Scientist groups, leaders and all that purchaseable!

[boromir]

Boromir: "HOI2 is a WW2 simulation" --- EEP! Wrong answer, you lost all your money. Straight quote from Johan "It is a game, not a simulation" ..... Or now, of course you know better than the leading proggrammer and game designer of the game... Of course... What was I thinking... :wacko:

...

(Sorry, I may have been offensive, but I was rather astounished and I am really really tired. So forgive me if I gave you little or no credit, and most of all: DO not take anything I said personally.)

Fine then, its a WW2 game not a simulation. Still, I do not see Turkey becoming a major power in that short a time in that time period, neither do I see Nepal. Yes, all countries should be judged more or less by their historical performance. And yes, I do find your argumentation offensive, so please tone down a bit - it's only a simulation ... err, game.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Crikeys. Holy Eurocentrism, Batman!
With enough money, industry, raw material, and manpower at its disposal...
Why would Nepal need to attract "Western" scientists for any progress?

We're talking a period of ten years. Not even long enough to put a child through school. It's not as if you could walk out on the streets of Katmandu, collar some peasant and say "YOU! You can lead my nuclear programme!" You need either an indigenous skills base or foreign consultants plus loads of dosh and prestige.

This goes for any other third world country with ideas above its station.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

Fine then, its a WW2 game not a simulation. Still, I do not see Turkey becoming a major power in that short a time in that time period, neither do I see Nepal. Yes, all countries should be judged more or less by their historical performance. And yes, I do find your argumentation offensive, so please tone down a bit - it's only a simulation ... err, game.

Okay fair enough.

What if USA never joined the war and HYPOTETHICALLY (I don`t want any arguments of the issue) USSR and UK beat Germany alone.

Would USA have no leaders in the game?

If Turkey would have fought the war, it would have had more leaders, and thus more leaders in the game today. Why should this not happen?

And as it is a game, as you come yo understand, it does not have to simulate WWII in a colouring book -fashion. If in my game Turkey joins the war, then sure as heck, in my opinion, should it be able to purchase leaders.

And why would not Turkey grow into be a great power? Taking Greece, Bulgaria and Yogoslavia, joing the Barbarossa and pushing into oil rich Iraq, encircling the British troops in Egypt.... So they mobilized the third largest axis army in Europe, after Germany and Italy, but nooo... They can not have leaders running their armies... Oh no.... :wacko:


Almost 80% of all games in EUII, people make their own leaders, mod their leaders, edit in more CB shields.... Even in HOI people used CORE to display the ahistorical but possible outcomes.... And this does not make you wonder whether people want a real GAME, instead of a colouring book.

Some poeple downloaded CORE, particularly to get more leaders and possibilities and fun for playing not-a-WWII-major.

But of course that is wrong. Brazil and Argentina combined should have perhaps... One general? Not that would be excaggarating their military power, instead they would be grayed out to Terra Icqonite, hard-code Germany`s loss, and maybe deal all parts of the Game with events... That`s what people want? An 80-ish text adventure with a 1337 map attached? A WWII colouring book?


Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Turkey.... That is just name a few neutrals, that could have very well turned the nature of the war upside down. BECAUSE of their possibility of having leaders, technological advancements et cetera... Why should that not be represented? Because in our history, in the outcome with the possibility of 0,0000001% of HOI games? I think not, you think otherwise, fine, play with forced-forced-history and "History=on" in the options menu.

Why is your side more vocal? That I do not know. But the fact is that there are people who want a game, not a simulation, apparently judging from the quote Johan himself...


This is just one of the many things that are supposed to be made into the game engine, thus supporting free-gameplay, but these issues are neglected because someone is always "smart" enough to come back with a "Hardcode it!" ("Make an event of it", the most usual one.)

I still am not presented with any reason why this kind of an issue should not be included. The fact that some call it "Error in gamebalance" if Brazil of 1945 actually manages to mobilize more than one militia brigade, is not quite there yet...

 

[unmerged(25612)]

We're talking a period of ten years. Not even long enough to put a child through school. It's not as if you could walk out on the streets of Katmandu, collar some peasant and say "YOU! You can lead my nuclear programme!" You need either an indigenous skills base or foreign consultants plus loads of dosh and prestige.

This goes for any other third world country with ideas above its station.

So then... Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Mexico, Chile Ukraine (If becomes independent) and so on... ?!?!?

And what if Poland survives the magic year of 1939, heck, what if it is even Fascist itself!?!?

And please (To everyone), coming back with a "One can always make some ahistoric ones" is not quite there yet.


Now poor countries already have maluses, grand maluses indeed. They are too small and too poor to ever be able to sum up that 5.000$ or something. But you indeed have a point. Maybe have the Pool enabled with some tech? (Some tech that everyone has except for Nepal and a few others) Or just have "Uncivilized nations like in Vic?

