Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist McScoopbeard]

The problem with that is that HoI is about WW2, and there are so many things that could have gone differently that would have caused WW2 to not happen (or happen in a completely different way, such that it's not the same). Also if they're spending time adding WW1 to the game they aren't spending time making the WW2 part better. I imagine Paradox have thought/are thinking about a cold war DLC though, and there'll probably be WW1 mods, but the core gameplay of HoI has always been WW2.

HOI is about simulating massive warfare on a strategic level. WWII just happens to be the war in history it's centered around. Gameplay and setting are two different things. If you move the start date back then maybe "WWII" won't happen, but presumably other wars would. Again, the gameplay is all about warfare on a strategic level. I don't see how allowing for different scenarios really impacts that in a meaningful way. Just include a WWII start date for people who want to start there.

EDIT: Basically what Zazmio has said.

[BlindKitty]

A big part of the fun of HoI is taking control of a country in '36 and customizing your OOB from the start.  This wouldn't translate to WW1 that well, since technology was very limited compared to WW2.  Warfare is also static and strategically uninteresting in WW1... at least compared to WW2.

And I disagree with the notion that Vicky II doesn't simulate WW1 in a meaningful way.  Warfare was more abstracted in that game, and rightfully so; more interesting about the period was the colonialism that led to the tensions that caused WW1.

Warfare static? Heh, that's as Western-centric as it gets. Just read a little about the Eastern front of the WW I, will you, before jumping to conclusions? Also, the technology limitations are not really all that painful. You have meaningful cavalry, for starters, and support in form of artillery, machine guns (which were a new invention, sometimes organized into quite large units), various types of infantry (stormtroopers come to mind), pretty interesting naval combat... And you can customize your armed forces in very meaningful way. Especially with new, finer-grained division system of HoI III.

All that and keep in mind as a bonus that blitzkrieg is an idea that predates WW II and even WW I at it's core, just take a look at Schliffen Plan. There are quite a few interesting things to be simulated in WW I, and it's fundamentally very similar to WW II, as far as the high-level simulation goes.

[a1s]

Warfare static? Heh, that's as Western-centric as it gets. Just read a little about the Eastern front of the WW I, will you, before jumping to conclusions? Also, the technology limitations are not really all that painful. You have meaningful cavalry, for starters, and support in form of artillery, machine guns (which were a new invention, sometimes organized into quite large units), various types of infantry (stormtroopers come to mind), pretty interesting naval combat... And you can customize your armed forces in very meaningful way. Especially with new, finer-grained division system of HoI III.

All that and keep in mind as a bonus that blitzkrieg is an idea that predates WW II and even WW I at it's core, just take a look at Schliffen Plan. There are quite a few interesting things to be simulated in WW I, and it's fundamentally very similar to WW II, as far as the high-level simulation goes.

I'm glad you brought up Schliffen, because it illustrates that WWI wasn't meant to be the way it was. Basically, the massive trench clusterf--k of the western front was the exception that was not seen before and would not be seen since. The eastern front jumped around like a rabid jackalope, until finally settling into a wave-like advance (or retreat, if you will) into Russia. Galipoli was a thing for a while (until the British were run into the sea.) Caucasus was assaulted, although that was more like a 1-sided trench CF. On the far east (wait what?) a bunch of stuff happened, none of it in trench systems, that set Japan up for the 30s. And finally, though it's not classically considered a part of WWI, Russian Civil War was all about maneuver warfare and supply lines.

[Zazmio]

I'm well aware that the eastern front was different from the west, thanks.  I've read a few books in my time; no history lessons are necessary.

Did you guys miss the part where I said it was static compared to WW2?  My understanding is that it took them something like a year to drive Russia from Poland.  During Operation Barbarossa, Germany had driven all the way to Dnepropetrovsk in the south, and nearly to Leningrad in the north, a huge swath of territory, in just a month.  That's quite a bit less static.

So how'd the Schlieffen Plan work out for Germany?  It stalled and became trench warfare, right?  Would that be fun to play in a game with HoI3's system?  I'm not so sure.  Seems like it would be huge infantry armies slogging it out.  How would armed forces customization go?  You'd have 2 or 3 infantry regiments with one artillery brigade making up almost every division; machine guns would probably be automatically dispersed throughout the army.  Navies would be capital ships like BBs and cruisers with destroyer support -- no carriers, yet.  Some subs which weren't quite as good as in WW2.  Air was not nearly as advanced and effective as in WW2.  We're missing key elements that make HoI exciting -- basically, mobile forces with which to break through and exploit.

I don't know, maybe it would be okay.  So make a mod.  I don't think it would be worth it for Paradox to put the resources into it when they could be doing better things.  Like, for example, making a decent AI.  I would just fucking dorkgasm all over myself if they finally managed to make an allied AI that can pull off Operation Overlord reasonably competently.

Which leads me to my main gripe about this kind of game:  the AI.  I know it's impossible to make an AI opponent good in a game this complex.  But let's be honest:  The problem is, in every HoI, the AI has been terrible.  It's so easy to exploit, it becomes pointless to play against the AI.  Really, the AI is all I care about these days, and I doubt I'll be buying HoI4 if it's the same old AI problems.  Unless the multiplayer is real good.   Sadly, I don't see either of these things happening.

