People who think that we need events, CORE or other hardcodings.

[Items]

T housands of people, thousands of opinions. All do we want something new in Hoi2. Well we have to see....

 

[Galleblære]

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

Did you read my posts? Did I not express a wish for a more flexible and logical game engine?

 

[unmerged(10750)]

Did you read my posts? Did I not express a wish for a more flexible and logical game engine?

Well, I don't think that anyone is necessarily arguing against a better engine...

But barring major breakthroughs in Artificial Intelligence that will make a computer understand all the wacky things that a player does and adjust accordingly, the basic engine is pretty decent.

As things stand, most of the annoying things about HoI can be overcome, because a lot of the game is moddable and flexible. To give you an example, you and I could probably set up HoI so that a peaceful Germany can avoid war entirely, without patching or re-doing the engine. It would take a while to mod the events and balance everything, but the ability is there.

 

[MacRobert]

Whew. I thought I was speaking in Esperano (sp?) or some equally useless language.

Was that a joke? Seriously are you that stupid?

You do know that's extremely offensive, this is a very multi-cultural forum.

 

[unmerged(12330)]

I think the focus of this thread has been in the wrong place. The goal of a better engine would be realism, rather than being ahistorical.

If I decide as Germany that I want to play nice with the Allies and leave Poland alone, I should be able to avoid war with them. Maybe then I want to team up with the Allies and defend Finland against Soviet agression, which at that point would be the biggest threat to peace.

I could go on about hypothetical situations like that, but I think the point is made. No one wants to be limited by events, but on the other hand if people dont stray too far from reality than the historical outcomes should be possible.

Since we wont be getting a perfect engine, we just need events that allow more flexibility. I think its just a matter of having more specific firing conditions.

I have read most of the thread and I think Idealists main point is right, that more focus should be put on improving the engine rather than filling the game with events, but he should be looking more at realism rather than historical balance.

 

[unmerged(17541)]

.

from my point of view in HOI2:

- the AI played nations should keep close to the historical path but responding on the actions of the human played nation

- there should be no automatically increasing WE - WE should only increase on actions

- there should be an own WE for every major against every other major

- lots of events should be in - but always checking the global situation and allow differnts but plausible alternate history pathes

- not every agressive action should be responded with a "total WWII" - means limited crisis, regional limited wars, only naval wars, and so on... should be possible and always be the first reactions on an agression - peace negotiations with more then all or nothing outcomes would also be a great improvement!


.

 

[Maximilian I]

Did you read my posts? Did I not express a wish for a more flexible and logical game engine?

do you read my posts? a flexible and more logical gameengine will still not be possible to create such whacky and with hindsight illogical things as the M-R pact or the Munich treaty...

 

[Windmolen]

About the hardcodings.. Again this is a game about World War 2, not just a game which happens to play in the years of 1936-1948. This is a wargame. You will have to fight a war, like it or not. If you don't want that, buy Victoria and install the unlimited time patch

 

[unmerged(14249)]

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?

Both the Munich treaty and the MR Pact were quite sensible deals. The person who broke these deals was Hitler. This turned out not to be a smart move and he eventually lost everything and had to blow his brains out.

You only think that these deals were illogical because of hindsight - you know now that Hitler could not be trusted.

What both Chamberlain and Stalin recognised was that fighting another Great War against Germany would be bloody, expensive and a bad idea for their countries. They were right and Hitler was wrong. It could have gone differently though and, if you're playing the 36 scenario, the various possibilities should be catered for. Whether this is done by events or some other feature of the game engine is unimportant.

The most important thing to change is the way that the WE system targets only Germany. If Stalin is aggressive while Hitler is cautious, then Soviet Russia should be the target of Allied sanctions and war instead of Germany.

Andrew

 

[boromir]

Both the Munich treaty and the MR Pact were quite sensible deals. The person who broke these deals was Hitler. This turned out not to be a smart move and he eventually lost everything and had to blow his brains out.

Good deals for Hitler and Stalin, not for the Western Allies.

 

[Galleblære]

do you read my posts? a flexible and more logical gameengine will still not be possible to create such whacky and with hindsight illogical things as the M-R pact or the Munich treaty...

What exacly are you opposed? Are you opposed to a more dynamic game engine? :wacko: I come here, say that he has some valid points, that the old engine has it's shortcommings, you basically say "can't be done", "it's okay how it is", and basically it seems to me put on the dreaded HoI fanboy cap....

