Disillusioned

[unmerged(2778)]

Originally posted by Bolt

So, my question is, what happened here? What got changed and when did it get changed? Was there a version change that got snuck in under the beta nose? How did that happen? Did some files get altered in the localization process? Do the NA and Scand versions play out the same?

I doubt that you'll get any answers for these questions because of the NDA. And I'm not so sure anything went so seriously wrong as you're implying. My guess is that all errors/bugs/issues weren't corrected, simply because time ran out on the developer, as it probably did with EU/EU2.

Originally posted by Bolt
Meantime, I'll do what I can to support the patch process because I really want this game to work.

A good decision IMO

 

[unmerged(6105)]

IMHO this (HOI 1.01 the first I played) was not worse than EU2 1.0 (NA version that I ordered). They have different flaws at the moment tough.

What I know!

1. I play the game in all my free time.

2. If I want a challenging AI I don't do stupid things myself and even better may play -39 scenario. playing -36 scenario and use their own knowledge to try to take over the world was not going to be that hard... I knew that before I bought the game really.

3. bugs make me start a new game.

What I don't know is when the game is hard to succed if I aim to exploit and conquer.

 

[cprofitt]

I am shocked by the people saying that playing a major is too easy. I started in '36 with Germany and didn't even make it to '38 before the damn Allies decided to attack me. The USA even decided to attack me DESPITE the fact that the French and English attacked me FIRST.

Anyway, as far as military goes I defeated France in about two months and installed Vichy. I now have the US and UK attempting amphibious landings all along the coast - and I have no Navy because I didn't have time to build it.

 

[unmerged(11962)]

Originally posted by offshoreman
The same mistakes that existed in EU/EU 2 have been repeated. The RTS format just doesn't work! I've requested this before and I request this again: please make HoI into a turn-based game or at least add this as an option for players.

I have to agree. Making EU/EU2/HOI an RTS game instead of what they should have been, turn-based strategy games, was an unforgiveable mistake of the highest level.

HOI should have been turn-based.

 

[mcicet]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
Sometimes the problem is that us betas don't remember which patches are on general release. There have been five beta patches since 1.01, all of which were addressing serious issues like the onces you described.

Yes these issues were noticed earlier but Paradox do not have unlimited Johan resources (BTW he also released a beta 1.06 for EU2).

At some point only relying on beta testing is not efficient. If you want the games that Paradox eventually deliver (EU1 1.10, EU2 1.05/6) then the public have to have an input. Judging when a game is good enough to satisfy the majority of the public and not too raw that it turns off a whole host of potential purchasers is between the distributors and Paradox.

A good example is minor power war mongering. It was picked up in beta but it didn't have a high priority because not many people would want to play the minors. Well that blew out of the window as soon as the public got their hands on the game. Whereas people accepted that minor nations could win in EU2 and this was down to "good play" many did not accept the fact that Argentina could take over South America or that Italy could win a desert war. It seems to me that compared to EU2 the majority of posters want a much more deterministic game for HoI. This can be done but it wasn't (IMHO) the starting premise for the 1936 campaign. If you want a more deterministic game, start in 1939

Things are being changed - the public response from the forums is essential for this BUT there won't be a blow by blow account of each beta patch screw up or failed idea because it's not productive

gosh derek have u slipped off a ladder & swallowed a harmonica.... cause you've sure changed your tune...

 

[unmerged(485)]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
[B.................................

A good example is minor power war mongering. It was picked up in beta but it didn't have a high priority because not many people would want to play the minors. ....................[/B]

Didn't anyone from Paradox read the "Who are you gonna play first?" thread? And all the other threads about how as _______________(insert favorite minor here) folks were going to kick _________ (insert least favorite major here) butt?

As far as limited Johan time...well that is a problem, but surely there are other less talented programmes who could do some of this. He is listed as LEAD PROGRAMMER meaning either there are other subordinate programmers for him to direct or he is heavy as lead (plumbium). Since the forum is print and not voice, we may never know.

