Ha, ok then. Not arguing your point at all. Was just confused about you saying it in response to my post. lol
-
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.
- Status
Ha, ok then. Not arguing your point at all. Was just confused about you saying it in response to my post. lol
-snip-
...I wasted money...
-snip-
I agree. Oh, not with the hysterical people with the original post. This is a great game. $40 and we have another strategy game with extreme longevity. This game will stay on my computer for a very long time.
People need to temper their expectations. Prices for games have been constant for what three decades, and for a game like this that last for years and years and that is good vanilla and even better modded, $40 is an extreme value.
...I wasted money...
-snip-
I agree. Oh, not with the hysterical people with the original post. This is a great game. $40 and we have another strategy game with extreme longevity. This game will stay on my computer for a very long time.
People need to temper their expectations. Prices for games have been constant for what three decades, and for a game like this that last for years and years and that is good vanilla and even better modded, $40 is an extreme value.
So you are saying youd rather have no game, than the situation right now ?
Goodbye HoI! (Long rant)
Caution: This is going to be a very long rant. It is unlikely you will find any ground breaking new discoveries in here. Most of the points I'm about to make have already been made by other people in other threads, most of them better written and more in-depth than mine. However, since Hearts of Iron is one of exactly two games that I'm still playing excessively (the other being WoW), I still feel I have to speak up and express my disappointment in HoI 3, even if I have little hope this post will be read by the devs, let alone to change their minds.
Let me start by quoting the general description of HoI 3 from its homepage:
“Hearts of Iron III (HOI 3) is a grand-scale strategy game designed by enthusiasts of World War II history, and focused on the military, political, economic and diplomatic interactions worldwide between 1936 - 1948. Every effort at maximizing both realism and playability has been made, and an excellent balance has been found.”
I disagree. More precisely, while I agree that HoI 3 is in many aspects more realistic than its predecessors, I think that its playability has suffered because of this, and there's all but an “excellent balance” between realism and playability.
Let's look at the major improvements – or rather: changes – to HoI 2. For me, the three things that stand out the most are the new chain of command system, the fragmentation of the world map in smaller provinces, and the increased flexibility in the scripting of historical events.
Starting with the last one, I do enjoy the added liberty in the flow of history. I felt that HoI 2 was too inflexible when confronted with an ahistorical development of WW2, and that many scripted events felt out of place. However, I can understand why many players, that expect a historical flow of events in HoI 3, are confused when Nationalist China enters an alliance with Vichy France (happened in one of my games) or when Finland joins the Allies and drags the SU into a war (happened too). It would have been nice to at least have the option to play a more historically correct version of the game. While scenarios starting at later stages of the war tend to be more closely aligned with history, that isn't really what these players are looking for.
Now for the world map: Yes, the added provinces allow fore more tactical and strategical freedom. However, it is now also a lot harder to cover all the important areas of the front, especially for smaller countries. In most engagements I've watched so far or took part in, there were huge gaps in the front line, and more often than not battles turned into encirclement/counter-encirclement movement fights. Also, landing operations often succeed completely unopposed, since it is nigh impossible to cover the whole coastline. Is this really realistic?
Now for the command system. Is it more realistic than in HoI 1 or 2? I think so. Does it add anything to the game? Is it more fun? Not in my opinion. There are merely a couple more units I have to take care of, that I'm dragging around behind the front line. In short, it's more work, not more fun. Attaching here, detaching there, checking this chain, checking that, checking range ... And once again, smaller countries are at a disadvantage, since they lack the leaders to create a strong chain of command. Why is it still not possible to raise new leaders? If I conquer South America as Argentina, why do I still only have a handful of commanders? With all the ahistorical developments, with all the added freedom, this is one part that's still way too close attached to history.
I understand that adding HQs was necessary to add AI controlled armies, fronts and theatres. But is that really what HoI veterans wanted? I, for my part, want to command my armies myself. After all, that's what this game is about! And after seeing what a horrible job the AI often does when you leave it to itself, I'm especially reluctant to put it in charge of my precious divisions.
