Matrix Games Forums

Ravenhood
I don't really understand your complaints about the time feature, first of all armies don't move with lightning speed, so its not that you lack time to react to threats, second of all you are free to pause the game if you feel like it for your relaxing game of strategy and tactics. Earlier you complained that pausing takes too much time in multiplayer, which is again is rather curious considering the time WiTP takes to play in multiplayer.
HoI2 gives you the opportunity to play with a fidelity down to hours if you so choose, but at the same time you are not forced to do 1 hour turns all the time, e.g. for the prewar era. Its just a "variable" turn length from my perspective. But I think we will simply have to say we disagree about it.
Claiming tradition on PBEM is fine, but at the same time most people that are playing games have grown up with online gaming. For them PBEM is just a curious relic of a bygone era. I would much prefer more LAN support on Matrix games allowing the players to execute simultaneous turns rather than being forced to use email.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
The difference I see is that HOI 1 and HOI 2 are in fact the same game, there's no small version vs large version in this instance. Whereas UV and WitP are in fact two quite different sizes.

Looks like hair splitting to me. There are a bunch of changed features in HOI/HOI2 and UV/WiTP but you think that size is the most important [&:]

Thus, they aren't the same games, and they don't have a 2 beside WitP, whereas with HOI 2 they do, so they are specifically stating that HOI 2 is just another rendition of HOI 1. Although really WitP is a newer rendtion of "Pacific War" in many ways.

So by adding the "2" to the name it renders the games the same?

These are really poor arguements Ravinhood, you're usually better than this [:-]

I also don't really see Paradox games as "wargames", they are era specific type games, but, I can't place a wargame on any of them, especially with this real time simulation they come with. No room for PBEM at all with this type of engine. And trying to play Multiplayer with their engine is next to impossible because of all the "pausing" really required at all different intervals by someone. They are strategy games at best. But, none of their products really comes close to being historically realistic or a wargame. Anytime anyone can take a minor like Brazil and crush the Axis, well that just speaks loudly that it's not an historically accurate wargame.

I agree with you there. I've never found any enjoyment in multiplayer. I use pause so much that I can't get to grips with the rushed feel of multiplayer. I know some people seem to love it, but it's not for me.

Releasing a new game without doing any graphical upgrading easily gives the feeling it is just a patched-up version of the same game. I was dissapointed of the demo of HoI2 partly because of this. C.O.R.E made HoI look soo much better, and I did expect some more of paradox. Alright, there are more important changes, but still.... Even the 'help'-codes are the same, even if the resource-system is new. I wonder if by design or accident...

JT

I'd have more respect for your opinion, ravinhood, if you had the itellectual honesty to add a disclaimer to your Amazon review of HOI2 to the effect that you haven't played the game.


Major changes to air and naval combat, technology, trade, and movement seems like enough to justify it's being a new game.

I've been wargaming since I first got D-Day in the early sixties and while, PBM was fun for its time, I enjoy the variable RTS with pauses in HOI1. Times change and some of us get younger as we get older.

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
I agree with you there. I've never found any enjoyment in multiplayer. I use pause so much that I can't get to grips with the rushed feel of multiplayer. I know some people seem to love it, but it's not for me.

The rush depends upon the speed setting, of course. Yesterday, I played a game of HoI and for much of the time the speed was slow/very slow. This seems like a crawl to some players who tend to play with faster speed settings but it's necessary to avoid the click-fest feel. So, it's mainly a matter of finding a group that like to play at a speed that compatible with your taste.

The problem with turn-based play is having to wait for someone who just will think all day about an issue. MoO3 tried to build in some incentive to finish early - a better interest rate I think but the game was too flawed in other respects to be sure. And that game felt it had to have real-time combat in order to handle multiple player play in a sensible time. That's the great thing about HoI - being able to play with not just one other player, but ten of them all at once.

Andrew

So by adding the "2" to the name it renders the games the same?

These are really poor arguements Ravinhood, you're usually better than this

When you buy novels or booklets with versions I - II - III etc. etc., they are most often based on the same subject matter, just a continuation of the story. I see no difference in games using 2's, 3's, IV's. They are just a continuation of the "same game" I already played with just new "chapters". I see HOI 2 as a continuing chapter of HOI 1, looks the same, same era, same basic gameplay, WWII operational. Show me the difference other than "mechanics"?