 

[unmerged(12007)]

Originally posted by Cadorna
Basically, I have but one, for which it's a bit late now.
I also assume numerous people have suggested this, but Paradox refused to implement it: AI scripts.
Actual files, that can be modified by the users.
With IF-THEN-ELSE conditions, similar to the EUish event-files, but even more complex.
Then one could make AIs on its own, like it happened in, say the AoE community.
IF (War(Germany,France)) AND (DivisionCount()<x THEN
BuildAHelluvaLotOfTroops()
END IF

Why hasn't been introduced as early as with EU2 goes beyond me, but I assume Paradox refused to do it for some reason or the other. A shame, since this could further improve EU and would have made the whole AI discussion in HoI pointless.
Like in "We're incapable of doing it, so let the fans do it themselves instead". The IGC in EU, the EEP in EU2, it's been proven that the community is willing to do it's part in making Paradox' games great. So why not open up the AI for mods, too?

It seems to me you could create a core of about 30 different commands that would handle all AI functions, and then it would just be a matter of writing scripts. The AI "engine" would define and process commands. The scripts would be checked at variable times, as much as once per processing cycle, or every 1m cycle, whatever is appropriate for that script.

Edit : In fact, it seems to me that Paradox, with its experience, is perfectly poised to build the SQL of AI engines that they could sell to other gaming companies. I'll help with command definition.

 

[kullenius]

I fully agree with that the AI, and bad interface for most things really clouds this game. What I'm surpriced no one have said, is that the click/scroll orgie takes its toll. The main reason I play as minors is that I actually becomes so frustrated with the (lack of usable) interface. Hopefully this will be adressed in future patch - this Paradox have always shined on, but the game is going for the shelf for now.

EUI and II was in the beginning not the 1.10/1.05 product we have all come to love, but it was still very funny, and most playable even though CTD was frustrating - but HOI lacks that elements just because it is sooooo much involved in just every little step. For example:
Building 10.000 soldiers is 4 clicks in EU, but 10 divisions is 35 clicks in HOI! Then add all the other micro-management and... ARGH! I see them comming after me in there white robs!!!

 

[unmerged(2778)]

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
I have to agree. Making EU/EU2/HOI an RTS game instead of what they should have been, turn-based strategy games, was an unforgiveable mistake of the highest level.

HOI should have been turn-based.

"an unforgivable mistake"?? Hmm OK let's see. Here is EU2 as a turnbased strategy-game:

"1419 Turn 3: Brandenburg..."
10 minutes later
"1419 Turn 3: Novgorod..."
10 minutes later
"1419 Turn 3: Aztec Empire..."
6 hours later
"1420 Turn 1: Brandenburg..."


I like the RTS-concept. It gives a true sense of time passing by, day by day in EU/EU2, and hour by hour in HoI.

 

[unmerged(7156)]

Originally posted by Moonwalker
"an unforgivable mistake"?? Hmm OK let's see. Here is EU2 as a turnbased strategy-game:

"1419 Turn 3: Brandenburg..."
10 minutes later
"1419 Turn 3: Novgorod..."
10 minutes later
"1419 Turn 3: Aztec Empire..."
6 hours later
"1420 Turn 1: Brandenburg..."


I like the RTS-concept. It gives a true sense of time passing by, day by day in EU/EU2, and hour by hour in HoI.

Yagh.... bad memories of Civ 3, large map, after exploring the world. I could go for coffee breaks...

(Btw, I actually still enjoyed Civ3 and played it for about two months, but the turn lengths killed the joy in the end)

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by mcicet
gosh derek have u slipped off a ladder & swallowed a harmonica.... cause you've sure changed your tune...

From what to what????.

Hey just because beta testing has to involve some discretion and discipline it doesn't mean that we don't listen

The more we tested the more we all thought "this game could be even better if only we could do........" (insert favourite feature). I can imagine how the EU1 testers were feeling when they released the game now.

