TheLand said:Threads about "which tank was best" don't tend to be very productive, please don't turn this into one
True enough.
Now lets get back to business. I am eagerly awaiting the next diary, which will tell us more about the research
-
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.
True enough.
Now lets get back to business. I am eagerly awaiting the next diary, which will tell us more about the research
Earl Uhtred said:Panzerfausts and bicycles for everybody
Hehehe, well, I'd take a bicycle any day over walking on foot actually ^^
As long as there are roads (perhaps bikes could be the precursor to motorized?)
Have it as "Fast Infantry" or a form of cavalry brigade using no oil
A German Fast Brigade with
- Mauser Karabiner Kar 98k (upgrading to 'Gewehr 41' (2%))
- Panzerbusche 39 (upgrading to '-' (-%))
- Bicycle (upgrading to '' (1%))
Problem is that once you have it on this individual scale, then it might escalate into requiring you to keep track of several subunits as well.
Or you could have the mode of transport etc. being part of the brigade itself, and then have the "individual" pieces remain.
And the Fast Brigade above might end up with:
- Mauser Karabiner Kar 98k (upgrading to 'Gewehr 41' (2%))
- MP34 (upgrading to 'MP38/MP40' (78%))
- Panzerbusche 39 (upgrading to '-' (-%))
- Basic radio set
- Flammenwerfer 35
- 8 cm GrW 34
- MG34 (upgrading to 'MG42' (-%))
- Early Bakery Company
- Basic Mapping Platoon
- Basic Engineering Company
- Bicycle (upgrading to '' (1%))
And so on. Which is nice, but beond 3 subsections, it might become too much (which would probably add to realism however).
As for tanks. What makes up an Armoured Division?
The risk with going down to to individual is, if we take the example of Panzer-Division (Afrika) as found on this page: http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/42_organ/42-10-23/42_div_pz.html (the order of battle isn't that important, it's just as an example)
It consists roughly of:
An Armored Command Company
Three Tank regiments (Panzer regiments)
Three Infantry regiments (PzGren. regiments)
Three Artillery regiments (PzArt. regiments)
A Mechanized Infantry Battalion (Armored recon)
A AT Battalion
A Motorized Engineering Battalion
An Armored signals battalion
A Mapping Platoon
A Post office (half-platoon)
A MP Platoon
Three Ambulance Platoons
A Field hospiral
Two other medical companies
A support Battalion (repair, water etc.)
A butchery company
A bakery company
And then some other stuff as well.
For simplicity, I'll convert this to the following:
Three Tank regiments
Three Infantry regiments (PzGren. regiments)
Three Artillery regiments (PzArt. regiments)
A Mechanized Infantry Battalion (Armored recon)
A AT Battalion
A Motorized Engineering Battalion
An Armored signals battalion
A Command detachment (Mapping, Post, MP)
A Medical Battalion (Ambulance, field hospital etc.)
A support Battalion (including bakery etc.)
To simplify this even furhter:
Front line
1 Tank Brigade
1 Mechanized Infantry Brigade
Heavy Support
1 AT Detachment
1 SP Artillery Brigade
Command and Intelligence
1 HQ Detachment
1 Cavalry (Motorized) Detachment
1 Signals Detachment
Support units
1 Supply and Logistics Detachment
1 Medical Detachment
1 Repair Detachment
1 Engineer (Mot.) Detachment
(Detachment = 1/3 Brigade)
Now this is basically where I'd like to stop, cuz if you go even further, you start to encounter individual pieces of equipment which when it comes to tanks and aircraft might be okey, but otherwise? No. Leaving this up to the imagination of the player is better, cuz it can give a richer experience rather than trying to get mirred in detail which leaves out other details.
