Fundamental Errors

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by Hans
Well I didn't consider my post a 'flame.' Then again, I didn't call him 'anal retentive' either.

My point in my first post was that this thread ISN"T constructive. The poster's premise is that the game is broken and can't be fixed. If that is true, why even discuss ways to make it better? He hasn't even responded to this thread since it was started. He may have been more articulate in making his points, but when you get down to it he's no different than the 'This game sux' posters.

My definition of 'constructive' criticism is well thought out posts like the first one in this thread that include suggestions for improvement or at least a call for others to make suggestions. Anything else is just whining.

I feel that Alex's post is constructive and valid. After all, there are not all "bugs" but they are also plain game models that have been done poorly.

In fact, as was mentioned, there have been follow up comments such as the fact that there are even issues that negate the aspects of mobile units etc...

There must be debate here, so that the game can be refined and perhaps Paradox will one day publish a follow-up game "Gold Ed" or HOI2, or something with all the improvements, that go beyond just the patchs.

Lets hope.

-Jason

 

[unmerged(2368)]

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
I honestly believe all of these are legitimate and UNFORTUNATELY unfixable gripes. Personally I believed in PAradox to the very day I bought the game, and I was very dissapointed, so forgive my spelling and occasional rudeness. It's just that these decisions were made too early and can't be fixed now.

My point was (and is) that he didn't post this for any of the reasons you mentioned. I agree with several things he said, but the tone of the post was not constructive.

But this is silly, lets stop beating the dead horse and move on to other more constructive threads where solutions to these 'unfixable' problems can be debated.

 

[Utrecht]

I too have to ask what the purpose of this or other threads are? - while this one was certainly one of the more thought out responses - it still boils down to this game stinks!

I agree some of his points are valid - is he suggesting changes for HOI 2? Mabye - they are certainly good ones - but all that I get from his post is that the game is fubar....... I happen to disagree.

I will say that with 1.01 the game is not perfect (I too have reported numerous bugs) - now will 1.02 be the silver bullet that everyone hopes it will be - I doubt it - mabye by 1.04 it will be getting close - but overall I do not care.

I play HOI abot 10 hours a week - with family, work and other commitments I just don't have the time. But for those 10 hours I quite enjoy myself - fighting back the jerries in Belgium - realizing that I am about to get overwhelmed and pulling my 3rd Dunkique back to England - Deciding what is more important to me - researching 80mm Tank guns or building Assult Rifles - this is great fun!!!!

Will HOI 2 be a better game - abosolutely - after writing software is a learning experince - did some of the design decisions not work out quite how they hoped - probably - and given the opportunity Paradox will fix them - or not.

However, I do know that while these "weighty" decisions are being made - I will keep playing - and others will decide for themselves that HOI is just not for them - bully for them and bully for me. Hopefully we can see constructive posts and recommened design decisions to improve both the game and the HOI community.

 

[unmerged(2778)]

Originally posted by Hans

My definition of 'constructive' criticism is well thought out posts like the first one in this thread that include suggestions for improvement or at least a call for others to make suggestions. Anything else is just whining.

Does one who points out faults with a game, need to make suggestions to fix all these faults? No I don't think so.
Alex doesn't just say stuff like: "The trading system sux!", "The A.I. is weak!", "Why didn't they fix this!? That's stupid!" He clearly explains what and why he didn't like the game. Ok so he's a little harsh at times but he gives valid points. As long as he isn't beeing rude about it, then that's enough IMHO.

 

[unmerged(2178)]

Well said Alex, although I don't share your feelings that the game is unfixable. A few patches down and some good player mods should make it a much playable game than it is now. After spending 40 bucks I could barely afford on it I have to keep thinking that.

 

[ElPape]

Originally posted by DrVonCool
<snip>
He thought HOI was unbelievably fun. "Fun", I said? How can it be fun when the infrastructural rating of Kharkov is grossly underrated by at least 4 points!!! It's an outrageous distortion of history, I screamed!

His response: "Wha...?"
</snip>
Eternally yours,

DVC [/B]

LOL Ho man this resumes it all! DrVonCool My hat goes to you! I want to play this game and have fun, and that's what I'm doing (MP).

ElPape

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by ElPape
LOL Ho man this resumes it all! DrVonCool My hat goes to you! I want to play this game and have fun, and that's what I'm doing (MP).

ElPape

I think it is now very clear that game has problems that are far larger than this.

 

[dsteve3]

I wonder if supply could be re-worked?

Its interesting to note that there are situations where mech or armoured units move too slowly, say e.g. through marsh provs (there are still roads they could use), yet over a few provs, they move too quickly (supply would have problems keeping up).

If there was a system for calculating supply that took different variables into consideration through each prov it passed, this could rectify some of the problems. A prov which was taken by a mech or armoured unit, on a blitz attack, would have limited supply capability due to a lack of consolidation. After an inf unit held the prov for a month, then supply capacity would rise to normal. This could be exagerated for Russian provs to simulate reguaging rail.

