Whats wrong with a semi-historical war?

[byzantium43]

In every game I play as the allies, Italy and Japan either never join the war, or join the war in October of 1939.

What is wrong with having Italy join the war in early summer, or when Paris falls?
What is wrong with having Japan join the war when it attacks the United States in late 1941?

Last time I checked Hearts of Iron 3 is marketed as a world war 2 game.

The description of HOI3 on Paradox Interactive's site refers to the game as a ww2 game three times.

The only time I have played something even close to World War 2 is when I spend 50% of my time reloading and editing the save game files.

I'm not asking for a reenactment of ww2, where Italy joins the war on June 10 every time, or Paris always falls on June 14, just something that vaguely resembles plausible and historical events.

 

[Scryder]

Well, if all the Axis nations joined the war as soon as it starts, the Allies and Comintern will get crushed. In my current USA game, I stayed out of the war till 1942 and when I did join the Allies, the Axis has about 20 nations, including most of South America and Soviet Union is now a German puppet.

If all those Axis members fought in the same war, there won't be any balance in the game. Just speaking from my experience...

 

[kartebi]

I'm not asking for a reenactment of ww2, just something that vaguely resembles plausible and historical events.

To put it better,
There is no possibility to reenact ww2, given the current condition of the game.
You can play an ahistorical game but you cant play a historical one. Thats the problem.
I'm guessing pdox left this part for the modding community. You got somewhat historical starting conditions, but no "proper" coding for a historical outcome.

 

[plasticpanzers]

The game has great potential but the premise that "anything goes" like EU3 is what
is killing it. They needed to structure the game so that the politics and views of the
countries were more historical and less random. Also minor nations have far too much
influence in the game with spies and military size. OK if you want to play them but do
you think Germany spent much diplomatic effort at all on Argentina or Siam? Do you
think that Chile could afford a standing army of 250,000 trained infantry? Or have the
officer corps to command that sized army? Or that they could overrun S. America?
This is a game that starts in 1936 not 1236. Get the basic history and balance right.


I would have loved to play a real WW2 game and see what I could have done in the shoes of Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, or the Bohemian Corporal. Sadly I cannot.

 

[finyou2]

HOI2 is more of a history book.


HOI3 is more of a simulator (Not yet ready I know!)

Two choices.

 

[unmerged(129069)]

in before "GO WATCXHCH HISTORY ZANNEL!"

It was a choice from PI to make this game like a history book with half of the pages torn out, and then having someone else write that stuff back again, so that this game would be a bit more surprising than HoI2 (where people could just memorize every event and use that as a huge advantage). IMHO this game should have more events, since it has one big advantage when comparing to the predictability of HoI2: Events are launched by the player whenever he wants (if he meets the requirements), so that in multiplayer you really have to be careful.

I think that it's nice to have the dates change, but what I don't like, is to have the history change completely (wars, military alliances etc. completely missing or screwed up somehow, players own diplomatic actions are very limited). If this game had as much events as HoI2 (or even more, since the new fire-when-you-want event system deserves more loving), it could be historical for those who want it, and ahistorical for those who don't. It's the lack of events that annoys me so much.

(edit: okay, I just read my text and it's a bit confusing, and isn't really the way I wanted, but I'm so tired that I really don't have the energy to change it)

 

[unmerged(156228)]

You'll take your historic simulator and you'll like it, young man.

Don't you know there are children in Africa that don't even have video games?

 

[C_c]

in before "GO WATCXHCH HISTORY ZANNEL!"

There is a certain element of truth to that. The only way you can play a historical war is to run it exactly as it came out in history. Anything you do differently causes more and more changes down the line.

If that's your idea of fun, so be it. I like the freedom in making the history.

 

[byzantium43]

There is a certain element of truth to that. The only way you can play a historical war is to run it exactly as it came out in history. Anything you do differently causes more and more changes down the line.

If that's your idea of fun, so be it. I like the freedom in making the history.

I like the freedom to make history too, but I don't like that the AI has the power to arbitrarily remake history. The game should run more or less historical until the PLAYER decides to change history and the the AI should react to that.

A hands off game should run more or less historically, not exactly, there should be deviation and change every time to make it fresh, and occasionally everything should go different, but the majority of the time it should be accurate.

