Historical or Ahistorical give us both !!!

[fizy45]

After playing paradox games for 6 years and hanging out in forums I noticed something which is that its imposibble to satisty everybody so paradox should really pick the right choice in order to avoid another disaster like HOI3.

Ahistorical gameplay fits very well for games like CK or EU but when time begins to comes closer to our ceuntry (Vic or Hoi) people demand more historical gamepaly rather than sandbox style.Mainly its because we know much more about the era between Napoleon - WW2 compared to the medieval times.There are so many documents books pictures films around.

But making game %100 historical will probably kill its gameplay value cause I am sure that everybody around played hundreas of HOI,AOD or DH scenerios.Also some players (including me sometimes) love play to ahistoricaly.After playing historicalstyle we got bored and say "lets try this" so we play both historic and ahistoricly.

So why not give us both then let us choice which where to go do not push us to go historically like vanilla HOI2 or do not make us see the Mexican D-Day just like we see in HOI3.

How to do it well its up to you it can be made by events or diffrent scnerios just dont let us down this time.

Lastly Tech Teams,Less Complicated politics&espionage system would be great.

 

[Rancher]

Personally I would likethe choice of a sandbox game. So annoying when you want to stab a (weaker) ally in the back and you cant. So unlike real life. Dont think HOI3 was disaster. It was improved greatly by modders but there are so few games like HOI3 that even having it available was a triumph

 

[Kovax]

Unlike HOI3, where Paradox decided on an outcome and a balance and then twisted the starting conditions around to make it happen (with a number of scripted events to keep it on the rails), what they really should do, in my opinion, is to create as close to a realistic set of starting conditions as possible for 1936, and then let it take whatever course it may. If set up properly, with "events" that occur if conditions are right, and don't occur if they aren't, the game should lead to something resembling WWII about 50-75% of the time, as long as all of the countries do more-or-less what they did historically. If the player goes off the rails, or if one of the "random possibilities" occurs, the AI countries should respond and do things differently to compensate. If it turns into something far different than what happened historically, then at least it's a great plausible "what if" scenario. If it tries to force a historical outcome under ahistorical circumstances, then the odds are that it's going to be absurd and unrealistic.

The developers apparently tried to accomplish that with HOI3, but the initial release was so buggy as to be unplayable, and Paradox quickly turned the game into a heavily scripted and unrealistic parody, while adding gamey "coup" and "tech stealing" gimmicks instead of trying to develop it further as a "simulation".

 

[Rancher]

Cant really comment on the last para as I came into it after some changes but I do think that the previous is not only a good idea but also when you think about it, pretty obvious too. Perhaps even to the point of being able fairly early on to get rid of Adolf and achieve a more acceptable leader and government to the allies. Thus giving those with a deep desire, and there are many of those, a possibility to see an allies consisting of UK, Germany, France etc.
Oh Happy day.

 

[Dalwin]

Unlike HOI3, where Paradox decided on an outcome and a balance and then twisted the starting conditions around to make it happen (with a number of scripted events to keep it on the rails), what they really should do, in my opinion, is to create as close to a realistic set of starting conditions as possible for 1936, and then let it take whatever course it may. If set up properly, with "events" that occur if conditions are right, and don't occur if they aren't, the game should lead to something resembling WWII about 50-75% of the time, as long as all of the countries do more-or-less what they did historically. If the player goes off the rails, or if one of the "random possibilities" occurs, the AI countries should respond and do things differently to compensate. If it turns into something far different than what happened historically, then at least it's a great plausible "what if" scenario. If it tries to force a historical outcome under ahistorical circumstances, then the odds are that it's going to be absurd and unrealistic.

The developers apparently tried to accomplish that with HOI3, but the initial release was so buggy as to be unplayable, and Paradox quickly turned the game into a heavily scripted and unrealistic parody, while adding gamey "coup" and "tech stealing" gimmicks instead of trying to develop it further as a "simulation".

I totally agree with the sentiment. Unfortunately it breaks down at some levels. You cannot possibly setup realistic conditions for 1936, not at all. You can mimic realisitc force levels and production etc. but that is all. It breaks down because we are replacing historical leaders, some of whom made incredible blunders, with ourselves.

This will always fail as a WWII simulation without very complicated command and control rules which allow certain historical events to be possible. I don't really see this as a good direction to take the game.