Which leads me to the next part: the AI. I still can't say much about the production/research/intelligence AI but the tactical AI is a total disaster (at least the army AI, I'm still unsure about the navy and air force). It certainly had its flaws in HoI 1 and 2. The devs and many modders worked really hard to improve it, and after a couple of patches, it did a fairly good job. In HoI however, it's worse than ever. It is painful to watch it make mistake after mistake, leaving parts of the front undefended, neglecting whole theatres, moving armies on foot through half a continent instead of redeploying them, leaving supply points undefended, allowing encirclements ... the list is endless. I constantly have to restrain myself not to exploit the AI's many weaknesses.
To sum up my points so far: More historical freedom? I like it but I can see why many players don't. More provinces? Good, but has some drawbacks. Chain of command? Doesn't add anything to the game except work. The AI? Made of fail.
All in all, I don't find HoI 3 to be a better game than part 2. There are some improvements, yes, but in other parts, the game is really lacking. Some of these flaws will probably be fixed by patches, some are inherent in the design and can't be changed. To sum it up, I fear that the developers chose realism (or what they consider realism anyway) over playability in many ways. I hope they turn around for the next part of the series. Until then, I will probably continue playing HoI 2 – not part 3 (although I will give it another try in two or three months when we've had a couple of patches).
To conclude this post, here are a couple of random thoughts on various aspects of the game, both positive and negative:
- Overall: The game is lacking transparency in many aspects. Why is country A declining my trade proposal? Why is country B drifting towards the Axis? Why does country C not accept the military access I offer them? Why is unit D out of supply, when all the others surrounding it receive 100%? The game doesn't tell me.
- Overall: The message system is worse than in previous instalments of the series. Why do I get four warnings regarding the same air engagement?
- Air Missions: Did the mission setup really have to be that bloated? Cones? Really? In total though, air warfare seems to have improved a lot since HoI 2, especially since your bombers now don't insist any more on pounding the wrong darn area.
- World map: Way too many different overlays. Why can't I have weather, supply, and terrain at the same time? With a 3D map, that really shouldn't be a problem, technically. Also, the colours are hardly distinguishable. And don't get me started on cities in wrong places ...
- Screen resolution: Thanks for finally letting me play in my monitor's native resolution! High res and wide screen rock!
- Diplomacy: The alignment triangle is pretty useless when all the country flags are overlaying each other.
- Diplomacy: Why are there so many restrictions on what units I can license? Why can't I buy vanilla infantry? Speaking of that, where has tech sharing gone?
- Diplomacy: Thanks for making (some) historical events optional and flexible.
- Diplomacy: Thanks for limited wars and alliances!
- Production: Why do build orders given at the same date complete at different dates although they were fully funded the whole time? A day or two are acceptable (though annoying), a week isn't.
- Production: Auto-adjustment of the sliders doesn't work. I constantly have to check back.
- Warnings: Good idea but you should be able to turn off warnings (until the situation changes, then I'm happy to receive a new message). I don't have to be reminded constantly that I can introduce “more efficient” laws.
- Occupation policies: Thank you so much for adding these! Finally, I can make friends, not only enemies.
- Research: Why is there another theory level now? I have to research research? Why? Couldn't his have been implemented into the other techs like in HoI 1/2? This doesn't add anything to the game. And what's that with research decay? Who came up with that idea? Again, adds nothing – only confusion. All in all though, research has improved considerably.
- Interface: Where has the right-click menu disappeared to? You know, click on a province, chose diplomacy, intelligence ...
- Combat: Why won't the game tell me any more at what times the sun rises and sets? Or am I blind? I can't find it.
- Combat: Do I really have to put up with a command delay, just because my army was attacked by some lonely cavalry brigade?
- Espionage: Improved. A lot. I miss stealing blue prints though. Or is that possible and only hasn't happened to me before.
- RNG: Has been a problem since HoI 1. If you get a negative random event at the start of your game, better quit it and start a new one, because bad events tend to be followed by further bad events.
- Scenarios: A couple more would have been nice, especially some additional combat-only scenarios.
- Resources: Why's the stockpile limit so low? Didn't you increase it in HoI 2 because you said it was unrealistically low in HoI 1?
- Trading: Why is it only resources for money now? Where have resources for resources gone to? Where have the free shipments to allies gone (or are they still there and I just can't find them)?
- Tutorials: Really? This is the way you want to introduce newcomers to the game? Allow me to lol.
- Manual(s): A dedicated section for players of HoI 2 would have been nice, since I guess they make up the bulk of HoI 3's buyers.
