Historical flavour vs. freedom of action - an easy approach

[unmerged(135152)]

To be fair though, some of the better mods have taken care of many of these problems such as Brazil building a carrier fleet or LUX building armor divisions and yet have retained the event based system. For example if you load up Bulgaria with CORE2 you get a country with like 3 usable IC and such poor tech that your likely going to have to temper your ambitions to somewhat plausable pursuits. In vanilla, these type of issues are far more related to Paradox giving unrealistic starting assets to nations as well as shortened build times more then any specific AI philosophy.

Issues such as the political effect of Venezuela trading oil to Germany without US intervention are simply a limitation of the engine otherwise I am sure those kind of oddities would have been accounted for. I do believe the AI has preferred trading partners and such which many mods have altered to make these situations at least very costly.

I suppose part of the issue relates to how one perceives their role as a player. I've always thought of the player as more of a muse, soul, or anthropomorphized will of the nation rather then a chief executive. Thus the physical historical limitations of, for example, German Carrier doctrine should be imposed, but its OK that Goring provides the planes needed to commission the Graf Zepplin because you are the muse whispering in his ear.

All very true.

Most of the mods for HOI2 (CORE, TRP and whatnot) really nerf all the ridiculously high levels of IC for minor nations (5IC Yemen FTW!). However the thing that most people end up bitching about these mods is just how very little there is to do when playing a minor (What do you mean I can't conquer the world as Sweden!?). I can only imagine what would happen if Paradox started to make things historical and realistic akin to CORE2. It would render the "Play as any nation you want" totally useless and lead to a number of "Finnish army defeated the Russians in the winter war and I think that they should have five tech teams and 604589 IC to better represent this" - threads. The fact is, quite bluntly, that if you are going to have a game of realism where the world map is your playground, countries like Finland will be boring to play. And since most people want to play these nations for some odd reason, Paradox simply has to make them interesting and allow them to build fighter squadrons and tank divisions, no matter how unrealistic and ahistorical it may be. As such, even though sometimes I would like it to be, HOI3 will not be a historical simulation. There will be a number of modifications to make it more historical and more realistic, but the vanilla game will be anything but.

In a way a historical simulation would be quite nice to have, but considering how it could only be played by a handful of nations (US, UK, USSR, Japan, Germany and Italy) and how the ultimate realism of the game would render things to go pretty much historically, there would be quite little for the player to do. Especially if you consider that to attain absolute realism you wouldn't be leading your armies yourself, but rather army groups to whom you would give objectives and whatnot. The level of abstraction, combined with the consequences of your actions would make for quite a punishing and sadomasochistic experience. Then again at the same time if you did accomplish something in the game (Making Franco join the axis), it would be far more rewarding than HOI2/3 will ever be.

But on the subject of Paradox games, knowing how they are based on board games and whatnot, one simply has to accept the unrealism and game balancing aspects. In a way it makes sense if you assume that "will of the nation" role (Which would explain how you can change your government form without political resistance for example). But what oddities remain, one must learn to accept as fiction, lovable and enjoyable fiction with historical elements, but fiction nonetheless.

 

[unmerged(81995)]

1.If you want reality no-one will be able to do anything (Germany can go wild and declare war on Switzerland in 1940, but that's about it).
2.Paradox Interactive has a history of making games where pretty much anything is possible.
3.HOI3 is marketed as a game, not as a history colouring book.
4.The game will follow some historical and logical realism but only as secondary to gamer's enjoyment.

Thank you . Each argument used augments my initial request. I did NOT want to prevent players from anything at all. I simply wanted to provide players with a sense for history a game that serves them as well. And thus the request for a choice at games start.

Please note that I required the historical game to be (hardcoded) limiting for countries. In the "historical" game I want the countries to be pretty much limited for choices they HAD in RL. Which e.g. for Germany after Vichy means the choice between a Great Britain strategy (Sealion and Mediterrenean) or a Soviet strategy (Barabarossa). Or for the USA no (NO) possibility to intervene a bit before 1940, no (NO) possibility to join Allies before being attacked by Japan and/or Germany. Or for the Soviet Union NO possibility to be aggressive except for the opportunities provided by the non aggression pact with Germany OR its planned build up finish (new equipment and such) before 1943.

