Why trading provinces should be allowed.

[Lasse Nielsen]

You are not forced to make historic decisions in HOI. Events have multiple options. You can even delete them if you want. However, those events were made (happened!) for a reason - they reflect the reality, mentality of that period. The geopolitical situation was such, that certain actions were much more likely than others (Anschluss, Munich, MR pact), in the aftermath of WW1 and the Great Depression. These didn't come just out of the blue.

That is why, after all, we still have the three alliances in the game (why not scrap those then?). I don't want a game that follows history to the letter - I want a game where we have *plausible* historical actions, and instances like the USSR being the major badboy should remain an exception, not the rule.

HOI is a great game because it has the right focus. The moment HOI2 loses its focus, it will end up like another Vicky or CK, which would be a pity ...

The events are just so that when the AI is handeling them it gets very predictible ie. anschluss in march '38, war sep. 1. '39 etc. your not really leaving any options to get suprised "wow i attacked Poland and France and England backed down". the AI will go the narrow way and not for instance take out Poland out when it turns Paternal Autocrat (like any human player would). then avoiding the badboy you get from choosing B in the war over Danzig event. Playing an allied (or non initiativ nation) you know when they are comming. as france you know Germany is going after Poland before it comes after you. Russia would never attack a nation without having terretorial claims (baltics, finland) never try their own attack on Poland or getting to the pacific by Iran, trying to diplopuppet/coup nations in central/eastern europe to get to the med. you know when and where the AI nations will attack and wich nations is totally safe.

the conclusion draw from this is: the AI is incapable of increasing its IC and ressourcebase (as a human player would) and thus they put in events that make some nations attack the nations they historically did, but leaving others alone.

Events are fun the first time you encounter them after that they become a straightjacket.

 

[unmerged(10977)]

(...)Germany can't sell/trade Munchen, but an England (or whatever) owning Munchen can. England can sell/trade Barbados, but not Liverpool.

The problem is that the British Empire owns quite a few islands...Could be a big exploit. One major tech for each "useless" island would not be so bad. On the other hand, Great Britain got 50 destroyers from the US in return for some bases. Hardly a land deal (changing of map color), unless the US took over the defence responibilities of those islands (provinces). I do not know if they actually did that.

 

[boromir]

The events are just so that when the AI is handeling them it gets very predictible ie. anschluss in march '38, war sep. 1. '39 etc. your not really leaving any options to get suprised "wow i attacked Poland and France and England backed down". the AI will go the narrow way and not for instance take out Poland out when it turns Paternal Autocrat (like any human player would). then avoiding the badboy you get from choosing B in the war over Danzig event. Playing an allied (or non initiativ nation) you know when they are comming. as france you know Germany is going after Poland before it comes after you. Russia would never attack a nation without having terretorial claims (baltics, finland) never try their own attack on Poland or getting to the pacific by Iran, trying to diplopuppet/coup nations in central/eastern europe to get to the med. you know when and where the AI nations will attack and wich nations is totally safe.

the conclusion draw from this is: the AI is incapable of increasing its IC and ressourcebase (as a human player would) and thus they put in events that make some nations attack the nations they historically did, but leaving others alone.

Events are fun the first time you encounter them after that they become a straightjacket.

I disagree. If all the events were only for the AI, they would be AI-only events (and there are many of those as is). Straightjacket? Don't think so, rather an attempt to keep some *realism* in the game and avoid science fiction, not just for the AI but for humans too ... you posted before that you like sphere of influence events - you don't view these as a straightjacket then? Sure, the AI can be programmed to go for France instead of Poland first sometimes ... But if you take it to far, you will end with many player complaints that the stupid German AI keeps dowing in 1936, 1937 etc, and the expectation was a game that deals with WW2, not SF.

As for your Poland example, attacking Poland early when it goes PA is considered a cheesy exploit in many MP games, why would you want to encourage the AI to do it?

