• 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.

unmerged(105989)

General
5 Badges
Jun 30, 2008
2.312
0
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Semper Fi
Would just like to point out that the Wasp, Enterprise and Yorktown were built during the depression and the days of low defense budgets so work progressed slowly.

As for the Essex, it looks like it took a little over 1.5-1.6 years. Considering that 730 days is two years, sounds like the researchers have it about right.
 

Radu

Banned
82 Badges
Dec 18, 2007
957
4.722
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Conclave
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Crusader Kings II: Reapers Due
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Victoria 2
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Necroids
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
You mean, slap historical labels on units with fictional capabilities? I'd let that slide,were it not for the fact that Paradox drives its "this is history coming to life" home. I'd understand if this was Company of Heroes or World in Conflict, games which borrow a lot from reality,but their meta-games still maintain their distance from it in respect to actual combat (point blank infantry and tank duels and the like).

My point is, if the HOI series wouldn't take itself seriously as is the case with CoH where some units can actually cloak (camouflage) or WiC which features paradropped T-80s or both when talking about in the field or even instant heal/repair. Everybody knows what games these are when they see these things.

But when the HOI series go out of their way to compile huge lists of ministers/officers, to name but one instance of the HOI taking itself very seriously, it can't claim in the same breath that it's not seeking realism. When you take the time for this kind of detail, you are attempting to create a grand-strategy equivalent of Panzer General/Steel Panthers/Close Combat/Operational Art. A "serious game" some might say even "militainment" (Military and Entertainment).

There is of course,nothing wrong with that,but it is ambitious. While one can understand that for such a grand project 3 (or maybe even 4) incarnations are needed for it to mature, not pointing out noticeable deviations from reality would serve no one now would it?
 

peo

Lt. General
43 Badges
Mar 29, 2001
1.394
33
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Crusader Kings III
  • Crusader Kings III: Royal Edition
  • Battle for Bosporus
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Nemesis
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • Victoria 2
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
Radu said:
You mean, slap historical labels on units with fictional capabilities? I'd let that slide,were it not for the fact that Paradox drives its "this is history coming to life" home. I'd understand if this was Company of Heroes or World in Conflict, games which borrow a lot from reality,but their meta-games still maintain their distance from it in respect to actual combat (point blank infantry and tank duels and the like).

My point is, if the HOI series wouldn't take itself seriously as is the case with CoH where some units can actually cloak (camouflage) or WiC which features paradropped T-80s or both when talking about in the field or even instant heal/repair. Everybody knows what games these are when they see these things.

But when the HOI series go out of their way to compile huge lists of ministers/officers, to name but one instance of the HOI taking itself very seriously, it can't claim in the same breath that it's not seeking realism. When you take the time for this kind of detail, you are attempting to create a grand-strategy equivalent of Panzer General/Steel Panthers/Close Combat/Operational Art. A "serious game" some might say even "militainment" (Military and Entertainment).

There is of course,nothing wrong with that,but it is ambitious. While one can understand that for such a grand project 3 (or maybe even 4) incarnations are needed for it to mature, not pointing out noticeable deviations from reality would serve no one now would it?

Nowhere has Paradox EVER! claimed that anything they make are "history coming alive".
They are full well aware of the fact that these are games/simulations and neither follow history perfectly for the simple reason that where would the fun be in that?
You wouldn't sell one single copy if the game was a reenactment of ww2 starting in sept 1939 ending in aug 1945 with Germany and the rest of the axis defeated exactly as happened in real life.
If you want that read a book about ww2 or watch a documentary about it.

A game that will sell is a game that is abstracted and not "real life". HoI is the by far best in it's genre and I'm sure that HoI3 will follow in the same mold as the earlier incarnations. This means that absolute reality will not be in simply because that isn't what most like.
Having ministers is a way to get historical flavor to a game, just as it was to name the equipment in the earlier versions without it mattering. The officers are the same, a way to get more flavor and make sure that the "large" nations have better units compared to the smaller which lack generals.

This is the last thing I say in response to anything you write, I think you need to read again what Paradox is aiming at and what their aims have been before.
 

unmerged(103753)

Banned
1 Badges
Jun 8, 2008
690
0
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
peo said:
The difficulty of reaching the same techlevel is a different matter to the quality of the troops themselves.

i said that my crack german divisions were better but i needed a 2:1 ratio to attack and i was facing 1947 infantry (all of fucking china was united and they even snatched part of the soviet union!)
 

unmerged(103753)

Banned
1 Badges
Jun 8, 2008
690
0
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
Radu said:
Well if Japan can't get historical carrier fleets with historical,realistic IC,then the game is wrongly designed perhaps even researched don't you think? Cost-IC balanced wrong,values wrong,all that. That's not "fun",that's poor research and development.
historically the japs base IC would just be over 80 and america would easily be breaking 500 if not 600. a more realistic number being 900 IC.
 

Manziel

Lt. General
9 Badges
Feb 25, 2007
1.268
1
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
Radu said:
Yeah,so?

USS Wasp :
Laid down : 1936
Launched : 1939
Commissioned : 1940

USS Enterprise :
Laid down : 1934
Launched : 1936
Commissioned : 1938

USS Yorktown :
Laid down : 1934
Launched : 1936
Commissioned : 1937
These are all peacetime-builds. Nobody thought about a world-war in '34 and therefore they did not work too fast on them. Not to forget the fact that the country was just recovering from the biggest economic crisis so far.

Things aren't as simple as that and you've presented a "straw man". Especially since you disregard the fact that the commission is on December 1942.Do you honestly believe that the time between a carrier being launched and commissioned proper can be ignored? Are you aware that the sea trials of any ship, especially carriers,are absolutely necessary?
They are necessary, of course. But if you calculate from 28. april '41 (laid down) to 31. december '42 (comissioned) it takes only 1 year and 8 months (613 days) which is a lot less than two years.

A Japanese Essex would be built in 511, less than 1 year and a half!! which is preposterous. Not even the USA achieved this kind of rhythm for its fleet carriers.
You might want to look at USS Hornet (CV-12) that took only 1 year and 4 months (483 days) from keel laying to comission. They are even one month ahead of our ingame Japanese Essex
 

Killerrabbit

b0ka
13 Badges
Sep 2, 2006
1.499
450
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Pride of Nations
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
The build times are really besides the point. It is fully possible to have historical IC (Industry/ GDP) if the game includes more factors, the most important one; defence budgets. The United States should be the historical IC powerhouse that it was. But this does not mean that the US should have 50 Battleships or Carriers. This is solved due by introducing a realistic logistics part of the game, where the US would need much of it's manpower and IC to be able to field troops in the pacific and in Europe. Spending would also be limited before the war starts, as the public have little sympacy for high defence spending when the US appeared not to be under a serious threat.

A better AI would also help, so Japan uses it's troops more wisely, and not stacks them all on a remote island. For China's part, troops would use much less supplies and be cheap to build, due to a string of factors.

- Troops deployed on own soil (no trucks, men, infrastructure etc. needed to transport supplies to the troops. They get food from nearby villages.)
- Little heavy equipment (Infact, most of what's needed is ammo and rifles, which is cheap and easy to manufacture with few large industries, and even in local workshops. Some where also supplied from USA and the Soviet Union.)
- Low level tech (No fancy electronic equipment, trucks, tanks which would require a lot of industry to build.)

China would have the capacity to build hundreds of divisions, but almost no aircrafts or battleships.

This is all possible with historical economies of the respective countries, it just needs more variables and fine tuning than what was present in HoI2. ;)
 

Baneslave

Field Marshal
121 Badges
Apr 9, 2004
6.941
2.252
  • Hearts of Iron IV: By Blood Alone
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
daemonofdecay said:
:rofl:

I'm just waiting for someone to ask for a game that will tell them "No, you can't do that. I want to build a militia division instead."

"Local gun-nuts want government supported military force and of course we will listen our supporters" -> militia division

:rofl: