I've tried playing HOI2-DD for a little while now and decided to write down some of my comments (read: gripes / points for improvements) so hopefully the developers can use them to make a better product.
First off, I want to say that I like the concept of the game, especially that it focuses on two of the most dramatic conficts of the 20th century.
Now, here are a few things I'm not so impressed with and which I feel are limiting this game in its potential:
1) The interface. Some things are just RSI-inducing. If I want to assign a squadron of interceptors to clear the skies over my capital (no enemy bombers over Berlin, fer instance) then I have to click through several options, if I want that squadron to keep performing that mission for a long time, then I have to click and keep clicking. Why can't I just press the plus-button, hold, and wait? It is simple and much more convenient. Also, when I'm clicking away, if something happens and I get a popup, I have to start over. Why? I was working on something! The interface should allow the player to quickly and easily arrange things the way he (she?) wants, but many things involve a bit more effort than it should.
2) Building armies. Although you can now add brigades during building, this doesn't allow you to make a build queue with mixed brigades (allowing you to take advantage of the bonus by ordering them in series), or allow you to automatically assign certain units together (allowing you to quickly field large armies). I personally prefer to use units in threes, usually armour/infantry, or a triple armour group. Having them assembled automatically would allow me more time to focus on the game. I can be in the middle of a battle and have to divert attention to the newly completed reinforcements. What I especially don't get is the fact that a) all units seemingly appear in your capitol, which makes little sense, b) all units can IMMEDIATELY be deployed anywhere in any connected and owned territory, even if it is on the other side of a continent, but NOT in territory of an ally which gives me right of passage, c) I can't place units overseas, even when that region is mine, even when playing as Japan / UK. I have to do that manually.
3) I don't like the diplomatic/intelligence/trade system very much. Considering it is such an integral part of the game, I don't see why it has to be so useless. All kinds of options that should be there aren't available (why can't I try to ally myself with another nation unless my country's policies are interventionist? Some nations had credible intelligence about planned enemy attacks (Netherlands / USA) and most certainly would have signed an agreement if they had seen it in their best interest to do so. That this never happened, should not mean it is impossible, as that cripples the player unless he spends a lot of time gradually changing the stance of an entire country/government. As for intelligence missions, sometimes they happen without consent of the player. Like sabotaging US production while being allied with them. WTF is up with that? Also, when fighting alongside an ally, often the ally ends up with "liberated" territories. Why? Even if that nation has a claim to that territory, unless that other nation is the leader in the alliance, it makes no sense for that to happen automatically. At one time I conquered China playing with the USSR, but then wanted to hand a number of provinces to Communist China. The only way to do that was to dole all the provinces five at a time, wait until I could send another diplomat... Why would it be impossible to hand over a number of territories / divisions at once? Why is there a limit on that and why can I only send one diplomat every several days? There should be more options here. Considering a lot of DD is micromanagement, this part of the game is the exact opposite. I think the best way to improve this would be by allowing the player to set out certain guidelines and for the game to play along those rules. As it is, automating things is a pain, as the game regularly makes odd decisions, such as creating supplies even when I already have a HUGE stack.
4) The AI is sometimes woefully inadequate. Once, while playing with the USSR, I released Mongolia as a puppet state and several states across the world DOW-ed it. All of them with absolutely ZERO chance of ever reaching Mongolia, except by first invading several other countries just to get to it. Never mind the fact that those countries had absolutely zero warmaking capabilities and that Mongolia had done absolutely nothing to them. Maybe they just didn't like me very much and were taking that out on my former ally. There is no sense in certain actions by the AI, obviously there is a lot of room for improvement there. I think a lot of the AI is scripted along historical scenarios, but that the AI draws a blank when you change certain events. The AI should be adaptable enough to deal with a changed situation!
