-
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.
Maybe we can get Paradox to produce two expansion packs and a couple dozen of patches for the next two years, then.
There are more than enough real historical possibilites depending on the real strategy, abilities, and outcomes
of battles that can drive this game, be historical, fun, and be totally replayable over and over. Nothing happens twice the same. Making a plausable history base game is possible but this is not it (yet).
To put in the possiblilty of Finland having the wherewithall to invade Japan or German invading the USA
(no it could not happen and i can tell you why) or Australia joining the Axis or the Phillipines with a 100k
man militia army in 1938 with no enemies (who is paying for that?) are issues that PI needs to address
to make the game more realistic. realistic is fun. you can write you own history but you cannot make
it up.
of battles that can drive this game, be historical, fun, and be totally replayable over and over. Nothing happens twice the same. Making a plausable history base game is possible but this is not it (yet).
To put in the possiblilty of Finland having the wherewithall to invade Japan or German invading the USA
(no it could not happen and i can tell you why) or Australia joining the Axis or the Phillipines with a 100k
man militia army in 1938 with no enemies (who is paying for that?) are issues that PI needs to address
to make the game more realistic. realistic is fun. you can write you own history but you cannot make
it up.
Simple solution would be have the AI behave historically, with proper adjustment to player behavior.
That way you can have historically plausible games play out if players do the same, while if you don't, expect anything to go.
That way you can have historically plausible games play out if players do the same, while if you don't, expect anything to go.
Arguably the smartest thing a player or the AI playing the Axis can do is not declare war on the USA.
So in theory... Japan not declaring war on the USA is actually more intelligent than the real life leaders as it was a loosing bet.
So in theory... Japan not declaring war on the USA is actually more intelligent than the real life leaders as it was a loosing bet.
The problem with making a game like this completely historical is causality. History can turn on a dime and many events that happened weren't the most probable. We don't know that France has a 70% chance of losing to Germany because all we have is one test subject.
If you were to take a car and drive it across the United States randomly making right and left turns there would be no way to tell where you'd end up until you got there. The total historicity crowd wants the car to end up in Charleston everytime unless the player forces it to change.
I'm not talking about wierd things like Finland invading India just mildly ahistoric things like France winning against Germany.
If you were to take a car and drive it across the United States randomly making right and left turns there would be no way to tell where you'd end up until you got there. The total historicity crowd wants the car to end up in Charleston everytime unless the player forces it to change.
I'm not talking about wierd things like Finland invading India just mildly ahistoric things like France winning against Germany.
Tend to Agree
Having been a very old time Boardgamer the old design philosophy use to be to make the game historical if all the historical decisions are made and then lets see what happens. Trying to make the game confirm to history - while making historical decisions - often resolves all the silly things. Once you get it right you can then play around with non-historical decisions - such as sealion. While not perfect, its a good starting point. I am pretty certain that was not followed in this game.
But saying all of that, the biggest issue is the AI. I would prefer the game designers focused on that first before getting the historical events right.
Having been a very old time Boardgamer the old design philosophy use to be to make the game historical if all the historical decisions are made and then lets see what happens. Trying to make the game confirm to history - while making historical decisions - often resolves all the silly things. Once you get it right you can then play around with non-historical decisions - such as sealion. While not perfect, its a good starting point. I am pretty certain that was not followed in this game.
But saying all of that, the biggest issue is the AI. I would prefer the game designers focused on that first before getting the historical events right.
I think you just agreed with what I and others have been advocating. I dont mind seeing historical alternatives happen occasionally, as long as they are plausible ones. It is the conpletely impluasible ones they need to get rid of. I think that expecting AI Germany to take out AI France at least 70% of the time is a reasonable expectations. That still leaves a 30% possibility for the game to go very ahistorical fairly early. If you factor in a later 30-40% chance that Germany will attempt a sealion, it ends up leaving a less than 50% possibility for a historical game by 1941. With later possible branches, like when the USA comes in, the possibility of the game being historical by 1943 is even less, maybe 20%. But I dont mind that because it is still plausible. But getting rid of the wildly impluasible events that seem to occur with alarming frequency is a must.
