Why this game is not going to be more detailled or complicated.

[Greywolf]

After some reading, ranting, complaining, rereading, playing, answering and so on it suddenly strike me. And the bad is that I read that from BiB ( in his unique cryptic style ) long ago.

This game cant be more complicated or detailed because it is Real Time and MultiPlayer.

If we had more events, more realistic economy, more trade options. Then we are adding more task for the player in the same time and it will need to pause A LOT and that will wreck the MP aspect.

If we had realistics order of battle, technology, peace agreement then we are ruining the game balance making the game uneven in MP. The balance of WWII strategy game have always been hard, especially those that only give the option for the Axis to win if they survive and not only if they did better than history.

I was wondering why no really interesting WWII strategy game so far have been in real time. Now it is striking, real time is just not the pace adequat for this kind of games, if you want them to be playable in MP that is.

Disclaimer: I am speaking of Strategy: that his the conduct and direction of a country through his military, economics and diplomatics area. Not the RTS non-sense.
Also I understand that EU2 and EU1 were real time but they were on a bigger time scale so far less detailled and complicated than a WWII simulation should be.
I fully understand that this post is controversial, but it is his intent to be, and to help me figth my disappointement about this game. I guess I will be back to World In Flammes , it is much more realistic and thus much more fun for me... even if it is just a boardgame and not a true simulation.

 

[BiB]

And this is just a videogame ...

Anyway, ur incorrect. IF Paradox decides to cut down on events it is not because of MP purposes.

 

[grumbold]

Originally posted by Greywolf
I guess I will be back to World In Flames , it is much more realistic and thus much more fun for me... even if it is just a boardgame and not a true simulation.

I'd love to play computer World in Flames. Last I heard they still hadn't got a working AI for it.

 

[Greywolf]

And they probably wont as the poor Chriss is even further alone than Johan on a far bigger project

I betatested it a lot and it is already great fun, with next patch it will became truly great and really playable. Currently the only thing that keep us blokaded with my brother is the lack of Peace resolution and non agression, they are supposed to be on next set.

BTW CWiF will not have any AI as it is fully designed to be MP, and in fact with his Fog Of War option it is even fun to play solo

 

[Dark Knight]

Originally posted by Greywolf

If we had more events, more realistic economy, more trade options. Then we are adding more task for the player in the same time and it will need to pause A LOT and that will wreck the MP aspect.

The relative scarcity of events has nothing to do with multiplayer, but rather because the programmers wanted the game engine to be able to handle as much of the simulation as possible. I personally rather like events, but there are many people who feel that they're something of a crutch.

A more realistic economic model was probably out as a result of time constraints, unfortunately. The relatively basic model used makes trade options necessarily limited.

If we had realistics order of battle, technology,...

The orders of battle and technology should be realistic in the game as it is.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Originally posted by Greywolf
[SNIP]If we had realistics order of battle . . . [/SNIP]

The OOBs are realistic. They accurately reflect the balance of forces at the start of each scenario. Is every single division/warship in the exact right spot at 0:00 on 1 January 1936? Probably not, but that is a trivial matter compared to making sure that Germany has the forces to launch a blitzkreig in '39, that the UK has a large enough fleet to operate in the North Sea & the Mediterranean, etc.

 

[unmerged(8595)]

Re: this game

Originally posted by Greywolf
This game cant be more complicated or detailed because it is Real Time and MultiPlayer.

If we had more events, more realistic economy, more trade options. Then we are adding more task for the player in the same time and it will need to pause A LOT and that will wreck the MP aspect.

If we had realistics order of battle, technology, peace agreement then we are ruining the game balance making the game uneven in MP.

D.Ch.* I am agree and support.
But HoI is yet very bad made game. Tons of bugs, unrealistic economy sistem and diplomacy, very stupid AI. Part of russian players are disillusion of this game.