It might be better if you have an overarching upgrade policy not attached to the particular divisions (for instance, if you've developed a new radio set, then it's filtered out and you can only see it on a strategic level (i.e. under one of the tabs it says "34% have upgraded to 'Basic Radio set'" etc. which gives this benifit)
This. I want sweet sweet customized and properly penalized divisions!Wobbler said:
And speaking of penalizing:
Darth Tracid said:oh, and if you call me Darth again I´ll get on my bike and track you down
It would seem someone needs to get on his bikedpdlc said:
Great Dev Diary, I can't wait for the one that introduces us to the modified combat engine for HoI3
Ouch that was a big blow. No tech teams? Huge role-playing factor that is being taken out. Not to mention coolness factor. I'm sure you know this and thought about it though, so i'll wait for the result before being too disapointed. It is shocking to know we are losing tech teams though, i hope the change is worth it.
Role-playing in HOI is actually pretty big in my book. Between leaders and tech teams i could just imagine stories unfolding while i was playing. Not to mention all that was great AAR inspiration material. I'd hate to see it all taken out. Sadens me that people won't be googling "Kruup", "AG Farben" or "Supermarine" to know a bit more history behind it all.
It scares me a little when you say some things in HOI2 were hardcoded and that wasn't good. I know what you mean, but i'm very scared of HOI taking up the EU path of being free from historical ties. I know you said it won't but i'm still scared. Very scared. If things start to go that way at least include an option somewhere that you can turn on "full historical" or something. . Sometimes we want the game to be predictable so we can be the changing factor. I also believe that scripting makes for a stronger AI or at least a stronger challenge depending on who you play of course.
What i know is that i WANT the US to develop carriers and to enter the war in 41 and to be with the Allies. I WANT Germany to pursue a raiding naval doctrine etc. If HOI3 will be more lose like EU3 is, fine but please at least give us an option to tie it up if we want to.
Role-playing in HOI is actually pretty big in my book. Between leaders and tech teams i could just imagine stories unfolding while i was playing. Not to mention all that was great AAR inspiration material. I'd hate to see it all taken out. Sadens me that people won't be googling "Kruup", "AG Farben" or "Supermarine" to know a bit more history behind it all.
It scares me a little when you say some things in HOI2 were hardcoded and that wasn't good. I know what you mean, but i'm very scared of HOI taking up the EU path of being free from historical ties. I know you said it won't but i'm still scared. Very scared. If things start to go that way at least include an option somewhere that you can turn on "full historical" or something.
. Sometimes we want the game to be predictable so we can be the changing factor. I also believe that scripting makes for a stronger AI or at least a stronger challenge depending on who you play of course.What i know is that i WANT the US to develop carriers and to enter the war in 41 and to be with the Allies. I WANT Germany to pursue a raiding naval doctrine etc. If HOI3 will be more lose like EU3 is, fine but please at least give us an option to tie it up if we want to.
Last edited:
It is sad that there will be no tech teams in HoI3, but when it comes to making a better strategy game I think it was the right decision.Kayapo said:
It does not seem to me that historical accuracy will be lost except for tech teams. They were hard coded and meant countries could only excel in certain kinds of research. With that restriction gone interesting ahistorical things can happen, but it doesn't mean they have to happen.
I would like to see the possibility of the U.S. for example making the mistake of researching and building battleships in stead of aircraft carriers, but I don't want to see it happening all the time.
The "what ifs" are far more important to me than tech teams.
Kouei said:
Let's face it, tech teams as in HoI2 were RP factor first and foremost.
Having good teams for certain fields was helping of course, but it was never "make or break" factor for R&D - you could develop anything with any team and the closer to historical date paramater, the easier it was. Real limiting factor was never related to teams - it was always number of R&D slots, then IC required to upgrade your units as fast as possible.
Teach team skill and specialization value dropped even more after Doomsday, with its espionage system and ability to steal blueprints en masse. Don't get me wrong, I love teach teams for their "feeling" and AAR value - such things are fantastic addition to the game even if they are not critical from mechanics point of view. But yeah, teach teams are NOT critical - not even all that important (with low number of techs you had to develop), to be fair.
