Maximilian I
02.07.02, 19:59
by "von Murrin":
I thought it might be a good idea to collect everything that Johan and co. has said about the game and put it into one thread. Maybe this way we can get a feel for how this game is developing...
If you find anything not listed here, please append. (That goes for future posts, too.)
Johan:
On combat resolution:
"It's a realtime game... No such thing as something resolved first..)
Personally when I test the game-mechanics I prefer to coordinate my tactical bombings to start a few hours before I smash in with the panzer"
On very small minors:
"Well, Vatican and Liechtenstein will not be in the game."
On overall design:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clemens August
I want the big picture, faithfully representing naval and land warfare which is already more than difficult on its own. It should be World in Flames without a good deal of the details. Days of Decision should be the model for the diplomatic part. If that realism can be married to an accessible system, then this will be a real winner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good description of the vision I have for the game."
On the game engine:
"Lot of parts of the engine have been completely removed, like colonisation, religion, trade, etc..
The core was kept, (ie the system/architecture), and the core of the province and country management, as well as the AI and Eventsystem.
Units, Combat and Diplomacy have been rewritten so much that not much of the original is still around.
Technology Research, Production & Convoys, Alignment for example, have been rewritten completely from scratch.
Yes, its a game based on the EU2 engine, as its realtime and uses provinces and you play a nation.
Yes, its a LOT of changes, and your EU2 knowledge on how things work in the game may not be relevant to HoI."
On historicity:
"If you want alternative history make your own scenario.
If you want plausible alternative history, where Poland caves in to German demands and gives up Danzig, and there might not be a molotov/ribbentrop, or where England and France don't allow a split of Czech Republic.. Then start in 1936.
If you want to play a WW2 that's historical, start in 1939, but don't bet your life savings that everything will always turn out the same way as it happened in RL.
Of course there should be no absurtities, as Canada declaring war on USA or Germany allying with France."
On gamespeeds:
"Well, thats the slowest gamespeed.. Last time I checked our engine supported changing gamespeeds."
On gamestart date:
"Because 1936 is really the date when Germany becomes active."
Doomdark:
On events and Eurocentricity (don't ask, go find the thread):
"It is kind of disappointing to read comments like this. The EU games were supposed to be Eurocentric (especially EU I); hence the name Europa Universalis. They depict the age when Europe rose to become the dominant region of the planet.
Hearts of Iron might as well be set in another world. WW2 was a global struggle between ideologies, with a whole new set of players (well, except for England perhaps).
I don't understand all this talk about Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada etc being major powers in 1936. They weren't. In Europe, Spain, Sweden and Turkey were indeed potentially capable of a certain military clout, but that is not the reason they were important; they had importance simply due to their geographical locations, and in the case of Sweden, natural resources. This is not to say that all minors will be uninteresting to play - some of them can field a few good divisions - but they are destined to play secondary roles in the war, and can accomplish nothing on their own."
On an end date extension option:
"Sounds fine to me, but I can't promise anything at this point."
On hindsight and balance:
"Hindsight is a terribly vexing problem indeed. In reality, the Axis had a very slim chance of winning the war even against the original allies. If you factor in Allied hindsight that chance becomes effectively 0, no matter that the Axis are also given hindsight.
There are several possible partial solutions:
1) Force mainly the Allies to make stupid decisions through events.
2) Simulate the intrinsic love of peace and consumer products in democracies, as well as their frequent change of leaders.
3) Accept that every performance by the Axis that surpasses real history is an Axis victory.
4) Compensate by making the Axis too strong and the Allies too weak.
5) Start the game much earlier than 1939 (say in 1919) and let alternate history take its course.
Now, IMO:
1) is far too artificial... a real stinker.
2) is good. Work with that.
3) rings hollow and makes playing the Axis more of a chore than fun.
4) is probably unavoidable to some degree. Attempt to keep to a minimum though.
5) is interesting, but is not a solution as much as avoiding the problem. Could make a cool scenario or add-on though.
Based on this you should know about what to expect from the game."
On supply:
"The game will have a supply system somewhat reminiscent of the one in World in Flames. I.e. you will have to draw supply lines through occupied areas, with your HQ units acting like forward distribution points."
On planned end date:
"December 31, 1947 is the planned end-date. That should leave time for most eventualities, excepting an Axis invasion of America."
