Questions about the game (before buying, really)

[TremblingBlue]

Quite fed up with Darkest Hour. Lovely map, decisions and what not, but I feel forced to follow a set path. Manpower and Mobilisation is absolutely crushing. Decided this might be the best move, but I need to know more about things that matter to me.

How is the game in comparison? Is it mostly things added on top of HOI2DD, or have things like events, ministers, claims and cores, cold war etc. been looked into more closely? Can I manually make claims in game?

And most of all, is Iron Cross worth adding on to it? I haven't heard great things, but the map and flavour events look like they would be a great addition.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

AoD has a more realistic logistical system, each unit has a stockpile of supplies and oil. Which means if a unit is encircled, it is not immediately out of supply.
AoD has advanced sliders, which means you don't have to constantly adjust your production sliders day after day, removing a lot of micro-management.
AoD has a stacking penalty, making quality rather then quantity much more important for combat.
AoD vanilla does not have many more events compared to HoI2DD but there are several mods which add quite a lot of events. Also it is WWII orientated, but there is the SMEP mod for more events, the Cold War Extension mod for, well, the Cold War.
The Improved 1936 mod is designed for the 1936 scenario and has made all the AIs more challenging. The aim of the mod is to make the AI as human as possible in its builds and combat (rather then as historical as possible).

There's the E3 map that should work for 1.08 AoD.

 

[Blecky]

There´s a thread that describes AoD´s qualities quite well: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...as-wondering-if-i-should-by-AoD-as-having-HOI

AFAIK you don´t have a possibility to make claims manually (other than "Demand Territory", which isn´t available too often). Ministers have been reworked, but can always be improved (see mod section).

There are some good mods around, esp. TRM and CORE.

 

[Autolykos]

I feel forced to follow a set path. Manpower and Mobilisation is absolutely crushing.

Manpower works pretty much the same in HoI and AoD (except for some National Ideas, but these are basically just three additional minister slots that are harder to switch). A redistribution of MP on the world map is discussed for upcoming patches, but the basic system will probably stay largely the same. My impression is that AoD relies less on Events/Decisions than DH and lets the game logic and AI handle as much as it can, so it "feels" less scripted.

How is the game in comparison? Is it mostly things added on top of HOI2DD, or have things like events, ministers, claims and cores, cold war etc. been looked into more closely? Can I manually make claims in game?

Actually, it is more reworked than added on top of it. The UI is a lot better, and gives you more freedom with less micromanagement. The combat system is also reworked (look at B0naparte's post or the Wiki for details). There is also some new content - a little of everything: Ministers, Techtree, Teams, Events, but not that much. It still looks and feels a lot like HoI, but with a more elegant design.

The concept of claims (separate from cores) is unique in DH. No such thing in AoD, sadly. But the way conquered provinces are distributed between allies is improved over HoI, so the lack of this feature to redraw the silly borders after a war hurts less.

I can't comment on Iron Cross as I just tested it very briefly and didn't like it much (neither the AoD nor the DH version). Can't even remember a specific reason anymore.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Manpower works pretty much the same in HoI and AoD.

Your daily gain of manpower is reduced by 33% and there is aging that will reduce manpower. So in essence you have ~50% less manpower at your disposal.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Your daily gain of manpower is reduced by 33% and there is aging that will reduce manpower. So in essence you have ~50% less manpower at your disposal.

But there is still plenty of manpower for each country. And I would say each historical has historical/realistic amounts of manpower at their disposal. The only major country I can think of which should probably be given more manpower is the USA, but you can still field 140-150 divisions and a sizeable airforce and navy.

 

[TremblingBlue]

Your daily gain of manpower is reduced by 33% and there is aging that will reduce manpower. So in essence you have ~50% less manpower at your disposal.

That's fine. I don't mind a decrease, but I do prefer the gradual manpower over time. It's much better for extended games.

I'll have to think about getting this after I get back from Hong Kong. Looks great though!

 

[Epaminondas]

Unfortunately you can't make claims directly off the screen in AoD as you can in DH, Blue. If you want certain provinces to be surrendered in a peace settlement, for example, you still have to laboriously note down the territories you want ceded to you and hunt them down and nominate them from the territories list of the opposing nation.

Mobilisation is handled differently in AoD also. With the modifications already noted it is still much less dramatic than the DH system. There's no decision that flicks a switch to take oodles of men out of the factories, put a whole bunch of them in uniform overnight, and send the rest into a pool awaiting recruitment. In fact, the whole decision system available in DH is absent in AoD. That means that you can't rely on the system to deliver units and improvements in dissent. Just about everything you do you have to do for yourself.