I agree that getting the AI's to play competently is probably even more important than getting them to play historically. Although I think getting them to be more competant will probably also make them somewhat more historical. The best would be for the AI's to be competant, and when they are not making the same move that a player might, they are instead making a move consistent with that countries historical policies.
In any even, my suggestion to do repeated hands off testing, and see how each of the AI's perform, is a good way to ensure they do both.
Arguably the smartest thing a player or the AI playing the Axis can do is not declare war on the USA.
So in theory... Japan not declaring war on the USA is actually more intelligent than the real life leaders as it was a loosing bet.
True. I would not be that upset if the Axis AI's frequently decided to not declare war on the USA, although I would hope the game would provide enough positive benefits, like the positive pearl harbor mods for Japan, that it might make sense for the AI to declare war on the USA. As I said in my previous post, if the AI does something smart, but non historical, that is again reasonable. My real problems are when an AI does something that is both dumb and ahistorical, like the USA joining the war, and then not bothering to invade anybody, or AI Britian not being able to competantly defend the British Iles against a Sealion, or Germany sitting on their duff doing nothing, or nations making invasions way out of range of any bases or any reasonable national interest.
Knowing most of the major events and conditions in HOI2, I was running through my route China Nat. Chi strategy, when the unexpected happened: Guangxi didn't declare war on me. Kind of refreshing, as I actually had to make new plans instead of the paint by numbers perfect strategy I developed in response to the predictable mechanical grinding of events and AI.
That said, I agree very much that the game needs work.
That said, I agree very much that the game needs work.
Imagine the military conference, in which the Finnish high command convinces itself that now's the time to stop Japanese influence in the Pacific. I mean you need a really really compelling presentation to pull that off. Just explaining how he's going to get cough..supplies..cough to Japan from Finland would be Monty Python grade stuff.
I would also really want to be a fly on wall when the Venezuelan Military commander explains to the Venezuelan Prime minister, why the time is right to "do Germany". He must have reserved a lot of time for Q&A.
So when the Germans invaded USSR, Stalin had a serious labyrintitis on both ears. So when the STAVKA folks told him the "Germans are coming", he thought they said the "Germans are humming" (which was fine) so he sends every able red army conscript to the Manchuria border to watch the game between Japan and China
And how about the press conference in which the Mexican secretary of State announces that it's time to stop US imperialism? That would be a good one. I can see the proud Mexican musketeers with their shields and their long sabres march across the US border, checking the 1850 map they brought and then start out by attacking the US pacific carrier fleet in San Diego. A shame there's no 3D video in HOI3, cause watching the Mexican's with swords and everything as they shoot down wildcat after wildcat with spears would more than justify the $30 itself.
Nuff said. HOI3, as others have pointed out, is pure fantasy. Period.
I would also really want to be a fly on wall when the Venezuelan Military commander explains to the Venezuelan Prime minister, why the time is right to "do Germany". He must have reserved a lot of time for Q&A.
So when the Germans invaded USSR, Stalin had a serious labyrintitis on both ears. So when the STAVKA folks told him the "Germans are coming", he thought they said the "Germans are humming" (which was fine) so he sends every able red army conscript to the Manchuria border to watch the game between Japan and China
And how about the press conference in which the Mexican secretary of State announces that it's time to stop US imperialism? That would be a good one. I can see the proud Mexican musketeers with their shields and their long sabres march across the US border, checking the 1850 map they brought and then start out by attacking the US pacific carrier fleet in San Diego. A shame there's no 3D video in HOI3, cause watching the Mexican's with swords and everything as they shoot down wildcat after wildcat with spears would more than justify the $30 itself.
Nuff said. HOI3, as others have pointed out, is pure fantasy. Period.
It's nice to see this thread up and going I have the game since yesterday so what I'll share here are my "first impressions".
Which are really very good (note, it's 1.3 patch here, so I suppose I have a nicer start). Judging from the first forum reactions after the release I suspected an utterly unplayable debacle which puts shame on the Paradox brand for long. So on the first sight, it's far better than I expected and I feel I'm really going enjoy it, especially when even more things are fine-tuned, patched and balanced. Ambitious work, really!
