I must admit I am quite disappointed with 1.3

[unmerged(157549)]

1.3 IMHO is what the game "should" have been from the beginning. Of course its still not "perfect" but its definitely playable and as far as I'm concerned shows much more improvement. So I say lets just keep chuggin along and we'll get there.

Im not going to jump up and say its the creme de la creme but for what its attempting to do I at least can finally see the proverbial forest for the trees for the possibilities it has.

 

[unmerged(165468)]

1.3 Questions

First of all, I like most of the changes with 1.3. My only issue so far is generating money. Why can I no longer generate more cash by adjusting IC to consumer goods? This adversely effects the axis side the most. They are generally short on resources and need to buy them from others. 1.3 seems to take that option away. What was the logic? A country should be able to generate more than a set amount of cash.

Regards
Stndrtnfhr

 

[jonnyincognito]

Well, I'm not sure why everyone seems to be having problems that I'm not. Maybe I just don't notice things, or I work around the problems like the supply problem by moving my troops to a province that is supplied. Hell, I didn't even know it was a bug until I got here. I just figured I wasn't getting enough supplies to those troops!

For the most part I love the game, but I don't use any of the AI options, so haven't noticed the AI failing at anything. There's only really three complaints I have.

The big pain in the backside I do have is what you need to go through to reorganize your military. Typically I'll start out with 3LArm+1AC or 2LArm+2Mot, but later when Mech is available, it is a huge pain to reorganize your military.

I also find that England is a bit of a push over...mostly because it only guards it's ports. It's kind of easy to land troops in an unguarded territory and just swarm all over the British Isles. I've debated on restricting myself to just being able to attack ports like you could only attack beaches in HoI2.

The third one is the biggest one, CTD problems (which took awhile to figure out) and lack of multicore support that leads to late game lag. Because it only runs on one core I'm effectively using a 2.33 machine instead of a 9+ because I have a quad processor But after moving to Windows 7 64 bit I don't experience the freezing and stuttering so I can deal.

Apart from that though game seems great to me, and compared to the alternatives I'd take this game any day!

 

[plasticpanzers]

1.3 has addressed some annoying issues like weather but sadly
the game remains fundamentally flawed. Its not that it cannot
be fun to play but it cannot claim to be "the" strategy game of
WW2. It is not.

The game is set up opposite of a historical game. It is set up
now to ONLY be ahistorical. Not a historical game that you
have options to change history. As it is currently designed you
CANNOT in any fashion play a game in any historical fashion.

The AIs for the nations are all operating for themselves and
the cooperation is so minimal, when it exists, to be of no use
at all. There are no Western Allies. There are just nations
in the same faction fighting their own war oblivous to each
other.

Production and manpower are wildly out of balance. Research
is being done willy-nilly by nations. There is little historical
flavor to what the AI nations are doing. The AI does not appear
to know what to do with aircraft. AA does not work. Submarine
warfare against merchants does not work nor does open sea
raiding.

Smaller nations like Luxembourg are producing armies out of
perportion to their population and this is true of small nations
around the world. where do they get the money or the in-
dustrual structure to have 150,000 Phillipine militia in 1938?
Who is paying for all the arms? Small nations would almost
always buy (buy license) for buying/trading for weapons from
the nations who can make them in bulk.

Threat change is based on spies? Japan should see any increase
of troops, building of facilities, moving of US ships to Pearl Harbor
as a threat. Not spies in trenchcoats sneaking around. There
is no real diplomacy as was practiced in the real world. Nations
should react to what other nations are doing or putting troops or
what their spies (in their true nature of obtaining information) tell
them their opponents are researching.

Supply is still out of whack. 'nuff said on that! LOL!

