I also think it's worth saying that the AI should do stupid things sometimes... as political and military leaders do.
-
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 the important thing is to get a good overview off past and present games. And ask the question, how and where can we implement more/better gameplay without adding complexity or to much new features(potential bugs).
An example of a feature in HoI3 as a compairson to HoI2.
The slider system in HoI2 is less complex (or at least already working), and imo better because the number of possible good or desired combinations are higher. In HoI3 there is only a single best combination of slider/law settings. The only law I really like atm is training law were all choices are relevant and interesting due to good bonuses on both sides (like most sliders in HoI2). Another fact is that you can change all laws off you nation in HoI3 from full oppressive dictatorship to peace loving democracy in a single day without any resistance from neither the ministers nor the military.
Here you have clearly reworked an entire mechanics from the ground up to be able to combine gearing up for war with sliders, and the result is well, not that impressive imho. Something important to remember is, if its not broken, don't try to fix it.
The when of law changing is a seperate thing. However I would argue if we went for the attitude if ain't broke don't fix we would never of made Hearts of Iron 3. Is anything absolutely truly broken in Hearts of Iron 2 or are there things that could be made better?
Actually the main issues in HoI2 were
- low game performance (game speed) in later stages of the game
- AI overproducing land units (e.g. Nat-Chi fielding 600+ divs, USSR fielding more than 1k divs) which added to perfomance loss
- AI overcommiting and sitting around with huge superstacks without ever making use of them (eg. Hawaii or Gibraltar being and staying occupied with some 120 US/UK divs)
As far as i can see, these problems have not been healed. Instead, much of what was done in a good way, does not appear in HoI 3. Here's a short and incomplete summary of what was better:
- no ahistorical join ins into factions
- ability to trade technology and provinces within factions
- cores being occupied by owner did not feature reduced production and had NO partisans
- JAP was not destroyed in 8 or 9 of 10 games by the time of '38
- JAP instead started a historical campaign in the pacific
- UK did invade in Europe if AXIS did not protect the coasts sufficiently
- AXIS and ALLIES did actually fight for North Africa
- Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and France surrendered when historical conditions were met
- Sliders were not jumping around to cause time stops on an almost daily basis
IMPORTANT EDIT:
- we were given a reason to spend research and production on SUBs, CAS and FTR. In the current state of HoI 3 they are a complete waste.
Last edited:
well, the op is right.
But i still give paradox a chance:
To FIX this game BEFORE they bring an addon.
#
IF addons comes before a fixed hoi3 paradox has died for me.
But i still give paradox a chance:
To FIX this game BEFORE they bring an addon.
#
IF addons comes before a fixed hoi3 paradox has died for me.
Have we informations about modding tools ?
Let us mod the AI (a simple "PROVID = { stance = attack priority = 10 }" event function is enough ! With Attack/Defend) and within 2 weeks you will have a great AI challenge !
We are a lot, we have ideas, time and modding skills. Give us tools and we will work for free. \o/
This engine is definitly better than the HOI2 one, when it will reach maturity, I am convinced it will be awesome.
Let us mod the AI (a simple "PROVID = { stance = attack priority = 10 }" event function is enough ! With Attack/Defend) and within 2 weeks you will have a great AI challenge !
We are a lot, we have ideas, time and modding skills. Give us tools and we will work for free. \o/
This engine is definitly better than the HOI2 one, when it will reach maturity, I am convinced it will be awesome.
I also wish people would appreciate the fact that Paradox stands behind it's products and supports them for years after release - not only fixing bugs but introducing completely new and often fan-requested features. There are few game companies I know that would do that - if anything they only try to quickly fix some bugs and get on with it. Games older than 6 months are relegated to the dust bin.
I thought most of those positive aspects of HoI2 were done in very poor way. As an example, because of how strictly the game follows scripted historical path, you had players using minors from South America to take over entire USA so easily. At least in HoI3 I have heard from few players who played minor that their invasion to USA was met with some stiff resistence and losing was a clear possibility.
I'm not trying to defend Japan losing out almost all the time in China, but rather, to show that HoI2 shouldn't be looked with rosy glasses (is that the right expression?). HoI2 was indeed more "historical", but the game was so poor at adepting to ahistorical development which happens almost all the time.
And generally I can sympathize with dislike for gross divergence from history, but how historical should AI go if player plays ahistorically (which happens all the time to varying degree since that is what it means to play the game)? Strict adherence to historical path would make a game far worse by making the AI super predictable and probably not even functional after enough ahistorical development because the AI would lose basis for its trigger conditions.
And as for research, I remember in HoI2 had its share of worthless units, like strategic bombers and I recall subs being pretty stale too, maybe not as bad as now but not enough to warrant heavy investment.
Great. That is a great lesson for PI to learn.
Wired just put out an interesting article on the failure of Duke Nukem. This provides some interesting insight into the game development process, and in particular, how chasing features and the latest technology is an impossible aspiration.
The EU3 model, meanwhile (though I don't particularly find the game engaging), is an excellent example of PI doing things exactly right. Come out with a solid, base game, and then steadily improve it with excellent expansions.
This is the crux of the issue. From a business prospective the brand is very valuable, so you want an expansion. From a technical prospective, HoI2 is so well polished and outstanding in gameplay that it is extremely difficult to beat.
You did what you had to do -- rewrite the game, bring in tons of new features, etc -- to simply be able to compete with HoI2. After all, you can't do "expansions" forever, and you won't have the same level of polish on release, so you need compelling features. In this sense, sure, damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Perhaps the solution is extending the release date for any game. I'm not positive of the begin date to the end date. Lets just say it's 12 months. Why not extend that by 3 months and use that as a beta & fix phase. Currently the beta phase is to short... based on my own experience with HOI 2. For budgeting purposes the development can still remain the same. Just "pretend" you released it, patch & play behind the scenes. This will also allow more beta AARs so the fans don't feel left out.
This is my idea for a compromise. PI stays on budget, Fans get a better product on release date. The only downside is that funds for the new game get delayed for the additional 3 months. Just bake that in to the planning and you should be fine.
This is my idea for a compromise. PI stays on budget, Fans get a better product on release date. The only downside is that funds for the new game get delayed for the additional 3 months. Just bake that in to the planning and you should be fine.
Well, you have a point.
Admittedly ahistorical behaviour on part of the player was not being punished sufficiently via reasonable consequences, especially regarding your South American example which a cannot comment much on.
But still the player was rewarded by following the historical path by beneficial event effects - especially when playing a major power - what is supposed to be the aim of far more than 90+% of played games in HoI 2.
I also cannot remember much complaints about player controlled Haiti getting large or so. This is an 'artifact' which didn't harm the game or it's reception in the community.
And what is important: AI went for a historical course (apart from slight chances in events). In HoI 3 it's an LSD trip and no one can believe in or want to follow such a 'fantasy story' if it became real.
My main issue about this much more the problem that in way more than three dozens of test games most of which were played hands of as a remote micro power - not ONE single game went in the historical path!
Even worse, by playing a major power and trying to actually AVOID ahistorical development is virtually impossible! And that's not only weird, it's very sad, actually.
The player needs to be either UK or GER and invest not only large ingame assets but also hours and hours of annoying micromanagement to counter AI's straight course into 'wonderland'.
This definitly is no fun.
And therefore i think that HoI 2 did a good job in comparison. We played in a ww2 environment there - what was the topic of the HoI 3?! It plays out like a casual fantasy game with some ww2 flavor stuff in it.
Regarding your comments on units in HoI 2 - i don't know how much you have played it. It played it like hell and STRs, SUBs and most other units were very much worth the investment when being used properly.
I agree that 'pink glasses' (if this is the right term
) won't help much to get forward.But i think that benchmarking does very much help to get something improved. One can learn a lot from good examples. It's not needed to repeat and just polish. But changes must have a reason to be there - and their mechanics must work, actually.
I welcome new paths and options in HoI 3. I like the idea to automate things and AI giving a helping hand by reducing workload on the player.
Nevertheless, in the current state the workload is a hell unless one does not care for reason, background and reality.
For casual players it's perfect already. Play and forget, that's them. If one only wants to win a game and do that fast - do the gamey stuff and be done with it.
But as soon as someone knows any single simple fact about the topic, the game really is not done well - in it's current state of development.
From my perspective I would love to be able to exactly as you suggest. However I also like to get paid. We always budget for time at the end to polish and balance the game. However what happens is that things take longer than planned. So this gets eaten into. Hearts of Iron 3 could of done with more time to develop what we planned to develop. We should of been less ambitious to give ourselves more time for polish at the end. We did however finish every feature we planned for, so from that regard we did deliver on our promises.
Here's the thing though; right now, it DOES.
You know those pictures int he Favorite Image thread of Finland invading Iwo Jima?
That is both stupid, and catching the player completely by surprise, forcing him to react to it.
When players say they want challenging AI, there are 2 types of people who fall into this category.
A) The ones who honestly want the game to, without cheating, tax their mental capacities to even win at all. Everyone who talks about this CLAIMS to be in this category, but very few are.
B) The ones who want the AI to do things that it doesn't normally do, but that the player IS ALREADY READY for, so that the AI's "surprise move" ends up getting handily defeated by the player, giving him an inflated sense of self-esteem in his ability to "handle whatever the AI throws at him". This is where most gamers fall in regards to wanted challenges.
The above A) and B) may sound like wild rear-pulls on my part, but I would back them up with the following:
MMORPGS: The most wildly popular MMORPG in history is actually an MMORPG in name only. World of Warcraft has very little in the way of Roleplaying aspects (compared to, say, EQ2), and for that matter, very little in the way of Massively Multiplayer as well (having 11million subscriptions is great for your marketing department, but if 10,999,990 of the other players all cancel their accounts at once, but you and your 9 well-balanced friends do NOT have your gameplay altered in any significant way as a result, that's not Massively Multiplayer, that's Massively Singleplayer where you Occasionally Wave to Other People). WoW is so popular because it's mind-numbingly easy and scripted, designed to keep feeding players with self-improvement to keep them interested. (IMPORTANT NOTE: I do NOT hate Blizzard for making WoW; if I had a cash cow staring me in the face, I'd do it to. IF you like WoW, then sweet, I'm glad you enjoy your $15/month. I'm just making a point of "what it really is" vs. "what people really want").