THE one thing that currently screams murder to me is the way the war unfolds. To save you insinuations, I'm this type of player that is usually told to "go read a book" because I always enjoyed it when Paradox games replayed history with the player somewhere among it. Nothing totally deterministic, no aberrations (like event ending war in 1945 no matter what). Just guided historical behaviour with possibility of different outcomes. Like EU2, Victoria, HoI...
So I'm sad to see that with every game Paradox strays further away from this and came really a long way from EU1 *). With rising complexity of their games they end up with more and more ahistorical results. Instead of providing better tools to counter that (contextual AI trying to make historical outcome probable unless something went really different) they officially went the way of fantasy (an easy to make but unsatisfactory move from my point of view).
I write it on the premise that general historicity (or as this thread puts it, semi-historicity) is something that we want, at least in WW2 simulator. Of course, the standpoint that history happened only once and could happen once more in wildly different way is the one I cannot objectively deny. Maybe it could, maybe not. If Hitler dies in 1938 once every 100 games it's cool and I agree it creates some very unique alternative possibility. If he can die any time between 1936 and 1945 every game it's no longer a WW2 simulator. In the end I may agree that history can go any way - but out of this objective premise rises lack of immersive atmosphere.
So coming close to the end, the game is IMO close enough to be a one more hit. Well, it surely deserves discussion how to make it better The challenge it may encounter on the way is the lack of will of developers to treat semi-historicity with priority I think it deserves. I know that they switched to free-form history ideology so they may not classify it as the problem. But what always puzzled me - in CK, in EU3, I don't know yet how it's done in HoI3 - is that "their" way is so much right that no alternative is provided. Why not let events firing on specific dates? Who not let provide simple AI factors what alliance to enter, when, and whom attack (with triggers and probabilities). I don't want to force anyone who enjoys Finnish-Japanese clashes to accept my way. But let me give a way to make a script blocking it outright, the modders will take care of the rest. Wouldn't such brilliant engine as Clausewitz (no sarcasm here) manage to add/multiply some factors from AI files just before making decisions?
*) Just a factual note because I recall reading it somewhere (and not once) that with EU2 and its semi-historical approach Paradox was uniquely trying new ground and EU3 went back to the roots. Don't buy it EU1 was a predominantly historical game, just did without detailed events. Monarchs were historical, diplomatic relations changed between every two countries according to the magical DiplomaticMatrix.csv (so enemies and friends were set in stone) and countries like England in 1640s or Russia in 1610s got so many generic but coded-in destabilising events that EU2 can't be compared. Needless to say, it was far from perfect, but EU1 did bring the most historical outcomes out of all the versions.
I have the game since yesterday so what I'll share here are my "first impressions".Which are really very good (note, it's 1.3 patch here, so I suppose I have a nicer start). Judging from the first forum reactions after the release I suspected an utterly unplayable debacle which puts shame on the Paradox brand for long. So on the first sight, it's far better than I expected and I feel I'm really going enjoy it, especially when even more things are fine-tuned, patched and balanced. Ambitious work, really!
THE one thing that currently screams murder to me is the way the war unfolds. To save you insinuations, I'm this type of player that is usually told to "go read a book" because I always enjoyed it when Paradox games replayed history with the player somewhere among it
. Nothing totally deterministic, no aberrations (like event ending war in 1945 no matter what). Just guided historical behaviour with possibility of different outcomes. Like EU2, Victoria, HoI...So I'm sad to see that with every game Paradox strays further away from this and came really a long way from EU1 *). With rising complexity of their games they end up with more and more ahistorical results. Instead of providing better tools to counter that (contextual AI trying to make historical outcome probable unless something went really different) they officially went the way of fantasy (an easy to make but unsatisfactory move from my point of view).
