I was thinking, why must the timeframe be limited? I really don't get tit, because AFAIK there is no reason for this.
Why can't it just be defined in the scenario?
Why can't it just be defined in the scenario?
-
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.
if they extend the time the game occupies its just more months of research and programming and non of it will be very much related to ww2. being able to fight the korean war in a ww2 wargame is a luxery at best, unneccessary mostly.
I agree with Jacob and hopes that some day a cold war game comes our way from Paradox... 
I don't undestand why lots of guys are asking for this damn cold war period.
It think a cold war game would really suck.
You could play only with URRS or USA, playing any other nation would be no sense and no fun. Also there would be no real war, you would sit there accumulating nukes and troops for a war that will never happen ( if you play historically, if you play ahistorically maybe it will... but it's not a paradox game then, it's Red Allert )
It think a cold war game would really suck.
You could play only with URRS or USA, playing any other nation would be no sense and no fun. Also there would be no real war, you would sit there accumulating nukes and troops for a war that will never happen ( if you play historically, if you play ahistorically maybe it will... but it's not a paradox game then, it's Red Allert )
Last edited:
This has been discussed on every game since EU II. Paradox's stance has always been any time frame past the end date would not be realistic, so the scenario will end at that date. Thus, we end up waiting until after the game's release for a player made unlimited time patch, which works nicely.
Personally, I hate the way the game ends sudden like, especially if you are still fighting a war. I would prefer a simple notice that this is when the game ends, maybe in a pop-up box, and the warning that if you play further the results will not be historical and the timeframe is not supported.
Personally, I hate the way the game ends sudden like, especially if you are still fighting a war. I would prefer a simple notice that this is when the game ends, maybe in a pop-up box, and the warning that if you play further the results will not be historical and the timeframe is not supported.
As HOI is a sequel maybe it's time to think out side of the box. I think the HOI engine could handle both the Korean war and the cold war. It just means the diplomacy part of the game is going to need a massive upgrade.
jacob-Lundgren said:
I wasn't asking of extending the time frame. I just simply asked why can't the 'restrictions' be removed. Ie so that the begin and end time are not ahrdcoded into the game, but in the scenario.
Francesco said:
Cold war isn't just USSR v NATO. It could also include conflicts such as
Korea
Suez Crisis (marks the end of the UK and France as Superpowers, sniff sniff)
Arab/Israeli Wars
French Indo China/Vietnam
Malaya
It would depend on the scale and scope of the game itself, but no it would not be 'boring'. Try finding something authoritative to read on the Korean War (Max Hasting's work is the one that springs to mind).
The potential for a 'wargame' is there, as it is for the Middle East. The question for the developers is whether such a game would sell and make them money. In my opinion, probably not as WW2 is far more popular.
HOI spawned TGW and Cold War Mods, good stuff too.
The whole point is, that if you want you can continue the game by simply changing the end date in scenario, and what is most important it would make modders life a little easier.
Everybody who wants a Cold War game, click the link in my sig and help get it finished...!
How about instead of increasing the game from 1948 .... push it back to 1932 ... back when the era really started.
Here is a post I made on this same topic in the FAQ thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elektrasoul
That's too bad, I was kind of hoping that the game would be expanded to encompass the early cold war years, like until 1960, or so. Are there any such plans?
I am always curious when people ask for a larger and larger timeframe. The larger the timeframe the more abstraction that is required for any given complexity level in a simulation. Many people like HOI because it is very in depth. Unless the game is going to become hideously complex and long to play a doubling of the timeframe would require a requisite reduction in depth. I think the current balance is good as it is as this is a WWII game a heart.
As much as I like EU2 I think it would have been a much better game if it only went from 1500-1775 or so. As best I could tell many people pretty much abandoned the 1419 start date. Not needing to model revolutions, the hundred years war, or other trouble spots would have allowed for more depth. Also, as everyone should know the longer the scenario length is the easier it is for a human to press their advantage over the AI. Shorter scenarios allow for better AI and less time for a human to press their advantage.
Alll said and done, I am just happy to see that paradox will stick to significantly improving the game they have rather than getting too ambitious. This company has been on the leading edge of grand historic simulation and looks to remain there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elektrasoul
That's too bad, I was kind of hoping that the game would be expanded to encompass the early cold war years, like until 1960, or so. Are there any such plans?
I am always curious when people ask for a larger and larger timeframe. The larger the timeframe the more abstraction that is required for any given complexity level in a simulation. Many people like HOI because it is very in depth. Unless the game is going to become hideously complex and long to play a doubling of the timeframe would require a requisite reduction in depth. I think the current balance is good as it is as this is a WWII game a heart.
As much as I like EU2 I think it would have been a much better game if it only went from 1500-1775 or so. As best I could tell many people pretty much abandoned the 1419 start date. Not needing to model revolutions, the hundred years war, or other trouble spots would have allowed for more depth. Also, as everyone should know the longer the scenario length is the easier it is for a human to press their advantage over the AI. Shorter scenarios allow for better AI and less time for a human to press their advantage.
Alll said and done, I am just happy to see that paradox will stick to significantly improving the game they have rather than getting too ambitious. This company has been on the leading edge of grand historic simulation and looks to remain there.
Becephalus:
You missed the point. Paradox doesnt have to concetrate on anything else than the 1936-48 period. Just that they leave modder the possibility to concentrate on those periods, by not restricting the timeline...
You missed the point. Paradox doesnt have to concetrate on anything else than the 1936-48 period. Just that they leave modder the possibility to concentrate on those periods, by not restricting the timeline...
IEX Totalview said:
No fighting... like suez, israel vs arabs, afganistan, iran, india-pakistan (*3?), vietnam (*2+), korea, amur crisis, cod war (
), irak... yeah, almost no fighting atall Reminds me of some girl who wrote a story about flowerpower and how there was nothing but peace in the world then..
:rofl: