Disapointment (1.2 patch)

[unmerged(11496)]

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

Not really; to keep with your ETO/PTO example, prioritize all your ETO units and only pay only a % of your upgrade cost equal to the distribution of forces - for example, if 2/3rds of your troops are in Europe, only pay 67% of your upgrade budget after having prioritized your European units.

For reinforcements, pay the amount in full; they troops may go to Europe first based on priority, but they will get to the Pacific eventually.

After all, historically if a new unit was prioritized for equipment upgrades, they were similarly prioritized for being topped-off with fresh personnel, not to mention recieving training in the new equipment.

The system as it exists may paint in too-broad strokes for your liking, but it does work.

 

[MAC]

Well, I once thought it would be a cool feature.
But for example there is no need to keep some light tanks as long as they are at least as fast as the new medium ones. With now the penalties for oil consuming units lowered there would even be not much need for keeping some cavalry units as non oil consuming cavalry. Sure, a diversification into elite, standard and reserve troops for example and the option to manage the equipment (maybe additionally a manual option via "upgrade points") and supply would be a nice feature, but I think it can wait till HOI3

And there is another issue, which you will probably only really understand if you will work in the gaming business: IT'S NOT LIKE IT SEEMS!

Its all about money nowadays. Why in god's name do the gaming industry fanbois out there always think just because it's their hobby that everybody working in the gaming industry is a dedicated gamer? And do you really think that the majority of the shareholders are gamers? C'mon please get finally a clue. There are budgets everywhere, everything has to be accounted. Thats why we are lucky that Johan, Lothos, the betas and all the modders put so much of their spare time into this and other games. And thats why we are lucky that Paradox is not yet a "major" and many people working there are probably in fact dedicated gamers. In my company we were the minority - and especially decisions were usually not made by a dedicated gamer.

Its a huge huge difference to just code some stuff or to code some stuff for a product you sold. Can you imagine if that button is implemented and does only work in 99.999% ? Do you imagine how many hours of testing it needs to beta? Dou you imagine how many people would be upset if they read in patch 1.3 is the famous button included but not another feature that had to be left out because funds and time are limited and by adding your feature those other features could not be implemented?

Sorry, did not want to be rude

 

[unmerged(11248)]

Not really; to keep with your ETO/PTO example, prioritize all your ETO units and only pay only a % of your upgrade cost equal to the distribution of forces - for example, if 2/3rds of your troops are in Europe, only pay 67% of your upgrade budget after having prioritized your European units.

For reinforcements, pay the amount in full; they troops may go to Europe first based on priority, but they will get to the Pacific eventually.

After all, historically if a new unit was prioritized for equipment upgrades, they were similarly prioritized for being topped-off with fresh personnel, not to mention recieving training in the new equipment.

The system as it exists may paint in too-broad strokes for your liking, but it does work.

Not really: first off, there really is no guarantee you can afford your reinforcements 100% (in fact, I've noticed that in a major conflict, I almost never can afford to reinforce 100%). Secondly, there is currently only one 'level' of prioritizing: if I use it to control my upgrades (which is not really the intended use of it) I lose control about other possible prioritizing needs.

 

[unmerged(11496)]

Not really: first off, there really is no guarantee you can afford your reinforcements 100% (in fact, I've noticed that in a major conflict, I almost never can afford to reinforce 100%).

A few suggestions:

Build more IC before you get into a major conflict.
Invest in all your machine tool and supply techs, and make sure your infrastructure is healthy.
Craft your army to play to your enemy's weaknesses and use strategies and tactics which defeat them with a minimal of actual fighting, thereby reducing your need for reinforcements.
Push coming to shove? Sacrafice current production to make your reinforcement goals if they're that important.

Secondly, there is currently only one 'level' of prioritizing: if I use it to control my upgrades (which is not really the intended use of it) I lose control about other possible prioritizing needs.

Control of the upgrade process is certainly one of the legitimate and intended uses for prioritization...

