Re: FAQ
The Translucent Amoebae
> This group has no official FAQ that I can find regularly posted on the
> newsgroup as a good group should.
>
> So, here is an unofficial one.
>
> Don't bother reading or posting here.
>
> You may get lucky once in a while and get some helpful, accurate
> information.
>
> Better to search the web and the many blogs and forums there.
>
> If you are looking to engage in intellectual snobbery, obnoxious banter,
> argument, debate, abusive and foul language, pro-left wing and
> homosexual advocacy, anti-right wing and anti-Christian advocacy -
> you've come to the right place - otherwise, get out while you can!
This group isn't nearly as bad as the Mac OS group...!
Joseph Nebus
>On Sep 26, 11:18 am, moderator emeritus <m...@FU.org> wrote:
>> This group has no official FAQ that I can find regularly posted on the
>> newsgroup as a good group should.
>This group isn't nearly as bad as the Mac OS group...!
Well, I'm glad to chat about something on-topic; I just haven't
had the chance to get any new grand strategy games lately and I fear
boring people by posting routine summaries of what I have accomplished
in, say, Hearts of Iron II or Roller Coaster Tycoon III if I haven't got
it to a complete story. Perhaps I need to be less afraid of boring
people.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Emrys
> ...I fear boring people by posting routine summaries of what I have
> accomplished
> in, say, Hearts of Iron II or Roller Coaster Tycoon III if I haven't
> got it to a complete story. Perhaps I need to be less afraid of boring
> people.
Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing something, anything factual, about
HOI2. I was thinking about possibly acquiring this game, but HOI1
turned me off so much that I've held off.
BTW, have you any play experience with EU3? That's another one I have
been giving some thought to getting. God knows when I'll ever have
enough time to actually play any of these monsters though.
Michael
Simon Slavin
86.server.rpi.edu>:
> Well, I'm glad to chat about something on-topic;
Sorry, but you're not. Look at the 'Newsgroups' header of your post.
Crosposting to .misc is forbidden. Please trim your 'Newsgroups' header
to just those groups where your post is on-charter.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk
Joseph Nebus
>On 2008-10-01 20:21:53 -0700, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) said:
>> ...I fear boring people by posting routine summaries of what I have
>> accomplished
>> in, say, Hearts of Iron II or Roller Coaster Tycoon III if I haven't
>> got it to a complete story. Perhaps I need to be less afraid of boring
>> people.
>Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing something, anything factual, about
>HOI2. I was thinking about possibly acquiring this game, but HOI1
>turned me off so much that I've held off.
Ah, well ... hm. Hearts of Iron II is definitely far superior
to I, largely in the way enormous amounts of micromanagement are shuffled
off and hidden away. For example, you can leave supply convoys wholly to
the computer, which actually understands what they're supposed to do.
You can also leave the computer to manage world trade, which unlike the
first game seems to actually do something.
In fact, if there's one big difference between I and II it's
that II does much better at letting you stick to big-picture stuff and
not be forced into finer details.
For example, in the development of technology, Hearts Of Iron I
would force you to decide whether to develop (let me make up numbers
here) 20 mm, 30 mm, or 40 mm tank guns; in Hearts Of Iron II you instead
develop 'Basic Medium Tank', or 'Basic Heavy Tank', then, 'Improved Medium
Tank', 'Advanced Medium Tank', and so on.
Each of these corresponds to rough real-world historical
development, so you can build the tanks which were widely produced by
your nation for 1942, 1944, 1946, et cetera. So you leave to the tank
designers how big their muzzles should be.
That's not to say you have fewer options in technology trees.
It's just that you get actual visual *trees*, so you can see the path of
developing those soooper weapons, and you aren't fiddling around wasting
your life deciding on the length of your machine gunner's ammunition
belts or such.
In fact, I think the technology tree is one of my favorite big
changes from Hearts Of Iron I: while you can only develop a set number
of discoveries at once (determined by your industrial capacity), each
discovery is a collection of properties, scientific and industrial and
even doctrinal, and you match them up with research teams again drawn
from your nation's real-world history. Want to build Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles as Panama? All right, but you are short on the
native *talent* to do that and it's going to take you much more time
and effort than Germany or the United States would need.
