Will D-Day Come Soon?

[Jon Shafer]

Don't forget the infamous "Please enter your CD now, and the game will play itself historically to the end event".

Originally posted by whyamihere
Without "whiners" (or constructive critics, as I like to call them), games would never see patches nor improvements. Thank your lucky stars the likes of 50cal are willing to voice themselves. No one's been insulting or offensive here, just making their thoughts heard.

Who said being critical of the game was wrong? I'm probably one of the bigger critics of HOI, and everyone here knows that.

 

[unmerged(11858)]

It is, well, stupid to believe that the inclusion of more triggers will have the game play the game for you.

I have seen many triggers that are the only way in giving the player a sense of historic insight into what is happening. Many of the good mods for EU2 offer multiple choices (i.e., something happens, something happens in moderation, or nothing happens). I really wonder what is going through the heads of people who believe that triggers do everything.

Triggers are useful in GUIDING, but those who oppose them tend to ignore this, and incorrectly say that triggers CONTROL. They do not control, this is a lie.

A good mix of freedom and controlled triggers is the only way you can get this game to be interesting beyond conquer, conquer, conquer.

Diplomacy is only good if you are big enough to push others around. Diplomacy through triggers (i.e., historic pressuring of Poland to go to war over Danzing) are required, as the current HoI diplomatic function is incapable of such complicated policies.

EU2/HoI are built around BOTH triggers and freedom of choice. If you don't get this, you really don't get the game. I absoultely hated EU2 before playing the EEP/AGC mods, as the original scenarios severley lacked historic plausibility. Everything started ok, but only ended up reasonably close to history 1 in 1000 times (even with no influcence!).

Triggers are necessary, as they fill in for an AI that REQUIRES them. How else will the AI know when and where to attack???

Many people would try for a challenging game of EU2 by refusing to follow triggers (i.e., Castille becoming Spain). Triggers are NOT written in stone, they are caused by a combination of TIME and ACTION. Should Germany develop strong armour technology, it would be JUST GREAT if it attacked the Maginot Line with its tanks in piecemiel... That is what we all want, a stupid AI. Undoubtedly there will be people from the EU2 EEP/AGC who realize that everything cannot be done by the AI alone, and will create logical and challenging triggers that will remove the predictably tame actions of the AI.

Should the player control Brazil, I would expect that 99 out of 100 games should have the rest of the world not influenced by the Human player to go as if everything was almost exactly like what happened in history. If it does not, something is wrong.

THIS is what proponents of triggers are after, so the un-influenced world will continue on as it should, not with Italy conquering Europe by 1942...

 

[Jon Shafer]

Sure triggers are nice, when included in moderation.

I just don't like it when some people are proponents for the inclusion of things like a "Britain and the US invade France" event.

 

[unmerged(1492)]

"pick...pick...pick... would you like some gruyere with your whine?"

Hey pal. I wasnt whining. And besides if I wanted to I have just as much right to whine as the the fanboys here who attack the whiners. After all, I paid the same amount the rest of you did.

And you bothered to read the whole thread you would see that im not whining In fact I was argueing the pro's and con's of a D-Day event (Which I completely oppose unless the AI doesnt straightens up)

 

[Jon Shafer]

The problem is, what do you hope to accomplish with a D-Day event? The AI that has to enact the invasion is still the same, so it won't make any difference... if the AI is unable to launch a massive invasion now, why would setting up an event to prompt them to make any difference?

 

[unmerged(1492)]

"I just don't like it when some people are proponents for the inclusion of things like a "Britain and the US invade France" event."

Look if the AI has 4 million men in england. complete control of the sea's, and a huge airforce. And if that wasnt enough, AND IT SURE AS HELL WAS! It should by all mean invade france. It wont do it without a trigger event of some sort or incentive (authors emphasis on incentive, Like the EU shields). The AI seems to be completely happy with sitting on its english island, doing nothing but building militia. Again it isnt that "Force the allies to invade issue". Its "Why doesnt the Stupid AI invade me already?"



Gah I couldnt sleep. This game...soooo addictive...*howls at the moon*

 

[Jon Shafer]

Like I said in my last post, I would love it if those 4 million men would skip across the ocean like any sensible human player would do, and that would be that. However, the AI can't do that, so an event won't help anyways.

Aren't you not supposed to be coming back now?

 

[unmerged(1492)]

"The problem is, what do you hope to accomplish with a D-Day event? The AI that has to enact the invasion is still the same, so it won't make any difference... if the AI is unable to launch a massive invasion now, why would setting up an event to prompt them to make any difference?"

What I hope to accomplish for the AI is what every military leader would see as a golden oppurtunity. A second front in france, spain, or calais is the only logical way to make a second front. Again Im not for setting up a forced event, only if the current AI cant get fixed. Then events must be there to make a sense of challenge in the game.


