Review of HoI2 over at wargamers

[freeboy]

I'm cautiously optimistic with HOI II. If the wargamer review isn't accurate in it's glowing recommendation, then they will suffer in credibility. I would think that with a release this big they will have to be objective or suffer the consequences. As an aside, I find it an interesting contrast between Paradox and Matrix. The former sells their wargame for $40, comes in a DVD case, and includes a printed manual. Matrix, on the other hand, charges $60, CD comes in a paper sleeve, and no printed manual. I've always gritted my teeth when purchasing a Matrix game because of the cost and no manual, but when another company can come out with a game such as HOI II for much less the cost AND a manual, well.... it makes me look at Matrix with a less than favorable impression and even though I enjoy playing their games, I doubt I'll be making any purchases in the future. Probably my loss, but I'm voting with my pocketbook

economies of scale.. the HOI2 is a mass market game.. buy it everywhere and thus the differnt "value"

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

To get back somehwat on topic, I see Paradox will not allow any bugs to be posted in the HOI2 forums. People have to email them to Paradox instead. Apparently the previous bug forums for HOI, CK, and other games took up too much support time for Paradox. [8|]

If they are really doing that for that reason, how do individual emails about the same problems over and over get more efficient? Think robot.

[Warfare1]

Like the next wargamer, I hope all the next wargames are good, especially the larger, strategic types, like SC2, WaW, and HoI2.

However, getting back to the review of HoI2, I would have to say that it should be called "The Hearts of Iron 2 Light Review".

I am sure the reviewer is a very nice person, and this is no reflection on him. Heck, he probably loved everything he saw in the game.

My main concern is the fact that NO mention was made about how the AI played in the game. While the reviewer waxed poetic about the new slick interface, and that this would be the greatest WWII strategy game of all time, absolutely no mention was made about how the AI performed, to wit:

1) What country did he play?

2) How did the AI react to his moves?

3) How well did the AI do in strategic defence?

4) How well did the AI do a couple of years into the game? Was it falling apart?

5) Did the AI transport reinforcements to endangered territory?

6) Did the AI protect its capitals and other vital provinces?

7) What about ampibious landings? Were they good? in sufficient numbers?

8) Is the market economy stable and functioning as it should? How so?

9) Are carriers (and to a larger extent naval operations) worthwhile (especially in the Pacific?).

10) Did the AI build the proper military units and do research properly?

etc...

Again, absolutely nothing of any substance was really included in the review.

What are we to make of this fact?

[RBWhite]

If we/you/me are the devout Wargamers that we all profess to be, than sooner or later were going to buy HOI II, or any other wargame we hate or think bites, why, because we have to.

We have all been burnt a time or two purchasing a game, that wasn't what it was suppose too be or we just didn't like.

As the old saying goes, Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me.

I really hope Paradox is not that foolish.

[rhondabrwn]

Again, absolutely nothing of any substance was really included in the review.

What are we to make of this fact?

That it should have been titled: "First Impressions" and not billed as a "review" of the game.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Again, absolutely nothing of any substance was really included in the review.

What are we to make of this fact?

That it should have been titled: "First Impressions" and not billed as a "review" of the game.

I fully agree.

The true test of the AI will be when the player gets a couple years into the full campaign.

I'll be sitting back and watching what other players have to say...

It may take a couple of weeks of playing to get a full view of what the game is like...

[CatLord]

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

My main concern is the fact that NO mention was made about how the AI played in the game. While the reviewer waxed poetic about the new slick interface, and that this would be the greatest WWII strategy game of all time, absolutely no mention was made about how the AI performed, to wit:

1) What country did he play?

2) How did the AI react to his moves?

3) How well did the AI do in strategic defence?

4) How well did the AI do a couple of years into the game? Was it falling apart?

5) Did the AI transport reinforcements to endangered territory?

6) Did the AI protect its capitals and other vital provinces?

7) What about ampibious landings? Were they good? in sufficient numbers?

8) Is the market economy stable and functioning as it should? How so?

9) Are carriers (and to a larger extent naval operations) worthwhile (especially in the Pacific?).

10) Did the AI build the proper military units and do research properly?

etc...

Again, absolutely nothing of any substance was really included in the review.

What are we to make of this fact?

Have we read the same review ?

"Toughen AI

With all the new elements combined Hearts of Iron 2 really does feel like a grand strategy game. I could sit here and wax lyrical for hours about my experiences of the Great Patriotic War as the Soviet Union, my grand defence of Finland in the Winter War, and of great flanking manoeuvres, encirclements, and Blitzkriegs.

The opposition in the form of the AI has also been polished. The original AI often times acted stupidly as it controlled nations. Now, while it does feel somewhat like the AI takes a defensive mindset when it comes to the conduct of war, players who crank up the difficulty level a bit can kiss their Panzers goodbye. The AI is not opportunist, nor lethargic, but rather it feels as close to a real opponent as one can get."

