Steel said:
I know that, but a lot of people don't know it can be done or how to do it. Or don't want to do it, because they think they'll mess up.
-
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.
I know that, but a lot of people don't know it can be done or how to do it. Or don't want to do it, because they think they'll mess up.
Beatles said:
Actually you only need one single #. It's really that simple. Open one file, add one #, save, exit. Start game and there's no events. If you change your mind, delete the # and the events are back.
Doing the Windmolen 'limited' option takes a bit more effort as it requires editing in specific event numbers. For those who swing the other way (ie game should be historical) you can leave all the events in and instead disable all the B/C/D choices to force historical choices in every event.
Player choice is there, but just as with some of the more complex board games you need to review the 'rules' and eliminate those that you find should not apply in your campaign. Now if only it was as easy to turn off the air stacking penalty as it is to turn off events...
This is a silly argument. Events are part of the game engine. They can be coded to be as sophisticated or ahistorical as you wish. Saying that events shouldn't be used is like saying that java should be used rather than C++. They are an implementation detail not a design fundamental.
FWIW, note that the most successful board wargames lately have been those that incorporate a deck of cards - their equivalent of events. For a game like Paths of Glory, these might be the Sinking of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman telegram. These period details help make the game entertaining and informative by providing little chunks of text and graphics that the other mechanisms like charts and tables won't provide.
Andrew
FWIW, note that the most successful board wargames lately have been those that incorporate a deck of cards - their equivalent of events. For a game like Paths of Glory, these might be the Sinking of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman telegram. These period details help make the game entertaining and informative by providing little chunks of text and graphics that the other mechanisms like charts and tables won't provide.
Andrew
This one dug up again.
Alright to sum this all up for those who weren`t here two months ago:
I was a bit offensive and I apologized for that.
However due to this and some other threads, the Ahistoric Association was born (See my sig for details).
So in all: Read dates on posts, see my sig, join the AhA if you wish, go along play nicely and forgive my past trangessions.
And indeed to back up the rolling rumor, I do not personally own HOI in any form, nor do I have any game experience of it, other than reading some magnificent AARs.
Steel said:
Player choice is there, but just as with some of the more complex board games you need to review the 'rules' and eliminate those that you find should not apply in your campaign. ...
I agree completly. It´s my choice: to change, delete, add events I want or didn`t want. For me: more events >more chance to design my own campaign. I my HOI 1 vanilla games (no Core) there is always only one choice (= no choice :rofl: ) for Austria, Czech and Poland.... My goal in HOI isn`t to save the peace but to win the game for my party. :rofl:
.
basically I've to agree...-...hard-coded events are awful...
the allies DOWing GER in every game no matter what happens between 1936 and 1940...-...JAP & ITA could even speed up the DOW against GER and so on...
...really hope hard-coded events not considering the individual situation should definetly not be in...
...where I don't agree is with the standard events
I really like CORE and would prefer even more events...
...but events should (and could) better check the global situation before (or in which way) they fire !
...especially in the 1936 scenario should be more room for an alternate (but not fantasy) history!
...and the player should be able decide for his nation which way he wants to go!
for example I really would like to see a chance for GER (especially in a 1933 scenario) to get rid of the nazis and play an medium aggresive paternal autocrat regime, an SU supporting socialist or an Allies friendly democratic government !
but I realize that it's much more work to code all events in a way that allows that flexibilty
.
basically I've to agree...-...hard-coded events are awful...
the allies DOWing GER in every game no matter what happens between 1936 and 1940...-...JAP & ITA could even speed up the DOW against GER and so on...
...really hope hard-coded events not considering the individual situation should definetly not be in...
...where I don't agree is with the standard events
I really like CORE and would prefer even more events...
...but events should (and could) better check the global situation before (or in which way) they fire !
...especially in the 1936 scenario should be more room for an alternate (but not fantasy) history!
...and the player should be able decide for his nation which way he wants to go!
for example I really would like to see a chance for GER (especially in a 1933 scenario) to get rid of the nazis and play an medium aggresive paternal autocrat regime, an SU supporting socialist or an Allies friendly democratic government !
but I realize that it's much more work to code all events in a way that allows that flexibilty
.
SilverDragon 72 said:
Heh. Reminds me of the time France DOWed Germany.
A Germany allied with Belgium, Franco's Spain, Switzerland and Italy, among some other nations. Needless to say, France proper was gone in a matter of weeks. Those bloody war-hungry suicidal French ...
Stupid events = no fun. Events should at least account for the global situation. They shouldn't just change the state of the world, either - when I'm granting military access to someone, I shouldn't be able to declare war on them without canceling MA first, no matter if that's with an event or simple diplomacy (this happened to the poor Germans while I was playing Poland once - they DOWed on August 31 1939 and lost every single bordering province and Memel by September 5 1939 that way).
Since I missed this thread the first time around:
I've always thought HoI was very different in focus to the other Paraxod games. While the EUs and Vic said "Here's the setting, go go stuff" HoI was focused on WWII. HoI never said "It's 1936, go nuts", it said "WWII is coming, Germany is probably going to start it. Get ready".
I've always thought HoI was very different in focus to the other Paraxod games. While the EUs and Vic said "Here's the setting, go go stuff" HoI was focused on WWII. HoI never said "It's 1936, go nuts", it said "WWII is coming, Germany is probably going to start it. Get ready".
idealist said:
In my opinion, this fact renders irrelevant everything you have said. Good grief! What could possibly motivate you to clutter up these threads, given the fact that you don't own the game, have never played the game, and aren't (apparently) planning to buy the game ... ???
