will the patch be game save compatible? i really hate starting over and
over between patches and mods. thanks!
over between patches and mods. thanks!
-
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.
I think you just hit the spot, King. The problem is that it seems the game so far behaves ahistorically most of the time even without player's interference.
So like the theatres issue, many parts of the game work well only in historically correct conditions, but these are actually rarely to be seen now, and so it causes so many problems.
I get your point that you (devs) wanted to create HOI3 less rigid, but it definitely should not be that much loose (so it really must not allow such ridiculous situations like USA being in Axis etc.). All that it takes is to tweak the diplomacy AI to respect the historical conditions and limitations and to build on these then (not to throw them away right after the game-start and behave like a lunatic). After all, HOI3 does not cover whole centuries, but only 12 years.
Surely that the AI should be able to react more or less to player's actions (anyhow unhistorical), but if the player behaves close to historical development, the AI should allow him to go on more or less historically, as there would be no need for the AI to behave like a fool in such case.
This would surely satisfy both history-lovers and fantasy-players.
I agree with the OP, but I'm willing to give Paradox the time they need to polish of this game. Given their record in patching and improving their games, I'm not gonna embargo Paradox, because they are another company in the cutthroat business of gaming. They are my favorite developer and as such I wish to support them. Besides, I'm not willing to sacrifice my gaming to make an example of every developer pushing their resources too far. If I was, I wouldn't start with this company at least.
So the balancing factor is the amount of time it takes to test the patch installer?
Hell, I would take that and get small bits of fixes here and there even if it takes 4 months to fix most of the stuff than wait 3 months for same amount while having nothing in between.
Edit: Also on preset theatres, I've been thinking, I see absolutely no problem with preset theatres and ahistorical war. As I suggested, if the theatres pop up after you occupy a territory that belongs in the theatre, what would be wrong with it? Would the AI eat up too much resources trying to reorganize everytime it conquers and get new theatre?
Also King, I don't know if you guys have worked on this yet, but please let AI programmers know that AI should avoid certain amount of stacking penalty as a matter of being hardcoded. Right now it suffers too much from stacking ridiculous amount of divisions on small province that the combat effectiveness of the units in there are completely lost, and with poor theatre commander, most units never see fight while end up retreat/surrendering. I'm seeing this happening too many times in 1944 scenario as Germany, fighting against USSR.
Last edited:
I believe one of the 1.4 threads indicates that the "superstack" issue is already being looked at.
IIRC, it was said by one of the devs that it's already been addressed and/or completely fixed for 1.4.
If it's not fixed already, then it should be by the time the RC for 1.4 is ready for beta testing.
If you look at the Tech Support Forum, you'll notice it's not in open beta yet, no.
This issue could be different. I was following the process of channel island superstack fix so I knew that, but here I am talking about AI stacking 15 ~ 20 divisions on the front because it ran out of provinces that share border with its enemy. This stacking that I'm currently refering to is not fatal to the AI, but it reduces its efficiency when it could have had the upper hand.
Well that could be for a number of reasons.
It could be attacking with a portion of them and keeping the rest in reserve to exploit a gap in the lines if there is a break.
But then again, I'm not sure if the AI thinks that far ahead.
It could be different, but if I remember the post right, it was stated that they were fixing "the problem of superstacking WITHOUT just fixing the overly obvious Channel Islands specific occurrance of it"
the only thing that bothers me is the speed, if they could offer speeds like in the last game i would be OK with the game
Just a heads up, I've had one set of graphics problems (including the flags problem) from the Gamersgate version on two different computers, both using ATI cards. This set of problems was introduced with one of the 1.3 RCs, don't recall which. This was with XP, Vista, and Windows 7.
A second graphics issue (the wrong colored provinces bug) also occurred on a lot of ATI cards, in particular on my old Radeon x800 GTO card. I'm always available for more questions on this and other issues.
We have finite budgets for patching, that's the way things are. So time taken to make installers is time subtracted from making patches, reducing the ammount of things we can do with the patching process.
The supetstack issue is being looked at.
yes the Channel Islands is a nice expample of the problem, but we also have several invasion saved game with huge stacks kicking about. Trying to fix the problem generically instead of specifically.
While I agree that time should be spent on bugfixing and not creating installers, I think you can be more couragous with releasing beta patches to the community (in a simple .rar archive).
The last beta patch for 1.3 was downloaded less than 1000 times, those are just the forum readers. Generally, most people on this board like downloading new versions, they like to see stuff happening.
And you don't have to bother submitting installers for all those patches to the different retailers.
Of course I know you would be flooded with feedback the likes of "Could you fix problem A....", "Why is a fix for B not included, ....", "Feature Z should be in", "Unit XY is to strong", "Game still slow in 1942", and so on. (and I know this can be very discouraging)
But still, you would also get a lot of desired feedback much faster than your internal testing can possibly deliver.
The last beta patch for 1.3 was downloaded less than 1000 times, those are just the forum readers. Generally, most people on this board like downloading new versions, they like to see stuff happening.
And you don't have to bother submitting installers for all those patches to the different retailers.
Of course I know you would be flooded with feedback the likes of "Could you fix problem A....", "Why is a fix for B not included, ....", "Feature Z should be in", "Unit XY is to strong", "Game still slow in 1942", and so on. (and I know this can be very discouraging)
But still, you would also get a lot of desired feedback much faster than your internal testing can possibly deliver.
They'll more than likely release it in a .rar when they're satisfied with the amount of fixes they've managed to find that we have reported beforehand, and then we'll get a crack at finding new problems.
If this patch goes open beta it will be the first one I plan on actively downloading and participating with.
Yes, the budget/resource limitations are understandable, but please beware that 1.3 is far far far off the mark of "no need for any patch ever", and that for certain big issues like superstacks and whatnot, are hurting the game pretty bad every day without a fix.
On the issue of superstack, would you like a savefile where almost half of entire USSR's frontline is suffering from massive stacking penalty?
If your suggestion is adopted, how about .zip format instead of .rar? It's the most common and it's free.