 

[Greywolf]

Re: Re: Why this game is not going to be more detailled or complicated.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
The OOBs are realistic. They accurately reflect the balance of forces at the start of each scenario. Is every single division/warship in the exact right spot at 0:00 on 1 January 1936? Probably not, but that is a trivial matter compared to making sure that Germany has the forces to launch a blitzkreig in '39, that the UK has a large enough fleet to operate in the North Sea & the Mediterranean, etc.

I am sorry , no they are not, they are not even nearly being.

I am not asking them to pe geographically precise, I wanted them to be hsitorically true. They are not. They are game balanced wich is ENTIRELY different.

I am not interested in an abstracted game balanced WWII flavored simulation, I can play A&A, 3R, Columbia games or such to have that. I wanted the historical thing that was supposed to be, it wasn't.

This game balance of power IS NOT historical, period. Especially in '36 scenario.

Been there, already said that, YOU make the search...

 

[unmerged(3352)]

Re: Re: Why this game is not going to be more detailled or complicated.

Originally posted by Johnny Canuck
The OOBs are realistic. They accurately reflect the balance of forces at the start of each scenario. Is every single division/warship in the exact right spot at 0:00 on 1 January 1936? Probably not, but that is a trivial matter compared to making sure that Germany has the forces to launch a blitzkreig in '39, that the UK has a large enough fleet to operate in the North Sea & the Mediterranean, etc.

A truly puzzling attitude.

You cannot say that an OOB is realistic simply because it reflects a balance of forces. If all nations have had their OOB cut in half for whatever reason, you have to understand that this will affect the nations differently. For example, if the OOB has been reduced for all nations, the UK will have a much harder time hanging on to all her possessions overseas. This is hardly a trivial matter.

 

[grumbold]

Originally posted by Greywolf
BTW CWiF will not have any AI as it is fully designed to be MP, and in fact with his Fog Of War option it is even fun to play solo

I thought the no-AI version had been completed and then there was plans to add AI later. If it hasn't even got the no-AI version complete I guess I'll stop looking out for it.

 

[unmerged(11567)]

Re: Re: Re: Why this game is not going to be more detailled or complicated.

Originally posted by Greywolf


I am not asking them to pe geographically precise, I wanted them to be hsitorically true. They are not. They are game balanced wich is ENTIRELY different.

This is a GAME is it not? If it was set up 'precisely' as it was in historically for each scenario don't you think by using hindsight the Allies would roll over Hitler every single time! Especially when playing against AI!

Your request puts you in the .05% of the population that 'needs' this and won't by the game because of it. That is impossible to market to, and it is impossible to please everyone. If Paradox tried to please everyone, the game would suck as no aspect of it would be great and everything in it would be mediocre at best.

Frankly, return the game if you bought it. Or stay home and don't buy it. There are plenty of others who are having a difficult time getting the game (thanks SF!), and could use the extra copy floating around.

 

[cthulhu]

I think it has been pretty clear through out the development how they game would be. The pre-release AAR's and screenshots revealed much. Why are you (Greywolf) so surprised? You clearly expected something that wasn't promised.

 

[unmerged(11920)]

It must really been hard work to make an AI that would act simmilar according to the events leading up to, and during WW2, and still be flexible enough to make up its own plans.

If you study the history of the period you will soon find out that few of the political actors at the time acted logically and/or made good decissions. How you simultate this behaviour with a computer i guess must be really complicated.

Its brave to do a non-turnbased strategy game of this scale, but it sure has its problems.
To controll and keep overwatch over all thats happening in the larger nations/empires is nearly impossible. You always find yourself concentrating at one region at a time, knowing that it is impossible to keep up with the computers rate of moves.

If the game was even more complicated it would really be unplayable at the current slowest time accelaration 1month/1minute.

The flowing time-concept, on the other hand really has its advantages during Multiplayer. There is no boring idle time when the other players scratches their heads and take their moves.
So I really cant wait to set some time aside and get it on with some serious strategic gaming online.

These series of game has brought the strategy game genre along way from the classic old "Play by Mail" Panzergeneral and Steel Panthers.