All of that could be easily implemented IF the players get the choice between history and fantasy. Only downside in fantasy is a limitation in historical events, which makes sense under such boundary conditions.

Regards,

Thorsten

 

[unmerged(81995)]

HoI2 is not a game where you can conquer the world as Estonia and finish Barbarossa with nothing but HQs.

Unfortunately you can. The second issue is proven by an AAR, the first one I don´t know, haven´t gone through all of the AARs. If it´s not done yet I will give it a try. Anyone to bet I will NOT make it until 1953 )))))?

Regards,

Thorsten

 

[Mierin]

All very true.

Most of the mods for HOI2 (CORE, TRP and whatnot) really nerf all the ridiculously high levels of IC for minor nations (5IC Yemen FTW!). However the thing that most people end up bitching about these mods is just how very little there is to do when playing a minor (What do you mean I can't conquer the world as Sweden!?). I can only imagine what would happen if Paradox started to make things historical and realistic akin to CORE2. It would render the "Play as any nation you want" totally useless and lead to a number of "Finnish army defeated the Russians in the winter war and I think that they should have five tech teams and 604589 IC to better represent this" - threads. The fact is, quite bluntly, that if you are going to have a game of realism where the world map is your playground, countries like Finland will be boring to play. And since most people want to play these nations for some odd reason, Paradox simply has to make them interesting and allow them to build fighter squadrons and tank divisions, no matter how unrealistic and ahistorical it may be. As such, even though sometimes I would like it to be, HOI3 will not be a historical simulation. There will be a number of modifications to make it more historical and more realistic, but the vanilla game will be anything but.

Good points =)
I do have to admit though that I do enjoy a good game as a minor, just with limited goals. IE with Finland, its not about how long until we reach Moscow, but rather can we capture Murmansk before the Viipuri line fails (probably not hehe)!

 

[unmerged(123225)]

Of course it shouldn't. But, geez... Okay one last example (quite a famous one): A fascist Argentina.

In HOI2 (Most likely in HOI3 once people what to do) you can join the axis around 1936-37. After that you build your IC, leave/join your alliance and conquer some of the neighoburing states (You have the threat of the GOI from the US but you get away with some wars). By the time the European war begins you snatch Brazil and the French, English and Dutch colonies, start building an army capable of keeping the American invasion at bay and focus on conquering the remaining countries (most notably Venezuela for the oil). By the end of the game you should be industrially at par with most majors.

Now what would happen in reality? The Argentine economy was heavily focused on agriculture, it didn't have a notable army and in general it was extremely tied to the Western allies (It became one of the most important suppliers of foodstuffs to the allies). The Argentinian fleet consisted of vessels constructed by the English. Had the Argentinians shown any sign of joining the axis allegiance, not only would the British and Americans have intervened (Good old chums at the secret service), they would have embargoed the country leaving it in a destabilized mess and the diminishing Argentinian army would have been turned against it's own rebelling citizens.

There simply was no window of opportunity for the Argentinians to join the axis alliance. It was so because of the economy, the geopolitical location and a number of other things. None of these could be realistically affected by the player(s) in such a short duration of time.

What is your point? Game should be unrealistic because it gets in the way of your war plans? Why should America stand still and let Argentina run wild without any consequences?

My point, quite simply is this:

1.If you want reality no-one will be able to do anything (Germany can go wild and declare war on Switzerland in 1940, but that's about it).
2.Paradox Interactive has a history of making games where pretty much anything is possible.
3.HOI3 is marketed as a game, not as a history colouring book.
4.The game will follow some historical and logical realism but only as secondary to gamer's enjoyment.

1. I don't know exactly what reality you're talking about but you should and you can do almost every wild thing in the game, I'm just saying that you should and will face consequences for it.
2. The possibilities you get have more to do with the limitations of the game rather than design. If you can do crazy things that is not possible in reality then something is wrong with the game.
3. HoI3 is a strategy game based on WWII, not a fantasy game.
4. I guess this is up to the player, but in my opinion the game should at least follow 'logical realism' above anything else within the developer's capabilities.

If the game was realistic the axis couldn't win, ever, and that's just as simple as that. If the game was realistic you couldn't take over Leningrad, a city with the population of 3 million, just by sending in a half-dead panzer division. I mean, really, I just find it so hard to believe that someone can argue that HOI2 would resemble history or realism in any way.

