes for 200 plane wings vs 1 plane wings (including the resulting Ace spam). Same goes for lack of concentrated bombing (by CAS) etc etc etc.

Each of them breaks the game, by either making a historic course of action impossible, making a major nation break way too early or by making nations ineffective in one regard or too effective in another (esspecially Japan or India manpower after fascist coup or).

 

[lihp]

If I'm playing as the Allies and I land in Europe in force, German regularly lets the Soviet front collapse (and then has been known to send more troops back to the Soviets than it should once it realises this).

Definitly not for me in current HOI3.

 

[CV10]

A word on constructive criticism, I think that Meglock's current campaign to have Aluminum added to Asia is an excellent example of how we should lobby the devs if one feels strongly about something. He made it clear that adding aluminum in Asia helps Japan run her economy better, demonstrated that by test-adding some in the DEI, and then simply adds "Add Aluminum in Asia" to each of his posts. Look how many people have taken notice of it.

Another word on the forums. I think that the reason discussion can get a bit heated is because this is the new game, and people are frustrated that it is not being improved as fast as they would like. I will say this, the forum is generally a very civil place and on the occasions that it is not, a mod is pretty quick to step in once it is clear that things are getting nasty. I'll also add that if you want to see a bitter time in this forum's history, go and look at the Dev Diaries on the graphics and logistics (from 2015), those two caused massive rows that I still shudder about when I recall them. IIRC those dev dairies had to be locked by the mods.

For my part, I'm rather optimistic that, in the end, the problems will be fixed. Also, as a Field Marshal buyer, I'm rather content with my decision, as I got TfV for free (no added cost), so at least PDX hasn't tried to hose me like Firaxis has done by releasing one-civ dlcs for Civ 6 that count towards its pre-order deal (I read a lot of unhappy comments on their forums about that).

 

[thorfy]

Interesting read.

One thing that I would add to the debate is that the relation between the creator and the user appears to depend on the perceived nature of the product and the related owenership. It seems that most people prefer to view games as tools, "cars". I'd like to suggest that a game is not like a car. Rather they are a piece of art, a symphony where, at its best, hundreds of instruments interact to form one unified but intangible experience.

Now for one, for an attendee it is simple to say "that violin sounded out of place!" after one concert. But the perspective of the conductor or director is much different. It is nice and important (and somehow almost taken for granted) that the artists in charge do listen to the input of the audience. And that the audience is emotional mostly shows how invested they are in the creation, which is actually nice. But, to get back to the OP, sometimes the tone appears to descend to how you'd talk to a mechanic who repairs your car, as opposed to the conductor of an orchestra who shares his creations with the audience.

To keep it simple, if a mechanic carves a Swedish flag on your car's bumper, you'd be rightfully furious. If the Swedish national orchestra decided to re-interpret Beethoven with Viking Metal, I'd say it'd be a more complex situation that warrants a more careful critique (of course sadly in theory only).

Noone can and should be forced to express oneself one way or another so this is just a suggestion. If you chose to see your game as a car nevertheless, there is no argument to be made. And for the record, like OP I mostly read the dev diaries, so my perspective is limited. And I don't even own HOI4 yet.

 

[Balesir]

Anothing this that I think need mentioning, is that you're looking at 2 different types of Demographics. Both games appeal to very different types of people, who look and want different things. You also need to understand that HOI is a lot more serious, covers a much smaller time line, and henceforth needs can't stray too far from history. It also draws in a more, serious, and maybe even older people who are very knowledgeable about the time period, and even more hardcore. You have a lot of people who know way too much about time period . As I've said before HOI attracts a different kind of people, and that can contribute to atmosphere.

I'm not convinced by your characterisation of the demographics, here. They may very well be different, but both are serious and both have clear ties to history. Taking myself as an example, I like both, and I know far too much about the military history of WW2 and about medieval history - especially medieval economics and technology. I think both fanbases have their "grognards".

What I see in the HoI forums, though, is closer to a malady I started to understand in the tabletop roleplaying community a while back. It's still there, but at least now it's understood and there are workarounds. The problem is that:

- on the one hand, several players want a free hand to do what they think the historical players "should have done" or what they would like to explore them having done, but...

- they also, on the other hand, have vivid pictures in their mind of all those WW2 movies and stories, and they want the game to deliver that experience to them.

These are incompatible goals. It's the RPG "impossiblke thing before breakfast" - the desire for a sandbox that delivers the classic (WW2, in this case) story.

