Good question. I remember not understanding the counter icons at first (now I do). New players might find this confusing.
-
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 am for a full control. But this feature can be useful in case of offensives occuring in multiple fronts contemporary.
A graphic question:
in the divisions information window, the type of division/brigade is rappresented using the counters style, i guess. For example the infantry division (i'm always talking about info window, not the map) is rappresented by the rectangle with an X inside.
Will you stay with this choice or you will add a more detailed icons (same as HOI2) ?
thanks and keep up the good work.
More detailed? Whats more detailed with HoI2 pics? There are no longer HoI2 Model types so there is no longer infantry 39/41/45 there is equipement so Infantry will be always the same it their MGs, Rifles, Artillery etc that changes the model. Pics itself arent more informative. How will you know if its Infantry or Light Infantry or something else? Soldier in the middle is always an universal soldier. By adding unit symbols (triangle for mountain or wings fo paras) is the same like staing with counter cause the difference looks the same.
OTOH you can change that by adding pics instead of those counters. Its 100% moddable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensemann
I wonder what happens when you give the ai stupid orders like Blitzkrieg as Soviet Union in June 1941. Will it maybe even ignore the order?
It's won't 'ignore' your orders . . . it will try to attack, however, it will only attack if it thinks it can win.
Think of the 'orders' like this.
Prepare = 'preposition your troops to attack towards objectives X, Y, Z'
Defend = 'ok, guys, I'd love to have you take objectives X, Y, Z, but don't expose your troops to losses to take them'
Attack = 'Move towards objectives X, Y, Z, but keep an eye on getting cut off
Blitz = 'Attack towards X, Y, Z any time you think you are going to win the battle for the province ahead of you
Essentially, you are controlling the sensitivity to the 'other' provinces around you. In defend, you are most concerned with exposure to attack (so that you don't go poking your nose into a 'trap' province that gets you hammered). Attack will push forwards, pulling your defending flanks along with you. Blitz will be an all-out push forwards, with no troops ‘shoring up’ your flanks
-Doc
Originally Posted by Sensemann
I wonder what happens when you give the ai stupid orders like Blitzkrieg as Soviet Union in June 1941. Will it maybe even ignore the order?
It's won't 'ignore' your orders . . . it will try to attack, however, it will only attack if it thinks it can win.
Think of the 'orders' like this.
Prepare = 'preposition your troops to attack towards objectives X, Y, Z'
Defend = 'ok, guys, I'd love to have you take objectives X, Y, Z, but don't expose your troops to losses to take them'
Attack = 'Move towards objectives X, Y, Z, but keep an eye on getting cut off
Blitz = 'Attack towards X, Y, Z any time you think you are going to win the battle for the province ahead of you
Essentially, you are controlling the sensitivity to the 'other' provinces around you. In defend, you are most concerned with exposure to attack (so that you don't go poking your nose into a 'trap' province that gets you hammered). Attack will push forwards, pulling your defending flanks along with you. Blitz will be an all-out push forwards, with no troops ‘shoring up’ your flanks
-Doc
Just like a Leader giving the broad strokes of his Strategy to his Generals.
So I can design and build my units, define policy then sit back and watch my plans evolve as my high command follows my orders...
Beautiful.
I might chose a leader to pick on. He keeps asking for more infantry for army group south but I keep giving it to army group north. "Forget Kiev, I want Moscow by November!" I wonder how the AI will adapt to things like that (or will we be unable to add units to the command structure where we specifically want them when its under AI control.)
Anyway NATO symbols make it feel like a real wargame.
Yes, but I would like to see a third option too: http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/symbols/_symbols_43.html
Strictly speaking, they are not NATO symbols, but a variation on standard wargaming symbols, which themselves derive from World War II era Allied symbols. Of course, modern NATO symbolism derives from the same source, hence the similarity.
Well the infantry icons in HOI2 are very understandable. Do you remember that mountaineers have a mountain, marines have an anchor, paras have a parachute, motorized have a truck and so on.
Maybe i used an incorrect word; i'd only like to see something similar to HOI2.
That's it.
In HoI2 it was very clear with the pictures. Like Quorthon said, they used different symbols along with the unit, which made it much more clear than looking at lines and different shapes. So hopefully they will include something similar for HoI3.
It should be an option, perhaps?
The only problem I have with symbols in unit lists is that this excludes the possibility of a SKIF-like picture mod.
The only problem I have with symbols in unit lists is that this excludes the possibility of a SKIF-like picture mod.
I didn't see a response to a few questions I was also curious about.
Will the AI be able to manage the air and naval forces? If so, will it be competent enough to coordinate operations with air and land/naval and air/naval and land forces?