ORIGINAL: JallaTryne

...I was dissapointed of the demo of HoI2 ...
JT

Yeah, the "demo" is little more than a trailer. Research, production, and diplomacy which are some of the core features are all disabled. Makes one wonder why they even bothered making a demo that doesn't demonstrate the games main features.

Yeah, Paradox should be handing out the game for free [8|]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

Here is quite an extensive review by a player who has played a few games of HoI2 (and he's not too happy with the game):

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/sho ... p?t=180539

Yup, pretty good summary of what can be the problem for many former players of HoI1. AI, less place for going wildly ahistorical in R&D, new air strike rules (airforce can't be now used in so focused way as it was before), logistics... He also must be much better player then me if he ended Eastern Front campaign so quickly on V.Hard (although he didn't mention what happens when combat in low infra provinces starts...). [;)]

I would much prefer more LAN support on Matrix games allowing the players to execute simultaneous turns rather than being forced to use email

That's fair enough, we all have our "preferences" of course. Everyone will never be happy with any one game. But, of course I will crusade for what I think is best. When I'm dead and gone, well then it doesn't really matter.

As they move away from the old core the old core will disappear, same thing will happen to this core of gaming, when they move to a new core of gaming style, this very core will step into my shoes and talk about how todays (which will be yesterdays games to the new core) games are better than tomorrows games. It's just a trend of change.

I prefer Matrix style games, HPS style games, some Shrapnel style games and Shwerpunkt style games. I liked MTW, but, that was the only one of the series and I pretty much loathe all RTS games, except for Kohan and The Seven Kingdoms and Sacrifice. So, we just all have our preferences and would like to see ALL companies make the games "we individually" like of course.

With me though, I have no problem if Matrix makes games LAN playable as long as they hold onto the PBEM ability in all of them also. Variety of a way to play is great. Just as long as it doesn't turn into an RTS game.

ORIGINAL: Colonel Warden
The rush depends upon the speed setting, of course. Yesterday, I played a game of HoI and for much of the time the speed was slow/very slow. This seems like a crawl to some players who tend to play with faster speed settings but it's necessary to avoid the click-fest feel. So, it's mainly a matter of finding a group that like to play at a speed that compatible with your taste.

My solo taste is usually fast/very fast during the lulls, followed by very slow and pause to do anything so it always means adapting if playing MP. [:)]

The problem with turn-based play is having to wait for someone who just will think all day about an issue.

I agree, all forms of MP have their pros and cons, which is why I'm not sure I'll ever be getting into MP as a main way of playing any game. That and my schedule which might not leave me time for days, and then at odd hours.

MoO3 tried to build in some incentive to finish early - a better interest rate I think but the game was too flawed in other respects to be sure. And that game felt it had to have real-time combat in order to handle multiple player play in a sensible time. That's the great thing about HoI - being able to play with not just one other player, but ten of them all at once.

MOO3 might have been a great candidate for continous time turns given the macro nature of the game. Had it been built purely with macro in mind, and given players the tools to carry out their orders the scope and scale would have been quite interesting. Of course, MOO3 had about 10,000 other problems in need of fixing first [:)]

----------------

ORIGINAL Ravinhood When you buy novels or booklets with versions I - II - III etc. etc., they are most often based on the same subject matter, just a continuation of the story. I see no difference in games using 2's, 3's, IV's. They are just a continuation of the "same game" I already played with just new "chapters". I see HOI 2 as a continuing chapter of HOI 1, looks the same, same era, same basic gameplay, WWII operational. Show me the difference other than "mechanics"

If mechanics don't matter, then not only is HOI=HOI2, but Korsin Pocket=HOI=Battles In Normandy=Highway To The Reich=Axis And Allies. Subject matter's all the same, only different mechanics.

Are graphics really required to make things different? Aren't you one of the proponents of games without "fancy" graphics as they add nothing to the game?

-----------------

The Demo should IMHO have been a time controlled version of the main game. I also see little point in seeing a subsection of the game which demonstrates combat only.

If mechanics don't matter, then not only is HOI=HOI2, but Korsin Pocket=HOI=Battles In Normandy=Highway To The Reich=Axis And Allies. Subject matter's all the same, only different mechanics

No I certainly wasn't speaking about the graphics, the graphics of the two are quite simular as well, but, that does make it another proponent of being alike games.

