Ye, that may be a solution. Thanks for the hint.
...to pay double for one working game?
Last edited:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Ye, that may be a solution. Thanks for the hint.
...to pay double for one working game?
Ye, that may be a solution. Thanks for the hint.
...to pay double for one working game?
Like I said, last resort.
The reasoning being that the German version changes certain parts of the game, which may (I'm not the expert on this) affect your checksum.
Yes, that´s what I think, too.
For not running off the topic more, I opened a thread on that issue http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=458757.
"Several things some people dislike or want are outside the scope of patches..
- User-definable theatres. If we ever do this, it would be as part of an expansion as its major feature, as the impact on everything and its develope
- An OOB editor. Not designing the game to have one is the biggest mistake I've made in a long time. But developing one is simply outside the possibilities in a patch.
- Allied cooperation. This is also a rewrite and expansion for the AI that is simply too extensive.
- Surrender mechanics. Tweaks to events are always possible, but the current system for bitter peace and similar are too rigid to a perfect historical result. We need to sit down and redesign the concept entirely."
So you're saying you want us to pay more money ($20 or so) for an expansion that makes a good game great... well, okay, I guess.
- User-definable theatres. If we ever do this, it would be as part of an expansion as its major feature, as the impact on everything and its develope
- An OOB editor. Not designing the game to have one is the biggest mistake I've made in a long time. But developing one is simply outside the possibilities in a patch.
- Allied cooperation. This is also a rewrite and expansion for the AI that is simply too extensive.
- Surrender mechanics. Tweaks to events are always possible, but the current system for bitter peace and similar are too rigid to a perfect historical result. We need to sit down and redesign the concept entirely."
So you're saying you want us to pay more money ($20 or so) for an expansion that makes a good game great... well, okay, I guess.
Lies! How about an MP game which doesn't crash every five minutes? Id that stable and bug free? How about save games which aren't corrupted nine times out of ten? Is that also bug free? How about a German AI which doesn't completely collapse by 1942 in nine out of ten games?
"Stable and with few bugs" my white Scottish butt!
You should watch your computer first before shouting names about the game.
Since i've played this game on multiplayer , the only crash i've seen were from people using crappy / infected / with old drivers / computers.
Take care of your computer and you won't crash anymore.
Or check the reliability of the HOst connection.
HOI III is far more reliable on multiplayer than HOI II !
Last edited:
+ 1
Im only plying Hoi3 in MP, and after the Release of 1.3 I havent got any crashes. (1.0 and 1.1 MP wasnt plyable, 1.2 was quite ok)
...but I have to say, when playing MP we are not playing faster than speed step 3.... The most Time we are playing in Step 2
Hoi3 1.4
A couple of the things that I would like to see in the 1.4 are:
1) An end of guarantee button added. I have guaranteed nations and could not end this guarantee to attack them.
2) lower the drift of nations toward a faction and the reasoning behind the drifts. Neutral nations such as America drift WAY too fast toward a faction.
3) Make it easier to find corps on the map using the statistics option. I can find leaders and units easy enough, but the corps HQs or higher dont seem to have a way to find them without manually checking on the map.
4) Showing what level the units are while in the production queue. Currently you can see what brigades the unit being built consists of, but cannot tell what level the unit is until its built.
5) Some actions like surrendering and giving up to be annexed dont seem to happen with rhyme or reason. For Germany being able to manipulate Norway into having Quisling run a collaborator government would be great. As it stands now, the country overwhelmed during war just picks to fight or not.
6) The game needs puppet/ally military control or objectives. My games as Germany, as soon as I allow Italy into faction the Italians swarm S. France, Greece, and do nothing to prepare for battles in Yugoslavia or the Mediterranean Theater. There is no way to keep your allies from destroying your strategic plans. (I know Mussolini did that IRL with Greece) but as Germany you have NO say so.
Keep up the great work Paradox crew. I am glad you decided to make such a leap and try all these features for HOI3. It will take some tweeking, but the end result will be the best strategic WWII game of all time. Hands down.
A couple of the things that I would like to see in the 1.4 are:
1) An end of guarantee button added. I have guaranteed nations and could not end this guarantee to attack them.
2) lower the drift of nations toward a faction and the reasoning behind the drifts. Neutral nations such as America drift WAY too fast toward a faction.
3) Make it easier to find corps on the map using the statistics option. I can find leaders and units easy enough, but the corps HQs or higher dont seem to have a way to find them without manually checking on the map.
4) Showing what level the units are while in the production queue. Currently you can see what brigades the unit being built consists of, but cannot tell what level the unit is until its built.
5) Some actions like surrendering and giving up to be annexed dont seem to happen with rhyme or reason. For Germany being able to manipulate Norway into having Quisling run a collaborator government would be great. As it stands now, the country overwhelmed during war just picks to fight or not.