It is possible to enjoy the game, but at the same time realize and put up questions about it shortcomings...

 

[Darth Tracid]

What exacly are you opposed? Are you opposed to a more dynamic game engine? :wacko: I come here, say that he has some valid points, that the old engine has it's shortcommings, you basically say "can't be done", "it's okay how it is", and basically it seems to me put on the dreaded HoI fanboy cap....

It is possible to enjoy the game, but at the same time realize and put up questions about it shortcomings...

I believe max was saying that no matter how "dynamic" the game engine might be/get, it will never be able to simulate illogical events that happend out of circumstances unable to be simulated in a computer game.

Any engine must follow a logic-it´s the nature of computer programming. Live is rarely bound by the same constraint...history shows that the most important events, be in in warfare, research, politics, social....are often triggered by a series of illogical or even random things.

 

[Maximilian I]

What exacly are you opposed? Are you opposed to a more dynamic game engine? :wacko: I come here, say that he has some valid points, that the old engine has it's shortcommings, you basically say "can't be done", "it's okay how it is", and basically it seems to me put on the dreaded HoI fanboy cap....

It is possible to enjoy the game, but at the same time realize and put up questions about it shortcomings...

not at all. I´m saying that even a more dynamic engine can´t simulate the oddities of history.

there´s not a single post in this thread which would come up with a "game engine solution" to handle the m-r pact or the sudetenland crisis.

 

[Kriegsspieler]

not at all. I´m saying that even a more dynamic engine can´t simulate the oddities of history.

there´s not a single post in this thread which would come up with a "game engine solution" to handle the m-r pact or the sudetenland crisis.

Nor would you really want it to. People want to see the big events inserted into the historical narrative. That's why there was that lengthy discussion of Pearl Harbor elsewhere in the forum.

 

[unmerged(33077)]

The bottom line is this. If I wanted a game without scripted events, I'd play civ. HOI is marketed as a WWII grand strategy game. I want to play it for that reason alone. As far as replayability goes, I've been playing WiF for almost fifteen years and I'm still not tired of it. A WWII game that has even the remotest possibilty of war between the Western allies and Germany not occurring horrifies me. I play these games because of a love of history. This is what makes HOI better than something like Civ.

 

[unmerged(16832)]

Historical events should be able to be there, but there should be very few.

Also, why should the AI act historically when you act ahistorically?

 

[unmerged(29126)]

A WWII game that has even the remotest possibilty of war between the Western allies and Germany not occurring horrifies me. I play these games because of a love of history. This is what makes HOI better than something like Civ.

There has always been talk that the Nazi-German government actually wanted to ally with the British Empire after Versailles had been "rectified" and wanted to tackle the "Bolshevist threat" together ... now I'm not saying that that is historical but it is one of the more plausible ahistoric scenarios as well as a charge of Patton towards Moscow in 1945 (what a fun campaign that was in the original Steel Panthers, mmmhhhhh) ... or even Hitler grasping the last straw and wanting to ally with the USA in April 45 ( :rofl: ) ...

I agree with the people that advocate beeing set lose at the beginning of a scenario and let things run their way ... I do propose alternative history. I would find it hard to believe that if the Germans hadn't initiated an aggressive foreign policy in 1935 (?) that the UK or France could have gotten their population to support an armed conflict ... would it be boring ... maybe (so a peaceful GER should be a remote possibility) ... but it should be possible ... different alliances could occur etc. ... playing along the same lines until 1939 and anticipating a big clash is not varied enough for me (others, the majority in fact, may of course disagree) ... I like the what-ifs .

But events should be the consequence of the world-political situation and not fixed to a certain date ... why does anschluss have to be in '38 ? For historic purposes that's all, but following that argument would also mean that D-Day would have to be on a fixed date and not the result of the AI making a decision based on the tactical/strategic situation ... diplomacy (and thus diplomatic events) is as much a result of oppurtunity/planning as are military operations ...

 

[Windmolen]

Germany staying peacefull in 1936? It can happen if controlled by a player. I don't really believe they will have a peacefull game. Uncle Joe and his Red Hordes would be happy to come pay a visit from 1943 and onwards I guess

 

[unmerged(25612)]

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko:

That "Wacko"-smiley really seems to display my true feelings about this whole case at the moment.