That's all I can think of right now. If you read all of this ... a) thanks and b) don't you have anything better to do? ;-)
Now back to HoI 2 ...
Caution: This is going to be a very long rant. It is unlikely you will find any ground breaking new discoveries in here. Most of the points I'm about to make have already been made by other people in other threads, most of them better written and more in-depth than mine. However, since Hearts of Iron is one of exactly two games that I'm still playing excessively (the other being WoW), I still feel I have to speak up and express my disappointment in HoI 3, even if I have little hope this post will be read by the devs, let alone to change their minds.
Let me start by quoting the general description of HoI 3 from its homepage:
“Hearts of Iron III (HOI 3) is a grand-scale strategy game designed by enthusiasts of World War II history, and focused on the military, political, economic and diplomatic interactions worldwide between 1936 - 1948. Every effort at maximizing both realism and playability has been made, and an excellent balance has been found.”
I disagree. More precisely, while I agree that HoI 3 is in many aspects more realistic than its predecessors, I think that its playability has suffered because of this, and there's all but an “excellent balance” between realism and playability.
Let's look at the major improvements – or rather: changes – to HoI 2. For me, the three things that stand out the most are the new chain of command system, the fragmentation of the world map in smaller provinces, and the increased flexibility in the scripting of historical events.
Starting with the last one, I do enjoy the added liberty in the flow of history. I felt that HoI 2 was too inflexible when confronted with an ahistorical development of WW2, and that many scripted events felt out of place. However, I can understand why many players, that expect a historical flow of events in HoI 3, are confused when Nationalist China enters an alliance with Vichy France (happened in one of my games) or when Finland joins the Allies and drags the SU into a war (happened too). It would have been nice to at least have the option to play a more historically correct version of the game. While scenarios starting at later stages of the war tend to be more closely aligned with history, that isn't really what these players are looking for.
Now for the world map: Yes, the added provinces allow fore more tactical and strategical freedom. However, it is now also a lot harder to cover all the important areas of the front, especially for smaller countries. In most engagements I've watched so far or took part in, there were huge gaps in the front line, and more often than not battles turned into encirclement/counter-encirclement movement fights. Also, landing operations often succeed completely unopposed, since it is nigh impossible to cover the whole coastline. Is this really realistic?
Now for the command system. Is it more realistic than in HoI 1 or 2? I think so. Does it add anything to the game? Is it more fun? Not in my opinion. There are merely a couple more units I have to take care of, that I'm dragging around behind the front line. In short, it's more work, not more fun. Attaching here, detaching there, checking this chain, checking that, checking range ... And once again, smaller countries are at a disadvantage, since they lack the leaders to create a strong chain of command. Why is it still not possible to raise new leaders? If I conquer South America as Argentina, why do I still only have a handful of commanders? With all the ahistorical developments, with all the added freedom, this is one part that's still way too close attached to history.
I understand that adding HQs was necessary to add AI controlled armies, fronts and theatres. But is that really what HoI veterans wanted? I, for my part, want to command my armies myself. After all, that's what this game is about! And after seeing what a horrible job the AI often does when you leave it to itself, I'm especially reluctant to put it in charge of my precious divisions.
Which leads me to the next part: the AI. I still can't say much about the production/research/intelligence AI but the tactical AI is a total disaster (at least the army AI, I'm still unsure about the navy and air force). It certainly had its flaws in HoI 1 and 2. The devs and many modders worked really hard to improve it, and after a couple of patches, it did a fairly good job. In HoI however, it's worse than ever. It is painful to watch it make mistake after mistake, leaving parts of the front undefended, neglecting whole theatres, moving armies on foot through half a continent instead of redeploying them, leaving supply points undefended, allowing encirclements ... the list is endless. I constantly have to restrain myself not to exploit the AI's many weaknesses.
To sum up my points so far: More historical freedom? I like it but I can see why many players don't. More provinces? Good, but has some drawbacks. Chain of command? Doesn't add anything to the game except work. The AI? Made of fail.
All in all, I don't find HoI 3 to be a better game than part 2. There are some improvements, yes, but in other parts, the game is really lacking. Some of these flaws will probably be fixed by patches, some are inherent in the design and can't be changed. To sum it up, I fear that the developers chose realism (or what they consider realism anyway) over playability in many ways. I hope they turn around for the next part of the series. Until then, I will probably continue playing HoI 2 – not part 3 (although I will give it another try in two or three months when we've had a couple of patches).