Heck, prioritize your ETO units until they're upgraded and then prioritize your PTO units when they need reinforcement (after de-prioritizing your ETO troops, of course).

 

[unmerged(37111)]

Hmm so your saying the entire patch is crap because what you wanted is not in it and that all the other fixes in the patch is complete garbadge.

Considering 1.1 came out very shortly after the initial release and this patch took several months to come (Johan being busy with Diplomacy and all), I'd say it's a fair grievance to say that, since what he was hoping for isn't in the patch, that the patch isn't really worth upgrading to. Not that all the work to make the patch was wasted, but in that a lot of nasty issues are left unresolved... Until Autumn and 1.03

 

[unmerged(11148)]

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...)

except it is not going to work here on things that Johan and the other devs have stated are design decisions. so in this case whining and crying will not get it changed.

Considering 1.1 came out very shortly after the initial release and this patch took several months to come (Johan being busy with Diplomacy and all), I'd say it's a fair grievance to say that, since what he was hoping for isn't in the patch, that the patch isn't really worth upgrading to. Not that all the work to make the patch was wasted, but in that a lot of nasty issues are left unresolved... Until Autumn and 1.03

Although it is your choice to not play the game because you thing it is unplayable. It is unfair to say the patch is crap because the devs didn't put something in (first that they never said would be there and also stated that specifically would not be there) that you wanted. I am currently trying my best to politely get people to stop bashing PI and the game if they do not get what they want. I can understand disappointment and all but lets be fair. IF the game is unplayable, then don't play it. take it back to EB for store credit or shelf it. Do not bash PI for making the game the way the y chose to make THEIR game and do not say their work is crap just because it doesn't meet your requirments. I hate the Civ series, but I won't go on their site and say how crappy the game is. I just don't play it.

Basically, the fan boys need to stop being overly fond of the game when dealing with problems and the critics need to stop being so rude when dealing with problems.

Everyone needs to stop crying for things that Johan and the team has stated will not be changed. let it go and paly the game (or whatever game you are playing) and let the PI team work on the new games or patches for other games.

 

[Piggy]

Hmmmm..... I think people may also be forgetting something about the AI in this "debate".

Even if that feature was easy to add (I doubt it is) you have to think of the consequences it could have on the game as a whole. How is the AI going to handle this feature? Will it decide its plane are more important then tanks or infantry...etc.

I would think adding more and more options for the AI to choose from is just asking to confuse it. Then people would be complaining about other issue's resulting from it.

Its really not that hard to manage IMO.

And besides all that, Johan already said it wasnt ever going to be added so I would say its "end of subject"

 

[unmerged(2402)]

This is starting to read like some terrible Samuel Beckett play.

Serus: If only I had a bowl, then I could find some gruel to put in the bowl, then I'd be happy.

Johan: There will be no bowl.

Vulture: There are many other things to eat here, you don't need a bowl.

Oleg: No, no, life is worthless without a bowl.

Serus: Never mind. I will continue my meaningless existence without a bowl...

Warden: Perhaps if you *imagined* you had a bowl, you might be happier.

Serus: Never mind.

Horragoth: Perhaps if we had a saucer, instead of a bowl, that might be all right, then.

Warden: No, no, see! Everything works great. Life is good. Forget the bowl.

Serus: Never mind.

And on and on and on.... I read this and my life seems happier by comparison.

 

[unmerged(37611)]

This is starting to read like some terrible Samuel Beckett play.

Serus: If only I had a bowl, then I could find some gruel to put in the bowl, then I'd be happy.

Johan: There will be no bowl.

Vulture: There are many other things to eat here, you don't need a bowl.

Oleg: No, no, life is worthless without a bowl.

Serus: Never mind. I will continue my meaningless existence without a bowl...

Warden: Perhaps if you *imagined* you had a bowl, you might be happier.

Serus: Never mind.

Horragoth: Perhaps if we had a saucer, instead of a bowl, that might be all right, then.

