-
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.
Dear Mr Idealist:
I am must disagree with you on a couple of points. To you it might seem I'm finding minor things with which to disassemble your argument while ignoring the "Big Picture". But hang with me, I'll come back to the big picture later.
No. I think these represent exceptional events that happened in history that cannot be simulated with a feeble AI. Also, some things can be added in an event in about 10 minutes that might take days of coding to implement in a Super-Dooper AI. This is a really important point. We need the events for a) historical flavor (many of us really do like the flavor added by them) and b) it is an easy way to take a grand strategy game and write it in 12 months instead of 36 months. The time issue is really important because a 36 month HOI2 would never get written. It wouldn't meet basic cost-benefit analyses and would die a quick (for them) and painful (for us) death.
Plus, events are really easy for anyone wanting to do MODs later. Take CORE: Even if you don't like it there's a huge amount of flavor and character that is added. Much of what is in CORE would not be possible without events.
This is simply a misunderstanding of basic programming. ALL programs have hard coded limits. Hard coding is what makes a Grand Strategy different from a shooter and different from a spreadsheet. Hard coding represents assumptions that are made. And there's a lot of them made in simple programs. Never mind something as complicated as HOI. We need these. And it is unreasonable to expect that there aren't some assumptions made.
Now, I do understand your point that you want to make something beyond mere Alternate History. You want Fantasy. You want Uncle Joe to be a Democrat. Or the Germans to invent laser pistols. Or Patton's Airborne heavy tank division. It is not unreasonable to ask for somethings to be changeable. I think Paradox has heard our cries during HOI and is making a reasonable number of these changable for us.
What I would recommend is that you make very specific recommendations about something you think needs to be alterable. Something more concrete that "Lose events and hard code nothing". German Laser Pistols, Democratic Russia and Airborne Super Heavy Tanks (or the ability to add them) are specific (though not necessarily realistic).
About half the people who bought the game would agree with you. The other half are happy to experience history and try to better it. This is a near-religious argument that I don't think we should have on this forum. In a vain effort to distract us from this i'll throw in this: Macs have crappy user interface, Linux isn't Enterprise, and Socialism is keeping the poor from suceeding. (Don't start a new flame war. I'm just using this as an illustration of the division that exists on this board.) Realize that Paradox is trying to satisfy two groups of players with one game. With HOI they did a pretty good job.
I'll beat my drum again... No POPs. They are evil and forbidden. Victoria is not the game you should compare HOI with.
My suggestion is to ask for something *very* specific. For example, a few folks on this forum proposed a very detailed system of implementing Commandos and Partisans. It gives the Paradox folks something concrete to work with. Maybe what I propose is complete crap but it at least gives them something concrete to work with.
I am must disagree with you on a couple of points. To you it might seem I'm finding minor things with which to disassemble your argument while ignoring the "Big Picture". But hang with me, I'll come back to the big picture later.
idealist said:
No. I think these represent exceptional events that happened in history that cannot be simulated with a feeble AI. Also, some things can be added in an event in about 10 minutes that might take days of coding to implement in a Super-Dooper AI. This is a really important point. We need the events for a) historical flavor (many of us really do like the flavor added by them) and b) it is an easy way to take a grand strategy game and write it in 12 months instead of 36 months. The time issue is really important because a 36 month HOI2 would never get written. It wouldn't meet basic cost-benefit analyses and would die a quick (for them) and painful (for us) death.
Plus, events are really easy for anyone wanting to do MODs later. Take CORE: Even if you don't like it there's a huge amount of flavor and character that is added. Much of what is in CORE would not be possible without events.
idealist said:
This is simply a misunderstanding of basic programming. ALL programs have hard coded limits. Hard coding is what makes a Grand Strategy different from a shooter and different from a spreadsheet. Hard coding represents assumptions that are made. And there's a lot of them made in simple programs. Never mind something as complicated as HOI. We need these. And it is unreasonable to expect that there aren't some assumptions made.
Now, I do understand your point that you want to make something beyond mere Alternate History. You want Fantasy. You want Uncle Joe to be a Democrat. Or the Germans to invent laser pistols. Or Patton's Airborne heavy tank division. It is not unreasonable to ask for somethings to be changeable. I think Paradox has heard our cries during HOI and is making a reasonable number of these changable for us.
