Wary of Semper Fi

[jostapo]

I played the hell out of HOI3 when it came out (long time HOI guy) and ultimately stopped on account of 4 things:

1) While 'deeper' in gameplay than HOI2, the HOI3 stock events are just plain broken/non existent. So from a 'history lesson' point of view HOI2 wins. nevermind less unit specific artwork. Semper Fi says it addresses this with more events but seeing is believing.

2) Supply System. HOI2 may not have had a 'deep and ''realistic''' supply system, but what it had wasn't an impediment to enjoying the game and it STILL allowed one to enjoy the finer pleasures of convoy raiding. HOI3/SF has arcade mode which entirely DISABLES convoys... wth... yeah, less of a headache but seriously... how hard would it have been to add a 'SIMPLIFIED' mode which gave every province 10 times more throughput... that way you can still logistics bomb, convoy raid, can't land 50,000 troops on a a 1km no infra island, etc. (I think that having thousands of port levels, thousands of transports and ALL level 10 infra should mean no supply issues... ever... while ANY size army is dug in. I tweaked a save file, set every province to 10 infra in asia and all coastals to level 10 provinces and still ran out of supplies as japan. That's what I want... but not matter how much moaning, Paradox doesn't seem to hear.)

3) Brain Dead AI and perpetual issues like never-ending no damage naval engagements, idiotic air/cag mission behavior, etc etc. Frustrating AND boring at the same time.

4) Chronicly bad performance. Inexecusibly poor performance makes one fear visiting some screens (production queue for instance) for fear of waiting more than a minute in the late game.

A lot of SF looks good. But I've got a case of not wanting to give Paradox a dime for an expansion who's contents (some) I believe should have been part of the game from _release day_.

Fool me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice. Shame on me.

Without a 'money back gaurantee' I'm quite cagey. How about it Paradox? Buck the software return policy trend and offer money back gaurantees for a week on purchases from the plaza.

-Joel

 

[Ulsterman]

Then wait. Wait until the first comments posted here. There'll be enough players buying SF on release day, and if you can afford to wait a couple of days you'll have a very good impression. Patience is better than any money-back-guarantee.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

I had same stance as jostapo before Semper-Fi was announced.

However now I understand that HOI III is so advanced and ambitious concept that it could hardly be much more better than it was when released.

I am calling "first" HOI III appearance HOI III "in the clouds".

The feedback of community and subsequent developer analysis was needed to make further advancements in this game, to make it operationaly realistic--that resulted in Semper-Fi.

Simply its theory of evolution.

It will be OK with Semper-Fi, believe me.

 

[panzeroo]

with a couple of patchs i think semper fi will make the game great.

 

[GrafKeks]

I had same stance as jostapo before Semper-Fi was announced.

However now I understand that HOI III is so advanced and ambitious concept that it could hardly be much more better than it was when released.

I am calling "first" HOI III appearance HOI III "in the clouds".

The feedback of community and subsequent developer analysis was needed to make further advancements in this game, to make it operationaly realistic--that resulted in Semper-Fi.

Simply its theory of evolution.

It will be OK with Semper-Fi, believe me.

And if it won´t(which I really doubt) and we still throw our money at it they´ll patch it and we get more expansions

Input>Money=Output>Good HoI3

 

[cfp]

Every significantly sized army in every major period of warfare in modern history (no doubt ancient too) that I can think of has had logistical issues at some (read: MANY) point(s). There's simply too many unknowns, too much carnage, and too many people shooting back at you for things not to go wrong.

WW2 examples: The Desert War (ok not 10 infra.. got me there), the liberation of France/Rhineland campaign, Operation Barbarossa, (the entire) Second Sino-Japanese conflict, Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Atlantic, Battle for Narvik.. These are just a few, but when studied, all highlight how important, and furthermore, how difficult supplying a large armed force really is.

Transportation in the early 40s wasn't anything like what we have today, with 70mph interstates, bullet trains, massive jet airliner fleets, etc. It was slow. Cumbersome. Required a lot of manpower.

If you believe that having infra maxed out, with ports maxed out, and sufficient transports mean your army should be able to break this golden rule, then why don't you just accept that what you *want* really is arcade mode?

They're giving you a feature that gives you exactly what you want, reliable and constant supply.

 

[bz249]

Every significantly sized army in every major period of warfare in modern history (no doubt ancient too) that I can think of has had logistical issues at some (read: MANY) point(s). There's simply too many unknowns, too much carnage, and too many people shooting back at you for things not to go wrong.