To conclude this post, here are a couple of random thoughts on various aspects of the game, both positive and negative:
- Overall: The game is lacking transparency in many aspects. Why is country A declining my trade proposal? Why is country B drifting towards the Axis? Why does country C not accept the military access I offer them? Why is unit D out of supply, when all the others surrounding it receive 100%? The game doesn't tell me.
- Overall: The message system is worse than in previous instalments of the series. Why do I get four warnings regarding the same air engagement?
- Air Missions: Did the mission setup really have to be that bloated? Cones? Really? In total though, air warfare seems to have improved a lot since HoI 2, especially since your bombers now don't insist any more on pounding the wrong darn area.
- World map: Way too many different overlays. Why can't I have weather, supply, and terrain at the same time? With a 3D map, that really shouldn't be a problem, technically. Also, the colours are hardly distinguishable. And don't get me started on cities in wrong places ...
- Screen resolution: Thanks for finally letting me play in my monitor's native resolution! High res and wide screen rock!
- Diplomacy: The alignment triangle is pretty useless when all the country flags are overlaying each other.
- Diplomacy: Why are there so many restrictions on what units I can license? Why can't I buy vanilla infantry? Speaking of that, where has tech sharing gone?
- Diplomacy: Thanks for making (some) historical events optional and flexible.
- Diplomacy: Thanks for limited wars and alliances!
- Production: Why do build orders given at the same date complete at different dates although they were fully funded the whole time? A day or two are acceptable (though annoying), a week isn't.
- Production: Auto-adjustment of the sliders doesn't work. I constantly have to check back.
- Warnings: Good idea but you should be able to turn off warnings (until the situation changes, then I'm happy to receive a new message). I don't have to be reminded constantly that I can introduce “more efficient” laws.
- Occupation policies: Thank you so much for adding these! Finally, I can make friends, not only enemies.
- Research: Why is there another theory level now? I have to research research? Why? Couldn't his have been implemented into the other techs like in HoI 1/2? This doesn't add anything to the game. And what's that with research decay? Who came up with that idea? Again, adds nothing – only confusion. All in all though, research has improved considerably.
- Interface: Where has the right-click menu disappeared to? You know, click on a province, chose diplomacy, intelligence ...
- Combat: Why won't the game tell me any more at what times the sun rises and sets? Or am I blind? I can't find it.
- Combat: Do I really have to put up with a command delay, just because my army was attacked by some lonely cavalry brigade?
- Espionage: Improved. A lot. I miss stealing blue prints though. Or is that possible and only hasn't happened to me before.
- RNG: Has been a problem since HoI 1. If you get a negative random event at the start of your game, better quit it and start a new one, because bad events tend to be followed by further bad events.
- Scenarios: A couple more would have been nice, especially some additional combat-only scenarios.
- Resources: Why's the stockpile limit so low? Didn't you increase it in HoI 2 because you said it was unrealistically low in HoI 1?
- Trading: Why is it only resources for money now? Where have resources for resources gone to? Where have the free shipments to allies gone (or are they still there and I just can't find them)?
- Tutorials: Really? This is the way you want to introduce newcomers to the game? Allow me to lol.
- Manual(s): A dedicated section for players of HoI 2 would have been nice, since I guess they make up the bulk of HoI 3's buyers.
That's all I can think of right now. If you read all of this ... a) thanks and b) don't you have anything better to do? ;-)
Now back to HoI 2 ...
I think some sorf of Victoria like leader creation would be nice, playable, realistic, and generally fantastic
And about 10k provinces...interface improvement is a must, especially for infra improvement.
EDIT/ I though you could sent shipments to allies in exchange for debt?
And it's not a rant, it's very civil post.
I am getting so tired of these kinds of posts. Maybe this is a larger problem with the internet, where everyone feels entitled to a voice or whatever.
But the part I quote about is what really struck me as inane. Are you really complaining that the map is so large a smaller nation would have a hard time defending itself? How is that a problem? It is realistic. If you can only field an army of 300,000 soldiers, and you're in Bulgaria...well, you are going to have some issues. That's the way it works. How can you complain about it? One of the major issues that had to be abstracted were provinces in the previous game. Think back to HoI1 -- "Cleveland" was the entire state of Ohio. The entire state. How ridiculous is that? And not only is it odd, it is innacurate. Now, with all the provinces represented the map is far more detailed, and hence, yes, more difficult to control and defend. But that's the nature of war, of how it really happened.