I am somewhat guilty, too, just to be clear. And there is something not too far away from this impossible dream that might be possible - a sandbox with plausible outcomes for every combination. But the problem is that this combination is incredibly hard to build as a game. The requirements of the system are subtle, deep and manifold.

For example:

Basically I outlined the result as of now after 10 months. Problem addressed to me means "solved" - the "problems" are not solved, that easy. They might have worked 3.000 hours on it, problem is still not solved.

This is a classic example. We want the AI to react to "non-standard" opposing strategies, but we want it to do so "historically" and we want it not to dither. There have not actually been that many human generals that have achieved this, let alone an AI! You say we have not seen a solution in 10 months; I would say we have not seen a (complete) solution in over 16 years. Sure, we have seen games that stop the dithering. But that is only of very limited use if "solving" the dithering only compromises every other objective, and that's what I see in every other game I have tried.

This seems to me to be a problem like that of getting an international free trade agreement. The PM of Australia has been pointed to as someone who "got a free trade deal in 6 months" where everyone else was taking 4-5-6 years to negotiate one. What a clever chap! Well, no. What he got was a no tariff deal. Completely different thing. Sure, absence of tariffs is a necessary part of a free trade deal - but it's only about 10% of one. In the same way, absence of dithering or "shuffling" is a necessary part of a great Operational level AI - but it is only a relatively small part of one. And, if you set out just to "solve" the dithering, independently of everything else, you will likely (a) break everything else and (b) make it so that, when you have then fixed everything else, you will need to go back and address the dithering again.

TL;DR - "solving" the dithering might be easy, if you do it while ignoring all the other things an operational AI should do. The difficult bit is getting all the goals of the operational AI addressed all at once. Paradox are taking "so long" to do this because they are trying to solve the whole set of equations all at once. I think this is the right approach to take, even though it takes longer. Game creators have been going round in circles solving one at a time for well over 10 years. It's time to take the time to solve them simultaneously.

 

[mcmaha1]

Oh wow, I hadn't checked back in a few days, thinking there will be a handful of replies when I do; didn't expect 5 pages worth of replies.

First of all, I read through all the pages and I am glad that people decided to debate this properly. So to answer my critics:

Indeed, I don't use the forums as much as some of you, so I only have partial information. I am mostly referring to the dev diaries and announcements and the community reactions to them. While I restate that everyone has the right to post anything without exception, I will also restate that nothing entitles us to abusing the developers, no matter how frustrated we are. I think such comments go a long way to making the already stressful job of developers all the more anxious and unpleasant.

Some of you mentioned this is still comparatively a good community. I have to agree. I used to frequent Total War forums and let me give a recent example. Total War Warhammer 2 gets announced and everyone starts complaining that it isn't a historical title. Even though everyone knows they are working on one and will take time to make and will not come out so soon, everyone lambasted the developers for not showing what they wanted to see. Of course I want to see a historical title, but A) everyone knew the announcement was Warhammer related and B) that doesn't mean I have to insult somebody.

Also, one of the early replies highlighted what I said about countries. I should have been clearer. I am totally fine with people wanting content to enrich their playthroughs. I personally prefer playing different countries with every game. However, what I was referring to in my statement is that people derive Paradox's real life national preferences from these decisions and everything becomes personal. Just to give an example, I think it is a shame Bulgaria and Greece aren't included in the latest DLC. Paradox gave an explanation for Bulgaria. Whether you are happy or not with their explanation is up to you. But trying to suggest that somehow Paradox is anti-Bulgarian because "Czechoslovakia was included, but Bulgaria wasn't" is a very charged insinuation.

That all being said, I am glad to have elicited such a discussion. I just hope that we can keep things supportive and civil. Again, I don't think HOI4 is a perfect game. It has a lot of issues and every time I see border gore, political inflexibility/implausibility and the inability of AI to defeat Japan on its own (try playing a minor and waiting for AI to finish off Japan... I had to build a fleet as Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Switzerland just to end the war) I recognize this game still has a way to go. But I enjoy it and I look forward to helping make it better.

Thank you for the supportive comments.

EDIT: One last point, what I meant by "Paradox is doing a fine job of listening to us", I meant they listen. I didn't mean they obey to our wishes. We know that all of the community demands are impossible to meet, but at least they seem to show understanding for them. Whether those demands then translate into actual content changes is an entirely different matter.

 

[Snake_Squeezins]

I don't support all the ways that everyone has expressed their displeasure with the direction and state of HOI4, but I share their disappointment and frustration with this game.