What I would recommend is that you make very specific recommendations about something you think needs to be alterable. Something more concrete that "Lose events and hard code nothing". German Laser Pistols, Democratic Russia and Airborne Super Heavy Tanks (or the ability to add them) are specific (though not necessarily realistic).
idealist said:
About half the people who bought the game would agree with you. The other half are happy to experience history and try to better it. This is a near-religious argument that I don't think we should have on this forum. In a vain effort to distract us from this i'll throw in this: Macs have crappy user interface, Linux isn't Enterprise, and Socialism is keeping the poor from suceeding. (Don't start a new flame war. I'm just using this as an illustration of the division that exists on this board.) Realize that Paradox is trying to satisfy two groups of players with one game. With HOI they did a pretty good job.
idealist said:
I'll beat my drum again... No POPs. They are evil and forbidden. Victoria is not the game you should compare HOI with.
idealist said:
My suggestion is to ask for something *very* specific. For example, a few folks on this forum proposed a very detailed system of implementing Commandos and Partisans. It gives the Paradox folks something concrete to work with. Maybe what I propose is complete crap but it at least gives them something concrete to work with.
Idealist I understand your frustrations, but a rant thread rarely if ever attracts attention to whatever cause the ranter wants. As Plutarch has mentioned above, a detailed post/thread that argues tactfully and reasonable (No, I want this or I won't buy it nonsense.) to improve an aspect is actually quite appreciated by the developers (whether they see it themselves, or it is brought to their attention by the Mods/Admins on the Beta boards.).
The only thing we can all agree about here is to disagree. The HoI players are extremely divided on this subject, and I'm one of those people who love events, and thus also a CORE-style game. Still, ahistorical things should happen, but fact remains that I buy a WW2 game because I want to play WW2 - I don't want to sit around and fight the big threat of the 1940s created by a totally free game engine: Cuba... 
I want the most important events. We who love events can always add more through a CORE-like project, but some basic events should be in. Then we can all be satisfied.
I want the most important events. We who love events can always add more through a CORE-like project, but some basic events should be in. Then we can all be satisfied.
Another nice thing about events is that they can teach you something. I'm all for alternate history, but if as Germany I annex Austria, it would be nice to get a little blurb "This is what really happened"-Events without effects
I love events i usely play half historicly, 25% possibleity and 25% never whouold have happend.
Who gived you the right to speak in such arrogant and pretensious manner?
Do you think that you're some sort of alpha & omega?
I like events.
I like CORE (which is not only about adding events, it actually make vanila game looks like HoI light or some sort of demo)
I like when the game runs historically.
I'm the same customer as you.
Do you think that you're some sort of alpha & omega?
I like events.
I like CORE (which is not only about adding events, it actually make vanila game looks like HoI light or some sort of demo)
I like when the game runs historically.
I'm the same customer as you.
Raczynski said:Who gived you the right to speak in such arrogant and pretensious manner?
Do you think that you're some sort of alpha & omega?
I like events.
I like CORE (which is not only about adding events, it actually make vanila game looks like HoI light or some sort of demo)
I like when the game runs historically.
I'm the same customer as you.
Absolutely agreed.
o
I wonder, would it be possible to let each player decide whether he wants a strictly historical or a completely ahistorical game?
I think of a trigger in the options screen (historic -> alternate).
Now I don't know how that could be programmed, but it would be great if possible.
.........................
Thing is, I love both.
Some times I want to recreate the historic WW2, just change some campaigns (e.g. Barbarossa 1942, what if I head north, not south to the Caucasus) to see if it works.
After playing some historical games, I like to change history completely. Play as Germany and avoid war at all. Or at least wait until 1945 before I DoW the Allies. Simply not possible (even SR couldn't achieve that with "tensions ease" because of the hardcoded Russian DoW).
That is the single most annoying thing of HoI:
The message that Germany didn't have a choice, they were forced into the war.
Talking about entertaining history lessons (via events)... How many kids out there don't know squat about WW2, play HoI and think of Germany as the victims...
Let the a.i. play aggressive as Germany, but at least let me decide (when playing Germany) if I want peace or war.
---------------------------------------------
Events:
I like events, but only those who really give me a choice. I would love to give up my claims on Czech, Poland and Austria if it would change a thing. If it really would prevent an allied DoW.