[Sergarr]

I don't know, maybe it would be okay.  So make a mod.  I don't think it would be worth it for Paradox to put the resources into it when they could be doing better things.

Fun fact: such a mod already exists (Darkest Hour), and, in fact, it has even been sold out as a separate game by Paradox.

Like, for example, making a decent AI.  I would just fucking dorkgasm all over myself if they finally managed to make an allied AI that can pull off Operation Overlord reasonably competently.

Which leads me to my main gripe about this kind of game:  the AI.  I know it's impossible to make an AI opponent good in a game this complex.  But let's be honest:  The problem is, in every HoI, the AI has been terrible.  It's so easy to exploit, it becomes pointless to play against the AI.  Really, the AI is all I care about these days, and I doubt I'll be buying HoI4 if it's the same old AI problems.  Unless the multiplayer is real good.   Sadly, I don't see either of these things happening.

+1. I have no concrete idea about how Paradox AI works, but from reading the raws, it seems to work under a simple weight-based model, where AI simply chooses decisions with bigger weights more often. There seems to be no real consideration of context, and, obviously, no learning component.

This is why I've said before that Paradox should just open up AI architecture for modders, if they're not going to improve it themselves.

[a1s]

Did you guys miss the part where I said it was static compared to WW2?  My understanding is that it took them something like a year to drive Russia from Poland.  During Operation Barbarossa, Germany had driven all the way to Dnepropetrovsk in the south, and nearly to Leningrad in the north, a huge swath of territory, in just a month. 

It didn't take a year to drive Russia out of Poland- Russia actually started by invading Austrian Poland, then they were pushed back next year, and finally in 1916 gained part of their Poland land back. It was a highly dynamic fight. Until Russia ran out of steam bread. Then it was still dynamic, but very predictable.
German blitzkriegs (blitzkriegen?) were pretty fun to watch though, yes. (But not to participate in or, god forbid, defend from. )

[Besserwisser]

German blitzkriegs (blitzkriegen?) were pretty fun to watch though, yes.

Both wrong. It would be Blitzkriege in this sentence.

[BlindKitty]

Did you guys miss the part where I said it was static compared to WW2?  My understanding is that it took them something like a year to drive Russia from Poland.  During Operation Barbarossa, Germany had driven all the way to Dnepropetrovsk in the south, and nearly to Leningrad in the north, a huge swath of territory, in just a month.  That's quite a bit less static.

Well, while perhaps the movement was somewhat faster, it was quite a bit less interesting in many aspects - for example, there was no back-and-forth to speak of for the first half a year of Barbarossa; only a few rather limited pockets of resistance and next to nothing in the territory of counterattacks. So I would say it was actually more boring than WW I, which saw quite a few massive offensives and counteroffensives; first Russians attacked - twice - the Central Powers, being stopped for the first time, but succeeding the second time. Then Germans counter-attacked, throwing Russians out of the Poland, but that wasn't the end; Russians managed to put up one more massive offensive with much success, and only after it was depleted, and the Romania joined the war, the final offensive by Central Powers was able to overcome the crumbling Russia.

And don't even get me started on Polish Independence War of 1920 - and the Battle of Warsaw - where the Polish forces broke through the Russian lines, and encircled entire armies, in the truly great maneuver. It was the same tech level as WW I, and it was at least as mobile as most of the WW II. Again, the trench warfare of Western Front of WW I was far from forgone conclusion before it started. There were wars before, fought on foot and horses, that saw more maneuver, and there were wars after, fought with tanks and planes, that saw more maneuver, too - it was just an accident, mostly composed of stupid people getting to play with equipment they didn't understand, like machine guns, that led to trench warfare, in an isolated place, and for rather short time.

[Kot]

AHHH MOTHERLAAAAND!
GET PREORDER. GET HYPE. GET SHOT.




EDIT:
Also wait this is like old thread why nobody is hype. I mean seriously Stellaris sucks man up and fight a real mans war.

[Karlito]

I'm hype. I already bought the Field Marshal edition (because I am a fool).

[Sergarr]

I personally find it hard to get hype for yet another strategy game set in WW2. I find it hard to get hype for anything, really. Except when it involves good AI. Sadly, this is a Paradox game, and as we all know, Paradox AI is made of fail.

[Orange Wizard]

I personally find it hard to get hype for yet another strategy game set in WW2. I find it hard to get hype for anything, really. Except when it involves good AI. Sadly, this is a Paradox game, and as we all know, Paradox AI is made of fail.

Oh, shush. Get hype.

[Sergarr]

* Sergarr gets anti-hype

[Kot]

I personally find it hard to get hype for yet another strategy game set in WW2.

It's not just another strategy game set in WW2. It's basically the only really comprehensive strategy game set in early-mid 1900s that allows you to take charge of any nation during that time and not only focuses on combat but also all the other shit.
Also, honestly, recently WW2 strategy games and WW2 games in general start to become more and more niche, apart from bunch of F2P games and nobody gives a shit about them anymore.

* Sergarr gets anti-hype

Oi fuck you m8 go play sum Infinite Warfare in spess.

[a1s]

I personally find it hard to get hype for yet another strategy game set in WW2.

Well it's kinda hard to set a game in Vietnam or Iraq, since these are less "Triumph Of The Will" and more "guy on drugs/religion massacring civilians as his incomptetent CO watches". It's the same reason you don't see a Boer War game.