-
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.
- Status
I don't like this 'god'-perspective. From the view of high command, ships are actually ordered into sea zones (likely to be called "quadrants") and given orders like "patrol", "convoy raiding" etc. I think the abstraction of sea zones is a good abstraction.
I agree it would be nicer to have convoys more visible like other ships.
There have been several discussions about naval combat needing a complete overhaul. Especially the fact that having no org makes ships kinda invulnerable is... not what I expect.
I think arsenal of democracy has ships actually carrying supplies and fuel with them. I suggest Rummy to register his games, this allows easier communication à la "like in game X". I don't know how the naval part plays in AoD though.
I agree it would be nicer to have convoys more visible like other ships.
There have been several discussions about naval combat needing a complete overhaul. Especially the fact that having no org makes ships kinda invulnerable is... not what I expect.
I think arsenal of democracy has ships actually carrying supplies and fuel with them. I suggest Rummy to register his games, this allows easier communication à la "like in game X". I don't know how the naval part plays in AoD though.
I also appreciate this suggestion. Furthermore, sunk convoys should appear in the statistic.
You do know that Organization is not the same as fuel/supplies in Hoi3? Fuel/Supplies have their own values here so the only thing needed is to make it so ships can only replenish those at port and they need to go back home.
HoI4: Naval combat ideas
Yep, but what Im suggesting is that its only a representation of fuel/supplies so that the player can quickly and easily tell from a glance, how long a fleet can remain at sea for.
Furthermore I still dont get for what reason a ship with near full strength would be forced back to port because of a lack of 'organisation' as in HoI3 or why they would not be able to continue to engage the enemy? If they are badly damaged that should be represented by the ships strength. I've had many games where I've seen an enemy capital ship ganged up and barely damaged but reduced to 0% org without even get close to fire, so its not like they ran out of ammunition or anything.
The main things I would like to see though is the
* More precise movement of naval units as opposed to massive ‘sea zones’
* Seeing tiny sprites for each ship in the fleet and or sub in a squadron, rather than one massive one for the biggest ship
* ‘Organisation’ replaced by supplies indicating length of possible time at sea and a ships ‘strength’ deciding if it needs to disengage/head back to port
* Being able to see convoy paths and the little cargo ships sailing along them like as in ‘Medieval Total War 2’ (as the raiders you would only see the cargo ships if they we’re in range of your units, and could could only see massive thick shaded areas where suspected enemy convoy paths are based on previous convoy sightings, and your intelligence reports/recon of air units like naval bombers etc), which would make convoy raiding way so much more interesting.
Yep, but what Im suggesting is that its only a representation of fuel/supplies so that the player can quickly and easily tell from a glance, how long a fleet can remain at sea for.
Furthermore I still dont get for what reason a ship with near full strength would be forced back to port because of a lack of 'organisation' as in HoI3 or why they would not be able to continue to engage the enemy? If they are badly damaged that should be represented by the ships strength. I've had many games where I've seen an enemy capital ship ganged up and barely damaged but reduced to 0% org without even get close to fire, so its not like they ran out of ammunition or anything.
The main things I would like to see though is the
* More precise movement of naval units as opposed to massive ‘sea zones’
* Seeing tiny sprites for each ship in the fleet and or sub in a squadron, rather than one massive one for the biggest ship
* ‘Organisation’ replaced by supplies indicating length of possible time at sea and a ships ‘strength’ deciding if it needs to disengage/head back to port
* Being able to see convoy paths and the little cargo ships sailing along them like as in ‘Medieval Total War 2’ (as the raiders you would only see the cargo ships if they we’re in range of your units, and could could only see massive thick shaded areas where suspected enemy convoy paths are based on previous convoy sightings, and your intelligence reports/recon of air units like naval bombers etc), which would make convoy raiding way so much more interesting.
That’s exactly the purpose of this thread, I know it would be a couple months before they even begin building a HoI4 but I imagine they’d already being putting together the framework of what/how to do it and what it’s going to contain, and that we wouldn’t see a finished game for well over a year.
But I’d rather wish they get as many/the best ideas possible, before they begin building the engine, and not be constrained afterwards with a sudden and new good gameplay idea.
lol, try at least 36 months.
