|
Darkrenown posted:Or you could play some parts and let the AI carry out your plan in other parts, crazy I know! HoI3 really isn't the only game in the world with AI automation options. Master of Orion 3, for example!
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Most 4x games have planetary/city governors, the Civ games also have automate worker options, Galciv2 has rally points/auto fleets/and neat automated constructor ships, Distant Worlds can also be almost entirely run by the AI for you... There's a point at which automation is just covering for bad design in a game and I believe Hearts of Iron 3 and Master of Iron 3 are both at that point. Incidentally, I never use Civ's automate worker options because they do dumb things, rally points/auto armies etc are an example of good automation that Hearts of Iron 3 doesn't have, and Distant Worlds is a game I haven't played.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I never used worker AI in Civ either. I also didn't use governors in any 4x before the very endgame sometimes, nor do I use automation in HoI3 for the most part. That's the amazing secret: Just because there's AI options doesn't mean you have to use them! The game is too boring not to use the AI automation. There are simply too many provinces for me to care about. Are we going to go over this again?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:I dunno, why jump in to the conversation if you don't actually want to have it? If you don't like HoI3 I really don't care, but if you post blatantly false things about it I am going to dispute them. Takes two to tango. You replied to me, after all. Game sucks, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Yes, I have no problem talking about how you're wrong when you post lies: You're the one who hopped in with some snark and wants to back out when I reply to your terrible posts. Please show me some "lies" I told about a game I don't like.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:"Game sucks, sorry." OK, expressing my opinion that a game sucks is lying. Got it. I am a bit sorry actually, yeah, because it can't be easy to hear that people don't like your work. That's part of the reason I didn't really want to turn this into a big argument - people have expressed fears that devs might get butthurt and flee the thread if people are too negative. quote:"rally points/auto armies etc are an example of good automation that Hearts of Iron 3 doesn't have" Eh? The game doesn't have rally points. It would be nice if I could set a rule where every time I had, say, six divisions of infantry built I could have them automatically. I have no experience with GalCiv, so I think saying that's a lie is either bad writing on my part or bad reading on yours. quote:"lie" was the wrong word though, I posted in a rush, I meant to say "post dishonestly". When you post or agree with posts saying that it's impossible to play the game without automating everything, it's dishonest. When I say HoI3 is not the only game with automation options and you bring up Moo3 it's a dishonest attempt to imply that only bad games have such options when it is in fact a fairly common thing in strategy games. When you present your opinion as fact that is dishonest. It honestly annoys me that I own both games as a result of loving their prequels and yet get no play out of either. A widely broadcast design decision in MOO3 was to give the player too much to do and then give them automation options to let them control it, which lead to the (probably somewhat hyperbolic) objections that people couldn't stop the game building invasion transports and that if you hit "end turn" enough you could win with no other input. In short, the failure was in including too much stuff that needed to be done, and including rather shoddy AI automation tools to do it for you. Likewise, HoI3. There comes a point when the inflated province counts make conducting a war an unfun slog. You then fall back on the AI generals, who do dumb stuff like getting your units cut off and destroyed, but will generally win since you gave them a good start. You then feel kinda hollow about the whole thing since the game played itself for you. Hope you didn't find these lies too dishonest.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 12:42
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:The example of rally points and auto fleets I gave was from GC2, I said "Galciv2 has rally points/auto fleets/and neat automated constructor ships" to which you replied "rally points/auto armies etc are an example of good automation that Hearts of Iron 3 doesn't have", so I explained that GC2 style rally points make no sense in HoI3 and that it does have "auto armies". Rally points make perfect sense. Auto-deploying newly built units somewhere would save a bunch of clicking. A system to automate the building of armies along the lines the user sets would also make sense. HoI3 has neither, so my reply was far from a dishonest lie. quote:The rest of it is you presenting your opinion as fact, saying you don't like the game or that you think it sucks is one thing, that is your opinion. Saying flat out that it sucks or that you can't play without automating everything is false though, plenty of other people, some posting in this very thread in the last few pages, play it differently and enjoy it. That there's a difference between saying "I think something is X" and "Something is X" should not be news to you. You're strawmanning, and pedantic . Quote where I said the game can't be played without automation. And if you can't make the logical leap between a post that says, "This game sucks" and "This poster thinks the game sucks" without a multi-page argument, you must be new to the Internet. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Why are you still going on about this? We've already established you missed that I was talking about GC2's version of these features. You haven't established anything of the kind. All you've done is misread a post and attempt to muddy the waters with trivia. quote:That's what I was arguing against when you leaped into the conversation with me So you can't actually back up your statements about what I said, and are now attributing others words to me. quote:Hey it only took you ~3 posts to clarify this, are you also new to the internet? I guess you are, because you are apparently unaware that many people actually mean a game is objectively bad when they say it sucks rather than that they personally don't like it. I read posts, not minds. I hope you also take a massive issue when people say that a game is good without prefacing it with either a peer-reviewed paper proving the impossible or "MY OPINION IS". It's pretty telling that you're unable to provide a real argument here and have fallen back on this rubbish.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Darkrenown and Gort can you knock this poo poo off or take it to PMs? It's really no better than a dime a dozen internet slap fight. Done.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Kavak posted:In Darkest Hour, is it better to research a project with a higher skilled team or one that has more applicable specialties? Also, is there a formula to determine how much time a project will actually take? I know about how researching before or long after the recommended date works, but is there a way to look at a project's difficulty and my tech team and get a general idea how many months it will take? Short answer: Research with the team with the most applicable specialties. Long answer: The higher the skill of a team, the more money they cost per day. If your team has a specialty in what they're researching, they get their skill doubled for free. So it's more efficient to research with the team with more specialties. That said, if a team is significantly higher skilled than one with better specialties, you might calculate that using the high-skilled non-specialised team is better because it'll get the job done faster, but that's an outside case.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 10:09
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Yeah, I'm finding this to be the case. Cost has never really bothered me, but I wish there was a "Balanced Budget" option for the Consumer Goods slider that locks it to whatever you need to break even on Money, like how the Supply slider works. It'll automatically raise consumer goods so that you don't go into the red. I usually just use the stockpile money option if I'm saving for decisions.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2013 13:09
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:There's no way in EUIII to turn off the monthly $CASH!!$ noise, but leave one at the beginning of the year? My computer runs vanilla fast enough that the game sounds like: Crusader Kings 2 also has this sound that accompanies 90% of the events that I wouldn't mind never hearing again...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 10:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I've never bought a Paradox game on Steam before, so I'd like to ask: How good is Steam with keeping the game up to date with beta patches, and how does it play with modding? I think I'd use my code myself if it guaranteed I'd never have to go into their tech support forums again. Not that there's anything wrong with their forums, but downloading and unpacking and installing the patches myself is a fair bit of effort I could do without. I have CK2 and DH on Steam and they're both fine. As Friend Commuter says, though, you do have to install beta patches yourself if you want to be at the bleeding edge of patches.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
I see they've decided to celebrate this new high in forum registration by having the forums crash entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
Riso posted:Beats arguing with him about Hoi3. You rang? How does the faction system for China work, anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:Especially since EU3 is, pretty much, a dead game by now. I suppose that's correct, but they'll hopefully learn lessons from it for 4.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
Okay, so I'll bite. If the factions system was so terrible, how do you stop a vast country like Ming from just exploding across all of the world?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:You must take East Prussia, then liberate Lithuania to restore the Commonwealth. As Germany in 1936, you should have three priorities: Planes, tanks, and submarines. Your manpower is limited, and you should avoid incurring dissent to increase it unless there's an event that lowers dissent on the horizon. For submarines, either 30 or 60 is an acceptable number. Group them into fleets of 30 under a grand admiral, and set them on naval interdiction in the North Sea or Celtic Sea, watch the kills roll in. For planes, Germany gets bonuses to CAS, so build those, in groups of 8. You'll need good air cover - I recommend INT for that, in groups of 8. For tanks, as many as you can afford. Once war actually breaks out, you'll go to partial mobilisation and you'll have plenty of manpower. Forget all the above and just build infantry. You need every point of manpower out there with a rifle, shooting. There are two traps you should avoid: Upgrades, and attachments. Germany should move to full Central Planning policy as soon as possible for the extra IC and resources, but it makes upgrade costs prohibitive, so don't do any upgrading unless you have nothing better to do with the IC. There's always a temptation to try and make the "elite army" where every unit is full of attachments, but don't. You get more bang for your buck by building more units, not attaching stuff to them. There are exceptions to this rule - usually when the number of units that can be employed is limited, like in amphibious assaults, but usually attachments are an expensive luxury you can't really afford. You should, however, give your subs torpedo attachments. Oh, one last thing - DO NOT reinforce your units until you're at war. Once you are at war and you've mobilised, make reinforcing top priority. Gort fucked around with this message at 09:38 on Jan 30, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 09:26