 

[unmerged(2997)]

Sorry but your approach sounds more like a colouring book than other peoples ..albeit one were you can colour the sea pink and trees purple.


Ask yourself what do leaders represent just the picture in the box?
No they represent the staff supoort training ethos tradition of that army and the ability to utilize the techno skills available.

Turkey proved incapable in that regard for a good part of history prior to the date we are talking about.It created Kemal who was more inspirational to the Turkish psyche than military.

A few conquests does not make a military machine.Look at the Chaco wars in S America and youll see why there are few generals there or the other wars in the 20s and 30s They were not able to escape there traditions.The countries represented Majors HAd a tradition a background not only in past glories but in present advancements.

within the scope of the game it is nigh on inconceivable that this officer corp tradition elan esprit de corps could develop.Look at US experience in Vietnam despite lots of training promotion assistence..the US produced a workable efficiant officer and General class in the SVNA?..I think not.

Yet you equate a victory to creating Generals etc just give them an unamed office a blank rename them what you want Generallissimo Saviour whatever and you have what you ask for and accurate too.Possibly I would agree that the Blank officers should slowly earn experience but thats all.The idea that I have a navy so i have Admirals who are worth the name is strange...ask the Bolivians.


And Civ is apt Thats a game were you can steer a nation the Zulus to world power its what you want.

that seems to be the game you want were you can change reality alter or randomize facts.

For example.....to quote

So for the price of two divisions one can buy a scientist group or a leader

Just have leaders starting from the bottom of the barrel (Majors?) and build up towards General

But what I wish to see is completely random research teams. You push the magic button of "Generate" and BANG you get a reasearch with random specialities and random skills. And with random I mean random.

If a thing did not happen, it does not automatically mean it could have not happened!

Nor does it mean that it could happen either.


You mix all that up with other ahistoric/fantasy wishes and you are asking for a different game which is were the Civ image comes into play.

Yes you suggest very nicely for an on off button but again what does that mean in many ways it means 2 games under one roof which again is an objection ..get the first game out then you can ask for an expansion if theres demand im sure youll be catered for.


Oh as for the selective quotes this is a Game not a simulation...what HOI 2 is is based on HOI1 now read what it says on the box.
******************************
Historically Accurate epic gameplay
Historic Generals and Political leaders

**puts you in the heart of the struggle between the new world orders of of Fascism Communism and democracy with unparralled historical accuracy...

Sorry that what people bought .I can quote from my Civ 3 box too and its easy too see which is closer the fantasy/ahistorical options .You are asking for a totally different game.

 

[boromir]

But the fact is that there are people who want a game, not a simulation, apparently judging from the quote Johan himself...

You keep quoting Johan but fail to identify the context of his statement, and apply your own interpretation to it instead.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

Caligastro:


By that logic there are no Generals except those who fought in a battle.

Or are you by all means seriously suggesting that if Turkey joins the axis, and fight the period of 1941-45 constantly losing men, no leaders should be available to it?

That is naive at best.

Now let us take a part of what you said:

No they represent the staff supoort training ethos tradition of that army and the ability to utilize the techno skills available.

Turkey proved incapable in that regard for a good part of history prior to the date we are talking about.It created Kemal who was more inspirational to the Turkish psyche than military.

A few conquests does not make a military machine.Look at the Chaco wars in S America and youll see why there are few generals there or the other wars in the 20s and 30s They were not able to escape there traditions.The countries represented Majors HAd a tradition a background not only in past glories but in present advancements.

So Turkey fighting 1941-45 against USSR does not breed one decent leader... Oh no... :wacko:

And in that post you just shot yourself in the leg, repeatedly: Phrases like "No they represent the staff supoort training ethos tradition of that army and the ability to utilize the techno skills available." Only states that if history went 100% the same way, and Turkey had no other need for such skills, then they would not need them... :wacko:

And you can hardly compare one adventurer going into jungle with a few rebels to a full scale war of several years? (That is if you are not in desperate need of examples to back up an invalid point... )

within the scope of the game it is nigh on inconceivable that this officer corp tradition elan esprit de corps could develop.Look at US experience in Vietnam despite lots of training promotion assistence..the US produced a workable efficiant officer and General class in the SVNA?..I think not.

Yes and we all know that the US army and goverment especially fought Vietnam as a total war with all their effort into it AND that it is by all means completely comparable to WWII... :wacko:

Yet you equate a victory to creating Generals etc

No I equate constant need and willing to put everything up for it to getting generals.

If I as Turkey am willing to burn millions of dollars in the furnace just to get a leader... AM I not entitled to one? Just because, again, IN OUR HISTORY Turkey did not happen to need one.






Now that is just obsolete at best... Granted I was not at my best either, and I may have sounded hostile... But... But...

