Another HOI?

[Muzrub]

Is this going to be like HOI Hearts of Iron?

( Personally I hope not )

I dont mind the theory behind HOI but it suffers from many problems....Which have never been resolved in my view.

So what exactly will be the differences. I know it will be a quality product considering the makers.
But how much detail will it go into, politcal, treaties, trade, or is it mainly focused on the military side of things?
If its a indepth mix of both I would surely be happy.

One more is it region based? like HOI?

Thanks

[TheBigCheese]

I love HOI now that the patches are starting to make it playable [:D]

hope this game will be an vast improvement on that game

[ASHBERY76]

I would prefer a hex based map rather than the province system.

[Hanal]

my mistake...wrong forum

[Reichenberg]

I had quite some fun with the patched version of HoI (after 1.03 it was more or less playable for me). But Ashbery76 is right with his hex comment. The provincal system was somehow odd in HoI - especially when you think of the naval battles and movements.

Another thing that I did not like so much about it was the 'linear' tech tree. Ok, it branched and you had tons of possibilities, so speaking of linear is a little bit unfair. There was some kind of random factor missing. You knew exactly after what time you would get what tech. This way you could plan it by 1936 for having e.g. adv. med. tanks in 1939 in sufficent numbers to wage war. That is my complaint about linearitiy.

Uwe

[Frank W.]

mhhh ?

a grand strategy game ?

this is such a huge project it
will take 2 years or so to proper
develop i fear.

also some things from HOI could be
overtaken, but probably a hex-turn
based game would be better than
province-real time like HOI.

also we need a much better UI and AI
than HOI.

[madflava13]

What we need is a game with HOI's scope that turns out absolutely nothing like HOI... But I've expressed my feelings regarding HOI elsewhere so I'll save it... [:@]

[pasternakski]

I, too, hope that this game is nothing like HOI.

That being said, I suggest that we are still in the dark about what this game is going to be, other than that it is strategic WWII, it is to be easy to learn and play, and some staff comments vaguely invoke A&A for whatever reason.

I would like to know more about what the designers have in mind before commenting at length. I'll throw this in, though. I used to really enjoy playing Clash of Steel (the "future edition," which fixed most of what was wrong with the original), which was a corps level, hex-based simulation of the European theater. The naval part was crap, but the depiction of land combat and political considerations was great.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Frank W.

mhhh ?

a grand strategy game ?

this is such a huge project it
will take 2 years or so to proper
develop i fear.

also some things from HOI could be
overtaken, but probably a hex-turn
based game would be better than
province-real time like HOI.

also we need a much better UI and AI
than HOI.

The website would have been ready by now if it wasn't for the hacker, but it should be up within a few days so you'll get some answers soon. At the risk of jumping the gun let me tell you a few things. First off this is turn based, not continuous like HOI. Second it is area based, with over 350 areas, not hex based like Clash of Steel/etc. The best way I can describe it by using an existing game would be to say to combine Axis & Allies Europe and Axis & Allies Pacific, fill in the rest of the world, add depth and detail to the units so they have more attributes and that these attributes can be changed via research. A bit more complexity is added in terms of production, strategic movement, supplies (especially with the "advanced" supply rules on) and rules for many things that were never covered in A&A (partisans being an example). In addition, we hope the AI will be light years ahead of the AI in the computer version of A&A, and in fact we believe our current AI is already much stronger than the AI in A&A.

As for the 2 years to do, you're not far off, but the good news is that we've already spent 18 months on this project. We had a working game with basic AI back in December 2002 which Keith and I were able to play 2 player. It had lousy art and weak interface, but 95% of the game rules were functioning. The past year has been spent improving AI, improving art, and improving interface, with only minor changes in the basic game rules. We still have work to do to get the art finished and the interface to the place we want to end up, but we're hoping to be beta sometime in the next 2-4 months. We are committed to trying to get War in the Pacific to beta next month and get it out by early summer, so there will be some give and take between the two games, but we are much further along on GGWaW than you think.

Now I've seen HOI, but I've never played it (intentionally as I don't want people to think we are trying to be like HOI. So I can't really comment on how similar these games will be, but from what I know these games will be quite different. This game is not a complex mother of all WWII stratgeic games. In fact this game is the antithesis of War in the Pacific. Maybe that's why we've had so much fun working on both games at the same time. Monster game guys do not apply. But if you are someone that wants to play a very challenging game that covers all of WWII, and want to finish in a reasonable amount of time (one long day perhaps), this game is for you. In my play against Keith I found the variety and complexity that the research rules added to the game made it a game with a lot of replayability. We're shooting for this to be a real PBEM classic. Time will tell.

Joel

[pasternakski]

Thank you for the information, Joel. It is much appreciated.

I may not, at this point, be a customer for this game, but I will try to be. I see Matrix games like I see pizzas. When they're good, they're great. When they're bad, well, they're still pretty good (yeah, I know a lot of you perverts use this saying in connection with sex instead of pizza, but I'm trying to take the high road, okay?).