I'm sorry, but if you want to go back to defending three provinces between the Soviet/German border before the Wermacht is at Moskva's door, be my guest. I, for one, would rather have the historical amount of land in-between. HoI3 is not perfect, but it is a giant leap forward from HoI2.
Ok, that's all.
lol sounds like somebody is making excuses to dislike every aspect of the game, instead of just disliking the game... oh well, "cya in a couple weeks"
Well there actually was a goodie in the release week (stickied in the forum) - it told a lot about Hoi3 from a Hoi2 veteran player perspective.
I think this guy has given a lot of thought to this and has made a lot of valid points.
I'm not ready to write off the entire hoi3 iteration, though. It seems like there has been some very bad implementation (autosliders, map, performance, ALL ASPECTS OF AI). But at the same time these things would appear to my untrained eye to be fixable.
I think in a year this will be a fantastic game. And people who whine and act all affronted by this need to understand that this is an extremely complex system with many interlocking dynamic factors. If you expect a small company like PI to be able to spend years beta-testing before release you are living in a fantasy world.
I'm not ready to write off the entire hoi3 iteration, though. It seems like there has been some very bad implementation (autosliders, map, performance, ALL ASPECTS OF AI). But at the same time these things would appear to my untrained eye to be fixable.
I think in a year this will be a fantastic game. And people who whine and act all affronted by this need to understand that this is an extremely complex system with many interlocking dynamic factors. If you expect a small company like PI to be able to spend years beta-testing before release you are living in a fantasy world.
Sorry couldnt read all of it well most of the last points as it was just way too long.
Tbh I am a little disapointed with HOI3, I think that paradox released it too early, due to it being at present unplayable for me, due to speed and CTD issues, I do think that once it is updated to 1.2 or more likely 1.3 it is going to be an excellent game tbh it already is much better imo than HOI2.
I also mostly play HOI EU and wow though I stopped the wow for the moment due to time issues but I really wouldnt be so negative regarding the game. I play HOI3 for a realistic WW2 experiance and I do believe that it does provide it in comparison to HOI2, and the ai is better than HOI2 was, where taking the UK or the US was far easier.
I do have a slight issue with the complexity of the divisions, but tbh with the ai being able to take control of several areas you can limit yourself to for instance only controlling specific corps. I just need to get into it.
Tbh I am a little disapointed with HOI3, I think that paradox released it too early, due to it being at present unplayable for me, due to speed and CTD issues, I do think that once it is updated to 1.2 or more likely 1.3 it is going to be an excellent game tbh it already is much better imo than HOI2.
I also mostly play HOI EU and wow though I stopped the wow for the moment due to time issues but I really wouldnt be so negative regarding the game. I play HOI3 for a realistic WW2 experiance and I do believe that it does provide it in comparison to HOI2, and the ai is better than HOI2 was, where taking the UK or the US was far easier.
I do have a slight issue with the complexity of the divisions, but tbh with the ai being able to take control of several areas you can limit yourself to for instance only controlling specific corps. I just need to get into it.
The attitude of 1 man (workload) is something completely different then the attitude of a company (quality). Also, obviously I can't know about the reasons they released the game in this state, I can only guess, which is what I'm doing. I did however get some clues about their attitude, mainly from pre-release map threads, which all got closed and sometimes featured a developer saying they can be "easily modded".
What else I want them to be doing right now? Nothing, they are patching up the game which is great, and no less then we might expect right now. I will praise Paradox on their costumer support when they perfect the game with even more patches after its playable. They probably will do that, and that's great, but right now I see patching more as something they HAVE to do then as a favor for us.
What I wanted to see them do however is release the game a few months later, when its actually ready for release.
Given the historical importance of Ohio, not at all. They should have left it as Terra Incognita...
The game scope is not unique, anyway. "Time of Wrath" has a similar amount of hexes only for the European theater, IIRC. So, I'm fine with the added provinces. The shapes of even the HoI2 provinces was not to my liking. Better have more and less oddness.
From my observation the AI has the tendency to align itself with one of the major factions too fast, leading to the extreme ahistorical behavior in the 1936 GC scenario.
