HOI 4: What do you want to see?

[21oliver]

i hate steam, had a lot of problems with them. Took me forever to get them just to disable my account, then I bought a game and was forced to get back in... I just stopped playing. IMO steam is a nightmare. And someone was hacking my account as well.

 

[Secret Master]

I've had no problem with EU4 on Steam. While Steam is not my absolute favorite because of certain things, I've had no problem with using EU4 when Steam isn't connected to the Internet.

I might be wrong, but can't you even copy EU4 from the Steam directory and make a special folder so you can archive it? Or am I thinking of another game?

 

[xtfoster]

And that is one of the reasons that I don't have EU4...don't care for steam or any similar business strategy.

 

[misterbean]

I don't mind Steam, as long as they don't expect me to pay extra.

 

[sunsterson]

? steam is great. get used to it if you wanna buy games because everyone is switching to selling on steam and some only on steam.

 

[21oliver]

I had alot of problems with their customer service, not really many problems with the games, but then again i havent played them much. Im definitely not keen on the ads and pop ups and what not. Id prefer to simply use gamersgate and be on my own, but if its something im interested in, ill check it out. Right now i have Steam uninstalled so its not an issue. Ill install it/uninstall it as need be.

 

[Secret Master]

I've had no problem with EU4 on Steam. While Steam is not my absolute favorite because of certain things, I've had no problem with using EU4 when Steam isn't connected to the Internet.

I might be wrong, but can't you even copy EU4 from the Steam directory and make a special folder so you can archive it? Or am I thinking of another game?

I just double checked.

I copy and pasted my EU4 folder from Steam to my desktop, then told Steam to delete all local content for EU4. Logged off Steam and fired up EU4 without a problem.

So, as long as HOI4 has similar capability, I don't see what the problem would be for SP.

Now, since Paradox is using Steam to piggyback MP stuff, you gotta run Steam for MP. But that's a whole other issue that's not related to "Steam will take my game away" or "Steam will screw me if I buy the game from them." Everyone has always wanted better MP stuff from Paradox, so using Steam as a platform for MP seems logical.

 

[misterbean]

I had alot of problems with their customer service, not really many problems with the games, but then again i havent played them much. Im definitely not keen on the ads and pop ups and what not. Id prefer to simply use gamersgate and be on my own, but if its something im interested in, ill check it out. Right now i have Steam uninstalled so its not an issue. Ill install it/uninstall it as need be.

I've only got 4 games on there that I really wanted: the new Baldur's Gate version, EU IV, CK2 and Shadowrun Returns. So far I have not run into anything bad (fingers crossed). In fact, I find the Steam Workshop quite handy for mods and such things.

 

[21oliver]

Maybe i just had bad luck, but it sure left a bad taste in my mouth. I dont really like the setup anyway, i dont want all the adds and i dont need the libraries and gifts and what not, i would prefer simply to download and play my games. But thats good if it offers things you feel you can take advantage of. Game on!

 

[sunsterson]

I hate it when people have misconceptions of steam being hard to use or complicated, libraries let you organize your games better and you can easily just download and play the game without any drama. I'd recommend you use it if you want to play hoi4 and EvW

 

[civlibprof]

I will not buy a game that only uses Steam. I had a serious issues on my computer caused by steam, as soon as I deleted steam the issues went away, I created a new account nad could not play any of my games cause they were under the old account. Customer service was well lets just say non existent, you email custoemr service wait for 48 hours for a reply then email again and wait another 48 hours no phone support cmon you cnat out source to India for phone support. I am very busy and my gaming time is precious. I filed a small claims suit to recover the cost of the two games I purchased hard copies of but was no longer able to play because of my Steam issues, I won becuase Steam and Gabe Newall did not show up so to collect my $89 I have a lien on Gabe Newalls 3 million dollar estate in Washignton State. I cant wait till he tries to sell his estate and has to deal with me. Its unfortunate I was actually looking forward to buying EUIV guess my gaming days are over. Its a shame all the MP is ruining it for SP. I have nothing against MP just not my thing so why should I be punished for not being a MP user its not fair I tell its not fair.

 

[Chromos]

As Secret Master wrote, you can run EUIV without STEAM running.
Thats like you would install EUIII and then copy it to another location and start it from there.
Also STEAM has this "play offline"-Modus.

It will be very likely mandantory for the next PDS games as Johan stated why EUIV is on STEAM:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/entry.php?1781-Why-EU4-requires-Steamworks.

So it shoud be clear that the next games will be STEAM only. If that will be forever that way is another matter.

From official EvW FAQ we know, that this game will be STEAM and non STEAM available like HoI3:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?627705-FAQ-Thread

Debating if STEAM is good or bad could be done better in the main PDS forum imho:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...ened-that-paradox-is-working-with-steam-now-(

Here should be about what you want to see for HoI4.
My old wishlists:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?538383-Wishlist-for-HOI3&highlight=
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-for-HOI3-Their-Finest-Hour-thread&highlight=

 

[Secret Master]

You know what I would like? Practical knowledge that is differentiated. Instead of one type of practical being generated from building one type of unit, I'd like it broken down into subcategories.

Mainly so we can avoid this:



Instead of just getting a generic "Heavy aircraft practical" you would get something like "X aero-engine practical, X bomb practical, and X large airframe practical."