So at least he has played Soviet Union...

Anyway, I am not sure I judge a game on its AI, mainly (apart if it is really appaling)... I cannot say that the SPWaW, UV or WiTP AI are top notch to be honest (poorly protected convoys near the front line, anyone ?)...

As long as the AI is decent enough to help me learn the game and enjoy it, I am happy. I know that any AI will be beaten by a human player sooner than later (apart if the AI is cheating like mad as in Civ III, or if the game is grossly unbalance)... That's why there is multiplayer and/or PBEM features in games...

Cat

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: CatLord

ORIGINAL: Warfare1

My main concern is the fact that NO mention was made about how the AI played in the game. While the reviewer waxed poetic about the new slick interface, and that this would be the greatest WWII strategy game of all time, absolutely no mention was made about how the AI performed, to wit:

1) What country did he play?

2) How did the AI react to his moves?

3) How well did the AI do in strategic defence?

4) How well did the AI do a couple of years into the game? Was it falling apart?

5) Did the AI transport reinforcements to endangered territory?

6) Did the AI protect its capitals and other vital provinces?

7) What about ampibious landings? Were they good? in sufficient numbers?

8) Is the market economy stable and functioning as it should? How so?

9) Are carriers (and to a larger extent naval operations) worthwhile (especially in the Pacific?).

10) Did the AI build the proper military units and do research properly?

etc...

Again, absolutely nothing of any substance was really included in the review.

What are we to make of this fact?

Have we read the same review ?

"Toughen AI

With all the new elements combined Hearts of Iron 2 really does feel like a grand strategy game. I could sit here and wax lyrical for hours about my experiences of the Great Patriotic War as the Soviet Union, my grand defence of Finland in the Winter War, and of great flanking manoeuvres, encirclements, and Blitzkriegs.

The opposition in the form of the AI has also been polished. The original AI often times acted stupidly as it controlled nations. Now, while it does feel somewhat like the AI takes a defensive mindset when it comes to the conduct of war, players who crank up the difficulty level a bit can kiss their Panzers goodbye. The AI is not opportunist, nor lethargic, but rather it feels as close to a real opponent as one can get."

So at least he has played Soviet Union...

Anyway, I am not sure I judge a game on its AI, mainly (apart if it is really appaling)... I cannot say that the SPWaW, UV or WiTP AI are top notch to be honest (poorly protected convoys near the front line, anyone ?)...

As long as the AI is decent enough to help me learn the game and enjoy it, I am happy. I know that any AI will be beaten by a human player sooner than later (apart if the AI is cheating like mad as in Civ III, or if the game is grossly unbalance)... That's why there is multiplayer and/or PBEM features in games...

Cat

Hi

Well, I stand by what I said.

When the reviewer played the Soviet Union, was it in the long campaign? Or was it in a scenario?

The AI can be made tougher in a scenario (with design restrictions). Heck even the original HoI had decent playability in the 1944 scenario.

But the REAL test will be how the AI performs in the long campaign, since this will be what the majority of people will be playing.

The reviewer talked about HIS experiences:

my experiences of the Great Patriotic War as the Soviet Union, my grand defence of Finland in the Winter War, and of great flanking manoeuvres, encirclements, and Blitzkriegs.

and NOT how the AI performed. His statements were all general statements about the AI which mean nothing....

Did the AI carry out flanking manoeuvres, encirclements, and Blitzkriegs?

Where are the specifics?

What tactics did the AI use?

Did it build military units correctly?

Did it research properly?

The fact that you say that you don't judge a game on its AI goes a long way in explaining why the reviewer did not go into specifics about the AI.

After all, who cares about the AI in a WWII strategy game... *rolls eyes*

Before I buy a game I want to know how well the AI is going to do, especially when the game comes from a company with a terrible game release history such as Paradox. And I want to know specifics.

The fact that this "preview" was general in its nature, and not specific about game and AI content, means that I, as a consumer, will wait until the game is being played by people who will know if the game and AI are any good.

I do not intend to be a paying beta tester...

[Warfare1]

CatLord:

I note that you are a moderator on the Paradox forums. So I can understand your defence of their games.

And yes, I own and play EU2 (which I think is Paradox's best game).

Were you also a HoI2 beta tester?

The fact that you defend HoI2 as well as NOT care about the AI in the game, does raise red flags for me...

[Hanal]

Well there can be no denying by anyone that all of us who bought HOI was in fact a "paying beta tester" which is why, as I said earlier, I will not even consider purchasing HOI2 until it is out for about two months, at least......

[EnPeaSea]

The IGN review is up. It is an interesting read.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/577/577912p1.html

The reviewer gave it an 8.7 out of 10.