On Czechoslovakia:
"Sure Czechoslovakia will be playable. They will be in a tough position though. =)"
On the Maginot Line:
"The Maginot Line is in, of course."
On timespan of the game:
"Actually it will be 1936-1947."
Greven:
On tech and doctrine:
"Sure Doctrine is seperated from Technology Research... The timeframe for the Uralbomber to Strategic Bombardment seems to follow my design."
"There are different research strategies within each tech category...There are many many roads to take but you can't pick them all...There are always trade offs...Speed for maneuverablilty, range for bombload etc. You want that top-of the-line fighter? Sure... tripples the building cost."
On atomic weapons:
"Yes, but the cost to 'try' to development is very high..."
On game engine enhancement (planned or not):
"The answer is Yes."
On tech and "superweapons":
"All the "Secret Weapon Projects" are designed to be included in HoI research system plus some real post-45 techs. However, having the SWP in your game is optional so you can toggle it off at game start if you don't like it."
Regarding gamespeed:
"Well the timescale is adjustable...At some point you would want to take it very slow to orchestrate forces to attack at one single point at the same time, but at other times you will just want to 'roll on' at a faster speed.
What was said above is only a fact if you intend to play the game at slowest possible speed."
On questionable items:
"There will not be any gulags or deathcamps to build. Hearts of Iron is a Grand Strategic Politico-Military Game that concentrates on....War and Diplomacy and...well governing you country...
Following the tradition of other fine and loved (but obsolete) games as 3R and WiF this game does not simulate these horrible events.
You might call it a moral issue..."
Patric:
On information and announcements:
"We will post more info as we feel ready to do so. You won't see any screens before E3 for example.
We will answer questions where the answers we can provide are set in stone and are not subject to change."
On the box cover:
"It is not the final cover."
On the new map question:
"Yes, brand new map."
On the viability of a WW2 game with the EU engine:
"If we didn't think we could make a great WWII game based on the EU engine we wouldn't even try We are making HoI on the core of the EU engine and we are adding loads of new features to it. We will tell you more in due time "
The HOI FAQ Part 2
Just because it's about that time (and because I have nothing better to do today).
Starting with Johan:
On the map (again):
"The HoI map have been completely changed from EU2.."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Captain Krunch
So I guess this means that the map is already completed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes"
On marketing issues (again):
"There will not be any swastikas in the game, because it IS illegal to show them in Germany."
Patric:
On localization:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by King
I second that motion. If Paradox can be convinced of the wisdom of this, perhapes they can convince the publishers to realese the game in most countires at the same time.
P.S. Localised is correct in the UK, in America I think it is Localized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1. Are you trying to make me lose my job?
2. It isn't us deciding if the game is localized in a market or not, it is the publisher."
On the scenario editor:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Aztec VII
good since he's working on an EUII one that means that the EUII one must be based on the HOI editor!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Or the other way around..."
Greven:
On the game start date:
Re: Let the game begin in 1935
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hardu
This is probably flogging a dead horse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes it is."
On "uberweapons":
"Ok as I designed the research system in HoI...
I feel its time to say something.
First a bit history here...In 1939 the German Nuclear Project was far ahead of any other country. Two things halted the german project. First that they put resources into other projects instead primarily the V-weapons. As they hadn't developed a Heavy Strategical Bomber they needed a delivery vehicle. Secondly when they at last pushed ahead into constructing a functional reactor their occupied territory lay under constant nailing from British and Us Bombers (By the way..Thank You!). Don't forget that also the Siviet Union was far ahead in Nuclear technology and tested their first Bomb 1948/49. Japan had a Project ahead, but behind the Germans and Soviets. The Soviets project was independent of the US and German Projects. Germany did not need the heavy water from Norway they had everything they needed to go ahead with the project. The US lacked Uranium on the other hand. They got a good truck-load from the French, but was not self-sufficient until 1946. Last but not least...When the USA was to bomb Japan she had 3 semi-fission bombs and it would take at least a year to produce more.
Second a bit more arguing... I do not believe that the dropping of the bomb had that big an effect. Had the Germans bombed London in 44' the Allied would not have capitulated, neither would Germany in 45'. So this things will be important when considering the A-Bombs in HoI..
1. Very High Cost and long time to develop.
2. You need a researched and developed delivery vehicle.
3. You will never have a high production rate of Bombs
4. It will never be 'a lot of bang for the bucks', meaning that there will be a strategic effect of dropping the bomb, but it will not be deceisive."
