You might get a timeline extension forward, but I doubt they will cut into Vicky 2's timeline.
So maybe the earliest you'll get would be 1932 or 1928 if they ever moved the timeline back.
-
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.
You might get a timeline extension forward, but I doubt they will cut into Vicky 2's timeline.
So maybe the earliest you'll get would be 1932 or 1928 if they ever moved the timeline back.
You can set whatever end date you want right now. Many techs continue till infinity.
I would have liked to see the game begin around the time of the big naval treaties
in the 20s-30s. Of course the game would have to have a working naval system
to benefit from a naval arms race.
in the 20s-30s. Of course the game would have to have a working naval system
to benefit from a naval arms race.
More to the point, it would need a major 'naval design constraints' system to cope with that - a complex subsystem that would have no real use once the real arms race was under way. Adding that big a subsystem just to get the preconditions for 1936 in place seems overkill for a WW2 game, to me.
But Shabz didn't say you had to register to get Tech Support - he said you have to register to go to (the) Tech Support (subforum) - which is true. You still have a right to tech support without, but you would need to provide proof of purchase (which you have already done if you registered). I don't really get why some folk object to registering, but tolerance is a virtue, I suppose.The above is a myth... I've rights of usage to all PI developed games (but Diplomacy), don't have a single registered and I can get tech support. I would keep my mouth shut, if your statement didn't show a clear ignorance of your digital media consumer rights... by the years they are going smaller, but in my view there is no need to make him even smaller.
Again, Shabz never said you had to register to either use or make mods - only to access the mods subforum. Which is perfectly true.
I begin to wonder at the wisdom of any computer game company marketing any computer game, ever. As soon as this happens, it seems to flee people's heads that what is being advertised is a computer game. Suddenly, they expect a super-detailed simulation of history (according to their own, inevitably biased view of it) correct in every detail. Instead of taking "computer games on the subject that have gone before" as their yardstick, suddenly they take "history itself" as their yardstick - against which any concievable computer game must necessarily come up short.Regarding directly to the topic; like my posting history easily shows, my view is very near to Shredder's one... With a small difference; being an old costumer, with a decent memory, I’ve not yet recovered from the “low” marketing stunt I consider HoI3; as such, my "eagerness" for AoD is somewhat short... will see
HoI3 gets away from scripted event chains where certain actions are un-punished because the considerations that applied in real history do not apply - only the scripted event sequence is relevant. It replaces this with a fluid system that is much more nuanced and where squirrelling away, planning for what you know will come (due to 20:20 hindsight) is as dangerous as it would have been historically. That the result may not account for every influence fully, or may be unbalanced and require (possibly extensive) tuning seems to me to be dwarfed by the vision and ambition inherent in attempting to expand the system in this way. Every aspect of HoI3 is like this. This is not just "another game" - it's a totally new type of game about the period of World War 2. No other company is doing this kind of thing - and that is why I support Paradox and will continue to do so. And I don't expect every game iteration along the way to be perfect, essentially because "you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs". A fully accurate simulation of every detail of WW2 would require a supercomputer and a NASA programming team (and even then would have only a fair chance of success). Given that some folk apparently struggle to come up with 40 bucks to fund this ambition, that "full simulation" is not something they are likely to even get a peek at any time soon.
I know that I can get whatever end date I want, but the game won't be technologically appropriate if I go to the Korean War or Vietnam. Not only that, but to attempt to simulate either of these two war would be near impossible, not to mention the Iron Curtain or NATO. The only way to do this would be heavy editing of the save file, which could take hours upon hours and still not achieve the appropriate outcome.
Actually I have a suggestion as well...
In HOI 1 and 2, land- und sea-forts were destructible (especially by aircraft). In HOI 3 you can bomb them until Armageddon Day and they would survive unscathed.
I would like to see an air-mission that is specifically targeted at static fortifications which can damage it to a certain degree (possibly only for Tac-Bombers and only doing a maximum of 1 damage per bombing run with a probability of maybe 30-40%)
In HOI 1 and 2, land- und sea-forts were destructible (especially by aircraft). In HOI 3 you can bomb them until Armageddon Day and they would survive unscathed.
I would like to see an air-mission that is specifically targeted at static fortifications which can damage it to a certain degree (possibly only for Tac-Bombers and only doing a maximum of 1 damage per bombing run with a probability of maybe 30-40%)
Regarding my comments to Shabz typed words; two things:
- Only posted that to counter his “assertive” short words;
- I commented what he typed… not what he could have typed.
The rest of your post “Balesir”...
Well, I won’t do one more time a long post about HoI3 defects/advantages, if you want that just go through my history of posts and I’m sure you will find many.
But I will do just this… since you are not blind, you have a 20/20 vision (good for you), I’m sure you will understand the below statements.
If HoI3 name was EU3 XX century warfare and it was advertised like a sandbox game in the XX century, my sense of being cheated wouldn’t be there… come on, I’ve bought other PI games that I only played a few times, I didn’t felt cheated with those, I bought them only to support a PC niche market company and knew the game in question was not my "cup of tea".