I write it on the premise that general historicity (or as this thread puts it, semi-historicity) is something that we want, at least in WW2 simulator. Of course, the standpoint that history happened only once and could happen once more in wildly different way is the one I cannot objectively deny. Maybe it could, maybe not. If Hitler dies in 1938 once every 100 games it's cool and I agree it creates some very unique alternative possibility. If he can die any time between 1936 and 1945 every game it's no longer a WW2 simulator. In the end I may agree that history can go any way - but out of this objective premise rises lack of immersive atmosphere.
So coming close to the end, the game is IMO close enough to be a one more hit. Well, it surely deserves discussion how to make it better
The challenge it may encounter on the way is the lack of will of developers to treat semi-historicity with priority I think it deserves. I know that they switched to free-form history ideology so they may not classify it as the problem. But what always puzzled me - in CK, in EU3, I don't know yet how it's done in HoI3 - is that "their" way is so much right that no alternative is provided. Why not let events firing on specific dates? Who not let provide simple AI factors what alliance to enter, when, and whom attack (with triggers and probabilities). I don't want to force anyone who enjoys Finnish-Japanese clashes to accept my way. But let me give a way to make a script blocking it outright, the modders will take care of the rest. Wouldn't such brilliant engine as Clausewitz (no sarcasm here) manage to add/multiply some factors from AI files just before making decisions?*) Just a factual note because I recall reading it somewhere (and not once) that with EU2 and its semi-historical approach Paradox was uniquely trying new ground and EU3 went back to the roots. Don't buy it
EU1 was a predominantly historical game, just did without detailed events. Monarchs were historical, diplomatic relations changed between every two countries according to the magical DiplomaticMatrix.csv (so enemies and friends were set in stone) and countries like England in 1640s or Russia in 1610s got so many generic but coded-in destabilising events that EU2 can't be compared. Needless to say, it was far from perfect, but EU1 did bring the most historical outcomes out of all the versions.
Last edited:
you don't need to script history to repeat itself to have HOI3 work well. What is
needed is to remove the possibilities of so many wierd things happening that could
not happen. Then let the game unfold within real world parameters and let chance
and strategy take you from there.
needed is to remove the possibilities of so many wierd things happening that could
not happen. Then let the game unfold within real world parameters and let chance
and strategy take you from there.
HOI3 will never be that deterministic as HOI2. EU3 will never be that deterministic as EU2. A little bit more randomness for their games is the new line of paradox. And I think it does the games good. HOI3 and HOI2 are two very different games. A lot of you expected a HOI2.5 and no new game. But HOI3 has become a new game and it is not comparable to HOI2.
For all those players PI gave the old europa engine to some modding teams. AoD and FtG are exactly that what you guys want. I have to admit that HOI3 is still far away form being a perfect game, but it is exactly that kind of a game I want to play (and "some" others, too).
What's wrong with Japan invading Finland?
For all those players PI gave the old europa engine to some modding teams. AoD and FtG are exactly that what you guys want. I have to admit that HOI3 is still far away form being a perfect game, but it is exactly that kind of a game I want to play (and "some" others, too
). What's wrong with Japan invading Finland?
I enjoy less historical stuff. In older titles, even if your country is totally happy, revolution would happen on 1917 which was kinda illogical, etc.
I am all for new decisions system, and "floating" history. Poland was not invaded because it was 1st of September, it was invaded because it was good time to strike. Still system needs some polishing, and AI is number 1 here
I am all for new decisions system, and "floating" history. Poland was not invaded because it was 1st of September, it was invaded because it was good time to strike. Still system needs some polishing, and AI is number 1 here
The critique was Finland invading Japan is not historical. (or plausible, etc)
Of course it's not historical. But it means a lot more diversity in the gameplay.
I think much of the frustration derives from the fact that you can no longer count on certain historical events occurring, and thus you can't really do the long-term planning you could in HOI2. And with a game as intensive as HOI3, some people get very aggravated. This was a minor problem in HOI2 (I had the 1% chance event of Poland backing down on Danzig several times) but is much more pronounced in HOI3. For example, when playing as France, having Nationalist Spain, Japan, and Italy joining the Axis in the space of a week of 1938 is definitely not fun.