Matrix Games Forums

I've never quite understood why so many people dislike the real time nature of HoI. After all, you can pause anytime and, at it's slowest setting, 1 hour takes about 5 seconds giving you plenty of time to think things through.

Pause is not the same as doing your turn when you feel like it and emailing it off. It's not so much a like vs a dislike, it's a time commitment that requires all players to be available at the same time.

Picture playing a game of HoI 2 where you are in England (GMT+0), and you are playing someone in Boston (GMT-5), LA (GMT-8) and Oz (GMT+10) ... as you can imagine, the real time nature becomes rather difficult at that point in time.

It also adds the requirement for good networking for all parties involved.

From the save size (half a meg), GGWaW is well within the means of people even with very slow network connections and poor email services.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I've never quite understood why so many people dislike the real time nature of HoI. After all, you can pause anytime and, at it's slowest setting, 1 hour takes about 5 seconds giving you plenty of time to think things through.

Pause is not the same as doing your turn when you feel like it and emailing it off. It's not so much a like vs a dislike, it's a time commitment that requires all players to be available at the same time.

Picture playing a game of HoI 2 where you are in England (GMT+0), and you are playing someone in Boston (GMT-5), LA (GMT-8) and Oz (GMT+10) ... as you can imagine, the real time nature becomes rather difficult at that point in time.

It also adds the requirement for good networking for all parties involved.

From the save size (half a meg), GGWaW is well within the means of people even with very slow network connections and poor email services.

Now if only a fast net connection could help me spot when I leave key territories wide-open.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I've never quite understood why so many people dislike the real time nature of HoI. After all, you can pause anytime and, at it's slowest setting, 1 hour takes about 5 seconds giving you plenty of time to think things through.

Pause is not the same as doing your turn when you feel like it and emailing it off. It's not so much a like vs a dislike, it's a time commitment that requires all players to be available at the same time.

Picture playing a game of HoI 2 where you are in England (GMT+0), and you are playing someone in Boston (GMT-5), LA (GMT-8) and Oz (GMT+10) ... as you can imagine, the real time nature becomes rather difficult at that point in time.

It also adds the requirement for good networking for all parties involved.

From the save size (half a meg), GGWaW is well within the means of people even with very slow network connections and poor email services.

I agree. My issue with HOI2 is that the real time nature does not lend itself to MP for the reasons you cited. Couple that with an extremely weak AI and you are left with a very complex and sophisticated WWII simulation with no good oponent. Its like a great car with no gas.

I like the game but once you get the game mechanics down, its easy to crush the AI. As an example, when playing Germany, you often can destroy the entire fleet of the UK. But when playing the UK, you can completely wipe out the German, Italian and a big chunk of the Jap navy and be left along with the US with complete control of the ocean.

If you think about the number of decisions PER SECOND that the AI in HOI2 has to make for the 150 countries that you aren't playing, its amazing it can put up any kind of fight at all! And it has to do all this while simultaneously resolving battles, moving units, tracking supply, etc. Its really an incredible achievement in programming.

A turn based game like GGWAW on the other hand makes it much more plausible that a competent AI can be made. Add to that the fact that you can actually do PBEM what you end up with is a simpler game but with challenging oponents.

HOI2 is fun to play around with but I quickly got tired of it.

GGWAW sounds like the type of game you will play for a long, long time discovering more and more subtle levels to the strategy. Kind of like chess.

Mr.Frag.. I see your point. For MP I can see the advantage. I don't play MP/PBEM so that didn't occur to me.

mavraam.. I agree and disagree. I think, at it's heart, the HOI AI is quite good. It just needs to be 'taught' better through the AI files. I think it's tactically quite good, but not so great strategically.

It is easy to beat the AI if you play a certain way. I've read many a post on the Paradox forums about 20-30 stacks of uboats killing the RN. This, I think, is because the AI doesn't create totally unrealistic stacks of naval units. If the player does it all goes to pot.

