-
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 love the look of the map and interface, but I was surprised by the lack of scenarios. The little cross on the mouse cursor is the only really annoying interface embellishment. It runs faster than AoD.
Now I need to play some more and try out the gameplay.
Now I need to play some more and try out the gameplay.
yep I hate the new "mouse" icon hard to see what your clicking. also the production sliders are a bad color so you cant see when youve locked em
You don't seem to understand how programming works, I can say that sharing the code is greatly beneficial to both parties, even if they have different ideas and how the end product will work. Why reinvent the wheel?
In real life, when dealing with creative types (as the people behind both AoD and DH certainly are), you will find that co-operation is much easier said than done
I didn't say that their projects should merge, I said that mutual sharing would be beneficial.
Also, Paradox obviously owns the rights since they have licensed both teams to further develop on of their products. I don't see why they would put a stop to cooperation. But then again, they did neglect to inform the 3 teams of each other...
It really, really is isnt it? Never thought such an old game could look so good.
Simply merging different features from different projects, would at best give us, human players more options to play with, but i really doubt it would be worth it if you add that they also need to write a bunch of AI related stuff if you want AI to ever use those features efficiently. If they just add features without AI tweaks, it would basically be like cheating as you would be able to take a huge advantage over production efficiency, and AI would not be capable of competing. Just remember that AI, even at this stage is nowhere near human when it comes to planning and building stuff, its not like we need more bonuses on our side. And again i fear that making the AI much smarter (capable of using those features) would slow down game to the crawl, which is what AOD felt to me.
When it comes to work those teams did, we dont know what kind of legal obligations they have toward Paradox etc, so even if it might seem logical to share work, from our player's point of view (we want it, we want it all and now), to game developers it might not be the case.
When it comes to work those teams did, we dont know what kind of legal obligations they have toward Paradox etc, so even if it might seem logical to share work, from our player's point of view (we want it, we want it all and now), to game developers it might not be the case.
My first immpression of DH is that I am not all that impressed with DH. I find that DH is nothing more than just a Mod for Armageddon. In fact if you were to remove the mod and mod documentation folders you would have nothing more than just another copy of armageddon with all the bug fixes and minor upgrades that DH provides. In fact you could put the mod-DH folder in to a copy of armageddon and you would have DH without the bug fixes or graphical upgrades like the map that you would get from DH but everthing else would be virtually the same.
The New map is DH's biggest asset the Flag and Shield graphics are great but they are the same ones that IC uses. The Unit graphics are really nice but they need to match up with their matching units. I have put the Flag and Shield graphics and a few of the interface graphics, like the curser, into AoD and now Aod is really great to play. AoD would really rock if there was a way to use DH's new map. It wouldn't suprise me if someone were to make a mod so that DH's new map be used by AoD.
I believe that DH would have been better had DH been made as a self-installing Mod like IC so you could choose to either install into Armageddon or AoD rather than just getting another copy of armmageddon that includes DH as a mod.
The New map is DH's biggest asset the Flag and Shield graphics are great but they are the same ones that IC uses. The Unit graphics are really nice but they need to match up with their matching units. I have put the Flag and Shield graphics and a few of the interface graphics, like the curser, into AoD and now Aod is really great to play. AoD would really rock if there was a way to use DH's new map. It wouldn't suprise me if someone were to make a mod so that DH's new map be used by AoD.
I believe that DH would have been better had DH been made as a self-installing Mod like IC so you could choose to either install into Armageddon or AoD rather than just getting another copy of armmageddon that includes DH as a mod.
Last edited:
Starting in 1914, I can see that many countries (even major ones) don't have the technology to build infrastructure or IC at the start. This is extremely stupid and bothered me as well in HoI3. How did the existing IC got there if they can't build it? Nothing makes me more angry than this crap.
You don't have to remove anything. Just select (none) as mod in the launcher and you'll have all Armageddon scenarios and settings.