A series of recently conquered provs would seriously hamper supplies, which could slow the unit, reduce their max org, thier strength, etc. This can also be used to represent the stretching of the german line. Also modifications to the Axis Minor AIs to prevent them from journeying farther than a single prov from their boarders, which is realistic. This is more useful as an optional mod, not everyone is going to want to go this route.

If you are really in need of a historical, detailed WWII war game, here's a link to the free d/l for the play by email Europa. The d/l has no AI, and there are no rules included (its free because you are supposed to buy the board game... but you don't need the board game to play it). No AI means no excuses!

http://www.microteam.fi/jet/

 

[ElPape]

Originally posted by Jason R
I think it is now very clear that game has problems that are far larger than this.

Hmm Yes.
CFS3 Has huge problems too, I uninstalled the game because IL2-Sturmovic is there to show me the light (with a Paradox-like support).

Now If I want to play a grand strategic WWII game my choices are Axis and Allies Iron Blitz edition or Hearts of Iron both have not so bright AI but my choice will be HoI, without doubt. And since this game is made by paradox it is bound to get better and better.

As someone else said it's a question of perspective. I, for one, am a computer gamer and I already played this game for a 50$ worth of time and fun (mostly multiplayer).

ElPape

 

[Darkrenown]

Great post, DVC!

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by ElPape
Hmm Yes.
CFS3 Has huge problems too, I uninstalled the game because IL2-Sturmovic is there to show me the light (with a Paradox-like support).

Now If I want to play a grand strategic WWII game my choices are Axis and Allies Iron Blitz edition or Hearts of Iron both have not so bright AI but my choice will be HoI, without doubt. And since this game is made by paradox it is bound to get better and better.

As someone else said it's a question of perspective. I, for one, am a computer gamer and I already played this game for a 50$ worth of time and fun (mostly multiplayer).

ElPape

I think that this is part of the problem. Not enough choice. If there were more games such as this in the market, I do not think we would even consider attempting to make up for the problems in the game.

 

[unmerged(2178)]

Originally posted by Jason R
I think that this is part of the problem. Not enough choice. If there were more games such as this in the market, I do not think we would even consider attempting to make up for the problems in the game.

But woudl there be a market? I think strategy has come to mean Warcraft or AoE type games, wherein you build masses of units and rush enemy bases until one side or the other runs out of resources. How much of the game buying public would want to bother with supply lines, economic policies, and the kind of political options available in HoI?

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by Wagnaard
But woudl there be a market? I think strategy has come to mean Warcraft or AoE type games, wherein you build masses of units and rush enemy bases until one side or the other runs out of resources. How much of the game buying public would want to bother with supply lines, economic policies, and the kind of political options available in HoI?

There ia always a "market," even for small plastic Trees that glow and sing songs. The question is, what is that market.

Your point is that the market is very small, and I agree with you. That is why there is not much out there in the way of great Strat games based on this subject.

As a result, often, we (the small group that we are) will take what comes along, as long as it sort of fits our game-taste, despite the problems with the product.

 

[unmerged(2178)]

Originally posted by Jason R
There ia always a "market," even for small plastic Trees that glow and sing songs. The question is, what is that market.

Your point is that the market is very small, and I agree with you. That is why there is not much out there in the way of great Strat games based on this subject.

As a result, often, we (the small group that we are) will take what comes along, as long as it sort of fits our game-taste, despite the problems with the product.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't see many companies putting the time into a product as complex as HoI without a great demand.

 

[mgreen48]

I know both sides of the argument and I know of all the problems with HOI and I expect that they will be patched up and fixed. The basic idea of HOI is really good but alas I must be honest:

It does feel like EU with World War Two units.

The EU system is present in the game that is a given, however it does seem like there is too much EU and it functions and plays too much like EU. It does not have that World War II feel to it.

How to fix this problem??? I have really no idea right now.

 

[unmerged(3902)]

I think the deeper problem is that the EU system was:

A) Really only good at modelling land combat
B) Dependent on attrition and fortifications to slow down combat and prevent players from massing huge forces in single provinces.

HOI introduces aircraft and a dramtically reworked naval model, neither of which seem to work well, and does away with attrition, leading to so rather interesting operational dispositions.

I just don't think the EU system can be made to model WW II well, even if they patch the heck out of it.

Who knows though, maybe the next one will be the Rise of Rome or some such. I think it'd work quite well there...

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by pcasey
I think the deeper problem is that the EU system was:

A) Really only good at modelling land combat
B) Dependent on attrition and fortifications to slow down combat and prevent players from massing huge forces in single provinces.

HOI introduces aircraft and a dramtically reworked naval model, neither of which seem to work well, and does away with attrition, leading to so rather interesting operational dispositions.

I just don't think the EU system can be made to model WW II well, even if they patch the heck out of it.

Who knows though, maybe the next one will be the Rise of Rome or some such. I think it'd work quite well there...