Okay let me put it in this way before I burst into a mixture of laughter and tears:

The only valid opposition point here, at least thus far, is that HOI is a historic simulation of some sort. Yet you try and rock the whole boat, with ridiculous arguments... To sum up all what you just said, I wold have to type:

"Generals can not be recieved, even though resources and need is available, because in our history, the specific nation was not at need and/or did not have the resources and thus did not recruit a general."

I don`t know how am I to supposed to prove it to you but leaders rise when they are needed. When armies are made and sent to battle, they have leaders. The best leaders get promoted AND so on...


You can not honestly state that if Turkey was part of the Barbarossa, then it would not gain any leaders just because in our history when it did nothing and leader were not needed, they were not offered? Can you? :rofl:




I mean... I am wordless...

You could have said that you don`t want Turkey to become a world power.. Thus backing the side up... You could have said anything... But that :rofl:



Now in the desperate effort of trying to state the obvious I am to present the following questions:


1.Name one great leader that took part in no actionor did not go into politics? (Hard is it not, as leaders are unable to show their greatness during peace time?)
2.How would you describe the differences of quantity of officers during peace and war time? (Now see during a war there are 10x more to choose form, nice isn`t?)
3.How would you describe the differences of rate of promotion during peace and war time? (Again during wars promotions take place)



I just don`t get what you do not get. Of course there are more leaders during a war time, but that is hardly the point! Of course Turkey would have had leaders if it would have fought WWII... Or what did you have in mind? Democracy amongst the men? :rofl:


I mean... That is absurd... That is a "What then" instead of a "What if"...

If Turkey is at war then it will need more leaders, if it has more leaders they are to be represented. What is the big question here?


I am so very, very confused. The pure absurdity...

 

[unmerged(25612)]

You keep quoting Johan but fail to identify the context of his statement, and apply your own interpretation to it instead.

Granted.

And how would you interpret the post then? Now Johan most propably had in mind that not all "features" of WWII would have to be represented, but it can just as well be applied here...

Johan has also said "I will add pink elephants to the game if it adds more fun"

 

[Oscu]

So just have historical leaders + randomly generated to have enough generals to command your armies X2 (or X3). Generally very few of these random leaders should be rank 3 and only couple rank 4s.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

So just have historical leaders + randomly generated to have enough generals to command your armies X2 (or X3). Generally very few of these random leaders should be rank 3 and only couple rank 4s.

I don`t know about those ranks, as I don`t have HOI o Sorry.


But yes, the idea is to have historic and random ones, a `la Victoria. (In Vic you had to generate them all, and I can`t see why that could not be done here as well)


So it is basically excactly the same as in Victoria, but with the addition of Tech groups.

 

[unmerged(23993)]

I guess all countries in the world had some sort of army, with some officers(bigger than private). For example in Finland Hjalmar Siilasvuo was a colonel before the winterwar and nobody knew him, but after a big battle he became a general and all finnish knew him. All military formations are always led by someone, and if he formation happens to have ~ 10000 men, then the leader is a "general".
You don't become a great general only by reading books and studying in military academies. Talent and experience makes fine leaders.

 

[unmerged(25612)]

I guess all countries in the world had some sort of army, with some officers(bigger than private). For example in Finland Hjalmar Siilasvuo was a colonel before the winterwar and nobody knew him, but after a big battle he became a general and all finnish knew him. All military formations are always led by someone, and if he formation happens to have ~ 10000 men, then the leader is a "general".
You don't become a great general only by reading books and studying in military academies. Talent and experience makes fine leaders.

Yes. That is why there is the "promote" system, as well as the experience gain for leaders.

At the current state of the game that is excactly what happens, but with only "real and autenthic WWII -names".

With the system suggested, one could generate Majors and promote them into Generals or so.

 

[unmerged(31881)]

Clever, earl, clever. You almost had me. Right up to the end.

This goes for any other third world country with ideas above its station.



Stiff upper lip and that. You don't surprise me, sir -- I know your sort.
Riff-raff, servants & lessers, merchant classes (ok, -ivory films), all pip-pip what hey, cheerio.
Seriously though, that groat's not fit for a stoat.

 

[LordStark]

I like your idea. The vicky system for generating leaders is better imo than having a set of generals like HoI or EU. The randomness and compromises you are forced to make adds to the gaming experience. Also the most famous generals are in vicky, its just the "default joe" as you call it, that are generated.

I don't agree. HOI is a historic simulator/strategy game. Each country should have access to historic military leadership - no more, no less. The time period is too short for such random generation to be useful or realistic.

 

[oxymoron]

I disagree with any form of generation of new leaders out of thin air. Where should an officer of a small country gain the necessary experience to be a general with a lvl 3 skill? Technically such a generator would cost developement time and difficult to balance with other features.