If the player sticks to historically realistic TF's I doubt they could get the same results. There are players who are quite happy building nothing but CV's and DD's. Great for them, but I'm not interested in playing this way and as a result I may have a better challenge against the AI. Actually I think WitP suffers from this to an extent as well, with huge CV 'deathstar' TF's seemly the norm.

It is easy to beat the AI if you play a certain way.

It's easy to beat any AI if you play a certain way, except X-Coms AI, lol, there just is no certain way to play against that monster.

But, at any rate that is why PBEM is sooooooo important, because of "time frames" you can get a whole lot more opponents than you can in games like Paradox makes. Real time games require real time players and that just reduces the population of gamers overall instead of increasing them like PBEM games do.

I look forward to many PBEM games of GGWAW, I think some tournaments should be setup from the start and Matrixgames gives away some T-Shirts and/or Mugs! No beta testers allowed in the first tournament though. And it should start within a few days of release so everyone will be new to the game. (excluding beta testers of course).

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

...No beta testers allowed in the first tournament though...

Chicken! [:D]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
No beta testers allowed in the first tournament though.

Wimp.

[:D]

No beta testers allowed in the first tournament though.

GirlyMan!! [:D]

Where's your spine???? [:D]

Mr.Frag.. I see your point. For MP I can see the advantage. I don't play MP/PBEM so that didn't occur to me.

I guess one of the other advantages is the ability to play multiple games at the same time. No matter how good you are, you'll not be seeing that type of support in a real time game. [:D]

Nothing inherently wrong with live type games, they just require a different level of time and technology commitment. HTTR is a fantasic example of a real time game.

With GGWaW it sounds like you will be playing multiple games all at the same time against multiple teams of people. Certainly fills up them hours on the clock and by looking for folks outside your time zones, you can be sleeping while they do their orders.

HTTR is probably my favourite land based wargame at the moment. I love the command structure! [:)]

I can't wait for Conquest of the Aegean although I wish they'd take the scale down to squad level. Using that system to order squads through orchards, into farmhouses, etc, while a Tiger tank rolled down the road would be soooooo good [:D]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
No beta testers allowed in the first tournament though

Big woose!

FOr tournament play, I think the inevitable arguments over play balance between sides will be able to be solved with a "bidding" system based on either combat die modifiers, and/or "bonus supply" in the set up. Akin to the old Russian campaign bidding system to decide who would Germany absed on how many victory points they were willing to "bid".

Having each player 'bid" the supply bonus they would give for each side - low bidder for a side plays that side. If a side requires a 'negative' supply bid, see who is willing to take a -1 DRM or how many opponets they are willing to give up to opponets. This would resolve ties between "zero" bidders.

This should not be taken as some sort of 'the game is unbalanced' revelation - i happen to think its superbly balanced - but as strategy matures, the relative streghths of the sides get debated. This gives a way for proponets one way or another to put their logistics where their mouth is [:D]

(and handicap for playtesters) [8D]

Dredd I'm sure will take on noobs with a -2 German DRM and spotting them all 40 free supply and a +1 [:'(]

@Veb -

Does the game support that sort of thing? Can you change supply settings for a side and set DRMs?

If so, that's pretty cool!

Does the game support that sort of thing? Can you change supply settings for a side and set DRMs?

Yes. It allows you to set those values for each individual side ( i.e. WA, Russia, China, Germany, Japan ).

That is why, despite popular belief, playing China can be interesting and fun both using the default settings( a challenge no doubt) and by tweaking the preferences a bit...while one will want to play a game with a historical balance and feel, do not be shy about playing some of your games with "unbalanced tweaks".....the point is to have fun and experiment with the different options and preferences once you have played the default difficulty settings awhile.....and playing China makes for a very fast game, a good campaign to knock off during a "lull" at work!.......[:)]

And if you play China v the AI, I recommend you always have Fog of War on, as that gives you that isolated feeling that the Chinese experienced in relation to the rest of the world!