Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Here we go with the first complain thread:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=491261

ORIGINAL: bairdlander

Whatever you say Ravinhood

ORIGINAL: Widell

In HoI II and III the sliders lock if you right click them. Worth a try at least.....

ORIGINAL: Widell

Without going into the discussion about who's who on the forum, it seems as if PI has developed a beast of a game engine. The so called "complaint thread" (and not all posters in that thread seems to agree on anything!) talks about "unhistorical" and other strange behaviors. Also that it's too easy to "win" (whatever that means in these kind of games!) etc.

Now, keep in mind, I'm a HOI player and not a EU or Vicky player, but still..... To me it feels like PI got lost after HOI I and II. The engine is way to flexible and has so many moddable parameters it seems almost impossible to create grand scenarios which does not seem to deviate in very, very unhistorical ways. Now, I'm a friend of games that allow the player, aka me, to influence the game in a way that create a new, alternate history, specially with this type of epic, grand scale games, but when the whole engine/scenario design is so unpredictable, it feels like the possibilities in the software has taken over from the player and history is shaped by the randomness in the parameters rather than by the actions of the player.

This type of game would probably be better in a CIV-setting with random maps, as there is no need for historic settings in that context with the exception of technology and research, and I assume Vicky is as good as HOI in that respect.

My 2 cents. PI should maybe benefit from creating more historic games like the previous versions of HOI and maybe Vicky, and possibly develop a "random map/nations" game based on their current philosophy.

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

ORIGINAL: Widell

Without going into the discussion about who's who on the forum, it seems as if PI has developed a beast of a game engine. The so called "complaint thread" (and not all posters in that thread seems to agree on anything!) talks about "unhistorical" and other strange behaviors. Also that it's too easy to "win" (whatever that means in these kind of games!) etc.

Now, keep in mind, I'm a HOI player and not a EU or Vicky player, but still..... To me it feels like PI got lost after HOI I and II. The engine is way to flexible and has so many moddable parameters it seems almost impossible to create grand scenarios which does not seem to deviate in very, very unhistorical ways. Now, I'm a friend of games that allow the player, aka me, to influence the game in a way that create a new, alternate history, specially with this type of epic, grand scale games, but when the whole engine/scenario design is so unpredictable, it feels like the possibilities in the software has taken over from the player and history is shaped by the randomness in the parameters rather than by the actions of the player.

This type of game would probably be better in a CIV-setting with random maps, as there is no need for historic settings in that context with the exception of technology and research, and I assume Vicky is as good as HOI in that respect.

My 2 cents. PI should maybe benefit from creating more historic games like the previous versions of HOI and maybe Vicky, and possibly develop a "random map/nations" game based on their current philosophy.

If I wanted historical I would just read a history book...Ahistorical is not all that bad.Especially if it's in the realm of plausible ahistory. As long as stupid things like Bhutan declaring war on the Faroe Islands doesnt happen i'm okay with it..Nothing wrong with something akin to WW1 happening in 1901. Dont really see why some over there are so adamant about stuff like this being considered "bad"..

ORIGINAL: Widell

... Now, keep in mind, I'm a HOI player and not a EU or Vicky player, but still..... To me it feels like PI got lost after HOI I and II ...

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

What I think should be mandatory in a historical based game is the possibility that one can shape events to achieve more or less historical outcomes. Not the inevitability, but the possibility. It shouldn't be impossible to achieve ahistorical or historical outcomes. 

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm

What I think should be mandatory in a historical based game is the possibility that one can shape events to achieve more or less historical outcomes. Not the inevitability, but the possibility. It shouldn't be impossible to achieve ahistorical or historical outcomes. 

I agree completely. It is standard for me to attempt to play out a game in a completely historical fashion before going off on some non historical path. In my view, if a game cannot replicate the actual history when you are attempting to do so, it is not a historical game. It could be called a half complete model. Of course, if there is no claim to historical accuracy, then it does not matter how it plays out.