A list of things wrong with HOI3

[Raghar]

For you guys who played HOI2, how was having claims to an area implemented? The way I'm reading it now, it's implemented similar to my suggestion above - a country with a claim to a territory is free to move troops into it (at least according to this). The problem is that it doesn't work in HOI3, from what I've seen (and things like Ecuador's claim for Iquitos doesn't exist).

Each country had cores. When they conquered cores, they received full resources on these cores, when they conquered normal provinces, they received 1/5 modified by minister.

Also, it seems like they put in arbitrary neutrality at the start for different countries (good), but the numbers don't make sense. The UK has a 90% neutrality? The US has a 100%?

They didn't wanted to make them biggest villains. Or create game: US conquers the world, after Russia and Germany weakened themselves.

 

[GarfunkeL]

You do realize that you are putting forth suggestions and recommendations based on a single game of playing Ecuador, whereas Paradox has been tuning the game for few years now, through 3 expansion packs. I don't mean to be rude but it's very difficult to take your suggestions seriously. You did pump the speed up to maximum? Because it takes under two hours to run from 1936 to 1940 on maximal speed. There are very good reasons why UK and USA have such high neutrality ratings at the beginning of 1936 campaign.

Vaarna, that's pretty bad exaggeration and you know it. All majors are perfectly playable and many minors are as well.

Raghar, not ministers but occupation policies.

 

[almondblight]

Each country had cores. When they conquered cores, they received full resources on these cores, when they conquered normal provinces, they received 1/5 modified by minister.

I meant having claims on provinces that aren't yours. In that Wiki article it says that, for example, since Germany has claims on Metz, it's treated as a national province, even though France controls it. That seems to make sense, but it doesn't seem to be the case in HOI3 (and I can't figure what having claims in HOI3 does).

They didn't wanted to make them biggest villains. Or create game: US conquers the world, after Russia and Germany weakened themselves.

So it's purely a balance issue?

You do realize that you are putting forth suggestions and recommendations based on a single game of playing Ecuador, whereas Paradox has been tuning the game for few years now, through 3 expansion packs. I don't mean to be rude but it's very difficult to take your suggestions seriously.

No, I also based it on half a game as France. But seriously, I'm not pretending to be an expert on HOI3. If I'm wrong about something, let me know. But so far you've misread my posts (saying that the Ecuador-Peru war isn't an issue because my neutrality is to high), then agreed with them after I pointed out that Paradox intended to include it in the game (saying it's too bad that the event isn't implemented properly). Then you said it'd be impossible to apply arbitrary numbers for starting threat levels, even though Paradox has already applied arbitrary numbers for starting neutrality. If there are things I'm overlooking let me know, but based on your remarks here I'm wary of the "trust me, there's a reason for it but I can't say what it is" argument.

You did pump the speed up to maximum? Because it takes under two hours to run from 1936 to 1940 on maximal speed.

Did you read my post? If it takes me two years to build a factory, does it make sense for me to wait there twiddling my thumbs for an hour while nothing happens between 1936 and 38? Have you played a small country? The build up is very slow, and not a lot happens the first few years. There are actually a few things happening during that time, so you're probably just waiting 3-5 minutes for things to happen. Small things, then back to waiting. Not terribly fun.

There are very good reasons why UK and USA have such high neutrality ratings at the beginning of 1936 campaign.

Historically, or for the sake of gameplay? Because those ratings make no sense historically.[/quote]

 

[Raghar]

Each country had cores. When they conquered cores, they received full resources on these cores, when they conquered normal provinces, they received 1/5 modified by minister.

I meant having claims on provinces that aren't yours. In that Wiki article it says that, for example, since Germany has claims on Metz, it's treated as a national province, even though France controls it. That seems to make sense, but it doesn't seem to be the case in HOI3 (and I can't figure what having claims in HOI3 does).

You can have cores in foreign country. For example comchi has cores in whole China. AI uses cores in foreign country, and VP provinces, as war goals.