This is a design decision in order to keep compatibility with all the great Armageddon mods developed in the past. In fact most veteran players and modders highly appreciate the design approach we took here. I cannot see that as a weakness at all.
Not true. Such combination will never work because of the obsolete Armageddon engine.
Not possible as we use new engine features that does not exist in either of those.
Last edited:
I second this. I play DH CORE, so basically Armageddon 1.4 with tons of usability and speed improvements. Absolutely love it!
You might want to try light instead. which is basicly the same with a few more improvements on top.
Most people simply didnt get a very good taste of game on first try. I think general expectations were different than what you guys intended: Seems like most people expected a well polished entirely NEW game as complex as HoI2 was, but in fact what those 2 scenarios currently available in DH are is basically refinement of HoI2 scenario. I havent played WWI yet (just dont care about that time) but i can certainly see this in WW2 scenario, where i recognize (thx to my moding experience) what was done, why and how.
I think negative comments will cease completely after a few days when people realize that DH doesnt provide radically new scenarios, but an OVERALL game engine improvement, which is IMO by FAR more valuable: scenarios can be built later on by moders, while engine is what it is on first release (that can be patched though i suppose), so if i could have a choice between a new scenario (knowing there isnt much you guys can invent) and refined engine, i for one would always choose engine. Its just brilliant.
When it comes to WW1 scenario i think you guys advertised on it too much (or thats the general feel i got). It should have been presented as bonus content, while game is, as always, focused on WW2. Right now people just seem to be disappointed that its not refined and covered like WW2 scenario. TBH i expected this from the moment i learned about WW1 scenario, as i know how many hundreds of work hours it took to create just AI switches for WW2. Having another scenario with similar support will take months of refinement.
I think negative comments will cease completely after a few days when people realize that DH doesnt provide radically new scenarios, but an OVERALL game engine improvement, which is IMO by FAR more valuable: scenarios can be built later on by moders, while engine is what it is on first release (that can be patched though i suppose), so if i could have a choice between a new scenario (knowing there isnt much you guys can invent) and refined engine, i for one would always choose engine. Its just brilliant.
When it comes to WW1 scenario i think you guys advertised on it too much (or thats the general feel i got). It should have been presented as bonus content, while game is, as always, focused on WW2. Right now people just seem to be disappointed that its not refined and covered like WW2 scenario. TBH i expected this from the moment i learned about WW1 scenario, as i know how many hundreds of work hours it took to create just AI switches for WW2. Having another scenario with similar support will take months of refinement.
quick first impression from 20 minutes on a netbook in WWI scenario :
+ ran on a netbook at native resolution.
+ new map looks like it will be fun. Also liked the added touch of seafloor textures changing at larger resolutions.
+ trade automation.
+ AI can use espionage. First time ever in a HoI2 game!
- Me109?! pic for first German interceptor unit?
- big tech tree which will mostly be unrealized in WWI scenario, would have preferred a WWI tech tree in more detail, and not just lists of [year] infantry / cavalry, etc.
- no river names on map like IC
- WWI scenario starts in 1914 and not 1890 or something like the old WWI mod.
- naval icon on the unit lists in menu at left (of hull of ship) look really bad. But very nice b&w images in unit info pane.
+ ran on a netbook at native resolution.
+ new map looks like it will be fun. Also liked the added touch of seafloor textures changing at larger resolutions.
+ trade automation.
+ AI can use espionage. First time ever in a HoI2 game!
- Me109?! pic for first German interceptor unit?
- big tech tree which will mostly be unrealized in WWI scenario, would have preferred a WWI tech tree in more detail, and not just lists of [year] infantry / cavalry, etc.
- no river names on map like IC
- WWI scenario starts in 1914 and not 1890 or something like the old WWI mod.
- naval icon on the unit lists in menu at left (of hull of ship) look really bad. But very nice b&w images in unit info pane.