It's arguable, but Axis should be able to win with proper decision making and lots of luck no matter how realistic the game is. What's so hard to believe about taking over Leningrad? If HoI2 is not based on history or realism what is it based on? Some fictional movie?

I'll go easy on you, tell me how on Earth could a country like Luxemburg field a tank division between 1936-39 and I agree that on some level HOI2 is realistic.

Sorry, I never played Luxembeug. But I'm sure it's possible if you really tried, just extremely difficult and unplausible.

 

[Cardus]

I fully agree with Cidal, if you would like to try implausible things you can still cheat by changing the save game.

 

[unmerged(135152)]

I don't get the feel that you get me so to speak. I am not saying that there should be no consequences in the game. What I am saying is that considering how free-to-play and unrealistic HOI2 is (Although you refuse to believe that), HOI3 will most likely not be the most realistic thing ever. To quote myself:

HOI2 is a game where you can conquer the world as Estonia or finish operation Barbarossa with nothing but HQ units. I don't expect HOI3 to be much different. It isn't historical or realistic, not by a long shot. I would like it to be more so, but I fear it won't happen. And instead of pretending that this isn't true and adding events that "further add a realistic feel to things when your plasma-rifled paratroopers take over Leningrad", I would like the good people at Paradox to rather concentrate on making the game engine balanced, challenging and somewhat more realistic.

Now unless you can come up with some really convincing examples of how HOI2 portrays reality in any way whatsoever (You can start by explaining me how it is possible for real-life Luxemburg to construct an armoured division between 1936-39), I consider this discussion to be rather fruitless, with the lot of you taking the stance of "You just want to cheat and get away with it". HOI2 isn't realistic, period. HOI3 will not be realistic, period. Pretending that this isn't true is caused by misconceptions of either HOI or reality.

 

[Cardus]

I don't get the feel that you get me so to speak. I am not saying that there should be no consequences in the game. What I am saying is that considering how free-to-play and unrealistic HOI2 is (Although you refuse to believe that), HOI3 will most likely not be the most realistic thing ever. To quote myself:

Now unless you can come up with some really convincing examples of how HOI2 portrays reality in any way whatsoever (You can start by explaining me how it is possible for real-life Luxemburg to construct an armoured division between 1936-39), I consider this discussion to be rather fruitless, with the lot of you taking the stance of "You just want to cheat and get away with it". HOI2 isn't realistic, period. HOI3 will not be realistic, period. Pretending that this isn't true is caused by misconceptions of either HOI or reality.

Hi Fluffammable,

I think that there is a miserunderstanding about the word "realistic". If you interpret it in the sense that HOI is able to reproduce exactly the reality how it was in the WWII it is clear to me that HOI is not realistic. If you interpret realistic in the sense that HOI is a good model that has a sound approximation of the WWII then HOI is realistic. Obviously a model is not the reality but the somebody (like myself, please see below my signature) believes that is a lot of fun and challenge to approximate the history as much as it is possible.

PS
With the time the model may improve so some "oddity"/implausibility can be removed.

 

[unmerged(58541)]

I personally prefer freedom of action.One would argue that this make the game uninteresting though i think its the other way around.I tried mod 33 and i got frustrated by the sh**loads of events that dictated evry aspect of the game.I felt like puppet of some mason inner circle.I never play mod34 for almost the same reasons,there you have a Fu**ton of useless events which produce dissent all the time,your research gets sabotages 1/3 ot the time etc.Events sux.They should be used only for really important stuff like peace treaties or Anshluss type of things

 

[Cardus]

I personally prefer freedom of action.One would argue that this make the game uninteresting though i think its the other way around.I tried mod 33 and i got frustrated by the sh**loads of events that dictated evry aspect of the game.I felt like puppet of some mason inner circle.I never play mod34 for almost the same reasons,there you have a Fu**ton of useless events which produce dissent all the time,your research gets sabotages 1/3 ot the time etc.Events sux.They should be used only for really important stuff like peace treaties or Anshluss type of things

The feel free to delete the events you deem are not relevant to you...

 

[unmerged(135152)]

The feel free to delete the events you deem are not relevant to you...

I can only reply with:

Having any historic events in the game inevitably makes the engine worse, period. If like in HOI2 the engine doesn't have any other way of telling when you've been able to surprise your enemy except if you are playing Japan and it happens to be 1941-42 and you've just declared a war on the US, it is not much of an engine now is it?