RPGS: There have been plethora of "RPGs" that have huge and engaging storylines, with lots of ambient sound, great graphics, various control schemes... Chrono trigger, Morrowind, FF6... heck, Chrono Trigger is often heralded as the greatest game of all time. That said... guess which game, which falls under the "RPG" category (though not by my choice, mind you), has the greatest longevity? Diablo2. A game where the most interesting decision one makes is "do I right click or left click on this target to get my Ph@t L3wTz?"
RTS: Age of Empires 3 (holy cow, they actually period-acted the voice commands for each of the late-middle age factions?). Homeworld (anyone who plays through that game and does NOT have the Adaigo of Strings overtune of the space combat bring them to tears isn't human). I myself am active in the Warzone Resurrection Project (you mean when dealing with vehicle bodies, my guys are actually bright enough to figure out how to install a DIFFERENT type of turret on it??!?! BRILLIANT!). There are lots of RTSs with gameplay and in-game ambience making them joys to play in more than just the cutscenes... and yet, what is the all-time "most popular" RTS? Starcraft. Average graphics (even for the date it was released in), and the only 2 strategies playing it is "how to zerg rush" and "how to stop a zerg rush". Entire leagues have been created where the determining factor isn't how strategically minded you are, but how fast you can click buttons.
It all comes back to the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" idea; if Germany surprises eveyone by landing a force in New Zealand? "Dammit PI, stop making such ahistorical nonsense, Germany should be interested in Mainland Europe and USSR only!". If Germany never does anything but take over Europe and go to war with the USSR? "Dammit PI, stop making predictable AIs".
And in either case, you end up with a forum of general threads like "AI sucks", followed by... well, you all get the idea.
PI: I know you are in the works with a 1.4 as indicated by Kallocian's thread et. al. Kep up the good work, and I look forward to being able to happily say "I cut my teeth on the game with it's issues in 1.2, enjoyed the game despite it's issues in 1.3, and am quite happy with the game as I play it in 1.6"
c'mon people take it easy, I think that after a few patchs more, HOI3 will be the great game that we hope. It's true that it has a lot of bugs that have to be fixed, but be patience. We play the game, we say paradox the problems and they will fix them.
As company, paradox take their risks, and we decide if we buy the game or not. They decide how to make their bussines.
For example I payed for HOI3 1.0 40€ and 3 months after 1.3 cost 10€ (more or less) Better game and cheaper, I dont like it, but i have thought about it and it's MY problem, because we have a fantastic forum and demos to see how good the game is. Next time i will wait a little more to buy it.
So while paradox hear us, and fix the problems along time, i think its ok.
Finally I would like to thanks people that make bugs reports and help paradox to improve the game.
As company, paradox take their risks, and we decide if we buy the game or not. They decide how to make their bussines.
For example I payed for HOI3 1.0 40€ and 3 months after 1.3 cost 10€ (more or less) Better game and cheaper, I dont like it, but i have thought about it and it's MY problem, because we have a fantastic forum and demos to see how good the game is. Next time i will wait a little more to buy it.
So while paradox hear us, and fix the problems along time, i think its ok.
Finally I would like to thanks people that make bugs reports and help paradox to improve the game.
I think there are a lot of good concepts, but I haven't played it much due to the speed of the game. It would likely run at a good speed if it supported multicore processors (which I have), and IIRC they are working on optimising the engine for Vicky 2 to support multicore processors, and hopefully this will be passed on in a patch for HoI3.
The ahistorical things I dislike have nothing to do with AI. It's the ease at which countries enter a faction. This simple fix would cure things like Sweden, Switzerland etc from entering the war. Basically right now any country you influence will enter your faction as long as they don't fit into the other bug which prevents countries not on your continent from entering your faction.
I just want to say I am satisfied with Paradox's game as long as they continue to fine tune the multiplayer aspect of it. Yes there are some issues with the AI but honestly I expected it from day one. Thats why I play multiplayer games.
And speaking of dumb moves I constantly see human Japanese player conquer China and them scream bloody murder when all of the sudden the United States is able to join the Allies in 1939. Then people demand house rules to prevent the United States from joining. My point is its not only the AI that makes bone headed moves.
And speaking of dumb moves I constantly see human Japanese player conquer China and them scream bloody murder when all of the sudden the United States is able to join the Allies in 1939. Then people demand house rules to prevent the United States from joining. My point is its not only the AI that makes bone headed moves.
You didn't state once whats your problem with hoi3... You just think its crap, and everyone else not agreeing with you are blind dumbasses...
Well said....
Maybe, just maybe, you should focus more on yourself than what others like and don't like... I think people playing HOI are quite capable of making their own mind up.
Well said....
Maybe, just maybe, you should focus more on yourself than what others like and don't like... I think people playing HOI are quite capable of making their own mind up.