There is also a neat twist that not only do you develop your
technologies --- better ways to produce things, radar stations, atom
bombs --- but you also develop doctrines, like elastic defense or the
fleet-in-being or the Dear God Somebody Keep LeMay Away From The Pointy
Objects, and these affect your performance throughout the coming battles.
It's a really good idea.
There's also a host of Secret Weapons, which is where key parts
of stuff like long-range ballistic missiles or computers or turbojets
are hidden. You get the secret to breaking into those by chance, and so
they might come early or agonizingly late, but then isn't the element of
chance an important part of a World War II?
There are a host of other things which make the game simpler and
better to play. For example, you can set at the production menu how to
support the upgrading and the replenishment of units in the field, and
then you don't have to worry about it again.
Similarly, air combat has been refined to where it actually makes
good sense: no longer do you set planes to attack specific provinces and
realize three months later they're wearing themselves out bombing a city
you conquered long ago. Instead you set the planes to carry out one of
a set of missions --- Air Superiority, say, or Ground Attack --- and give
it a patrol region; the game then lets the planes attack the target which
makes sense when the planes are taking off. And they'll rest when they
need it.
Naval combat has also gotten a wonderful simplification along
the same lines, so that you can set a fleet with a mission like 'convoy
interception' and give it a region of the ocean; the ships will sail
about to carry out that mission and try to dominate that whole region
of the seas.
Land combat I'd say is also improved. For one thing, again, you
have *useful* air support and reinforcements. But there's also lovely
new options for organizing armies --- there are specific Headquarters
units which allow you to keep more units in action without them falling
over one another's feet --- and then for combat, particularly in that
units can be divided between attacking and supporting attacking.
The attacking units (if victorious) move into the new province/
city; the supporting attackers don't, and as a result you have a very
natural method of building a wide front that leaves you with reserves
and gives natural time for units to recuperate. (There's also 'support
defense' when a neighboring unit is under attack.)
There's also, in combat, a tracking of just what is going on
and some idea of why, which allows one to form a better idea of just
how to successfully battle an enemy. The rough scheme: bomb the supply
lines, then when you attack, do so under air cover, with support from
as many directions as possible, including the sea if you can. But the
implementation is always the tricky part.
There's also the matter of leadership --- units with leaders
that are skilled in the type of battle you're doing will fend better
than those with alternately-skilled leaders or no specific leader. The
game allows you to let the computer assign leaders, though, and will
respect your special choices when you make them.
The diplomatic menu is also enhanced, with more variety in how
you can interact with nations, more ways to influence one another, and
they're flexible enough that in my current (not really finished yet)
game I was able to get the United States into the Allies before the
invasion of Poland (!). The game only got weirder from there.
In the expansion pack Doomsday, there are various little fixes,
but the big one is the addition of an Espionage menu. Now you can, with
varying probabilities of success, plant spies in foreign countries and
from them get information about their armed forces, intents, and research
goals which may or may not be reliable. You can also attempt to carry
out those cool espionage missions which work a lot better on Get Smart!
than in reality, such as funding partisans or trying to affect world
opinion about a nation.
The intelligence-gathering I find useful; the more active spy
work ... well, they don't tend to work so well on their own, but they
can work if you want to offend a nation badly enough that you can start
to pick a fight. (You need a certain belligerence between nations
before a fight can break out, particularly if you're a democracy, but
you can raise the tension this way.) It also lets you keep playing for
another decade.
Among the cool side points, too, you can get performance
histories for each of your leaders --- it'll tell you who was there
in the unsuccessful defense of Paris or successfully invaded Naples
or fended off the attack on Port Said or so. With a spot of luck
your leaders will also pick up special skills based on the combat
they've been doing, turning into Desert Foxes after enough time in
North Africa or the like. That's unpredictable, but feels really
good when it happens.
Also cool is that the ships in your navy pick up a roster
of the enemy ships killed. I don't know a practical use for that,
but it makes for satisfying reading.