:wacko:
Colonel Warden said:
Exacly why is it a silly argument? The event engine in EU2 is a blessing and a curse. It "helps" things along more or less historical path, the events doing things the engine and AI is unable to do on it's own. Change tags, hand out new cores, change culture, convert provinces etc.
I believe the original poster and I agree on one thing, that we wish a dynamic engine that can handle complex situations without constant events to guide them along historic paths. Said dynamic engine should also then compensate if the player does something really unhistoric, like giving the power back to the people of germany. If Germany doesn't do any agressive moves or acts, the west shouldn't react. But in HoI it does.
Similarly, it is annoying to see Germany declare war on Norway in the "Great War" mod....a WWI mod! Probably due to some hardcoded stuff.
Galleblære said:
I vehemently disagree. it´s not a problem of the ai, its a problem that history is often enough illogical. with hindsight so many things are just plain stupid. complex situations are already quite well manageable with the engine it´s the illogical stuff which causes problems.
may I ask the "no event" proponents under what logical circumstances a player or the ai would agree to something like the M-R pact or the Munich treaty? under what circumstances would you create such a proposal like the M-R pact or the Munich treaty?
anyways. just cut out the historic events and you´ll have what you wish for...
Maximilian I said:
Well, there were (sort of) logical reasons for both the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the Munich treaty. The problem with trying to simulate those reasons in a game is that anyone playing the game is (a) looking at the situation with 20-20 hindsight (someone playing the USSR knows that war with Germany is more or less inevitable) and (b) doesn't really have to "pay the price" for going to war. IRL, going to war is a horrible tragedy, to be avoided if at all possible. In a game, it's the whole point.
That creates a problem - the historical reasons for many of the events aren't really implementable in a game. So you have the option of (a) creating ahistorical reasons to go down the historical path (like a major dissent hit for not doing the Purges), (b) not giving the player the option (like not making Great Britain a party to the Munich Treaty events), (c) letting the game get ahistorical every time (like allowing Germany to keep their non-Nazi ministers) or (d) just skipping the pre-war period entirely by starting the game in Sept. of 1939.
I think HoI does a decent job of allowing the player some leeway without letting the game get completely ahistorical. Remember that the timeframe for the game is extremely short compared to other Paradox games - the opportunity to have drastically ahistorical things happen should be limited, and extreme "what if?" scenarios (Democratic Germany, Communist America, Aliens land in the middle of the war) should be left up to modders.
Maximilian I said:
I probably made myself a bit unclear, but my wish for a WW2 engine would be one that allows for unhistoric ways without being kicked back by walls of events.
There can be a middle ground. Create events that are so complex, that they allow for unhistoric occurances to occur, to the joy of the player. If Germany goes democratic, the engine (and events) should accept this and allow for a new alternate history. Well thought out events might then start triggering once Stalin gets his army up and running, prompting a soviet invasion of europe.
In EU2 it is even more apparant. Countries are given shields and cultures so that they can expand in historic paths. Events help furhter guide them, with a few oddballs thrown into the mix. But what if England had won the HYW and created a union between England and France? The engine should allow for ahistoric expansion, and heck, hand out cores when certain requirements are met.
What if Denmark manages to sustain the Kalmar Union and expands into Germany? Unhistoric yes, but handing out a few cores and say, german culture would be interesting and fun. Instead, those that think differently or go unhistoric are "penalized" by getting a rather bland game.
czolgosz said:
exactly. a game engine has to follow some logic, so you need events to allow for exceptions from the logic. furthermore, almost every event has an ahistoric option.
Maximilian I said:
Have you ever tried playing Germany, and chosing the a-historic option in ever event? I tried that, and what do you know, France still declared war on me!
Galleblære said:Have you ever tried playing Germany, and chosing the a-historic option in ever event? I tried that, and what do you know, France still declared war on me!
what would be the point of playing a WW2 if nobody declared war on you
?F
Fiendix said:what would be the point of playing a WW2 if nobody declared war on you
F
Uhm, to perhaps try a little "what if", as in let my try to play a "kinder" Germany and see what happenes. My plan was to perhaps get the allies to attack Soviet or something, unfortunatly it didn't go that far before I was DOW'ed.
Anyway, I can't believe you would use that as a counter-argument. I used it as an example of the shortcomings of HoI. Nothing more.
Well, warentry goes up over time, regardless of what Germany does. While that may seem both ahistorical and counterintuitive, I can understand that game feature from a gameplay perspective.
Keep in mind that some people don't play Germany every single gameo). What fun would it be for someone playing Great Britain if you spend three years gearing up for war, and then Poland gives in over Danzig, thereby making it so that Great Britain can never go to war?
Keep in mind that some people don't play Germany every single game
o). What fun would it be for someone playing Great Britain if you spend three years gearing up for war, and then Poland gives in over Danzig, thereby making it so that Great Britain can never go to war?
czolgosz said:Well, warentry goes up over time, regardless of what Germany does. While that may seem both ahistorical and counterintuitive, I can understand that game feature from a gameplay perspective.
Keep in mind that some people don't play Germany every single game
Hardly the same. When I played Germany, I went to great lengths to satisfy the allies, never demanding anything, and they still declared war.
This basically proves my point, that HoI felt a bit too "hardcoded" for my taste. Germany would invade Norway even if they were fighting enemies on home soil and so on.
My only wish here is for the HoI2 engine to be a bit more sensible.
Galleblære said:
don´t forget that in hoi1 there was only one WE against all axis and comintern countries... that is not an event issue but a game engine issue. in fact, it was the events that allowed MORE freedom for germany, else the pther fascist nations actions would have led to a dow in 38... try it with events off