I agree. The map looks increadibly boring. I know they want it to have a 'gritty' feel to it, but that's not necessarily a good thing; as of now, it looks more like the world of Mad Max than anything else. Warfare in a grey jungle doesn't seem all that stimulating to the imagination really./start rant
What concerns me more is the artistic direction of the map. Not to ruin this festival of the Paradoxian Gods, but seriously, what's the hell is up with the map looking like dirt? Is it supposed to be some kind of a statement against environmental pollution? Why does the Bolivian Amazon look like it has been generously sprinkled with Agent Orange? I'm afraid that Paradox will lose a lot of sales simply because people will take a look at the game and be like - "Hey, those guys couldn't even draw a believable MAP in a WARGAME. The rest of the game must be crap." And they wouldn't even be shallow. It's a wargame. The MAP is an important component of that. If you want to see how a proper map is done, take a look at the Airborne Assault series. Or, better yet, just do it like you did in Rome. Right now the map looks like EU3 map's ugly Goth cousin. And given what the EU3 map looks like, the adjective "ugly" is to be taken seriously here. /end rant
/clarification
The political mode looks better though. I suppose this is going to be like Vicky, which no one ever plays in the "regular" map mode. /end clarification
Yes, please more details about command structure
is it going to be possible to have a multinational structure? to what granularity?
Is it going to be possible to have something like an Allied Expeditionary Force "Theatre" composed of British and American Army Groups, while the British army group is composed of Canadian, British, Australian Armies? or even to have a Corp composed of British and Canadian divisions?
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.
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.
Isn't this new or have I missed something?So running from left to right you see of course Strength and Organisation. The next one is a new concept of combat width. Then we have the three attack values; soft, hard and air attack. Then the three defensive values; when you are on the defence, on the attack and air defence. The next one is unsurprisingly the speed of the unit. Then we have suppression value. The next two are supply and fuel consumption. Then we have IC cost, manpower cost and time.
No, units had suppression values in HoI2 to deal with the partisan level in occupied provinces.Isn't this new or have I missed something?
Isn't this new or have I missed something?
Ah shame, because enemy fire-power suppression is one of the major factors missing in HOI.No, units had suppression values in HoI2 to deal with the partisan level in occupied provinces.
I like the map. It looks much better than EU3, and actually like, say, a map.