Heart of Darkness Post-Mortem Dev Diary

[dz_duck]

I don't think this is really possible without implementing move = attack.

Not necessarily. Consider the implementation of stances, maybe "dig in" and "attack." When a unit set to "dig in" moves into an enemy province, it tries to dig in instead of engage in combat. If both sides are in the "dig in" stance, there is some low level of troop losses, and the two sides are on equal footing in the province. If one side switches its stance to "attack," that signifies a large-scale attack in that province that happens instantly.

Of course, if it's not done very intelligently, stances could become another source of micro hell.

 

[Beagá]

I´m totally against that. The system is already abstracted enough as it is. Before machine guns battles ended in days, it´s totally BS to have battles in 1836 lasting weeks and "move-attack". I´d rather see a system that works 90% time for the epoch, and fails 10% of the time, than the opposite.

Also, Victoria 2 battles represent "meat-grinders" MUCH better than HOI 3. By pouring reinforcements, a single battle can last months and have casualties compared to the historical WW1 battles like Verdun or the Somme. So I honestly fail to see the point of the move=attack system for this game. Why change what isn´t broken... Do you really want to have dozens of battles over hundreds of provinces and watching little green percentages as people do in HOI 3?

 

[unmerged(712097)]

I was wondering could there be alot more decisions for more countries added in as a part of me loves the little decisions you can undertake and the flavor they provide but outside the great powers they seem rather limited.

 

[unmerged(376721)]

I was wondering could there be alot more decisions for more countries added in as a part of me loves the little decisions you can undertake and the flavor they provide but outside the great powers they seem rather limited.

Yes! Even for GP it is quite boring after 1880. Not much event / decision at all.

 

[DrLulz]

Reception of Heart of Darkness has been really good! Victoria II is one of our smaller franchises but, Heart of Darkness was our highest day one seller expansion ever which makes me really happy!

I know this is going to sound like a sort of ungrateful "I want more" attitude, but since HoD was succesful does that mean that you will consider making even more expansions to this truly impressive game? Pretty please?

We wanted to try something a little different design wise for Heart of Darkness. Normally we pick something like 6-8 major features as the core of an expansion, this time I decided to instead pick 4 and make them larger. I think this worked really well

Damn straight, it worked well.

 

[FOARP]

I´d rather see a system that works 90% time for the epoch, and fails 10% of the time, than the opposite.

Which, funnily enough, is actually the situation we currently have - a system that fails to accurately model the way things were for the majority of the game-period. Battles already took place over the course of days along extended fronts dozens of miles long in 1870 (see the Battle of Sedan and the Siege of Paris), by the 1890-1900's the pattern was already set of battles that took a week or more to finish (e.g., The Battles of Paardeberg and the Tugela Heights), and fronts ~100 miles long were seen in the 1904-1905Russo-Japanese war.

Also, Victoria 2 battles represent "meat-grinders" MUCH better than HOI 3.

Are you kidding? "Meat grinder" battles did not typically result in one side being massacred by the other in a one-sided fashion, which is what normally happens in Vicky.

By pouring reinforcements, a single battle can last months and have casualties compared to the historical WW1 battles like Verdun or the Somme.

I must have missed the part of the battle of the Somme where the British soldiers took days to cross no-man's land, and then either retreated behind the German lines once they were beaten or got back to their own trenches to find that the Germans had occupied them whilst they were out. I must also have missed the bit where the Germans attacking Verdun simply moved a German super-stack right into the French defences and got massacred to little French loss.

So I honestly fail to see the point of the move=attack system for this game. Why change what isn´t broken... Do you really want to have dozens of battles over hundreds of provinces and watching little green percentages as people do in HOI 3?

Please explain in what way super-stacking at a single province in order to beat an enemy who is doing the same thing, only to have that enemy, once beaten, retreat behind your lines and occupy your territory, can be described as anything but deeply unrealistic and annoying? You seem to think that a move = attack system means implementing every single aspect of HOI3 when in fact all it means doing is implementing move = attack, a system that allows you to encircle and destroy the enemy just as the Prussians did the Austrians and the French at Koniggratz and Sedan (you know, in real life).

I'm not asking for HOI3's level of complexity, just for move = attack and a simple supply system. The game could only benefit from this.

 

[Riotkiller]

I prefer Victoria 2's level of abstraction militarily. HoI3 is such micromanagement hell that I play maybe once or twice a year because I have to be in a certain frame of mind to want to play it.

The retreating into enemy provinces is something I'd like to see fixed though.

 

[Orinsul]

The only military thing from HoI3 hat V2 could benefit from is automation.
Time spent completely overhauling V2s combat to make it movement based is time that could be spent on new political systems or other stuff which would benefit everyone.

