Keep it simple. Please :-)

[unmerged(81995)]

Seeing all the wishes in the posts for more options in warfare, diplomacy, economy and sensing the upcoming added complexity from the DDs - I actually express 1 wish to the developers:

Keep it simple! Simple! Simple! The more complex the game the worse the AI will be, naturally. The more complex a game the more work actually playing it for me. The more complex a game the bigger the chances for blatantly stupid exploits not taken into account. The more complex a game the steeper the learning curve.

This is a strategy game. Not carrier construction set v4, not alternate history v1, not political simulation v7, not aircraft kit v25. Thus keep it strategy please - whoever wants a tactical in depth wargame may refer to OpAoW.

Regards,

Thorsten

 

[Will Lucky]

But Rome wasn't Complex and look where that went, although the expansion has done much to improve it.

 

[Jebus]

Seeing all the wishes in the posts for more options in warfare, diplomacy, economy and sensing the upcoming added complexity from the DDs - I actually express 1 wish to the developers:

Keep it simple! Simple! Simple! The more complex the game the worse the AI will be, naturally. The more complex a game the more work actually playing it for me. The more complex a game the bigger the chances for blatantly stupid exploits not taken into account. The more complex a game the steeper the learning curve.

This is a strategy game. Not carrier construction set v4, not alternate history v1, not political simulation v7, not aircraft kit v25. Thus keep it strategy please - whoever wants a tactical in depth wargame may refer to OpAoW.

Regards,

Thorsten

You display a disturbing lack of ambition.

Please do not project this on the Paradox team.

 

[unmerged(112615)]

What's OpAoW?

 

[Easy1]

Seeing all the wishes in the posts for more options in warfare, diplomacy, economy and sensing the upcoming added complexity from the DDs - I actually express 1 wish to the developers:

Keep it simple! Simple! Simple! The more complex the game the worse the AI will be, naturally. The more complex a game the more work actually playing it for me. The more complex a game the bigger the chances for blatantly stupid exploits not taken into account. The more complex a game the steeper the learning curve.

This is a strategy game. Not carrier construction set v4, not alternate history v1, not political simulation v7, not aircraft kit v25. Thus keep it strategy please - whoever wants a tactical in depth wargame may refer to OpAoW.

Regards,

Thorsten

What you are saying is that the less complex the better.

Ludo is a great game, but it just doesn’t work like that

 

[PIT_AMERO]

What's OpAoW?

The Operational Art of War- TOAW.
It's one very good and detailed strategy focusing only on the battles.

 

[dsteve3]

The devs have stated that the AI will be able to accomodate alot of automation, and that will be very customizable by the player, so if you don't want the micro-management, there will be options.

Having said that, one of the things I have found playing Civ 4 is that going along with the AI makes one as weak as all the other AI-controlled parties, without any of the AI-given advantages. And, ultimately, the player still has to know what each option is even if the AI is given control. Complexity can be a real curse - there are games out there that are just unplayable to new players because the learning-curve is just too steep.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

I'm less concerned about complexity than I am about the user interface. This is something that Paradox has actually gotten a lot better about over the years. I got vicky several years ago, and even poring over the manual, it was a pain just to find everything I needed. On the other hand, HOI 2 was very intuitive for the most part. From what I've seen HOI III will have lots of moving parts, but the interface looks like it will be pretty user friendly. If I want a non-complex game, I'll play Civ or Panzer General. HOI (and all paradox) is designed to be deep and complex. That's why I (and a lot of others) play it.

 

[xelloss]

not political simulation v7,

You can't have grand strategy without politics or economics. At least not if you want things to go somewhat historical ^_^.

 

[tretii_sleva]

No, let's not keep it simple. The more complicated the better.

 

[oribiasi]

Everyone relax; the developers made the first two games, didn't they? They know what they're doing -- it's their job, after all.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Seeing all the wishes in the posts for more options in warfare, diplomacy, economy and sensing the upcoming added complexity from the DDs - I actually express 1 wish to the developers:

Keep it simple! Simple! Simple! The more complex the game the worse the AI will be, naturally. The more complex a game the more work actually playing it for me. The more complex a game the bigger the chances for blatantly stupid exploits not taken into account. The more complex a game the steeper the learning curve.

This is a strategy game. Not carrier construction set v4, not alternate history v1, not political simulation v7, not aircraft kit v25. Thus keep it strategy please - whoever wants a tactical in depth wargame may refer to OpAoW.

Regards,

Thorsten

It is an operational wargame with a political and economic component, more or less. The features they add are a natural consequence of the shortcomings of HoI2. There's no point in releasing a sequel of a historical game without adding more features. It's not like they can make the plot different, so something else has to change.

 

[unmerged(12217)]

Logical complexity sounds good to me. When complexity is programmed in a haphazard, difficult to understand fashion, then I object. Good manuals help as well.

For an object lesson in over-complication with poor documentation, see the recently released WW1 game by the same name.

 

[Darth Tracid]

i don´t like the tone in this thread. keep it away from insults people.

 

[unmerged(131011)]

I vote for nonsimplicity with good interface and 400 pages manual ..

 

[ashbery76]

Micro-mananaging is not fun.So complex is good if it needs little micro.

 

[TheCrimsonMajor]

I must disagree. There are thousands of watered down mainstream titles on the market today. If you want simple, you don't have to look very far. It is precisely because Paradox games are so complex that I enjoy them. Please don't try and take that away.

 

[unmerged(35344)]

I must disagree. There are thousands of watered down mainstream titles on the market today. If you want simple, you don't have to look very far. It is precisely because Paradox games are so complex that I enjoy them. Please don't try and take that away.

Goodness yes!

 

[unmerged(123225)]

I must disagree. There are thousands of watered down mainstream titles on the market today. If you want simple, you don't have to look very far. It is precisely because Paradox games are so complex that I enjoy them. Please don't try and take that away.

+1

From the looks of it the game doesn't seem all that more complex than HoI2 and lot of micromanagement is now simplified, so I don't know what the OP is asking for.

 

[TheGreatRadish]

From what we've seen so far, HoI3 is developing as the ultimate WW2 Grand Strategy game which can be complex but offers simplicity through automation/delegation to the AI if you want. You take the latter route if you want, but don't deny me the opportunity to take the former.