Sorting out what we had in HoI so far:
HoI 1 - models and upgrades affecting ALL models at the same time
In old HoI you could either change to new model or make an upgrade. Failure of this system was that all upgrades affected all models (like, 7.62mm aircraft gun modifier affecting both 1936 plane model and 1944 one).
HoI 2 - big variety of models and brigade attachment models, no upgrades
In HoI 2 system was to some extend expanded (many, many models combined with multiple attachment types creating high number of possible combinations), but for players it felt bland because of the lack of small upgades. You were making big jumps (related to low number of techs in HoI2, especially compared to HoI 1 mods) instead of small steps known from HoI 1.
HoI 3 - no models, huge number of direct upgrades to brigade/regiment
This design seems to follow players expectations for more details and small steps (see critics of HoI2 model). For now, we don't know enough to figure out how it will work - although "only upgrades, no models" model doesn't seem to fit well certain types of units that need "lock" between certain elements (you can't put 88mm gun from Tiger on Pz. I/II - or rather, same gun will have radically different combat value depending on where you put it).
What I'm missing here is an upgrade of system from HoI 1 - models with upgrades affecting certain model/models ONLY. Such system would give us enough flexibility to include proper restrictions on combining certain elements of technology, while giving players enough small upgrades to tinker with at the same time.
I still hope new system will include something like that - certain upgrades from 1936 that were big then should not affect units much anymore around 1944. In HoI 1, upgrades heavy system was leading to units stats inflation thus breaking whole combat system (units killing each other in no time). To some extend, it was happening in HoI 2 as well.
One question :
Military production will improve the doctrine research ?
If i build a lot of armoured divisions, will i have a bonus for armoured offensive tree ?
Military production will improve the doctrine research ?
If i build a lot of armoured divisions, will i have a bonus for armoured offensive tree ?
Kouak said:
I gather that doctrine research efficiency is based on
a) your theory bonuses
b) your practical bonuses, which depend on how many battles you fight
Building units will affect the practical bonus you get to researching that unit. Fighting battles will give practical bonuses to doctrines. IDK whether the system is subtle enough to give you bonuses to armoured warfare doctrines if you fight a lot of battles with armoured division. But I wouldn't be surprised.
TheLand said:
So, after battles we will have practical experience...
But will the thorical bonus change ?...
I disliked tech teams in HoI2. (I am aware that I am probably the only one...).Kayapo said:Ouch that was a big blow. No tech teams? Huge role-playing factor that is being taken out. Not to mention coolness factor. I'm sure you know this and thought about it though, so i'll wait for the result before being too disapointed. It is shocking to know we are losing tech teams though, i hope the change is worth it.
Messerschmitt researching Dornier bombers? Land admirals researching naval doctrines? Your national railroad company designs your new battleship class?
That always bugged me, although the general idea of having tech teams is, of course, nice.
However, I would like to propose something for HoI3:
Many people liked tech teams most for the flavor they gave to the game. Johan said already that there will be models in the game. Tied to the models is automatically the company that produces (and designed) it, or the person that came up with a doctrine.
So, when you researched all components for a new model you could get a message stating the correct tech team.
An example: you, playing Germany, finish research on the last component for an early interceptor model that the game will recognize as Me109. Instead of simply being able to build the new model, you get a message like
"Sir, Messerschmidt presented today their newest design study for an improved interceptor. It will be superior to our present model".
Or:
"Sir, Heinz Guderian has presented us his newest thoughts on the correct use of tank units".
The research itself is not influenced by this, but you keep the flavor of tech teams (and, most important to me, agriculture companies won't any longer be responsible for the newest turbojet engine).
Snowmelk said:
Johan said:
Johan said:
No tech teams, no models...
We create our own aircrafts, our own tanks our own battleships.
HoI2 models was just a RL aspect.