5) Researching new technologies/weapons is actually one of the things I really like about DD, but some things here could also be improved. For instance, when playing with the USSR and conquering most of Europe and Asia (and not planning on stopping there) I acquired a huge load of tech teams and I ended up having to search for the best tech team for every new research job. Why aren't the best suited teams at the top when I have already selected something to research? Also, why does the effect of new tech appear to be so low? When my interceptors outclass everything the enemy can throw at me, I expect them to drive the enemy from the skies, even if they do have better pilots! Yes, I'm sure a skilled pilot in an inferior plane could get the drop on a pilot in a Spitfire/Hurricane, but -not- all the time! The same goes for tanks, if I have T-34's, the Germans have (early) Pz III's, I expect to -cream- them. Superior German org/tactics, fine, but I'd like to see them try to outrun and outgun my state-of-the-art weapons just by using better tactics. If the difference is big enough, AND the player has superiority in numbers, not even better doctrines are going to save the Germans, unless the Soviets are stupid enough to allow themselves to get enveloped. That's how they won WW2, better equipment (tanks) and lots and lots more of it. Also, there should be even more research slots for larger nations and it should be possible to do rush jobs, for instance by assigning two tech teams to the same job, perhaps even if that goes at the expense of some other research. US tank development was seriously behind during WW2, if the player wants to avoid making that same mistake, it should be possible. Finally, there should be more connections between technology. If you have certain tech, other tech would be trivial to research. And why can you share blueprints, but do you then have to research everything even so? Blueprints are drawings of how to make things, reverse engineering wouldn't be necessary. The only problem you might then have would be retooling your factories if you had absolutely no experience building battleships for instance (For such first-time jobs there could also be a big penalty btw... It is not logical that you can just research modern battleships and then build them even if the biggest ship you built before that was a destroyer. But in DD, you can... Conversely, experience should pay off.)
Some other comments, mostly about realism:
1) You can't build factories for specific purposes. This is not realistic, but it also means that you can't make use of your stragic bombers the way it was meant: targeting specific plants such as oil refineries or aircraft/tank production.
2) Civil unrest and rebellion happens way too easily. Germany and Japan were police states, if people had become unruly they would have been imprisoned, shot. For the allies, it seems rather unlikely that people would really become agitated during the war, there was too much at stake. Placating your own people by producing less war materials and more commercial goods just seems silly to me. Placing garrisons everywhere or playing whack-a-mole with the exceptionally impotent rebels is also just silly and annoying. Perhaps it would be better to just have a certain hit on your manpower/production efficiency whenever you annex/occupy foreign territory. But aside from some guerrilla-like activities by partisans in the occupied regions of the Soviet Union after Barbarossa, there really wasn't much effective rebel activity in occupied territories, so maybe it would be enough to just have hit on your logistics. I consider it rather unlikely that some remote occupied region would really be stupid enough to rebel against the occupier, especially if a rather large army is sitting right next to the concerned province. For that matter, a kind of "region" effect should be in place for occupying armies.
3) Buildtime for warships is WAY too short, especially for battleships. This is probably due to the fact that all production is a rush job. In WW2, in Germany and the UK, large warships such as battleships got a relatively low priority, resulting in ships being completed after up to 5 years. But in any case, these ships were MASSIVE and required a lot of materials. An approximate 2 year buildtime is too short. Germany now ends up with two fully functional battleships way too early in the game.
4) Why is an editor included with DD, when it craps up the languages.csv file? If an editor is included, it should be safe to use.
5) IMHO too few high-ranking officers are included at the start of the game. But all armed forces had at least a few staff officers that could command armies or entire fleets. It is annoying having to use up skill points to promote a leader that should have been a Field-Marshal in the first place. Also, a few of the more senior officers should have at least some experience, having fought in WW1...
6) Naval combat makes no sense to me at all. First of all, my fleets can't be directed to the proper spots. If I want to blockade/patrol a certain chokepoint, it is usually divided between at least two sea zones and all I can do is have them patrol an entire area and they will inevitably spend a lot of time outside of the desired area. Then they ususally completely ignore the enemy at least part of the time, but when they don't, hardly anything seems to come of it, even if I have a major fleet and they have only one ship. Finally, if one (transport) fleet is engaged and another (battle) fleet is assigned to patrol the same area... the second just keeps moving randomly around! As if the first fleet would not be screaming their heads off over the radio to get help! I won't even mention air cover... Sinking enemy ships is a PITA, the enemy keeps going where they want, no matter how many fleets/air forces I throw at them. I only get them through attrition... This can be a VERY serious problem, especially during invasions. But can you imagine the Royal Navy NOT stopping a German invasion? I can't, but it happens in HOI2-DD... Submarines seem to be especially underrated. Use them singly and they are overwhelmed, use them in groups and they are defeated again and again, until none are left. WITHOUT THEM TAKING ANY SHIPS WITH THEM! Subs were among the most effective weapons of WW2, but I think I've yet to see them making a kill in DD.
Cutting this rant short, I'm interested to see how others feel about these issues and if some of these will be picked up. I might come back with some more suggestions later on.
To sum things up, I think the game is very interesting, and has the potential to be absolutely brilliant, but that it could benefit from an easier to use interface, a (much) better AI and if a few things would work in a more logical way.