Keep up the good work Paradox!

 

[Drakken]

Amen, Xtrm.

Drakken

 

[boehm]

As it happens i am a very avid WIF player in RL....

nevertheless I had hoped and still do that HOI would be a serious competitor to WIF also for us "serious" wargamers who consider it absolutely foolish if the game allows Germany to conquer the USA or something like that in a scenario strechting from 36 to 45.....ofcause what germany can or could do changes dramatically depending on which assumptions u draw up...eg. noone knows for sure what would have happened had Hitler not decided to attack Russia in 41?...would Russia ever have jumped Germany? would USA have entered the war together with England vs Germany if Germany had renegaded on its defensive pact with Japan and promised military aid vs the yellow menace?? should u allow germany to conduct a different policy vs the jews and what the consequeces of this be? the aswer to these and many other simular questions decides which type of game it will be...

Also which victory conditions do u have? Axis & Allies has axis victory as their condition for calling a victory...well, how do u define a "german" or "italian" or "japanese" victory? Frankly I think the best chances Germany had of "victory" was along the following lines:

1) Germany could just have stopped their territorial expansion after having incorporated the czech rump....WW2 would never have happened in the way we know it and there would probably have been a cold-war between a large germany and france-england.

2) Germany had not attacked the USSR but had instead concentrated on putting pressure on England in the MED taking Suez and Malta and threatening the english communications to India, Australia etc.....it is my belief that this could have meant a good chance of pressuring england into a seperate peace ...probably restoring all english possessions and most of the french but allowing germany to retain all her central european possessions. - a clear german victory at minimal cost!

3) Germany had a fair chance to knock off Russia in 1941 and perhaps in 1942 had they had been better informed about the russian situation and conducted more accordingly....also it would have helped germany a lot if they had labeled their war more as a war of liberation against the tyranny of communism ....and meant it!!! (thus no random/organized killing of civilians and local nationalists)

4) but I truly do belive that as soon as the USA got into the war germany had NO chance, short of building a lot of nukes (which they had no chance of doing...the nuke cost ca 100 times the cost of the whole v-weapon program), of winning the war.....simply because after the USA entered there was no longer any question as to who would win and there no incentive for any of the involved allies parties to make any sort of seperate peace...even if USSR had be beaten badly I assume that if they survived past 42...they would see that they just had to survive not actually win them selves in order to win in the end!

therefor to sum up...I think that the only way to get a realistic game is to include varying victory conditions according to what happens in the game...

 

[Drakken]

Originally posted by boehm

Also which victory conditions do u have? Axis & Allies has axis victory as their condition for calling a victory...well, how do u define a "german" or "italian" or "japanese" victory? Frankly I think the best chances Germany had of "victory" was along the following lines:

- Point system. Each of the three alliances has a system point. The alliance that has the most points in endgame the wins.

1) Germany could just have stopped their territorial expansion after having incorporated the czech rump....WW2 would never have happened in the way we know it and there would probably have been a cold-war between a large germany and france-england.

- Even if Germany does that in HOI, war will still be a certainty. But of course, this action will influence when and where.

2) Germany had not attacked the USSR but had instead concentrated on putting pressure on England in the MED taking Suez and Malta and threatening the english communications to India, Australia etc.....it is my belief that this could have meant a good chance of pressuring england into a seperate peace ...probably restoring all english possessions and most of the french but allowing germany to retain all her central european possessions. - a clear german victory at minimal cost!

- The Comintern may ally with the Axis against the Allies, with the Allies against the Axis or stay with his own communist alliance, the Comintern. Pretty much what you are asking.

3) Germany had a fair chance to knock off Russia in 1941 and perhaps in 1942 had they had been better informed about the russian situation and conducted more accordingly....also it would have helped germany a lot if they had labeled their war more as a war of liberation against the tyranny of communism ....and meant it!!! (thus no random/organized killing of civilians and local nationalists)

- There are no killing of civilians at all. Read the rules. If it can reassure you, in the games I played recently, Germany do knock off half of Russia.

