• 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.
I wonder what other players will feel about giving up total control.

I will be stunned if Johan and Co. fail to understand that their fan base is a bunch of micro-managers. If it's true that you just give orders to corps/armies and let the AI handle divisions, I'm not interested. It's too dull. There's no room for my imagination. I can see Paradox thinking that this will broaden the appeal of HOI3 in terms of the average JoeGamer, but even if that's true it will also thin this rabid fan base to nothing. And this rabid fan base is the only difference between Paradox and the Zombie Legions of Braindead RTS companies.

So, Johan, please DO NOT eliminate our ability to control divisions at least as well as we did in HOI2.
 
Pretty cool, I see the command structure system that people have been asking for/suggesting is being implemented, or is that just a coincidence ;) I like it either way!

I think the map looks good. Further to that, I seem to recal it being stated that the appearance of the map is supposed to resemble a commanders field map, meaning its not supposed to show every level/colour of vegitation.
Besides that if you look at that region on google earth its actually all brown untill you get over the andes.

As for chile only being one province wide... well its only santiago that is the width of the country, the other areas appear to be two provinces wide. Lets not forget we're talking about Chile here, its 4,300km long and on average 175km wide...;)

Im a little confused about the divisions & HQ etc. being their own unit on the map. Does this mean you cant have corps/armies as they were in HOI2? I suppose this has something to do with the amount of provinces and the new command structure. Im very curious how they're going to implement that part, but as usual Johan left us with a cliffhanger again... :rolleyes:

Sigh... these DD's are like having a carrot dangled in front of you... It seems like its so far away still. (which I guess it is)

Would love to see a DD on airforces... please!
 
I will be stunned if Johan and Co. fail to understand that their fan base is a bunch of micro-managers. If it's true that you just give orders to corps/armies and let the AI handle divisions, I'm not interested. It's too dull. There's no room for my imagination. I can see Paradox thinking that this will broaden the appeal of HOI3 in terms of the average JoeGamer, but even if that's true it will also thin this rabid fan base to nothing. And this rabid fan base is the only difference between Paradox and the Zombie Legions of Braindead RTS companies.

So, Johan, please DO NOT eliminate our ability to control divisions at least as well as we did in HOI2.

And I say please DO. Just make the AI be able to handle it and allow independent divisions directly attached to army-level commands.

You may be somewhat confused as to what the average JoeGamer wants to see. The average JoeGamer is used to drag-select a bunch of units and send them into combat, which was the Paradox paradigm for the last 7 years too (you know that you can assign unit groups to numbers just like in WarCraft, right? :p). They're finally moving away from it in favor of representing how real-life armies operate at this level. This is the way it's done in Airborne Assault, which is probably the single most realistic commercial operational wargame out there at the moment.

I'll say it for the thousandth time on this forum - micromanagement IS NOT realistic. Repeat that like a mantra. They're not dumbing the game down and their reasoning is spot on, if it works like how I think it works.
 
The C2/CoC system sounds good so far. I get the impression that the chain of command is based on rank - so corps commanders can't be major generals, and field marshals can't be division commanders?

I'm curious to know how this all comes together. I usually play HoI2 as the Americans, and as such I deploy all my forces from the continental US to overseas locations - the Pacific, Africa, Europe, etc. What determines which command a division falls under? If I deploy a division in New York and put it on a ship for North Africa, then divert it to England, what determines that division's chain of command? Does it immediately fall under the command of the nearest corps/army/theater HQ?
 
Yeah, like a map that was dunked in a mud-filled shell crater...

Or a map that would be handed to a field commander, which might have fallen in the mud when someone yelled "incoming".

The point Im trying to make is I believe its suppose to resemble a field commanders map. I would find this if I could open up the other DD's, but for some reason the forum upgrade thing is blocking from viewing those threads?
 
But we're not field commanders...we're sitting in the Fuehrerbunker and have wine and cheese with our operational planning. Why would OUR maps be dunked in mud?
 
The C2/CoC system sounds good so far. I get the impression that the chain of command is based on rank - so corps commanders can't be major generals, and field marshals can't be division commanders?
IMHO there should at least be the possibility of major generals being corps commanders--a great corps commanders were only major generals historically, after all. There were also corps larger than three divisions. I'd personally like to see major generals able to command up to two divisions, and lieutenant generals up to 5. Then I'd say let (colonel) generals command up to 5 corps, and field marshals up to 5 armies.
 
