EU fans... Hearts of Iron

[mtkafka]

I wasn't too big a fan of EU and EU2... but this game looks very cool! Like a complex version of Axis and Allies. Could be really cool!

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/previews/0,10869,2874668,00.html

etc

[Jason McCullough]

EU 1 & 2 were the definitive case of games that were in real-time for no apparent reason. Would have been a lot more fun with some of the busywork cut out too, and multiplayer.

It doesn't look like they're fixing those problems, unfortunately.

[mtkafka]

I had no problems with EU with its 'real time'. Imo, it played more like a Turnbased game anyway, just that things worked in increments of time, meaning it was pretty much the same game as TB (like Rebellion and IG2). There was an ULTRA slow mode in EU so I don't see realtime being a problem with the game, since it essentially has a pause mode.

I think Hearts of Iron looks cool only because its seems easier to understand the concepts in it, its more 'contemporary' .... whereas some of EU felt like playing an educational game of Rennaisance leadership.. or some such mixture of Leviathan meets The Prince? Meh, I really didnt give EU a chance. Its one of those game that needs to be learned in more than just a day. Not the games problem, just my patience is less these days with 'learning' a game.

etc

[Peter Frazier]

Thanks for the tip on this game. I loved EU/EU2 and think that this has the makings for a pretty cool game. I think the event engine in EU2 does a great job of providing consequences for your strategic decisions and it will be interesting to see how various nations can be shaped. I've always wanted a pre-war geopolitical game- looks like I'm getting one.

[Dr Fear]

EU 1 & 2 were the definitive case of games that were in real-time for no apparent reason.

Not true. If EU had been turn based there would have been long stretches where all you did was hit the end turn button. EU has a ebb and flow which makes it nice to be able to turn the speed up in the slow part and slow down/pause at other times. It's not like a lot of other games (4X?) where there is pretty much something to do every turn or almost. I thought the real-time was a bad decision when I read previews but it turned out to be pretty smart!

[Paxton]

this raised an eyebrow:



GS: How are you handling the more sensitive aspects of the Second World War? Are you addressing Nazi and Japanese atrocities at all? Will there be any reference to the Holocaust?

JA: No, you will not be able to build any concentration camps. We will not even have the American [internment] camps for people of Japanese descent in the game. This is supposed to be a game, and simulating or referencing acts so vile that they make wars look humane [in comparison] does not make a game fun.

[Jason McCullough]

EU 1 & 2 were the definitive case of games that were in real-time for no apparent reason.

Not true. If EU had been turn based there would have been long stretches where all you did was hit the end turn button. EU has a ebb and flow which makes it nice to be able to turn the speed up in the slow part and slow down/pause at other times. It's not like a lot of other games (4X?) where there is pretty much something to do every turn or almost. I thought the real-time was a bad decision when I read previews but it turned out to be pretty smart!

I don't know about you, but it really angered me to constantly switch the game the speed multiplier between 1x and 20x or whatever during those "long streches of nothing." That they wouldn't let you set any useful events to auto-pause the game (enemy troop movements, which was necessary to defeat the cat-and-mouse aspect of fighting a war in it) and the godforsaken interface is why I stopped playing the blasted thing.

Heck, most turn-based games have a "auto-end turn unless something happens" feature; in Moo2 it'd gladly skip 30 turns if you were just waiting for something to get built.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

I love Europa Universalis, and can't imagine what a turn-based version would look like. Auto-pause during enemy troop movements? Considering that troops are always on the move, I'm not sure the game would ever restart. I suppose it could be done TB (the board game was, after all) but just as the board game is famous for being nearly impossible to finish, the idea of my Ottoman Empire being destroyed in my opponents turns before I can react disturbs me. The game balance is precarious. To make it TB would make it a very different game. This could be the fait accomplit syndrome (once done, can you imagine it another way?) but I think the decision to RT it was inspired.

As for Hearts of Iron, I understand Paradox's decision to not include the Final Solution (-2 to tax rating, -1000000 population, +1 stability....can you imagine the outcry?). I'm not sure that they can't mention it though. Maybe the wounds are too fresh, or the scale of the horror too great to make it a gameplay issue, but to simply ignore it does a disservice to somebody.

That said, I want Crusader Kings more. A WWII strategy game is a great idea, but the promise of building a medieval dynasty and controlling the Papacy and Templars...that is role playing.

[Jason McCullough]

I love Europa Universalis, and can't imagine what a turn-based version would look like. Auto-pause during enemy troop movements? Considering that troops are always on the move, I'm not sure the game would ever restart. I suppose it could be done TB (the board game was, after all) but just as the board game is famous for being nearly impossible to finish, the idea of my Ottoman Empire being destroyed in my opponents turns before I can react disturbs me. The game balance is precarious. To make it TB would make it a very different game. This could be the fait accomplit syndrome (once done, can you imagine it another way?) but I think the decision to RT it was inspired.

As for Hearts of Iron, I understand Paradox's decision to not include the Final Solution (-2 to tax rating, -1000000 population, +1 stability....can you imagine the outcry?). I'm not sure that they can't mention it though. Maybe the wounds are too fresh, or the scale of the horror too great to make it a gameplay issue, but to simply ignore it does a disservice to somebody.

That said, I want Crusader Kings more. A WWII strategy game is a great idea, but the promise of building a medieval dynasty and controlling the Papacy and Templars...that is role playing.

I meant that, ideally, the game would warn you when troops start marching towards your provinces to invade; you can see the little guys move, why does it wait until they actually start shooting to notify you? It reduced to the inanity of keeping a close eye on all bordering provinces, as seeing them start for you from the next province over, but before they actually parked in front of your castle, because that helped in war fighting.

I think all turn-based systems should be modified to have simultaneous turns, actually, but that's a separate issue.

[Greg Lannes]

Jason,

Think of what you just said and now apply it to what we know armies in the field of the period covered by both EU's were capable of. Surely you can't say that an army could stealthily approach an unwitting foe and catch him unawares, it happened all the time.

Now I do agree I would have rather the games been TB but what the heck, it's not that tough to get into the flow of the game once you've figured out the mechanics.

With respect to the WWII version of this game I was aware of it for some time now. This I have to see to believe!

[Paxton]

sorry, I should have been a bit more explicit. I'm not surprised they are leaving out some of the horrors of ww2, I was just irked by his response to the question. While the question specifically mentions the atrocities of germany and japan, the interviewee responds with the example of the american internment of the ethnically japanese. sure this is not a proud point in us history, but that it is reflexively used as the example of collection of horrific events such as the systematic extermination of 6 million jews, the starvation and butchery of tens of millions of chinese civilians, and the enslavement of korean women in military rape camps just struck me as european moral equivalency bullshit.

I wonder what it will mean to leave these elements out, particularly considering the fact that they'll surely include nuclear weapons. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling only a twinge of guilt when firing off a nuke in civ3. Civ is a fine game by any standards, but it's certainly a cartoonish treatment of history and geopolitical struggles.

In an exhaustive political and military simulation of ww2, why not at least try to model the ethical dilemma faced by truman in the use of atomic weapons? there is a very human dimension to this war that should be exposed, if for no other reason to provide motivators and consequences for actions. playing in the role of germany AS HITLER, for instance, should provoke the realization of just how monstrous his actions were. and on the flip side, wouldn't it be interesting to simulate WW2, without the german anti-semitism that drove many brilliant scientists to the us before the war? If they treat this subject too clinically, I think they are doing us a disservice, both in game play depth and historical accuracy.

So how to include human consequences? how about real images from the war? imagine playing a game in which your policies resulted in graphic displays of famine or bloodshed. now that could be interesting. isn't this just a niche enough game that they could do it? the M ratings not going to hurt them much, because I doubt they'll be making a PS2 port either way.

as an aside, I'm totally hooked on AOW2, right now. I played the first one only a little, but the feature that really stood out to me was ethnic cleansing (I think they call it racial "migration"). Now that I've discovered this game goes a step further with goblin suicide bombers. maybe I'm a freak, but this seems a bit edgier than a mere carjacking rampage.

[Greg Lannes]

Hey Paxton,

My oh my what a dilemna you bring up. I completely misssed that in your above post. I'm not sure anyone fancies playing a game that in any way brings the truth home as you've noted. Lord I'd feel guilty playing the Germans or Japanese, lets not forget Stalin while were at it.

In terms of the M rating, the dev's of EU are european and that's the last place implementing anything you suggested possible. Right off the bat Germany wouldn't stock the game. I'm sure there's a couple others that wouldn't as well. It goes beyond even an M rating in my mind. I can't fathom why you'd wan't that simulated, some things are better left out altogether.

As a student of history my mind is screaming "revisionism" but at the same time I must say that some topics are better left on the history channel or in the history books themselves. Never forget what type of world we'd be living in had the Axis won the war. The US would have been branded war-criminals and god knows what other insane "History" we would be reading right now. The victor writes the books.

I'm not inferring the Axis could have and would have succeeded to maintain it's grip for this amount of time, that's ludicrous, however the world would be very different right now.

[Anders Hallin]

sorry, I should have been a bit more explicit. I'm not surprised they are leaving out some of the horrors of ww2, I was just irked by his response to the question. While the question specifically mentions the atrocities of germany and japan, the interviewee responds with the example of the american internment of the ethnically japanese.

It's just the way some people are. If someone asked me a question relating to say war crimes and specifically mentioning the German bombing of London, I'd definitely mention the bombing of Dresden in my response.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

[quote="Jason McCullough

I meant that, ideally, the game would warn you when troops start marching towards your provinces to invade; you can see the little guys move, why does it wait until they actually start shooting to notify you? It reduced to the inanity of keeping a close eye on all bordering provinces, as seeing them start for you from the next province over, but before they actually parked in front of your castle, because that helped in war fighting.

I think all turn-based systems should be modified to have simultaneous turns, actually, but that's a separate issue.[/quote]

Well, you only have to keep an eye on those border provinces where you are at war. It's not like Civ where you move troops into enemy territory and open fire to start the war. Unless the war is declared, enemy troops aren't a threat. If you are at war three fronts at once, you are doing something wrong because everyone hates you. If you are fighting a multi-front war, it is difficult to concentrate on everything at once - a realistic limitation that does not apply to the AI of course. It's still the best historical strategy game to come out in a long time.

You are right on simultaneous turns though. I'm surprised that it's not used more often in TB systems. I can only think of the Imperialism series off the top of my head.

[Brooski]

With respect to the WWII version of this game I was aware of it for some time now. This I have to see to believe!

I'm very skeptical of this game (Hearts of Iron). I'm all for Hapsburg-pretending, but I don't think a province-based, army-group system works for World War II (or World War I). It can't simulate a continuous front, and the resource & logistics model doesn't fit, either. Pre-modern warfare was the way it was (on an operational level) for logistics reasons -- you just couldn't supply a continuous front from Konigsberg to Odessa in 1812. So you grouped your armies into a few large maneuver units, which is exactly how the EU system works. Similarly, access to certain geographical areas was limited by an often inadequate road network, so controlling a "province" really meant controlling that province's limited transportation net and thus access to its resources. In World War II, extensive road and rail networks, as well as significant off-road capability by combat units, meant that you weren't stuck retreating out of Silesia if you lost Krakow. I understand the desire to take a popular game system and adapt it to a more popular era, but wargame design is all about choosing the game mechanics that best model reality and that are still playable. It's hard to do WWII with area movement at the strategic level, and I'm afraid the EU system is just the completely wrong one for this.

Disclaimer: this is all theoretical, as I haven't played any build of this game in any form whatsoever. That's just my feeling about the game design from what I've read.

[mtkafka]

I think the EU model can work with Hearts of Iron if they get the gameplay focus right. Its not like people hated Panzer General with hexes that didn't model reality appropriately. I think the biggest difference with EU and HoI is that they are compressing 400 years of gameplay within 10 or so years? (my guesstimate)... so instead of 1 second equals 1 year its 1 week. I can see it working... but I get what you're saying.

I;m guessing HoI isn't going to be focusing too much on tactical WW2 operational combat, but more in line with EU a game that combines diplomacy, resource management and a bit of army moving. I imagine the battles playing out like Axis and Allies? like when and where will I attack Great Britain (as the Germans), should I keep the peace with Russia and leave Germany's backdoor open to focus all resources on England? I think it will be a generalized game of war, but a more indepth game of decisions... just a guess.

I just dont want to see Germany (or Japan) hopscotching and marauding the America's as if it were eastern France (or Indochina) ... that would be cheesy! Unless the game was modeled in one hundred years... and has technology up to modern tech... that could be possible... America under the Nazi flag... nah... unlikely.

etc

[Anonymous]

>It's hard to do WWII with area movement at the strategic level, and I'm afraid the EU system is just the completely wrong one for >this.

Bruce-this is pretty far off the topic,but have you given the board game 'Europe Engulfed' a look yet...?It's in the style of the Columbia Games wood block system,but with area movement.Still in GMT's Project 500 line.Anyway,I saw it at Origins,and it looks pretty good.

Mike

[Greg Lannes]

Hi Bruce,

You and I are of the same mindeset, you've gathered some of my thoughts about the EU system and translated the inadequacy rather well.

Armies of the time of EU for the most part lived off the land they were in. That meant great loss to friend or foe alike. As noted with WWII armies or corps, they didn't have to live off the land as they did have for the most part at least a tremendous supply system in place. Another EU'ism is the nature of the "smaller countries" in the diplomatic scheme of things. At any time these non-combatant countries have been known to go rogue, that is they acted in an a-historical fashion due to a-historical actions on the player part. Just imagine Spain all of a sudden deciding it wanted a slice of Tunisia!


The scale is off too and I fear that'll be the real kicker. What is it we'll be pushing around the map? Corps, Army Groups, Amies, Single Ships stacked ala EU, Naval groups etc?

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Well, Greg, the EU system doesn't mean the same as EU. If you've ever messed around in the AI and event files of EU, you'll see that it is quite flexible. You can make Burgundy as tame as a pussycat or a raging behemoth that swallows all its smaller neighbours. With the domestic policy data, you can make its diplomacy completely inept or Richilieu sharp. The resources and stability things are just inputs for a basic economic model, so there's no reason that the inputs couldn't change. The game itself is little more than a CRT lay over a map. All the diplomatic stuff (penalties, abilities, marriages) is real easy to tweak. EU and EU2 are fundamentally the same game, but both play quite differently. Paradox insists that the main thing about its engine is the event driven nature of it, but IMHO even the events are simply data inputs.

The smaller time scale of the game will make it easier to place realistic restraints on countries and armies. Before the last patch, EU2 would often see Chinese colonists in Patagonia, at least in the Grand Campaign. In a long time frame game like EU2, where altering history is the whole point, this could be excused to some extent. With a ten year period instead of 400 years, it is fair game to say to the player "You can't do that because of historical limitations."

As for army types, this is a strategic game, so the more basic the better I think. Infantry, armor, artillery, air, sea, transport. The air component will be the most interesting to see developed.

[Greg Lannes]

Hi TSG,

First I should say that I was very fond of both EU's. The realtime thing was something I adjusted to and it would have been nice to at least have TB as an option but the game was great. I didn't expect it to reflect history because for the most part I was playing very aggressively. A case in point, I noticed during one of my EU2 campaigns that England never took Wales or Scotland and was a very minor player. That was strange but I wrote it off as an EU'ism. Kind of like Civ if you know what I mean.

I am aware that the ai could be noodled with, I never bothered but was well aware of it. What I'd like to know is how on earth can the game system as it stands, fully demonstrate a contiguous front? As it stands right now it's determined by provinces held and any country with more than one province makes it that much more tedious to ultimately vanquish. Given the system, I'd like to hear your thoughts as to how on earth Germany could conceivably take France in the time it did historically.

