-
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.
Useless discussion, polluting the peace of the forums. I have had a blast with AoD when it came out and I have had a blast with DH when it came out. Eventually, I stuck with DH. Other people stuck with AoD. Some dislike both. Who cares?
I thought we were discussing about presentation of false sale figures and ethics of this. You didn't pick that up at all? Or who cares?
What turned me away from DH:
1. tech groups. It just feels extreamly wierd, and wrong, that you only use a very limited amount of reserch and development capacity of the nation. in HOI3, you have a proper feeling of reserch, that every majpr nation does a lot of projects simultanuously.
2. Gearing bonus. You build your 3 battleships, educate workers, build shipyards, and thatn, it wanishes, the next day you didn`t have battleship in building que.
HOI3 practicals are much better at that.
3. tech tree, in particular the land doctrine tree. the exclusivity of metods is something i do not agree with. While armies tended to prioritise one thing or another, it did in no way prohibited one army to learn a lot of tricks of another army, adding an additional layer to their combat capacity rather than being stuck with former choice.
The HOI3 doctines that increase probability of combat events and new tactic system from TFH, that allow you to have an army of much better quality due to much more investment in operational art, than your opponent, while having units of absolutely similar quality makeit way, way better.
4. the summo fifhter combat. Stacks of 25 vs 25 or more divisions that you often see in DH makes me cry.
Even the battle in Stalingrad was way smaller engagement(roughtly 13 divisions on each side in city).
5. lack of command structure.
I highly doubt the expansion will adress the issues, so,..
The armour and motorised units just feel different, and armour in HOI3 is extreemly powerfull not due to it`s very substantial punch, but it`s tactical manuverability.
As for the number of things to menage, if you use the right-hand corner lits of things right, you have no problems, ever.
Then, the HOI3 game may have a solwer pase than HOI2, but that is not a disadvantage, it is just different.
Oh and do not ever use anything that is not collaboration goverment, or you`r supply lines are screwed.
1. tech groups. It just feels extreamly wierd, and wrong, that you only use a very limited amount of reserch and development capacity of the nation. in HOI3, you have a proper feeling of reserch, that every majpr nation does a lot of projects simultanuously.
2. Gearing bonus. You build your 3 battleships, educate workers, build shipyards, and thatn, it wanishes, the next day you didn`t have battleship in building que.
HOI3 practicals are much better at that.
3. tech tree, in particular the land doctrine tree. the exclusivity of metods is something i do not agree with. While armies tended to prioritise one thing or another, it did in no way prohibited one army to learn a lot of tricks of another army, adding an additional layer to their combat capacity rather than being stuck with former choice.
The HOI3 doctines that increase probability of combat events and new tactic system from TFH, that allow you to have an army of much better quality due to much more investment in operational art, than your opponent, while having units of absolutely similar quality makeit way, way better.
4. the summo fifhter combat. Stacks of 25 vs 25 or more divisions that you often see in DH makes me cry.
Even the battle in Stalingrad was way smaller engagement(roughtly 13 divisions on each side in city).
5. lack of command structure.
I highly doubt the expansion will adress the issues, so,..
AI controll, no?
The HOI3 feels great exactly because it has so many provinces. Most fights include a single, more often than not low digit of divisions.
The armour and motorised units just feel different, and armour in HOI3 is extreemly powerfull not due to it`s very substantial punch, but it`s tactical manuverability.
As for the number of things to menage, if you use the right-hand corner lits of things right, you have no problems, ever.
Then, the HOI3 game may have a solwer pase than HOI2, but that is not a disadvantage, it is just different.
Yes, just build infra in Poland, and be carefull to not put too many troops in the teatre, and you`re 100% solid.
Oh and do not ever use anything that is not collaboration goverment, or you`r supply lines are screwed.