WW2 examples: The Desert War (ok not 10 infra.. got me there), the liberation of France/Rhineland campaign, Operation Barbarossa, (the entire) Second Sino-Japanese conflict, Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Atlantic, Battle for Narvik.. These are just a few, but when studied, all highlight how important, and furthermore, how difficult supplying a large armed force really is.

Transportation in the early 40s wasn't anything like what we have today, with 70mph interstates, bullet trains, massive jet airliner fleets, etc. It was slow. Cumbersome. Required a lot of manpower.

If you believe that having infra maxed out, with ports maxed out, and sufficient transports mean your army should be able to break this golden rule, then why don't you just accept that what you *want* really is arcade mode?

They're giving you a feature that gives you exactly what you want, reliable and constant supply.

The problem with the current HoI model, that a 100 strength max organization unit suddenly runs out of supply and forced to a halt. In reality armies kept on fighting by cannibalizing the equipment, foraging and so on. Of course that would result in the loss of organization and equipment. So pressing too hard with badly supplied units should have its consequences. But the situation now is that fully loaded divisions just sit and unable to do anything.

So in my opinion having a barely functional, understrength division because of too long and partisan infested supply line is ok. Having an immobile, 0 org but otherwise unscathed division with the latest available equipment is not okay.

 

[unmerged(32292)]

If you believe that having infra maxed out, with ports maxed out, and sufficient transports mean your army should be able to break this golden rule, then why don't you just accept that what you *want* really is arcade mode?

The reason that difficult supply situations existed historically is BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PORTS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTS. That's the whole point, and it's not even hard to understand.

They're giving you a feature that gives you exactly what you want, reliable and constant supply.

Did you even read the post you're responding to? Are you just trolling?

"Arcade mode" is not what any one asked for. No one said "I don't want to ever have to worry about supply." No one said " I want reliable and constant supply regardless of effort or circumstances."

What they said is "If I dedicate enough resources and effort to supply, it's some thing I should be able to solve within the game." We're not talking about some theoretical enterprise like time travel or curing cancer. We know how to get bullets and beans from point A to point B. And yes, it takes a lot of resources and a lot of people and a lot of planning. That's what ports, infrastructure, headquarters, transports, etc all represent: The resources needed to get stuff from point A to point B. When those things exist in abundance and supply still can't get through, then there's a flaw in the game engine.

The fact that you could have any supply difficulties at all given a virtually unlimited number of the relevant resources (infra, ports, transports, HQs, etc) is a flaw, period. There are no examples of professional armies in the 20th century being unable to get sufficient supplies to their forces, unless they were cut off, the transportation network was damaged or non existent, or supplies simple didn't exist to get to them.

So no, Arcade mode does not address the complaints. Arcade mode is either a remarkably lazy attempt to ignore the real issues with the supply issues, or a passive aggressive rebuke to those who complain. The irony is that it's not the complainers who lack sophisticated or critical thinking ability.

 

[unmerged(196349)]

I did pre-order, however I won't install until hours after the first comments come in.

 

[jackda]

However now I understand that HOI III is so advanced and ambitious concept that it could hardly be much more better than it was when released.

That's THE point some angry players keep on ignoring while doing their unconstructive complainings about HOI3.

This game is still the most ambitious WW2 game ever made, regardless the bugs and the unsuitable mechanics.

The point is : how to improve it.
I still can't understand people who have nothing else to do but to laugh at the devs or denigrate the game without proposing new concepts.

 

[Darkrenown]

2) Supply System. HOI2 may not have had a 'deep and ''realistic''' supply system, but what it had wasn't an impediment to enjoying the game and it STILL allowed one to enjoy the finer pleasures of convoy raiding. HOI3/SF has arcade mode which entirely DISABLES convoys... wth... yeah, less of a headache but seriously... how hard would it have been to add a 'SIMPLIFIED' mode which gave every province 10 times more throughput...

If that's what you want you can have it at any time. Open up common/defines and increase the supply throughput value.

 

[unmerged(187441)]

The fact that you could have any supply difficulties at all given a virtually unlimited number of the relevant resources (infra, ports, transports, HQs, etc) is a flaw, period. There are no examples of professional armies in the 20th century being unable to get sufficient supplies to their forces, unless they were cut off, the transportation network was damaged or non existent, or supplies simple didn't exist to get to them.