Warden: No, no, see! Everything works great. Life is good. Forget the bowl.

Serus: Never mind.

And on and on and on.... I read this and my life seems happier by comparison.

:rofl: hey at least it is entertaining!

 

[JASGripen]

I have written a couple (litterary) of books myself and I can tell you one thing out of my expericence of that and by my fellow writers that applies to the heart of creating games too: you don't finish a product, you abandon it.
That is, you as the creator will never achive quite what you wanted too, you can keep on forever as perfection always is out of hand, you have to say 'nuff is 'nuff at some point. Actually I don't see many "nasty" things left (except for industry ministers dont giving bonus on industry).

Enhanchement patching - as this patching buisness for PI is mostly about - is a boni, and I fully agree with Mac above (good post btw).

 

[unmerged(39280)]

:rofl:

 

[unmerged(11248)]

A few suggestions:
Build more IC before you get into a major conflict.
Invest in all your machine tool and supply techs, and make sure your infrastructure is healthy.
Craft your army to play to your enemy's weaknesses and use strategies and tactics which defeat them with a minimal of actual fighting, thereby reducing your need for reinforcements.
Push coming to shove? Sacrafice current production to make your reinforcement goals if they're that important.

Oh geez, why I didn't thought of that myself...

Really, have you tried to play a nation which gets engaged in peripherical warfare? When your resources are very limited, these problems I addressed manifest themselves much more acutely. If I only played Germany at 1936 scenario, I probably wouldn't whine about any of this...

Control of the upgrade process is certainly one of the legitimate and intended uses for prioritization...

Heck, prioritize your ETO units until they're upgraded and then prioritize your PTO units when they need reinforcement (after de-prioritizing your ETO troops, of course).

Yes, because enemies certainly are sportsmanlike enough not to initiate major fighting at two fronts at once...

 

[unmerged(17296)]

This is not directed at any one person. I want another patch myself to fix additional things but I really see most of what has been said here as going about it the exact wrong way. I appologize in advance for appearing to lecture and/or propose to tell any one how to behave here.

I have been playing 1.2 for less than 48 hours. Yes there are several things that still need repair, but OH MY GOD, how can you possibly have had time to expierience what has been fixed and how they affect game play?

Posting that the failure to add your button was your dissapointment of the patch seems very shallow and very whiney. Time and time again I am amazed that a large body of people are never satisfied here. Some gaming companies NEVER answer their emails or respond to posts in thier forums. If you want to pilory someone go after them. Not people who actually communicate with you and work with us, the customer base, to improve their product.

When a moderator posts that in effect (by not saying anything positive about the patch and only mentioning one thing that didn't get done which renders the patch a dissapointment) he takes it that you are saying the patch was crap, he is set upon immediatley and asked to appologize. Is it any wonder that when Johan comes on and says NO it is one sentence long?

Some people seem to think that Paradox is responsible to "Keep them informed." I think their responisbility stops after they supply you a working product. I think that the industry has varying standards for patching products and telling you when (if ever) they plan to do it. It is a shame that Paradox has set their own standard bar so high that people beat them with it.

Again, sorry to scold, but this complaint less than a week after a patch over one unimplemented feature, and several people jumping on board, is (in my mind) over the line. I am not saying we have to put up with whatever Paradox puts out, but is anyone grateful they put out the patch? Is anyone ever going to say "Hey you got this aspect just right?" instead of, "Despite you fixing this bug, I still find this, this and this to be things that should have been fixed too."

 

[Moltke]

All I can say is if you are disappointed with 1.2 then you didn't like HoI2 to begin with. The game was great before, it's better now, and it will be even more bad ass with any future changes. (unless they turn it into Victoria or something LMAO!)

 

[unmerged(13894)]

OK, I'm kind of confused here. The way I understand it, we don't have a "Don't Upgrade" button, because not upgrading is not in Paradox's vision of the game.

So is using the prioritise function and upgrade slider manipulation to do the same thing an exploit?