It is much easier to make a mod that has historic events than it is for a modder to completely redesign the game.

 

[Cardus]

It is much easier to make a mod that has historic events than it is for a modder to completely redesign the game.

And then?

 

[unmerged(123225)]

I don't get the feel that you get me so to speak. I am not saying that there should be no consequences in the game. What I am saying is that considering how free-to-play and unrealistic HOI2 is (Although you refuse to believe that), HOI3 will most likely not be the most realistic thing ever. To quote myself:

HOI2 is a game where you can conquer the world as Estonia or finish operation Barbarossa with nothing but HQ units. I don't expect HOI3 to be much different. It isn't historical or realistic, not by a long shot. I would like it to be more so, but I fear it won't happen. And instead of pretending that this isn't true and adding events that "further add a realistic feel to things when your plasma-rifled paratroopers take over Leningrad", I would like the good people at Paradox to rather concentrate on making the game engine balanced, challenging and somewhat more realistic.

Now unless you can come up with some really convincing examples of how HOI2 portrays reality in any way whatsoever (You can start by explaining me how it is possible for real-life Luxemburg to construct an armoured division between 1936-39), I consider this discussion to be rather fruitless, with the lot of you taking the stance of "You just want to cheat and get away with it". HOI2 isn't realistic, period. HOI3 will not be realistic, period. Pretending that this isn't true is caused by misconceptions of either HOI or reality.

I get you, you just have the wrong idea that's all.

HoI is a game and there is no way it's going to reflect all the realities of WW2 and I never said that it did. But it is based on WW2, which you may or may not know was a history and a reality. You keep asking how HoI is based on reality, but like I asked before, if HoI is not based on reality then what is it based on? Answer that.

You keep saying that HoI2 is a game where you can conquer the world as Estonia but at the same time you say: 'I am not saying that there should be no consequences in the game.' Not only is it near impossible to conquer the world as Estonia to start with, but in the process of it you will face consequences that will make it impossible for you to conquer the world. And IF it is somehow possible it's not because it was intentionally made that way but because of the limitations of the game.

And I already gave your answer on Luxemberg: they can if they really want to, so what?
It's rather 'fruitless' to keep asking the same questions when I keep giving the answers no?

 

[unmerged(135152)]

Sigh...

You keep asking how HoI is based on reality, but like I asked before, if HoI is not based on reality then what is it based on? Answer that.

HOI2 is based on a massive number of things. Amongst them is reality (or recorded history of it). Other's include the board game Europa Universalis, other video games, movies, books and a number of other things. The question is not really what the whole thing is based on, but what it thrives to be. A simulation? See the developers diaries for reference and you will see that they are trying to make a GAME. They toss around phrases like "historical plausibility/realism", but like I said HOI and HOI2 were marketed with the same phrases and they are anything but realistic (Though you still seem to deny that). Like I said go read a few HOI2 AARs on how minor X conquered the world using pure cavalry and then we'll talk.

You keep saying that HoI2 is a game where you can conquer the world as Estonia but at the same time you say: 'I am not saying that there should be no consequences in the game.' Not only is it near impossible to conquer the world as Estonia to start with, but in the process of it you will face consequences that will make it impossible for you to conquer the world. And IF it is somehow possible it's not because it was intentionally made that way but because of the limitations of the game.

You really need to get your priorities right. Of course there are consequences for actions in HOI2. Are they anywhere near realism? Not even close. If you run out of manpower, it means only that you can not build new divisions or reinforce existing ones. Do you have any idea what "running out of manpower" meant for the war effort in Germany in 44/45? All the actions and consequences in a GAME are GAMEY. They have very little to nothing to do with reality, because reality is a harsh and cold place where people's actions are limited by a number of factors none of which are "fun", "understandable" or "balanced" (And if your game is none of those it is neither "profitable").

And I already gave your answer on Luxemberg: they can if they really want to, so what?

You didn't answer this through and through. I know it is possible in the game, however do you perceive it possible that the REAL Luxemburg in HISTORY could have ever dreamt of building one single tank let alone an entire division? If you understand what's what, you'll realize just how ridiculously inaccurate both HOI and HOI2 are and as such you will realize that HOI3 will most likely be just as inaccurate, because being "accurate" in a computer game of this type is the same as being "deterministic" and consequently "boring", "non-profitable" and ultimately "bankcrupt".

