HOI 4: What do you want to see?

[Kaiser Bill]

Matilda II

Armour 78 mm max[3]
Primary
armament 2 pounder (40 mm)[5],
93 armour-piercing rounds[5]
Secondary
armament 7.92 mm Besa machine gun[5]
2,925 rounds[5]
Engine 2 diesel, AEC 6 cylinder engines[nb 1][5] or 2 diesel Leyland engines[2]
94 Brake horsepower – 95 Brake horsepower[6]
Power/weight 6.55 hp/tonne
Transmission Wilson epicyclic pre-selector gearbox, 6 speeds[4]
Suspension Coil spring[2]
Operational
range 160 miles (257 km) [3]
Speed 16 miles per hour (26 km/h) (on road)[3]
9 miles per hour (14 km/h) (off road)

PzKw III

Armor 5–70 mm (0.20–2.8 in)
Primary
armament 1 × 3.7 cm KwK 36 Ausf. A-F
1 × 5 cm KwK 38 Ausf. F-J
1 × 5 cm KwK 39 Ausf. J¹-M
1 × 7.5 cm KwK 37 Ausf. N
Secondary
armament 2-3 × 7.92 mm Maschinengewehr 34
Engine 12-cylinder Maybach HL 120 TRM
300 PS (296 hp, 220 kW)
Power/weight 12 hp/t
Suspension Torsion-bar suspension
Operational
range 155 km (96 mi)
Speed 40 km/h (25 mph) road, 20 km/h (12 mph) off road

Case closed. Next case.

The point I was challenging was that Nazi tanks were loads better than the British ones.

Sadly this particular listing is a little misleading. The Matilda II is a contemporary of the IIIE... the one armed with the teeny 3.7cm gun and way less armour than you have listed here. The listed armour here is for much later variants. This gun is not just .3cm smaller than the 2pdr, it is much less powerful (length of barrel in calibres for examaple=lower velocity=lower AP effect)

The PZIII does get some fighting power with the introduction of the Later J model - the upgunned version. with the ?L60? 5cm gun.(not certain of the actual designation atm)

If I get time I will post the armour details of the E tomorrow when I have access to some decent books at work. Wikipedia claims 30mm for this model but I am not even going to attempt to suggest that is a reliable figure.

[Meneldil]

Well, for one, I'd like HoI4 to be a game about WWII.

The current "what-if-everyone-went-nut-for-no-reason-around-1937" setting doesn't really appeal to me...

[Saint-Exupéry]

HOI III addon first please.

Like Doomsday lifted HOI II and polished it after gathering expiriences I would like to see HOI III addon to.
It would be cool to be called HOI III Doomsday I think,to keep the tradition.

Ideas are allready posted on this forum,and many of those ideas are quite realistic to envelop for one great addon(for instance Army Oganiser and additional Command chain for Airforce and Navy..etc)

[DerKomtur]

I hope the "make every nation playable and fun"-idea is dropped. No chance for balance or near historical results. How is the game supposed to be any challenge when playing Germany when people in the forums report almost world conquest with Sweden? Aborting this idea would also end making Tannu Tuva, Nepal, (you know them) the major players of spy war.

[womble]

One of the major failings of the early Allied tanks was their insistence on a 2-man turret which meant the commander also had to aim and fire the main armament, reducing the tank's effectiveness. The 2-pdr was a good AT weapon, but handicapped by being short-crewed. While the Matilda II's armour could and did shrug off fire from 88mm, like any fortification that could be bypassed, its slow speed and unreliability meant that it simply couldn't bring german armour to engagement ranges and keep it there if they opted to go round rather than to fight. Given the small numbers (23) actually deployed in France next to its older sister the Matilda 1 (which was armed at best with a .50 cal and had its wheels hangin' out in the wind for the tracks to be blow offof with a near miss from HE), it would have been easy to slip through the gaps.

Now a lot of this design was based in British combined arms warfare doctrine, which said that there were Infantry tanks which moved at Infantry pace, were nigh-indestructible and dealt with any enemy armour that showed up, and there were cruiser tanks that did the movey bit of modern warfare (and were consequently underarmoured and undergunned), but HOI doesn't model that interaction.

The III-G had a 50mm gun as originally designed and was produced from '40. The -J had a longer, higher velocity 50 mm as an inadequate response to T-34 and KV-1 armour.