First off, I want to say that I like the concept of the game, especially that it focuses on two of the most dramatic conficts of the 20th century.
Now, here are a few things I'm not so impressed with and which I feel are limiting this game in its potential:
1) The interface. Some things are just RSI-inducing. If I want to assign a squadron of interceptors to clear the skies over my capital (no enemy bombers over Berlin, fer instance) then I have to click through several options, if I want that squadron to keep performing that mission for a long time, then I have to click and keep clicking. Why can't I just press the plus-button, hold, and wait? It is simple and much more convenient. Also, when I'm clicking away, if something happens and I get a popup, I have to start over. Why? I was working on something! The interface should allow the player to quickly and easily arrange things the way he (she?) wants, but many things involve a bit more effort than it should.
2) Building armies. Although you can now add brigades during building, this doesn't allow you to make a build queue with mixed brigades (allowing you to take advantage of the bonus by ordering them in series), or allow you to automatically assign certain units together (allowing you to quickly field large armies). I personally prefer to use units in threes, usually armour/infantry, or a triple armour group. Having them assembled automatically would allow me more time to focus on the game. I can be in the middle of a battle and have to divert attention to the newly completed reinforcements. What I especially don't get is the fact that a) all units seemingly appear in your capitol, which makes little sense, b) all units can IMMEDIATELY be deployed anywhere in any connected and owned territory, even if it is on the other side of a continent, but NOT in territory of an ally which gives me right of passage, c) I can't place units overseas, even when that region is mine, even when playing as Japan / UK. I have to do that manually.
3) I don't like the diplomatic/intelligence/trade system very much. Considering it is such an integral part of the game, I don't see why it has to be so useless. All kinds of options that should be there aren't available (why can't I try to ally myself with another nation unless my country's policies are interventionist? Some nations had credible intelligence about planned enemy attacks (Netherlands / USA) and most certainly would have signed an agreement if they had seen it in their best interest to do so. That this never happened, should not mean it is impossible, as that cripples the player unless he spends a lot of time gradually changing the stance of an entire country/government. As for intelligence missions, sometimes they happen without consent of the player. Like sabotaging US production while being allied with them. WTF is up with that? Also, when fighting alongside an ally, often the ally ends up with "liberated" territories. Why? Even if that nation has a claim to that territory, unless that other nation is the leader in the alliance, it makes no sense for that to happen automatically. At one time I conquered China playing with the USSR, but then wanted to hand a number of provinces to Communist China. The only way to do that was to dole all the provinces five at a time, wait until I could send another diplomat... Why would it be impossible to hand over a number of territories / divisions at once? Why is there a limit on that and why can I only send one diplomat every several days? There should be more options here. Considering a lot of DD is micromanagement, this part of the game is the exact opposite. I think the best way to improve this would be by allowing the player to set out certain guidelines and for the game to play along those rules. As it is, automating things is a pain, as the game regularly makes odd decisions, such as creating supplies even when I already have a HUGE stack.
4) The AI is sometimes woefully inadequate. Once, while playing with the USSR, I released Mongolia as a puppet state and several states across the world DOW-ed it. All of them with absolutely ZERO chance of ever reaching Mongolia, except by first invading several other countries just to get to it. Never mind the fact that those countries had absolutely zero warmaking capabilities and that Mongolia had done absolutely nothing to them. Maybe they just didn't like me very much and were taking that out on my former ally. There is no sense in certain actions by the AI, obviously there is a lot of room for improvement there. I think a lot of the AI is scripted along historical scenarios, but that the AI draws a blank when you change certain events. The AI should be adaptable enough to deal with a changed situation!
5) Researching new technologies/weapons is actually one of the things I really like about DD, but some things here could also be improved. For instance, when playing with the USSR and conquering most of Europe and Asia (and not planning on stopping there) I acquired a huge load of tech teams and I ended up having to search for the best tech team for every new research job. Why aren't the best suited teams at the top when I have already selected something to research? Also, why does the effect of new tech appear to be so low? When my interceptors outclass everything the enemy can throw at me, I expect them to drive the enemy from the skies, even if they do have better pilots! Yes, I'm sure a skilled pilot in an inferior plane could get the drop on a pilot in a Spitfire/Hurricane, but -not- all the time! The same goes for tanks, if I have T-34's, the Germans have (early) Pz III's, I expect to -cream- them. Superior German org/tactics, fine, but I'd like to see them try to outrun and outgun my state-of-the-art weapons just by using better tactics. If the difference is big enough, AND the player has superiority in numbers, not even better doctrines are going to save the Germans, unless the Soviets are stupid enough to allow themselves to get enveloped. That's how they won WW2, better equipment (tanks) and lots and lots more of it. Also, there should be even more research slots for larger nations and it should be possible to do rush jobs, for instance by assigning two tech teams to the same job, perhaps even if that goes at the expense of some other research. US tank development was seriously behind during WW2, if the player wants to avoid making that same mistake, it should be possible. Finally, there should be more connections between technology. If you have certain tech, other tech would be trivial to research. And why can you share blueprints, but do you then have to research everything even so? Blueprints are drawings of how to make things, reverse engineering wouldn't be necessary. The only problem you might then have would be retooling your factories if you had absolutely no experience building battleships for instance (For such first-time jobs there could also be a big penalty btw... It is not logical that you can just research modern battleships and then build them even if the biggest ship you built before that was a destroyer. But in DD, you can... Conversely, experience should pay off.)
Some other comments, mostly about realism:
1) You can't build factories for specific purposes. This is not realistic, but it also means that you can't make use of your stragic bombers the way it was meant: targeting specific plants such as oil refineries or aircraft/tank production.
2) Civil unrest and rebellion happens way too easily. Germany and Japan were police states, if people had become unruly they would have been imprisoned, shot. For the allies, it seems rather unlikely that people would really become agitated during the war, there was too much at stake. Placating your own people by producing less war materials and more commercial goods just seems silly to me. Placing garrisons everywhere or playing whack-a-mole with the exceptionally impotent rebels is also just silly and annoying. Perhaps it would be better to just have a certain hit on your manpower/production efficiency whenever you annex/occupy foreign territory. But aside from some guerrilla-like activities by partisans in the occupied regions of the Soviet Union after Barbarossa, there really wasn't much effective rebel activity in occupied territories, so maybe it would be enough to just have hit on your logistics. I consider it rather unlikely that some remote occupied region would really be stupid enough to rebel against the occupier, especially if a rather large army is sitting right next to the concerned province. For that matter, a kind of "region" effect should be in place for occupying armies.
3) Buildtime for warships is WAY too short, especially for battleships. This is probably due to the fact that all production is a rush job. In WW2, in Germany and the UK, large warships such as battleships got a relatively low priority, resulting in ships being completed after up to 5 years. But in any case, these ships were MASSIVE and required a lot of materials. An approximate 2 year buildtime is too short. Germany now ends up with two fully functional battleships way too early in the game.
4) Why is an editor included with DD, when it craps up the languages.csv file? If an editor is included, it should be safe to use.
5) IMHO too few high-ranking officers are included at the start of the game. But all armed forces had at least a few staff officers that could command armies or entire fleets. It is annoying having to use up skill points to promote a leader that should have been a Field-Marshal in the first place. Also, a few of the more senior officers should have at least some experience, having fought in WW1...
6) Naval combat makes no sense to me at all. First of all, my fleets can't be directed to the proper spots. If I want to blockade/patrol a certain chokepoint, it is usually divided between at least two sea zones and all I can do is have them patrol an entire area and they will inevitably spend a lot of time outside of the desired area. Then they ususally completely ignore the enemy at least part of the time, but when they don't, hardly anything seems to come of it, even if I have a major fleet and they have only one ship. Finally, if one (transport) fleet is engaged and another (battle) fleet is assigned to patrol the same area... the second just keeps moving randomly around! As if the first fleet would not be screaming their heads off over the radio to get help! I won't even mention air cover... Sinking enemy ships is a PITA, the enemy keeps going where they want, no matter how many fleets/air forces I throw at them. I only get them through attrition... This can be a VERY serious problem, especially during invasions. But can you imagine the Royal Navy NOT stopping a German invasion? I can't, but it happens in HOI2-DD... Submarines seem to be especially underrated. Use them singly and they are overwhelmed, use them in groups and they are defeated again and again, until none are left. WITHOUT THEM TAKING ANY SHIPS WITH THEM! Subs were among the most effective weapons of WW2, but I think I've yet to see them making a kill in DD.
Cutting this rant short, I'm interested to see how others feel about these issues and if some of these will be picked up. I might come back with some more suggestions later on.
To sum things up, I think the game is very interesting, and has the potential to be absolutely brilliant, but that it could benefit from an easier to use interface, a (much) better AI and if a few things would work in a more logical way.
Upvote
0