Drakken

 

[unmerged(11434)]

Originally posted by Greywolf
This game cant be more complicated or detailed because it is Real Time and MultiPlayer.

I was wondering why no really interesting WWII strategy game so far have been in real time. Now it is striking, real time is just not the pace adequat for this kind of games, if you want them to be playable in MP that is.

One very good strategy game in singel player real-time was Crusade in Europe, back in the good old C64 time. I still remember the joy of shouting out at those units that never moved or moved too early.
Its a pity the game mechanism never survived. It was probably easier to do turn based games.

First of all, no game can ever be historical, since you will always be wanting to have some influence over the corse of war. And thus something have to be effected in matters of balance etc.
But i agree with you, i also want a game as historical as possible.
But as other says, it has to be compared to playability. Thats why
panzer general were so successfull. Good gameplay, low realism.
(Best ever in that serie was the original PG. The other sucks.)

I also do not think HoI will be the ultimate game. I feel it will be more of planning resources rather than a good strategy. But i will not say the game is bad. I liked EU1, though it does not have the best longlivety in my collection. And i really cant wait until i can take the helm over sweden. Also what thrills me is a tech-three in a strategy game. So far only the Civ game has match that.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Gustav II Adolf blev med tiden tämligen fet--- så även jag

 

[Greywolf]

Ok, for the people that post there and doesnt read my position elsewhere here it is:

I was expecting HOI to be far most than it actually is.

I was expecting Paradox to make it possible for it to be more in touch with history and less boardgame in the future, but it wont.

So I play the game and enjoy it now the way it is and the way I know it will always be.

It doesnt mean I agree about it, but it is a fun little Beer and Pretzel game right now, about as historical as Risk or Axis and Allies but netherless fun.

Too bad that I, and nearly all the player I know that come from WiF, Europa and other detailled WWII system will have great expectation about this game and so will be disapointed too. So my post here was to warn them to lower their expectation and have fun with the game taking it for what it is really. Great expectation produce great disappointment, great rant and bad publicity. Correct expectation make it posible to enjoy this game.

I was expecting a Day Of Decision kind of game with all the possible detailed and intricate mecanism only a computer can manage. The game is like a DoD module for A&A, slightly more complicated.

If you doesnt understand this late allusion then you probably couldn't understand how I feel, if you do then I hope my post will help you being satisfied when you buy HoI. I will probalby buy HoI2, but this time I will hope for some more advanced trade system and more possible options/outcome.

 

[grumbold]

I understand how you feel but I still think that with 1-2 programmers Paradox have still produced a better WW II wargame than any that have preceeded it. You want to compare it to boardgames which have intricate and carefully measured rules, but those boardgames can still descend into unplayable farce if one or more of the participants insist on making stupid moves or acting irrationally. They only shine when all of you are equally competent and focussed on the game.

If you have the ability to get half a dozen competent players round for a game of WiF, good for you, it will clearly be a superior experience. HoI is there for when only one or two of you want an evening of WWII play.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Re: Re: Re: Why this game is not going to be more detailled or complicated.

Originally posted by Greywolf
I am sorry , no they are not, they are not even nearly being.

I am not asking them to pe geographically precise, I wanted them to be hsitorically true. They are not. They are game balanced wich is ENTIRELY different.

I am not interested in an abstracted game balanced WWII flavored simulation, I can play A&A, 3R, Columbia games or such to have that. I wanted the historical thing that was supposed to be, it wasn't.

This game balance of power IS NOT historical, period. Especially in '36 scenario.

Been there, already said that, YOU make the search...

Yes they are historically accurate. Perfect? As I said, probably not, but very close to being accurate. A significant amount of historical research went into the OOBs - it was not just a case of saying state X should have twice as many divisions as state Y, so lets give X 20 & Y 10.

What specific cases of historical inaccuracies do you see?