Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

How to simulate production correctly

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Lennartos

Lennartos

BL-Logic
11 Badges
May 9, 2005
1.368
6
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Hearts of Iron II: Beta
This thread is for suggestions regarding the Production of the HOI series

According to the suggestions this first post will be edited, and linked to the Armageddon Improvemt thread.

------------------------------------------------------

Updated 2/2-2008
Having a limit on ships depending on Naval Bases is ok
However arms, trucks and planes can be assembled in pretty much every every factory building, as long as its unused and has some space.

So in simple terms: all that a good simulation needs, is penality for switching between productions.
Nothing more and nothing less.
You can produce as many planes as you want, if you assign enough resources to it.

--- Argh... deleted most of my post while inserting list....----
--- again... now written 3 hours----
What we need:
  • Option to lenghten and shorten serial builds.
  • Builds should not be deleted automatically once they reach 0 serials left.
  • Add checkbox to control whether that production will be removed as soon as it finishes.
  • When selecting a new production show the retooling time and cost.
  • Once the production is approved, the retooling is started.
  • When retooling is finished the production will start, unless serial builds was 0.
  • All Production lines(used ort unused) should cost X.XX Consumer goods in upkeep.
  • When clicking on "delete production" once it will reduce serial to 1 and delete the line as soon as its finished. If serials = 0, delete instantly.
  • Clicking on "delete production" while "delete when finished" is active and serial builds = 1, will result in immideate closing.

Nice to haves:
  • When selecting a production you can assign a new model once the current production is finished. Also add a checkbox in that window to show whether that is for all productions of that model.(switching from 39INF to 41 INF)
  • Options regarding production methods... choosing a higher automaton/assembly line level will decrease production time, but increase retooing time and cost dramatically.

current example topics:
Other ideas?
Implementation?
manpower training?
Converting from one unit to another?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Lennartos said:
Tried to make a list of possibilitys with transport brigades, but it just gets too compicated to make it usable.
You had 8 different transport brigades in your example alone. then the user needs to learn what is interchangeable and what is not and so on..
Click to expand...
I really don't see why it has to be complicated for the player (which is what is important, here). Each selection on the production screen comes up with a default selection for the unit chosen in three drop-down boxes, the boxes being for Trained Manpower, Combat Equipment and Transport. The player either accepts the default or selects an alternative, selects the base to be created at and then clicks 'start production'.

Exempli gratia - MOT:

Default set is Infantry personnel + Medium Equipment + Extended Truck transport.

The transport drop-down has all the other transport options - selecting one shows the resulting statistics in the production screen. The equipment drop-down has all the other equipment options (but selecting 'Heavy equipment' will remove your speed bonus - also shown in the stats listed on the screen).

Lennartos said:
What good is MOT equipment witout the mobility of trucks?Its just a worse basic equipment.
Click to expand...
Yes. But it might actually be preferable in mountains and the trucks might have been stripped off temporarily for use elsewhere. Trucks at SCs being convertible to TCs and TCs being to some extent convertible to transport elements would make sense :D

Lennartos said:
How would you drag heavy AA with bicycles?
Click to expand...
You don't - 'bicycles' is actually shorthand for basic trucks plus bicycles for the footsloggers. It's what the Japanese Army used many times - you get INF with a slight but useful mobility boost.

Lennartos said:
What would a mechanized mountaineer brigade look like?
Click to expand...
Pretty much like MECH infantry, I would guess. If you have no mountains to fight in but your best troops are MTN, why should this be disallowed?

Lennartos said:
So lets just keep it siple, and not go down that road. :D (K.I.S.S.)
Click to expand...
Simple for whom? I'm really not too bothered if the system is complex to design or code smoothly - but I am concerned that it be straightforward from the player POV. The best games, IMO, are 'simple to play but the very devil to master!'.