|
|
|
Riso posted:While CAS is good early, when you're only fighting in Western and Central Europe, the moment you get into Russia the short range is going to be a pain in the rear end. I disagree. German CAS is significantly more powerful than German TAC. I doubt it'd be the difference between winning or losing the war, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:But in my experience unless your good at micro-ing your planes/playing at a slow enough speed for you to micro them, against the AI you are probably better off not bothering and saving the IC for something else. Well, yeah, if you play like a dumbass and just tell your planes "Go bomb the USSR while I sit here with the game on maximum speed" it's probably not worth building planes. But that's a bit like saying that tanks suck because you can't just right-click Moscow and win. So - How to use planes: CAS and TAC are basically the same in usage. You should never attack a unit with planes alone. Instead, engage the unit with ground units first, then set a "ground support" order on the province with your planes. The enemy will lose lots of organization and retreat. Then, switch over to a "ground attack" mission and the enemy will lose strength. INT should be set on "air scramble" missions near major IC hubs if you're defending. Berlin and Essen are the main ones in Germany. If you're attacking, set them on "air superiority" over the enemy country. STR are fairly simple, set to "strategic bombardment" or "logistical strike" over the enemy country.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 11:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:One thing I've never seen used with any effectiveness though in my games has gotta be paratroopers. Expensive to train and produce, especially the planes as you more or less need 1-1 if you want to plop a large number behind enemy lines, if they die thats a huge hit in opportunity costs. There is a worthwhile use for exactly one division of paratroopers. To attack an area where every beach province is guarded, do a paradrop on a non-beach empty coastal province. The province will become yours and you will have a short window to land a billion divisions before the paratroopers are destroyed. This makes defeating the UK trivial, but I suppose it could be used to attack occupied Europe or Japan as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 14:13
|
|
|
Are there any indications they're even doing Hearts of Iron 4? If 3 is as profitable as they say, I don't see why they wouldn't...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Is there something up with Idea Gain for different powers? Playing as Russia versus Persia, Persia seems to gain way more idea points regardless of whether they win or lose the battle. Also, does anyone have a rule of thumb of how to judge how many troops to send to a fight? Supply varies so much from province to province and also changes based on who controls a province that I'm basically resigned to always taking attrition. Gort fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
A_Raving_Loon posted:At the very worst, IC building pays for itself in five years. This gets tighter with the time saved from the gearing bonus when building factories in series. So laying down the plans out of the gate in 36 starts to break even/pull ahead in terms of IC Days in 42, around the time the war really starts to kick in anyway. So unless you need really those points for some long-running project right away, or would lack the resources to keep them running, factories are a sound investment. IC doesn't get gearing bonuses in Darkest Hour.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Another Darkest Hour question. Does devaluing currency permanently destroy any lost IC? There are two opposing decisions: 1. Issue currency. Gives you some cash, lowers your IC multiplier. You'll have the same base amount of IC (the number before the slash), but less effective IC. 2. Money devaluation. Costs you some cash, raises your IC multiplier. Again, same base amount of IC (the number before the slash), but more effective IC. SkySteak posted:Is (building IC) still worth trying in DH? Depends on the scenario you choose and who you're playing in it. As others have said, IC takes roughly five years to pay for itself, so it's not really worth building unless you've got that much run-up to the war. You'd be an idiot to build IC in the 1914 scenario since the war starts basically immediately. The 1933 scenario is probably the best one to build IC in (since the IC will theoretically have paid for itself by the start of war in 1939) but most of the countries have major dissent problems that you'll have to sort out before the war begins. 1936 and later, I probably wouldn't bother. Countries like the USA and the USSR can build lots of extra IC and enjoy having a large number on their screen while winning the game, but you could probably build nothing at all from 1933 to 1945 as the USSR and still win due to your enormous starting army and airforce, and the USA has more IC than god anyway. Gort fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Feb 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