Hoi3 is still due for future expansions if all goes to plan, and that might just happen after a Vicky II expansion.
Keep buying their games (and above all, register them
- it will definitely entice them to keep on designing.
Lol, yeah it would probably be about that long, though who knows the planning may start well before then, and maybe they may be able to implement a unthought of idea into a HoI3 expansion...
Keep buying their games (and above all, register them
Don’t worry
I did, though for whatever frustrating reason I could never connect to other players, so after playing it to death I gave my copy and useless serial key to my brother (although I do borrow it back from time to time :happy: )
Last edited:
Honestly I'd probably be disappointed if they were looking at doing hoi4 with an entirely new engine.
Sounds a strange thing to say, but the reason is that I think PI spent most of the dev effort rewriting everything from hoi2 to port to the new engine and didn't have enough time left to fix the initial bugs & apply some polish. Even now years(?) later, we're only starting to see what the game can do with the current engine and yet it still lacks so much immersion.
I'd really like to see PI expand and improve what we have rather than spend more dev effort getting hoi4 ready for the next version of the Clausewitz Engine. Its not fancy graphics that the game is lacking.
Sounds a strange thing to say, but the reason is that I think PI spent most of the dev effort rewriting everything from hoi2 to port to the new engine and didn't have enough time left to fix the initial bugs & apply some polish. Even now years(?) later, we're only starting to see what the game can do with the current engine and yet it still lacks so much immersion.
I'd really like to see PI expand and improve what we have rather than spend more dev effort getting hoi4 ready for the next version of the Clausewitz Engine. Its not fancy graphics that the game is lacking.
for that you have the expansions. Also hoi IV does not have any release date (but i guess around 2015
)
My two cents worth, without having read through all the posts..
!) some means of making divisions stay together in a group when you give orders. Like HOI2 when you highlight two divisions and click the group buttom they stay together until you ungroup them. I know you can use control 1, 2 etc but why not add a button..
2) A means of grouping the HQ brigade - particularly the corps HQs as above. Again with HoI2 the corps HQ brigades was just part of the structure.. I like the chain of command structure in HoI3, and the deliberate creation of HQs, but having seperate corps HQs makes game play very fiddly, and they have their own combat values.. make it so that they can be attached to a division and stay attached if the player so chooses. All combat values should be removed, and they should not count as a brigade slot in the division. Separate HQs for armies and above is fine (although no combat values) - although brigades should be attachable.
3) Expeditionary forces. this is a pain at the moment. This business about setting objectives for allied players does not really work, and allies just don't grant expeditionary forces, but the HoI2 bit about taking over all the allied forces is perhaps going too far. . There should be some provision for Germany, say, negotiating with Hungary and Italy for major expeditionary forces for the Eastern Front (haven't gone to deep into FTM, maybe its there).. The US negotiating with Britain for European invasion forces and so on..
3) Love the idea of assembling divisions from brigades. There have been suggestions for making this process more detailed. Worth looking at.
4) Like everyone else I would like to see the AI more capable. At the moment I don't trust with anything other the simplest tasks. However, this business about giving HQs objectives has promise. Telling the HQ to raid shipping or defend against bombers is an advance.. and it will, say, advance to Warsaw when the breakthrough has occured.. Simple stuff..
!) some means of making divisions stay together in a group when you give orders. Like HOI2 when you highlight two divisions and click the group buttom they stay together until you ungroup them. I know you can use control 1, 2 etc but why not add a button..
2) A means of grouping the HQ brigade - particularly the corps HQs as above. Again with HoI2 the corps HQ brigades was just part of the structure.. I like the chain of command structure in HoI3, and the deliberate creation of HQs, but having seperate corps HQs makes game play very fiddly, and they have their own combat values.. make it so that they can be attached to a division and stay attached if the player so chooses. All combat values should be removed, and they should not count as a brigade slot in the division. Separate HQs for armies and above is fine (although no combat values) - although brigades should be attachable.