6) The game needs puppet/ally military control or objectives. My games as Germany, as soon as I allow Italy into faction the Italians swarm S. France, Greece, and do nothing to prepare for battles in Yugoslavia or the Mediterranean Theater. There is no way to keep your allies from destroying your strategic plans. (I know Mussolini did that IRL with Greece) but as Germany you have NO say so.
Keep up the great work Paradox crew. I am glad you decided to make such a leap and try all these features for HOI3. It will take some tweeking, but the end result will be the best strategic WWII game of all time. Hands down.
Last edited:
Puppet "master"
When you create a puppet
- be able to give or take provinces upon creation (annoying to see them keep your own provinces they occupied : they LOST - annoying having to keep useless provinces you occupy- though I admit keeping Rio de Janeiro as ARG is OK)
- MILITARY CONTROL where is it ?
either be given control through AI to limit the efficiency or being able to "request" expeditionary corpses (with good odds they accept). After all it is a PUPPET - what's the sense if you cant give them objectives ?
When you create a puppet
- be able to give or take provinces upon creation (annoying to see them keep your own provinces they occupied : they LOST - annoying having to keep useless provinces you occupy- though I admit keeping Rio de Janeiro as ARG is OK)
- MILITARY CONTROL where is it ?
either be given control through AI to limit the efficiency or being able to "request" expeditionary corpses (with good odds they accept). After all it is a PUPPET - what's the sense if you cant give them objectives ?
Allied coordination
In a future expansion / version (HOI4 ?)
Lets say UK and USA and free FR want to do OVERLORD the same day then share a front in separate segments :
Can a country propose objectives to another ? Or declare his objectives to another so the other stops caring about part of a theatre ?
Such mechanisms could lead to some realism in alliance work.
For exampe declare "I attack between such line and such line" and your IA allies pick another sector, declare "I am weak on such region" and you allies propose expeditionary forces or a new segmentation of the front if they have the extra forces.
Could be a way to make AI coop with AI as well as human with AI
In a future expansion / version (HOI4 ?)
Lets say UK and USA and free FR want to do OVERLORD the same day then share a front in separate segments :
Can a country propose objectives to another ? Or declare his objectives to another so the other stops caring about part of a theatre ?
Such mechanisms could lead to some realism in alliance work.
For exampe declare "I attack between such line and such line" and your IA allies pick another sector, declare "I am weak on such region" and you allies propose expeditionary forces or a new segmentation of the front if they have the extra forces.
Could be a way to make AI coop with AI as well as human with AI
weird my MPs havnt crashed played 9hours straight with my roomie.
im more concerned that my 3,0core 2 duo, 8800gt and 4gb ram is lagging when i invade china as japan.
Last edited:
I'd pay for an expansion that had these:
- User-definable theatres. If we ever do this, it would be as part of an expansion as its major feature, as the impact on everything and its develope
- An OOB editor. Not designing the game to have one is the biggest mistake I've made in a long time. But developing one is simply outside the possibilities in a patch.
- Allied cooperation. This is also a rewrite and expansion for the AI that is simply too extensive.
- Surrender mechanics. Tweaks to events are always possible, but the current system for bitter peace and similar are too rigid to a perfect historical result. We need to sit down and redesign the concept entirely.
-- Beppo
- User-definable theatres. If we ever do this, it would be as part of an expansion as its major feature, as the impact on everything and its develope
- An OOB editor. Not designing the game to have one is the biggest mistake I've made in a long time. But developing one is simply outside the possibilities in a patch.
- Allied cooperation. This is also a rewrite and expansion for the AI that is simply too extensive.
- Surrender mechanics. Tweaks to events are always possible, but the current system for bitter peace and similar are too rigid to a perfect historical result. We need to sit down and redesign the concept entirely.
-- Beppo
future would like
in Hoi4, or expansion I'd like to see the AI "think" a bit
Could you make an option for the game to upload my game to a server that the AI then could utilize to make better game decisions.
example is that i play as soviet union, monthly it creates a dumpfile of what has happened, it uploads it. Then the server goes through all available uploaded files for SU and merges my decisions with that of other players and creates a su specific AI file with strategic decisions.
There could also be a VP check so that the AI could play the fastest VP gained game.
Shatze this is hard to explain, maybe because i am trying to explain many things at once.
What i would like to do is make the AI more humanized. I think the only way aside from actual multiplaying is to somehow AI-lize singleplayers gamings.
Ofcourse different weight should be given to different players game, for example IC control, MP growth and so forth should be compared and one game with high value in important statistics should weigh more than one with lower onces. But the lower ones shouldn't be put in the bin since often a human doesn't play without a plan, thus they probably have lower values because it fits into the plan as such. However I think that certain things that all players (or a majority of us do) should be almost absolute in the AI thinkingbox.