Tanks are not just about guns and armour. They're about mobility too and the Germans knew and exploited that earlier than other nations.

Nevertheless:

Panzer IVs were armed with anti-tank 75mm guns when the best British tank had a 6 pdr (57mm). No significant British tank was ever armed with a weapon as potent as the long 75s and 88s of later German Marks except for the Firefly, which was a Sherman. The British heavy tank, the Chuchill didn't get a 75mm gun til Normandy. Another casualty of the British "Infantry/Cruiser" tank role distinction.

For the vast majority of the war, the vast majority of German tanks were better armed than their British contemporaries (Panzer IIs with their 20mm cannon were better armed than the majority British Infantry tank before Dunkirk). Their armour was as good as or better than the British tanks that could bring them to engagement (the "cruiser" types). There were moments where one-for-one, British tanks were better than what they faced, but they were fleeting. The Sherman only changed that because quantity has a quality all of its own.

[DanSez]

Asto the Stat Bombing issue - during WWII era, it would be best represented as Infra destruction with collateral Industry/Installation and a wicking away of manpower pool with more advanced weapons and tactics.

Maybe the best application of Strat Bombing would be damage in a 5-2-1-1 ratio of Infra/Industry/Installation/Pop but in HOI3, Strat bombing is WAY over weighted and AA/Interceptors are WAY under weighted. I've beatened off waves of Brit/US bombers (with FTR escorts) flying from Shangra-la, swarmed with Interceptors and the only damage I see is reduction in Org, not much damage in Strength ...

For a HoI4 - project
PLEASE, PLEASE don't worry about the flash and dash of silly little men doing flops of death in miniscule pools of blood

PUT YOUR EFFORT INTO THE AI ...

That would make the game much more challenging, enjoyable and worth the effort in time to master than having pretty little explosions and tiny cries of agony eventually repeat themselves in a boring loop of doom.

[bunkerbuster]

I, for one think it would be pretty cool if the HOI series made a move away from 2d maps to full 3d maps (which would provide more tactical situations, etc). What about you?

The map already is 3D. What tactical situations you expect to arise from a 3d map I can't imagine.

Also, why tilting the globe to see Europe upside down will do any good for us?

[delra]

Before we even start talking about HoI4:

- Vicky2 + patches
- HoI3 add-on
- Vicky2 add-on
- CK2
- EU4
- Rome 2 (this time a real game, not EU3 mod to play two weeks and forget it existed)

[Badger67]

4. Corps artillery. Organic corps artillery.
5. No provinces. Dynamic front lines.

Point 4. This is something that is getting more annoying the more I play. Artillery brigades & artillery attached to Corps or Army HQ's should not have to advance into the province they attack. They should be able to BOMBARD the living hell out of a niegbouring province and stay out of the way of the assaulting forces.

Point 5. That would be a beautiful thing to see...a fluid frontline and it could and a surround unit could have a "sphere" of influence to determine how much ground it would control.

[LaDoncella]

Germany's industrial capacity peaked in mid '44 I think, maybe late 44. Germany's industrial output for spring '45 was a dozen sausages, 2 tins of jam and a kubelwagon.

It took a long time for the protagonists to realise quite how much more they needed to be doing to make a difference, but once they had - they knew how to turn a city to ash.

perhaps it had something to do the fact that half of their country was in enemy hands by that time.

[Badger67]

One of the things this game allows players to do is to develop different Techs. This means to me that if I was a proponant of Strat bombing I can use some of my precious research points on developing Heavy Bombers and Bombing strategy techs could I not?

If you don't think Strategic Bombing was worth it don't use it.

Before anyone flames me by pointing out that there are balance issues that mean you'd be mad not to use strategic bombers, I agree there is a problem with the whole AA v Bombers v Intercepters v the amount of damage each part does to another. But if it worked it would be up to the player to chose which tactic/strategy/tech to use.

This is one of the points of the game I enjoy. Choices. Mech Infantry or Motorised. Multi-role or just Interceptors. Wolfpacks or Surface raiders. It goes on.

[Lockerius]

HOI 4: What do you want to see?

Well, I would love to see Jessica Alba on my bed and......oh......wait....you meant in the game?

Umm.....

Hmmm.....

Sorry, I can't think of anything right now. I am currently.....distracted....