I agree with much of what you have stated here. I also think that you are right about the system being good for a "Rise of Rome" type game. Who knows, perhaps.

 

[Sabotage]

I totally agree with the things Alex points out, except he doesnt really touch the main problem with this game. The AI. Or the lack of one! As the game stands now, this is probably going to be my last game of HoI until the AI gets patched up to a point where its a challenge. I'm not saying it would be easy to do, but my fingers are crossed!!!

This screenshot is from my 4th (and for the time being, last) game of HoI. I picked Hungary, to get some kind of challenge out of it, max difficulty, max aggression. Stayed out of Axis until 1942. (When I was finished with Turkey to get the french/UK parts of the middle east).

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[Alexander Seil]

Counter-rebuttal

I have a little clarification for my post here. My intention was not to say that "Game sucks" as many of you have assumed. I don't play Quake 3 or UT, but it doesn't mean that I think that "game sucks". This is, after all, a forum dedicated to at least in theory a very realistic game, whose realism was unfortunately screwed up by several poorly made decisions. Hence, I think it is valid for me to post what I think these points are, I mean, we have a discussion, not a worship forum, right? While for you game doesn't "suck" it does for some people. Not even for me, I can't just say game sucks because game was a genuine attempt at doing its' thing, which failed. But there are people out there and people on this forum who after reading about situation as it stands right now decided against buying the game. However, while I don't think that "Game sucks", I simply don't get my wargaming enjoyment out of it. I don't share anyone's optimism about 1.02- there are limits to what and when you can patch, Paradox aren't gods. AI never gets fixed in any game and barely anyone gets it right...Sheer complexity of the military aspect of the game could easily make up for it(with decent supply system Finns wouldn't be marching to Moscow). Also, in reply to several other comments about my intentions. I don't see a reason to post this in enhancements forum because quite frankly I could also ask for 3D tactical battles- much of this stuff will never get fixed because it would be easier to make the game over again.

And to DVC's post, specifically: Right, I can't name such game except WifPC but that is months away. But there are numerous wargames out there that simulate the MILITARY OPERATIONS themselves more accurately than HoI. This is a historical game, a grand-operational wargame at that. What is the use of playing any country in the game if quite frankly, no one would play Ecuador for a long time, only a limited number of countries are playable or interesting, plus Brazil can conquer half of the world. I mean, it's not playing BRAZIL. It's playing a surrogate overpowered nation that is called Brazil to call up associations in gamer's mind (sorry if I was blunt here). Fuller diplomacy model. Yes, I agree with that, diplomatic part is good, but don't forget that game is focused on war, and on WW2 at that. Technology tree, economy, all right, yes. They are huge detailed and have their effect. But what is historically accurate and detailed tech tree worth when such a simple thing as lenght of the Eastern Front is left out? Or military commanders....quite frankly most of them are the same people with different skill levels. You have pool of lvl4 commanders, lvl3, etc. with different names and a pic. Nothing really spectacular especially in the light of certain other decisions that Paradox has made. Changing weather is implemented in quite a few wargames and WifPC has it, btw, no offense to PAradox but effects of weather should be far more significant. What is economy in HoI worth, as long as we are talking of HoI the grand-operational wargame, if it's done basing on a wrong concept that Japan could buy oil all it wanted through 3rd party middlemen. I mean, if they could do that, why bother starting a war they knew they would have slim chances at winning. Finally, the supply system. Traceable and NUMERICAL supply is such a common feature in all wargames it isn't funny. And HoI's competitor WifPC has it. Sure, it's months, but so is HoI2...

Thanks for attention and forgive for any offenses made.

 

[unmerged(5067)]

No offense taken, Alexander. Your posts are interesting and your criticism is constructive - not 'whining'.

On the other hand, and so that non- or potential players have a more complete view of the situation, it is natural that some of us defend HOI:
1- Paradox will patch and improve the game (but can not redesign the game engine, admittedly), so the AI will certainly improve.

2- Unlike you, I enjoy the game in spite of its flaws. You seem to want to 'redo the war', while I rather want to completely 'rewrite history'. Paradox wants to cater to the two categories of customers, which is difficult - but they need the customers because they need the money, and they need the money to live and develop new games. Including, hopefully, Hoi 2.

3- This is arguably the best 'grand strategy' game on the market right now. If we lived in the 1900s, we would be happy to drive slow, uncomfortable cars - now it would just suck. But they were relatively good - and relatively to the games market, Hoi is good.

4- You claim that the lack of historicity and realism of the game on a few points completely wastes your game experience. Right, supply and trade are poor in Hoi. Then, play it like Eu2! If it's so easy to conquer the world even with Tannu Tuva, then you can see it as a toy, not a challenge. I never liked world conquest in EU2 - when you manage to build a small empire, nothing can stop you - but rather 'historical fiction'. There's a lot to do with Hoi in that field.

Anyway, thank you for your posts - because I am confident that Paradox will read it and use it if not in Hoi, then in its future games.