3) Expeditionary forces. this is a pain at the moment. This business about setting objectives for allied players does not really work, and allies just don't grant expeditionary forces, but the HoI2 bit about taking over all the allied forces is perhaps going too far. . There should be some provision for Germany, say, negotiating with Hungary and Italy for major expeditionary forces for the Eastern Front (haven't gone to deep into FTM, maybe its there).. The US negotiating with Britain for European invasion forces and so on..
3) Love the idea of assembling divisions from brigades. There have been suggestions for making this process more detailed. Worth looking at.
4) Like everyone else I would like to see the AI more capable. At the moment I don't trust with anything other the simplest tasks. However, this business about giving HQs objectives has promise. Telling the HQ to raid shipping or defend against bombers is an advance.. and it will, say, advance to Warsaw when the breakthrough has occured.. Simple stuff..
What do I want from any future HOI game?
I want a way to tell theater AIs "I want you to restructure all divisions containing INF into new configuration X." Unless I am running something directly related to 3xINF, most games I spend half an hour resetting up all divisions to be ready to conform to whatever standard division structure I will be using.
It would be even nicer if I could tell the Theater AI "Take all brigades in the theater that could be used in template XII and reconfigure them to match template XII."
I want a way to tell theater AIs "I want you to restructure all divisions containing INF into new configuration X." Unless I am running something directly related to 3xINF, most games I spend half an hour resetting up all divisions to be ready to conform to whatever standard division structure I will be using.
It would be even nicer if I could tell the Theater AI "Take all brigades in the theater that could be used in template XII and reconfigure them to match template XII."
Sorry to be nitpicky but how would you do that? I mean you would allow console commands? Or you can imagine an easy to use graphic interface for such complex commands? Because I can't. (Which is a shame, I thought I was a creative person, but turns out I'm not )
)
Good thread.
I'll repeat some of the suggestions I like and add some of my own:
1.) The economic system needs to be more complicated.
a.) more resources: the current 4 do not cut it. We need more, and the strategic resources from FTM go a long way, but they are now an on/off switch, while they need to be produced in a certain quantity and consumed in a certain amount based on production. Food definitely needs to be a resource, perhaps in multiple varieties, like grain, corn, rice, beef, etc.
b.) IC needs to be split in certain types of factories. If you want to build naval ships, you do indeed need shipyards, and they each can only build a limited amount of ships simulataneously. Different factories require different levels of quality of labor working there: putting untrained women to work is easier in a simple assembly line for clothes than it is for welding submarine hulls.
c.) Continuing on the above: manpower indeed needs to be split. One poster suggested: unskilled labor, trained labor, conscripts, trained soldiers, airmen, sailors, etc. If you put unskilled labor in a certain factory, their experience and skill in those assembly techniques can also go up.
d.) There needs to be a split between the manpower in build divisions and equipment. Obsolete equipment can be donated to allies, sold to third parties (hey, a use for Sweden's Bofors AA), or used for training (like was done with German submarines).
e.) The logistics of the equipment needs to be handled as well. Build a tank in central Germany, it still needs to get to the Russian front. Railways and bridges have been mentioned to be more explicitely in, and I would love to see that. Similarly resources need to be transported to the refineries, mills and factories. Intermediate products like plate steel, engines and ball bearings are products as well. Bombing these factories can be done.
2.) A blind, random chance based research system.
You can only indicate a general direction in which you want your research to go. Certain countries, certain individuals, industrial experience (Germany very good in chemical stuff, USA in electronics), direct war experience (Germany and Italy benefiting a lot from the SCW), and doctrines (Guderian says we need breakthrough units, so get me tanks and motorized infantry) give more chance of achieving breakthroughs in certain situations. For example, Germany getting the Czech Skoda factories will give a boost to tank research. This brings back some of the flavor of the tech teams of HOI2/AoD. You can still sort of beeline, but nothing is guaranteed.
3.) Different models for air and naval combat. War in the Pacific has some good models. Airplanes have more stats, like max altitude, climbing speed and turn speed, etc. Submarines and torpedos having a chance to get a fish in should practically sink most vessels.
4.) Being able to spread out divisions over multiple provinces. Doesn't have to be split into brigade level, but being able to spread them out could allow you to put 60% of your division at the bridge, and 20% on each side of the river bank in the neighboring province or hex.