 

[unmerged(11148)]

no, what is not in PI's design was the choice to maintain obsolete units indefinitly.

 

[unmerged(39280)]

no, what is not in PI's design was the choice to maintain obsolete units indefinitly.

RCBricker - Not true, the point is - you CAN do it - with some effort and micromanagment (must i add that i mean no disrespect to Johann's decison?)

All I can say is if you are disappointed with 1.2 then you didn't like HoI2 to begin with. The game was great before, it's better now, and it will be even more bad ass with any future changes.

Weird logic imo.

This is not directed at any one person.

Probably it is not - but ill respond anyway

I have been playing 1.2 for less than 48 hours. Yes there are several things that still need repair, but OH MY GOD, how can you possibly have had time to expierience what has been fixed and how they affect game play?

Simple - look at the stickys made by Johan, there is a list of what has been fixed . In addition some features are obvious - y dont need 48 hours see if they are added or not.

and how they affect game play

- even simplier - a feature NOT added in 1.2 means the gameplay is the same as 1.1 in this aspect

Posting that the failure to add your button was your dissapointment of the patch seems very shallow and very whiney. Time and time again I am amazed that a large body of people are never satisfied here. Some gaming companies NEVER answer their emails or respond to posts in thier forums. If you want to pilory someone go after them. Not people who actually communicate with you and work with us, the customer base, to improve their product.

One could find your post "whiney and shallow" - the "disapointment" thing was just an opinion i never meant the entire patch being bad - i explained my point many times.

people are never satisfied here.

It lies in human nature. Personally i think we are not living on trees anymore because of it (a long time ago someone was "disapointed" about cold nights - and the fire was invented :rofl: )

Some people seem to think that Paradox is responsible to "Keep them informed." I think their responisbility stops after they supply you a working product. I think that the industry has varying standards for patching products and telling you when (if ever) they plan to do it. It is a shame that Paradox has set their own standard bar so high that people beat them with it.

The problem is often about definitions. In my opinion general standards of the gaming industry are VERY LOW. Paradox standards are much higher - its why the people are buying their games - imagine a situation when Paradox releases one of their games (like EU2 or HOI1) and NEVER makes a single patch - the result could be disastreous for them - probably bankrupcy.

I still think Paradix makes great games - and they are more customer's friendly than most (but they are not the ONLY one as some people are claiming) game's makers. But there is always the risk of DRIFTING in th wrong way - as the company grows bigger and bigger.

 

[unmerged(21640)]

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

That flies in the face of historical reality. Not all cavalry was motorized, many obsolescent and obsolete aircraft were flown after new models were introduced, etc. Not to mention tanks. Did the entire German army convert to Panthers when they were introduced? Were all Russian tanks T-34/85s? That is EXACTLY how the game should be intended to play.

 

[unmerged(2037)]

Please tell me that you are a developer of software of some kind, because if you are not then you are not qualified to make the above statement.

Being a developer myself, it has been my experience that it is usually the "seemingly small" changes that cause the most headache and are the longest to correct/implement in an already released product.

Corey

I am a developer of a software of a kind

Btw., note that Johan himself did not state it would take much time. He just said it is WAD.

 

[Dalwin]

First, let me say that there are a lot of good things in this patch and that it addresses the vast majority of my concerns with the game.

On the topic of debate for this thread, I think part of the problem is calling the item a do not upgrade button.

It should be thought of as a deprioritize button.

What folks are really asking for here is to have a three tier instead of two tier system for upgrades and reinforcements. I have trouble seeing how it could be against design philosophy if looked at this way. All units would still be in the queue for upgrades and reinforcements. No units would be perpetually maintaining obsolete equipment.

People just want more control over the queue and want to be able to make such adjustments in such a way that requires less micro management. This one is not a high priority for me but I can relate to their position.

One of my minor requests was also left out. I will not let it stop me from enjoying the rest of the patch, however. (I had hoped to see a figure for enemy convoy pool size so that uboat commanders would have some clue as to whether they were making headway.)