I offer no solution really just some rational thought out idea's. Really Im not qualified to say what is better, an event or a better AI routine. I dont think any of you are either. None of us are programming for paradox. So we should just relax and see what happens.

 

[Jon Shafer]

But what would the event do specifically that would solve the problem?

 

[unmerged(1492)]

Originally posted by Trip
Like I said in my last post, I would love it if those 4 million men would skip across the ocean like any sensible human player would do, and that would be that. However, the AI can't do that, so an event won't help anyways.

Aren't you not supposed to be coming back now?

No im going to bed for real this time. My dream as follows


Stretched thin are the german forces, they continue there savage endless war on the eastern front. Outnumbered and outgunned but not outdone. The germans hold the line from the baltic to the Crimean, withstanding punishing Soviet assaults all winter. Suddenly...at 6:00 am on the morning of March 2nd 1944 the alarm is sounded at fueher headquarters. The telegram comes across the lines "Ze allies have landed in france and have ze bridgehead. Request immediate revorcements of troops.

Well. I like fighting for my life in these kind of games.

Cya

 

[Jon Shafer]

Hey now, you have yet to answer the question in my last post!

 

[unmerged(10333)]

Who said being critical of the game was wrong? I'm probably one of the bigger critics of HOI, and everyone here knows that.

Are you saying you don't like the game

 

[Jon Shafer]

Definition of 'critic', courtesy of dictionary.com:

One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter.

 

[Josephus I]

Wow...what a can of worms I opened....

Interesting reading all your comments. I am disappointed with the weakness of a cross-channel invasion. Despite what the alternative history players say; a continental invasion is the only way to limit Gemany. Like I said, I'm playing Russia right now (actually finished it last night, while all of you were debating this) and since the Invasion didn't happen; there was nothing to stop Germany.

If I play Germany then I know that after the Fall of France I only need one motorized division to guard the Western Front while I go kick Russia to smithereens.

That is not good. I think HOI is a great game, so far, but this one thing should be fixed. Whether through programming or an event. And yes, I'd settle for the D-Day Event that magically produces 20 Allied Armies in Normandy. Better than nothing.

I really hope that the Allied Invasion, or lack thereof, is being looked at closely by the Powers That Be.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Yes... for now a human Germany simply have to keep a fair sized force in Western Europe in preparation for an invasion, so as not to give the human player such an advantage in the East...

 

[unmerged(11895)]

This might be a pretty dumb idea, but here goes...

What if there were a bunch more events (adding more than just D-day), but the events were random. You might get a D-day event...and you might not. The fact that the events are random would force you to prepare for them, but not necessarily know they're coming. Just a thought.

 

[unmerged(12272)]

Dont critize the beta testers, you really have no idea. (No im not one, but I really really know what its like)...1. They very well mightve mentioned it and Paradox couldnt get it in. 2. Some things just never come up in beta, it happens 3. Blame Strategy First, I for one always think thats the best way.


In regards to D-Day, a stop-gap solution maybe a event that is triggered when certain conditions are met (France is conquered, both Britiain and US in war, Russia at war with Germany ..etc etc). However really the solution is having an AI that 1. Primary aim is to win the game and to do that (as Allied) must defeat the Germans.. 2. That this primary aim can only be accomplished by certain actions..including invading mainland Europe to get at Germany..

Man the Clash of Steel Ai used to invade France/Belgium/Holland and northern Germany (if ungarrisoned) like there was no tommorow..over and over and over again...Im not comparing the two games but its certainly implementable..

The other solution?

Multiplayer.

 

[unmerged(576)]

Originally posted by CatcherInTheRye
This might be a pretty dumb idea, but here goes...

What if there were a bunch more events (adding more than just D-day), but the events were random. You might get a D-day event...and you might not. The fact that the events are random would force you to prepare for them, but not necessarily know they're coming. Just a thought.

The problem with making it random is that its that you don't know how the war has developed. Let's say the Allies get the random event late on, while Germany is pounding Russia, but the Heermacht is actually putting up a fight and the Battle of Atlantic has not been won. Thus the resources are not available (assuming the World Market gets fixed) to stage a D-Day. Do you just give the Allies the men? Is that fair on the German player? Do you force the Allies to invade when they don't have the resources?

An event, if used, has to take into account many things. Strength of Allied forces in Britain compared to German ones on the coast. Then there's the possiblity of a front in Greece (which was considered, particularly as it would allow the Allies to grab vast tracks of E.European land before the Soviets could). And what about Italy? That may become very successful and the Allies might be able to break into France and Germany through there.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

I don't see why some people need an event for D-Day. The problem is with the AI surely, is it not? So having a D-Day event will solve nothing if the AI just isn't interested in taking France. As the guys from Paradox are on these forums on a daily basis I'm sure that they are well aware of the problem and an AI patch address this will be out shortly.