[Phönix]

I would like to see two sorts of elite units.
One tha you can build, e.g an elite panzer unit, that will take 2x longer to create or somthing like that. Every unti should have a small "tick box" for elite, which would be ineficient for mass production, of course, but a couple of them for breackthrough etc would be awsome and strategicaly nice.
Second I dont like the fact that every unit is equal, there should be a range of attack etc that they will ahve uppon construcion, this should go for both elite and non elite. E.g like instead of having 4 attack, it should be 3.5-4.5 with a Gauss distribution of like 98% beeing beween 3.8-4.2 but some would be exeptional. It wont change the gameplay too much, since above 30-40 units, the average would be the same and the chance of getting a better or worse then average deal would be increadibly slimm, but it would be a flavour, to have a couple of überdivisions, that you just know out of the 300+ you have, or maybe its just be...

[Kaiser Bill]

One of the major failings of the early Allied tanks was their insistence on a 2-man turret which meant the commander also had to aim and fire the main armament, reducing the tank's effectiveness.

The III-G had a 50mm gun as originally designed and was produced from '40. The -J had a longer, higher velocity 50 mm as an inadequate response to T-34 and KV-1 armour.

Nevertheless:

Panzer IVs were armed with anti-tank 75mm guns when the best British tank had a 6 pdr (57mm). No significant British tank was ever armed with a weapon as potent as the long 75s and 88s of later German Marks except for the Firefly, which was a Sherman. The British heavy tank, the Chuchill didn't get a 75mm gun til Normandy. Another casualty of the British "Infantry/Cruiser" tank role distinction.

For the vast majority of the war, the vast majority of German tanks were better armed than their British contemporaries (Panzer IIs with their 20mm cannon were better armed than the majority British Infantry tank before Dunkirk). Their armour was as good as or better than the British tanks that could bring them to engagement (the "cruiser" types). There were moments where one-for-one, British tanks were better than what they faced, but they were fleeting. The Sherman only changed that because quantity has a quality all of its own.

See here again some good points, but you are comparing a mid war german tank with an early war British one.

A PzIV D does not have 80mm or armour, nor does it have an AP 75 mm gun. It has about 30mm of armour and a very short barreled 75mm gun for an anti-infantry role.

The PZ IV is not useful in an tank vs tank role until the Pz IV-F2 is introduced which does have a the long 75 gun for AT functions and armour a bit closer to the british values. That is not available in any theatres fighting the British until 1942. It is principally deployed in Russia.

People make comparisons like this often - looking at things like the Vickers light tanks declaring them as hopeless, whilst ignoring the fact that 1 in 6 Nazi tanks in 1941 are Pz II models... which are hardly much better.

The comment that the 20mm Nazi cannon is better than the 2 or 6 pdr cannon again, is terribly innacurate. Ian Hogg's books have some good details on these.

Failings in British armour are doctrinal much more than they are technical, and I completely agree with the Sherman comment... quantity undeniably is its own quality. The failiure of Nazi industry to make a decent quality medium tank suitable for mass production I believe is one of the great contributors to its failings.

Nazi armoured formations were considerably superior to their enemies throughout much of the war, but their tanks were generally considerably under armoured and over engineered (expensive & unreliable) compared to their enemies. The few hundred examples of heavy tanks in operation in now way offset the fact that the PZIV G/H - the main workhorse tank of the Nazi armoured formations in the mid-late war is a poor cousin of either the Sherman or the T-34.

[womble]

See here again some good points, but you are comparing a mid war german tank with an early war British one.

Actually, no. I'm comparing the first PzIV with a longish 75, the IV-F with tanks like the Valentine and the Churchill as they fought in the desert while the Germans fought the Russians. Biggest turret gun there was a 6-pdr. the IV was indeed a howitzer tank in France. I'm extending the comparison across the whole war, and pointing out that the Matilda 2, while marginally better armed, and certainly heavier armoured than German tanks of the time was emphatically not a majority representative of British Tank presence in France pre-Dunkirk.

A PzIV D does not have 80mm or armour, nor does it have an AP 75 mm gun. It has about 30mm of armour and a very short barreled 75mm gun for an anti-infantry role.

The PZ IV is not useful in an tank vs tank role until the Pz IV-F2 is introduced which does have a the long 75 gun for AT functions and armour a bit closer to the british values. That is not available in any theatres fighting the British until 1942. It is principally deployed in Russia.