Production units are all out of sync with HOI2 that at least had
most correct. In playing the US in 1936 i am building Cleveland
class CLs right off the bat with 40mm and 3in AA guns. These
ships did not exist til about 1943. They got the names of ships,
aircraft, and ground units correct for sequence of research and
production in HOI2 why the sloppy job in HOI3 that brings chills
of horror to my eyes seeing stuff that is wildly advanced appearing
so early. If this is supposed to be a detailed simulation get the
facts right.

Small issues like the Quatara Depression disappearing from HOI2
in HOI3 or the ability of German armor to drive to the N. of Norway
where no roads existed (yoldeling mountain climbing panzers?) or
the apparent ability to move easily anywhere over the Alps or the
Himilayas with tanks or anybody else. The incredible battles of
the Channel Islands between Great Britain and Germany with over
a million men involved and 100s of casualties! LOL!

AS A SINGLE PLAYER you can play a reasonably fun game as
Germany, Japan, Russia from about 1936 to about 1943 or so.
Or you can play in a Multiplayer game to offset the weird
doings of the AI.

As i have posted before i am not a "gadfly" who just attacks
HOI3 because i have nothing better to do. I have spent a lifetime
in the study of military history and much of that of WW2. I like PI
products. HOI1 was a revelation to me. HOI2 was even better
and hit all the right tones. HOI3 is and remains with deep flaws
that PI needs to go back to, address, and fix.

Heck. I would be glad to go over and help for free (just pay my
airfare and get me room and board! LOL!). I KNOW history and
HOI3 is not history. It may be fun but cannot claim to be a real
WW2 historical game as it is now. Its really a shame as there is
alot of love of detail in it and you can see the passion of the staff
programmers. Its core is broken tho and fixes to bugs and other
minor stuff cannot fix that. The core issues of the game must be
acknowledged (at least to themselves at PI) and fixed.

 

[RickR]

I was just getting ready to reinstall HOI3 and try it again with patch 1.3 but looking at the majority of these posts - well - I guess I will continue to wait until it is polished a bit more. I don't want the hassle or frustration and besides I have HOI2-Doomsday! which is polished! See you all in another 6months! - Rick

 

[SwordOfJustice]

Well I'm enjoying 1.3, it is great. It is not perfect, it is not a finished game. There are no real gamebreakers for me (I said for me, before anyone starts whinging about this and that).

There were a significant body of the community here on the forums who took part in and commented on the development of the patch for 1.3.
As a majority of those involved, when asked, stated that there were no major gamebreakers/significant problems with the game in terms of playability it was decided by paradox to release 1.3.

The community of beta testers here on the forums made the point (and I was totally in aggreement with this) that 1.3 should be released as it was actually playable - supply, weather, unit production - all fixed (or fixed enough to play). The feeling was that as 1.3 made the game playable and fun and enjoyable for the first time, with no gamebreakers, it should be released so that others could enjoy it as well.

Johan actually made the point that it would be unfair to make everyone wait another xxx number of weeks for a more complete patch that ironed out any remaining problems/added polish/improved AI more etc etc and I agree totally with this.

1.3 is playable, not perfect.

I suspect that there are far more people enjoying 1.3 than ever enjoyed 1.2 and that is what matters at this stage.

I am playing the game properly for the first time and loving it, something I could not do until 1.3, and I am damn sure
I am not the only one.

Well done for now paradox, loving the game at last, but roll on 1.4....

Agreed on every point.

Cheers,
Sword

 

[SwordOfJustice]

1.3 has addressed some annoying issues like weather but sadly
the game remains fundamentally flawed. Its not that it cannot
be fun to play but it cannot claim to be "the" strategy game of
WW2. It is not.

The game is set up opposite of a historical game. It is set up
now to ONLY be ahistorical. Not a historical game that you
have options to change history. As it is currently designed you
CANNOT in any fashion play a game in any historical fashion.

The AIs for the nations are all operating for themselves and
the cooperation is so minimal, when it exists, to be of no use
at all. There are no Western Allies. There are just nations
in the same faction fighting their own war oblivous to each
other.

