Moo3's Death by a Thousand Cuts

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by kalbear
You are willing to overlook a lot of flaws and actual bugs (troops disappearing, MM garbage, poor AI) in a game you've played because it gives some element of fun.

The troops disappearing I haven´t encountered. Either this happens very rarely, or has already been patched.

MM is a trade-off; you get added realism.

Poor ai IS a headache. But they may sort it out, yet.

[Grumbold]

The game has a steep learning curve that is not helped by the manual which skimps on detail but please don't take a few reviewers words as the undisguised truth when you haven't tested them yourselves or cast the net wider for other opinions. It is easy to believe after one or two games that problems exist which are really just problems with comprehension.

Supply is simple. You create a convoy from a home port to any area which is not connected to one of your other supply dumps. The whole of China can be supplied by one Japanese convoy provided they own connecting provinces. One convoy can bring back all the wealth generated. The people with difficulties are those who have many isolated beachheads and islands. Even they only have to make each convoy once although they may have to repair the damage dealt to them periodically if enemy vessels sink their ships.

Is it easy to manage? Well theres a supply mode that paints the whole map green or red. Set up a convoy, run a day and see what is green and what is not. See which stockpiles have increasing supplies and which have fallen. Pretty simple once you've done it a few times.

On the USA/Japan thing, it is possible to drive Japan and USA out of the war but the ways are being narrowed with each patch. If player Russia invades the middle east in 1937 USA won't lift a finger to save it from Germany in 1940. If Japan stalls in its conquests then USA won't usually go to war over the Phillipines alone. Lots of aggressive actions by Britain or France like trying to attempt pro-democracy coups in Europe will kill USA's desire to enter the war. These things make a fair bit of sense and most of them are down to the player seeking to do much better or faster than historically but still expecting other nations to run on historical rails.

The economy of the big few countries and their approximate military strengths are fairly well documented for the war period. HoI isn't like Third Reich though, it opens almost every country in the world up for involvement and their performance impacts on the simulation too. How much Steel should Germany be able to import if it captures Bolivia? How many more tanks can it produce per month? As a near history simulator Third Reich will do better because it won't let you try these things so it doesn't care about them. It also has a bazillion "special rules" because its standard simulation rules cant cope with many of the wartime events without them.

I suppose we ought to take this discussion to the HoI forum ....

[Jack Frost]

I am honestly torn about the EU/HoI games. They really aren't enjoyable games at all. I honestly don't think you can call them games to start with. They are suprisingly dull, and for serious gamers there is no challenge (people who aren't hard core gamers aren't playing against the AI they're playing against the interface and game ideas).

On the other hand, both games really got me interested in history. After playing EU2 I started reading books about the Ottomans, and European powers of the time, it was interesting stuff, and to a certain extent being posed with a vague idea of options facing an empire or a nation at a given time is really interesting. Instead of answering "what if" the EU/HoI games answer "why did".

As history simulators they are both very good.

As games they all fail miserably. They aren't fun, they aren't challenging. And the interface really blows.

But history fans will love them, and it can make a person want to know more about what really happened in a given time.

[Grumbold]

People define all sorts of things as fun that others would run a mile from. I detest football and will never voluntarily watch it while for many its their major obsession. Most FPS games leave me cold after a few halfhearted attempts, and I'd never bother with a racing game except against another person unless its more of a demolition derby like Carmageddon. For me HoI is fun, but I do have to impose rules on myself to increase the challenge like leaving each beach and red dot garrisoned at all times and not exploiting.

[Jack Frost]

I just find there isn't enough going on in HoI to keep me occupied, and very little requires actual thought or planning. A lot of that I'm sure is because the AI is weak, but still...

After playing really refined, highly strategic, very challenging RTS games like Kohan I have trouble taking a game like HoI seriously as a game. It fails to force me to think, and it fails to challenge me.

I would bet you the amount of brain activity active in the average players HoI session is far, far, far below even that of the average WC3 session. And fails miserably compared to the deep thinking of a game like chess.

Don't take me wrong, I like really sinking my teeth into a deep turn based game, but as complex as the factors influencing combat efficency are, the game play itself is so simple - unless you restrain yourself from making smart decisions... but then, whats the point?

[To_Serve_Man]

I find EU and HoI very good multiplayer games. Single player gets a little dull after awhile.

Games that don't run on a historic backround very firmly, to me at least, seem to be better in the long run since your gameplay depends on you, not what France or the Nazis did (ie: Badboy, etc).

But i must say, EU2 and HoI are great games... they have a lot of good features.