On EU2-style war exaustion:
"This is not considered a wise conclusion as noone from the design team has said that there is war exhaustion in the game. It is not. There is something called dissent (among your population) which rise if you are unable to supply your population with adequate consumer goods and of course if you are loosing the war. this feature is NOT modelled on the EU2 War exhaustion feature."
On internal dissent:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by King
I question this idea that internal dissent could force you to end the war.
"Then you question something that no one ever said it would do."
Fredrik:
On the engine (I missed this one last time):
"Only about 20% of the EU code is in the HOI engine. Johan can describe this further."
On E3:
"We will be there. So will Snowball, Strategy First etc. But we will not have a booth since this is a North American show and our product will be shown at the Strategy First section of the Infogrames booth (our North American distributor to retailers)."
I don't think I missed anyone, and that's pretty slim pickings. In my experience, that usually means a game has gone into high speed development. Whether or not that is indeed the case, it does mean that Johan and team are busy with something, and I won't have to do one of these for about 6 weeks or so.
The HOI FAQ Part 3
Yes, it's that time again.
Starting with Johan:
On weather and daylight:
"* Yes, weather will affect combat, and bombing missions can usually not be flown in full storm.
* The time in the game is always shown as GMT.
* Yes there will be night/day in HOI. Several parts of it will be abstracted, but in general night and day serves some purposes.
- Since the two biggest theaters are at opposite sides of the globe, the american and brittish players can focus at each theater during the daytimes in each.
- Some technologies allow you to fight better at night
- Its harder to find things at night."
On divisional identification (particularly German):
"Well.. I'm not 100% sure on how the laws are, but if it is not illegal to have divisions with historical names we will."
On micromanagement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John_Keats
In terms of EU, I was attracted by the clean good looking map and lack of intense micromanagement involved in everyday affairs. I'll play something else if I'm really interested in decideding how many heavy cavalry, skirmishers, light cavalry, bowmen, gunmen, pikemen, cannon, ballista, catapults, etc, etc are in every single army as they fight around the world in real time. That was the beauty of EU. A very good mix. Perhaps I'm the only dissenting voice here that wants to limit the management of every tiny struggle in WWII and whatnot. But I think the moniker "Grand Strategy" is appropriate for a game that includes the most critical micromanagement (supply being one of the most critical, no doubt) but also leaves you free to spend time planning the broader actions of the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree."
Greven:
On game focus:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darkrenown
This isnt quite as newbieish a question as the title may make you think, what I really mean is: Is Hearts of Iron a WWII game or a game set in the WWII timeframe?
The diffrence being a WWII game would have a war which looked very much like WWII actually did whereas if its just a game set at that time it would be more like EUII, things may work out the same or they may turn out way diffrent.
As I see it there are pros can cons to both. The main ones are:
WWIIgame.
Pros: Historical.
Cons: Impossible for the axis to win the war, hard to do anything with minor countries, you know whats going to happen and can plan for it (eg the czechs fighting over sudatenland, france invading Germany).
Game set in the WWII timeframe.
Pros: Anything can happen(eg all of europe invading america/ Russia sitting the war out), you dont know whats going to happen.
Cons: Not historical so some people may complain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Setting down the foot here...
This IS a WWIIgame with the exception that it is not impossible to win with the Axis. I believe that it will be extremely difficult to be more than a junior partner for a minor country, though that also has its charms. Like other Grand Strategy Games as WiF and 3R there are possible ways of uncertainty, while still being historical. Its all about incentatives."
From the same topic:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clemens August
But as for the Axis actually winning, that is, controlling Europe and much of Asia indefinitely, that should be truly a remarkable feat. It should be close to impossible just as in World in Flames.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't think so...
1939 Germany was the number one nation in Nuclear research and had full supply of all resources needed from 1940/41. If Germany had taken different routes whan comes to Strategic decisions in War and Research things could have been different.
I do not believe in determinism."
On war exaustion:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bourbon
I think this is a great idea. However, PLEASE consider modifying the dissent levels at least for every major power engaged in the war, to take into account the current national character and the mood of each countr during that time period. For example, at no point during the war (except during the very beginning), did the Soviet population raise a pip about their deprivation of consumer goods, even thoug they were eating much much much worse than the Germans. Had the Soviet population been more unwilling to put up with deprivation, I believe Soviet Union might have lost the war, cause no other country came close to its lack of consumer goods. On the other hand, for example Italians revolted against Mussolini despite their population being relatively provided for. So I believe EU-type one-model-fits-all system would be inapproptiate here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As I have said before...the system varies with the political system you have."
