BTW, Hitler directly commanded army group south for a month or so.
BTW, Hitler directly commanded army group south for a month or so.
"We’ve been looking for the enemy for several days now. We’ve finally found them. We are surrounded. That simplifies the problem of getting to these people and killing them."
-Lewis "Chesty" Puller, USMC
Non compost mentis
Another thing about the map that bothers me, is the lack of height. The mountains look really weird, and even more so when the sea level actually is slightly below land.
But besides the map, the sprites seems like they're coming along fine, and just about everything else seems to be improving from HOI2.
I finally have an AAR! ->~~~~~
The Feathered Serpent returns: a Mexico AAR (inactive)
It's nice, sprites and diary
Will we have to create HQ unit, for Army, Army Group and Theater ?
And these units will eb able to participate in combats with their support, or combats unit ?
"A poil !"
Homer Jay Simpson
Imagine a HoI3 D-Day with commonwealth and American forces combined under a single supreme allied commander. This is an absolute must!
I wouldn't bank on multi-national armies.
I'm also somewhat worried about the "independent divisions" thing. I mean, if the divisions are sitting in the same province, wouldn't it make sense to group them into stacks? I'm foreseeing a micromanagement nightmare here. UNLESS, Johan's enigmatic reference means that we pretty much issue orders to Corps HQs and let them move the divisions around (sort of like Airborne Assault)...but that opens a can of AI-related worms. Sure, it worked in Airborne Assault, but their AI is MUCH more robust than HoI2's clunky "Build-a-stack-to-the-Moon" operational AI.
Also, do the divisions NEED to exist in this structure? Can I skip Corps HQ's? Or does every independent 1-brigade "division" I use to capture Pacific islands as Japan need its own Corps HQ? That would be rather annoying. I hope we don't have to use all the levels (since some nations clearly did not). It would be the height of silliness if Yemen with its 1-brigade strong army needs to waste 3 out of 4 officers it has in the pool to command phantom "armies" and "theaters" it will never field. Maybe it's a feature to simulate the delusions of Central American dictators? Making it obligatory for Costa Rica to appoint a Theater Commander for Central America, and an Army Group commander for the Armed Forces of Costa Rica, an Army commander for the 1st Army, a corps commander for the Republican Guard and, finally, the last mj.general remaining to lead the glorious 1st Costa Rican Militia Brigade into combat.
EDIT: And I guarantee that if merely using the full structure guarantees arbitrary, non-officer-skill-related bonuses, then we will see a flood of AARs with players "rushing" to build HQs first thing when playing a minor like Bolivia. In fact, I've posted an AAR idea right here.
If we're not allowed in some ways to directly control non-independent divisions, the whole thing has a very good chance of becoming an unmitigated disaster in the hands of the AI. On a second thought, if the "helper" AI is working on the same level with its enemy counterpart, the AI will certainly seem to improve!
It's also a clever way to avoid teaching the AI how to stack units properly, which it never learned to do in HoI2 (even though it does it just fine in other Paradox games. Go figure).
I wonder what other players will feel about giving up total control. The only game that doesn't make me paranoid about delegating to the AI is Airborne Assault. But it has the option of pulling a critical unit out of the command structure and ordering it independently (with a reduction in order processing delay) if that is necessary for your plan.
Well, it was stated that a unit can be given over to control of the AI and that is your choice. This is good if you want to deal with another theatre you can leave units somewhere knowing they wont sit there like a dumb sh*t if something happens.
I'm not sure if you have to delegate AI control to the top level in the command structure, or you can designate any unit to AI control then it, and all it's subordinates, will be under AI control, so AI control within a larger group.
Not sure, I tried to find the original post where Johan said this, but the (ming boggling) lack of a forum search stopped me.
I'm interested in how the different levels of command and divisions will be named, seems like a difficult task to get right
The new divisions which are randomized, how to tell if an army group should be named 'South' or 'Nord'... shouldn't have been easy to name them well.
@Johan: need I be worried?
What I'm hoping is that you actually get org problems if you start intermixing units from different corps and armies, just like what would happen in the real confusion when these units intermixed. Would make finding a seam between units much more important. Organizing your armies and creating operational graphics will become much more important. Would truly be awesome if the game came with a paint like tool that you could draw on the map to delineate corps / army / army group boundaries.
Also, I'm interested to see how attachment / detachment between higher HQs work. Perhaps a small decrease in org when first assigned (just like with a new commander). Also Strat redeploy will now be more realistic by necessity. The way I see it, if you're moving say, 2nd Panzer from Italy to the East front, you would have to detach it from its current korps, then strat redeploy it, where it will be unassigned until you reassign it to another korps.
Additionally, I hope that there will be negative effects with units being too far away from their HQ.
OT - Like the new look of the forum.
I wonder if it is possible only to delegate to army, army group and theater level HQs. How detailed are the orders for these groupings? Can we just order them to hold, retreat or advance, or can we actually specify, say, that Army Group South should aim to capture Kiev by July "x" of year 194...? How is cooperation with the air forces and naval forces handled? Can naval and air forces come under the command of Army Groups? Or will they just fly and sail around aimlessly not knowing how to work with the landlubbers?
Looks cool enough. Good job.
The Tonight Board – Ask me about it!
Hi Jack... bye Jack!
This mark entitles the bearer to have beer bought by Lurken. ● Owner of a Mr G. cookie. ●
Chile is the ROFLest of nations. Even with 10,000 + provinces in the worls they manage to be still one-province wide.
The new army system looks great but I hope that there is an auto-assignment system and that it can be toggled on/off by tier (as in letting all your division commander being appointed by computer but keeping control of the highest levels).
ETA : I like the map. It looks much better than EU3, and actually like, say, a map.
From one side there are some long awaited, but previously brought up by players, changes and this is a very good news, but from the other side the more I look into those screens, the more I see... Civilization..., and this somehow make my alarm bell to ring rapidly...
Also, Anraz, it looks like EU3, not Civ. Don't encourage the "OMG, they're dumbing down the game" nonsense, because they're clearly not dumbing anything down. They're merely making it look lifeless and post-apocalyptic. BTW, Civilization looks nothing like that in terms of artistic direction. Non-pixellated depictions of little toy soldiers doesn't make for Civilization. There were toy soldiers before Sid Meier played with them, you know.