I'll repeat some of the suggestions I like and add some of my own:
1.) The economic system needs to be more complicated.
a.) more resources: the current 4 do not cut it. We need more, and the strategic resources from FTM go a long way, but they are now an on/off switch, while they need to be produced in a certain quantity and consumed in a certain amount based on production. Food definitely needs to be a resource, perhaps in multiple varieties, like grain, corn, rice, beef, etc.
b.) IC needs to be split in certain types of factories. If you want to build naval ships, you do indeed need shipyards, and they each can only build a limited amount of ships simulataneously. Different factories require different levels of quality of labor working there: putting untrained women to work is easier in a simple assembly line for clothes than it is for welding submarine hulls.
c.) Continuing on the above: manpower indeed needs to be split. One poster suggested: unskilled labor, trained labor, conscripts, trained soldiers, airmen, sailors, etc. If you put unskilled labor in a certain factory, their experience and skill in those assembly techniques can also go up.
d.) There needs to be a split between the manpower in build divisions and equipment. Obsolete equipment can be donated to allies, sold to third parties (hey, a use for Sweden's Bofors AA), or used for training (like was done with German submarines).
e.) The logistics of the equipment needs to be handled as well. Build a tank in central Germany, it still needs to get to the Russian front. Railways and bridges have been mentioned to be more explicitely in, and I would love to see that. Similarly resources need to be transported to the refineries, mills and factories. Intermediate products like plate steel, engines and ball bearings are products as well. Bombing these factories can be done.
2.) A blind, random chance based research system.
You can only indicate a general direction in which you want your research to go. Certain countries, certain individuals, industrial experience (Germany very good in chemical stuff, USA in electronics), direct war experience (Germany and Italy benefiting a lot from the SCW), and doctrines (Guderian says we need breakthrough units, so get me tanks and motorized infantry) give more chance of achieving breakthroughs in certain situations. For example, Germany getting the Czech Skoda factories will give a boost to tank research. This brings back some of the flavor of the tech teams of HOI2/AoD. You can still sort of beeline, but nothing is guaranteed.
3.) Different models for air and naval combat. War in the Pacific has some good models. Airplanes have more stats, like max altitude, climbing speed and turn speed, etc. Submarines and torpedos having a chance to get a fish in should practically sink most vessels.
4.) Being able to spread out divisions over multiple provinces. Doesn't have to be split into brigade level, but being able to spread them out could allow you to put 60% of your division at the bridge, and 20% on each side of the river bank in the neighboring province or hex.
One way to do it would be to create "Unit Templates" in the Theatre Tab and add a "Reorganise" button to the HQ unit interface when the Theatre AI is activated. If the Theatre AI spots any units that do not fit the templates, then it will try to reorganise them. If the button is not activated, then it will do nothing. If there are too few brigades, then it will add them to "Unit needs" window.Sorry to be nitpicky but how would you do that? I mean you would allow console commands? Or you can imagine an easy to use graphic interface for such complex commands? Because I can't. (Which is a shame, I thought I was a creative person, but turns out I'm not
How would it know which unit should be reorganised into what template?
?? How is it related to the interface? It's an AI problem. Most likely, it should check the templates and the brigade number and see how many template divs can be formed with the available forces. It may become a problem when there are many templates which use the same brigades, so templates could have player-assigned priorities, too.
Examples:
1) I have 51 inf brigades and 5 art brigades, the favoured template is 3xINf+1xART and the other template is 3xART. The AI creates five 3xINF+1xART divs and twelve 3xINF divs.
2) I have 51 inf brigades and 5 art brigades and the only template is 3xINf+1xART. The AI creates five 3xINF+1xART divs and adds 12 ARTs to the Needs window.
3) I have 51 inf brigades, 5 art brigades and 3 arm brigades and there are three templates with different priorities. 3xINF+1xART is ranked first, 3xARM+1xAC second and 3xINF third. The AI creates five 3xINF+1xART divs, twelve 3xINF divs and adds 1 AC to the Needs window.
How to build HoI4 eh? Well then...
1. Make weapons on the tech tree modular.
When your research tank gun 1937 you get a 20mm tank gun 'module' that you can now place on a 1936 tank hull 'module' PzKpfw IIA
That way the 'spites' can be used in a weapons development screen, rather than on the map, which gets annoying for me (although you can have the option to still see them there).