You must be lacking in knowledge of military history, because there are a ton of examples of said situation. What tends to happen though is that they occur when a force's performance is much better than anticipated, making the supply needed to continue fighting to be late. How many times did the German panzers have to wait for fuel during the invasion of France? The records have quite a few of them.

Now, the reason this problems are not constant is because generals are thinking about logistics first, and attacks that are logistically impossible are not even attempted. But when instead of a professional army you have one jockey in a strategy game, you should get into supply problems, precisely because you've not spent any time thinking about what is possible, and the game hasn't spent any effort telling you why what you are attempting isn't going to work.

I won't tell you the supply system is perfect, but on relatively small scales, it's a decent simulation given the processing power spent. It could be better, but that would require either more processing, or a less detailed map. And given how much better the maneuvering is than in HOI2, and how many complaints we hear already about the speed of the game, I don't see how either of those options are what most people want. A truly realistic supply system would dwarf the rest of the game in scope, as you make your unit commanders have to request supplies for each offensive weeks in advance.

 

[unmerged(32292)]

That's THE point some angry players keep on ignoring while doing their unconstructive complainings about HOI3.

This game is still the most ambitious WW2 game ever made, regardless the bugs and the unsuitable mechanics.

Several quotes by Jack Handy come to mind.

"“I hope some animal never bores a hole in my head and lays its eggs in my brain, because later you might think you're having a good idea but it's just eggs hatching.”

"“Ambition is like a frog sitting on a Venus Flytrap. The flytrap can bite and bite, but it won't bother the frog because it only has little tiny plant teeth. But some other stuff could happen and it could be like ambition.”

The point is : how to improve it.
I still can't understand people who have nothing else to do but to laugh at the devs or denigrate the game without proposing new concepts.

That depends. If the problem is that that concept is sound, but not executed properly, then the solution isn't a new concept, but better execution.

IMO that's the case with the supply complaints. The idea of throughput, supply bottle necks, the need for infrastructure, etc is all great and fine and it's realistic and it could theoretically lead to lots of interesting choices. The problem is that you have a system, and you have tools that are supposed to work within that system, and the tools don't work properly. You know, if you have a supply bottleneck because you're doing sea supply, and you keep increasing the number of ports and transports, and the situation doesn't improve, then some thing isn't working the way it ought to.

 

[Slan]

IMO that's the case with the supply complaints. The idea of throughput, supply bottle necks, the need for infrastructure, etc is all great and fine and it's realistic and it could theoretically lead to lots of interesting choices. The problem is that you have a system, and you have tools that are supposed to work within that system, and the tools don't work properly. You know, if you have a supply bottleneck because you're doing sea supply, and you keep increasing the number of ports and transports, and the situation doesn't improve, then some thing isn't working the way it ought to.

It's never that simple. Supply has two ends: on one end, you push more and more into the system, on the other, you pull out what you can. It's completely sensical for the system to has its limits, and don't be able to put any number of stuff through. The world is an infinite place, but you can only work with a very finite part of it. So, if you can't put through any more, you will need to cut down on the recieving end. It always works

 

[unmerged(32292)]

You must be lacking in knowledge of military history, because there are a ton of examples of said situation. What tends to happen though is that they occur when a force's performance is much better than anticipated, making the supply needed to continue fighting to be late. How many times did the German panzers have to wait for fuel during the invasion of France? The records have quite a few of them.

What you're talking about is the need for an advancing force to wait for logistics to catch up, which is already represented in the game by the movement of HQs, and the operational delay between attacks. In game terms, the German forces invading France never suffered from a lack of supply, despite the fact that key infrastructure such as bridges were often destroyed by the defenders as the Germans advanced.

In the case of the USSR of course this became a real issue. Large portions of the country were served only by trails/dirt roads (low infrastructure, in game terms) and the railroads had to be practically rebuilt behind the German advance owing the the difference in rail width used in the USSR vs that used in western Europe. This would be represented in game by damage to infrastructure and/or having low province infrastructure in the first place. Partisan activity, weather, etc are modelled already. No one should pretend that flaws in the system are actually a feature that represents some other abstraction, because the abstractions are already known and accounted for within the game.

Now, the reason this problems are not constant is because generals are thinking about logistics first, and attacks that are logistically impossible are not even attempted. But when instead of a professional army you have one jockey in a strategy game, you should get into supply problems, precisely because you've not spent any time thinking about what is possible, and the game hasn't spent any effort telling you why what you are attempting isn't going to work.