I don't really care about wide open sandbox. I can take it or leave it. What I do want is good game play above all else. An excellent game with only WWII flavor is preferable to a mediocre game that attempts and fails to be a real simulation of the war.

 

[21oliver]

Kovax is pretty much on the money. The thing is that only the Majors are truly scripted to participate, all the minors essentially sit around waiting to be invaded or for a call to arms. It would be refreshing to see a minor take some action on their own from time to time. If the game isnt a 100% copy of WW2 then it shouldnt matter only what happened, but what could have happened as well. I have long called for instead of easy-medium-hard-very hard etc.... the game be historical/plausible/sandbox. I think that would suit the players better, as it is most players it seems play on normal or very hard, not the other levels.

It breaks down because we are replacing historical leaders, some of whom made incredible blunders, with ourselves.

The problem as i see it isnt that we replace them with ourselves (some players may make blunders too...) but rather with the AI which simply doesnt make spontaneous mistakes or daring maneuvers which could alter the war.

Just as we have the Political triangle there should be a similar set up that would alter some of the choices nations make and increase the chances of random events and decisions. I also think we need far more random decisions and events both historical and fictional simply to make each game unique and fresh. As it stands now the only two we really have that alter the game some is whether the Czechs fight and if Rep Spain can win the civil war.

The heavy scripting needs to go. We need more of "If A occurs then X, elseif B occurs then Y". Lets face it if im the Soviet Union and by 1939 i conquer Poland and the Baltics, it is unlikely Germany is going to behave the same fashion as normal and follow script....

 

[Dan1109]

I totally agree - I usually prefer historical outcomes, but random chance of the AI is hardcoded (X% for this decision, Y% for that one, etc). While that leads to games that are usually somewhere in the middle, but still mostly historic. Players that like a-historic usually have to play on easier levels, so they have enough DipPoints to change the world. However, then the military and other factors become too easy.

After playing BICE for a few hundred hours, I was BLOWN AWAY from their initial startup decisions, asking HOW YOU wanted to play the game. Not only picking your own difficulty, but setting the difficulty on each of the Majors. That in itself is brilliant. However, now that I'm doing a bit of modding, I realized that even BICE's thousands of events as well have hardcoded %s in its decisions.

What I see is a questionnaire at the beginning of the campaign where it would ask the player if they want historic, a-historic, or mixed. Historic follows the path 95%, and 95/100 games of AI vs AI should end pretty much like it happened in history. A-historic, the country will do what's best for it, period. Allies would be very different. The world would be different, and I respect that requirement from the a-historic lovers.

However, this could all be modded, and it would take a lot of work. So I don't want Paradox to work on this necessarily. They need to make sure to deliver a SOLID Core game, leaving features and content that can be modded, to the modders. But, its something I would like to see one day in HOI4, Vanilla or Mod X.

 

[21oliver]

But what exactly is historical? Is it 100% exact if so whats the fun in that? Is it simply plausible? Does Germany have to DOW Poland first? Does it have to always happen in Sept 1939? If so that removes much of the challenge from the game. If we play as though we are actually world leaders in that time period we wouldnt know everything thats going to happen when, where, how and with what.... we would have suspicions and a generally idea based on intelligence, but not always hard data. Germany should begin the war at such time a undetermined set of factors exist, perhaps anytime from early/mid 1939 to say early 1940... And perhaps there should be a small % chance they go north or west first (Denmark? Norway? Netherlands?) I can easily justify it as they are seeking better bases to position themselves against the Allies. This doesnt mean there should be a chance Germany invades Brazil first! But when i play anyone other then Germany i know exactly when and where and with what they are going to start the war. Not only is this unchallenging, its also unrealistic.

Id like to see random numbers determined and applied for all nations (at least all majors) at the games start which would then determine one of several paths that nation would follow. Perhaps the UK is more aggressive, perhaps less...perhaps the Soviets begin by investing in a navy and less in armor..... just a general idea.

 

[Dan1109]

Well, the one good thing about NOT stockpiling resources = GERMANY WILL GO FOR RESOURCE RICH AREAS, as will anyone else that wants to grow, such as Japan, or Italy

...and again, this more variable gameplay you are looking for can be modded, so I think Paradox should leave it at low priority, or leave it to the modders as in HOI3 (plenty of mods which give much more choices, but the Bear will certainly come after Germany eventually, and if Germany doesnt strike first, game over)

 

[seattle]

So annoying when you want to stab a (weaker) ally in the back and you cant.