 

[Beagá]

Which, funnily enough, is actually the situation we currently have - a system that fails to accurately model the way things were for the majority of the game-period. Battles already took place over the course of days along extended fronts dozens of miles long in 1870 (see the Battle of Sedan and the Siege of Paris), by the 1890-1900's the pattern was already set of battles that took a week or more to finish (e.g., The Battles of Paardeberg and the Tugela Heights), and fronts ~100 miles long were seen in the 1904-1905Russo-Japanese war.




Are you kidding? "Meat grinder" battles did not typically result in one side being massacred by the other in a one-sided fashion, which is what normally happens in Vicky.



I must have missed the part of the battle of the Somme where the British soldiers took days to cross no-man's land, and then either retreated behind the German lines once they were beaten or got back to their own trenches to find that the Germans had occupied them whilst they were out. I must also have missed the bit where the Germans attacking Verdun simply moved a German super-stack right into the French defences and got massacred to little French loss.

Please explain in what way super-stacking at a single province in order to beat an enemy who is doing the same thing, only to have that enemy, once beaten, retreat behind your lines and occupy your territory, can be described as anything but deeply unrealistic and annoying? You seem to think that a move = attack system means implementing every single aspect of HOI3 when in fact all it means doing is implementing move = attack, a system that allows you to encircle and destroy the enemy just as the Prussians did the Austrians and the French at Koniggratz and Sedan (you know, in real life).

You can already encircle and destroy armies. The problem is that the AI can´t. As for a Verdun style battles, first, the only chance of winning a battle in WW1 was with local superiority and having more reserves than the enemy, then beating the counter-attack. In game terms, it means that you must use a 80k stack to beat a 40k one and then have reserves to pour in once the enemy withdraws. Unless an absurd dice roll sequence happens, and the player is too stupid to not put artillery, what usually happens is that both sides take a beating (the attacker relatively morewhen machine guns exist) but wins and pushes the defender back. It isn´t "one side being massacred by the other in a one-side fashion", FFS. Talking here about player versus player situation, not versus AI.

Above all, the relatively small armies of the time before 1914 moved as a compact mass, not as a front. Thus, having divisions scattered among the front like in HOI 2 or3 is nonsense. They moved, fought in a compact area, not spread among provinces in such a wide front. If the game fails in dealing with retreating and defeated armies then change that particular problem.

 

[Flanker_SO]

I think political system could be improved with some changes.

• The idea of using leaders or something like those as heads of political parties sounds good.
• Some parties should be linked to political systems and also plurality, consciousness and militancy values. For example: playing with Spain, there are 2 republican parties which always appear in 1868. These parties historically appeared because the political situation was critical. I think these parties should just appear when the consciousness and militancy values are high. Also I think that if these parties won an election, the country should change the political system, to democracy in this case, and maybe cause a coup d'etat to return to old system.
• If against-system parties appear and increase their results in election then the pro-system parties should change their issues.

I'm sorry for my english

 

[Fiftypence]

Certain parties should only stand in their home region, like the Basque party in Spain, as well as eg specifically Catholic parties only getting votes from Catholic POPs. It's a bit silly when you get these little parties getting votes from the entire population and winning national elections.

 

[Orinsul]

Certain parties should only stand in their home region, like the Basque party in Spain, as well as eg specifically Catholic parties only getting votes from Catholic POPs. It's a bit silly when you get these little parties getting votes from the entire population and winning national elections.

V1 had culture and religion for parties which worked for that. only as there wasnt the co-alition system it was pointless. Now there is there also still should be.
Can't tell you how many mod ideas have fallen flat for the lack of it.

 

[FOARP]

You can already encircle and destroy armies. The problem is that the AI can´t. As for a Verdun style battles, first, the only chance of winning a battle in WW1 was with local superiority and having more reserves than the enemy, then beating the counter-attack. In game terms, it means that you must use a 80k stack to beat a 40k one and then have reserves to pour in once the enemy withdraws. Unless an absurd dice roll sequence happens, and the player is too stupid to not put artillery, what usually happens is that both sides take a beating (the attacker relatively morewhen machine guns exist) but wins and pushes the defender back. It isn´t "one side being massacred by the other in a one-side fashion", FFS. Talking here about player versus player situation, not versus AI.

Above all, the relatively small armies of the time before 1914 moved as a compact mass, not as a front. Thus, having divisions scattered among the front like in HOI 2 or3 is nonsense. They moved, fought in a compact area, not spread among provinces in such a wide front. If the game fails in dealing with retreating and defeated armies then change that particular problem.

You cannot encircle and destroy enemies in Vicky 2 - at most, you can get them ping-ponging between two or more armies until they disappear, which means each of these armies by itself must be capable of defeating the enemy. Attack from multiple sides and the result is not that the enemy is destroyed, but that, if the enemy loses the battle, they retreat into an unoccupied province - even if the province was one you attacked out of.