They didn't wanted to make them biggest villains. Or create game: US conquers the world, after Russia and Germany weakened themselves.

So it's purely a balance issue?

More likely, they didn't want to make democratic countries bad boys. It's the same reason why they are blocking Russian/Germany alliance, and basically script war declarations between Germany and Russia.

Of course US going unchecked rampage against the rest of countries would quickly end the war. So the balance reasons are here as well. They don't model parliament decisions and anti-Germany hysteria, thus US would appear as more capable than they were during WWII.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Vaarna, that's pretty bad exaggeration and you know it. All majors are perfectly playable and many minors are as well.

Well, I admit that I was exaggerating (though it is clear that Germany is the focus), but I do say that Leadership has always been an issue (incidentally, I've decided to test if I can change how Education tech works so it gives a solid bonus instead of a % bonus, as that would solve a LOT of issues, I can probably drop the overall base leadership and add an extra modifier bonus for euro-minors).

 

[GarfunkeL]

Hungary can still conquer all of Balkans relatively easily. Minors just can't keep up with the majors, which is acceptable in my book.

Historically, or for the sake of gameplay?

For the sake of gameplay. In vanilla HoI3, both countries had a more "historical" neutrality (of course, measuring something like that on a scale of 0-100 is pretty challenging) but that merely led into a situation where, more often than not, USA would join Allies in '39 or UK would DOW Germany in '38 or both. While this would be a nice bit of extra challenge for the player, it usually ruined the game if Germany was played by AI. Having American divisions in France in '39 or '40 usually meant that German AI couldn't conquer France and if you were playing as Hungary waiting for Barbarossa to happen, well, it would never happen. The only way they prevent that was to jack up the neutrality scores of both UK and USA to the max - other alternative was to hardcode their AI behaviour and no-one likes that.

Did you read my post? If it takes me two years to build a factory, does it make sense for me to wait there twiddling my thumbs for an hour while nothing happens between 1936 and 38? Have you played a small country?

Yes, I did. I don't understand why you complain - you chose to play a grand-strategy game and then you chose to play a South-American minor. It is entirely appropriate that you have nothing to do most of the time. If Ecuador had stuff to do all the time, it would mean that playing a major would be impossible for humans - because they have much more going on. Nevertheless, playing as Germany from '36 to '39, if you wait for historical WW2, is pretty boring as well. The focus of the game is on warfare, thus if you're not waging war, it is bit boring - just like Doom became bit boring after you killed all monsters on a level.

Then you said it'd be impossible to apply arbitrary numbers for starting threat levels, even though Paradox has already applied arbitrary numbers for starting neutrality.

Well, first I thought you just didn't know how to manage threat and neutrality. I've never played as a South-American country so I thought that the war is possible to spark off if you work on it from the beginning of the campaign. You convinced me that it isn't, at which point I remembered that there was an event for that war in HoI2 and Vaarna said that such an event chain exists for HoI3 but it has been commented out. More event is always better, which is why I said it's a shame it hasn't been implemented. Of course I dislike arbitrary numbers because I would prefer everything to be as accurately historical as possible at the start of the campaign. However, playtesting has proven that unless the neutrality of certain countries are pumped unnaturally high, bad things happen. I wouldn't be too surprised if the war event is commented out for the same reason - perhaps USA gets involved due to having a GoI over every South-American country.

If there are things I'm overlooking let me know, but based on your remarks here I'm wary of the "trust me, there's a reason for it but I can't say what it is" argument.

It's because so often people complaining about something in a complex game like HoI3 or when offering "simple" solutions, have never paused to think what sort of side-effects their suggestions could cause. Couple that with the large numbers of idiots who don't bother to read the manual or are unable to grasp the game mechanics who then whine loudly about the game, hence my frustration. I was a betatester for HoI2, so I got to see up close how difficult it is to get a feature working properly so it won't screw up one aspect of the game. Classic example is USSR - if you make AI USSR to be challenging for human Germany, you simultaneously make it impossible for AI Germany to have any chance against it, leading to a situation where AI USSR sits in Berlin by December 1941. People cry out. Make it so that AI Germany and AI USSR have a closely-run struggle that lasts for several years and human Germany reaches Moscow by December 1941. People whine.