If you wanna say France, why don't you just spill it out?

 

[destroyer008]

Guys... thats maybe only my opinion, but why is that so difficult to program two (!) different "gamemodes"?
If you pick Germany for example you should be able to tell the game directly if you want to play historical (so you choose historical gamemode ) or ahistorical (you may want to take ahistorical gamemode then ) ....
I mean if you take the ahistorical path there could happen more randomly events or none. And in the historical mode all the realistic stuff happens...
That isnt a lot of work to do and every kind of player will be happy.
Paradox I believe in you!

 

[seattle]

Guys... thats maybe only my opinion, but why is that so difficult to program two (!) different "gamemodes"?

There's simply no need for it at all! HoI games have always been sandboxy and it never took more than a few weeks for half a dozen awesome mods to come out. Some of them aim for historical, at times railroading gameplay (Total Realism Project). Others go for plausibility (HPP) which is probably the best approach.
PI games are different from most other publishers because of the giant modding community. It's become kind of an unspoken gentlemen's agreement that PI constructs the best foundation possible and modders fill the game with content. Never change a running system, I say.

 

[21oliver]

You can always play Ahistorical, its the AI that doesnt. Thats what needs to change. I have long called for the removal of easy-norm-H-VH modes as everyone seems to play mostly norm or VH, instead make it 1) historical 2) plausible and 3) sandbox.

 

[GermanPower]

I enjoy a mix of both, make it like you are actually playing through history. Your decisions and what you are doing effect the world and then it reacts to what you do while maintaining historical bonds if you wish to go down that road, however there is a ever present difference as you make and do different things then Germany and that slowly could effect how the world reacts to what you are doing. But if you simply follow the historical path it should run down the same way, however if you do things different then it alters what could happen, so a way to do this would be lots of events that effect how things happen among other things.

 

[Beagá]

Unlike HOI3, where Paradox decided on an outcome and a balance and then twisted the starting conditions around to make it happen (with a number of scripted events to keep it on the rails), what they really should do, in my opinion, is to create as close to a realistic set of starting conditions as possible for 1936, and then let it take whatever course it may. If set up properly, with "events" that occur if conditions are right, and don't occur if they aren't, the game should lead to something resembling WWII about 50-75% of the time, as long as all of the countries do more-or-less what they did historically. If the player goes off the rails, or if one of the "random possibilities" occurs, the AI countries should respond and do things differently to compensate. If it turns into something far different than what happened historically, then at least it's a great plausible "what if" scenario. If it tries to force a historical outcome under ahistorical circumstances, then the odds are that it's going to be absurd and unrealistic.

The developers apparently tried to accomplish that with HOI3, but the initial release was so buggy as to be unplayable, and Paradox quickly turned the game into a heavily scripted and unrealistic parody, while adding gamey "coup" and "tech stealing" gimmicks instead of trying to develop it further as a "simulation".

Perhaps, but you make it sound as if it is easy to do.

It is not.

Doesn´t mean they shouldn´t make na effort to create a better system, but ultimatedly some things WILL require events and decisions. Already said once - worse than having a game where the war never starts ahistorically is having a game where the war NEVER is historical.

I totally agree with Oliver and the game should have sliders for game customization as it´s impossible to both please everyone AND make a system that covers both big deviations of History AND allow the historical path, in a single mode.

Personally I would likethe choice of a sandbox game. So annoying when you want to stab a (weaker) ally in the back and you cant. So unlike real life.

Curious but which specific situation you´re talking about?

 

[21oliver]

EVen if the AI mostly follows history, it needs to react to the player. As my example of the Soviet Union...I take Poland in 1938 (as the Soviets) along with the Baltic nations. Is it likely Germany is actually going to follow the low countries-France-Norway route without a Political agreement with me and loads of defensive troops on the Eastern Front? Not likely imo. If the player takes the game off the rails, the AI needs to react. It can be scripted to check for certain situations and change paths. At least it needs to cover main issues like the Soviet one above. Obviously it cant cover every contingency.

