Keep it simple. Please :-)

[unmerged(56754)]

No thanks.

I'm hoping to load Victoria style complicity.

I wanted to have play the game in a language lost in time, have to complete complicated maths equations before moving any troops, have the interface invisible unless I balance a chemical equations and have work out where every screw goes on on everyone one of my ships.

 

[Bullfrog]

Yeah I want my head to explode when I boot the game up.

 

[sbr]

Yeah I want my head to explode when I boot the game up.

Can I have your copy when you are done with it?

 

[Bullfrog]

Can I have your copy when you are done with it?

Alright. My will is amended.

 

[unmerged(131342)]

I'd like to pitch in a pro-complexity voice here. A good strategy game should have a steep, yet not vertical, learning curve, with a lot of choices forcing you to make hard and well-thought through choices. The Interface and inner working though should be transparant, so that you always know what the effect of choices will be. This is a very difficult balance, and PI is getting even better at it every time.

Player-made wiki's are often a must-have with PI games, as they should be.

 

[unmerged(81995)]

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.

Because its not the interface but the manual. The Paradox ones are on average the worst I have come above in gaming yet. To be fair - the HOI II one is on the better side.

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.

Complex = World conquest by 1941 with NatChin or 67 HQ units pulling off Barbarossa? If that´s your wish you might get it fulfilled. Which is what I fear actually ...

Regards,

Thorsten

 

[unmerged(81995)]

The Interface and inner working though should be transparant, so that you always know what the effect of choices will be.

Agreed. Hmmmm ... Did anyone figure out that Germany is best/easiest served following the coded event chain BEFORE he came acoss them? Or why plain infantry is the most economical solution beating anyone and everyone? Or the net effect of toughness and defensiveness against attack values? Or the absurd Cruizerg fleet effect on enemy fleets? No? Transparency ...

Regards,

Thorsten

 

[zeekater]

Agreed. Hmmmm ... Did anyone figure out that Germany is best/easiest served following the coded event chain BEFORE he came acoss them? Or why plain infantry is the most economical solution beating anyone and everyone? Or the net effect of toughness and defensiveness against attack values? Or the absurd Cruizerg fleet effect on enemy fleets? No? Transparency ...

Regards,

Thorsten

So, should they add 'this is the one you want to choose' to every event? Or a popup when you want to create a tank division 'really, you should just build infantry'?...

They should give you reasons to choose another outcome of an event or reasons to build other things but plain infantry, but this isn't always possible to do because it's just a game and can't simulate everything.

Also, no matter what, a human player will always find something to exploit within the game engine IMO (I know I always do)

The first time you play the game you do not know these things, what events will bring, or what to build.. and it makes the game more fun IMO. If I had immediatly known that I just needed to build infantry, I wouldn't have had any fun building my first paratrooper division

 

[unmerged(105989)]

Because its not the interface but the manual. The Paradox ones are on average the worst I have come above in gaming yet. To be fair - the HOI II one is on the better side.



Complex = World conquest by 1941 with NatChin or 67 HQ units pulling off Barbarossa? If that´s your wish you might get it fulfilled. Which is what I fear actually ...

Regards,

Thorsten

good points, I too really don't like the manuals, but barely reading the manual, I was able to pick up and play HOI and figure out most things, just by working through the interface. Vicky, I couldn't make that comparison.

As for complex, I acknowledge your point, but I believe that has more to do with the AI simply not being up to snuff in many cases than the actual game mechanics or complexity. I hope the devs come up with an AI that can use all the complexity and options that the player has, instead of allowing it to cheat.

 

[unmerged(79668)]

Complexity is good. Complexity gives a game like this longevity, you can keep coming back to it and learn new things, try new strategies. Simpler, more mainstream titles tend to get boring fast (for me anyway).

But, the OP does have some valid points. AI is crucial and it would have to take advantage of the flexibility offered by lots of options, just like a human player does. However, if the game's AI is as moddable as we all hope it will be, then the AI could be improved by the community/devs as people learn how to 'beat it'.

You have to consider the game's learning curve too. If you slam new players with tons of complexity right from the outset, then some may struggle. They should find a way to layer the complexity so that you don't have to deal with it all at once. It's nice to learn things as you play.

