Hey, so the game has finally been more or less completed, with bugs being dealt with in anticipation of the release. Now I would like to ask how people feel on the mechanics on a whole and if they think the game has been made to generic and casual friendly for more hoi3 veterans to really enjoy.
In my personal opinion I think we have had more good things than bad, considering how hoi3 was like a can of spiders for those without mods and the patience to thrust themselves into the game, with bad AI where exploitation was the way to "WIN" the game.
For example Japan. Daniel managed to (if you except time he paused for talking and such) managed to set up Japan's strategy in less than half an hour, but any player who saw what he did could get Japan up and running in a few minutes at the very least. While I have to point out that Daniel did admit he didn't know a lot about Japan (Shameful Dishpray) which kind of hurts for people like me who loves to play as Japan in anygame (EU4 Victoria Hoi3 Shogun fall of the samurai, all great fun even though AI is questionable). I would want to use my Navy to sort of send troops behind the chinese so that instead of having my troops garrisoned, I would set them up along the river near shangdong to have them delay any chinese reinforcements to the frontline while I send my reserve infantry to attack the main frontline from behind. He didn't bother securing ports from the onset of the conflict before the AI had a chance to reinforce them or try to use his garrison troops to harass the chinese away from the frontlines and delay them from reinforcing them. Didn't have any garrisons ready to occupy the mountains with the communists etc etc. Yes, Daniel is not very well versed in Japan, but I don't see him losing the conflict because of that (Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense playing as Japan only to fail after one two diaries) but I feel that my expertise in Asian warfare and knowledge from fighting China in Hoi3 as Japan is downsized, just making it a simple not super planned invasion other than using what already exists other than skipping sending half your army to Shanghai and not help the main invasion like historical. I know a lot of people who completely neglect using their main advantage over china (their navy) and just go straight to killing chinese. Also the kill death ratio is ludicrous. 1K japanese soldiers for 100K chinese is just absurd. China would lose 100 million troops for 1 million japanese soldiers if that was the case, and while it is true a lot of them died from being cut off, atleast 50k died from combat. Again Daniel had prepared, but you would think the AI would have prepared for some kind of defense aswell.
What I am getting at is Japan and china needs to be balanced and if you don't make any serious tactic other than Daniel which is basically Kill all loot all then you shouldn't be able to take china after a few months, but years. China is supposed to be killed fast so that you can reassign your troops to SU to continue with the hokuron tactic, because those troops will basically have nothing to do for most of the conflict and should be used to bait SU to send troops away from Europe to Asia to help Germany secure victory. Again, don't know if all numbers have been balanced, and Daniel might show what he is doing in another video. Might just be ranting cus I always work super hard to make battle plans and so.
TL DR: is the game a simplification or is it moving in the right direction? If so why and where?
Is the AI good? Does it realize it can't beat the player and decide to fall back to rivers and mountains where it can set up a better defense or simply tries to delay and breakthrough where it can?
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...arts-of-iron-version-of-history.901707/page-7
In this thread I discussed among other things my concern that Japan was simplified to a large decree by dictating from day one that it was too simple to reject the fact that Japan was a democracy at the time but with a lot of factionalism in it that encouraged nepotism and the military in particular. I think not having the choice as Japan to be a democracy is kind of harsh, since it still hadn't outlawed political parties and they still had elections. The parties of the time weren't against military expansion and generally favored better ties with America and China to combat communism. The democratic parties in Japan have been completely removed all together, which doesn't give us a lot of opportunity to choose a democratic Japan, unless we want to damage our unity even more and maybe even lose Manchuria and Korea, which would never be worth it. Also, why was Matsui moved to a level 1 General? I find it unfair since while he was old, he was still dedicated to preserve good relations with the chinese. I think giving him some kind of trait which allows provinces that he helped conquered were less likely to disrupt infrastructure and be able to absorb more manpower. He was a staunch buddhist and didn't like how the people were treated so giving him something to make up for his low rank would be a fair matching.