The game is probably twice as complex as EU 1 / 2 and there are still design decisions which alot of people don't like (tried doing a Pearl Harbour or Tarranto yet?). But it's still the best attempt at a WW2 simulation / grand strategy game. It's miles better than TOAW scenarios or Third Reich computer game. Strategic Command is not the same kind of game at all.

 

[State Machine]

Originally posted by Bolt
...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I assume the beta testers would have caught things like 9 out of 10 games resulting in general war including the US 3 years earlier than happened, like Italy overrunning East Africa, like AI failing to build ground units or prioritizing non-ground units, like practically zero CW/US invasions, like inane AI air unit behavior. I do assume all that would have been noticed from the get go.

...

I think someone else already answered this in a way. Just because something "bad" is in the game, does not mean the beta testers did not see and report it.

 

[BiB]

Actually this so called "open public betatesting" at least to me doesn't add much. All these issues are pretty much known already. Can't say I've seen a single big issue being brought up that surprised me. There's just a big gap between knowing them and fixing them.

 

[dsteve3]

Re: Re: What was I expecting?

Originally posted by egross
-*snip!*-

If you don't like convoy management in HOI, don't play WIF (staring at the board for 20 minutes, endlessly shuffling counters to try to stretch the supply chain *one* more zone . . . ARGH.)

HA! That's so funny! And there was just barely enough convoys - you had to sit and look at the sea areas, count them out, over and over -

"...across Indian Ocean to Suez, risk the Mediterranean, or go through Panama across the Pacific - too far, but then you can connect these others through there... " Repeat the nighmare when France falls (figure out Free French from Vichy holdings...)

- AARRGH! If anyone compares the convoy system in HoI to WiF again, I'll spew cardboard counters!!!

On topic? HoI has great, great potential, and its playable now. There are bugs (they'll be fixed) and events can be added to fix those parts of the AI that the programers can't fix directly.

Those that know EU/EU2 and know about how the AI uses paths knows how to beat the game. Maybe a little effort to NOT exploit these things would be more rewarding...

 

[unmerged(12258)]

Originally posted by ChasP
I am shocked by the people saying that playing a major is too easy. I started in '36 with Germany and didn't even make it to '38 before the damn Allies decided to attack me. The USA even decided to attack me DESPITE the fact that the French and English attacked me FIRST.

Anyway, as far as military goes I defeated France in about two months and installed Vichy. I now have the US and UK attempting amphibious landings all along the coast - and I have no Navy because I didn't have time to build it.

The AI seems to be better tweaked against Germany then other nations. Playing the hardest AI / Furious / 36 as yugoslavia I was able to :

36 : Take all the minor nations (minus turkey / poland / austria) in the area - 90 IC
38 : Take out Italy (it wasnt allied yet to germany and didn't rape me with amphib landings while all my troops were in italy proper) - 180 IC
39 - 42 : Go tech (armor / org) and take switz, vichy france, austria - 200 IC
43 : Attack Germany with 27 advanced medium tank 70mm divisions (I had better tanks, same org). I took Berlin and Paris within a month.

Problems I saw :

1. AI doesn't seem to use transports or launch attacks on unprotected areas if they are more than a province away. You can basically leave most areas unguarded while staging attacks.

I wasn't able to annex italy / greece as I couldn't build transports so they both has some troops and transports elsewhere. In the war against germany I totally abandoned any defense in these countries. Both italy and greece were literally one transport jump away from liberating both of their capitals. They never did this. My closest unit was 8+ provinces away.

2. AI doesn't know when to retreat when being 'cut off'. It's very easy to pin a very strong unit with a smaller army, cut off that force, and come in from behind; thereby destroying it.

3. AI doesn't seem to move it's leaders to where they are required. Berlin was guarded with a 3 skill leader (to my 8) while one of my starting cav units who was snatching up unprotected areas (taking paris) ran into a 10 skill leader leading two motor inf divisions nowhere near the real fighting.

4. AI pays no attention to rogue nations going berserk. I found fairly quickly that I could concentrate all my units on what I was attacking and needed no defense in other regions. AI could / should have taken advantage of this. Minor nations should band together or try allying. Yugoslavia taking romania / greece / chech / italy should raise some eyebrows.