Now, Korsun pocket is different in that it is a specific micro situation, increasing scale of a particular "area" of the WAR but not the WHOLE war at all, Korsun would be that handful of units in HOI1 or HOI2 at a specific area on the map at a specific time and the battle would be over in one turn, HOI1 and HOI2 are a specific global situation. Also HOI plays in real time while Korsun plays in turns. Big difference there. Highway to the Reich I still can't speak on, I still do not have that game or have had to chance to play it.

I guess in subject matter I should be more specific to say that HOI 1 & HOI 2 are the same subject matter of a grand operational strategic wargame of World War II. They both do the same thing in that respect. There's nothing "new" there, only the mechanics have changed and most of that is just a streamline affect, not, really greatly improving the overall scope of the game. In fact from what I've read they have "restricted" some of what was allowed in HOI by placing "penalties" for teching up too quickly. I'm already not fond of that feature. It's already a "whatif" type of game, might as well stick to that, it's just not going to ever reach historically accurate by a long shot.

If you set HOI 1 and HOI 2 down in front of a 13 year old, the first question you would probalby get....what's the difference? What would you tell him? Everything is "improved" from HOI 1 to HOI 2? Meaning by improved, they made the same game, but, improved it from the first one. Once again I don't see a reason to purchase an errata sheet for the same game at the retail price level.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Now, Korsun pocket is different in that it is a specific micro situation, increasing scale of a particular "area" of the WAR but not the WHOLE war at all, Korsun would be that handful of units in HOI1 or HOI2 at a specific area on the map at a specific time and the battle would be over in one turn, HOI1 and HOI2 are a specific global situation. Also HOI plays in real time while Korsun plays in turns. Big difference there. Highway to the Reich I still can't speak on, I still do not have that game or have had to chance to play it.

Scope is different, but the only other changes are in game mechanics. Turn and continous turn are mechanics, both require moving units around with the goal of defeating one's opponent. If we boil things down to this level, then tic-tac-toe and chess are the same as KP too [;)]

The point I was trying to illustrate, is that one may make the same arguement you've made and lump all these games together as they concern WW2 and have movable units. At some point, the rules and game mechanics must be used to seperate them.

In fact from what I've read they have "restricted" some of what was allowed in HOI by placing "penalties" for teching up too quickly. I'm already not fond of that feature. It's already a "whatif" type of game, might as well stick to that, it's just not going to ever reach historically accurate by a long shot.

I haven't played it so I can't really comment. I will say that the constant battle between gameplay-historic restriction-reality are three sometimes competing goals which lead to these decisions. That's where A3R and WiF will always IMHO be superior game systems, what's the point in spending resources to make many things what-if if another branch of gameplay forces one down a single path. Better, IMHO to simulate the war and reasonable deviants than to sim 22 years. One of the things which amazes me is fixed death dates for leaders. That might make good sense in EU, but a very strange decision for an open ended WW2 situation. I really wonder how that belongs in a game where Germany can declare war on Brazil [&:]

If you set HOI 1 and HOI 2 down in front of a 13 year old, the first question you would probalby get....what's the difference? What would you tell him? Everything is "improved" from HOI 1 to HOI 2? Meaning by improved, they made the same game, but, improved it from the first one. Once again I don't see a reason to purchase an errata sheet for the same game at the retail price level.

That's just another disguised "graphics are the same" arguement. You could tell him that the games are different, that air/naval is completely different, that tech has been changed, that combat has radically changed. Movement-is-attack is not only new, but appears to have imported a whole new series of issues: judging from some of the reaction to the demo.

Battles In Normandy and KP are similar games, basically different scenarios with a few added game mechanics. They are sufficiently close so that one needs to be a fan of the first, but sufficiently different to make it a mostly new experience. I'd say HOI1/HOI2 is in a similar position.

At some point, the rules and game mechanics must be used to seperate them.