Btw, HoI3 is heavily scripted, and yes, I’m sure we are much better with “decisions” the so called “AI” fires immediately 100% time (as soon as it meets the conditions) than with the "old" event chance based system… much better
an improvement definitely It is a bit like the one “AI” feats all… oRegarding “NASA” programming team…I won’t do publicity to other company marketed products here in a PI forum… let’s just say that there games out or/and on its way that do well what they are advertised for… no they aren’t perfect games, they just do what its promised
1928 to 1954 seems like it might be possible. This time frame lets you put in almost all of the Chinese Civil War (which is completely ignored in HOI3 thus far), which is the second biggest event after the European war in the time frame. This means that PI will have to vastly improve the civil conflict mechanisms. Defining which provinces (in the sense of the subdivisions of "China") have which allegiances, political leanings, ethnic/linguistic/religious/cultural groups, temporary alliances, "nationalism" and dissent, defining which provinces are considered (vs consider themselves) "China," NATO and UN, and the resulting Korean War.
Of course, there are also lots of events Europeans are legally prevented from talking about, like Holodomor and the Purges, let alone others... that a game designer in a free speech country would probably include. But outside those events, the Chinese Civil War is the biggest missing piece in the history.
For (1); fair enough. For (2); so did I - I interpret "go to Tech Support" as going to the subforum, not as "receiving Tech Support".Regarding my comments to Shabz typed words; two things:
- Only posted that to counter his “assertive” short words;
- I commented what he typed… not what he could have typed.
So, because the game isn't railroaded into set alliances regardless of the actions of the countries in the game, you feel "cheated"?? In other words, although there were a plethora of diplomatic concerns and manoeuvres in the 1936 - 1939 period, you want all that abstracted out and to go according to the historical timeline regardless? Assumably, you aren't really interested in the political machination, but just want it to toddle along while you build the army of your dreams and then fight a war that you know the parameters of intimately? Hmm - maybe there is a market for a game that lets players build an army with 'points' and start playing at the start of war for their chosen nation?
Yes - it's better because I as the player chan choose not just if but also when I use those options. The AI has to be scripted, of course - but for that the random take-up (or not) of a decision while the conditions for it exist are at least as good as an event with MTTH.Btw, HoI3 is heavily scripted, and yes, I’m sure we are much better with “decisions” the so called “AI” fires immediately 100% time (as soon as it meets the conditions) than with the "old" event chance based system… much better
Well, there are many that have "managed expectations" well and a few that are good - but I only know of one that approaches Grand Strategy of the period (outside PI) and that one doesn't even attempt to model politics or diplomacy at all and treats even military actions with great abstraction. Operational level - sure there are good ones; but that is a couple of orders of magnitude simpler. Tactical level - well, it's almost trivial, so even FPS games can get it (mostly) right.Regarding “NASA” programming team…I won’t do publicity to other company marketed products here in a PI forum… let’s just say that there games out or/and on its way that do well what they are advertised for… no they aren’t perfect games, they just do what its promised
For what it's worth (and that may not be much, since I haven't had a lot of time to play HoI3 so far due to other projects), I have so far seen nothing in the game outside what I expected. The systems are revolutionary in several respects, and model things I had myself wondered how to model but come up with no really elegant answer. The challenge is huge (as it should be) and the "feel" of the game is excellent. Sure, several things are misbalanced and the interface needs some new additions - I already said elsewhere that alliances should be able to share theatres. But, overall, I think it's an amazing game - and with tweaking and further development, I'm confident it can be a great one.
Last edited:
all id ask is to make the game simpler than it is now - less micromanagement with no NEED to even think about delegating anything to the AI.
HOI2 could be played with no need for AI. HOI3 is a huge pain with and without the AI.
In hindsight I am hugely suprised that Johan, who was a very staunch defender of the abstract and AI controled air force (esp when it came to bombing targets) HOI2 - now increased the micromanagemet level and detail 1000%.
HOI2 could be played with no need for AI. HOI3 is a huge pain with and without the AI.
In hindsight I am hugely suprised that Johan, who was a very staunch defender of the abstract and AI controled air force (esp when it came to bombing targets) HOI2 - now increased the micromanagemet level and detail 1000%.
I wish HOI3 had a more dynamic combat system that reflected the realities of warfare. My suggestions are not within the scope of a patch but reasonably within the scope of an expansion. Specifically, I wish there the combat events were more important and realistic.
1. Combat events should act like their counterparts in real life. First off, combat events should do what they are supposed to do. Encirclements quickly destroy the enemy (NU and morale determine how quickly the enmy loses), counterattacks should push the enemy back, etc. The effect of each should be simple and realistic.
2. Obviously if events are to have more weight, they shouldn't occur as often as they do right now. Instead, the occurance of a specific combat event should be a function of the units fighting, the leaders, experience, and doctrine. For example, if a single division attacks a much larger formation, there should be a good chance of an enemy counterattack that causes the attack to be broken off. On other hand, if the defenders have poor leaders or inexperienced troops a counterattack is less likely. Another example is breakthroughs. A breakthrough should be more likely if the frontage of combat is not filled by the defender and should be less likely if reserves are present. On the other hand, faster units for the attackers should increase this chance.