Only when the player enters the equation and actually does something to change history should things consistently go radically different.

When I play a game I can just sit on my haunches and watch the most implausible, unrealistic, and yes, unhistorical things happen. That's just wrong in my opinion.

There needs to be at the very least, a frame work of historical events or decisions that make various nations join the war at something close to good times (whether based off time or state of the war is unimportant.)

 

[unmerged(129069)]

The only way you can play a historical war is to run it exactly as it came out in history. Anything you do differently causes more and more changes down the line.

If that's your idea of fun, so be it. I like the freedom in making the history.

The novel Sound of Thunder is not reality. Stepping on a mosquito doesn't always mean that the future will be completely different... Some certain small changes = Big changes in the future. Some certain small changes = no real changes in the future. But of course, there is no way to tell something with certainty, since it's all speculation. But I disagree with the opinion you (and the whole bunch of people who tell others to go watch history channel) have about history changing completely if Hitler had stepped on a bug while he rallied in Nürnberg.

 

[Disclaimer]

This discussion is as least as old as Paradox and it can't be resolved. I even gave up on the idea that the "everything goes" guys will ever try to understand the position of the "plausible history guys" (who don't want a history book, the vast majority want plausible alternate history, but no fantasy).

Fact is, Paradox wants to make fantasy games with a hint of history now. They gave up on anything else. Those players like me who want more history with their games have to wait for moders to ride to the rescue again. Needless to say, this is the last Paradox game I buy without checking for mods.

 

[Dan77]

hmm...

if you want to re-live WW2, build a time machine. seriously, i think there should be a auto-diplomacy mode that trigger historic events, otherwise i think its great you can influence "history". only think pulling nations your way is too easy - there should i.e. be a high threshold for events - if the US is not within Germanys influence on December 41, it joins the allies. Also, influencing nations should have different cost, i.e. US drifts towards Allies with factor 5 , it cost Germany 6 leadership o more to pull them their way... that way it could be realistic, after all nations can focus their diplomatic efforts differently.

 

[unmerged(177078)]

This discussion is as least as old as Paradox and it can't be resolved. I even gave up on the idea that the "everything goes" guys will ever try to understand the position of the "plausible history guys" (who don't want a history book, the vast majority want plausible alternate history, but no fantasy).

Fact is, Paradox wants to make fantasy games with a hint of history now. They gave up on anything else. Those players like me who want more history with their games have to wait for moders to ride to the rescue again. Needless to say, this is the last Paradox game I buy without checking for mods.

+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

if you want to re-live WW2, build a time machine. seriously, i think there should be a auto-diplomacy mode that trigger historic events, otherwise i think its great you can influence "history". only think pulling nations your way is too easy - there should i.e. be a high threshold for events - if the US is not within Germanys influence on December 41, it joins the allies. Also, influencing nations should have different cost, i.e. US drifts towards Allies with factor 5 , it cost Germany 6 leadership o more to pull them their way... that way it could be realistic, after all nations can focus their diplomatic efforts differently.

Seriously, I don't appreciate your opening line. If you look at the quote above, most people are not asking for a replay, but some kind of basic framework that is roughly right, but does not cause Australia to be in the axis, or Japan to invade Finland. That is ***pure fantasy*** - this game is NOT advertised as a fantasy game.

 

[jaxpac]

The line between "pure fantasy" and "plausible fantasy" is subjective. History only happened one way so any deviation from it fantasy to some degree. Everyone is going to fall differently on the scale of whether something is "plausible" enough not to ruin their enjoyment. I think this is why you never have agreement on this issue.

Japan invading Norway seems ridiculous to me but I must admit that it would have possible for Japan to attempt that historically if they had for some reason dedicated their national resources to it. So it is within the realm of possibility and wil lfall somewhere differently on everyone's personal scale of plausibility.

 

[Shady Ed]

And if the game played out the way history really did the player would have a huge advantage. A UK player would build more interceptors for battle of britain/send a larger BEF. A french player would know when to move his troops in force to protect an attack from the low countries. etc. etc. Every one would know what the AI is going to do.