Even though I am not new to Hearts of Iron series, the first thing I did was running the tutorial. The impression was very bad. It was bug infested (played on 1280x1024 resolution), taught little and revealed none of the new DH features a new player should know about. Even if DH seems to be a great game, it is hard to recommend it to a new player, because he will have great difficulties learning it. Developers should really work on tutorial in the upcoming patches.
My first impressions with the game were a WW1 Germany game, since I am a nub. It was incredibly fun (and not to mention difficult) to fight both Russia and France, but I ended up victorious in the end. Some features and problems of note however are:
1. France does not do anything. At one point, since Russia was kicking the crap out of my allies (OE, A-H, and Bulgaria), they had managed to get behind my lines, and even took Warsaw from me (well, took it back I suppose). I had to leave my western front with only a total of 45 divisions, in order to send everything I could to beat back the Russians. This was in 1915 mind you. France and Italy had more than 80 Divisions, including a territory that I just didn’t have enough division to occupy, and which one could simply use to gain entrance into Germany proper, but they didn’t take it. It was actually completely empty. It was 1922 before German forces once again took the offensive in France. They didn’t do anything in 7 years, not a single offensive. Hell, the Italians tried harder than the French.
2. I love the new Dissent system, or perhaps it’s a refinement of the old system? I don’t know, I just liked how I always had to combat dissent, instead of just being able to naturally keep it at 0, like vanilla. Similarly, I love units actually lost troops in combat, instead of just organization. I wasn’t noticing it until after a battle with France. I lost a full 6 Divisions, and I didn’t know why. It turns out they were getting wiped out in battle. That was exciting.
3. If you don’t do things historically, the event chains break down. When given the option to attack France, (Attacking France and Belgium; France, Belgium, and the Netherlands; France and Switzerland; or just France) I simply choose a straight attack into France. By the end of 1915, the furthest I had reached was about 3 territories deep, and I couldn’t advance anymore because of reinforcement problems. So I switched my attention to Russia, Serbia, and Romania, since my allies were getting pwned hard. Keep in mind, that neither Britain nor the United States entered the war at the point, and only Britain entered the war when I declared on it in 1922. So anyway, 7 years later, I fight long and hard, take Serbia, force Romania out of the war, and take Moscow, Petrogravad, and Finland while A-H takes everything else. After doing my duty, A-H is basically on cleanup duty, so I switch focus back to France. While they have upgrade and teched out their units, I have outclassed them in unit combat experience, leadership, and tech, so it’s quite the steamroll. (Italy takes this time to take the offensive against me in southern Germany, embarrassingly reaching Munich. I cry a little, but push them back with little difficulty). I finally occupy all of France, and over half of Italy, and A-H is only within 4 territories of Omsk, but no peace events have fired, and my people are pretty pissed, because its 1922. So I attack Britain, and then the events fire, including my decision to send Lenin, which I do. The allies peace out, I put mild terms on them, and Russia goes Soviet…where it never peaces out with me. I have to send my Calvary units, and take Omsk, and go all the way to Vladivostok before I can annex the thing. I ask for all the territory from A-H (well demand it anyway), until it gives it to me, then I free Russia, since my TC cannot handle the constant eruptions of god-awful, soulless, patriots of partisans. (I swear I have fought more Russian partisans than French divisions in this war)
All in all, a very fun game, but WW1 scenario defiantly needs some polish, especially with the French A.I. I would have lost the war if it just had decided to go on the offensive, at any point during its 7 year stalemate with me.
1. France does not do anything. At one point, since Russia was kicking the crap out of my allies (OE, A-H, and Bulgaria), they had managed to get behind my lines, and even took Warsaw from me (well, took it back I suppose). I had to leave my western front with only a total of 45 divisions, in order to send everything I could to beat back the Russians. This was in 1915 mind you. France and Italy had more than 80 Divisions, including a territory that I just didn’t have enough division to occupy, and which one could simply use to gain entrance into Germany proper, but they didn’t take it. It was actually completely empty. It was 1922 before German forces once again took the offensive in France. They didn’t do anything in 7 years, not a single offensive. Hell, the Italians tried harder than the French.
