Disapointment (1.2 patch)

[unmerged(19877)]

Well written post, Kreplock!

Part of the touchiness begins with the often innocent, but impolitic, way that criticisms are posted on these boards. For instance, a thread title "Disappointment" could have instead been "Req. for Update on Prioritizing Upgrades?" This would have been a less inflammatory title.

On the other hand, the many posters who choose to visits threads such as this one merely to insult the original poster for criticizing their favorite game are engaging in a behavior that can (somewhat critically, I will admit) be defined as "juvenile" and certainly do not do in any measure help the original poster to post their comments in a more neutral fashion, nor do they aid the quest of Paradox Interactive, which is to sell software (these forums seem to me quite indispensible to any Paradox game, and I would imagine that Paradox's opinion could not be all that different, seeing as how they endorsed the manual for HOI2, which contains, in it's early text, a recommendation to visit the Paradox Forums for updates, information, strategies, etc.).

If only the individuals involved (on both sides of this problem, regardless of the particular thread) would look at what they are posting, ask themselves what it is they are trying to accomplish, and then post in a more reasoned, intellectually neutral (and not insulting) fashion.

Of course, certain individuals seem bound and determined to stir up conflict, or at the least, come off in an insulting fashion. These individuals should, in my humble opinion, be disciplined sternly.

In the mean time -- it would be nice to have a "don't upgrade" button, I will agree. This would add yet another degree of welcome control to the game. With that said, as a long, long time Software Quality Assurance Engineer, I can assure all of you that, indeed, sometimes the simplest seeming enhancement request can require such deep changes in the basic architecture (or underlying componentry) of a product that to make these changes would be entirely unrealistic, given available budgets, other products to be worked on, etc.

If I am not mistaken, Johan (or perhaps it was another Paradox team member) stated a "don't upgrade" button was not part of his vision for the game. So while budgetary and logistical constraints are always a concern, it appears the absence of a so-called magic button is a creative decision. Regardless, I agree with the general sentiment of your post.

 

[NightTerror]

People,

With all due respect, you paid $49.95 (+/-) for a game. You didn't buy stock in Paradox. You didn't get promoted to VP of Product Development or Tech Support. You asked. Someone said "No". Deal with it, or start your own company and build a better mousetrap.....

Gills

 

[unmerged(39280)]

Last one i said...
Ok - i can cope with a decison - but i like to be INFORMED at least - that a decison has been made - and im ok now - JOHANN said its a WAD and it wont change - its his decison - i respect it. Finito. (at least for me)

 

[unmerged(2423)]

Ok, let me show you how to get rid of most of the micro management:

1: Set the upgrade slider to say it's 20 IC.

2: Now I calculate, roughly, 2.5 IC for every brigade, 5 IC for every infantry/marine/para, 10 IC for every tank (maybe 15 IC in the later part of the game) and 10 IC for planes.

3: I now prioritise groups so that the total in these groups totals the double of my upgrade slider, in this case, 40IC.

4: When one of the prioritised groups have finished upgrading FULLY, I deselect that group, analyse the battlefield, and pick another group to prioritise. This way, I control the upgrades MUCH MUCH better than prioritising ALL the army units you want to upgrade.

5: Finally, I would also like to point out that the observations by other posters that infantry is upgraded first, then tanks, then planes etc works well, and so I use the "prioritise" butting differently than those who complain about the lack of the "don't upgrade" button do. I prioritise frontline units first, not caring if they'er planes, tanks, infantry etc. I prioritise frontline units! This because I like to mix tanks with infatry/mech/mototrised, and this way I get top notch units at the front instead!

I hope this tactic will show people that the "don't upgrade" button isn't needed becuase, if you had taken the time to micromanage just a LITTLE bit more and actually bothered to explore the possibilities of the priority button, you would've reached the same conclusion as I did. The prioritise button works MUCH better than a "don't upgrade" button EVER could, at the cheap cost of slightly more micromanagement!

 

[unmerged(39280)]

The prioritise button works MUCH better than a "don't upgrade" button EVER could, at the cheap cost of slightly more micromanagement!

what about both buttons? But Johann said its a WAD not to add it and we should respect it. Hardly crippling to this great game.

 

[unmerged(941)]

No. There will never be an 'dont upgrade' button. That is not how the game is intended to be.

hmm, the way I translate that is the poor game engine can't accomodate that feature without a major overhall <grin>

 

[unmerged(36987)]

No. There will never be an 'dont upgrade' button. That is not how the game is intended to be.

In that case you should make it impossible and not merely difficult to deliberately not upgrade units.

 

[unmerged(12045)]

Be thankful Johan himself replied to your thread.

Voi Vittu!

 

[unmerged(11248)]

Really, I don't see any reason why 'don't upgrade' button could not be implemented, other than "it would take too much time" which doesn't sound very likely. I have a friend whose hobby is to design and program his own strategy games, and if I ask him to add simple improvements like this, he usually does it at instant.

None of the reasons why 'don't upgrade button' should NOT be implemented do not hold water:

1) There were countless historical examples where even major powers kept obsolete tech around and in action at distant fronts with less priority. It is not 'gamey' or anything, that's just rubbish. All belligrents of WW2 were 'gamey' by that definition - they tried to concentrate and mazimize their use of limited resources.

2) Managing upgrades with prioritize-button does not work, because sometimes you nevertheless want to reinforce them. Plus, it's quite laborous process of micromanaging especially with large army.

