Hearts of Iron?

[Squallion]

Yes, I intend to antagonize. Also, I'd like a few days of my life back, spent learning that the designers of EU are jerks. But hey, you can't give me that. Or anything else, really.

We all do it. We all spend money on things we end up not liking. I'm a prime example.

I have many games with just a few hours put into them. I tried, briefly, a foray into Company of Heroes 2. I wish I could have it back :/

Roughly a fourth of my game collection, which is excessively huge, was a waste of my money.

I'm hoping to just settle down on war games from the point forth. They are expensive, but the content appears to be plentiful.

[Tactical Wargamer]

I had a bad time with HOI v1. Is v3 much improved?

Am currently "enjoying/working on" Grigsby's WitP as a nice change of pace from the tactical CM games. And I have been wondering about HOI. However, I also have Grigsby's "War in the East" sitting here. So, I wondered which would be more fun.

The detail in WitpAE is well a monster operational wargame. HOI franchsie is detailed but not so to the same respect. You can finish the war in say 4-12 hours. WiptAE well it takes years to complete the game. My game is in its 2nd year! For grand strategic I would go with HOI IMHO. Like Witp MP games are where it is at. Either are easy to win if playing solely against he AI.

[Tactical Wargamer]

So how is Matrix' World in Flames for $108 with no AI? Did anyone buy it?

Some of our group did. If you were a huge WIF in the day I think u would like it. Remember it is a board wargame conversion. Simply that. Think of vassal or cyerboard. It is not at the divisional level like HOI. Interface I found was very limited. It was true to its name sake. I would image it is a lot cheaper also. Even with all the add on's.

[Tactical Wargamer]

I have HOI3 - I haven't done much with it. At the time I got it I was too busy to put enough time into it.

I enjoy AGEOD - Civil War (don't have CW2 yet), and Napoleon's Campaigns. (need a -2 for that too!)

Command Ops - both Bulge and Market Garden are fun

Command: Modern Air / Naval I spend a lot of time with.

Flashpoint: Red Storm is good for modern - kind of a modern version of Command Ops. A bit hands off, but it is designed as a operational level - so once you give orders, units take over on their own. Like Command Ops it has a good and believable AI (I think).

Ditto all excellent. ACW 2 is another great grand strategic Civil War game. WEGO design was well done.

[Tactical Wargamer]

I've enjoyed the HoI games, but they're clearly WWII pasted on to an engine that wasn't specifically designed for that. For starters, most of Paradox's games have a timeframe of centuries, so when you make a game with a timeframe of about 10 years, it just doesn't work quite the same way.

My favorite Paradox game is probably Victoria. I'm planning on buying Victoria 2 when it finally comes out in a complete package.

Vicky 2 was very nice.....for even more detailed (ya can you believe it) AGEOD's PON is in the same class but turned based. Some don't like Variable real time. To me in an MP group setting it is far easier to complete turns/time. Both are fun though to play. PON is more though of a marathon. PBEM is a little slow when multiple players are concerned.

[agusto]

That is a general problem that designers of single player games suffer, JasonC. Either you impose unfair sanctions on the player, give the AI a large advantage or watch the player curbstomp the AI. It is that simple. Artificial Intelligence, with the currently available technology the word stays pretty much an oxymoron. Some grand strategy game designer have solved the problem of beeing unable to satisfy both the curbstomp-fraction of players as well as the masochists by simply letting the player choose himself how much of an advantage/penalty he has over the AI. In my opinion that is the best solution.

[Tactical Wargamer]

That is a general problem that designers of single player games suffer, JasonC. Either you impose unfair sanctions on the player, give the AI a large advantage or watch the player curbstomp the AI. It is that simple. Artificial Intelligence, with the currently available technology the word stays pretty much an oxymoron. Some grand strategy game designer have solved the problem of beeing unable to satisfy both the curbstomp-fraction of players as well as the masochists by simply letting the player choose himself how much of an advantage/penalty he has over the AI. In my opinion that is the best solution.

I would agree.

I think Jason is talking about EU III? EU IV is still one of the periods best grand strategic games of the time. I am not aware of any product that even comes close. I must say that even to explore the game one learns so much of the time period. You can go against history in paradox games but you have to fight it and there are penalties when one does. (i.e. England being the preeminent land armies of Europe)

That being said it is an AI in EUIV it is 100's on nations/city states. Lets face it even CM's Ai is limited. I think Paradox & Battlefront are the leaders in Grand Strategic and tactical wargames even with their shortcomings. Although the last few years there is actually some competition in this genre I don't think they will be losing to much market share in the near future IMHO.

Either way (competition) it is a win for all of us. We all love history, it is just different mediums that we use to consume it

[Erwin]

Re WitP am enjoying the smaller scenarios. Just learning the mechanics of the game took me a few weeks - and that is with the manual being pretty good AND the Matrix website has a great set of very helpful "how to be a better player" threads.

It's rewarding once you finally figure out the dynamics between airpower, seapower, supply, how to mount amphib invasions etc.

I imagine the same experience with WitE which is also now on my machine. (As much as I love CM, I just had to have a break.)

[JasonC]

Augusto - I agree with your trilemma, but there is a clear optimum among them - "watch the player curbstomp the AI". The whole point of historical strategy games is to allow the player to see the role of intelligent command in history. If a player wants a challenge he can try to conquer Europe starting from Denmark instead of starting from Russia or England. If he wants a bigger challenge, he can play multiplayer vs humans who can also provide intelligent direction.

Trying to hide the weaknesses of the AI by handcuffing the player is a Very Bad "solution", because it simply removes the reason to play the entire genre in the first place - which is, to see what great captain level command actually requires and what it can accomplish.

It is not like this would have been harder to program. It was undoubtedly harder to program in all the dumb balancing rules than it would have been to program a very lightweight diplomacy system, in which AI countries mostly follow their alliance agreements and "defect" only a modest portion of the time. Players would still face serious challenges whenever enough of the world allied against their "bloc", or a big enough power took them on early in their growth trajectory.

[db_zero]

I spent a lot of time playing War in the Pacific and War in the Pacific AE. Played all of the smaller scenarios h2h as well and 2 h2h Grand Campaigns. Would crank out 1-3 turns a day and 4 to 7 on weekends.

Its a great game once you learn it. Most competent Japanese players will not make the same mistakes as Japan did and the wise American player knows not to mess with the Kaito Buto Deathstar early on.

Its been a long time since I've delved into it, but I did feel AE when it first came out kinda skewed things to accommodate players who took Japan. The AA on the American ships ran out of ammo too fast and once that happened they were sitting ducks. Things may have been tweaked since then.

The end game can be tedious. Its fun to island hop to Japan, but invading the home islands is a real chore. You can always firebomb and A bomb it.

I also have War in the East, but really haven't touched it.