He was obviously wrong with what he said, as Johan corrected. And now? You think he was sitting there, robbing his hands in sinister manner, telling lies? Or maybe he just had a false assumptions or data as he posted. Anyhow, I wouldn't change my opinion about neither AoD nor DH based on stupid sales figures or people bragging about them. If I would, I'd be playing HoI3.
1. Huh? The biggest players have 7 tech slots now and you can increase it further by mods if you want (up to 50). DH's tech tree is much more streamlined in comparison with HOI3's tech tree and has a different structure - there is no need to have 20 projects being researched at the same time.
2. The bonus shouldn't vanish instantly, true. However, the gearing bonus system is actually more realistic than HOI3's one, as you have to decide whether to upgrade your stuff and lose some (but not all) of the accumulated bonus or keep producing older stuff for less ICdays.
3. Lol, there are many who feel exactly the opposite and don't like HOI3's cookie-cutter doctrines (the air and naval doctrines are probably the worst - so bloated, yuck...). In one of the most popular of HOI3's mods (HPP), a HOI2-like system was adopted. Clearly a matter of preference.
4. It's the result of fewer provinces. Fewer provinces mean less micromanagement and are easier for the AI to handle (in HOI3 AI minors often get confused because they don't have enough troops to form a frontline and the AI works poorly then). Some like it, some don't. Oh, and it's moddable.
5. I agree, although the simplicity of the HOI2's system is better for the AI.
EDIT: A general note - most of the stuff you mentioned can be modded (both in HOI3 and DH, e.g. you can create more techs for DH or reduce the number of techs in HOI3, same for the number of provinces, tech structure etc.), so it's not that those issues are not solvable even without an expansion. I could easily compile a list of far bigger DH's (or HOI3's, for that matter) problems which are not so easy to mod.
Last edited:
I agree these are all really good additions to HoI3 but on the balance of things I still prefer the HoI2 derivatives. Hopefully once 3 has had more development (patches, expansions, mods) I'll be able to switch to it without getting bored
Sorry for not posting earlier, I was very busy at work..
I stand corrected on sales figures. My data on AOD sales performances was apparently obsolete (although from AOD devs..). So kudos to them too!
I stand corrected on sales figures. My data on AOD sales performances was apparently obsolete (although from AOD devs..). So kudos to them too!
There is zero chance of an expansion!
1. Game's already been moved to the classics-section. Does anyone honestly believe that Paradox will publish an expansion for a "classic game"? This move documents the place where Paradox thinks DH belongs now.
2. Patch 1.03 is massive, pretty much like an expansion itself. It's great that we got it for free. Features like casualty stats would have a strong selling point. There's simply not enough left to warrant an expansion.
1. Game's already been moved to the classics-section. Does anyone honestly believe that Paradox will publish an expansion for a "classic game"? This move documents the place where Paradox thinks DH belongs now.
2. Patch 1.03 is massive, pretty much like an expansion itself. It's great that we got it for free. Features like casualty stats would have a strong selling point. There's simply not enough left to warrant an expansion.
You had apparently rather obsolete data from FTM devs too.
Err.. first of all, I have, with others, come up with a game that is now enjoyed by thousands of players. So we deserve at least some respect on that regard.
Now, you should of course feel free to disagree but you don't have to be disagreeable when doing so.
As for what you said. I did not mean to compare DH with FTM as I am not involved in FTM whatsoever and have no contact with its developers. I simply compared DH sales with AOD and IC's, according to the data I had, which, again, did not seem accurate.
As for this whole expansion talk and as seattle mentioned, 1.03 already is a free expansion. As a player, I really wouldn't complain!
In my interpretation, an expansion has more source code changes, and more difference to the base game, than this patch. While it intruduces new features, the core game didn't change much.
BTW, I would like to see an ingame Multiplayer HUB for that case
BTW, I would like to see an ingame Multiplayer HUB for that case
@respect: With a metacritic average of 81/100 and a generally very positive feedback on the forums, the developers do earn a lot of respect. Especially considering that they are modders that have never before developed an entire game. That's simple logic, not a matter of opinion.