 

[wilcoxchar]

The novel Sound of Thunder is not reality. Stepping on a mosquito doesn't always mean that the future will be completely different... Some certain small changes = Big changes in the future. Some certain small changes = no real changes in the future. But of course, there is no way to tell something with certainty, since it's all speculation. But I disagree with the opinion you (and the whole bunch of people who tell others to go watch history channel) have about history changing completely if Hitler had stepped on a bug while he rallied in Nürnberg.

You don't know that. Nobody can be sure how much effect a specific change in history will have no matter how minor it is because we only have one sample world. The fact of the matter is that HOI3 is at the highest priority game, and at least some historic rigidity had to be sacrificed for the sake of gameplay. Paradox is still trying to find the correct balance of history vs. gameplay, and they've come a lot closer than they had with HOI2 where one small move by the player would completely screw up the AI decisions. Of course there isn't a perfect balance yet, but a game like this will never be perfect.

And if you want to play WWII, just start in 1939 or 1941. Then you can play out the war to your heart's content.

 

[brisduv]

To put it better,
There is no possibility to reenact ww2, given the current condition of the game.
You can play an ahistorical game but you cant play a historical one. Thats the problem.
I'm guessing pdox left this part for the modding community. You got somewhat historical starting conditions, but no "proper" coding for a historical outcome.

That's the problem I have with the game at the moment. I have no problem with alternative history as long as the nations involved behave within reasonable expectations. It is 1936 not 1436 (EU), neutrals should stay neutral unless the major powers really go off on tangents. IF Germany follows historical path then most of the rest should fall in line, they were the catalyst in Europe. USA was an isolationist nation and had to be attacked by Japan, etc.

 

[unmerged(177078)]

The line between "pure fantasy" and "plausible fantasy" is subjective. History only happened one way so any deviation from it fantasy to some degree. Everyone is going to fall differently on the scale of whether something is "plausible" enough not to ruin their enjoyment. I think this is why you never have agreement on this issue.

Japan invading Norway seems ridiculous to me but I must admit that it would have possible for Japan to attempt that historically if they had for some reason dedicated their national resources to it. So it is within the realm of possibility and wil lfall somewhere differently on everyone's personal scale of plausibility.

No, it would not have been possible. Maybe if you have 1 transport ship per soldier, and the rest of the thing is piled high with gas and food to keep him supplied. Having unlimited naval range and screwy AI turns it into fantasy.

Why would Japan even WANT to go to Norway, Germany to Oz, etc - they gave got rather more pressing issues to deal with!!!

And if the game played out the way history really did the player would have a huge advantage. A UK player would build more interceptors for battle of britain/send a larger BEF. A french player would know when to move his troops in force to protect an attack from the low countries. etc. etc. Every one would know what the AI is going to do.

Another person not understanding... most of us are not calling for historically. We are saying that things should be kept in perspective and some major events/AI attacks should have a certain % of firing. It is way off kilter at the moment.

Oh, and I'm sure that the UK kind of saw air and land attacks coming. They tried to build more fighters and did send most of their army to France... so sorry but your argument is not really valid there

 

[Luka]

And if the game played out the way history really did the player would have a huge advantage. A UK player would build more interceptors for battle of britain/send a larger BEF. A french player would know when to move his troops in force to protect an attack from the low countries. etc. etc. Every one would know what the AI is going to do.

I think what people are probably after is that the larger aspects conform to historical trends of plausibility. Using your example of the French player knowing when to move their troops: The broad historical event was that Germany was to attack France. The date and method could take on any number of forms depending on the details of the situation as it then stood. But people would like Germany to attack France. The UK would most likely send a BEF, though it could be vastly different to the specifics of its historical conterpart. Sealion may be launched and eventaully Russia and Germany would clash. The details of these are open to lots of changes.

 

[plasticpanzers]

I think we can agree the French suspected the Germans were coming! LOL! This issue
is not absolute confomity to history. That cannot occur in a game. Sealion occuring
in 1940-41 is a perfect example. Totally plausable and devestating for the British and
the Allied cause if successful. That is the real historical changes that don't make this
type of game boring. What is boring (and a tremendous waste of gamers time) is trying
to play a game and having totally impossible things happen like Japan invading France or
Finland invading Japan. Did not happen and could not happen yet here we are having
stuff like this occur all the time yet you cannot fight anything near a REALISTIC ww2
game.