The problems with the supply system in the game are typically not local "this province doesn't have enough supply (for a reason that makes sense, like weather, logistical bombing, low infrastructure, large unit stacks, etc)"

They are typically more along the lines of "I have every port in Europe under my control but I can't supply more than X divisions" or 'I've covered the entire coast of China with ports, but I still can't supply the IJN if it gets above X divisions" If the situation was as simple as "gosh, you just need to build more ports/transports/HQs/ETC" then it wouldn't be a flaw, it would just be a game mechanic.

I won't tell you the supply system is perfect, but on relatively small scales, it's a decent simulation given the processing power spent. It could be better, but that would require either more processing, or a less detailed map. And given how much better the maneuvering is than in HOI2, and how many complaints we hear already about the speed of the game, I don't see how either of those options are what most people want. A truly realistic supply system would dwarf the rest of the game in scope, as you make your unit commanders have to request supplies for each offensive weeks in advance.

If the game can't handle a super detailed supply system then perhaps the solution is a less detailed supply system. That doesn't mean "arcade mode" it just means "as complex as you can make it, and still have it actually work."

 

[grunt11]

I had same stance as jostapo before Semper-Fi was announced.

However now I understand that HOI III is so advanced and ambitious concept that it could hardly be much more better than it was when released.

I am calling "first" HOI III appearance HOI III "in the clouds".

The feedback of community and subsequent developer analysis was needed to make further advancements in this game, to make it operationaly realistic--that resulted in Semper-Fi.

Simply its theory of evolution.

It will be OK with Semper-Fi, believe me.

No offense, but that's your argument? That the issues with HOI 3 are ok because it's super-duper advanced and really complicated? At least in my view that's a very poor defense because there are other games out there that are also incredibly complex, and it's not like Paradox had to deal with putting cutting edge graphics into the game or anything. What you're saying is like saying that the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle is excusable because it was the most complex machine in existence at the time and therefore it's alright if NASA messes some stuff up because it's really hard to work on. Now of course HOI 3 doesn't have lives riding on its performance, but my point is the same.

I am happy with how the game has improved since its release and can't wait for SF, but these cop-out arguments that give Paradox a free pass because developing video games such as HOI 3 (or any AAA game for that matter) is tough are getting very old. Developing video games to sell is a business, not a charity, and if a company keeps releasing messed up games before they are ready, it will eventually come back to bite them.

 

[unmerged(162341)]

No offense, but that's your argument? That the issues with HOI 3 are ok because it's super-duper advanced and really complicated? At least in my view that's a very poor defense because there are other games out there that are also incredibly complex, and it's not like Paradox had to deal with putting cutting edge graphics into the game or anything. What you're saying is like saying that the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle is excusable because it was the most complex machine in existence at the time and therefore it's alright if NASA messes some stuff up because it's really hard to work on. Now of course HOI 3 doesn't have lives riding on its performance, but my point is the same.

I am happy with how the game has improved since its release and can't wait for SF, but these cop-out arguments that give Paradox a free pass because developing video games such as HOI 3 (or any AAA game for that matter) is tough are getting very old. Developing video games to sell is a business, not a charity, and if a company keeps releasing messed up games before they are ready, it will eventually come back to bite them.

But The HOI III exactly is like Space Shuttle amongst games.You didnt know it?There is no single similar game to it.Its Wild West,Antartica, andiscovered land of programming in which Paradox and we all partialy are the settlers, pioneeres..Global realtime ww2 simulation.
Have you ever asked yourself why your PC have so much trouble to calculate it?

 

[wolf1455]

For me is like this, when hoi3 was developed and I read the dev diares If was exited as ******. But now even when semper fi promis more and looks cooler I am more reserved.
I was to much looking forward before. So just let see eh.

 

[bz249]

They are typically more along the lines of "I have every port in Europe under my control but I can't supply more than X divisions" or 'I've covered the entire coast of China with ports, but I still can't supply the IJN if it gets above X divisions" If the situation was as simple as "gosh, you just need to build more ports/transports/HQs/ETC" then it wouldn't be a flaw, it would just be a game mechanic.

That's perfectly realistic, the infra has a hard cap (just as in reality aniway) so the maximum number of divisions could be supplied should have a hard cap too. However that number should be ungodly large for WWII era Western European infrastructure.

 

[sbr]

That's perfectly realistic, the infra has a hard cap (just as in reality aniway) so the maximum number of divisions could be supplied should have a hard cap too. However that number should be ungodly large for WWII era Western European infrastructure.

What do you consider "ungodly"? The US has all sorts of logistics issues and had what ~60 divisions in Europe?