 

[misterbean]

That would be amazing. That way you could actually have a difference between a BF-109 and a Hawker Hurricane, for instance. Speaking of which, I would love it if they would switch the ranges between fighters and interceptors around.
As it is now, in-game, interceptors kill fighters and fighters kill bombers, right?
well, they have the Hurricane as an interceptor, but during the Battle of Brittain, their job was to take out the German bombers.
The Spitfire, the best plane on the world until the Mustang came along, is an M/R. I have yet to see M/R win against interceptors. Real life? guess what. Spits went after the BF-109. Oh, Mustang, by all accounts that I have ever heard, read or seen the best plane in WWII? Guess what. It's an M/R.

Now, I know what you're thinking, those are just names. It just bugs me to no end. Wish they would get that right next time.

@ Secret Master: is that 44.2 IC for 5 strats? 132 days each? Wow, someone has been busy

 

[sunsterson]

I want, units to be specialized for each country so it feels like your playing to your strengths. Generic tanks for everyone besides US, UK, USSR, GER, FRA.

Tech teams back please or something similar. I don't like how it takes Ger researching carriers 7 months and UK/USA/JAP 7 months.

Better MP support ( pretty much what EU4 offers)

 

[Cybvep]

You know what I would like? Practical knowledge that is differentiated. Instead of one type of practical being generated from building one type of unit, I'd like it broken down into subcategories.

Agreed. It would be easier to balance the system and you would get small benefits for other type of units, so building heavy bombers would give you a small bonus to aircraft industry in general or whatever, too, not just to four-engine aircraft.

 

[PEP]

As it is now, in-game, interceptors kill fighters and fighters kill bombers, right?

I don't think so.

Tech teams back please or something similar. I don't like how it takes Ger researching carriers 7 months and UK/USA/JAP 7 months.

God no! Tech teams were ridiculous! A country was stuck with them and couldn't get better at anything. Right now and despite their flaws, the practical and theoretical knowledge system allows for much more flexibility and manages to model research quite accurately. It just doesn't take UK/USA/JAP as long as Germany to research and build carriers thanks to the practical/theoretical knowledge system but the Germans can still catch up if they try hard enough. This said, fine tunning might be in order but that's another debate.

 

[21oliver]

I want, units to be specialized for each country so it feels like your playing to your strengths. Generic tanks for everyone besides US, UK, USSR, GER, FRA.

Tech teams back please or something similar. I don't like how it takes Ger researching carriers 7 months and UK/USA/JAP 7 months.

Ive sort of discussed this at length. The problem is the way they have set up the game. IMO all troops werent the same due to a variety of features including cultural, historical and more. In addition it does a disservice to the various militaries by limiting the seperation in power between them by so few levels. For example Dupuy had rated the Germans approximately 4-1 better then the Soviets. That would almost mean the Soviets would literally in game have to stop teching / doctrining up for the Germans to maintain that throughout the game. If he thought the Germans were 4-1 better then the Soviets what would they have been against the Turks?

The way the game is set up all militaries around the world are equal essentially until teched and doctrined and leader bonuses are added. This makes it almost impossible to have individualized units and ratings etc... Look at aircraft. After the initial 1936 upgrade, then its 39 and then 41. Its very easy for nations to catch up with Majors with minimal effort if they choose.

We know the amount of work that would be involved and it wont happen, but just for the hell of it here goes;

1. Each nations fighting units have specific combat ratings and time of production and upgrade based on their own nations abilities.
2. Techs and doctrines would enhance those initial ratings, and even here each nation would have their own "base" time period for this type of research unique to themselves, which then would be enhanced by practicals.
3. Leadership, including overall enhancements/penalties for the overall Military Branch (in the same way the Political leaders have stats) based on the quality and history and effectiveness for the military as a whole.

Just some thoughts. Because as much as i enjoy playing minors there should be a real difference in quality. One German INFx3 (1936) would have been better then a Turkish INFx3 (1936).

I like the setup, the way they do it, it could be really good with these things applied. Like anything else it simply comes down to work.

 

[misterbean]

I don't think so.

I have yet to see fighters be able to stand up to interceptors in a stand-up fight. So all they are good for, besides their added range, is for taking down bombers. But the Spitfire was able to beat the German Messerschmidt in practically every fight. In-game Spitfires are M/R. They should be able to beat interceptors in practically every fight. This is not my experience.

 

[nimrod123]

I have yet to see fighters be able to stand up to interceptors in a stand-up fight. So all they are good for, besides their added range, is for taking down bombers. But the Spitfire was able to beat the German Messerschmidt in practically every fight. In-game Spitfires are M/R. They should be able to beat interceptors in practically every fight. This is not my experience.

not really. spits mk 1-5 where not great. also spits are INT not MR, so thats a model error.

if you want to get historic, the allies should not be able to get INT in the late war, since they went almost entirely MR, they should use alot of CAS in the MR role because they could overwhelm the german's.

basicly the allies should deploy alot of "good enough" equipment, instead of modern stuff, BUT they should have it out the ass.


overall for balance i think the core concept of every nation having the same base (so INF is INF no matter what) is a good idea. you just need to look at why some where worse then others.

bad officers, make it really really hard to have a good ratio. bad tech, tech penalties ETC.


honestly i think the best way maybe to build a game intially with only INF, ARM, SUP (support brigade, AA + AT + ART combined), FTR (fighter), BMB(bomber), SCR(screens), CAP(capital). Balance those, and then add specalists as needed and replacing some of the really generic stuff like screens and captials