Hmm now that you said it, this feels so true and just the right way to express some design issues with the game.
-
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.
Hmm now that you said it, this feels so true and just the right way to express some design issues with the game.
Thanks for dropping by to troll.
Clearly Paradox does listen as it has already been announced that V2 will have 3rd party beta testing house run the Beta.
And do not play the martyr saying you are being oppressed by the man. We have allowed this thread and dozens like it, no shut down, no bannings, we even let people like you, that have not even registered the game to have their say. But deliberately troll like that again and you will be banned for spreading lies.
While I'm sure you've locked, banned some thread filled with trolling which might have had a bit of constructiveness in it somewhere you are no where near some forums where they just constantly lock and delete everything negative. The amount of people posting here is proof of that, if posts continually disappear you'll be only left with a handful of posters. Sure they might be the most decent of the bunch but without variation nothing ever works as intended.
And I agree about the review of course, game fails, I've been waiting since release to start playing only to be greeted by random CTDs. Can't find any reason as to why it just crashes in a month or in 1 year, reload the autosave and it won't crash at the same time at least. fix fix fix!
Armchair General Score: 70%-From the referenced review. There are some very good aspects of the game mentioned along with some that are not so good, and some the reviewer did not quite understand. 70% is not a failing grade.
You should not exaggerate; makes everything you say suspect.
One way to avoid the diplomatic oddities and sometimes silly AI is to play MP. I just tried it a few day's ago-very different feel. I do hope that additional patches will be forthcoming for HoI3, but in the meantime, I will be able to play-along with many others.
I do sympathize with those that have CTD issues, but I do not recall ever seeing any PC game that did not have that problem-some more than others for sure. I suspect the vast majority (like me) did not have such problems with this game-luck of the draw I suppose.
Anyway, the reviewer gave a fair, if not entirely accurate review. I agree that 70% is about right-which is passing.
Is this really true? Paradox games may be review-proof, in the same way as, say, that Transformers movie last summer was. I don't know if they're actually suffering any damage from their current practices.
As for the review, I guess it's fair, though I don't see crashes post-1.3 anymore myself.
If you like War In Russia you'll love War In the East (the successor to WIR). Forum link: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=695
I'm waiting for that myself
I only want to add that I find the OOB management (attaching and detaching units) quite good.
If we consider how many levels there are I believe in other games managing something similar is (or would) be a real pain.
I only wished the forces would be better organized at the beginning of some scenarios (although this can be historical).
If we consider how many levels there are I believe in other games managing something similar is (or would) be a real pain.
I only wished the forces would be better organized at the beginning of some scenarios (although this can be historical).
Johan said that for Vicky2 they won't be relying on fan-betas, but will be using professional beta studios.
whats ironic about the review and the reviewer's site is that at the top of the site they have an advert banner for their magazine with this line...'the interactive history magazine where YOU decide the outcome'
there goes his argument regarding The diplomatic and alliance system is completely out of whack, with ahistorical outcomes being the norm
there goes his argument regarding The diplomatic and alliance system is completely out of whack, with ahistorical outcomes being the norm
There is a difference between alternate history and implausible outcomes.
We will see. Ièll probably buy it and take a chance.
Anyhow, I think that HOI3 is a successor to War in Russia rather than Clash of Steel.
WIR in Russia was characterized by having units "carrying" sub-units, which reduced clutter and allowed some freedom in composition of units. Other games pushed this in various directions, like "Highway to the Reich", which allowed the player to give general orders that were carried out by sub-units. But somehow contrary to my expectations this game and its successors like "somethingorother over the Aegean" didn't hold my interest for long.
Clash of Steel OTOH, was the first really good computer port of turn-based board wargames. I guess Matrixgames (and Battlefront with the SC series) is the main purveyor of its successors, like the John Tiller series. Probably the best of the recent bunch of such games is Commander: Europe at War, which is more complex than SC, but not as mind-boggling as Time of Wrath, which I would classify in the "almost-monster" game category.
WIR and CoS kept player interest for over 10 years without any expansions, which shows that a really good game can surf the user community for years.
Paradox has opened new directions with the EU series and the HOI series, and as far as I know no one has even tried to follow in their footsteps because of the complexity of these games.
Thinking of WiR, one possibility that would make HOI3 a lot easier to play would be an option to "hide" all the divisions under their Corps HQ unit, with Theater and Army Group HQs being able to have their own "hidden" infantry units. Sub-units would move around with their Corps HQs, and any stray divisions and brigades could be ordered to "find and join" their HQs with a simple command.Divisions and brigades could be "unhidden" when required (for example for battle)
After all, HOI3 is a WW2 game, and most of the player time is spent moving units back and forth between the Western and Eastern Front, to the Balkans, to Africa, and maybe all over the World especially if one is playing an Asian country.
Personally I have never made it past the Barbarossa launching, because I am so tired after spending hours moving and organizing my German units from the Balkans and the Western Front that I shut off the game and go read some more forum complaints about the game.