5. Strange attacks. A lot of times the AI would attack a province along a front where there was a really good chance of it getting cut off and destroyed.

Good Things :

The AI seems to do a pretty good job managing it's troops along a front. Further then one province away it has problems.

Bugs I saw :

It seems that if you annex a country while you still have combats going, those units fighting vanish. -- This happened two times to me.

 

[unmerged(12215)]

Sliders

One thing mentioned waaaaayyyy back in the beginning is very valid. The sliders. Great idea, btu did you have to make them so hard to lock down where you want them? I swear there's a 2 pixel x 2 pixel area on the little slider where you can click and it doesn't move, and since I'm usually cutting it really close on the amounts, I spend 5 minutes...

<click click>
Gah! It moved under.
<unlock click click>
$%#%$@ Now it's too high.
<unlock click click>
Back under.
<ect ect>

would it have been so hard to make it so you can double click anywhere on the slider and lock it without it moving halfway down the bar? Or at least have an option to type in the number you want? Aside from the AI and features included but not working which we all have heard plenty about, this is the single most irritating thing I've found in the game.

 

[unmerged(12204)]

calm down plz

To all the whinners:

"Games are never finished, they are only published"

Ok?

You want the game to be great? Guess what? so does the publisher and the developpers.

You want to have fun with the game? Guess what? So do we.

Instead of whinning non-stop like 12 years old, be constructive on your feedback, and the game will get better as patches are released. The more constructive feedback you provide, the higher the chance for this to happen.

beta-test cannot catch all the bugs and play balance issue. surprised? and <gasp> developpers can't think of everything too.

 

[Soapy Frog]

Derek Pullem: The 1939 scenario does not yield in any way a more deterministic game... in fact the '39 scenario is totally unbalanced.

While it is nice to be able to do "what if" type things starting in 1936, the appeal to ME of having a grand strategic WW2 game is WW2... that is, '39 onwards.

If the '39 scenario is hosed (and I assure you it is) this puts a big crimp in my enjoyment of the game...

 

[Derek Pullem]

Originally posted by Soapy Frog
Derek Pullem: The 1939 scenario does not yield in any way a more deterministic game... in fact the '39 scenario is totally unbalanced.

While it is nice to be able to do "what if" type things starting in 1936, the appeal to ME of having a grand strategic WW2 game is WW2... that is, '39 onwards.

If the '39 scenario is hosed (and I assure you it is) this puts a big crimp in my enjoyment of the game...

Ah.....the piercing analysis of the general discussion forum. Come on Soapy, you are better than that. How is it flawed, how would you fix it? You had a good go at the EU 2 CRT which, whilst I didn't like it, was a valid alternative and gave an interesting game.

As many have said - you can sulk or you can help us make it better. Your choice.

 

[Soapy Frog]

Oh I've listed the improvement that could be made on countless other threads... I did not want to be accused of endlessly repeating myself (the moderators frown on it).

But since you ASKED!!!

1) I would boost the strength of the French army, org-wise
2) I would reduce the strength of Italian army, org-wise
3) I would boost the value of fortifications and alpine areas
4) I would slow movement rates across the board
5) I would elminate or severely limit strategic redeployment
6) I would tweak combat to take longer and be more susceptible to terrain, weather, and nighttime

This is in a nutshell. Fortunately a lot of this stuff is end-user moddable... I have not started to poke around TOO extensively yet since I'd like to see what the next patch brings, but I will undoubtedly be trying all of these things.

There are many other things which will obviously help. For example fixing the unlimited org damage that airstrikes can cause will be a big benefit considering the HUGE Axis airforce in the '39 scenario. Fixing the Soviet's inability to build new troops would also help a great deal...

BTW, my estimation that the '39 scenario is broken is not casual. I have run many hands off games to watch what happens, played both German and France to see what's possible and what's not, including several MP LAN games... so I am not simply talking through my hat.

Despite it's flaws I have already fallen in love with this game (with it's potential at any rate) and I WILL see it through!