Let's enjoy the game for what it is...EU3

[unmerged(12272)]

I've played WiF boardgame and beta (ugh). I suppose I was looking for a game of WiF-lite (while not being Axis & Allies plus).

However I think that you could have weekly turns without it descending into micro-managing. Though I will state quite clearly that I do want a bigger level of management with the military side of things. Primarily you would have an 'End Turn' button which if you had nothing to do that week you could easily hit. Otherwise you go in, make your changes to research, prod and diplo, move your units. And thats what you have to do with HOI right now anyway, you pause (or slow time dramatically) do your changes then whizz the speed up again. It would have to be coupled with making the map more complex, and land forces more complex while making air and naval combat/movement less complex...

 

[Lord Baldric]

Originally posted by saffgee
Surely the logical conclusion to draw from this thread is that neutrals should have a 'division cap'. Base it on IC maybe (which could kind of make sense) or perhaps on territory size. Either way, that would probably take care of those pesky Romanians - and shouldn't really be all too much of a programming challenge to the devs. I suppose an algorithm to assess repercussions might also not go amiss (I mean how much defence will the romanian homeland have if all their divisions go chasing off after russians - and while we're at it, how good was the romanian supply infrastructure). A diplomatic function like 'stay put' would also probably add a little more realism (I'm sure hitler would have been highly amused by romanian opportunism in the Caucasus).

I disagree. The Rumanians aren't conquering the USSR independently, but rather in cooperation as a German ally. The way the game allocates control of conquered provinces is to blame. When the Rumanians, Finns, etc, are acting as PROXIES in a German campaign, under military control, the land they capture should be under German control pure and simple. It should be the same with any other instance of military control...

(I would hope that a division cap of sorts could be a natural outgrowth of manpower limitations and the need to keep all those divisions supplied.)

 

[unmerged(12276)]

WRT Russia, much of the problem would be solved if units advanced at a much slower rate (i.e. tactical advance) through unfriendly territory. As it is, they seem to just drive down the highway to Moscow and beyond as long as there are no units in front of them.

 

[unmerged(5322)]

One thing that sticks in my mind is the contraints of world domination, the half goal of EU2. I don't know what the other goal of EU2 was lol. And playing as minors is the following.

Let's say you want to take Brazil and march up the Americas to defeat the U.S. It's possible. Well three things stop this from becoming really hard, cover forces to maintain line of supply, AI that' recognizes this threat. And a strain on the pool of men.

At the least the AI should try to cut off line of supply those forcing heavy attrition, (EU2 sea faring attrition ) Or the pool of forces should be restrained so Romania is stopped dead in it's tracks.

However, these suggestion pose problems in themselves.

I think what many people want with regard to ahistorical sims, is a game that doesn't get wacky every time out. Throw in a monkey wrench here and there but the impossible and highly implausible shouldn't happen every game. But then again ahistorical is very subjective. So making Cuba worth a hill of beans for some could mean a very bad game, while for others, if you can't have world conquest with Ireland is a bad game.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by trooper76
Would PAradox ever consider letting players Mod the game?

Im thinking weekly turns and a hex map at least..

IMHO, the fact that HOI is real-time is a great advancement for strategy gaming that should be embraced, not rejected. Battles happened in real-time, not in turns or phases. Having turns is a leftover from boardgaming days, but now computers are advanced enough to actually simulate warfare in real-time, as opposed to enforcing artificial constraints to make in turn-based. I believe that the use of real-time not only helps to make the game more historically accurate, but constitutes the future of grand strategy gaming.

 

[unmerged(8195)]

Sure, real-time strategy gaming is revolutionary, but so would be the ability of auto-sending interceptors against the neverending Strategic Bombing-A-Go-Go.
Unless the AI is forced to drag and click with a mouse like it's human counterpart...

 

[unmerged(11914)]

It seems that a turn-based option would be very handy. When handling nations whose forces get or start out sprawling from one end of the map to the other,( ie UK, SU, US, even Italy or Germany if your good enough), once the war starts its nearly impossible to keep track. I like to see how the individual battles proceed and if I can learn from a devastating defeat or victory. More often however, I'm on the slowest of speeds "clicking the x's" sometimes stacks at a time. Some I have time to read through others I can only manage a quick notice for the"defeat" or "victory" part. I enjoy the game and don't at all mind ahistorical ends,( Romania keeps you on your toes as SU for sure), but I think if I'm spending all my time in a "click-fest" once the war starts it's hard to get fully into the game.

 

[unmerged(12272)]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with a previous poster on the need for real-time gaming in strategy games. IMHO the rush to RTS has become overblown and is imho still lacking in gameplay.

The fact while computers maybe able to handle 'realtime' gameplay (and i use the term loosely) the human brain can't.

Look at it this way..

Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, Hitler etc, were not asked to make 20 decisions regarding the political, economic and military futures of their nations in 5 minutes..They couldn't , no one can. Its not how it happened in real life.

To think that turn based gaming is some sort of antiquated leftover from the days of board gaming is wrong. There are VERY good reasons why many games still use that dynamic.

One person can't do it all, you can't tell me you don't slow the game down or pause it when you need to make a bunch of decisions. Personally I think it could be handled better with a turn based system. (Mind you I really dont mind the RT thing as much as long as there is a pause key and I can get the game to pause when a popup launches).

My main beef is the inherent disparity between having game time split into hours and the scale of some of those actions that take place in game time.

For instance, research, production and diplomacy are not things that take place in a matter of hours. The movement of corp sized military units is not something that takes place in a matter of hours.

In fact there is basically only one part of the game that fits the time scale and that is aircraft, therefore you really dont touch the rest of the game much, except for aircraft which you are constantly re-sending on missions (though I Realise there is an option to repeat them).

So at the end of the day, why break the game up into such small timepieces when 90% of the game doesnt need it?

Really though its moot, I have a feeling Im just looking for a different game. I'll still enjoy HoI though, thanks PAradox.