Now I'm not trying to excuse Paradox, because I think they should drop the ability to play as any country in the world - it's been their gimmick since Day1 but it's largely a wasted feature, especially in a HoI game, since it's completely impossible to get the game working so that gameplay would be satisfactory, no matter which country play.

 

[Rostere]

I don't see what's so wrong with minors having tech levels below major powers. I think it's very realistic, take a look at the historical equipment of armies around WW2. On the other hand, I think you more often should see minors trading military tech and equipment for resources.

 

[GarfunkeL]

At least AI now purchases licenses to produce stuff it couldn't normally. And it's "smart" enough not to buy them if it can't use them. So Switzerland is not buying ships!

 

[almondblight]

You can have cores in foreign country. For example comchi has cores in whole China. AI uses cores in foreign country, and VP provinces, as war goals.

But could you enter into disputed territory like Metz without a declaration of war?

For the sake of gameplay. In vanilla HoI3, both countries had a more "historical" neutrality (of course, measuring something like that on a scale of 0-100 is pretty challenging) but that merely led into a situation where, more often than not, USA would join Allies in '39 or UK would DOW Germany in '38 or both. While this would be a nice bit of extra challenge for the player, it usually ruined the game if Germany was played by AI. Having American divisions in France in '39 or '40 usually meant that German AI couldn't conquer France and if you were playing as Hungary waiting for Barbarossa to happen, well, it would never happen. The only way they prevent that was to jack up the neutrality scores of both UK and USA to the max - other alternative was to hardcode their AI behaviour and no-one likes that.

Fair enough, but I think it'd make sense to change the whole scale rather than just upping the neutrality for the UK and the US. The way it is now, the US has the same neutrality as Switzerland, which makes no sense. I don't think, say, having Switzerland at 150% neutrality would break the game.

Yes, I did. I don't understand why you complain - you chose to play a grand-strategy game and then you chose to play a South-American minor. It is entirely appropriate that you have nothing to do most of the time. If Ecuador had stuff to do all the time, it would mean that playing a major would be impossible for humans - because they have much more going on. Nevertheless, playing as Germany from '36 to '39, if you wait for historical WW2, is pretty boring as well. The focus of the game is on warfare, thus if you're not waging war, it is bit boring - just like Doom became bit boring after you killed all monsters on a level.

That makes no sense. I'm not saying that I should be able to easily conquer all of South America or anything. I'll I'm saying is that there should be a faster setting for when you have to sit around and wait. I mean, you admit that even Germany is boring from '36 to '39 (and France was too), so why shouldn't there be a way to speed it up? Now, there might be a technical limitation, which I would understand. But saying, "you're not at war during that time so you should sit through a long period where nothing happens" doesn't make sense.

Well, first I thought you just didn't know how to manage threat and neutrality. I've never played as a South-American country so I thought that the war is possible to spark off if you work on it from the beginning of the campaign. You convinced me that it isn't, at which point I remembered that there was an event for that war in HoI2 and Vaarna said that such an event chain exists for HoI3 but it has been commented out. More event is always better, which is why I said it's a shame it hasn't been implemented.

You misunderstood, which is fine. But that's why I'm saying I'd prefer if you gave some reasons for things instead of saying "you just don't understand, but there's a good reason for this." Then we can see if our disagreement is based on another misunderstanding or my ignorance of the game. I freely admit that I'm not expert on HOI, it's my first Paradox game and I've only started to mess around with it, so I'm posting my impressions.