 

[Lazy_Boy]

The more complexity and variables the better. The only thing that needs to stay simple and fast is managing everything.

 

[unmerged(17767)]

For simple I'd recommend a nice simple game of Risk. Complex isn't bad if the UI and AI are good. Especially if we can choose, somewhat, the level of micromanagement.

 

[unmerged(52507)]

Complex can = complete failure, but simple can = simply awful. I have played plenty of stuff that was simple and crap. HOI has had complexity that has worked and this version will be better. Will there still be dodgy exploits - yes, but you can avoid them and still have a deep, balanced, complex game. How many people really do Barb with an all HQ effort?

 

[unmerged(31881)]

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.

Indeed. It seems that the Paradox philosophy for HoI3 is to offer more, more, more... and that includes choice too. So if the player wants more detail and complexity, it's right there. Or the player could avoid extra details if they want. e.g. if you want to customize the brigades in a division, you can. If you don't want to, you don't have to. They seem to be striking a great balance so far, imho.

 

[unmerged(53301)]

Well, I was all for simplicity until I played Spore and saw how AWFUL a simple gameplay really can be. So I'll take my chances with what paradox has planned, they've done good so far, I trust that they'll do the right thing.

 

[trekaddict]

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

 

[WarDog]

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.

+ 3


Thorsten, do not be afraid of the complexity in HOI3. If I have understood Johan correctly in the DDs, Paradox tries to do both - Make a more complex game, but with an easier interface and with loads of possibilities to automate aspects of the game and reduce micromanagement. IF you want to. You will have the choice. That should also ease the learning curve for new players. Start of with max automation and take more control as you master the game - or just love micromanagement.

Take a look at how you will order your airforce. You can give a unit a single order that can last the entire game - Air Superiority over a given region with reserves and infinite time. OR you can now protect a single tiny industrial rich province in the heat of a bombing campaign for a short time.

I find this approach good. HOI needs to be a complex game - it's not like all the others. That's what makes HOI so great. At the same time I believe Paradox has already taken into consideration your point. Having the option to automate and reduce micro will be positive for new players and those that prefer it like that.

 

[GeorgeAmbush]

The more advanced - the better

 

[unmerged(71032)]

Agreed. Hmmmm ... Did anyone figure out that Germany is best/easiest served following the coded event chain BEFORE he came acoss them? Or why plain infantry is the most economical solution beating anyone and everyone? Or the net effect of toughness and defensiveness against attack values? Or the absurd Cruizerg fleet effect on enemy fleets? No? Transparency ...

Regards,

Thorsten

It's what you get when you combine attempt keep things relatively historical and at the same time, you are buiding system that is supposed to work not just in those limited historical situations, but also in general, ahistorical scenarios.

First of all, let's make one thing clear - in game that tries to represent history, not everything have to be balanced. It's one of the common traps that gamers fall into - they think in terms of "scissors-paper-rock". History is not like that. Certain historical choices were in fact dead ends, obvious only with hindsight (that players have).

Now, second part - enviroment with limited number of variables. Cruizergs and infantry zerg are effects of combining ambition to recreate history and not having enough variables and game mechanics that will ensure that certain combinations of historical ideas won't cause massive gamey balance problems.

Basically, to counter exploits (and again, it's not obvious in first place we and to counter them, because of the history) we have 3 ways:

- make game less historical and focus on balancing units. This is common way of doing things in game industry - we are basically back to glorified "scissors-paper-rock" - but from the game point of view, it's ok.

- make game historical, but rigid - it will have limited scope, every mechanics that is "dangerous" for game balance (like adding politics in war game or allowing players to prepare for war instead of starting it in 1939) is removed or extremely limited.

- or we can "chase the unicorn" by adding more variables and mechanics to ensure that we stay as historical as possible. We don't focus on balance, but balance MIGHT be the effect of such approach, as extra variables can limit usefulness of certain exploits.

I'm glad that Paradox have chosen 3rd way. It's rare approach these days.

 

[Ostheim]

We need complexity that is easy to control and manipulate. Fewer orders issued by the player, fewer steps necessary in organizing your forces. I want to be able to play the USSR without spending an hour reorganizing the Red Army. The new command structure with armies, army groups, and theaters should go a long way in doing this. This bundled with a realistic combat system and historical accuracy and you've got a winner.