And the Russo-Japanese war, the Boer War etc. weren't "before 1914?". Please.

 

[chrism2012]

You cannot encircle and destroy enemies in Vicky 2.

You can actually encircle and annihilate attacking armies if troops are stationed in all adjacent regions; if the battle is lost the attacking army will be disbanded.

Unless they changed this in HoD (which I don't believe)...

 

[k-59]

You can actually encircle and annihilate attacking armies if troops are stationed in all adjacent regions; if the battle is lost the attacking army will be disbanded.

Unless they changed this in HoD (which I don't believe)...

It still works. However it does seem like the AI has gotten smarter about not committing all it's troops to huge battles that drag on and allow the player to encircle them.

 

[dz_duck]

It still works. However it does seem like the AI has gotten smarter about not committing all it's troops to huge battles that drag on and allow the player to encircle them.

In AHD, I've sometimes seen the AI retreat when I try to encircle it. Not sure if it's just a coincidence, or if the AI recognizes the impending encirclement.

 

[Beagá]

It still works. However it does seem like the AI has gotten smarter about not committing all it's troops to huge battles that drag on and allow the player to encircle them.

They also fall back if heavily spanked and got a very bad roll.

Also, armies can be instantly destroyed if Organization falls to zero in the first round of combat, IIRC.

 

[unmerged(624310)]

It still works. However it does seem like the AI has gotten smarter about not committing all it's troops to huge battles that drag on and allow the player to encircle them.

I've noticed they blob much much less, it makes for much more interesting wars, since the entirety of the war isn't going to be resolved by one doomstack battle. It also lets you sacrifice territory for tactical advantage. Let the enemy in, they start occupying, then start picking off smaller stacks. I managed to hold off a French Austrian alliance as the Ottomans very early game by doing that.

 

[The Zealot]

Victoria 2 is a fantastic game, and A House Divided really managed to improve the game.
However I didn't feel that Heart of Darkness was of much usefulness.

The Crisis system is a gambling feature. You have to say you're interested because you'll get a nasty prestige hit if you're not.
Then you see which side will give you the best odds of winning a war. For that you have to be one of the last to pick a side, and always after someone who's stronger or as strong as you. If you don't see a prey you can gang up on, you pass. If you still go for it, or worse, you are the first GP to side with a petition, you become the prey, and get devastated. How much sense does it make for you to have your country devastated because Albania wanted to become independent? None at all.
Multiplayer can exploit this even more.
So the Crysis system is a lot of fun if you're on the winning side, and it absolutely sucks if you're on the losing side. It sucks so bad that it's hard to find strength and continue to look after a devastated country. This is a game, not the "Weimar Republic simulator 2013"!

The improved naval system. I always run away from naval battles the best that I can. The AI is always faster than a human player and another human player doesn't have enough time to correctly counter a coming human naval fleet. In other words, the AI is always aware and the human players are never aware. I just want to deliver my troops to their destination and be done with it.


And one pet hate that still hasn't been fixed I don't know why.
When a country influences another and the pop-up shows up, you have the Go To button, which if you press it you have the map centering the screen on the GP which did the influencing. This is a completely useless feature. It should Go To the country that suffered the influence, so that you can counter that influence with some influence of your own. I have no interest in zooming into France after discrediting me in Egypt, I want to go straight to Egypt so that I can go to the Egyptian Diplomacy screen and counter-influence!

I also still struggle to understand the economy of the game. And there's still no connection between poverty and prestige. You can tax your people to death, they can have no money, no social services, and yet, somehow, you're more prestigious than other nations who provide better standards of living to their pops.
"Hey, they have secret ballots, free press and universal vote! Let's emigrate over there, vote conservative, and have none of our life needs met! And trade unions! It's the bee's knees!" (slight hint of sarcasm here)

And there's definitely a lot that can be learned from APD. They have a lot more decisions and event choices. It makes games much less repetitive and a lot more fun. Exploring new things is fun. Conquering the Xhosa as the UK by events is actually fun, because the imperialist in me wants to conquer them anyway, and it's only your pesky Infamy system that prevents me from carving the world my shade of pink! Mwahahacoffcoff.

 

[Kimberly]

ow much sense does it make for you to have your country devastated because Albania wanted to become independent? None at all.

It makes complete sense. You want Albania to become independent. The rest of the world disagrees. They suggest you drop the matter. You refuse the peaceful option and declare war. Well, now you have to put your money where your mouth is. The thing to understand about crises is that nothing stops you from giving up. If you're not willing to give up, then be willing to make war. If you don't want to be on the losing side of crises, always wait until one side is a clear winner, and risk the potential prestige penalty of the crises being resolved without you.