Lennartos said:
here is a short list of usable options:

<snip>
Click to expand...
While the second of these might be a fair compromise for modding purposes - a way to 'fix up' HoI: DD(ARM), as it were, I think the title of the thread being 'How to simulate production correctly' we can and should be a bit more ambitious than that!

As long as it's simple and understandable from the players viewpoint, why compromise?
 
So what you want is this:

INF
speedcap = 7

Equipment:
Basic
Enables all firepower brigades.

Motorized
Lighter equipment.
stats: +1 speed,+10 speedcap, -10% SA , -10% HA

Mech
More robust equipment.
stats: +10 speedcap

Mountain
stats: -20% SA,-50% HA,
special: improved hill attack and defence
Unit is shown as MTN.

Para
stats: -20% SA,-30% HA,
special: Disables all brigades exept basic transport.
new mission: paradrop.
Unit is shown as PAR.



Transport
None
special:All brigades are disbanded when routed.
Unit is a garnison

Basic
stats: Speed = 4

Motorized
stats: Speed = 15,
special: Lower speed in mud,mountains and forests.

Mech
stats: Speed = 13, -30% Softness,
special: Lower speed in mud,mountains and forests. lower offence/defence in urban areas.



an so on??
 
Pretty much, yeah. The whole picture would need to be put together in a spreadsheet or something as I recently did for a conception of naval "brigades", and I have no illusions but that designing and coding the system would take work. The end result, though, ought to be flexible, evocative and add fun rather than painful management to the player's tasks.

You could even combine this with 'build your own division' by having manpower, equipment and transport elements each of brigade size. Have a set of 'default' or 'standard' divisions but allow 1-5 brigades of men plus one 'equipment' each and optional 'transport' to make up a division. A division design may be saved under a name of the player's choice.

I say 'optional transport', here, because an INF division would have transport only for the artillery sub-units, and while tank brigades might be given 'tank transporter' units they would have a fair movement speed on their own. That might be one possible offset to the added complication of having multiple elements per division, in fact.
 
Hmm...

i think its tough... the game is complicated enough in battle times...
Again, lets go back to the roots: what do we want to simulate?

Right now we do have all kinds of armys and ships.
So what do we want?

1) ability to upgrade from INF to MOT to ARM or INF to MECH and back.
2) Seperation of Manpower and equipment for trade and reinforcent simulation.

nice to have:
1) Old equipment is reusable (Obsolete equipment is not destroyed and can be reused)
2) more choice in design of new units ( favour traits like speed or defence/armor)

Is that not correct?
 
Lennartos said:
i think its tough... the game is complicated enough in battle times...
Again, lets go back to the roots: what do we want to simulate?
Click to expand...
Agreed - a reprise would be a good idea.

Lennartos said:
1) ability to upgrade from INF to MOT to ARM or INF to MECH and back.
Click to expand...
I would state this much more generally - applied to naval and air units as well as land. We want to have much more flexibility in modifying the equipment and training of existing units. An example that sort of exists is Ship 'brigades' - separating the basic structure of the ship (hull and permanent elements) from the 'upgradable' bits (armament - especially smaller guns - radar and sonar equipment, etc.). With land and air units, pretty much all of the equipment is 'upgradable' without rebuilding the unit completely from scratch.

Lennartos said:
2) Seperation of Manpower and equipment for trade and reinforcent simulation.
Click to expand...
And for losses of equipment during difficult retreats (e.g. from seaborne landings), and so that 'upgrades' require some time 'out of the line', and so that 'special equipment' for specific missions (gliders, amphibious landing capability, amphibious supply capability, fortress assault stores) can be added to a unit temporarily...

Lennartos said:
nice to have:
1) Old equipment is reusable (Obsolete equipment is not destroyed and can be reused)
2) more choice in design of new units ( favour traits like speed or defence/armor)
Click to expand...
3) The ability to 'tailor' units to an extent for sepecific environments - for example giving additional or specialised logistics support (mules for mountains, amphibious vehicles for jungles and islands) or adding bicycles to boost INF movement.
4) Discriminating between transport elements - e.g. motorised as opposed to horse-drawn heavy equipment haulage in INF divisions. Replace those 'horse-murderers'! ;)
5) Establish reasonable limits on the mix of units that can be produced at one time - a nation with only one naval base making 6 carriers in parallel, for example...

There are probably more - I'll think on... :D
 
Balesir said:
I would state this much more generally - applied to naval and air units as well as land. We want to have much more flexibility in modifying the equipment and training of existing units. An example that sort of exists is Ship 'brigades' - separating the basic structure of the ship (hull and permanent elements) from the 'upgradable' bits (armament - especially smaller guns - radar and sonar equipment, etc.). With land and air units, pretty much all of the equipment is 'upgradable' without rebuilding the unit completely from scratch.
Click to expand...
Its just a quation of mechanics:
1) we keep current system, and just add brigades to simulate different units.
upgreade / downgrade is adding removing brigades.
equipment can be reused as it stored as brigades.
2) we make new unit system, where units are build from 10-20 components.
Each component is stored, so when it is replaced, it will be availible later.
Comonents can not be added/removed ad will.
But divisions can be upgraded to new designs.
Cost and time(unit will not be availible while upgrade is taking place) will be variable depending og component availability.
 
I agree - it's almost semantics at this point. I think only three elements per 'unit or subunit' are needed, though: the troops/crew/manpower (plus the basic ship(s), in the case of naval units), the 'fighting equipment' and the 'support and supply equipment' (including the airbase stuff or the supply ships). If 'build your own division' is added this might get a bit more involved...
 
The more i thgink of it the more i like 2).. (build your own division).
The thought that these brigades can be replaced and stored to upgrade older units i find brilliant.
There should be no micro manegment about having to produce 20 pistols 1 flare gun and 6 grenades to build one light mp brigade.
But if each brigade costs xx IC and MP to produce we have a very flexible and interesting model.
 
I still think you need to separate MP, gear and logistics/support elements. The reason is that the Manpower holds the experience and traits, the gear gets upgraded (and maybe the older stuff gets given to new, reserve or second line units) and the logistics/supply bit gets changed for different terrain, uprated for specific offensives etc., etc. Maybe the supply element is a 'brigade', but each brigade has still to have an MP element and a gear element to allow the separation of experience and equipment.
 
Awkward

There needs to be a time delay in popping this stuff into and out of storage otherwise you'll see a lot of changing equipment right before an attack/defense to "instantaneously" give your best stuff to your best guys.

I also like the idea of an experience penalty (you're better with the gear you've been using). The optimal response to enemy action A. when you have horses is not the same as when you have trucks, and if you've learned to respond on horseback you have a lot of things you have to unlearn to function properly from a truck.

I also think in some ways HoI2 works well because most of the brigades suck, the system is hard enough to learn without micromanaging brigades. The new system suggested here is intensely more complex and requires huge amounts of micromanagement. As it is a large portion of multiplayer skill is clicking around the map fast enough and doing efficient shortcutting. Making this even more extreme is highly undesirable.
 
Just my 2 cents worth but trucks plus tanks = disaster , just ask the German army in Russia. The truck adds no protection or armament to the infantry and can not keep up with the tanks. Armored halftracks with a MG provide protection and firepower to the infantry and the tracked vehicles keep up with the tanks. The only reason GER used MOT Inf is they could not produce enough tracked vehicles. Late war [ politically motivated ] GER units had 2 belt fed MG's per squad and tracked vehicles for transport and Armored as well as SP ART support . THIS is combined arms , one unit that trains together with armored, tracked , personell carriers along with tanks and SP ART. These units are expensive to equip and take extra training time. They are very powerful and should not be mass produced. Basing a MECH division on late war U.S. mechanized div would give a TOE of 3 reg tanks, 3 reg tracked inf , and 4 reg ART. [ according to WIKI ] I don't care what you call it but let us build it .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back