It would be much more feasible, if you could give each "Default Joe" (Major General, lvl 1) a name. That way he would have his own identity and could gain experience and skill levels over time. It would also be more realistic, because a Major General of a small country, who finds himself suddently in the boots of a Field Marshal, wouldn't have the experience to fill that role with much skill.

 

[Earl Uhtred]

Seriously though, that groat's not fit for a stoat.

Come on, tongue in cheek and that.

Ignore that statement if you have to, but I'd like to see you justify Nepal (or Thailand or Bolivia or Haiti etc etc etc) pulling an indigenous nuclear programme out of its arse. So it's Eurocentric, so Lakota me.

 

[unmerged(2997)]

Read what you wrote yourself before trying pithy attempts at sarcasm.
In one swipe you ask fot the ability to purchase leaders then in another bite that random leaders are availabv;e form the outset.
You then defend that with asking would Turkey get no leaders in 3 4 or 5 years of war.Well that is not your original point is it unless youve changed your argument.

But to answer if you read what i tried to say sorry if i mix up this Language.
leaders blank non entities are available now
I said they should get experience then youd have leaders depending on their performance.
But that is not what you were asking for ...so im not sure whose being absurd .You ask for one thing then defend it with a argument that does not match your premise.If they fought would they develop leaders yes .Does this mean the should get random leaders at the start no thats absurd.
You can call anyone a General Idi Amin did does that mean they have the ability ?
You were asking for leaders from the outset on a random basis with random abilities.You ask cant Turkey get leaders through the period of a war then state why cant I buy them .

You have Anon leaders already in HOI they just dont have ability .Yes let them gain XP and develop......which is your Turkey example.But thats so different from having a random generated L3 leader at the outset.

to quote my hero

I am so very, very confused. The pure absurdity...

 

[unmerged(25612)]

Read what you wrote yourself before trying pithy attempts at sarcasm.
In one swipe you ask fot the ability to purchase leaders then in another bite that random leaders are availabv;e form the outset.
You then defend that with asking would Turkey get no leaders in 3 4 or 5 years of war.Well that is not your original point is it unless youve changed your argument.

But to answer if you read what i tried to say sorry if i mix up this Language.
leaders blank non entities are available now
I said they should get experience then youd have leaders depending on their performance.
But that is not what you were asking for ...so im not sure whose being absurd .You ask for one thing then defend it with a argument that does not match your premise.If they fought would they develop leaders yes .Does this mean the should get random leaders at the start no thats absurd.
You can call anyone a General Idi Amin did does that mean they have the ability ?
You were asking for leaders from the outset on a random basis with random abilities.You ask cant Turkey get leaders through the period of a war then state why cant I buy them .

You have Anon leaders already in HOI they just dont have ability .Yes let them gain XP and develop......which is your Turkey example.But thats so different from having a random generated L3 leader at the outset.

to quote my hero

AAhhh... Now I get it! You did not get the first, that is my original intention... Sorry.. I am not a native English speaker myself, so it is not the first time this happened:

Have you played Victoria? It is good if you have. I would like, basically, to cope with that system.

So you would buy your leaders. They would not be "randomly given". And my guess is that the "leaders gaining XP" Quote from Paradox means that you need some XP to promote them.

Now those put together and we agree, right?


And I thought you were trolling, pulling my leg or something.

 

[lordvagrant]

We could have random leader generation based upon certain technologies - doctrines. If you are a backwater nation with no 'modern' military tradition (doctrines), you are not going to get great leaders. However, you should be able to get some basic leaders if you expand your military, and they should be able to learn via experience. The more military doctrines you have, the higher chance a 'random' leader emerges with skill above 0.

The same applies to research teams. If your nation does not have the industrial infrastructure to support a host of research companies, they will not appear. But a government initiative (possibly backed by foreign investment) should allow basic teams to form, and start the nation up the tech tree path. Granted in the 12 year span of the game, they won't get far up the tree.
In more advanced countries, the lower skill level (of the random range) for research might be higher - if a research team is not innovative/competitive, it will soon fall by the wayside.

 

[unmerged(21828)]

I'm personally 50/50 in this debate. I would like to see a lot of flexibility in the gameplay while keeping the game true to the time persiod.
I think the idea of Norway or Nepal becoming super powers is rediculous. Neither country had the industrial capacity or population to reach such potential. Unless you can ban the use of contraceptives and industrialize quickly within 12 years of the scenario, playing as Norway will be "unexciting".

But......If Norway were given the option to....let's say...form union with Denmark and Sweden, perhaps the German player will think twice before invading.

Or even maybe, Britain will be given the choice to move industries around to prevent bombing.

If DuGalle is dies during the war, a sucessor will take his place and the chain of command will change.

It's such flexable ahistorical gameplay options like these which I fully support.