This way you gain a lot of control over the units you are producing, and upgrading throughout the war. Say you've got a load of units based on the 1936 tank hull, but that 20mm gun isn't up to scratch, upgrade the design to the 1939 35mm tank gun.
This makes 'upgrades' more intuitive, and remove the general way that everything upgrades of its own accord. Of course, let's have a tick box for AI upgrades on the HQ tab, which the leader using their traits will select what to upgrade below him. Therefore who you put in command becomes far more important than it ever was.
Similarly, with infantry brigades you can design some brigades with MGs for defensive use, but scrimp on giving them flame-throwers or mortars for assaulting positions.
With a 5 point plan:
Inf: Small Arms, Officer Class/Ratio, Support Slot 1, Support Slot 2, Specialist Training (denotes Mtn/Para/Mar/MP/Mill etc. skills)
Arm: Chassis, Engine(s), Turret(s), Gun(s), Armour (plural for chassis that support multiple etc. EDIT:Matilda Grant tank sorry)
Aircraft: Chassis, Engine(s), Armament(s), Payload(s), Rolls (denotes transport/escort/ASW/Nav etc.)
Naval Units*: Hull, Engines, Main battery, Second-battery 1, Second-battery 2
* Carriers being a tad different
For all AI, or lazy players there is already a list of real period designs for your brigades.
2. Improve doctrinal strategies
The HPP mod has it good for choosing operational doctrines to effect your armed forces. Having a tab that allows you to research each years (or couple of years) doctrines.
For instance loosing 5% experience on newly trained units for a -5% production time allows you to design your strategy.
If you want to go artillery supported assault, gain +2hrs on attack delay, but gain 5% assault etc.
3. Tree UI for OOB rearrangement
Quite simply have a window that displays your order of battle, allowing you to drag and drop divisions/brigades/corps as you want between commanders, and allowing the player to see the full disposition with pop-up tooltip info boxes on mouse over.
Furthermore allow you to give specific commanders specific researched doctrines and stances. Commanders default to their 'traits' for these without player involvement, however as the AI techs up a doctrine tree commanders become more likely to gain traits along that doctrine line (same for your own forces).
4. Divisions will not move out of communication range of their corps and so on
This will help with the AI making ridiculous rearrangements of their army after a while of combat.
Attaching Cav/Mot divisions at higher levels allows you to plug holes, or if a corps is set to the 'elastic defence' doctrine, then it will hold itself in reserve to plug holes in the line when they occur etc.
Overall, army groups, armies and corps should stay all together on a front.
5. Supply lines follow HQ groups, or special logistics brigades from 'supply dumps'
Supply dumps default to the local army group. From here a supply train automatically forms to the army HQs via shortest possibly route priority infrastructure and logistics brigades. Log brigades acting as local nodes that speed up and enlarge throughput (the route being calculated after Log brigades effects taken into account).
When supply’s reach the army HQ it follows the same pattern to Corps, and only from then on follows to each division.
For the lazy player allow a tick box option to train Log brigades with HQ units.
6. Region specific commands
Quite simply when you click on a region as to bring up the info window, give it some options. “Priority attack (1-3)”, "Priority defence (1-3)”, "Set as Supply Dump" (stockpiles 1,000 supplies for instance, for distribution). "Allied objective priority (1-3)" "Spy here (province)", "Port Strike here (1-3)" (flags port strike missions to focus here)
Likewise an "Invade here" option, whereby when you use shift to select an attack path it sets the starting region as (priority attack 1), then all the surrounding region on the axis of attack as priority attack 2, when the first region is taken, the next one in the series becomes priority 1, and the next 2 ect.
The higher up a HQ you select, the more resources the AI will have to make this attack path happen. Allowing you to define axis of advance far simplier and allow for spearhead attacks, encirlments and similar far easier.
For instance an AI that is teching through the Blitzkreig doctrine, sets its attack paths at army level, causing multiple corps and divisions to plough through a very small front region, with the best units designated to the highest priority regions, and so forth.
An AI on Human Wave doctrine might select paths at divisional level, only ever going forward in a broad front. Grand Battleplan being halfway between the two at corps level.