That being said the only thing we do seem to agree on is that Estonia shouldn't be able to conquer the world, but what you seem to refuse to understand that A. It is possible in HOI2 and B.It will be possible in HOI3. This is simply because the difficulty is set for your average gamer and in the event of someone actually studying the code or playing the game for longer than necessary, he/she will learn how to abuse the system. Every Paradox game has this "flaw". Like I said go read some AARs on any Paradox title and see for yourself.

And since the game isn't realistic to begin with, I see no reason to pretend that it is. Instead of putting time and energy into making "historic events", I would rather that Paradox made the game more challenging, realistic and balanced (So that Estonia couldn't actually conquer the world).


So just to reiterate: The game isn't realistic. It will never be. I, for one, think it should pursue more realism, balance and challenge by improving the engine. As such I think events are a big waste of time. It is like adding combat sounds to a chess game, cheesy and completely out of place.

 

[Cardus]

Sigh...
You didn't answer this through and through. I know it is possible in the game, however do you perceive it possible that the REAL Luxemburg in HISTORY could have ever dreamt of building one single tank let alone an entire division? .

They bought some tank for FRA and made a pretty division.

Joking aside please read my post dedicated to you:

Hi Fluffammable,

I think that there is a miserunderstanding about the word "realistic". If you interpret it in the sense that HOI is able to reproduce exactly the reality how it was in the WWII it is clear to me that HOI is not realistic. If you interpret realistic in the sense that HOI is a good model that has a sound approximation of the WWII then HOI is realistic. Obviously a model is not the reality but the somebody (like myself, please see below my signature) believes that is a lot of fun and challenge to approximate the history as much as it is possible.

PS
With the time the model may improve so some "oddity"/implausibility can be removed.

 

[unmerged(41649)]

HOI2 is based on a massive number of things. Amongst them is reality (or recorded history of it). Other's include the board game Europa Universalis, other video games, movies, books and a number of other things. The question is not really what the whole thing is based on, but what it thrives to be. A simulation? See the developers diaries for reference and you will see that they are trying to make a GAME. They toss around phrases like "historical plausibility/realism", but like I said HOI and HOI2 were marketed with the same phrases and they are anything but realistic (Though you still seem to deny that). Like I said go read a few HOI2 AARs on how minor X conquered the world using pure cavalry and then we'll talk.

I see HOI2 as a reality simulation. It is trying to say what COULD have been if human actions and choices were different. No rules of physics should be violated (although some of the game mechanics do), or previous history changed from that of reality. Of course HOI2 doesn't do this perfectly, but that is the aim. If Tannu Tuva conquering the world was a physical impossibility, then it should not be possible.

 

[Cardus]

I see HOI2 as a reality simulation. It is trying to say what COULD have been if human actions and choices were different. No rules of physics should be violated (although some of the game mechanics do), or previous history changed from that of reality. Of course HOI2 doesn't do this perfectly, but that is the aim. If Tannu Tuva conquering the world was a physical impossibility, then it should not be possible.

I agree

 

[unmerged(135152)]

You are both (Cardus and DanDaMan) right in saying that HOI3 can be viewed as a "reality simulation" to some extent.

If you start the 1941 campaign as Germany you will run out of oil and you will head for Baku, and you will fight a slow war of attrition and you will see and understand just what problems the Germans faced. All of this is true. If you go far enough and abstract as many things as possible and play the game like you are supposed to (No tech rushing, only mechanized armies or other abuses of the game system), it will be a fairly historical experience.

However there is the other side. For the duration of the "Willing disbelief" as described above you will appreciate the game and its realism. However as soon as you hit the wall, it is gone for good (Like a bubble bursting). And if you consider it, you (I know I would) would be fooled by a game with literally no AI at all if you played things historically and plausibly, not for long I can tell you that, but fooled initially nonetheless. Then when you do something off the wall, like start the war in 1937, you see just how badly the HOI AI acts "outside the box". And this is what I am really after.