Again:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tearjn
I hope they don't lump Italy and Germany together under the same political system. They were very different. They were both tolitarian regimes, but the similarities almost ended there.
Mussolini wrote at length to expound on the dissimilar nature of Fascism and Nazism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All ideologies are divided into three shades."
On obscure Axis nations:
"Siam "
On merchies:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Prufrock451
Or will ships be required to move around strategic resources? Please tell me yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes"
On tech and national characteristics:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by King
Are you hoping to draw a few hints from Paradox?
3) I would like the unit charactoristics to be linked to technology rather that national charactorisitcs. Let's face the average fighting man was not that different, it was the training, docterine and equipment that made the most difference. Plus a sprinkling of experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is..."
On paratroops:
"Hmm... Let's kill this mother....
Paras are in the game."[I]
On Gustav and Dora:
[I]"We have a lot of things in the game. Chrome? Well perhaps the game flucturate between being Grand Strategic and Grand Operational at a FEW points... Only few though. The Eisenbahnkanonen you are refering to will not be displyed in the game. have to draw the line somewhere."
On coups and puppet regimes:
First some backround by Clements August:
"Well, as concerned Germany, it only regained some measure of sovereignity in 1949, and 1955. Only in 1990 did it become fully sovereign. So I doubt that simply democratizing Germany and then having a full blown ally against the Soviets already in 1946 is entirely realistic. Rather, I could imagine a successful coup dethroning the Nazi Party and establishing a democratic provisional governement under Goerdeler, singing a seperate peace with the western Allies."
Greven:
"You can 'Install Puppet Regime' and there will be a cabinet for them.
What CA said about coups are possible. There are what we call 'Shadow Cabinets'.... "
On cabinets:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ape
Will you have a cabinet for your own country as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of Course...."
On Governors:
"Actually its Governments, thus a cabinet of ministers and branch heads, not governors....That would have been micromanagement totale..."
And again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DanielMcCollum
First of all, are you going to have nearly every important politician in the pool to act as cabinet ministers and heads of differant branches of government. Will, say, Robert La Follette Jr we around(Ok, I admit it, the La Follette's are my favorite political family and they come from my home state, so I use them in a lot of my examples :P) to appoint as, say, Head of the State Department. Or will it only be the REALLY big politicians of the time(your Roosevelts, Dewey and so forth).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"While not really knowing how big La Follete was, I still want to say yes. System is this...In an election you can change the whole cabinet in a sweep, but otherwise (between elections) you have a replacement pool with guys and girlies to promote. Will this include nearly all important ones? Well maybe..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, how will elections be handeled? Will you actually be the one to choose who leads the country in the case of a Democracy much like you do in EUII with the US elections, or will the 'people' vote. That is, if your doing a good job, the people will flock to your banner and elect you for another term, but if your not, they'll vote in the opposition party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People will vote...based upon historical probability modified by game play."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For another thing, will the elections always follow their historic counterparts. Will is ALWAYS be Roosevelt vs Dewey in '44, or could you end up with Roosevelt vs. Taft(oh, the irony) or even a successful Dewy vs. Wallace?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is the intention that it will be as flexible as you describe it. Btw its more likely that FDR will meet Robert Taft on 5 nov 1940 as isolationalism is more interesting if the US is not at war. But then again anything can happen... "
Patric:
On loaning units:
"Expeditionary force. You can leave control to an ally... Works very nice IMHO..."
On complexity:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spruce
"dumbing" a game down is utterly non-wise because innovating things are left out.
Anyhow Paradox owes his right of existence to in depth games with a reality check at the right time and place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will see how we are making the game but we don't intend to "dumb" things down. It is a strategic game with alot more than just moving armies around so some things will be abstract (i.e. no tactical combat)
You should see a concerted attack by several corps at the same time. All attacking at the same time, pretty impressive IMHO."
On screenshots:
"When we have finalized the map..."
On beta AAR's:
"we usually don't allow AARs until very late in the beta testing and it will be the same with HoI."
Screenshots again:
"Screens will be shown when we have finalized the map... We only have a skeleton map atm but most of the interface is done."
On 3D combat:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The General
Will there be large 3d battles in HOI?
(snip by Patric)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nope!"