PDX had done very well with their other games, and I counted on that trend to continue. I put my money where my belief was and pre-ordered the deluxe package. Personally, because this game just doesn't come close to stacking up with the rest of the excellent games in the PDX catalogue, HOI4 feels like a punch to the gut.

If I could get a full refund and never have to think about HOI4 again, I would do so, which is probably the biggest insult I could give a game and its development team, unfortunately.

 

[scroggin]

I totally agree with the OP. There is far too much said on the internet without considering its effect on the person you are communicating to. I think that is because we are anonomous on the internet,we dont use our real names or identity.
A lot of the comments Ive seen in the HOI4 forum are rude and disrespectful. This is certainly not an effective way to influence or convince people.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Where did I write "ignore" or mean it? That's an assumption by you.

You quoted one of my posts. In that post of mine the only mention made of anything remotely related to your comment was about some people's tendency to accuse Paradox of ignoring them just because their complaint wasn't immediately addressed. So by inference your disagreement with my post was in that context. If it is wasn't, then you shouldn't have directed your point as a reply to that post. But, as it happens you were, and still are taking issue with that point. The point of departure just happens to be a bit more specific than at first it appeared. See below.

Basically I outlined the result as of now after 10 months. Problem addressed to me means "solved" - the "problems" are not solved, that easy. They might have worked 3.000 hours on it, problem is still not solved.

Regardless of what you choose to think words mean, they actually mean what the dictionary says they mean. And the dictionary meanings of "addressed" and "solved" are different.

From the Oxford free online dictionary:

address: 3. Think about and begin to deal with (an issue or problem)

solve: Find an answer to, explanation for, or means of effectively dealing with (a problem or mystery)

Notice that addressing an issue or problem can be nothing more than thinking about it or beginning to deal with it. Solving means you have actually come up with an effective means of dealing with it. So as Axe and I have now pointed out several times, these problems have been and are being addressed. They just aren't solved yet.

Nowhere did I claim that all those problems were solved. I merely said they were addressed. And yet you start right off by telling me I am making too many assumptions about Paradox and about other players. Well, you were wrong...about both. In essence your "proof" that I was making such wrong assumptions is to agree with exactly what I said while misinterpreting my use of the term "addressed" to mean what you thought it meant instead of what it actually said. So, a simple misunderstanding and miscommunication on your part.

As previously stated by both Axe and myself: we know full well that those issues still need more work before they can be considered anything approximating "solved". But we also know that Paradox has listened to us and is at least attempting to solve them. If you want to complain about how long it is taking, fine. That is your prerogative. But please don't call us out as being "wrong" just because we choose to exercise more patience than you do.

 

[Mannstien]

I just got kind of tired of giving feedback and not seeing many of my idea's implemented. I thought it would be a great idea if you could assign certain air wings to Armies or Army Groups so they would follow the line as it moved up and tried to move to more efficient airbases. I've followed this game since the teasers and I knew that Africa was going to be a big problem and just now almost a year after release are they implementing what I've been using a mod for since the mod launched which is impassible area's.

I'm sorry PDX, it's just hard for me who played thousands of hours in HOI3 and now just over a thousand hours in HOI4 but 98% of my time probably has been using mods which any player would say "Sure, you like what you like so you play a mod" but back in HOI3 I remember being so star struck I was reading AAR's like it was the news and now I'm just kind of like please I can't wait for the next BICE update. I do like the latest update with the Axis minors but for me TFV was sort of useless because I rarely play Allied minors especially because the Axis is just a walkthrough in many ways right now.

I'd drop a three page letter on what I'd like to see but I just feel a bit bitter after posting so much during development and not seeing any fruits. One of my pet peeves still is there is no OOB and I went into depth on that one taking feedback from the community to mold the idea of a much more simple way to organize my armies instead of just plopping a bunch of divisions under one commander that can take more than most countries especially minors could field. Something that I could create my General HQ and build armies underneath of them without any bonuses or on map HQ ala HOI3 but a better and easier way for me to see exactly what corps I have attached to my army instead of filling up the Theatre bar with more icons to pick through a column type layout where you have a central command screen with known information from either espionage, radar, friendly units near by and build my entire plan including my leaders at one time for a front. Bah.....I have some faith left in PDX and in BICE I trust!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lihp]

A word on constructive criticism, I think that Meglock's current campaign to have Aluminum added to Asia is an excellent example of how we should lobby the devs if one feels strongly about something. He made it clear that adding aluminum in Asia helps Japan run her economy better, demonstrated that by test-adding some in the DEI, and then simply adds "Add Aluminum in Asia" to each of his posts. Look how many people have taken notice of it.