If you play any world war two game, because of the betatesting period and whatnot, the original campaign played with the intended style is of course challenging and fun. However the moment you do something that you shouldn't (And this is what the vast majority of people do, inviting Franco to the axis, finishing Sealion and whatnot), you will see just how the basic engine is. And that really is my point. It is extremely easy to make a good looking game that "keeps it together" as long as you do exactly as scripted. It is extremely difficult to make a game where you can make an action, expect appropriate consequences to that action and so forth. To make a game like that you need a great engine and a superb AI. And I rather that HOI3 would be more like that game.

Do you want a game that has an AI that isn't generic, that is only able to react to a Japanese invasion in 1941, but not in 1939? Do you want a game where the moment you step out of the line, everything goes haywire and you have to restart? That is, do you want a part in a scripted play? I've always preferred improvisational ones myself, at least as far as gaming goes.


I'm rather harsh in my words and of course you are free to assume that having forced historical plausibility and events do not necessarily make a worse engine. I disagree. If you, as the designer of a game, for one moment step outside the generic circle and enter the world of precision (Country specific units/events/whatnot), there is no turning back. In HOI2 the only "surprise attacks" you could achieve were by declaring war on the USSR or USA as Germany and Japan respectively at roughly the correct date. Now let us assume Paradox had had a different design philosophy and these things would be generic, thus Argentina declaring war on Paraguay, with the right settings in place, could get the same modifier like it should.

"The engine should be prepared for anything, not just anything that happened in history"

 

[Cardus]

You are both (Cardus and DanDaMan) right in saying that HOI3 can be viewed as a "reality simulation" to some extent.

If you start the 1941 campaign as Germany you will run out of oil and you will head for Baku, and you will fight a slow war of attrition and you will see and understand just what problems the Germans faced. All of this is true. If you go far enough and abstract as many things as possible and play the game like you are supposed to (No tech rushing, only mechanized armies or other abuses of the game system), it will be a fairly historical experience.

However there is the other side. For the duration of the "Willing disbelief" as described above you will appreciate the game and its realism. However as soon as you hit the wall, it is gone for good (Like a bubble bursting). And if you consider it, you (I know I would) would be fooled by a game with literally no AI at all if you played things historically and plausibly, not for long I can tell you that, but fooled initially nonetheless. Then when you do something off the wall, like start the war in 1937, you see just how badly the HOI AI acts "outside the box". And this is what I am really after.

If you play any world war two game, because of the betatesting period and whatnot, the original campaign played with the intended style is of course challenging and fun. However the moment you do something that you shouldn't (And this is what the vast majority of people do, inviting Franco to the axis, finishing Sealion and whatnot), you will see just how the basic engine is. And that really is my point. It is extremely easy to make a good looking game that "keeps it together" as long as you do exactly as scripted. It is extremely difficult to make a game where you can make an action, expect appropriate consequences to that action and so forth. To make a game like that you need a great engine and a superb AI. And I rather that HOI3 would be more like that game.

Do you want a game that has an AI that isn't generic, that is only able to react to a Japanese invasion in 1941, but not in 1939? Do you want a game where the moment you step out of the line, everything goes haywire and you have to restart? That is, do you want a part in a scripted play? I've always preferred improvisational ones myself, at least as far as gaming goes.


I'm rather harsh in my words and of course you are free to assume that having forced historical plausibility and events do not necessarily make a worse engine. I disagree. If you, as the designer of a game, for one moment step outside the generic circle and enter the world of precision (Country specific units/events/whatnot), there is no turning back. In HOI2 the only "surprise attacks" you could achieve were by declaring war on the USSR or USA as Germany and Japan respectively at roughly the correct date. Now let us assume Paradox had had a different design philosophy and these things would be generic, thus Argentina declaring war on Paraguay, with the right settings in place, could get the same modifier like it should.

"The engine should be prepared for anything, not just anything that happened in history"

I guees that everybody would be happy to see less events and more "engine" as long as this will be plausible i.e. historically sounded. What I would like to keep is a game in which I can get the "real" Rommel and not a kind of XZY panzer leader that comes from an abstraction based on the Moon.

 

[unmerged(123225)]

HOI2 is based on a massive number of things. Amongst them is reality (or recorded history of it). Other's include the board game Europa Universalis, other video games, movies, books and a number of other things.

Europa Universalis is not what it's based on although it uses EU3 engine. And it isn't based on other video games, movies or books. I'm sure Paradox learned from other games and read books to learn more about making the game more historical the game isn't based upon it.