I thought it might be a good idea to collect everything that Johan and co. has said about the game and put it into one thread. Maybe this way we can get a feel for how this game is developing...
If you find anything not listed here, please append. (That goes for future posts, too.)
Johan:
On combat resolution:
"It's a realtime game... No such thing as something resolved first..)
Personally when I test the game-mechanics I prefer to coordinate my tactical bombings to start a few hours before I smash in with the panzer"
On very small minors:
"Well, Vatican and Liechtenstein will not be in the game."
On overall design:
"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clemens August
I want the big picture, faithfully representing naval and land warfare which is already more than difficult on its own. It should be World in Flames without a good deal of the details. Days of Decision should be the model for the diplomatic part. If that realism can be married to an accessible system, then this will be a real winner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a good description of the vision I have for the game."
On the game engine:
"Lot of parts of the engine have been completely removed, like colonisation, religion, trade, etc..
The core was kept, (ie the system/architecture), and the core of the province and country management, as well as the AI and Eventsystem.
Units, Combat and Diplomacy have been rewritten so much that not much of the original is still around.
Technology Research, Production & Convoys, Alignment for example, have been rewritten completely from scratch.
Yes, its a game based on the EU2 engine, as its realtime and uses provinces and you play a nation.
Yes, its a LOT of changes, and your EU2 knowledge on how things work in the game may not be relevant to HoI."
On historicity:
"If you want alternative history make your own scenario.
If you want plausible alternative history, where Poland caves in to German demands and gives up Danzig, and there might not be a molotov/ribbentrop, or where England and France don't allow a split of Czech Republic.. Then start in 1936.
If you want to play a WW2 that's historical, start in 1939, but don't bet your life savings that everything will always turn out the same way as it happened in RL.
Of course there should be no absurtities, as Canada declaring war on USA or Germany allying with France."
On gamespeeds:
"Well, thats the slowest gamespeed.. Last time I checked our engine supported changing gamespeeds."
On gamestart date:
"Because 1936 is really the date when Germany becomes active."
Doomdark:
On events and Eurocentricity (don't ask, go find the thread):
"It is kind of disappointing to read comments like this. The EU games were supposed to be Eurocentric (especially EU I); hence the name Europa Universalis. They depict the age when Europe rose to become the dominant region of the planet.
Hearts of Iron might as well be set in another world. WW2 was a global struggle between ideologies, with a whole new set of players (well, except for England perhaps).
I don't understand all this talk about Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada etc being major powers in 1936. They weren't. In Europe, Spain, Sweden and Turkey were indeed potentially capable of a certain military clout, but that is not the reason they were important; they had importance simply due to their geographical locations, and in the case of Sweden, natural resources. This is not to say that all minors will be uninteresting to play - some of them can field a few good divisions - but they are destined to play secondary roles in the war, and can accomplish nothing on their own."
On an end date extension option:
"Sounds fine to me, but I can't promise anything at this point."
On hindsight and balance:
"Hindsight is a terribly vexing problem indeed. In reality, the Axis had a very slim chance of winning the war even against the original allies. If you factor in Allied hindsight that chance becomes effectively 0, no matter that the Axis are also given hindsight.
There are several possible partial solutions:
1) Force mainly the Allies to make stupid decisions through events.
2) Simulate the intrinsic love of peace and consumer products in democracies, as well as their frequent change of leaders.
3) Accept that every performance by the Axis that surpasses real history is an Axis victory.
4) Compensate by making the Axis too strong and the Allies too weak.
5) Start the game much earlier than 1939 (say in 1919) and let alternate history take its course.
Now, IMO:
1) is far too artificial... a real stinker.
2) is good. Work with that.
3) rings hollow and makes playing the Axis more of a chore than fun.
4) is probably unavoidable to some degree. Attempt to keep to a minimum though.
5) is interesting, but is not a solution as much as avoiding the problem. Could make a cool scenario or add-on though.
Based on this you should know about what to expect from the game."
On supply:
"The game will have a supply system somewhat reminiscent of the one in World in Flames. I.e. you will have to draw supply lines through occupied areas, with your HQ units acting like forward distribution points."
On planned end date:
"December 31, 1947 is the planned end-date. That should leave time for most eventualities, excepting an Axis invasion of America."
On Czechoslovakia:
"Sure Czechoslovakia will be playable. They will be in a tough position though. =)"
On the Maginot Line:
"The Maginot Line is in, of course."
