-
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.
Word.
It really bugs me that event chains are, in HoI2, things you need to 'know'. Getting the Bitter Peace is a major goal for Germany, but if you don't know you need to either not be at war with allies or occupy Paris to get any sort of peace short of annexation (which is, by far, a more detrimental option when compared to Bitter Peace).
Worse yet, you don't know the event chains until you come across them: no, I did not know about the Danzig event when I first played Germany. Nor did I know about the Anschluss event; I'm pretty sure I wondered whether I was going to have to DoW them or when, because I didn't know the historical date.
EU3 made this much, much better with the National and Provincial Decisions and the 'x% chance of event so-and-so happening'-info, so I'm confident this will be better in HoI3. I've already spotted an 'Anschluss'-national decision
.
Maybe I've sound like an elitist jerk, but the fact that history knowledge helps players in playing this game is an asset, not the burden.
And if you don't, you learn things from those games, which is absolutely mindblowing. Hearts of Iron series can be actually used as educational tools and to be fair, they often contain more detailed knowledge on certain things then popular-history TV and computer programs.
But I guess I know what you mean and your suggestion was somehow adressed - certain events are getting changed into decisions known from EU3:IN - so you can actually see what you need to trigger the event beforehand.
So yes, the key to success is making game as deep as possible - and at the same time improve its accessability.
I wholeheartedly agree. SPORE is just so...trivial. I bought it and played it for a few days, then I went back to hoi2 again...which obviously has been around a "little" longer in my collection. Complexity FTW!
From the diaries I think PI are giong the right way about this. You can let the AI take over fronts for example if you are not that interested. Hopefully this will apply to other sections like:
* AI manage my Aircraft
* AI manage my production
* AI manage my intelligence
* AI manage my internal politics
...
Hopefully with you could give such AI a bit of directive too:
* AI manage my aircraft with a focus on air superiority.
* AI manage my production with a focus on Infantry units
* AI manage my intelligence with a focus on counter espionage
* AI manage my internal politics with a focus on keeping the current party in power.
* AI manage my Aircraft
* AI manage my production
* AI manage my intelligence
* AI manage my internal politics
...
Hopefully with you could give such AI a bit of directive too:
* AI manage my aircraft with a focus on air superiority.
* AI manage my production with a focus on Infantry units
* AI manage my intelligence with a focus on counter espionage
* AI manage my internal politics with a focus on keeping the current party in power.
If you´re serious you ask for a model train. Nothing wrong with it - but not a challenging game.
While HOI II is not MUCH more difficult than HOI I (with the reduced research system arguably even easier for a human player), the scripts are obviously not able to cope with the complexity already there. Computer can´t use brigading so that´s done with auto brigading, it can´t cope with distance limits so they are removed, it is unable to "understand" why constant rebasing is bad, it exposes troops on lonely islands close to nowhere to provide easy targets for convoy raiding, it´s whole naval as air fight capabilities are close to 0 and so forth.
On that base anyone asking for MORE complexity should be aware that he asks for even less computer player abilities at the same time. Again nothing wrong with it - but not my preferred choice.
I remember (vaguely) having come across a world conquest with ... Romania. I do not need to know more to ask for a game the computer player can handle. Which in reality Vicky did not have, EU (x to y) did not have, HOI did not have. And if its (practically) impossible to program a challenging AI - that´s my guess - than I vote for a much more simple but player challenging game any time of the day.
In the past until today Paradox games challenge was to get used to the unexplained. And that´s a pity given the theoretical depth of those games.
Regards,
Thorsten
A lot of people obviously misunderstood the OP's point. I agree with him on that hoi3 shouldn't have features that the AI won't/can't use correctly.
I will use an example: The doomsday expansion added the "espionage options". They were not complex for a human to use, but using them felt like cheating. Why? Because the AI didn't take advantage of these options.
Don't confuse complexity with difficulty. All the "i have conquered the world with the X minor" AARs in the HOI2 forum clearly state that complexity can actually make a game easier when the AI can't handle it.
I don't have a problem with new features. I just believe that the AI is probably the most important thing in a grand strategy game. I hope that Paradox is making a game where the AI can rationally deploy the fighters and bombers of it's airforce, and not a game with 15 different aircraft types.
I will use an example: The doomsday expansion added the "espionage options". They were not complex for a human to use, but using them felt like cheating. Why? Because the AI didn't take advantage of these options.
Don't confuse complexity with difficulty. All the "i have conquered the world with the X minor" AARs in the HOI2 forum clearly state that complexity can actually make a game easier when the AI can't handle it.
I don't have a problem with new features. I just believe that the AI is probably the most important thing in a grand strategy game. I hope that Paradox is making a game where the AI can rationally deploy the fighters and bombers of it's airforce, and not a game with 15 different aircraft types.
Complexity vs. AI is a valid point, but only to some extend.