Someone (Chaplain was it?) said that I can not argue if I do not own, or plan to buy HOI1. Why is that? Can I not say that: "Hey I want this in HOI2, this is a thing that bugs me in the hundreds of WWII games I`ve played and judging from HOI-AARs the bug is there."

:wacko: HOI2 is an independent game. It is not a HOI-ADDON!!!!!!!!!!

I have played many WWII games and I have seen what HOI1 is like. Is that not enough to base my argumentation?` :wacko:




AND YOU ALL SEEM TO IGNORE THE WHOLE CLIMATE ON WHICH THIS THREAD WAS MADE UNDER!!!!!

This is the thread not against CORE itself, but people whose come-up on every single game-engine suggestion post is "LOL!!!11 Even my baby sister can make an event for that."




Now reason with me for a while before going down the ugly road of endless crap-slinging (Albeit well disguised ):


1.HOI is a game, not a simulation, nor a WWII colouring book.
2.In order for a game to function it must have functions.
--> The HOI game engine must be able to perform multiple tasks.

It is that simple. No buts, no "if"s, no lols, no roflmaoOMGLOLXiitLOLlol.



What is my ultimate goal? That when the year 1943 rolls in, I as Germany after a succesfull Sealöwe and Barbarossa can diplomatically annex Austria, which I failed in 1938 as they were locked in a war with Yogoslavia. I want to be able to play Turkey and join WWII, I want to be able to play Ireland and unify the Emerald Isle under a fascist banner.



Now, now before taking me down due to my flue-influenced silly wordings, bear with me some more:



I, as all members of the Ahistoric Association and many others, want a GAME. Not a WWII colouring book, not a text adventure with neat maps in the backround....

And in order for that game to be achieved, some of the "suggestions" (More of linings) suggested on this thread must become a reality.


Diplomatic annexation, random civilwars. Those two pop into mind at once. They must be able to happen without events.

I, as many other people, can disable events. THAT IS NOT THE ANSWER, however. We, the entire community I suppose, need a good engine capable of performing these tasks on their own. BLOCKING SOMETHING BECAUSE IT CAN BE DONE WITH EVENTS - THAT IS WHAT I OPPOSE.


And I thought I had established that point.





So FFS (For Fraternity`s Sake. What were you thinking? ) PLEASE SHUT THE DUCK UP! The times of those event-blockers is long gone, as it seems. No longer does a free man has to encounter the pack of wolves hunting down fresh innovative material, burning down structures of free thought.




So: In my SIG there is a wonderful link to a wonderful thread dedicated to a wonderful association with the wonderful name of Ahistoric Association lead by the wonderful yours truly. In that thread you can voice your concerns about this issue.


This thread should rest in peace. AND FFS:


SEE THE BLOODY DATES!!!!


This all makes me so sad. This thread is on page one with gazillions of posts, while the AhA applications page remains silent.

And as a counter measure for all this I choose to edit my posts into the form: "See the bloody dates"

 

[Steel]

But events should be the consequence of the world-political situation and not fixed to a certain date ... why does anschluss have to be in '38 ? For historic purposes that's all

This is an interesting point. There's actually multiple reasons why you want to guide the game along the historic path:

• Player expectations - some players will be quite upset if things happen out of order, for example I get hatemail for the possibility of a Franco-German 1936 war in C.O.R.E. and other players will criticise the game if AI Germany defeats France in the fall of 1939 instead of waiting until the spring of 1940
• The knock-on effect - basically if Anscluss, Sudeten Crisis etc all happen ahead of time then the player gathers a certain momentum that allows an easy victory. This in turn generates complaints that the game is too easy and 'is over by 1941 anyway'. Re-balancing the game to compensate for players getting ahead of things generates player complaints of AI cheating or excessive 'control measures'.
• Technical reasons - basically there is not enough event triggers in the system to allow for an accurate assessment of the 'world situation'. Many of Hitler's gambits were only made possible by an expansion of the army, yet HoI has very little ability of using this as a trigger for events.

Finding a solution that meets the expectations of 50.000 different players, remains balanced in the face of unexpected developments without having stern control measures and also has all the necessary parts to understand and react to a changing world situation is quite a tall order. When you add the complications of difficulty levels, fog of war and a developing feature set it becomes quite easy to draw parallells with old Sisyphus.