[Frank W.]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
Now I've seen HOI, but I've never played it (intentionally as I don't want people to think we are trying to be like HOI. So I can't really comment on how similar these games will be, but from what I know these games will be quite different. This game is not a complex mother of all WWII stratgeic games. In fact this game is the antithesis of War in the Pacific. Maybe that's why we've had so much fun working on both games at the same time. Monster game guys do not apply. But if you are someone that wants to play a very challenging game that covers all of WWII, and want to finish in a reasonable amount of time (one long day perhaps), this game is for you. In my play against Keith I found the variety and complexity that the research rules added to the game made it a game with a lot of replayability. We're shooting for this to be a real PBEM classic. Time will tell.
Joel

you guys are really great ![:D]

but don´t get me wrong - i don´t find HoI THAT
bad as many in this forum say. it could be a good
game, but has too many flaws still. i will wait until
the 1.06 patch comes out and then look for one of the
AI mods made some guys from the paradox forums. i still
hope for a enjoyable, playable game. i like the detail
level of the game and some ideas.

perhaps you should try to play it and give some comments ?
i´m quite shure you will be annoyed by some of the "features"
but still some good ideas in there.

also you can take a look at this thread where many very good
player ideas are written:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/sho ... p?t=102862

i must also admit, that i didn´t like axis + allies very much -
not complex enough for me. also strategic command i found not
so good - judging from playing the demo at least.

by the way: still one of my fave SSI games is red lighting,
exists there a pc version which could be played on win98 ?

thanx and keep up the good work.

greetings also to gary grigsby from me [:)]

[Rocco]

Sounds good. I am dying to buy WITP and I think this game will be the perfect get away while I am awaiting my next turn for WITP. God knows our brains are going to need a little cooling down. Hope to see a website up soon with more information.

Rocco

[Uxbridge]

Really looking forward to this game. Considering the developers behind it, maybe it can be the first WWII computer grand strategy game that is actually playable. Hoping, hoping, hoping ...

One thing makes me nervous, though, and that is this sentence: "In my play against Keith I found the variety and complexity that the research rules added to the game made it a game with a lot of replayability."

Please, God. Not another Age of Empires research game, making American troops fighting better than the Germans and flying submarines conquering the Soviet union. Can't understand why they ever incorporated that in the HOI. The only thing they added was a factor that destroyed any faint resemblance of the real WWII that happened to be there to begin with. And that wasn't much either.

And while I am at prayer anyway, might one not gracefully add one small wish that the real basis behind all WWII strategies could be in the game: oil, oil, more oil, iron and industrial capacity. [&o]

Understand me right, guys, I'm not complaining about a game that I haven't even seen yet. My only humble wish here is to express a small bit of hatred to HOI; a game that promised so much, but let you down so completely.

[norsemanjs]

HOI has some potential. But I personally prefer turn based games.

The research trees are pretty fascinating and it is always so difficult to decide on what you want to research. I'm like a kid in a candy store I want everything.

It sounds like this will be a much simpler and quicker game with monthly, biweekly(I hope) or quarterly turns. With Corps level units for land and TF level naval units.

I would like something like Computer War in Europe with an AI but I guess that we will have to look to WiF for that kind of detail.

I have a great deal of confidence in this group of developers, I'm certain that it will be a fun game.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

And while I am at prayer anyway, might one not gracefully add one small wish that the real basis behind all WWII strategies could be in the game: oil, oil, more oil, iron and industrial capacity. [&o]

No flying subs in our game.

As for production, we deal with factories (industry), resources (oil is a big part of this) and manpower. It takes these three items to create units (including supplies), repair damaged units, and research (manpower not needed on research). As an example, Japan starts with 21 industry points per turn, but only about a dozen resources, so they need to capture resources. Some of their resources come from trade with neutral countries, some comes from occupied China, and some comes from the United States. There are some things that Japan can do to capture more resources without going to war with the Western Allies, however they may end up losing the resources that the US provides them. In any event until the Japanese can capture the resources in the areas they took in late 41/eary 42 (and until they spend supplies to repair the damaged facilities that they capture), they will find themselves falling far short of their theoretical maximum production.

Also, by having the need to build supplies instead of just building military units, along with special use of supplies (fuel) by armored units and large warships, we have dealt with the items you've mentioned. We've kept it simple, but the factors are all there.

[pad152]

I working version of HOI , turn based with a better AI, more, reallistic supply rules would be welcomed, minus the leader management. Once nice feature of HOI is you can play any country not just the big six (US, Ger, Russia, Brittian, Japan, Italy) .

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: pad152

I working version of HOI , turn based with a better AI, more, reallistic supply rules would be welcomed, minus the leader management. Once nice feature of HOI is you can play any country not just the big six (US, Ger, Russia, Brittian, Japan, Italy) .

Please, let's not have another game where Bolivia can conquer the world! [8|]

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: pad152

I working version of HOI , turn based with a better AI, more, reallistic supply rules would be welcomed, minus the leader management. Once nice feature of HOI is you can play any country not just the big six (US, Ger, Russia, Brittian, Japan, Italy) .

Please, let's not have another game where Bolivia can conquer the world! [8|]

No, in our game the 5 players are Germany, Japan, Soviet Union, Western Allies, China. We handle 38 countries, so some players have more than 1 country (Germany and the Western Allies have several as part of their coalition). The individual countries can be currently at war or at peace, but they are controlled by the appropriate player, so the US can be at peace, only able to move supplies to support the other Allied players (Lend Lease), while England and the Commonwealth are at war and actively in the fight.

[ASHBERY76]

So germany would have complete control over italy?.Somewhat unrealistic i would add.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

So germany would have complete control over italy?.Somewhat unrealistic i would add.

Yes, and if that really bothers you I've got 100 more you won't like as well. [:)] We said we're keeping this simple. It will be more realistic than A&A by a mile (IMHO) in what is possible, but it will not be near the level of complexity of a hex grid wargame that AH or SPI would have put out.