3) It doesn't add any extra micromanaging, because those who do not see the need for the button can just ignore it completely, it doesn't change anything. It however does reduce micromanaging for those who do need it (see 2)

4) Managing upgrades with not researching new techs does not work because

a) sometimes you need the better tech units at your more important fronts

b) sometimes techs are mandatory to develope other techs, which you do need. Case in point: Developing Semi-motorized cavalry (useless) is required for motorized and mechanized units (useful), but it makes Level III Horse cavalry (useful) obsolete. See the problem? Anyone who claims that this is unhistorical is dead wrong - cavalry saw plenty of use especially in Far East right until 1945 and beyond.

To pre-empt flames, I think that 1.2 was otherwise great improvement (except Aircraft AI still seems to suck).

 

[cihset]

The 'do not upgrade button' won't be implemented, not because it takes too much time to do it, nor because it's impossible to create such a function.

You have to realise that the designers of the game don't want that function. I gather it is because they think it is a gamey and non-historical addition to the game which contradicts how they want the game to be played.

 

[unmerged(11248)]

You have to realise that the designers of the game don't want that function. I gather it is because they think it is a gamey and non-historical addition to the game which contradicts how they want the game to be played.

But it's not gamey or unhistorical - it was a routine practice. If anything, NOT having no-upgrade-button is deeply unhistorical:

"Mr President, I do understand that our Armored Divisions at Normandy are deeply in need of new weaponry, but we still have units at Pacific having Grants and 37mm AT-guns, and industry insists that we have to upgrade them before giving any new guns or tanks to European Theatre."

"Well Henry, I don't see what's the problem here. We just tell the Armament Industry that priority now lies with our forces in Europe, and Pacific forces just have to wait."

"Umm, yes sir. However, that would also mean that our Pacific units get no crew replacements."

"What? Why the hell not? Can't we just decide that units fighting the Japanese do get reinforcements, but no new equipment until situation in Europe allows?"

"Unfortunately not, sir. War Industry is not able to follow such complex orders. We have to keep it simple so they won't get confused."

 

[Spruce]

hm, long threads ! I hope they really make the game better.

In the CK public beta we are working together and imho we are making the game better.

Most important thing about thread is title and first post,

 

[unmerged(11496)]

"Do not upgrade" button was not added - it was asked many times on this forum.

Well, it doesn't fit the vision P'dox has for the game, so try asking around the various mod threads on the Scenarios and Modifications sub-forum.

 

[unmerged(11496)]

But it's not gamey or unhistorical - it was a routine practice. If anything, NOT having no-upgrade-button is deeply unhistorical:

"Mr President, I do understand that our Armored Divisions at Normandy are deeply in need of new weaponry, but we still have units at Pacific having Grants and 37mm AT-guns, and industry insists that we have to upgrade them before giving any new guns or tanks to European Theatre."

"Well Henry, I don't see what's the problem here. We just tell the Armament Industry that priority now lies with our forces in Europe, and Pacific forces just have to wait."

"Umm, yes sir. However, that would also mean that our Pacific units get no crew replacements."

"What? Why the hell not? Can't we just decide that units fighting the Japanese do get reinforcements, but no new equipment until situation in Europe allows?"

"Unfortunately not, sir. War Industry is not able to follow such complex orders. We have to keep it simple so they won't get confused."

You seem to be confusing upgrade and reinforce.

Upgrade = new equipment.

Reinforce = crew replacements.

They are two separate sliders on the production menu, isn't that nice?

 

[unmerged(11148)]

I can't believe this thread is continuing.

Johan said that it is not going to happen as it doesn't fit their vision for the game. It is PI's game so they get to make those decisions.

This conversation is futile at best. Move a version of it to the mod forum and see if this is something that can be modded.

begging and bitching will not change their minds nor get you the button.

 

[Darion]

You said what everyones been thinking

listen to the useful suggestions and raise it in the Mod forum like the the nice people have just said B4 me. Save yer wind.

 

[unmerged(11248)]

You seem to be confusing upgrade and reinforce.

Upgrade = new equipment.

Reinforce = crew replacements.

They are two separate sliders on the production menu, isn't that nice?

Yes, but the priority button doesn't make this distinction. Hence, the problem remains.

 

[unmerged(11248)]

I can't believe this thread is continuing.

Johan said that it is not going to happen as it doesn't fit their vision for the game. It is PI's game so they get to make those decisions.

This conversation is futile at best. Move a version of it to the mod forum and see if this is something that can be modded.

begging and bitching will not change their minds nor get you the button.

Actually, my experience with other game developers is that enough begging and bitching will usually do the trick
(except it doesn't work on MUDs though, only gets you removed/zapped...)

 

[Darion]

Actually, my experience with other game developers is that enough begging and bitching will usually do the trick
(except it doesn't work on MUDs though, only gets you removed/zapped...)

ZAP!!!

 

[unmerged(16433)]

Actually, my experience with other game developers is that enough begging and bitching will usually do the trick
(except it doesn't work on MUDs though, only gets you removed/zapped...)

My expirence to, Paradox has a new patching policy thats posted in the announcement section.

Be intresting to see how it plays out for future patches and future games, the genesis of Paradox as a gaming company has been intresting to watch, putting thier patching policy in a written statement is something I didnt think would happen.

Wonder how it will play out with gamers? Paradox has always been tied in to thier patches and thier depth and frequency. RCBricker is right though, this thread is going on and on, if Johan says something is or isnt going to happen you can usuallybet the farm on it, hes the head guy after all.

It would be nice to have this feature but it hardly detracts from the game IMHO, I think its a bit nit picky to go on about it.