Production and manpower are wildly out of balance. Research
is being done willy-nilly by nations. There is little historical
flavor to what the AI nations are doing. The AI does not appear
to know what to do with aircraft. AA does not work. Submarine
warfare against merchants does not work nor does open sea
raiding.

Smaller nations like Luxembourg are producing armies out of
perportion to their population and this is true of small nations
around the world. where do they get the money or the in-
dustrual structure to have 150,000 Phillipine militia in 1938?
Who is paying for all the arms? Small nations would almost
always buy (buy license) for buying/trading for weapons from
the nations who can make them in bulk.

Threat change is based on spies? Japan should see any increase
of troops, building of facilities, moving of US ships to Pearl Harbor
as a threat. Not spies in trenchcoats sneaking around. There
is no real diplomacy as was practiced in the real world. Nations
should react to what other nations are doing or putting troops or
what their spies (in their true nature of obtaining information) tell
them their opponents are researching.

Supply is still out of whack. 'nuff said on that! LOL!

Production units are all out of sync with HOI2 that at least had
most correct. In playing the US in 1936 i am building Cleveland
class CLs right off the bat with 40mm and 3in AA guns. These
ships did not exist til about 1943. They got the names of ships,
aircraft, and ground units correct for sequence of research and
production in HOI2 why the sloppy job in HOI3 that brings chills
of horror to my eyes seeing stuff that is wildly advanced appearing
so early. If this is supposed to be a detailed simulation get the
facts right.

Small issues like the Quatara Depression disappearing from HOI2
in HOI3 or the ability of German armor to drive to the N. of Norway
where no roads existed (yoldeling mountain climbing panzers?) or
the apparent ability to move easily anywhere over the Alps or the
Himilayas with tanks or anybody else. The incredible battles of
the Channel Islands between Great Britain and Germany with over
a million men involved and 100s of casualties! LOL!

AS A SINGLE PLAYER you can play a reasonably fun game as
Germany, Japan, Russia from about 1936 to about 1943 or so.
Or you can play in a Multiplayer game to offset the weird
doings of the AI.

As i have posted before i am not a "gadfly" who just attacks
HOI3 because i have nothing better to do. I have spent a lifetime
in the study of military history and much of that of WW2. I like PI
products. HOI1 was a revelation to me. HOI2 was even better
and hit all the right tones. HOI3 is and remains with deep flaws
that PI needs to go back to, address, and fix.

Heck. I would be glad to go over and help for free (just pay my
airfare and get me room and board! LOL!). I KNOW history and
HOI3 is not history. It may be fun but cannot claim to be a real
WW2 historical game as it is now. Its really a shame as there is
alot of love of detail in it and you can see the passion of the staff
programmers. Its core is broken tho and fixes to bugs and other
minor stuff cannot fix that. The core issues of the game must be
acknowledged (at least to themselves at PI) and fixed.

Many of these points really are criticisms of fundamental game design decisions. Sure, those aspects may not be to your taste and affect your perception and enjoyment of this game. But they don't relate to the playability state of the game which the patch is meant to address.

On the game design, I would note that a wonderful demo was released so we could all taste the way the game was designed.

Cheers,
Sword

 

[Enigma1]

Many of these points really are criticisms of fundamental game design decisions. Sure, those aspects may not be to your taste and affect your perception and enjoyment of this game. But they don't relate to the playability state of the game which the patch is meant to address.

On the game design, I would note that a wonderful demo was released so we could all taste the way the game was designed.

Cheers,
Sword

I would also add to that, the misconception that a lot of people here complaining about historical issues have. This game was not meant to be 'the grand strategy game of WW2' and it never claimed to be - it was clearly stated during the game's development that the game was to be a grand strategy game set in the WW2 era - one where the player can see the US join the allies in 1939 (seems to be a favourite pick) and numerous other non historical incidents. This led many to ask for a 'historical' switch. People may not like the ahistorical nature of the game (I'm not sure I am the keen on it) but the game is not broken with this, as this is more or less what was intended. This is the game design - if you don't like it, don't buy it.