In my personal opinion I think we have had more good things than bad, considering how hoi3 was like a can of spiders for those without mods and the patience to thrust themselves into the game, with bad AI where exploitation was the way to "WIN" the game.
For example Japan. Daniel managed to (if you except time he paused for talking and such) managed to set up Japan's strategy in less than half an hour, but any player who saw what he did could get Japan up and running in a few minutes at the very least. While I have to point out that Daniel did admit he didn't know a lot about Japan (Shameful Dishpray) which kind of hurts for people like me who loves to play as Japan in anygame (EU4 Victoria Hoi3 Shogun fall of the samurai, all great fun even though AI is questionable). I would want to use my Navy to sort of send troops behind the chinese so that instead of having my troops garrisoned, I would set them up along the river near shangdong to have them delay any chinese reinforcements to the frontline while I send my reserve infantry to attack the main frontline from behind. He didn't bother securing ports from the onset of the conflict before the AI had a chance to reinforce them or try to use his garrison troops to harass the chinese away from the frontlines and delay them from reinforcing them. Didn't have any garrisons ready to occupy the mountains with the communists etc etc. Yes, Daniel is not very well versed in Japan, but I don't see him losing the conflict because of that (Wouldn't make a whole lot of sense playing as Japan only to fail after one two diaries) but I feel that my expertise in Asian warfare and knowledge from fighting China in Hoi3 as Japan is downsized, just making it a simple not super planned invasion other than using what already exists other than skipping sending half your army to Shanghai and not help the main invasion like historical. I know a lot of people who completely neglect using their main advantage over china (their navy) and just go straight to killing chinese. Also the kill death ratio is ludicrous. 1K japanese soldiers for 100K chinese is just absurd. China would lose 100 million troops for 1 million japanese soldiers if that was the case, and while it is true a lot of them died from being cut off, atleast 50k died from combat. Again Daniel had prepared, but you would think the AI would have prepared for some kind of defense aswell.
What I am getting at is Japan and china needs to be balanced and if you don't make any serious tactic other than Daniel which is basically Kill all loot all then you shouldn't be able to take china after a few months, but years. China is supposed to be killed fast so that you can reassign your troops to SU to continue with the hokuron tactic, because those troops will basically have nothing to do for most of the conflict and should be used to bait SU to send troops away from Europe to Asia to help Germany secure victory. Again, don't know if all numbers have been balanced, and Daniel might show what he is doing in another video. Might just be ranting cus I always work super hard to make battle plans and so.
TL DR: is the game a simplification or is it moving in the right direction? If so why and where?
Is the AI good? Does it realize it can't beat the player and decide to fall back to rivers and mountains where it can set up a better defense or simply tries to delay and breakthrough where it can?
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...arts-of-iron-version-of-history.901707/page-7
In this thread I discussed among other things my concern that Japan was simplified to a large decree by dictating from day one that it was too simple to reject the fact that Japan was a democracy at the time but with a lot of factionalism in it that encouraged nepotism and the military in particular. I think not having the choice as Japan to be a democracy is kind of harsh, since it still hadn't outlawed political parties and they still had elections. The parties of the time weren't against military expansion and generally favored better ties with America and China to combat communism. The democratic parties in Japan have been completely removed all together, which doesn't give us a lot of opportunity to choose a democratic Japan, unless we want to damage our unity even more and maybe even lose Manchuria and Korea, which would never be worth it. Also, why was Matsui moved to a level 1 General? I find it unfair since while he was old, he was still dedicated to preserve good relations with the chinese. I think giving him some kind of trait which allows provinces that he helped conquered were less likely to disrupt infrastructure and be able to absorb more manpower. He was a staunch buddhist and didn't like how the people were treated so giving him something to make up for his low rank would be a fair matching.
Last edited:
- 18
- 1
)