On timespan of the game:
"Actually it will be 1936-1947."
Greven:
On tech and doctrine:
"Sure Doctrine is seperated from Technology Research... The timeframe for the Uralbomber to Strategic Bombardment seems to follow my design."
"There are different research strategies within each tech category...There are many many roads to take but you can't pick them all...There are always trade offs...Speed for maneuverablilty, range for bombload etc. You want that top-of the-line fighter? Sure... tripples the building cost."
On atomic weapons:
"Yes, but the cost to 'try' to development is very high..."
On game engine enhancement (planned or not):
"The answer is Yes."
On tech and "superweapons":
"All the "Secret Weapon Projects" are designed to be included in HoI research system plus some real post-45 techs. However, having the SWP in your game is optional so you can toggle it off at game start if you don't like it."
Regarding gamespeed:
"Well the timescale is adjustable...At some point you would want to take it very slow to orchestrate forces to attack at one single point at the same time, but at other times you will just want to 'roll on' at a faster speed.
What was said above is only a fact if you intend to play the game at slowest possible speed."
On questionable items:
"There will not be any gulags or deathcamps to build. Hearts of Iron is a Grand Strategic Politico-Military Game that concentrates on....War and Diplomacy and...well governing you country...
Following the tradition of other fine and loved (but obsolete) games as 3R and WiF this game does not simulate these horrible events.
You might call it a moral issue..."
Patric:
On information and announcements:
"We will post more info as we feel ready to do so. You won't see any screens before E3 for example.
We will answer questions where the answers we can provide are set in stone and are not subject to change."
On the box cover:
"It is not the final cover."
On the new map question:
"Yes, brand new map."
On the viability of a WW2 game with the EU engine:
"If we didn't think we could make a great WWII game based on the EU engine we wouldn't even try We are making HoI on the core of the EU engine and we are adding loads of new features to it. We will tell you more in due time "
The HOI FAQ Part 2
Just because it's about that time (and because I have nothing better to do today).
Starting with Johan:
On the map (again):
"The HoI map have been completely changed from EU2.."
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Captain Krunch
So I guess this means that the map is already completed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes"
On marketing issues (again):
"There will not be any swastikas in the game, because it IS illegal to show them in Germany."
Patric:
On localization:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by King
I second that motion. If Paradox can be convinced of the wisdom of this, perhapes they can convince the publishers to realese the game in most countires at the same time.
P.S. Localised is correct in the UK, in America I think it is Localized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"1. Are you trying to make me lose my job?
2. It isn't us deciding if the game is localized in a market or not, it is the publisher."
On the scenario editor:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Aztec VII
good since he's working on an EUII one that means that the EUII one must be based on the HOI editor!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Or the other way around..."
Greven:
On the game start date:
Re: Let the game begin in 1935
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Hardu
This is probably flogging a dead horse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes it is."
On "uberweapons":
"Ok as I designed the research system in HoI...
I feel its time to say something.
First a bit history here...In 1939 the German Nuclear Project was far ahead of any other country. Two things halted the german project. First that they put resources into other projects instead primarily the V-weapons. As they hadn't developed a Heavy Strategical Bomber they needed a delivery vehicle. Secondly when they at last pushed ahead into constructing a functional reactor their occupied territory lay under constant nailing from British and Us Bombers (By the way..Thank You!). Don't forget that also the Siviet Union was far ahead in Nuclear technology and tested their first Bomb 1948/49. Japan had a Project ahead, but behind the Germans and Soviets. The Soviets project was independent of the US and German Projects. Germany did not need the heavy water from Norway they had everything they needed to go ahead with the project. The US lacked Uranium on the other hand. They got a good truck-load from the French, but was not self-sufficient until 1946. Last but not least...When the USA was to bomb Japan she had 3 semi-fission bombs and it would take at least a year to produce more.
Second a bit more arguing... I do not believe that the dropping of the bomb had that big an effect. Had the Germans bombed London in 44' the Allied would not have capitulated, neither would Germany in 45'. So this things will be important when considering the A-Bombs in HoI..
1. Very High Cost and long time to develop.
2. You need a researched and developed delivery vehicle.
3. You will never have a high production rate of Bombs
4. It will never be 'a lot of bang for the bucks', meaning that there will be a strategic effect of dropping the bomb, but it will not be deceisive."