I am sure further patches will improve the balance in terms of ahistorical actions, and if enough people keep complaining about it, I am sure we will see futher 'shackles' applied to make the game more historical.

 

[Onedreamer]

The only things really missing from the game that HOI2 had plenty of were events.

So I don't see where you're going with that.

Events are an optional. Balance and challenge are the main points for a strategy game. HoI2 in this regard is well shaped; HoI3 at release was a joke and now has only slightly improved. I appreciate the difficulties connected with coming up with new features and actually make them work, but these considerations must be made before release, not in the 7 RCs of the third patch.
The problem is, if this was HoI, the first release, perhaps we would have less expectation. Since it's HoI3, asking that we ignore the fact that HoI2 is much more fun simply due to the fundamental concepts of a strategy game actually working, is a bit too much. Game series that are successful have each release at least at the level of the predecessor, otherwise the series is pretty much over.

 

[unmerged(148092)]

I was just getting ready to reinstall HOI3 and try it again with patch 1.3 but looking at the majority of these posts - well - I guess I will continue to wait until it is polished a bit more. I don't want the hassle or frustration and besides I have HOI2-Doomsday! which is polished! See you all in another 6months! - Rick

Agreed on every point.Between this game and Empire,the words Wool, Eyes, Over, Pulled, My, spring to mind.One thing i do know,i ll never ever buy another game on its release day.

 

[Bullfrog]

1.3 has addressed some annoying issues like weather but sadly the game remains fundamentally flawed....

HOI1 was a revelation to me. HOI2 was even better
and hit all the right tones. HOI3 is and remains with deep flaws
that PI needs to go back to, address, and fix.

Heck. I would be glad to go over and help for free (just pay my
airfare and get me room and board! LOL!). I KNOW history and
HOI3 is not history. It may be fun but cannot claim to be a real
WW2 historical game as it is now. Its really a shame as there is
alot of love of detail in it and you can see the passion of the staff
programmers. Its core is broken tho and fixes to bugs and other
minor stuff cannot fix that. The core issues of the game must be
acknowledged (at least to themselves at PI) and fixed.

Every problem stated in your post is fixable, so I cannot agree that the game is "fundamentally" flawed or that the "core" is broken. You are exaggerating here for some dramatic effect, it would seem. Two other things:

Having played the trilogy, you should know how much of an improvement HoI2 was over HoI. The same will be true of HoI3 over HoI2, but in due time. HoI2 was a rough game until the Doomsday expansion, if you recall.

Second, it is poor form to claim to know history. I'm sure that PI thanks you for your offer to go over there and tell them how things were globally in and around WW2. I'm also sure that they will somehow be fine without you. HoI was more scripted in its past forms because the AI required it with the old engine. That is why you get the same events at the same time and can reasonably predict in each game what will happen and when. That is not fun for everyone. HoI3 is flawed, yes. It is, however, far more dynamic and has much greater potential than its predecessors.

Besides, as a historian, I can tell you with a fair bit of confidence that even in real life, in theoretical replay, WW2 would not happen the same way again, over and over. Not by a long-shot.

 

[Dzanic]

Hmm.. I really cant say for now that it has the great potential, as you say, since in Hearts of Iron II I loved coming back and trying a new nation but with this one I dont have that feeling yet.

I guess paradox might have bitten off more than they can chew for this game. For now they are chocking on this piece and I would assume that they might have to spent the next 5 years for patches and expansions for Hearts of Iron III.

 

[jvernikos]

I am an avid follower of the hearts of iron series and bought this game as soon it was released in august. In retrospect this was a mistake. I should of waited a couple of months.

As of 1.3 I have began enjoying the game and getting more and more hours of gaming. However this is not to stay that there is still considerable room for improvement. Therefore I will not say that I am dissapointed with it, rather that 1.3 is a step in the right path and with further patches I believe the game will reach its full potential.