Anyway, this supposed to be a "land trading pro/con thread"

 

[Darkrenown]

You say dont use them (expolits) - I wont but how many mp players will do that thus only make other players angry and fed up they cant have a historic game...

Play with people you know, not cheating idiots. If someone acted like that in my MP game I'd kick them.

If you want to exploit the game I say edit the save.

I don't want to exploit

 

[boromir]

Let's just hope that the AI doesn't go wacko with AI - AI trades :wacko:

 

[unmerged(10945)]

So you prefer a game in a 1936-1948 setting, not a WW2 grand strategy game ...

Events in some cases are "a patch", in other cases they are not. Russia can do an Anschluss of its Western neighbours in HOI1 already.

Well, now I can at least see why we disagree. Yes, I want a 1936-1948 game with the scenarios set up so the time period is(at least at first) accurately representing the history of the time. Then I want to be able to change the events as much as they can be changed in the 12 year span. I don't want it to be like HOI1 with hardcoded tags to declare war at certain dates no matter what and other unchangable things. I want to feel like I'm actually able to effect history. Having a robust trading system helps with this.

 

[Lasse Nielsen]

I disagree. If all the events were only for the AI, they would be AI-only events (and there are many of those as is). Straightjacket? Don't think so, rather an attempt to keep some *realism* in the game and avoid science fiction, not just for the AI but for humans too ... you posted before that you like sphere of influence events - you don't view these as a straightjacket then? Sure, the AI can be programmed to go for France instead of Poland first sometimes ... But if you take it to far, you will end with many player complaints that the stupid German AI keeps dowing in 1936, 1937 etc, and the expectation was a game that deals with WW2, not SF.

As for your Poland example, attacking Poland early when it goes PA is considered a cheesy exploit in many MP games, why would you want to encourage the AI to do it?

Anyway, this supposed to be a "land trading pro/con thread"

I like spheres of influence because it is "natural" behaviour by great powers to control their spheres of influence (and I would like to see the totalitarian powers to do more to gain influence, political and militarily, in these areas).
I don't mind that most nations (certainly the democratic ones) keeping more together with each other as they did historically, but I would like that the expansionist ideologies would be more versatile in getting and keeping power within their spheres of influence.

As to the Poland excample: it is my point that it is an exploit that you can take on poland early but the AI can't. It is the AI's weakness, and thus my a humans players strength. I would like to see the allies go berserk if i did that (even before the reoccupation of the rheinland). Instead I know for sure that they won't go berserk, because I can "see" their war entry! it is this predictability from the AI that ruins it, just as much as the events. the events are something that forces the game, making you thinking of ways to best use them (you plan on them. you don't research the techs your given in events, do you? is it an exploit not to research these techs?).

As said before i like semi-random events like the major workers strike etc. but the main event you end up planning on. like playing Spain in EU2 you know when you hit the 16hundreds it gonna turn ugly.

But I agree with you that this is not the topic of this thread, so I'll stop discussing it here, even though it is an interesting discussion

 

[unmerged(12303)]

Play with people you know, not cheating idiots. If someone acted like that in my MP game I'd kick them.
I don't want to exploit

I guess there is no convincing you.

Lets hope Paradox at least recognizes a potential hole in the game now - not in patch 1.06.

F

 

[boromir]

I guess there is no convincing you.

Lets hope Paradox at least recognizes a potential hole in the game now - not in patch 1.06.

F

Yeah, I hope we won't be seeing any AAR's of the "I bought the world in 80 days" type

The main issue still remains that the were no "land trades" during the period.

 

[Darkrenown]

I guess there is no convincing you.

What are you trying to convince me of? That you can't find non cheating players to play with? That's a shame, but I'll just play with non-cheaters.

 

[Darkrenown]

Yeah, I hope we won't be seeing any AAR's of the "I bought the world in 80 days" type

Who cares? I can cheat my ass off and write an AAR about annexing Germany, the USSR ans the USA as Tanu Tuva if you want.