But we're not field commanders...we're sitting in the Fuehrerbunker and have wine and cheese with our operational planning. Why would OUR maps be dunked in mud?

Found it... I can see why you might not like it, but it was one of the first things they talked about in DD#1, it isnt going to change now.

Style
When it comes to style, our vision is to create a map that feels like a WW2 map, like it could be a map which upon a commander in the War would be looking at himself. We're going with an almost flat 2d-style, with pale-grey coloring scheme to give that special WW2 feel. I personally feel our artist have managed to move towards that goal rather nicely so far.
 
Found it... I can see why you might not like it, but it was one of the first things they talked about in DD#1, it isnt going to change now.
But commander is a generic term that could just as well refer to a platoon leader as the Fuhrer himself. Note that Johan doesn't specify field commander or anything like that.
 
I like the style of the map.

That's not too surprising, though... I'm impressed by just about every game detail that the Devs have released.
 
Dear Alexander Seil, one has rights to have his own association and please don't judge them recklessly or make your own misinterpretation. Separate your own opinion from “divine truth” ;)
 
Last edited:
I like the style of the map.

That's not too surprising, though... I'm impressed by just about every game detail that the Devs have released.
I quite like the style of the map as well. I don't think anyone had particularly colorful maps, not even Hitler or Roosevelt. Maybe Churchill :p
 
IMHO there should at least be the possibility of major generals being corps commanders--a great corps commanders were only major generals historically, after all. There were also corps larger than three divisions. I'd personally like to see major generals able to command up to two divisions, and lieutenant generals up to 5. Then I'd say let (colonel) generals command up to 5 corps, and field marshals up to 5 armies.
You can already change these settings in the db/misc.txt file.

If you dont want to change the limits, you can still assign a MG to a corps of 2/3 divisions.... they simply get a penalty for doing so. If your after a command system that uses a range rather than an integer, then Id think it would be attached to the skill level of a particular commander. For instance, MG Rommel SK 5. Would expect to command a division, but at sk lvl 5, he can command +1 division. At sk lvl 7, he can command +2 divisions. At skill level 10 he can command +3 divisions.... or somesuch!
 
But commander is a generic term that could just as well refer to a platoon leader as the Fuhrer himself. Note that Johan doesn't specify field commander or anything like that.


Platoon commander, corps commander, theatre commander, Commander in chief, whatever....

Semantics...

As for the AI controlling your divisions. This is an option to the player, to hand over control of a theatre (area) that might not require your constant attention. Key word being option... You dont have to, but you can if you want to.
 
It's an image of undifferentiated mud, and has nothing to do with any map that was ever used by any commander. Real operational maps clearly indicate elevations (and infrastructure), whereas on this map you can barely tell the Alps from the Amazon. Utter nonsense.

EDIT: Also, Roosevelt and the like probably never touched an operational map in their entire lives (Churchill probably did, having been an officer). If you're going for that perspective, clearly the mud-soaked look isn't the one to go with. As of right now, HoI2 map looks a lot more attractive than this.

EDIT2: And, in case you were wondering what it would look like if the map made any sense, this is it -

http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/image/921175.html?gs=14

EDIT3: I hope it would be easy enough to change province textures to a single color with a mod, that would largely negate my objection since I don't care for textured maps in grand operational wargames anyway. I could also make it brighter, as to minimize the possibility of wanting to bang my head against the table in frustration at playing in a world of permanent twilight.
 
Last edited:
I don't like the term "width", can't it be called... maybe "front" or "mass" something instead?
 
and their reasoning is spot on, if it works like how I think it works.

But will it?

I'm speaking from 35 years of wargaming (maybe you are, too) and I share your disdain for the "bean counters" who reduce wargaming to ultra-control math. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the chronic inability of the game to avoid nonsense like 200 divisions stacked on one province in the Philippines, or something similar. If I order the VI Armee to take Rostov and it blunders around in some endless loop shuffling troops back and forth between here and there, how is that fun?

I have played Airborne Assault (and its subsequent iterations) and it does a fine job of handling sub-units. But what piece of Paradox history would convince you that they are capable of the same thing? That's no dig on Paradox - I have all their games. But I don't think it's possible to design a "corps AI" that can handle divisions.