What I do not approve of is laying our hopes on the modders. And this is not to insult the modders. They do a quality work and contribute greatly to the game in parity even with the programmers at paradox. But I am starting to get the fealing that paradox is thinking of "lets fix all the bugs and let the modders do the balancing to their own taste".

Johan lets say you went to SAAB. Bought a car and everything was fine. And then it broke down. You take it to SAAB to fix it, and they tell you there, that it is a known problem, with the programming in the processor "brain" of the car that they will fix partially in two months time, and after that a few months later completely. And that if you wanted a quicker solution between these periods you could go for temporary fixes to other mechanics.

Would you not be pissed off?

 

[unmerged(141124)]

There only 2 main problems left:
1) Supply management should consider convoy routes profit over the land transferring.
2) Invasion AI was messed up in 1.2 after a proper acting in 1.1, and is still left broken. In 1.1 AI invaded multiple port provinces, starting from 1.2 it will stop invading from sea only after 1 port province taken and land all its forces there, creating supply deficit and paralyzing offensive. AI should be reverted back to 1.1 strategie and also consider occupied port capacity for the max amount of the deployed troops.

 

[KalZakath]

Right now, as designed, HOI3 is a sandbox game. Sandbox games will appeal to a certain percentage of the people who play the game. The game mechanics are getting really close to working correctly, and the game is playable. Yes, there are some issues, but 1.3 seems to have gotten us to the point where what is left is much more 'tweaking' things than the base underlying fundamentals that are the issues.

For those who like historical play, it is much easier to corral a sandbox game - especially one whose coding allows scripting as this one does - than open up a game that depends on the historical scripts for game balance. Once the community, or PI itself, put their minds to it, a very historical (well, as historical as HOI2 most likely) will come out.

I'm looking at the mechanics of the game, etc. to see how they are working. So far, most of the big problems seem to either have been solved or are on their way to being solved. One great thing about this game - if you don't like something, you can change it yourself. Don't like SU's manpower? Just put in something that gives them more. Don't like the techs that Japan starts with? Just give them the ones you think they should have. Where else is there as open a system?

If you look at the list of what people considered 'game-breakers' from 1.2, how many of those actually got solved in 1.3? Yes, there are some that have not, and it seems to be a personal thing as to whether your pet peeve issue got corrected as to whether you like 1.3 or not. If it didn't, then you're seeing it here on the forums in negative posts. If it did, then you are seeing it here on the forums in positive posts. There's a third set - those who are watching this as a great work in progress, who are happy digging into things and watching how things work and trying to figure out why the AI is doing/is able to do what it is doing.

Yes, I think there are still some problems with 1.3. Yes, I would love for the things I look at to be corrected at some point in the near future. Is it playable as a sandbox game right now? Yep. Are there issues at times? Yep. (No Eastern invasion because of a huge stack in Cherbourg facing off against a huge stack in the Channel Islands that has happened about 5% of the time for me so far is an issue).

I must say though, that I am someone who saves often, and will purposely go back and re-load saved games to see the alternative outcomes based on certain positions. I don't have any performance issues at this point (if I let the game run hands off, I am still at about 7 secs a day in 1942 in the heart of the world at war.) I have many different starting files saved (yes, I went in and altered the org structure a couple of times and saved them down as different builds - I can just go in to one of those that is closest to what I want to do this time and start with most of the work already done.)

So, for those who are looking for WWII, I would bet good money that it will be here. For those who are thinking that there are things that are very broken, figure out if that's something that is broken in underlying concept or if it is something that can be fixed with a quick cheat or change to the original OOB (i.e. Soviet Manpower). If it's the former, then that is something that needs to be addressed with patches, etc. If it's the latter, then do what you want, and suggest it as something that could be changed to be more realistic, game-balancing, etc.