(I should describe this perfectly insane naval battle I had
in my current game. Had it really happened --- and, frankly, it
could not possibly --- they would still be writing books about it
in the alternate 2008 in reverential and shocked awe.)
Overall, as if this could be shortened, the game does an
excellent job at tucking away the dull repetitive stuff while opening
up optios of what to do for the big picture. It's much better as a
grand strategy game.
>BTW, have you any play experience with EU3? That's another one I have
>been giving some thought to getting. God knows when I'll ever have
>enough time to actually play any of these monsters though.
Europa Universalis III I haven't got, mostly out of my weird
reluctance to buy stuff online. I keep waiting for a version to pop up
in the local Apple Store, although as it happens I haven't been *there*
in a couple of months either.
Assuming that it adapts elements from Crusader Kings and from
Victoria Revolutions, though, I expect I should be well pre-adapted to
liking it. Just the scheme where you can start from Actual Factual
History on any date from 1453 to 1789 seems worth the price of admission,
particularly if you're in the habit of reading histories and get the
feeling at various points that you could do better than *that*.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Kahn Genet
> This group has no official FAQ that I can find regularly posted on the
> newsgroup as a good group should.
>
> So, here is an unofficial one.
>
> Don't bother reading or posting here.
>
> You may get lucky once in a while and get some helpful, accurate
> information.
>
> Better to search the web and the many blogs and forums there.
>
> If you are looking to engage in intellectual snobbery, obnoxious banter,
> argument, debate, abusive and foul language, pro-left wing and
> homosexual advocacy, anti-right wing and anti-Christian advocacy -
> you've come to the right place - otherwise, get out while you can!
Homophobic much?
--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Michael Emrys
> In fact, if there's one big difference between I and II it's that II
> does much better at letting you stick to big-picture stuff and not be
> forced into finer details.
[much snippage]
Thanks, Joseph! That answers a lot of my questions and leads me to
think that I might just give this one a try.
Meanwhile, I've been reading *Marlborough* by Corelli Barnett and it is
making me think that I should take a look at EU 3 while I am at it.
Not sure if I am going to have thousands of hours to pour into playing
games any time soon though. The last couple of years have been busy
ones for me, although things may be settling down again at last (knock
on wood).
Michael
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1iocpik.1e6nyj11jo6miwN%jam...@wizardling.geek.nz>):
Homophobic, _and_ a loser.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Joseph Nebus
>On 2008-10-04 22:09:11 -0700, nebusj-@-rpi-.edu (Joseph Nebus) said:
>> In fact, if there's one big difference between I and II it's that II
>> does much better at letting you stick to big-picture stuff and not be
>> forced into finer details.
>[much snippage]
>Thanks, Joseph! That answers a lot of my questions and leads me to
>think that I might just give this one a try.
I'm glad you like the description. One more thing I forgot to
mention, somehow, is that Hearts Of Iron II has a really good Wiki which
explains many of the baffling little points of the game:
http://www.paradoxian.org/hoi2wiki/index.php/Main_Page
As user-created documentation goes it's not as good as the
VickyWiki which explains Victoria/Victoria: Revolutions, but it does a
lot to un-confuse the game.
>Meanwhile, I've been reading *Marlborough* by Corelli Barnett and it is
>making me think that I should take a look at EU 3 while I am at it.
I haven't read that book particularly, although that's just
because I stocked way way up last time the library held a book sale and
I've been buying fewer new books (or going to the library) until I get
that pile finished. Unfortunately there's a new library book sale
coming up in six weeks.
http://www.paradoxian.org/eu3wiki/Main_Page
is the Europa Universalis III wiki, although it's not as informative
as the others.
>Not sure if I am going to have thousands of hours to pour into playing
>games any time soon though. The last couple of years have been busy
>ones for me, although things may be settling down again at last (knock
>on wood).
There is that. Sometimes it's satisfying to throw off all of
the responsibilities one has and guide the world through a century of
history played by someone who's learned when all the trigger events
come up.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------