All that said, I've read your thread on the DH board and if your concern with being forced into historical play is a driving motive for your contemplated switch you might want to reconsider. AoD doesn't have the same range of off-screen events determining the way nations 'evolve' and interact, but it is still wedded fairly closely to historical precedent. Belligerence threshholds are still used to damp down the possibilities of ahistorical DoWs, and your chances of getting an alliance between a fascist Austria and a fascist Hungary to challenge Italy for its alpine provinces are way better in DH than they're ever likely to be in AoD.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

All that said, I've read your thread on the DH board and if your concern with being forced into historical play is a driving motive for your contemplated switch you might want to reconsider. AoD doesn't have the same range of off-screen events determining the way nations 'evolve' and interact, but it is still wedded fairly closely to historical precedent. Belligerence threshholds are still used to damp down the possibilities of ahistorical DoWs, and your chances of getting an alliance between a fascist Austria and a fascist Hungary to challenge Italy for its alpine provinces are way better in DH than they're ever likely to be in AoD.

On AoD he would be able to declare war as a dictatorship against any country regardless of its belligerence.

EDIT: And after re-reading what he posted, considering that both Hungary and Austria are human-controlled, your paragraph makes no sense.

 

[Epaminondas]

Guess I need to clarify. My understanding from Blue's post on the DH board is that he was playing an MP game where he as fascist Austria and a partner as fascist Hungary wanted to engineer an early Dow on Italy to regain the Austrian territories lost after WWI. He found himself unable to do so because Italy's belligerance wasn't sufficient to permit it. If that was a correct reading of his situation neither Austria nor Hungary could have been a dictatorship or the DoW would have been possible in DH as it is in AoD. The fact that both nations were human controlled would not cancel out the belligerence requirement in either game.

The added difficulty in AoD is that, as far as I'm aware, there are no events in AoD that would permit a human Austrian player to play as a fascist government. Content to be proven wrong on that though.

Hope that makes more sense to you Mr_B.

Edit: I should note that it's on this ground alone that I'd discourage you from buying AoD, Blue. It's a much more polished and finished product than DH and much less prone to throw up exploits.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

As two fascist nations, for some reason we can't take back northern Italy for Austria in a short war

Both Austria and Hungary start of as fascist dictatorships in AoD. On top of that, in AoD you can move sliders yearly, even more so at the cost of dissent, thus making it easily possible to become NS governments. As Austria, you can ally yourself with Germany through the Anschluss event rather then being annexed.

EDIT: After checking the Anschluss event, it looks like Austria has a third option, which is to not get annexed or join the Axis, but I don't know how a Germany AI would react to that.

 

[Epaminondas]

Both Austria and Hungary start of as fascist dictatorships in AoD.

Really? Wow, I need to get back to playing this game - I'm getting way out of touch. Nice pick-up Mr_B.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Really? Wow, I need to get back to playing this game - I'm getting way out of touch. Nice pick-up Mr_B.

Well, as you've probably guessed, my knowledge of DH is very limited. Once I get bored of AoD (if it's possible), then I'll try DH. The new more-detailed combat losses is a good addition to flavour. My main apprehensions are the lack of advanced sliders, no stacking penalty in combat and the old HoI2 logistical system.

 

[TremblingBlue]

I don't mind restriction, but within reason. I find some of the things I can't do in DH really bad. I don't want to create a world lithuanian empire, but I do want to be able to make my own decisions based on the condition of the world I'm in.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

I don't mind restriction, but within reason. I don't want to create a world lithuanian empire, but I do want to be able to make my own decisions based on the condition of the world I'm in.

I share those views. There has been a mod which enables players to use the DH map for AoD, but as far as I know, it is really only for multi-player as the AI has not been edited to cope with the map change.

 

[Epaminondas]

My main apprehensions are the lack of advanced sliders, no stacking penalty in combat and the old HoI2 logistical system.

The main problem you'll encounter if you do move to DH, Mr_B, is that AoD will have spoiled you with it's level of sophistication. Because of my fondness for micro-managing the advanced sliders don't offer me anything I value, but the logistics system, the tooling-up mechanism, the auto-repair provisions for infrastructure, and the diminishing returns associated with force commitment to combat all make for a more accurate and more complete simulation. You'll also notice that land movement is much slower, org loss stemming from this much more dramatic, and the naval supply and combat systems not nearly so well thought out.