The main issue still remains that the were no "land trades" during the period.

Don't forget we won't be playing an exact copy of WWII, there are all sorts of situations (although mostly for the Axis players) I can think of where you might want to give you allies certain land.

What if the Czechs fight you (Germany) rather than give up the Sudaten land and after you annex them you ally with Hungary and Romania and want to give them some of the land? What if you puppet/coup Greece and want to give them some annexed Balkan land? Same goes for if you get Turkey in the Axis etc.

What are you going to in any of those examples without land trading? Why you you want to take this feature away from players just because some idiots can't stop exploiting it? Should Paradox stop making the save and event files easy to edit so that no one can edit in extra units and cheat? Does the knowlage that other people are cheating affect your own game in any way?

 

[Asudulayev]

Fascinating... People are talking about <<Historical>> games... :rofl:

I wish I head a dime, no wait, a quarter for every time I heard someone say something like, <<So anyway, after I annexed the USSR as Germany in 1943, I wanted to... [whatever].>> Has it not occured to anyone that there really is not a chance that one can play as a major power and not end up ruling the world.

Since the game allows for open-endedness it should be more open-ended.

EX. Last time I played EU II I played as Russia, by the 1800s, Prussia had been partitioned by several countries, namely Russia, France and the United States, the same happens in almost any Paradox Game.

Events are done to do that which game mechaninc cannot, in EU, the player made <<bitter peace>> peace(s) since game mechanics allowed this, I believe that I heard that the diplomacy system of HOI 2 will be more like that of EU II.

Since there will be more choices (along with sliders) there will be less events.

On the topic of <<trading>> provinces, I think that it would be best if a country would be allowed to divide up conquered countries.
IE... Choose <<ANNEX>>, an option pops up <<Would you like to divide the provinces up>>, choose <<YES>>, list of all provinces in the annexed country pops up, click on a province name and then choose which ally of yours it goes to.

Just some ideas.

 

[Vissarion]

Isn't a problem unless the ai trades crazily with other ai countries, what you as a player do is your choice.

I agree with what Darkrenown says, there's no reason to fear a feature that is only exploitable if the human player himself wish to do so. There will always be different cheats you can use, when playing mp you will have to choose opponents you trust anyway.

 

[Old Joe]

i agree most of time period land trade were in exchange for non agression pact

i remember very precise example of land trading without war or not war - russia peacefully bargained for korelia from finland for huge gaps of north lands in kola peninsula(five or more times larger) to move border from st peterburg, finland refused so many times that reds get insulted and decide to take it with tanks, so still war in conclusion hmm

anyway option must be there for sure

 

[brandnew70x7]

I dont know why you are all arguing over a game dynamic that won't be changed. :rofl:

 

[unmerged(5110)]

My 2 cents is that I fully support the modding community.

I think that as talented as the Paradox Entertainment crew is, games of this kind of detail and scale could not possibly be accurately done, historically. But the programmers at Paradox ARE good at doing one thing -- making a good, robust engine for a game, something that we could never do.

Therefore, I fully support any addition of features that adds to this robust game -- the event engine is awesome, so far as its implementation. As for the events themselves, I couldn't really care less how balanced/accurate they are, because I know that Paradox has limited resources.

From the EEP, AGC, CORE and VIP, we've seen what a community with unlimited resources can do with events. Therefore, the event ENGINE should be Paradox's responsibility, but the actual scripting of the events should go to the modding community, because they are naturally best for the job.

SIMILARILY, I fully support the idea of Open Negotiations in Paradox games, because it makes the game engine that more robust. However, it DOES open the game up to exploits from the players. The goal then, in my humble opinion, should be thus:

1) Put in other historically-based game mechanics that help to counteract the effects of exploits done by open negotiations
2) Make an AI that can be modded by the modding communities, to tweak ITS preferences for Open Negotiations, so that it cannot be duped as easily.