Henri
First, thanks all for both the supportive and non-supportive comments on my review. Honestly, this game is diamond in the very, very rough. I think it will get better as time goes by as the system is tweaked. I don't believe this is a situation where you have a basically broken system that needs to be pitched and rebuilt. It just requires more polishing before it is done.
Second, I believe I fully understand how the game works. Part of the issue with writing a review is you are limited in words (usually around 500-600 for an online review, upwards of 1500 for a printed) and can only put so many things in. Hence, you can't talk about detailed strategies for playing Paraguay. You focus on the big things that a buyer is looking for in the game (production, tech, combat, alliances, etc.). Additionally, part of this is writing what you think about the game and what you would have like to have seen added into the system (e.g., more ship classes, detailed aircraft, or whatever), remembering that not everyone who reads the review is 1)a PI fan and 2) familiar with the system. A writer puts stuff like "It would have been neat to build P40D's, etc" into a review so a reader knows that that level of detail is not available in the game, and gives the developer new ideas for future games and expansions.
Lastly, I'm as much, if not more, of a fanboy than most people who post to the forums. I literally own every game from EU1 forward, even games I only played once or twice (not really into Rome and middle ages games). So, it was not an easy thing to write that the game was not a 100% game out of the box, but a writer has to be honest with the reader. I expect any press is good press, and I think the review was fair and explained the basics of the game to would-be buyers interested in the genre.
Aragos (aka Dr Robert Mackey, LTC, USA, Ret)
Second, I believe I fully understand how the game works. Part of the issue with writing a review is you are limited in words (usually around 500-600 for an online review, upwards of 1500 for a printed) and can only put so many things in. Hence, you can't talk about detailed strategies for playing Paraguay. You focus on the big things that a buyer is looking for in the game (production, tech, combat, alliances, etc.). Additionally, part of this is writing what you think about the game and what you would have like to have seen added into the system (e.g., more ship classes, detailed aircraft, or whatever), remembering that not everyone who reads the review is 1)a PI fan and 2) familiar with the system. A writer puts stuff like "It would have been neat to build P40D's, etc" into a review so a reader knows that that level of detail is not available in the game, and gives the developer new ideas for future games and expansions.
Lastly, I'm as much, if not more, of a fanboy than most people who post to the forums. I literally own every game from EU1 forward, even games I only played once or twice (not really into Rome and middle ages games). So, it was not an easy thing to write that the game was not a 100% game out of the box, but a writer has to be honest with the reader. I expect any press is good press, and I think the review was fair and explained the basics of the game to would-be buyers interested in the genre.
Aragos (aka Dr Robert Mackey, LTC, USA, Ret)
Most comp game companies make a profit on release day and shortly thereafter when they can sell their game at a premium price to eager fans. After that the price drops precipitously along with the game's profitability.
Given that accounting metric, it would seem that the LAST thing you would want to do is release shoddy broken games that encourage loyal fans (like me) to hold off on purchasing them until a year later when they're a fraction of the price.
That said, I also blame the fans to a certain extent for this. Go back and read the developer diaries and witness the endless complaints about the release day being too far off, etc.
Did you think that comment through? I'm amazed, really quite astounded actually, that you think alternate history and implausiblehistory are the same thing.
I feel like a primary school teacher, but here goes:
Alternate history = Germany obtaining air supremacy and invading England using their small navy and a lot of small boats, barges, etc. They can't be stopped because the RN gets blown up by German land-based plans.
Implausible history = Norway decides they didn't really like their homeland that much and decides to send their forces to overtake Antarctica, with a northern outpost on Madagascar.
This shouldn't be a choice, though.
Release a game when it's finished, and patch any little bits you missed afterwards - or indeed, to add new minor features/tweaks.
Releasing a half-baked game and spending the next three or four patches simply getting it up to an effective v1.0 (ie the finished, working product) is an utterly inexcusable business model.
I agree fully with both highlighted statements; however, I think that one needs to observe a bit of prudence when making the distinction between what "one would have liked" and what someone "SHOULD have liked".
As an example, I would point out this part of the review...
"Odd diplomatic processes result in strange alliances and unexpected results that will ruin a game."
The thing is, "ruin" is a hard word, but not necessarily true. If an odd alliance caused the game to crash and become unloadable, that would indeed be a "ruin". If an odd alliance just caused a game to go wildly a-historical, then that may "ruin" it for you, but not some other person X; but if X reads this review and just sees the word "Ruin" in the first paragraph of a major heading, X may not read deeper in to figure out what it means, and just assume there are aspects of the game that cause it to become "ruined".
Had the yellow-sentence said
"Odd diplomatic processes result in a-historical alliances and unexpected results that can change how WW2 plays out."
Then it would have been factual without the possibility of "Joe Reader"... shall we say, missing the forest for the trees.
For the record, I agree with much of what the review is saying. It's just that some of what it is saying might do more to convey personal desires of "correctness" than to review how the game does what it actually does.
If you like War In Russia you'll love War In the East (the successor to WIR). Forum link: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tt.asp?forumid=695
I'm waiting for that myself
Or this
http://schwerpunkt.wargamer.com/RGW/rgwdesc.htm
Which is very good.