@support: I doubt there has ever been a game with a retail price of €9,95 that has seen better and longer support from the developers. If anyone disagrees, feel free to come up with examples that prove me wrong.
Somehow I believe the dispute between the two of you is based partially on misunderstandings. The section you quoted from "Count of Reval" doesn't seem to be offensive...
I would definitely buy some sort of a CORE-like expansion for DH, with polished alternate-history event chains and so on.
You know, you show a rather strange attitude. You always seem to be on the defensive, as if you constantly felt under massive attack from someone/something in regard to yourself or your game. As in other occasions, even now there was no need to react this way.
I fail to see in which regard should Count of Reval's post or attitude be either "disrespectful" or "disagreeable", as he only pointed out that you wrote something which proved to be totally false. Nobody accused DH to be a flop or to lack respect to it, as your reply involved («I have, with others, come up with a game that is now enjoyed by thousands of players. So you owe us at least some respect»). No lack of respect to you nor attacks to DH. It has just been pointed out that your data on sales was bogus, as it was soon after to be confirmed.
Also, it seems like it's nearly impossible for you to admit that you have made a mistake, and instead you prefer to twist what you yourself wrote:
Now, unless I'm no longer able to speak English, by your reply you implied AoD, IC and FTM. So, you're again presenting us a fake reality. Thus I'm wondering: is it so difficult to admit you were wrong? Everyone makes mistakes, so I don't see what it makes so "dishonorable" for you to acknowledge you made one.
Last thing, you claimed that CoR's post/attitude would have been "disagreeable". Eh? Why...? Again, only because he pointed out the data you spread were not accurate? I concur that one can be more or less touchy, but this...
And now, just to prevent an angry or resentful reply from you: I'll just state clearly that it wasn't my intention to jump at you, nor to refer to anything else than the mere facts which were written in this thread and which anybody can read, and - I'll stress it again, in case it weren't already clear enough - that I consider DH to be a great fan based project which has reached pretty impressive goals, especially given its starting means.
So, respect.
Okay, here is the whole story again:
AOD devs told me one year ago, when EvW started, they sold around 10,000 AOD copies. I knew IC did not sell so well (unfortunately). Considering what I knew about DH sales figures from Martin, I figured DH sold much more (at least 3x).
I already stated clearly that I made a mistake since these figures were inaccurate according to Johan.
As for FTM, sorry for the misunderstanding but I was not referring to FTM sales whatsoever. I wrote in a rush and it was misleading indeed but I did not mean to compare DH sales with FTM. I had no way to know about FTM sales anyway as I don't even know the devs.
Now, be assured that I enjoy how the game performed and how great our players community is.
AOD devs told me one year ago, when EvW started, they sold around 10,000 AOD copies. I knew IC did not sell so well (unfortunately). Considering what I knew about DH sales figures from Martin, I figured DH sold much more (at least 3x).
I already stated clearly that I made a mistake since these figures were inaccurate according to Johan.
As for FTM, sorry for the misunderstanding but I was not referring to FTM sales whatsoever. I wrote in a rush and it was misleading indeed but I did not mean to compare DH sales with FTM. I had no way to know about FTM sales anyway as I don't even know the devs.
Now, be assured that I enjoy how the game performed and how great our players community is.
Last edited:
Ok, explanations accepted.
I didn't mean to do so - I'm sorry if you again felt like this was some sort of attack aimed at you, for it wasn't. It was merely related to your line re: sales.
Anyway, fully agree with the concept you've expressed. Let's all always stick to this basic rule of civil behavior.
Edit: after finishing writing my reply I saw you edited your post. I'm not changing what I wrote, though, as the content of my post would have been the same even if I replied to your edited one, as the two versions have basically the same meaning.
However, just:
Oh dear, again? Where did I ever say the contrary, Fernando, where...? "DH is superb and by far the best HoI2 game ever made". Are you satisfied, now?
Last edited: