Troops who have reached a high experience level through years of pushups get out and benchpress the tank :3
(btw they do rifle drills and such too)
"things I dislike" - post things about the previews you dislike here **READ OP EDIT**
- Thread starter sandman2575
- Start date
-
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.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.
Troops who have reached a high experience level through years of pushups get out and benchpress the tank :3
(btw they do rifle drills and such too)
Does anyone disagree with the above? No? I didn't think so.
Please! Stop calling a magazine a clip! Or rather, please stop calling 3D models "sprites". I know we've been bad at making the distinction in the past, but... aaargh!
Abdicated empress ? You're no longer the Queen of DLC ?
I was never the queen, I was the Empress. Empress > Queen. You should know this, Darkath. I'm so disappointed in you.
It's weird how "hardcore wargamers" go on about how gameplay >>> graphics until the graphics change to something different from that they are used to, then graphics become the most important thing.
No, but a WWII commander wouldn't be hovering above Europe observing the entire Eastern front in real time while conducting foreign policy and pondering whether or not to construct a new aircraft carrier either. A WWII commander would be in an office/tent/command tank with a laminated paper map with a few grease pencil squiggles on it, years of military education, a strictly limited area of operations, and a staff to keep track of details and handle busywork. A WWII commander also wouldn't be using NATO counters anywhere (yes yes, they evolved from somewhat similar US symbols, but there are plenty of other nations to play as). A WWII commander would also sometimes see his soldiers in battle and training in real life where they would certainly look more like our models than NATO counters. The point is you are not a WWII commander, you do not play as a WWII commander in HoI, and a WWII commander wouldn't have a map and counters like whatever classic wargame you are fond of has. It's perfectly fine and understandable to be used to a certain system, and even, to an extent, to be annoyed if the system changes - but it is not reasonable to think that it is the one true and realistic wargaming system.
Counters, and the symbols upon them, are just a simple way to represent information - they are handy for drawing in small spaces on maps where you need to see other details and can be drawn quickly without requiring any artistic skill. But on a computer game's map you do not need to draw the symbols yourself, and the map can be zoomed, scrolled, or toggled to different modes.
For war boardgames, counters were ideal because they were cheap (look at the poor warhammer players), stackable - physical objects had to fit into limited spaces, and could have different data on either side to represent different states. But in a computer game you don't need to sell/provide physical representations of your units, so per unit cost is not a factor. You don't need to stack units because a simple count can be provided, and different states can be represented graphically or with tooltips/info boxes.
For early computer wargames counters were still a decent choice because graphical technology was in its infancy so simple symbols were preferred and fit well into 2d maps, the wargame market was incredibly niche so almost everyone was used to counters already, and UI design was also in its infancy - people were generally impressed enough at the advantages over boardgames to happily click though 5 different menus and consult a 500 page manual because that was still easier than covering your living room in maps and having 5 rulebooks, a bunch of lookup tables and 20 dies.
But with modern pc games graphics have advanced beyond the point where people are wowed by a map you can move, and graphic technology means its actually less resource intensive to make maps 3d rather than 2d. Wargames are no longer as niche, so people expect them to look nice and be animated, and players haven't necessarily been playing grog games for 20 years and so will recognise a little man with a gun or a small tank as military units far more readily than some square with a shape on it. Finally, people are used to computers now, and they expect a game's interface to be clear easy to use - people who have not grown up with an arcane system won't accept "That's how it was previously!" as an excuse for a poor interface, they will just not play the game. And yes, counters are a poor interface in many ways - once they stack up you can only see the details of the top unit, and if you stack too many in one place they even start obstructing the view of other nearby stacks or stuff on the map. There is literally no situation where a big wobbly stack of "I dunno, maybe 40-60?" counters with an armour symbol on top of it is more informative than a model with a neat little "45 <inf helmet> 5 <tank symbol> 2 <MTN symbol> 3 <para symbol>" underneath that all fit in about the same area as one counter.
In short, counters were a way to present information within the constrictions imposed by physical media and early computer games - with those constrictions eliminated or eased in modern games there is no pressing need to stick to the same solution other than tradition.
(This kind of escaped from being a reply to BarrosRodrigues and MyFeelingsOnCountersVsModels.txt)
Edit: Also, I am happy to do the soundtrack - although it would consist entirely of dramatic humming.
Last edited:
Darkrenown,
Very well said! I believe you are correct in what many (most) will want and I think Paradox is making the right choice offering models. I & many others (a minority) also want counters (counters only) option. If you have been fallowing my post you know my reason and if you think it would be helpful I can restate them. More choices, more pleased players, more sales!
No, I know. And in an ideal world we would make both systems. It's just that it takes time and effort to do so, even just slapping a really basic set of counters in would be a non-trivial effort, and I think even for counters-fans it would result in a worse experience than simply putting up with models. However, making a good counters systems that'd show everything as well as models do would be even more effort. Either of these options would also take time away from refining other features. And it's not like we are swimming in spare time, we have already delayed the game.
HoI4 isn't HoI3. It isn't even Spruced up HoI3. It's HoI4. If we went by your logic that HoI is just fine because that's what we're used to, you'd never had seen HoI3 in the first place - it had huge changes compared to HoI2. Had Paradox listened to HoI2 fans posting in the same vein as you are, you'd never have gotten the HoI3 you like so much something to think about. Perhaps, as many HoI2 fans did, you'll come to realise that change isn't bad in itself and grow to love the new system, but if you don't HoI3 isn't going anywhere - you'll still have it to play if you decide HoI4 isn't you cup of tea just as many people still play HoI2 (or AoD/DH) and spit at the mention of 3. Different people like different things, and you can't claim to speak for anyone but yourself in your preferences, I was a huge fan of HoI3 (did you know I was one of the most active HoI3 beta testers before I worked here? Probably not. I put countless unpaid hours into testing and playing HoI3 and indeed pretty much every PDS game back to EUII, so I'm always a bit perplexed when people try to use the "True Paradox fans think..." card), but I don't think it was perfect.
I do find it odd that you want counters for immersion/realism and to feel like a WWII commander, but in the same thread complain about having to actually plan military operations out in advance rather than ordering individual divisions about willy-nilly though. I also wonder if you've really thought about how the need to plan and prepare and the possibility of your enemy finding out about your intentions and moving to counter them adds to realism, increases the need for you to think strategically, and generally raises the stakes. Further, I wonder if you have considered how different doctrines and leaders might affect the speed at which plans are planned, the size of the planning bonus, and the penalty for unplanned moves, and how all this makes different nations more unique to play as and against both between games and at different stages within the same game. Finally, I wonder why you think the soft-deterrent of an unplanned attack penalty is worse/more restrictive than the hard restriction of attack-delay.
Yeah, that sucks. I'm pretty sure it is placeholder, if not I need to complain...
We'll have an option for NATO symbols on the cards, just not a counters only mode.
I'm not offended by your post(s), but I do want to say that what I said was not excuses. We've made many changes from HoI3 because we think it'll result in a better game with less busywork and more fun.
Only if you are willfully ignoring the unit cards under the models which clearly show what the unit type is.
Various reasons. From both a realism and gameplay point of view it seems sensible to reward planning over reaction and micromanagement. If you are caught flat-footed you should not be able to instantly set all your forces into the perfect counter-move. While the player can just pause and issue orders to a division that was moving to X to instead attack Y, we want to keep in mind these orders are meant to be going to a formation of thousands of men that need to perform hundreds of actions in close coordination to actually carry out that simple order, and that a sudden change in plans would cause chaos.
There's also the fact that planning can be discovered, which gives the defender the possibility of preemptively reacting to an attacker's plans, tempered by the fact that the attacker may then notice these preparations and form another plan etc. etc.
Another factor is that the scope of the game is strategy and grand strategy, not tactical, and only kinda sorta operational - you can order individual divisions about, but it's not the focus of the game. There are many games that focus on tactical and operation control, but that is not what we do.
You could even add immersion to this list, it simply doesn't feel like WWII to me to have perfect control of every unit. Governments and generals gave out directives and orders about what should be done, but ultimately they had to leave it to the actual unit commanders and soldiers to carry out their plans, and those plans were not always followed out to the letter which sometimes either lead to or adverted disaster.