Employing this system of combat events would give importance to operational concepts that mean nothing as is, like the proper employment of reserves in the province. Obviously, combat events should not increase the amount of micromanagment since you don't choose to try to accomplish events. Such changes don't require sweeping overhauls in the game; it only requires reworking a few algorithms that, given the chance to make, I could do myself.
1. Combat events should act like their counterparts in real life. First off, combat events should do what they are supposed to do. Encirclements quickly destroy the enemy (NU and morale determine how quickly the enmy loses), counterattacks should push the enemy back, etc. The effect of each should be simple and realistic.
2. Obviously if events are to have more weight, they shouldn't occur as often as they do right now. Instead, the occurance of a specific combat event should be a function of the units fighting, the leaders, experience, and doctrine. For example, if a single division attacks a much larger formation, there should be a good chance of an enemy counterattack that causes the attack to be broken off. On other hand, if the defenders have poor leaders or inexperienced troops a counterattack is less likely. Another example is breakthroughs. A breakthrough should be more likely if the frontage of combat is not filled by the defender and should be less likely if reserves are present. On the other hand, faster units for the attackers should increase this chance.
Employing this system of combat events would give importance to operational concepts that mean nothing as is, like the proper employment of reserves in the province. Obviously, combat events should not increase the amount of micromanagment since you don't choose to try to accomplish events. Such changes don't require sweeping overhauls in the game; it only requires reworking a few algorithms that, given the chance to make, I could do myself.
What do you mean by the "encirclements quickly destroy the enemy"? Do you mean their strength should lower much faster than normal or just vanish forever? I'd go for the first, the second would be way overpowered.
Actually, making events more powerful and decisive while at the same time decreasing chance of their occurrence and making it less random and more based on the actual battlefield situation is a marvelous idea.
It wouldn't necessarily or ever destroy the entire unit. It would be logical if a brigade lost like half it's strength while the others would be fine. Of course the damage done by the encirclement should be realative to the number of units fighting.
We don't need to make things too complicated. Just give a combat bonus that can do some real damage and add some modifiers in the .txt file that influence the chance of "firing" a given combat event. It would be something like giving +200% of base chance of happening (base = 2%, then modified = 6%) if "reserves = no" for the breakthrough. Most of it can be done by modders, but the devs should add the modifiers.
First off, I think this kind of change is best done by developers as otherwise many of the events cannot be modeled correctly (it would be preferable since an expansion is likely to arrive before patch 1.5). In order to model combat events correctly the algorithm needs more parameters than it has right now. For example, I find it ridiculous how the number of units has no affect on events. Can you imagine one division attacking five and encircling the enemy? No, I cannot. The reason why these changes are necessary is that, right now, decisiveness in tactical engagement is non-existant, while operational engagements are far too decisve. It is impossible in any battle to cause 25% casualty rate on a division without that division retreating. However, if you were to capture the province it was moving to an hour before it arrives, it loses 100% of its combat power. Personally I believe making the tactical battle more decisive and the operational battle less so (instead of a unit being destroyed, why not just have it shatter as the event is already in the game) would make the AI stronger as its operational defeciencies would be less harmful.
I believe that the disparity between the power of the untis fighting, the commanders, and doctrine should the determining factor in the type of event, the chance of the event, and the affect of the event.
Few more ideas i find interesting :
- Link the national unity with the units' morale.
- Implement a surprise effect (-20 or -30 combat penalty at least for a short period) , for exemple while a country is attacked by another with superior Decryption/encryption tech level.
- Link the national unity with the units' morale.
- Implement a surprise effect (-20 or -30 combat penalty at least for a short period) , for exemple while a country is attacked by another with superior Decryption/encryption tech level.
"Rise of the Reich" Expansion
I was actually thinking of something like this: What would be included in the first expansion? And the answer I came up with was pretty much the usual (which would be good).
The "Rise of the Reich" expansion might include (I just made that name up, by the way):
*Starting the game earlier, 1933 ish, or something.
*New units, time appropriate for start time
*New Techs, time appropriate.
*One new political aspect
*One new economic aspect
*One new intelligence aspect
*One new ditto
*One new blah, blah
*And, of course, "improved AI"
Add a patch on top of that to fix the bugs and, by then, we'd have an Epic game.
I was actually thinking of something like this: What would be included in the first expansion? And the answer I came up with was pretty much the usual (which would be good).
The "Rise of the Reich" expansion might include (I just made that name up, by the way):
*Starting the game earlier, 1933 ish, or something.
*New units, time appropriate for start time
*New Techs, time appropriate.
*One new political aspect
*One new economic aspect
*One new intelligence aspect
*One new ditto
*One new blah, blah
*And, of course, "improved AI"
Add a patch on top of that to fix the bugs and, by then, we'd have an Epic game.