I think that neither of these preclude the inclusion of Open Negotiations. We can see already that Paradox listens to its customers and understands the concerns of a system like Open Negotiations: Johan, in the 2nd teaser for this friday, said that now we have blueprints instead of techs, which help to alleviate some of the problems of trading techs.

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

It's funny to see this discussion. No one really knows how the trading of provinces goes.

Maybe you can only trade provinces on which the other country has claims, or whatever it's called in HOI.

So Romania could trade with Hungary over Transsylvania or Germany with Czechoslavakia over the Sudetenprovinces, but Germany can't trade with Great Britain over Glasgow.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

What are you trying to convince me of? That you can't find non cheating players to play with? That's a shame, but I'll just play with non-cheaters.

I see you are a big vicky fan - so please stop making HOI more like vicky. Its not an issue of non cheaters its an issue of newbies comming on val - trying to play a good game, but being sabotaged by idiots. New people get discouraged and dont play again. Why do we have to open up a hole for the humans to exploit - why dont we just throw it away and add trading units instead - which DID happen.

The whole problem is (which you cant seem to grasp) is that you will be creating an exploit in the system. Paradox has to make a choice - does it want a free for all game or a more historical type of game. It already made that choice in HOI1 adding events and the spheres - so wierd "unhistorical" things could happen. Now what does it do ? It goes and does the same blunder again and will try to patch it so the comp later does not trade at all. So why have the feature that does not work? Ask yourself why did paradox add the logistics penalty, why did it add the spheres, why did it add the events? Using your logic it did not have too - as, after all, you dont have to cheat if you dont want too - or you can play with non cheaters.. :wacko:

Since the game allows for open-endedness it should be more open-ended.
EX. Last time I played EU II I played as Russia, by the 1800s, Prussia had been partitioned by several countries, namely Russia, France and the United States, the same happens in almost any Paradox Game.

you comparing a game that usually lasts 6-8 years to a game that lasts 400??
It is open ended but its no a free for all - its based on a number of historical facts. The 3 alliances etc. Now why dont we just scrap that - after all I can do "anything" I want :wacko:

Isn't a problem unless the ai trades crazily with other ai countries, what you as a player do is your choice.

I agree with what Darkrenown says, there's no reason to fear a feature that is only exploitable if the human player himself wish to do so. There will always be different cheats you can use, when playing mp you will have to choose opponents you trust anyway.

so what you want is a feature that:

a) The computer will not trade land as its impossible to teach it what an exploit is and what isnt?
b) You will have a feature that only works with humans?

So in an SP game you will have pissed off people saying that they cant trade and the game is broken.....

i agree most of time period land trade were in exchange for non agression pacti remember very precise example of land trading without war or not war - russia peacefully bargained for korelia from finland for huge gaps of north lands in kola peninsula(five or more times larger) to move border from st peterburg, finland refused so many times that reds get insulted and decide to take it with tanks, so still war in conclusion hmm
anyway option must be there for sure

duh there is the demand territory for that?

I dont know why you are all arguing over a game dynamic that won't be changed. :rofl:

Yes true - at least I will be able to say "I told you so" when the game comes out and I get to buy london from the british... or at least my voice will make this loop hole minimal...

F

 

[Windmolen]

We all don't even know how this system works and how (if) it differs from Vicky. We don't know what limitations Paradox has put in, or how the AI is handling it. I'm sure I won't be able to "buy London from the british" when the game comes out. Paradox and the beta's aren't stupid you know.

 

[unmerged(12244)]

We all don't even know how this system works and how (if) it differs from Vicky. We don't know what limitations Paradox has put in, or how the AI is handling it. I'm sure I won't be able to "buy London from the british" when the game comes out. Paradox and the beta's aren't stupid you know.

Lets god damn hope it differs from Vicky, this game seem to get more Vicky-friendly every minute. Soon it changes name to Vic2.