Events are entertaining (e.g. SR Autobahn-event), but they shouldn't be an excuse for a.i. flaws.
I think of a trigger in the options screen (historic -> alternate).
Now I don't know how that could be programmed, but it would be great if possible.
.........................
Thing is, I love both.
Some times I want to recreate the historic WW2, just change some campaigns (e.g. Barbarossa 1942, what if I head north, not south to the Caucasus) to see if it works.
After playing some historical games, I like to change history completely. Play as Germany and avoid war at all. Or at least wait until 1945 before I DoW the Allies. Simply not possible (even SR couldn't achieve that with "tensions ease" because of the hardcoded Russian DoW).
That is the single most annoying thing of HoI:
The message that Germany didn't have a choice, they were forced into the war.
Talking about entertaining history lessons (via events)... How many kids out there don't know squat about WW2, play HoI and think of Germany as the victims...
Let the a.i. play aggressive as Germany, but at least let me decide (when playing Germany) if I want peace or war.
---------------------------------------------
Events:
I like events, but only those who really give me a choice. I would love to give up my claims on Czech, Poland and Austria if it would change a thing. If it really would prevent an allied DoW.
Events are entertaining (e.g. SR Autobahn-event), but they shouldn't be an excuse for a.i. flaws.
idealist said:
What's all this "WE" crapola? I don't agree with many of your points and I certainly didn't need C.O.R.E. or any of the other mods for HOI I. All I needed was the developers to fix the game and for me 1.06 did that.
I speak for "me" not "we", when I say I want some form of reality based on the timeline. Some deviations are ok, but, I sure wouldn't want to see the US Ally with Germany or Japan or any other conglomeration that steps too far out of history. If that happens it doesn't remain a simulation of WWII, it turns into a game of operational RISK.
I want to be able to take the Germans or Italians and change history in that respect, by defeating the Allies, same with Japan. For the game to remain balanced, it needs balances of power. Imagine Germany and Russia allying with each other, lol, that would be such a smear of the rest of the world it wouldn't even be a challenge to play.
Ok, I don't want to speak as "we" or as official CORE representant...
For quite a time I promote idea of "realistic" gaming in HoI instead of quite not precise "historical" gaming. By realism I understand limiting some of the players options/abilities based on the real problems faced by politicians/commanders during the WW II.
So - avoiding the WW II by Germany should be possible, but only in case of serious changes in German politics. With Hitler ruling the Reich it was not "will he start the war?" question, but "when?". On the other hand, Allies would rather not risk pre-emptive strike we can see in HoI 1 everytime when their WE reach 100. And there is no chance for world conquest game with any minor country (and most mayors to be precise) due to various reasons (logistics, occupation forces). It's not Eu2 - you don't have 200 years to develop you country to world power level.
I don't see real conflict between fans of "historical" gaming and "ahistorical" as long, as both sides accept "realistic" gameplay. Player that chooses totally ahistorical game should be ready to face the consequences - in case of attempts to make USA dictatorship huge dissent hit, revolts and inability to affect the world politics for few (at least) years. Similarly moving Germany to democracy will also trigger serious internal problems - fighting dissent, feudal organization of nazi party and so on. That's realism.
PS. Comparing EU2 with HoI is rather out of place. Timespan of the games is radically different (400 vs 12 years!), political situation is totally different (similar monarchies vs modern, ideology driven goverments), warfare is different (pitched battles vs front)... WWII era is one of the best documented periods of history - so realism of the simulation is very important here, simply because every armed chair general can say why Germany could not invade Brasil in 1936 or why new Great War in Europe was inevitable. Hitler can't just all the sudden become Mr. Nice Guy...
For quite a time I promote idea of "realistic" gaming in HoI instead of quite not precise "historical" gaming. By realism I understand limiting some of the players options/abilities based on the real problems faced by politicians/commanders during the WW II.
So - avoiding the WW II by Germany should be possible, but only in case of serious changes in German politics. With Hitler ruling the Reich it was not "will he start the war?" question, but "when?". On the other hand, Allies would rather not risk pre-emptive strike we can see in HoI 1 everytime when their WE reach 100. And there is no chance for world conquest game with any minor country (and most mayors to be precise) due to various reasons (logistics, occupation forces). It's not Eu2 - you don't have 200 years to develop you country to world power level.