Speaking of MOTE, is there a way to mod out the extraneous units?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
There's a Nazi called Desert Tiger who keeps showing up on the Darkest Hour forums and I wish someone would ban him
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
meatbag posted:Paradox Grand Strategy: We are preparing for the worse. Maybe they should hire a proofreader at some point. All their games seem riddled with spelling and grammar errors and it just looks unprofessional.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Had a go of MOTE as Russia. Steamrolled Persia, made them a satellite state. The Ottomans were at war with Austria, so I declared war on the Ottomans and took over a bunch of dominance targets from them - they barely even sent any troops my way. Then I made peace with the Ottomans, let my war exhaustion go away, declared war on Austria and took my dominance targets from them as well. I guess Sweden and Prussia won't be too tough to deal with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Koesj posted:If you don't roll with mech to get your division's hardness up in TFH I don't know how you're getting that combined arms bonus for heavy forces. Hardness and combined arms have nothing to do with each other as of TFH. You get 5% bonus for each of a number of "slots" your force fills, up to a maximum of five slots for 25% combined arms bonus. The slots are: Infantry = All Infantry types besides Militia, and Cavalry. Armour = All tank types, from Light to Super Heavy. Artillery = Both Rocket and Regular, plus their Self-Propelled types. Direct fire = Anti-Tank, Tank Destroyers, Anti-Air, and Motorised AA. Support = Engineers and Armoured Cars. Militia and cops don't count. I like this mechanic, because it makes a differentiated force that requires a lot of seperate lines of research the most efficient fighting force by a good long way. Gort fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Feb 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:the CKII tech system is the weakest part of CKII. All I ever do is select the most backward technologies and research those. Is that wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
SkySteak posted:Is it just me, or is combat compared in the latest version of Darkest Hour REALLY hard compared to AoD and HoI2? Fights like, say the invasion France feel a shitton more difficult than it used to be. Combine that with the (relatively) long build times and it means you also have less units to field. Is it just still simply a case of Infantry+Armour (excluding specialized units with Tactical/CAS doing Ground Surport missions? What is the best way to deal with the AI stacking men on beaches? Also do brigades make much of a differene? If we're talking Germany 1936, here, I did a quick AAR on the Paradox Darkest Hour forums in the "Problems With Germany... Again" thread. Infantry and tanks with CAS and TAC doing ground support is a pretty good summary of how to play Germany, with an emphasis on CAS since Germany gets superior CAS through their doctrine. You should also switch to Ground Attack air missions once the enemy is retreating. What beaches are you assaulting? Normally some marines with an assload of air support will win, or you can do a paradrop on a nearby coastal undefended province and immediately rush over fifty divisions by transport to reinforce the paratroopers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
To those who just bought Darkest Hour and want to learn it: Don't immediately mod the game. (this advice goes for pretty much any game, really) Kaissereich is a good mod, but it still has a lot of bugs and it's tougher to judge whether you're actually playing well or not if there's no history to compare yourself to. Start by playing the 1936 scenario as Germany. Germany is a great newbie country because you're in control of World War 2 - nothing happens until you're ready for it, and you have the easy war against Poland to get used to war before you take on France and Russia. There are a few things to know about before you play as anyone in Darkest Hour. First is the manpower system. You only really get manpower while you're mobilized. You only really mobilize while at war. You start with the framework of an army, with lots of manpower-starved units. Therefore, if you let your units reinforce before you mobilise, they'll suck up all your manpower and you won't be able to build anything. So, go into the economy screen, turn on AI control of industry, and untick the box that lets the AI assign IC (industrial capacity) to reinforcing units. When you go to war, make sure you turn that back on and prioritise it. While on this screen, turn on automated trade and tell it to stockpile money. Leave the other resources as they are. Next, technology. In Darkest Hour, technology has an appropriate year, so if you try to research 1940 industry in 1936, it'll go very slowly. Always focus on industry techs, then units, then doctrines last. This is because you only need doctrines while at war. When you get close to war and during war, bring your doctrines up to date - they implement instantly and cost nothing to do so, while a new unit model will take ages to upgrade into. Next, policy sliders. Germany pretty much becomes the ultimate war society without you having to do anything, except in one regard - free market versus central planning. Free market is a lot better than central planning, so use your slider moves to move toward it. The intelligence screen is pretty much worthless to you, don't worry about it. More later, hope that helps for now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2013 13:45
|
|
|