Technically, this is mostly due to the fact, that AI nations give up their neutrality too willingly, and also fail to evaluate the existing threats correctly. Another reason is the influence mechanics, which allows the Allies to drag many minors to their faction, although the threat of Germany or the SU to them is very limited.
Although, I agree, that this is a serious issue, it can and will be balanced.
Sounds very realistic to me.
From my own observation a reserve division is sufficient to delay a landing operation long enough, until you are able to reinforce the landing area or organize a counter offensive.
However, I agree that naval invasion are currently too easy, as they only require common transport ships. IMHO, landing operations should require additional landing vessels, which should be built separately.
Well, it might be a matter of taste. But, I really love the new HQ system. Although, I agree, that smaller nations need more leaders to choose from.
I don't see the problem. If you want to control your armies yourself, you still can do. You even can play the whole game without using any AI assistance.
Why do care, if you want to control everything yourself?
As you say yourself, HoI 1 and 2 needed several patches to improve the AI. HoI 3 AI is a complete new toy, so give the developers the time to make the same improvements here as well.
Given the historical importance of Ohio, not at all. They should have left it as Terra Incognita...
Clearly you've never been to the great OH-IO. I feel sorry for you.
All kidding aside, I just used it to illustrate a point -- that the abstraction of a huge area like Ohio (which is, physically speaking, almost as large as Germany itself) is something they (the PI devs) def. worked out with more detail and logic in HoI3 than in any game previous to now.
So there.
Well thought out comments, and I agree with some, b ut I feel the criticism needs to be toned down.
1) Poor AI: yes, but Johan says that will be improved in the next patch, but don't expect miracles. perhaps the advertisement should have done like War in the Pacific -Admiral's Edition (yes I have it but haven't played much yet), and state that in the early stages at least, the game is more suitable for PvP play.The AI in a monster game will NEVER be able to match the skill of a human player, unless you give the AI hours to plan each move.
2)Chain of command: unlike you, I prefer to let the AI do most of the calculations, run the economy, and so on. I like to give orders at the Corps and Army command, but find the manipulation of every division mind-boggling for a big game like this. There is no reason while the AI should not be competent at least at the Corps level - it doesn't require that much brains to send 3 divisions after a province and organize the attack so that the attack comes from more than one province if possible, and to hold back some in reserve if stacking limits are an issue.
3) Leaders: perhaps it is too severe for small countries, but there is an option to increase leaders from the production menu is there not? Besides the lack or leaders is equivalent to having incompetent leaders is it not, since units can be left leaderless? After all, how many Guderians can Bolivia produce in a year?
4) It is clear that Paradox is expecting modders to program specific things for the game, such as alternate historical scenarios and realism mods.
In sum, if you think that the game is too easy and the AI too poor, perhaps you had unrealistic expectations snd perhaps you should stick to player vs player games. Another option is to play both sides like we used to do with boardgames - then you could complain about your opponent's poor play...
Henri
1) Poor AI: yes, but Johan says that will be improved in the next patch, but don't expect miracles. perhaps the advertisement should have done like War in the Pacific -Admiral's Edition (yes I have it but haven't played much yet), and state that in the early stages at least, the game is more suitable for PvP play.The AI in a monster game will NEVER be able to match the skill of a human player, unless you give the AI hours to plan each move.
2)Chain of command: unlike you, I prefer to let the AI do most of the calculations, run the economy, and so on. I like to give orders at the Corps and Army command, but find the manipulation of every division mind-boggling for a big game like this. There is no reason while the AI should not be competent at least at the Corps level - it doesn't require that much brains to send 3 divisions after a province and organize the attack so that the attack comes from more than one province if possible, and to hold back some in reserve if stacking limits are an issue.
3) Leaders: perhaps it is too severe for small countries, but there is an option to increase leaders from the production menu is there not? Besides the lack or leaders is equivalent to having incompetent leaders is it not, since units can be left leaderless? After all, how many Guderians can Bolivia produce in a year?
4) It is clear that Paradox is expecting modders to program specific things for the game, such as alternate historical scenarios and realism mods.
In sum, if you think that the game is too easy and the AI too poor, perhaps you had unrealistic expectations snd perhaps you should stick to player vs player games. Another option is to play both sides like we used to do with boardgames - then you could complain about your opponent's poor play...
Henri
- Status