Indeed so, which I recognise. It's still better than any British tank against which it might have fought. And you're still only comparing the German tanks' armour with British "Infantry Tanks", not with their faster, more lightly armoured and undergunned cruiser brothers. In an argument over which tank was better, who it actually fought is irrelevant.

People make comparisons like this often - looking at things like the Vickers light tanks declaring them as hopeless, whilst ignoring the fact that 1 in 6 Nazi tanks in 1941 are Pz II models... which are hardly much better.

But they are better. Cannon can kill other armour more effectively than .50 cals, and are generally more effective weapons. The turret conformation was also superior, again, in the German designs. The Vickers is more comparable to Pz-Is than 2s. Probably better than a I, but inferior to a II.

The comment that the 20mm Nazi cannon is better than the 2 or 6 pdr cannon again, is terribly innacurate...

Either you're failing comprehehsion, or putting words in my mouth. I will have to quote myself and explain:

I said:

"...(Panzer IIs with their 20mm cannon were better armed than the majority British Infantry tank before Dunkirk)..."

The majority british tank before Dunkirk was the aforementioned Vickers Mark 6 light tank. Heaviest weapon mounted in the C-variant: a 15mm MG. The next most common infantry tank was the Matilda 1, which was armed with, at best, a .50 calibre machine gun. The Matilda II was armed with a 2-pdr which was, indeed, better than a 20mm cannon, and marginally better (30m/s muzzle velocity, slightly heavier slug) than the 37mm in the PzIII. I never compared the 20mm favourably with anything bigger, because there were less than 30 Matilda IIs in Northern France and this in no way constituted the "Majority British infantry tank".

Ian Hogg's books have some good details on these.

I'm familiar with Mr Hogg's fine works. Doesn't help if you try and compare apples with cider though.

Failings in British armour are doctrinal much more than they are technical...

Afraid I have to disagree. Some of the technical failings arise from their doctrine (the whole infantry tank/cruiser thing is a bit of a distraction) but to make an Infantry tank (role: support the infantry against enemy armour and strongpoints) that can only do one or the other (the Matilda tanks 1 or 2 were never any use against strongpoints, lacking as they did any HE) is a marked technical failing. Making tanks that were barely any more heavily armoured than armoured cars (cruiser tanks) and had inadequate guns (6-pdr on the Cromwell when armour was needing 75mm to penetrate the glacis) is just inadequate. The Churchill had a popgun compared to its armour. Great engineer platform. Lousy (except the engineering version) at bunker busting or (any non-TD adaptation) at tank killing. The Comet was just about getting there (into the realms of "adequate") but never fought in any major engagements in WW2, it was so late in deployment. The Panther had been doing that job well since mid '43, and the IV since later in '41 after the T-34 shock.

PZIV G/H - the main workhorse tank of the Nazi armoured formations in the mid-late war is a poor cousin of either the Sherman or the T-34.

Neither of which are British tanks. Which is what I, at least, was discussing. Even then, the 75mm high-velocity armament of the German tanks was significantly superior to any weapon short of the 17-pdr of the Firefly that was mounted in a Sherman, and entirely comparable in performance to the 85mm of the T-34/85, which is not an equivalent of the German 88, though much better than the 76 of the T-34. Yeah, they were a bit eggshelly, but boy did they have some hammers.

[Kaiser Bill]

Ah, the joys of each man selecting his own particular example. I was taking point with the notion that the nazi tanks throughout the war were better than their counterparts on the basis of thetechnical specification on the vehicle. A suggestion that this accounted for a huge technical advantage warranting them as a division being as effective as other peoples corps. That was what I was taking point with.

So far I have discussed the Matilda as a single example of a tank that was 'massively more powerful' than her nazi equivalents when she was introduced. In all areas other than mobility she is considerably more powerful than her Nazi opponents. There is no equivalent.

It has been countered with examples of a handful of nazi models introduced 'some years later' which move towards her specification in armour and indeed do exceed it in firepower. This I do not deny, nor do I claim the Matilda is anything other than a wargamers dream ofan almost impregnable tank - its lack of mobility was a huge flaw in the end.

I Do not claim British tanks, as a whole, are better than Nazi ones - I am trying to refute this outrageous claim only.

Certainly the vickers light tank is poor concept. A poor concept which arose from a DOCTRINAL flaw. The whole cruiser tank concept, as defined above here is 'a bad idea'. The real flaw is not so much the design, but calling it a tank and assuming enemy infantry will be waiting in obvious prepard positions armed only with small arms. Had that proved to be the case the British and Itallians would have probably performed admirably better in the opening years of the war.