Lord Binky posted:I got Darkest Hour yesterday, and have been having a good time thus far. I can't help noticing some really goofy stuff, though. For instance, USA declared war on Italy, and thus all the Axis without joining the Allies. And then Yugoslavia joined the Axis, left the Axis, declared war on the USA, and then on the Netherlands. The gently caress? In any case it gives me a good chance to invade them as Hungary. Generally speaking if a country is ideologically compatible and ends up at war with a common enemy, they tend to end up in the appropriate alliance after a bit in any case.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
Soulfucker posted:If I wanted to get some good mods for Darkest Hour and I'm not interested in Kaiserreich/Alt history scenarios, does anyone here have any suggestions? I miss SMEP. World in Flames gets recommendations sometimes. As far as ground warfare tips go, it's all about using the support attack mission. Attack the enemy province that is bordered by the highest number of your own provinces, do an attack mission with a province that will no longer be bordering the enemy if you win, and do support attack from the other neighbouring provinces. Meanwhile, ground support missions from CAS or TAC on the province. Once you win, switch 'em to ground attack missions. Mostly I see people lose the game by trying to build too many planes or tanks or ships, and ignoring the cheap poo poo like infantry. Oh, and make sure you have one HQ for every three provinces of frontline. They affect neighbouring provinces as well as the one they're in.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Mortuus posted:How important is Their Finest Hour? I didn't realize I got HoI3 with an IndieGala bundle a while back, and it's the only Paradox game I haven't really gotten into. It's on Steam as well, so I can't use any Blue Coins on it, so I'm ok with spending $10 on SF and FtM, but I'm a bit hesitant to spend an extra $10 on it if I'm just going to be as overwhelmed as I was when I tried out Darkest Hour. I'd wait for a sale, but I really want something to hold me over until Heart of Darkness comes out. If Darkest Hour overwhelms you, you'll probably drown in HoI3. It's a similar game with about five times the provinces and a very time-consuming command structure system. Their Finest Hour adds some elements I certainly like, like the combined arms bonus which rewards diversity in units and the armour/penetration system that emphasises tanks, but if being overwhelmed is the issue, TFH isn't going to solve it for you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 09:14
|
|
|
Mortuus posted:Is there anything useful about learning OOBs, though? That's really the only thing I'm still completely overwhelmed with. Well, if you don't use a proper OOB, you're gimping yourself quite a lot - you miss out on a lot of bonuses. Handily, every country in the game starts with a horribly organised OOB that you basically have to tear down and rebuild from scratch, which is annoying as hell since there isn't a "tear it down so I can rebuild it from scratch" button. (unless you want to use a custom game, which is basically cheating) Here's how it works: The smallest unit of troops is the brigade. You mix and match those in groups of between two and five (no, you can't break it down to one, that would be far too convenient for reorganising your army) which is called a division. Division commanders give you 5% better combat per skill point. Group up to five divisions together, you get a corps. Corps commanders give you a weird bonus I don't really understand (Improve chance of a reserve division entering combat). Group up to five corps together, you get an army. Army commanders increase organization by 1% per leader skill level. Group up to five armies together, you get an army group. Army group commanders decrease supply consumption by 5% per leader skill level. Group up to five army groups together, you get a theatre. Theatre commanders reduce your stacking penalty by 1% per skill level. ----- So, basically group all your brigades together into divisions (try and light up all the little combined arms boxes if you can), then group five of those into corps and so on up the chain. I try to have as few divisions/corps/armies etc as possible because that way I can put my best leaders into the army and leave out the dross ones. Your leaders also have traits which grant specific bonuses. Unfortunately they are less effective the more men the leader is in charge of, so having a theatre commander who's a Logistics Wizard will only give you 6.25% of the full effect of Logistics Wizard. Generally speaking, I wouldn't worry too much about them - skill level is generally more important.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
BillBear posted:Is USA a good choice for beginners in Darkest Hour? Germany usually leads to my death at the hands of the French. Depends. The US is fine if you just want to survive the game, but you'll learn a lot more playing Germany. Why are you losing to France? What goes wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
BillBear posted:I guess its my Army, i mostly build Infantry and early tank divisions. I shift a decent part of my industry to the Luftwaffe as well during the peace years. Maybe i was too slow? I'll try again soon. Are you building enough HQs? You want to have one HQ per 3 provinces of front-line you have. (Your troops in the area with the HQ as well as any in neighbouring provinces get the HQ bonus) Germany gets more out of HQs than any other country, last I looked. I did a German AAR in this thread on the official forums, maybe that'll give you some pointers. Scroll down.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
OK, so what's the best guide to read/country to play if I never really played Victoria 2 before and I want to learn it? What's a good goal? (I have a sneaking suspicion the answer is "Play Britain and suck it up")
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 23:18
|
|