[ravinhood]

"At $10 billion, the game industry has already overtaken Hollywood and a new report shows game revenues could surpass sales of music within the next five years"

http://keathmilligan.net/view.php?id=448

This is another reason I now expect "quality and performance" to the maximum in computer games now. They are making billions and selling us crap out of the box 99% of the time. It's time we speak with our pocket books and put a stop to this policy.

We don't get movies that aren't complete out of the dvd case. And we don't get songs that aren't complete either. So, it's time the gaming industry did the same, FINISH the product before releasing it.


"This need to pause the game again and again, particularly as your armies grow in size, makes it unwieldy for multiplayer. When the hours pass in seconds, you'll find yourself taking weeks of game time just to plan a simple attack. "

The above from the IGN review, uh huh, see there we have it, it's not multiplayer friendly, because of a need to pause because of armies growing in size and taking weeks of game time just to plan a simple attack. Well, now, the first "negative" about the game comes to light and it's a BIG negative for many of us are multiplayers. I knew that real time crap wasn't going to work. Now multiplayers will have to find niche groups willing to allow "frequent" pauses to be able to setup attacks and defenses and other things. This will just cause a decrease in the amount of players to play against.


"Multiplayer doesn't easily fit with the game's mechanic." from IGN reviewer last page

It appears the very last page, page 3 speaks out the most about this version. While an improvement to the reviewer, it still has qualities missing (perhaps seen in the next version HOI 3? lol another $40 please lol)

As I suspected, they just "streamlined" a lot of things from the origional, that's what "polish" is, thus I stick by my statement this is just HOI patch 1.07, what HOI should have been, but, wasn't, but, they need more money so $40 please! lol

[pasternakski]

I wouldn't have a Paradox game stuck up my @$$ sideways even if it felt good.

So go advertise them somewhere else.

[Pippin]

LOL!!!!!

It is 4:04 am here, I am browing this thread and just so LMFAO!!

[Koper]

"This need to pause the game again and again, particularly as your armies grow in size, makes it unwieldy for multiplayer. When the hours pass in seconds, you'll find yourself taking weeks of game time just to plan a simple attack. "

The above from the IGN review, uh huh, see there we have it, it's not multiplayer friendly, because of a need to pause because of armies growing in size and taking weeks of game time just to plan a simple attack. Well, now, the first "negative" about the game comes to light and it's a BIG negative for many of us are multiplayers. I knew that real time crap wasn't going to work. Now multiplayers will have to find niche groups willing to allow "frequent" pauses to be able to setup attacks and defenses and other things. This will just cause a decrease in the amount of players to play against.


"Multiplayer doesn't easily fit with the game's mechanic." from IGN reviewer last page

Sigh... What about shared country control, which is not even mentioned by reviewer? Apparently, he never checked it... It's not so hard to play USSR, when your friend takes half of units (for example north of Pripet marshes) and you take the rest? Or USA - where one player controls Pacific and other - Europe?

Sorry Ravinhood, but this reviewer totally missed the point of changes in MP game of HoI2. I suspect he just started MP session as Germany in 1941 Grand Campaign, played a bit, then wrote what he saw. Sure, that's his job. But it not tells everything about the game...

[MrFag]

Kinda funny seeing the same Matrix buttcrawlers trying to put down other companies archievments.

If I remember correctly, Matrix tried to cheat me out of my money by using false conversion rates, didnt show taxes until after I actually bought the game (oh sorry, youre game doesnt cost you 64,99$, it will be 76Euros- sorry HAHAHA).

Then I got a total unplayable piece of junk, which you whimps call a "great game"- really funny. The AI sucks, the gameplay sucks, its still full of bugs and 1.4 will be the last patch. Multiplayer takes ages, nearly as long as the second world war, and you dismiss other games because they take too long to play MP???

Major LOL.

And then it seems to be forbidden to talk about other companies games in the GENERAL forum.

While I agree that many Paradox games nearly unplayable buggy (I own HOI and CK), I really prefer they acceptable prices and modding support over rip offs from Matrix. I am glad I have managed to get rid of WITP, this must be one of the worst wargames I have ever played- its a single bug with a horrible arrogant community like Mr. Frag and the likes.

Oh BTW- I was a Gary Grigsby fan for over 15 years and own many classics as Kampfgruppe or Second Front of him. So dont come me with Paradox fanboy or similear BS.

[Hartford688]

Why are you here? Other than offensive comments about other members, general whine and anti homosexual joke name?

Go to another forum you like if you hate it here.

[Koper]

This thread is degradating in fast rate... Maybe it would be better to close it for a while, until some people chill out? [8|]

[RBWhite]

The moon must be really full where lives.

I agree Koper, but it hasn't been that bad, until Mrfag.

I've seen alot worse im my short time. May have been locked up once or twice myself.

It only takes one bad attitude.

Rick White

[Koper]

Sure, pasternakski comment, on the other hand, was very good. [:D] [;)]