Although for both of those, selecting a HQ higher up the chain, will allow for more units to be involved in creating that axis of advance.
Side Note:
Make province AA attack all aircraft path finding through the region as well as attacking. Same for mobile AA (which isn't in combat). Thus mobile AA is something you keep behind the lines again mostly.
7. Airbase based aircraft & range markers for air wings
I must admit this idea comes from somebody else, but its a good one. Airbases are set missions (opened by clicking on the airbase) showing idle air wings (NB: air wings are made smaller and cheaper representing planes on a field, ergo CAGs and other air wings are same size). Then each air wing can be given a mission set. Close Air Support, Ground Interdiction, Air Suporitory (radar reducing org. loss due to frequent flying) etc.
Then the airbase itself flys the missions as appropriate within range. Again doctrine dictates what kind of air wing commanders develop, and their traits dictate the missions for the AI.
9b. Air wings can only rebase within double their operational range
9c. Cags consider the carrier as their airbase
8. Port based shipping & range markers for fleets
Like the airfields, the same for ports, with a drag and drop option to move ships from 'fleet' to 'berthed' or 'repair and refit' or 'upgrade' (where you can choose what to upgrade using the 5 point system).
Likewise the port shows incoming/outgoing supplies/resources, throughput, losses and the 'supply dump' effect of a port (all ports are supply dumps by default).
By dragging and dropping ships into fleets from a general 'berthed' status, and showing you the parameters of your current fleet composition (possibly with some sprite graphics of the fleet) it allows you to apprise a fleet at a glance and with great simplicity.
Again missions can be chosen for fleets from the port (convoy raiding, patrol (with as many patrol points selected as you wish, path-finding done by shortest route) Invade here (for fleets containing transports with troops, brigades being able to be moved onto transport ships by drag and drop again from a troops tab)
9. Enhanced diplomacy and an overhaul of neutrality.
While factions should be retained 'as is', the possibility of forming 'alliance factions' should be allowed. This works just like the faction drift, allowing you to influence nations to join your alliance. This only works if you have an alliance. Alliances with any of the faction powers is a faction alliance.
Spies can increase neutrality, but at a very much reduced rate (like national unity)
Allow multiple spy missions, and uncap the number of spies. However captured spies generate threat, as well as decrementing your protection and quality of espoionage as codes and operational techniques are uncovered.
Make spies able to generate many of the historic events. Eg. Raising propaganda for a political party (other than the ruling as well for government changes), organise a coup, or kidnap one of the politicians.
Make the success of such missions be weighted against the repercussions of failure. Then make certian nations enact those missions, while others tend not to, always keep the choice to enact any of these missions slightly random.
Allow the 'undeclared war' if the mutual threat is enough to declare war allow military actions short of actual invasion are allowed. Therefore bombing, naval combat (strategic warfare).
Thus Pearl Harbour...
If you are attacked in such a manner, you can enter a full war with the bonus of having been attacked for mobilisation, or select to back down and become a puppet or have provinces on the border occupied. Similar to the annexation of the Sudetenland. Thus allowing gunboat diplomacy.
Allow 'peace deals', including within factions, thus allowing you to pull out of a war if your surrender process is say less than 35%.
Peace deals would allow you to transfer regions (worth calculated on content), and could be selected off the main map with simple left clicks. Reparations could be paid, etc. etc.
The AI simply works our how 'much' you are offering, less the threat you pose, how much the demands are 'worth' and if the demands are less than the 'offer' it accepts the deal. With rejected details you get a reason why. Breaking deals of this nature increase the cost of your demands in future dramatically as you are no longer trustworthy. In general, such detials would carry a cavaet of having to immidiately demobilise or simmilar to prevent gaming the system. Remobilising within the 'game era' without good cause (e.g. ally attacked) results in major generation of threat from previously signed partners.
10. Better Icon/Map information
Counters need to be more intuitive, showing strength, org. and supply as well as a small indicator to show how matched they are with the enemies troops adjacent are, (so long as you have some intelligence level, thus making intelligence gathering more important)
without having to enter some skirmish to find out.
With this allow recon missions for aircraft and submarines.