The question is not really what the whole thing is based on, but what it thrives to be. A simulation? See the developers diaries for reference and you will see that they are trying to make a GAME. They toss around phrases like "historical plausibility/realism", but like I said HOI and HOI2 were marketed with the same phrases and they are anything but realistic (Though you still seem to deny that). Like I said go read a few HOI2 AARs on how minor X conquered the world using pure cavalry and then we'll talk.

They are thriving for realism, that's why they research all the leaders and generals, all the army divisions and their designation/names, country's material power, etc. The game ofcourse is not realistic because it's a game, and I never said that it was, so you need to stop recycling that accusation. Like I said (again), just because people are able to do ridiculous things it doesn't mean the game was designed that way, it's the result of the game's limitations.

You really need to get your priorities right. Of course there are consequences for actions in HOI2. Are they anywhere near realism? Not even close. If you run out of manpower, it means only that you can not build new divisions or reinforce existing ones. Do you have any idea what "running out of manpower" meant for the war effort in Germany in 44/45?

Again, limitations of the game due to the fact that Paradox has limited time and resources plus the need for abstraction. What's your point? You were the one saying that playing Brazil or Argentina would be boring due to several factors were the game designed to reflect history.

All the actions and consequences in a GAME are GAMEY. They have very little to nothing to do with reality, because reality is a harsh and cold place where people's actions are limited by a number of factors none of which are "fun", "understandable" or "balanced" (And if your game is none of those it is neither "profitable").

You are simplifying things too much. You have to draw a line between making games fun and allowing ridiculous things to happen like conquering Soviet Union with nothing but HQs.

You didn't answer this through and through. I know it is possible in the game, however do you perceive it possible that the REAL Luxemburg in HISTORY could have ever dreamt of building one single tank let alone an entire division?

I'm sure they could have if they dedicated the entire country to it, but since they didn't find it necessary they didn't opt to. And what if it is impossible? Does that mean it should be possible the game? Instead of questioning why something in the game doesn't reflect reality you are actually asking me why the reality didn't reflect the game?

If you understand what's what, you'll realize just how ridiculously inaccurate both HOI and HOI2 are and as such you will realize that HOI3 will most likely be just as inaccurate, because being "accurate" in a computer game of this type is the same as being "deterministic" and consequently "boring", "non-profitable" and ultimately "bankcrupt".

So since the older games are 'ridiculously inaccurate' it's mandatory for the new game to be too? I'm sure they'll never make the perfect game, but instead of improving it you want it to be kept that way?
How does a game being accurate necessarily make it deterministic and boring? So will it be more fun if all countries started with same IC and manpower? Since you get to have fun with and country without 'accurate' portrayal of IC to limit your enjoyment?

That being said the only thing we do seem to agree on is that Estonia shouldn't be able to conquer the world, but what you seem to refuse to understand that A. It is possible in HOI2 and B.It will be possible in HOI3.

You seem a bit too sure about what HoI3 will be like. So since the game is flawed in HoI2 it should mantain it in HoI3?

This is simply because the difficulty is set for your average gamer and in the event of someone actually studying the code or playing the game for longer than necessary, he/she will learn how to abuse the system. Every Paradox game has this "flaw". Like I said go read some AARs on any Paradox title and see for yourself.

I don't deny that it is possible, but it seems you are keen on not having the game improve so that such things are less likely.

And since the game isn't realistic to begin with, I see no reason to pretend that it is. Instead of putting time and energy into making "historic events", I would rather that Paradox made the game more challenging, realistic and balanced (So that Estonia couldn't actually conquer the world).

I guess it depends on what you mean by challenging, realistic (really? ) and balanced. I'm sure Paradox is trying to make the game more challenging by imrpoving the AI, I don't oppose that. And I'm sure Paradox wants to make the game more realistic, that's what I'm arguing you against right now. As for the game being 'balanced' you can't have a balanced game that is set in WW2. But I think Civilization series does a pretty good job for balance issues.

So just to reiterate: The game isn't realistic. It will never be. I, for one, think it should pursue more realism, balance and challenge by improving the engine. As such I think events are a big waste of time. It is like adding combat sounds to a chess game, cheesy and completely out of place.

Yeah, battle sounds in chess game to events, what an excellent comparison.
You do realise events are in the game to represent numerous things that can't be represented by the limited game mechanics right? If you don't want them feel free to delete all events in the game.