Ha, ha. Yeah, that made me feel tech teams were kind of broken. Thanks for reminding me, now I'll miss them even less.Snowmelk said:
In case you wonder: No, I haven't played HoI for a long time.
o I don't know what I was doing letting school, work, relationships etc. take up all my time.
Now this is a surprise!
Personally I think this adds to the roleplaying.
At the start of the game you're going to make a decision as to which path you're going to take initially. You're going to then play that path out, with your decisions having an impact on all kinds of other things down the road. Then the battles happen and the outcomes will also have an impact on other things then just the territory you gained.
Isnt that roleplaying?
I can see this making the the programming for the AI hard so that it stays within historical plausibility and adjusts to whats happening in the game though...
Personally I think this adds to the roleplaying.
At the start of the game you're going to make a decision as to which path you're going to take initially. You're going to then play that path out, with your decisions having an impact on all kinds of other things down the road. Then the battles happen and the outcomes will also have an impact on other things then just the territory you gained.
Isnt that roleplaying?
I can see this making the the programming for the AI hard so that it stays within historical plausibility and adjusts to whats happening in the game though...
I like this concept to Hoi3. For the people who think there wont be "historical models" just go look for screenshots of the HoI 1 tech tree.
I think the use of role-playing is actually not very good from my part. Immersion maybe...it is just the cool factor of having Rommel as a general instead of "radom 101", having your interceptors be ME109 and not just "Improved Int" and knowing you kick ass in industry because you have AG Farben or that you can always count on Supermarine to keep you up with Fighter technology, that sort of thing.
Of course when you start a HOI game you are always role-playing, you are NOT a onipotent, onipresent force that controls a WWII state in real life, right?
So i guess imersion would be better. But again maybe the change will be worth it in the end. Just as long as they realize that it is a big imersion factor that is taken away.
Yes, that always bugged me too. I've actually had games where i tried to my best to match manufactors, even though that doesn't really make a lot of sense. So intead of having FW research all interceptors/fighters i'd switch in Messerschmitt when aplicable. Same thing with Junkers and Heinkel despite Heinkel always being the better choice, sigh. We must be really crazy to have things like that bother us, no?
Of course when you start a HOI game you are always role-playing, you are NOT a onipotent, onipresent force that controls a WWII state in real life, right?
So i guess imersion would be better. But again maybe the change will be worth it in the end. Just as long as they realize that it is a big imersion factor that is taken away.
Snowmelk said:
Yes, that always bugged me too. I've actually had games where i tried to my best to match manufactors, even though that doesn't really make a lot of sense. So intead of having FW research all interceptors/fighters i'd switch in Messerschmitt when aplicable. Same thing with Junkers and Heinkel despite Heinkel always being the better choice, sigh. We must be really crazy to have things like that bother us, no?
Kayapo said:
Wont we still have unique names for units though? I hope so, I dont simply want "early" interceptor either. I dont see why we cant have the historical names for planes, but who says that plane will be an exact copy of its WWII counterpart. My ME109's in HOI3 might have better guns, or a better engine then the real world counterpart, but its still going to be an ME109 in name, I hope???
Kayapo said:Yes, that always bugged me too. I've actually had games where i tried to my best to match manufactors, even though that doesn't really make a lot of sense. So intead of having FW research all interceptors/fighters i'd switch in Messerschmitt when aplicable. Same thing with Junkers and Heinkel despite Heinkel always being the better choice, sigh. We must be really crazy to have things like that bother us, no?
That bugged me as well and I also tried to roleplay in this aspect. Not crazy at all, thats what makes paradox fans the best
and its what, in the end, I believe makes paradox a great company, because they do actually listen to their "crazy" fans sometimes, as long as its not too "crazy" from a practicle standpoint.
Piggy said:
From what i understood in the other dev diary that is exactly how it is going to be. You'll still get flavor historical names for units but you'll be able to tweak them and make them unique. A bit more like it was in HOI 1 i guess.