So when I hit start new GC 1936, i would like a button coming up asking me if I want to "update" the AI. and if yes it downloads thinkingstrings for the AI. I also upload in the same way from the errr, launcher I'd think?
Since I've spent many hours in front of VC, EU 2 and EU 3, Hoi 1 hoi2. I think this could be implemented in all those titles.
I atleast think that some feedback should be provided from the game to itself so that it can learn. Considering the fact that the AI has played atleast 100 million hours as france, it should be very good at doing it no?
For example when I used to play world in flames as board game, the french player tries to save as much as possible to her colonies since france was pretty much doomed anyway. Especially the airforce and fleet and armour.
well, i don't know if my thoughts came across in any way that is understandable. thanks though for your time
Ipmil
"I order you to cut tankproduction by 50 %" A.Hitler summer 1940
in Hoi4, or expansion I'd like to see the AI "think" a bit
Could you make an option for the game to upload my game to a server that the AI then could utilize to make better game decisions.
example is that i play as soviet union, monthly it creates a dumpfile of what has happened, it uploads it. Then the server goes through all available uploaded files for SU and merges my decisions with that of other players and creates a su specific AI file with strategic decisions.
There could also be a VP check so that the AI could play the fastest VP gained game.
Shatze this is hard to explain, maybe because i am trying to explain many things at once.
What i would like to do is make the AI more humanized. I think the only way aside from actual multiplaying is to somehow AI-lize singleplayers gamings.
Ofcourse different weight should be given to different players game, for example IC control, MP growth and so forth should be compared and one game with high value in important statistics should weigh more than one with lower onces. But the lower ones shouldn't be put in the bin since often a human doesn't play without a plan, thus they probably have lower values because it fits into the plan as such. However I think that certain things that all players (or a majority of us do) should be almost absolute in the AI thinkingbox.
So when I hit start new GC 1936, i would like a button coming up asking me if I want to "update" the AI. and if yes it downloads thinkingstrings for the AI. I also upload in the same way from the errr, launcher I'd think?
Since I've spent many hours in front of VC, EU 2 and EU 3, Hoi 1 hoi2. I think this could be implemented in all those titles.
I atleast think that some feedback should be provided from the game to itself so that it can learn. Considering the fact that the AI has played atleast 100 million hours as france, it should be very good at doing it no?
For example when I used to play world in flames as board game, the french player tries to save as much as possible to her colonies since france was pretty much doomed anyway. Especially the airforce and fleet and armour.
well, i don't know if my thoughts came across in any way that is understandable. thanks though for your time
Ipmil
"I order you to cut tankproduction by 50 %" A.Hitler summer 1940
Oooh. A "Matrix" like mesh of human brains powering the "AI". Very cool. I need to see that movie again. Seriously though, that would be quite the gaming experience. It would take a "Neo" to have a chance against the AI.
You also have to ask yourself, do you want an AI France that builds lvl 10 forts all along the Belgium border and fills them with AT+ Infantry with 100+ org?
For most players (and especially new ones) that would totally destroy their experience since it's neither close to what happens historically, nor a very fun play-style. It just happens to be the most efficient one for France.
Some other examples. Would you like an Soviet AI that annex Finland within a week every time? Or an USA AI that lands 100 divisions around Tokyo within 7 days of "Pearl harbour" and starts phony wars in 38 to up their Industry?
In most cases a historical AI is NOT the same as a good AI both since many historical generals were really bad ones, and because the game allows you to do alot of very non historical things and strategies.
To be honest, I do not find it quite fun to witness the same development in the Franco-German war each time, when I'm playing a nation not involved directly...
One could argue that the central reason France lost and Germany won was a doctrine issue. To have a game that makes its impossible for the computer to fill that gap, even when there were in the French army commanders of comparable quality (and supporting the same doctrines) as Mannstein, is quite boring on the long run. Especially since HoI3 stops in 48 that does not leave much time for a Allies vs Comintern war.
So one one hand you have paradox arguing that they want a more open-history feel too their games (hence the clausewitz engine) but on the other the game still plays quite deterministic from the Germany vs France standpoint. Not only that but also the steel embargo isn't modeled, etc.
As an alternative, I'd enjoy seeing the French AI turtle behind forts all along the border. Not each game obviously, but every once in a while, variety doesn't hurt.
Since this is supposed to be a "what if..." game, I find it really stupid that the AI always resorts to the exact same zerg strategy.
Last edited:
THe problem with once in a while is that it's going to be several times for certain players. Something that happens in 1 in 10 France games means that out of 1000 HOI3 players, 100 of them are going to see France going for the wall of death on their first game. That would piss all of them off.
Would that really be a problem? I mean, the whole point of the game is to use various strategies and adapt them to changing situations, right? We can consider it a success if the AI FORCES the PLAYER to change his/her strategy.