On EU2-style war exaustion:
"This is not considered a wise conclusion as noone from the design team has said that there is war exhaustion in the game. It is not. There is something called dissent (among your population) which rise if you are unable to supply your population with adequate consumer goods and of course if you are loosing the war. this feature is NOT modelled on the EU2 War exhaustion feature."
On internal dissent:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by King
I question this idea that internal dissent could force you to end the war.
"Then you question something that no one ever said it would do."
Fredrik:
On the engine (I missed this one last time):
"Only about 20% of the EU code is in the HOI engine. Johan can describe this further."
On E3:
"We will be there. So will Snowball, Strategy First etc. But we will not have a booth since this is a North American show and our product will be shown at the Strategy First section of the Infogrames booth (our North American distributor to retailers)."
I don't think I missed anyone, and that's pretty slim pickings. In my experience, that usually means a game has gone into high speed development. Whether or not that is indeed the case, it does mean that Johan and team are busy with something, and I won't have to do one of these for about 6 weeks or so.
The HOI FAQ Part 3
Yes, it's that time again.
Starting with Johan:
On weather and daylight:
"* Yes, weather will affect combat, and bombing missions can usually not be flown in full storm.
* The time in the game is always shown as GMT.
* Yes there will be night/day in HOI. Several parts of it will be abstracted, but in general night and day serves some purposes.
- Since the two biggest theaters are at opposite sides of the globe, the american and brittish players can focus at each theater during the daytimes in each.
- Some technologies allow you to fight better at night
- Its harder to find things at night."
On divisional identification (particularly German):
"Well.. I'm not 100% sure on how the laws are, but if it is not illegal to have divisions with historical names we will."
On micromanagement:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by John_Keats
In terms of EU, I was attracted by the clean good looking map and lack of intense micromanagement involved in everyday affairs. I'll play something else if I'm really interested in decideding how many heavy cavalry, skirmishers, light cavalry, bowmen, gunmen, pikemen, cannon, ballista, catapults, etc, etc are in every single army as they fight around the world in real time. That was the beauty of EU. A very good mix. Perhaps I'm the only dissenting voice here that wants to limit the management of every tiny struggle in WWII and whatnot. But I think the moniker "Grand Strategy" is appropriate for a game that includes the most critical micromanagement (supply being one of the most critical, no doubt) but also leaves you free to spend time planning the broader actions of the war.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I agree."
Greven:
On game focus:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Darkrenown
This isnt quite as newbieish a question as the title may make you think, what I really mean is: Is Hearts of Iron a WWII game or a game set in the WWII timeframe?
The diffrence being a WWII game would have a war which looked very much like WWII actually did whereas if its just a game set at that time it would be more like EUII, things may work out the same or they may turn out way diffrent.
As I see it there are pros can cons to both. The main ones are:
WWIIgame.
Pros: Historical.
Cons: Impossible for the axis to win the war, hard to do anything with minor countries, you know whats going to happen and can plan for it (eg the czechs fighting over sudatenland, france invading Germany).
Game set in the WWII timeframe.
Pros: Anything can happen(eg all of europe invading america/ Russia sitting the war out), you dont know whats going to happen.
Cons: Not historical so some people may complain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Setting down the foot here...
This IS a WWIIgame with the exception that it is not impossible to win with the Axis. I believe that it will be extremely difficult to be more than a junior partner for a minor country, though that also has its charms. Like other Grand Strategy Games as WiF and 3R there are possible ways of uncertainty, while still being historical. Its all about incentatives."
From the same topic:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Clemens August
But as for the Axis actually winning, that is, controlling Europe and much of Asia indefinitely, that should be truly a remarkable feat. It should be close to impossible just as in World in Flames.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't think so...
1939 Germany was the number one nation in Nuclear research and had full supply of all resources needed from 1940/41. If Germany had taken different routes whan comes to Strategic decisions in War and Research things could have been different.
I do not believe in determinism."
On war exaustion:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bourbon
I think this is a great idea. However, PLEASE consider modifying the dissent levels at least for every major power engaged in the war, to take into account the current national character and the mood of each countr during that time period. For example, at no point during the war (except during the very beginning), did the Soviet population raise a pip about their deprivation of consumer goods, even thoug they were eating much much much worse than the Germans. Had the Soviet population been more unwilling to put up with deprivation, I believe Soviet Union might have lost the war, cause no other country came close to its lack of consumer goods. On the other hand, for example Italians revolted against Mussolini despite their population being relatively provided for. So I believe EU-type one-model-fits-all system would be inapproptiate here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As I have said before...the system varies with the political system you have."