I'd like this game to be a winner but as I said I just think it might not transfer over well. If it does then I'll be the first to toot it's horn!

[Jason McCullough]

Jason,

Think of what you just said and now apply it to what we know armies in the field of the period covered by both EU's were capable of. Surely you can't say that an army could stealthily approach an unwitting foe and catch him unawares, it happened all the time.

Sure, but why do they show the troops approaching then at all?

[Greg Lannes]

Hey Jason,

Good bloody point! :)

They start marching actually, then boom, they're there! Not so subtle after all huh?

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Hi TSG,

First I should say that I was very fond of both EU's. The realtime thing was something I adjusted to and it would have been nice to at least have TB as an option but the game was great. I didn't expect it to reflect history because for the most part I was playing very aggressively. A case in point, I noticed during one of my EU2 campaigns that England never took Wales or Scotland and was a very minor player. That was strange but I wrote it off as an EU'ism. Kind of like Civ if you know what I mean.

I am aware that the ai could be noodled with, I never bothered but was well aware of it. What I'd like to know is how on earth can the game system as it stands, fully demonstrate a contiguous front? As it stands right now it's determined by provinces held and any country with more than one province makes it that much more tedious to ultimately vanquish. Given the system, I'd like to hear your thoughts as to how on earth Germany could conceivably take France in the time it did historically.

I'd like this game to be a winner but as I said I just think it might not transfer over well. If it does then I'll be the first to toot it's horn!

Well, one thing is that the game time moves in hours, not days, so the time scale is considerably reduced. This should roughly reflect the greater mobility of armies, giving Germany lots of time to wipe out France. The diplomatic system is being given a major overhaul, and considering the flexibility of the event engine, I can easily see an even that says "If Germany holds province A,B,C,D,E and Paris it can force French surrender with Vichy regime or choose to continue conquest." You can already do this in EU2 - the unification of France and liberation of Holland depend on control as much as ownership. So I don't see the particular case you suggest as a potential problem.

The weak England is a common EU-ism as you put it. So much depends on how England does in a few critical moments - The Hundred Year's War, a not too disruptive War of the Roses, Civil War without fragmentation. In the game I am playing now, England was smoothly sailing along until it got wrapped up in a continental war and the Jacobite rebellion broke out. The US declared independence in 1750, Quebec seceded and Scotland made a recovery. The English in India are doing fine, though. But the game is constantly surprising me, and the latest patch fixes a lot of weirdness, but thankfully not all of it.

I am not saying that this couldn't happen in HoI - it very well will. But, given the FAQ and forum discussions I have recently read, Paradox is putting some serious constraints on national behavior. You won't see Lithuania swallowing big chunks of USSR or Thailand chomping into Indochina. The conflicts they aim to "simulate" (using the term very loosely) are specific enough that the player will not feel gypped if their favorite fantasy history dosen't happen. But a Fascist Spain should have the option of repaying its debts to Italy, Britain and France should have the option to back up Czechoslovakia (ready or not) and Poland should have the choice to submit to Nazi demands for Danzig. These are clear historical chokepoints.

[Because They Are Hirsute]

Hearts of Iron Banned in China (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040529/tc_afp/china_internet_game_040529170749)

PC games...once humble murder simulators, now seditious and counter-revolutionary.

[Raife]

Heh, that will only generate more sales of what IMHO is a mediocre game. Though I loved EU1 & 2, HoI just didn't grab me.

[RightWrong]

Heh, that will only generate more sales of what IMHO is a mediocre game.

I doubt more sales, in China at least.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Maybe they are upset that the Chinese Communists never survive past 1939 in the Grand Campaign.

Troy

[Ch. Hasslbauer]

Hearts of Iron Banned in China (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040529/tc_afp/china_internet_game_040529170749)

PC games...once humble murder simulators, now seditious and counter-revolutionary.

Counter-revolutionary? That's because when playing China you can't make your tanks run over demonstrating students, right?