And now for my own question,
Hypothetical scenario: I give one AI controlled HQ an order: "Take Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad."
Hypothetical scenario 2: I give three AI controlled HQs individual orders such as "Take Leningrad." "Take Moscow." "Take Stalingrad."
In both scenarios the AI is in charge of the three objectives of the eastern front, but in scenario two the three objectives are given independant of eachother.
In which scenario would the AI work more efficiently and or effectively?
Will the AI be able to manage the air and naval forces? If so, will it be competent enough to coordinate operations with air and land/naval and air/naval and land forces?
And now for my own question,
Hypothetical scenario: I give one AI controlled HQ an order: "Take Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad."
Hypothetical scenario 2: I give three AI controlled HQs individual orders such as "Take Leningrad." "Take Moscow." "Take Stalingrad."
In both scenarios the AI is in charge of the three objectives of the eastern front, but in scenario two the three objectives are given independant of eachother.
In which scenario would the AI work more efficiently and or effectively?
IIRC, the term Blitzkrieg was coined in the mid 1930s by German journalists.
It might be so, but I have not seen that myself (which don't mean much).
One of the first to observe the German warfare as Blitzkrieg was the Czechoslovak Otto Miksche (an officer). He later wrote a book with the very name Blitzkrieg. London,1941.
But in 1940 the word Blitzkrieg (often translated) where used in many military journals across the world, in order to describe the observed German way of war - mainly describing the Poland campaign.
And it is true that the term Blitzkrieg was not used by the Germans, Hitler for instance held the word as a stupid one. Ironically he might have been partly responsibly for the words creation though. Hitler often used the the word blitz as a metaphor: e.g. "Blitzunternehmen" (regarding Yugoslavia) and "Blitzartig schnell" (regarding Czechoslovakia).
By 1941 there where some military writings in Germany as well, which used the word Blitzkrieg, so it gained some acceptance even during the war and even by the very Germans themselves. But it came as a description of something which already existed.
That is a very interesting question. I imagine the former would be more efficient, since the AI would be able to move armies around to go for objectives as needed, whereas the second scenario might result in a quick advance against only part of the front.
I suppose it depends on how different AI-controlled formations "talk" to each other. If there are really independent AIs for all three formations in Scenario 2, then Scenario 1 will probably produce better results. Which, oddly, would be realistic.
What a great game will be this.
I allready see I will try to form 3 army groups for Barbarrosa, one one the north and one on the south.Those 2 to be controlled by AI.
And in the Center my army group with majority of armour that I will leed myself towards Moscow.
What a game this will be.
Thank you Paradox once more.
I allready see I will try to form 3 army groups for Barbarrosa, one one the north and one on the south.Those 2 to be controlled by AI.
And in the Center my army group with majority of armour that I will leed myself towards Moscow.
What a game this will be.
Thank you Paradox once more.
Have you tried to play HOI2 or EU3 the same way the AI plays it?
No pause, no hindsight, no bending the rules?
For me , let AI control all fronts, it will make the game harder and more fun to play.
Hopefully Paradox will add if options. like you can give orders to army central to attack province Y if army north controls province X
lol thats a cool idea let the ai control everything ;p and shit hits the fan then u can do something about it
I lik ethe prepare option and teh AI tells you what resources it needs to accomplish it mission.......
I think this is great ... say for the invasion of russia or the blits into france...... you can set the heiarchy for your theater.. and give various corps assignments and allow the AI to accomplish those objectives.... but better yet.. you can tell teh AI to prepare for said offensive... while assigning all your corps objectives on prepare........... once your units are all in place you can then give them all the go ahead order to execute thoer respectice plans to thier objectives.....
or of course you can do the same with Army or army groups if you desire that level of play as well.....
i liek teh possibilities... of the prepare objective.... adn teh feed back that you get.........
it seems to allow you to play a higher level leader assigning objectives to large groups of units and allowing them to execute your overall plan.... and execute their lower level plans themselves......
sounds very promising...
I think this is great ... say for the invasion of russia or the blits into france...... you can set the heiarchy for your theater.. and give various corps assignments and allow the AI to accomplish those objectives.... but better yet.. you can tell teh AI to prepare for said offensive... while assigning all your corps objectives on prepare........... once your units are all in place you can then give them all the go ahead order to execute thoer respectice plans to thier objectives.....
or of course you can do the same with Army or army groups if you desire that level of play as well.....
i liek teh possibilities... of the prepare objective.... adn teh feed back that you get.........
it seems to allow you to play a higher level leader assigning objectives to large groups of units and allowing them to execute your overall plan.... and execute their lower level plans themselves......
sounds very promising...