It's because so often people complaining about something in a complex game like HoI3 or when offering "simple" solutions, have never paused to think what sort of side-effects their suggestions could cause. Couple that with the large numbers of idiots who don't bother to read the manual or are unable to grasp the game mechanics who then whine loudly about the game, hence my frustration. I was a betatester for HoI2, so I got to see up close how difficult it is to get a feature working properly so it won't screw up one aspect of the game. Classic example is USSR - if you make AI USSR to be challenging for human Germany, you simultaneously make it impossible for AI Germany to have any chance against it, leading to a situation where AI USSR sits in Berlin by December 1941. People cry out. Make it so that AI Germany and AI USSR have a closely-run struggle that lasts for several years and human Germany reaches Moscow by December 1941. People whine.

Which is a good reason why the AI for the USSR shouldn't be increased. But what's the reason why Ecuador can't view Peru as a higher threat? Or that we can't have a better "disputed province" system?

Now I'm not trying to excuse Paradox, because I think they should drop the ability to play as any country in the world - it's been their gimmick since Day1 but it's largely a wasted feature, especially in a HoI game, since it's completely impossible to get the game working so that gameplay would be satisfactory, no matter which country play.

The thing is, playing as minors can be fun as the game stands now. Towards the end of my Ecuador campaign, Brazil, Argentina and I allied with the Axis while Colombia, Venezuela, Uruguay and Bolivia allied with the Allies. While the big boys were fighting, we had a rather fun little South American war. The problem is, as I said, without a higher speed you're just waiting around for too long for the first half of the game. Also, including regional rivalries and disputes would go a long way towards making minors more interesting. I don't see how that screws up the balance of the game, especially since you yourself admit that minors don't usually have much of an effect on the larger war effort.

 

[Raghar]

But could you enter into disputed territory like Metz without a declaration of war?

Of course not, otherwise comchi would be able to enter the rest of China and blockade its capital.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Hungary can still conquer all of Balkans relatively easily. Minors just can't keep up with the majors, which is acceptable in my book.

I would say the problem is that they're handicapped in many ways by leadership, as it constricts both the ability to expand and to function as more than a waste of space as a member of an alliance. I haven't checked the Hungarian leadership post-THF, but the FtM value of 4.something was downright ridiculous.

I still have to run the test on changing how Education tech works (change would be from % bonus to hard bonus, making it a lot more viable for countries without a mountain of leadership, issue is to balance is so that a single level of it amounts to somewhere around what Germany would get with regular % bonus per increase, which is usually between .5 and 1.0).

Incidentally, I thought about adding a trigger condition event to the various add-on stuff for Finland, where in case of Finland capturing Leningrad the event chain leading to separate peace is disabled.

Then you said it'd be impossible to apply arbitrary numbers for starting threat levels, even though Paradox has already applied arbitrary numbers for starting neutrality.

Well, first I thought you just didn't know how to manage threat and neutrality. I've never played as a South-American country so I thought that the war is possible to spark off if you work on it from the beginning of the campaign. You convinced me that it isn't, at which point I remembered that there was an event for that war in HoI2 and Vaarna said that such an event chain exists for HoI3 but it has been commented out. More event is always better, which is why I said it's a shame it hasn't been implemented. Of course I dislike arbitrary numbers because I would prefer everything to be as accurately historical as possible at the start of the campaign. However, playtesting has proven that unless the neutrality of certain countries are pumped unnaturally high, bad things happen. I wouldn't be too surprised if the war event is commented out for the same reason - perhaps USA gets involved due to having a GoI over every South-American country.

Well, it's fairly easy to reactivate the decision (the event chain is untouched, but the decision that launches it is disabled), since the disabling is done by adding "tag = USA" into the allow conditions list. All you need to do is add # to the start of the line with tag = USA and the decision is again available for Peru.

 

[Magnus Senex Hy]

Things wrong with HOI3 are the players
Why I said that?Because it's simply not possible for a game developer too listen to all the complains or suggestion from the players and implement them in the game.One would say go left another would say go right while the 3rd one would say back up I liked the original game design.
So maybe fewer naive? complaints because the game as all other games is not perfect but hey neither are you.