I don't see real conflict between fans of "historical" gaming and "ahistorical" as long, as both sides accept "realistic" gameplay. Player that chooses totally ahistorical game should be ready to face the consequences - in case of attempts to make USA dictatorship huge dissent hit, revolts and inability to affect the world politics for few (at least) years. Similarly moving Germany to democracy will also trigger serious internal problems - fighting dissent, feudal organization of nazi party and so on. That's realism.
PS. Comparing EU2 with HoI is rather out of place. Timespan of the games is radically different (400 vs 12 years!), political situation is totally different (similar monarchies vs modern, ideology driven goverments), warfare is different (pitched battles vs front)... WWII era is one of the best documented periods of history - so realism of the simulation is very important here, simply because every armed chair general can say why Germany could not invade Brasil in 1936 or why new Great War in Europe was inevitable. Hitler can't just all the sudden become Mr. Nice Guy...
...idealist said:
Why do you state your opinion this way? Are you having problems conversating peacefully? You are hurting our case with your arrogant writing style. Take it easy, man!
However, I agree with you almost completely. I believe that events are mostly fixes to gaming engine and AI. I also think that mod CORE makes HoI most fun to play.
What I would like to have is scripted AI! I am currently playing CORE 0.8, and major events for germany before war are annexation of Austria, Memel, Czechoslovakia and finally the claim of Danzig.
With a more versatile AI it could set so that Austria would be submissive on annexation claims, at least after 1937 or so, as would be Czechoslovakia when time comes. German AI on other hand would be willing to grant independence on slovakia.
Lithuanian AI would also be submissive on german claim on Memel. Poland on other hand would not surrender Danzig. And then comes the super aggressive German AI that would dow Poland. And UK + France would guarantee sovereignty of poland and honor their promise thus dowing Germany.
All this could be done without events. A human player could then make any decisions he wants and change the historical outcome. As a rule paradox should remove all diplomatic events and instead create proper diplomatic profiles to every country.
There are also many more events that should be changed to player actions:
- sending all kinds of aid
- moving capital
- moving factories
etc.
However, a new problem arises: AI. The current AI can't use properly all of the game's possibilities (paratroops, ampibious landings, warfare
) and so these should be fixed first. More possible actions would propably handicap the AI even more. If paradox can't fix the ai, then maybe other, non diplomatic events should be left as they are.
Idealist, calm down a bit. Saying that you represent mayority that is somehow harrased and banned on this forum is a bit too much, don't you think?
I agree with you (and most of the players probably agree with that as well) that game engine should be more flexible and it should be able to deal with more non-standard situations then in HoI 1. The problem is that, as someone posted above, that coding every single thing that can be done via event can be really hard task. I mean - which grand strategy game (or any strategy WW II game) gives you such possibilities? Most of them is even more strict then HoI 1.
What's more, HoI 1 paid the price of flexibility - stupid AI nad huge number of bugs in initial release. To be clear - I' not shafting your ideas. I just say that people saying "it can be done via event" mean, that coding some elements of game might take inapropriate time/work to results achieved.
Hope that you have read my post above as well, hope you agree with ideas posted there.
I agree with you (and most of the players probably agree with that as well) that game engine should be more flexible and it should be able to deal with more non-standard situations then in HoI 1. The problem is that, as someone posted above, that coding every single thing that can be done via event can be really hard task. I mean - which grand strategy game (or any strategy WW II game) gives you such possibilities? Most of them is even more strict then HoI 1.
What's more, HoI 1 paid the price of flexibility - stupid AI nad huge number of bugs in initial release. To be clear - I' not shafting your ideas. I just say that people saying "it can be done via event" mean, that coding some elements of game might take inapropriate time/work to results achieved.
Hope that you have read my post above as well, hope you agree with ideas posted there.
Last edited:
Idealist, check Crusader Kings. There is no fixed event system there, events don't trigger just because it happened historically, events happen because of certain cicumstances.
Yes CK is whole different era and different game but it shows a change in philosophy.
Maybe it will (partially) be adapted for HOI2
Yes CK is whole different era and different game but it shows a change in philosophy.
Maybe it will (partially) be adapted for HOI2