2. I love the new Dissent system, or perhaps it’s a refinement of the old system? I don’t know, I just liked how I always had to combat dissent, instead of just being able to naturally keep it at 0, like vanilla. Similarly, I love units actually lost troops in combat, instead of just organization. I wasn’t noticing it until after a battle with France. I lost a full 6 Divisions, and I didn’t know why. It turns out they were getting wiped out in battle. That was exciting.
3. If you don’t do things historically, the event chains break down. When given the option to attack France, (Attacking France and Belgium; France, Belgium, and the Netherlands; France and Switzerland; or just France) I simply choose a straight attack into France. By the end of 1915, the furthest I had reached was about 3 territories deep, and I couldn’t advance anymore because of reinforcement problems. So I switched my attention to Russia, Serbia, and Romania, since my allies were getting pwned hard. Keep in mind, that neither Britain nor the United States entered the war at the point, and only Britain entered the war when I declared on it in 1922. So anyway, 7 years later, I fight long and hard, take Serbia, force Romania out of the war, and take Moscow, Petrogravad, and Finland while A-H takes everything else. After doing my duty, A-H is basically on cleanup duty, so I switch focus back to France. While they have upgrade and teched out their units, I have outclassed them in unit combat experience, leadership, and tech, so it’s quite the steamroll. (Italy takes this time to take the offensive against me in southern Germany, embarrassingly reaching Munich. I cry a little, but push them back with little difficulty). I finally occupy all of France, and over half of Italy, and A-H is only within 4 territories of Omsk, but no peace events have fired, and my people are pretty pissed, because its 1922. So I attack Britain, and then the events fire, including my decision to send Lenin, which I do. The allies peace out, I put mild terms on them, and Russia goes Soviet…where it never peaces out with me. I have to send my Calvary units, and take Omsk, and go all the way to Vladivostok before I can annex the thing. I ask for all the territory from A-H (well demand it anyway), until it gives it to me, then I free Russia, since my TC cannot handle the constant eruptions of god-awful, soulless, patriots of partisans. (I swear I have fought more Russian partisans than French divisions in this war)
All in all, a very fun game, but WW1 scenario defiantly needs some polish, especially with the French A.I. I would have lost the war if it just had decided to go on the offensive, at any point during its 7 year stalemate with me.
We are talking about the French after all. So maybe this is very accurate.
I never said it was a weakness.
The combination does work because that is what it is Armageddon with a mod called DH inside. Granted you would have a lot more bugs than you would with DH and you would miss a few of the upgrades, but it would still work as to how playable it would be is still questionable.
Considering it has been said in the press release and in many other places the DH developers were not going to touch the engine, but do their changes externally and that 90% of the changes DH makes in the mod-DH folder it could have easily been done. Now, however it is a moot point and that my statment was basically wishful thinking on my part it really makes no difference whether it could have be done or not as the developers produced and published it in the way they felt was best for them. This does not mean it couldn't have been done the other way.
I second this. I play DH CORE, so basically Armageddon 1.4 with tons of usability and speed improvements. Absolutely love it!
Which is my whole point that DH is nothing more that armageddon with DH as a mod included in it.
Darkest Hour is by far the best Paradox game at release I have ever seen. It runs very well and it also has my favourite mod (Kaiserreich) running rat off the bat. Good stuff.
Simply not true. What he refers to, is the core version, which deliberately has most of DHs new features turned off.
The only people who said that were some weird trolls pre release.
Last edited:
We never said we were not touching the engine. Actually, that's the first thing we did!
I think you're getting confused with Iron Cross, which indeed does not modify the engine.
I think you're getting confused with Iron Cross, which indeed does not modify the engine.