HoI2: Is it just me, or is this getting old?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:09:18 GMT, "Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>> A non hard-coded AI might decide to go the whole 12 years without
>> deciding that it's chances for attack against the allies are good. If
>> they did this, then people are in here bitching about a Wargame that
>> plays for 12 years and doesn't even have a war in it.
>
>Isn't this basicly defending a poor AI with "well, it could've been even
>worse"?

No. Scripted actions for scenario necessity aren't a sign of a bad
AI if those actions are absolutely required for the game to succeed at
it's basic premise. This is after all a wargame simulating the WW2
time period, would you want to play a game where every time you spend
twelve years as the allies getting ready to smash Germany you never
get a chance because the AI realizes that you're doing a very good job
of it and never attacks?

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> No. Scripted actions for scenario necessity aren't a sign of a bad
> AI if those actions are absolutely required for the game to succeed at
> it's basic premise.

I'm not talking about scripted actions, I'm talking about hardcoded actions.

Just to avoid any confusion:

I don't mind the way scripted action is used in Fall Weiss or Fall
Weserübung, where Germany declares war on a nation, usually - but not
always - following up with an attack.

What I'm talking about is the seemingly hardcoded part where Germany -
already at war with France - will do absolutely _nothing_ between the fall
of Poland and May 1940, or between the fall of France and May 1941.

If the AI needed the time to build up and move its forces around, fine. But
in this case, I don't think that's it.

> This is after all a wargame simulating the WW2
> time period, would you want to play a game where every time you spend
> twelve years as the allies getting ready to smash Germany you never
> get a chance because the AI realizes that you're doing a very good job
> of it and never attacks?

No, but I'd also not like to play a game I'm sure to win, which ought to be
the case if the AI decided I was doing too well. Turn up difficulty - both
problems solved.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:40:03 GMT, "Hermann" <hr_hesse@yahoo.com>
wrote:


>This is not a very fair comparison, though, as I had planned for a two-front
>war (whereas you were taken by surprise), and was fairly certain of what
>kind of defence I would need on other front.
>
>Still, you ARE DOING NOT SO BAD.

You seem tohave a lot more units that I did at the same period. All I
had in May 39 was 35 infantry divisions and 6 panzers, about 10
garrison and about a dozne assorted others.

Well at least perhaps you are showing that Germany COULD have survived
against both the USSR and Frence in 1939...

Perhaps I spent too many resources building factories and AA in
provinces, and delayed building up my army too much - but except for
Poland, I didn't think I would need a bigger army until 1940 when I
would invade France.

Henri

 

[hermann]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> You seem tohave a lot more units that I did at the same period. All I
> had in May 39 was 35 infantry divisions and 6 panzers, about 10
> garrison and about a dozne assorted others.

Yes, about 27 panzers and garrisons, maybe 45 infantry and 18 mountain
infantry. 12 units each of tac bombers and interceptors.

I didn't invest in industry at all - with Himmler at the wheel, the industry
you build pale in comparison to the industry you conquer. All industrial
techs, Blomberg as Chief of Staff, and every minister who gives an IC bonus
is better resource allocation as far as I'm concerned.

I consider building AA to be defeatist. If anyone's going to do some
bombing, it's me. 😛 I prefer investing in interceptors instead.

> Well at least perhaps you are showing that Germany COULD have survived
> against both the USSR and Frence in 1939...

In the game, yes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:16:46 GMT, arseno@phy.*nospam*ulaval.ca (Henri
H. Arsenault) wrote:

>Perhaps I spent too many resources building factories and AA in
>provinces, and delayed building up my army too much - but except for
>Poland, I didn't think I would need a bigger army until 1940 when I
>would invade France.

A good strategy is to kick out long production lines of units as
soon as you can. Each succeeding unit costs less in time and
resources to build and you can always upgrade everything later once
you research the appropriate tech.

--
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - H.P. Lovecraft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Henri Arsenault wrote:

> In article <RrdHd.127967$dP1.459499@newsc.telia.net>, "Hermann"
> <hr_hesse@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>However, in October 1939, the allies declared war and stormed through my
>>scarcely defended western border. If I remember my WW2 lore correctly,
>>France and England would've been delighted at the German crusade against
>>Bolsjevism.
>>
>>
> This is what Stalin believed, but the Allies declared war on Germany when
> it invaded Poland...



"la drole de guerre", yeah...

sergio