Again:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tearjn
I hope they don't lump Italy and Germany together under the same political system. They were very different. They were both tolitarian regimes, but the similarities almost ended there.
Mussolini wrote at length to expound on the dissimilar nature of Fascism and Nazism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"All ideologies are divided into three shades."
On obscure Axis nations:
"Siam "
On merchies:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Prufrock451
Or will ships be required to move around strategic resources? Please tell me yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes"
On tech and national characteristics:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by King
Are you hoping to draw a few hints from Paradox?
3) I would like the unit charactoristics to be linked to technology rather that national charactorisitcs. Let's face the average fighting man was not that different, it was the training, docterine and equipment that made the most difference. Plus a sprinkling of experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is..."
On paratroops:
"Hmm... Let's kill this mother....
Paras are in the game."[I]
On Gustav and Dora:
[I]"We have a lot of things in the game. Chrome? Well perhaps the game flucturate between being Grand Strategic and Grand Operational at a FEW points... Only few though. The Eisenbahnkanonen you are refering to will not be displyed in the game. have to draw the line somewhere."
On coups and puppet regimes:
First some backround by Clements August:
"Well, as concerned Germany, it only regained some measure of sovereignity in 1949, and 1955. Only in 1990 did it become fully sovereign. So I doubt that simply democratizing Germany and then having a full blown ally against the Soviets already in 1946 is entirely realistic. Rather, I could imagine a successful coup dethroning the Nazi Party and establishing a democratic provisional governement under Goerdeler, singing a seperate peace with the western Allies."
Greven:
"You can 'Install Puppet Regime' and there will be a cabinet for them.
What CA said about coups are possible. There are what we call 'Shadow Cabinets'.... "
On cabinets:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ape
Will you have a cabinet for your own country as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Of Course...."
On Governors:
"Actually its Governments, thus a cabinet of ministers and branch heads, not governors....That would have been micromanagement totale..."
And again:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DanielMcCollum
First of all, are you going to have nearly every important politician in the pool to act as cabinet ministers and heads of differant branches of government. Will, say, Robert La Follette Jr we around(Ok, I admit it, the La Follette's are my favorite political family and they come from my home state, so I use them in a lot of my examples :P) to appoint as, say, Head of the State Department. Or will it only be the REALLY big politicians of the time(your Roosevelts, Dewey and so forth).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"While not really knowing how big La Follete was, I still want to say yes. System is this...In an election you can change the whole cabinet in a sweep, but otherwise (between elections) you have a replacement pool with guys and girlies to promote. Will this include nearly all important ones? Well maybe..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, how will elections be handeled? Will you actually be the one to choose who leads the country in the case of a Democracy much like you do in EUII with the US elections, or will the 'people' vote. That is, if your doing a good job, the people will flock to your banner and elect you for another term, but if your not, they'll vote in the opposition party.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People will vote...based upon historical probability modified by game play."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For another thing, will the elections always follow their historic counterparts. Will is ALWAYS be Roosevelt vs Dewey in '44, or could you end up with Roosevelt vs. Taft(oh, the irony) or even a successful Dewy vs. Wallace?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is the intention that it will be as flexible as you describe it. Btw its more likely that FDR will meet Robert Taft on 5 nov 1940 as isolationalism is more interesting if the US is not at war. But then again anything can happen... "
Patric:
On loaning units:
"Expeditionary force. You can leave control to an ally... Works very nice IMHO..."
On complexity:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Spruce
"dumbing" a game down is utterly non-wise because innovating things are left out.
Anyhow Paradox owes his right of existence to in depth games with a reality check at the right time and place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You will see how we are making the game but we don't intend to "dumb" things down. It is a strategic game with alot more than just moving armies around so some things will be abstract (i.e. no tactical combat)
You should see a concerted attack by several corps at the same time. All attacking at the same time, pretty impressive IMHO."
On screenshots:
"When we have finalized the map..."
On beta AAR's:
"we usually don't allow AARs until very late in the beta testing and it will be the same with HoI."
Screenshots again:
"Screens will be shown when we have finalized the map... We only have a skeleton map atm but most of the interface is done."
On 3D combat:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The General
Will there be large 3d battles in HOI?
(snip by Patric)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nope!"