On the other hand, Blue, if you move from DH to AoD you're likely to find that you'll miss the extensive event sets and the uncertainty they inject, the range of additional combat missions provided, the streamlining of some game functions (like claiming), the quality of some of the map graphics and, if you're like me, the chance to kick off in 1933. Though not adding greatly to the simulation, these features certainly add to the game. You'll also find that the nuts and bolts of the game are nowhere near as accessible as they are in DH so that the opportunity to tailor a very wide range of game features to your own lights has all but disappeared for the 'ordinary' player.

 

[Epaminondas]

I share those views. There has been a mod which enables players to use the DH map for AoD, but as far as I know, it is really only for multi-player as the AI has not been edited to cope with the map change.

There's been an awful lot of praise for the DH map, but in my view in at least one important respect it's a triumph of form over function. It's certainly more attractive visually, but I'd argue the whole purpose of a map is to show one how to get from A to B - and the DH map doesn't do that. There are many examples of provinces which appear to share borders being inaccessible from one to the other. Each province does have a legend that the player can consult to see where traverse is possible and what kind of terrain must be crossed, but it strikes me that if a map requires you to consult a list to determine whether movement that is illustrated as being possible really is possible then it aint doing its job real well.

I say all this with some bitterness having discovered the fact by spending three months moving from one province to a second only to find that I couldn't move anywhere from that province but back to the one I'd started from. "Dagnabit" and other expletives typically used by Yosamite Sam!

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

The main problem you'll encounter if you do move to DH, Mr_B, is that AoD will have spoiled you with it's level of sophistication. Because of my fondness for micro-managing the advanced sliders don't offer me anything I value, but the logistics system, the tooling-up mechanism, the auto-repair provisions for infrastructure, and the diminishing returns associated with force commitment to combat all make for a more accurate and more complete simulation. You'll also notice that land movement is much slower, org loss stemming from this much more dramatic, and the naval supply and combat systems not nearly so well thought out.

I'll take all this on board, thanks.

There's been an awful lot of praise for the DH map, but in my view in at least one important respect it's a triumph of form over function. It's certainly more attractive visually, but I'd argue the whole purpose of a map is to show one how to get from A to B - and the DH map doesn't do that. There are many examples of provinces which appear to share borders being inaccessible from one to the other. Each province does have a legend that the player can consult to see where traverse is possible and what kind of terrain must be crossed, but it strikes me that if a map requires you to consult a list to determine whether movement that is illustrated as being possible really is possible then it aint doing its job real well.

I think I know what you mean, but AoD also has several provinces that are inaccessible from certain (or all) angles. But I think those provinces are needed, even if you do come up with anomalies such as Italy controlling several provinces in Africa that no country can take as they're all completely inaccessible.

I say all this with some bitterness having discovered the fact by spending three months moving from one province to a second only to find that I couldn't move anywhere from that province but back to the one I'd started from. "Dagnabit" and other expletives typically used by Yosamite Sam!

Haha. I had something like a "Dagnabit" moment when I found out the hard way that Germany can invade Canada from Seville on AoD (even though IRL the Atlantic is more then 3,000km!!)

 

[bosman]

There's been an awful lot of praise for the DH map, but in my view in at least one important respect it's a triumph of form over function. It's certainly more attractive visually, but I'd argue the whole purpose of a map is to show one how to get from A to B - and the DH map doesn't do that. There are many examples of provinces which appear to share borders being inaccessible from one to the other. Each province does have a legend that the player can consult to see where traverse is possible and what kind of terrain must be crossed, but it strikes me that if a map requires you to consult a list to determine whether movement that is illustrated as being possible really is possible then it aint doing its job real well.

This is exactly, what i was always about to say. Original Hoi 2 map suits me much better. With some improvements (several new provinces in some countries) it would be just fine.

 

[bestmajor]

There is also some new content - a little of everything: Ministers, Techtree, Teams, Events, but not that much. It still looks and feels a lot like HoI, but with a more elegant design.

that is actually a strong argument versus DH: the content which is added there is nonsense in large parts. i dont like to be forced to take an independent india, for instance (not to mention all the colonies which are now rated as states). on the other hand the ministers CSV - system of DH is superior to AoD as you could retire a lot of ministers without event command.

and re: not that much: at least GER OOB and ITA OOB are way better in AoD than in DH!