I made a serious error in my last post, I had intended to explicitly state AFTER dunkirk and my brain must have failed. I am well aware of the miserable failings of British tanks in the French campaign. Those failings were recognised and the useless models were almost completely abandoned within a matter of months. My earlier post, in stating the opposite is quite incorrect. Must have had a temporary brain to hand failure.

I do recognise the Sherman is a US tank made under British license, but that is the vehicle Nazi forces had to contend with when fighting British armoured formations by the time the PZ Iv had been armed with a '75.

The point I am hoping to make here, and evidently failing, is that in many fields Nazi tanks wee playing catch up with their enemies. They outclassed them in some areas for sure, but far from all. They had some serious failings too, notably they are generally under armoured compared to the better examples of their enemies, undergunned compared to the armour they face - even when this is a heavier cannon than their enemy, and very much more expensive to manhufature on account of the high level of engineering involved with such luxuries as electric turret rotation.

Citing the latest models of a nazi tank and saying its better than the enemy tanks in general whilst denouncing their better vehicles as being 'rare' is a bit of an oddity no? Get hold of an TO&E for the 21st Panzer Div and compare it to any armoured formation of your choice in the British 8th army and show me exactly where the Nazis have this 'my division is technically superior to your corp'. Until the introduction of the handful tigers in 1942/3 (I honestly cannot remember when this was although I think it was only something like 16 vehicles, maybe 24) such a technical edge does not exist. Until that point the biggest AT cannon mounted in a tank in the Nazi armoured force fighting the British is 37mm, to which the 2pdr is a totally adequate response.
Especially when looking at the penetration ranges against the actual vehicles in theatre.

I also feel its a bit upside-down an argument to say... the PZIII / IV is more flexible than the British Infantry tank because it is soo much faster... and then to say the British cruiser tanks suck because they sacrifce armour for speed.... erm? I like jam on the topside of my toast only - that way I dont get sticky fingers.

I do not dispute for a moment that the British 2 or later 6pdr were the 'weakest link in the chain', but I do claim it was, in the africa theatre, but adequate for the actual task in hand, in the main. Particularly when it was actually a better forming cannon - on paper - than any of the vehcile mounted cannon it faced. It was only later in the war this became a real flaw in British tank designs. The 6pdr was introduced too late, but is as good as the Nazi 50mm - that it remained in service and especially in new designs long after the widespread use of the 75 is a feature of 1943 deployments... and the introduction of the Sherman into British armour. It did, however, doom British armour designs to underperformance without any doubt.

Oh dear, ranting on again.

[williamprowant]

I would like to see a feature for this game in particular where you can detach or attach a selected stack of units to command posts. I always prefer to reorganize my army regardless of who I play as, and when playing a continental power I generally organize my army based on their location. For instance, when playing as Germany I conquer France. Then I set all of my troops that are going to stay behind in France to defend it, and it would be much easier if I could just select all of those units in France that I plan to leave behind and attach them. Currently having to detach and attach each unit individually is a bit of a pain in the neck.

[Kaiser Bill]

Sorry for totally hi-jacking this thread with the British Vs Nazi armour argument. If anyone is still game to continue the discussion maybe we should start a new thread.

[Burds]

A cold war wargame might be interesting if you completely ignore atomic weapons...

A cold war economic/diplo/stratey game would probably utterly suck - tanglible achievemnts such as acquisition of territory all abstracted into an 'influence' or 'prestige' value as territorial expansion in this era is about as popular as home trepanning kits.

I agree that Nucliar Weapons would have to be ignored. But cant this be represented by just ignoring them completely?
Launching a nuclair attack on someone during the cold war would lead to the end of the world. That means that no one would do it, and thus it can be completely ignored.
Or if people dont like this you could just have a option to turn them 'on' or 'off'.
I dont think it would have to suck. The moment the Cold War went hot people at home would care who had which terrotories, and were the battlelines were running.

also heard someone say that divisions are same size for every nation, but when I play USSR my divisions are smaller than when I play Germany or United States, because they have less brigades, so I think that that is well represented.
But I do understand what you mean, but because every nation has different ways of building up thier army I think there has to be some kind of structering.

And last I would like to be able to leave or join alliances at will.

[Rich Oliver]

Hexes.