I fully agree with you there. While the lack of aluminium in Asia is not game-breaking (imho) it definitly is a strong oversight.

Another word on the forums. I think that the reason discussion can get a bit heated is because this is the new game, and people are frustrated that it is not being improved as fast as they would like.

No its not a new game. 4th edition, 10 months after release is hardly a new game anymore. Sorry, imho you are dead wrong here.

I will say this, the forum is generally a very civil place and on the occasions that it is not, a mod is pretty quick to step in once it is clear that things are getting nasty. I'll also add that if you want to see a bitter time in this forum's history, go and look at the Dev Diaries on the graphics and logistics (from 2015), those two caused massive rows that I still shudder about when I recall them. IIRC those dev dairies had to be locked by the mods.

I was there.

For my part, I'm rather optimistic that, in the end, the problems will be fixed. Also, as a Field Marshal buyer, I'm rather content with my decision, as I got TfV for free (no added cost), so at least PDX hasn't tried to hose me like Firaxis has done by releasing one-civ dlcs for Civ 6 that count towards its pre-order deal (I read a lot of unhappy comments on their forums about that).

I am sure they fix problems too, also bugs. All the time.

I simply do a summary and my result is: game-breaking mechanics are still in place and make authentic* games impossible - 10 months after release. Target by 100% not achieved.
*(quote from Paradox on Steam)

 

[lihp]

This is a classic example. We want the AI to react to "non-standard" opposing strategies, but we want it to do so "historically" and we want it not to dither. There have not actually been that many human generals that have achieved this, let alone an AI! You say we have not seen a solution in 10 months; I would say we have not seen a (complete) solution in over 16 years. Sure, we have seen games that stop the dithering. But that is only of very limited use if "solving" the dithering only compromises every other objective, and that's what I see in every other game I have tried.

Good read your post, yet we are on different pages. I expect the AI to not abandon whole fronts out of nothing.

Yet this kinda of immersion is actually delivered by HOI3 with HPP. So yes, imho it is valid to expect HOI4 to excel compared to HOI3 and not to fall short.

 

[lihp]

You quoted one of my posts. In that post of mine the only mention made of anything remotely related to your comment was about some people's tendency to accuse Paradox of ignoring them just because their complaint wasn't immediately addressed. So by inference your disagreement with my post was in that context. If it is wasn't, then you shouldn't have directed your point as a reply to that post. But, as it happens you were, and still are taking issue with that point. The point of departure just happens to be a bit more specific than at first it appeared. See below.

I suggest you read that original post again. Please stop assuming.

Regardless of what you choose to think words mean, they actually mean what the dictionary says they mean. And the dictionary meanings of "addressed" and "solved" are different.

<snip>

address: 3. Think about and begin to deal with (an issue or problem)

The problems, which make HOI4 not authentic havent been finally solved for 10 months.

Apart from that addressed and solved had been used in various meanings since we do have non-natural speakers on board. For that I made the meanign obvious in brackets. Thanks for the lecture, please spare me next time.

Nowhere did I claim that all those problems were solved. I merely said they were addressed. And yet you start right off by telling me I am making too many assumptions about Paradox and about other players...

I suggest the power of re-reading. Thank you.

 

[Balesir]

I've followed this game since the teasers and I knew that Africa was going to be a big problem and just now almost a year after release are they implementing what I've been using a mod for since the mod launched which is impassible area's.

This is a good example, I think, of "part solved" as I was talking about it earlier. Yes, Paradox have added impassable areas. Yes, this will help the AI. But I think (and, from their comments here and elsewhere, I believe the devs think) that this is the wrong solution, in the long term. I understand why they have made such a compromise, in the short term, but I honour them greatly for trying as hard as they did to create a solution without this clunky workaround. What is more, I have every confidence that they will try their best to come up with a solution that doesn't use the workaround in future, for the longer term. Will getting that quality of AI make developing the AI harder? Yes - but quality always costs.

 

[CV10]

No its not a new game. 4th edition, 10 months after release is hardly a new game anymore. Sorry, imho you are dead wrong here.

I did not say "a new game", I said "the new game", as in the most recently released major PDS game, not a new as in recently released game. I suggest that you re-read that sentence, a small matter but my use of "the" rather than "a" is critical to the meaning of the sentence. As such, with the exception of Stellaris, it is four years younger than any of the other PDS games and has had less time to be perfected. For my part, I would like the bug fixing and AI improving to be faster.

 

[Pro_Consul]

...please spare me next time....Thank you.

As you prefer.