Heh, what about all those sequels that only got a "graphics facelift" and hardly a mechanical change? I think Sid Meiers "Pirates" recently re-released is a good example of that. There were some basic mechanical changes, but, hardly enough to render this game much different from the origional, except for the graphics facelift. Was it worth another $40 to be able to "dance" with the govenors daughter? haha

What' I'm trying to illustrate is that HOI 2 has the same basic setup as HOI 1, it has the same goals, it pretty much has the same map with a few extra provinces added. The overall picture of the game remains the same, even if the mechanics have changed somewhat and are more streamlined. It's more of a "fix" than it is a brand new game to me.

What makes HOI more popular than Axis & Allies? Complexity? But, what makes it different from Axis & Allies as far as the overall scope of the game? Same question would go for "Strategic Command" vs those two. The same question will popup when Gary Grisgbys World at War comes out. The significant difference is in the preference and style of play gamers have and what challenge level they are looking for. I like short and quick games of challenge, you might like those that take days, weeks, and months. Others will like an inbetween the two. Then there is the complexity level, some like all levels of complexity, some only like very hard, some only like very easy. This is what separates them all from one another.

Some will buy all (4), some will only buy one style, some will mix and match.

Axis & Allies has a weak AI, HOI 1 has no less and really HOI 2 has not much more than the previous two. Does a 10% improvement in the AI warrant a repeat purchase of the same overall type of game upon "release"? Does being able to attack when move warrant a repeat purchase of the same overall type of game upon "release"? Are those really significant differences? If I can still swarm the map as Germany or Japan or Russia or the Allies, what significant difference is there to this game? That I can do it with a new interface? That I can do it on the move instead of waiting on the move? lol Hardly a reasonable effort to cause me to want to purchase this one until many months later.

The most fundamental aspect of any new game should be the "challenge" level of it, will it challenge me, or just waste my time again as games of the past? Is the challenge level significantly higher (and I do mean significantly higher)? or is it just a UI and graphics facelift and a more streamlined effort?

I grow bored of a game very quickly when I see I am going to be able to over-run the AI with ease, RTW left me feeling this way, but, MTW did not. Some say just the opposite of the two. But, my preferences are for the features and way of play of MTW vs RTW. There are so many features that are broken in RTW it's not even funny. People say "well don't use the features", lol, didn't I pay for those features? So, shouldn't I find challenge with or without those features? Why must I stifle my gameplay at the expense of not using the "features" of the game? How many features will be exploitable in HOI 2, I don't know I haven't found them all yet. But, I warrant to say there will be features that are exploitable by merely "using them as intended" and thus reduce the challenge level of it.

And btw, where's LES/HEXED GAMER? I would really enjoy reading his comments about the new release of HOI 2 as well. I'm sure he has some insightful information to share with us.

I'm kind of confused Ravinhood? You bought the game anyway?

Nope, surely didn't buy it, and nope, surely didn't pirate it either. So you figure out how I got to play it.

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
Axis & Allies has a weak AI, HOI 1 has no less and really HOI 2 has not much more than the previous two. Does a 10% improvement in the AI warrant a repeat purchase of the same overall type of game upon "release"?

How much of an AI improvement do you need to warrant a repeat purchase? 20%, 50%, 100%? How do you determine a weak AI? Acts "realistically"? Always beats you? Doesn't do stupid things? We after all talking about a game where you can have 10 or 20 AI allies fighting another set of AI countries.

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Yeah, Paradox should be handing out the game for free [8|]

Well that would be just great! [;)] But seriously, I have played many demos that are a lighyear better than this one. Disabelling all but the ground/air fighting is like presenting 40% of the game. They could of course have made the demo a full game limited in play-time to ie 1.jan 1939, or demo playable for 3 days or something. Worried of demo cracks etc? Ill bet the full game already is available as cracked downloads.

Like Ravinhood I was very sceptical about HoI2, and the demo did nothing to improve this. However, reading some posts here regarding the improved AI has made me change my mind. Ill get HoI2 sooner or later.


JT

And btw, where's LES/HEXED GAMER? I would really enjoy reading his comments about the new release of HOI 2 as well. I'm sure he has some insightful information to share with us.

He was suspended for a couple weeks for being his usual self... [:D]

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

And btw, where's LES/HEXED GAMER? I would really enjoy reading his comments about the new release of HOI 2 as well. I'm sure he has some insightful information to share with us.

He was suspended for a couple weeks for being his usual self... [:D]

As long as his comments do not involve attacks on people who like the game, then his opinions would be most welcome...