Good complexity means adding barriers that not allow human players to conquer the world as well - things that are usually ommited or trivialized in games, like logistics, ability to occupy large territories and such.
So I see where are you coming from and I'm pretty sure that despite best attempts of devs, AI, from common player point of view, will be dumb as ever. Still, compare AI in HoI1 and in HoI2 (especially early patch an late patch ones). Despite game becoming more and more complex, AI was actually improving as well. So there is a hope there.
Good complexity means adding barriers that not allow human players to conquer the world as well - things that are usually ommited or trivialized in games, like logistics, ability to occupy large territories and such.
So I see where are you coming from and I'm pretty sure that despite best attempts of devs, AI, from common player point of view, will be dumb as ever. Still, compare AI in HoI1 and in HoI2 (especially early patch an late patch ones). Despite game becoming more and more complex, AI was actually improving as well. So there is a hope there.
So I see where are you coming from and I'm pretty sure that despite best attempts of devs, AI, from common player point of view, will be dumb as ever. Still, compare AI in HoI1 and in HoI2 (especially early patch an late patch ones). Despite game becoming more and more complex, AI was actually improving as well. So there is a hope there.
That does not give me any hope. Yes, the AI has improved in some areas somewhat. This is more than outmatched by the increasing difficulty/complexity, opening up even more room for exploits than in HOI I. And I fear the same development for HOI II - an AI that would haven been good for its predecessor (providing a challenge for the player) but waaaaaay under par for the actual game build.
In a nutshell - if I could get just HOI II but with an AI ramped up, I would buy it, at full price. What I now have to buy (this is my expectation) is unit construction set 1 combined with political sandbox 2.
Regards,
Thorsten
the AI in any game is by definition limited. Eventually, you will figure out how to beat it (although the mechanics of doing so may be difficult). Personally, I'm far more interested in a game that (re-)plays well with real human opponents and is not subject to bizarre exploits like the ones mentioned, rather than a game with the most challenging AI.
The beauty of HoI3 MP will be that it'll follow the same rules as EU3, thereby being far more accessible and easier to set up than the old EU2/HoI2 way of doing things.
Configuring my router for the old P'dox games was nothing short of Hell - EU3 was brilliantly simple, however - just plug and play, really.
Configuring my router for the old P'dox games was nothing short of Hell - EU3 was brilliantly simple, however - just plug and play, really.
Personally, I'm still waiting for school boards to start using PI games as history classes.Maybe I've sound like an elitist jerk, but the fact that history knowledge helps players in playing this game is an asset, not the burden.
And if you don't, you learn things from those games, which is absolutely mindblowing. Hearts of Iron series can be actually used as educational tools and to be fair, they often contain more detailed knowledge on certain things then popular-history TV and computer programs.
But I guess I know what you mean and your suggestion was somehow adressed - certain events are getting changed into decisions known from EU3:IN - so you can actually see what you need to trigger the event beforehand.
So yes, the key to success is making game as deep as possible - and at the same time improve its accessability.
Professor: "So, as you see, the pre-war build-up is here represented by this event...
"
Student: "Screw this! Can't you just infantry spam and join the axis?"
Professor: :sighs: "Fine."
Now THAT'S a class I'd attend for sure.
Better that, then Total War series.
"Let's use Winged Hussars in 1750 after "inventing" them (by building some bizzare building combination) in 1725, that's the best cavalry in the world!"
Seriously though, HoI2 contains mountains of historical material of much higher detail level then your average high school history book or "specialist" TV programmes produced for stations like Discovery and such. You don't recieve such gems all that often in games nowadays.
"Let's use Winged Hussars in 1750 after "inventing" them (by building some bizzare building combination) in 1725, that's the best cavalry in the world!"
Seriously though, HoI2 contains mountains of historical material of much higher detail level then your average high school history book or "specialist" TV programmes produced for stations like Discovery and such. You don't recieve such gems all that often in games nowadays.
I agree!
The more complex the better, provided the UI is elegant enough to keep things friendly for the player. An ingenious UI is crucial for sustaining complexity.
Simplify the UI, complexify the game.
Last edited:
Even if the AI is not improved by much, it doesn't mean the game won't get more difficult.
Logistics in HoI2 were laughable. You could run your tanks all the way through the Sahara and never worry about how your armada is managing to stay in supply. That was the real problem of HoI2. Hence Japanese conquests of Siberia and other utter nonsense. You don't need an AI to prevent a world conquest, you need a sensible logistical system. Which we now have. Yay.
Logistics in HoI2 were laughable. You could run your tanks all the way through the Sahara and never worry about how your armada is managing to stay in supply. That was the real problem of HoI2. Hence Japanese conquests of Siberia and other utter nonsense. You don't need an AI to prevent a world conquest, you need a sensible logistical system. Which we now have. Yay.