 

[phoenix110044]

So my love hate relationship with Paradox continues. They create amazing games far above in scope and detail than anyone else out there. But they are so ambitious they are often bug stricken, but then they labor like crazy to fix them, and over time many are gone except for a few. But the games are so open that we can often make 'adjustments' to save files or mods to fix things ourselves. I am so conflicted!

 

[Jazumir]

...
This game was not meant to be 'the grand strategy game of WW2' and it never claimed to be - it was clearly stated during the game's development that the game was to be a grand strategy game set in the WW2 era - one where the player can see the US join the allies in 1939 (seems to be a favourite pick) and numerous other non historical incidents. This led many to ask for a 'historical' switch. People may not like the ahistorical nature of the game (I'm not sure I am the keen on it) but the game is not broken with this, as this is more or less what was intended. This is the game design - if you don't like it, don't buy it.
...

[boldings added by me]

Translated back from the german box: ´With almost 15,000 provinces HoI3 is not only 5 times bigger than before, it also is the most detailed depiction of WW2, that has ever been made.´

I would think, a costumer reading this when picking up the box from the shelf does expect a ´grand strategy game of WW2´. BTW, from reading the dev-diaries, it never crossed my mind, that HoI3 would be supposed to be anything else either - but i may have missed something. But what is probably a lot more true than the above quote from the box, is what it says a bit further down:

´Realistic military AI enables strategic and tactical possibilities, that have never existed before´ (probably meant to include RL, as well)

Dont get me wrong, i dont want it to go RL-history 100% of the time. But 1% or more would be nice. As someone else said before, an historical game just never happens in HoI3 yet. And that doesnt even mean, that it was less deterministic than a 100%-historical game - it just kind of has its own version of history and follows that instead - quite rigidly actually (WW2 starts may 1st, 1939 - always). Aside from the fact, this is hardly more fun, than an historically accurate game (not to even speak about a dynamical one), it does carry the risk of ´negative educational value´ - i am waiting for the first 12 year old, telling me with confidence, that WW2 in europe (IRL) started on may 1st 1939, because it always does in HoI3 (and the box says [1st quote above]).

 

[Stunt Monkey]

I agree whole heartedly with Bullfrog and KalZakath.

There seems to be a lot of consternation that this game doesn't follow the historical route rigidly enough. But ask yourself the question why should it given how the game is designed?

The dynamics in the game mean that a historical outcome is possible but alongside a wide range of ahistoric actions.

It means the player can't just sit back churning out infantry and armoured divisions waiting for war to start in September '39 in the way it did historically and then be disappointed when he/she realises USA are already a member of the allies.

If you don't want USA or Ireland, or whoever, joining the allies prior to the war then do something about it: use your spies to raise the threat of the UK or France or spend diplomatic points influencing the US or Belgium etc. Just show some guile and don't expect the game to be scripted to produce your perfect outcome.

This is what gets me about people who want to whizz through the game at one day a second - I just feel you are missing out on a subtle very intriguing part of the game, then scream blue murder when nations join the allies.

As KalZakath says, as sure as eggs are eggs there will be a scripted historical outcome version pretty soon - until then, if you don't like something, change it.

 

[Jazumir]

...
It means the player can't just sit back churning out infantry and armoured divisions waiting for war to start in September '39...

As mentioned above, WW2 starts on may, 1st ´39, and every human player knows that on jan 1st, 1936 (if he/she is not playing germany).

 

[RELee]

I guess I would be conflicted too if there were anybody out there who came close to creating games that represent the butterfly effect along with chaos theory so well. But, nobody does so I just don't have any conflict at all. They are the only folks who make games that span the entire world, allow me to play as any country, and depending on how my actions interact with the rest of the game allow me to strive to play a historical game or one so ahistorical that you can't tell the players without a program.

With HOI3, this is even more true than it was for this particular time period.

Although, to be honest, I prefer the games from earlier periods.o