 

[Kovax]

Keeping it plausible but variable is the key, in my opinion. Allow for odd shifts and changes, but don't permit them to occur unless the conditions for them are met. When you know exactly what will happen, where, and when, you can be ahistorically prepared for it. Hitler didn't expect the UK to fight over Poland, so WWII was a surprise even for him. Germany was expecting war to break out by '42-44, not in '39, and wasn't really prepared for it. The only thing that allowed them to get away with it for as long as they did was that the Allies were even less prepared. Why should the player have that information with complete certainty?

Using a combination of political influence, party support, trade leverage, and other "tools" (both internal and external), I'd love to see where you could drive another country to civil war, political collapse, or a major change of party "organically", but not by using cheesy "coup" mechanics. The less stable countries should be the easier targets, and the more stable ones should be barely susceptible over the entire course of the game, unless they do things that are unpopular with their citizens. Having the party's "position" on the political map differing from the position of its population should cause unrest and other issues, with both being subject to gradual change via influences, ministers, trade, and other internal and external inputs. The world situation would steadily deteriorate in the absence of player input to stabilize it (another interesting possibility: trying to avert the war instead of win it), but the actual outbreak of war would be a surprise, different in every game, although the odds of it happening over Germany's intervention in Czech and Polish affairs would be "the usual culprits".

 

[21oliver]

I do believe there has to be some just random luck factor as well. Some of the decisions that happened were simply spontaneous (like Mussolini joining the Axis and committing to go to war after seeing a German military Parade, formerly he was steadfast at waitiing until 42-44). We should allow for things to happen that "could" have happened, they could be small chance happenings and may or may not require parameters being met...

Perhaps a Balkan war breaks out between minors, Perhaps Turkey joins the Axis or Allies, Perhaps the UK and France are in even more chaos and dont act when Poland is invaded, perhaps the US commits to isolationism even longer or perhaps FDR is more effective at getting them into the war early. Perhaps the minority in Sweden sways them over to the Axis, a revolt in India? and so on...

There were a bunch of possibilities that had the attention of world leaders at that time. PI has given us a 10% chance the czechs fight, in recent xpacs they eased the restrictions on Nat Spain and Turkey joining the Axis... so its in this same direction i am talking. Even if the items on the list are only a 5% or 10% chance of occurring you get a few different new things each game you play.

Also id like to see more random fictional events and national events. Many mods use them. Fictional would be like X happened so German Armor production is increased by 10% this month or bad crops occurred lowering NU by 5 and so on...just a variety of happenings that the player cannot control and must adapt to.

National events could be specific for each nation...SS recruitiing campaign went well gain 1 extra Brigade for each built during the week of x,y,z or relations between the Japanese NAvy and Army high commands comes to a boil reduce ABC for one month....

The game is so predictable now it gets boring. We know when and where and how each Major will attack. We know when to expect events and decisions to pop. everytime the Czechs resist i jump for joy even though it usually throws my game in chaos as i dont prepare for it, but find it at least refreshing from the boredom.

Although it would require extra work what really would be fun is random numbers being determined at games start dictating which of several paths Major nations would take. Perhaps the US is more aggressive, perhaps more neutral, perhaps Germany decides to build a surface fleet, the same with the Soviets.

The key item missing from SP is the human factor. Anyone who plays MP seldom gets bored because you never know what your opponent will do, theyre all different and may change from game to game. While this cant be reproduced by the AI multi scripting and more random events/decisions would really make the game play more enjoyable.

 

[Pansloven]

I personally enjoyed Arsenal of Democracy CORE mode and Victoria VIP mode the most. They had tons of accurately scripted events, and one could get literally a 99 percent historical outcome (which appealed to me). I understand that Paradox games are evolving and surpassing event chains and that most people probably would not agree with me, but i enjoyed event chains when they were written properly and i like being the only variable in a historic outcome oriented game.

 

[21oliver]

It seems like an oxymoron to me though. Some players want 100% historical games and then try to do something that didnt happen historically (like win as the Axis), otherwise there is no point in playing to simply repeat history. And yet to me if your able to accomplish something that didnt happen, that makes the whole game unhistorical....

I think the key is "plausible" historical accuracy. Does Germany have to always invade Poland first? Does it have to always be in September 1939? when the game simply repeats history i dont see the challenge nor the fun. Now im not calling for games with Albania conquering Europe, but i do feel that keeping the game fresh and not stale makes the game much more enjoyable.