Also spies on military intelligence missions show the unit counters on the map over the fog of war, clicking on them allows you to see the units known about in as much detail as your spys have found out.
When your in a battle, allow you to choose a 'rout' option, or a 'tactical retreat', defensive leaders generally retreat, offensive one tend to press until their troops rout. Rout gains you an enhanced movement speed to fall to the rear (2 provinces back) for say 3 days, they loose all organisation and can't be reordered until the division reaches that point but reorganise much faster after that point. Tactical retreat allows org. gain on the retreat, but you still take casualties as the battle continues, until the army has moved back to the province directly behind.
Thus allowing you to form collapsing centres, or delaying attacks with far more ease. If enacted at higher HQ levels, then it pulls combat units back as one.
On the map allow the infrastructure map to include weather effects. Furthermore make bridges exist on some region links!!! While other river crossings (without engineers) are nigh impossible. To place emphsis on their strategic quality.
Likewise, let's have a factory icon to show those centers, and the air/naval map combined as an 'operation map' showing air combat, bombings, convoy attacks, all with their own unique icon, as well as a twin pair slider for how far back you want to look (within the last year for instance, but not last month).
Make combat buildings building levels effect the cost of construction. For example Lv.1 forts don't cost as much as Lv.2 ones in IC and so on, however practical gain ramps with quality of building. Therefore Lv.1 buildings give next to nothing in practical, but Lv.10 ones give say 3.0 practical a piece.
This means its 'easy' to create a front-line airstrip, or mulberry harbour 'on the spot' like was done during the war. Whereas here, it takes the better part of a year to build, and by then the front has moved on.
Or
In regions with an engineer brigade present they can have the option to build Lv.1 combat structures only (during which the brigade cannot be moved), but you get your structure in ~3 weeks depending on con.pract.
Likewise, if Eng and Log brigades were needed to be present in the region to repair structures (apart from 'urban terrain') this would make battlefield devestation far more potent, making a proper case for cutting supply lines, as well as defending 'behind the front-line'.
These are some of my thoughts, do you agree with them, think them to be a move in the right direction?
1. Make weapons on the tech tree modular.
When your research tank gun 1937 you get a 20mm tank gun 'module' that you can now place on a 1936 tank hull 'module' PzKpfw IIA
That way the 'spites' can be used in a weapons development screen, rather than on the map, which gets annoying for me (although you can have the option to still see them there).
This way you gain a lot of control over the units you are producing, and upgrading throughout the war. Say you've got a load of units based on the 1936 tank hull, but that 20mm gun isn't up to scratch, upgrade the design to the 1939 35mm tank gun.
This makes 'upgrades' more intuitive, and remove the general way that everything upgrades of its own accord. Of course, let's have a tick box for AI upgrades on the HQ tab, which the leader using their traits will select what to upgrade below him. Therefore who you put in command becomes far more important than it ever was.
Similarly, with infantry brigades you can design some brigades with MGs for defensive use, but scrimp on giving them flame-throwers or mortars for assaulting positions.
With a 5 point plan:
Inf: Small Arms, Officer Class/Ratio, Support Slot 1, Support Slot 2, Specialist Training (denotes Mtn/Para/Mar/MP/Mill etc. skills)
Arm: Chassis, Engine(s), Turret(s), Gun(s), Armour (plural for chassis that support multiple etc. EDIT:
Aircraft: Chassis, Engine(s), Armament(s), Payload(s), Rolls (denotes transport/escort/ASW/Nav etc.)
Naval Units*: Hull, Engines, Main battery, Second-battery 1, Second-battery 2
* Carriers being a tad different
For all AI, or lazy players there is already a list of real period designs for your brigades.
2. Improve doctrinal strategies
The HPP mod has it good for choosing operational doctrines to effect your armed forces. Having a tab that allows you to research each years (or couple of years) doctrines.
For instance loosing 5% experience on newly trained units for a -5% production time allows you to design your strategy.
If you want to go artillery supported assault, gain +2hrs on attack delay, but gain 5% assault etc.
3. Tree UI for OOB rearrangement
Quite simply have a window that displays your order of battle, allowing you to drag and drop divisions/brigades/corps as you want between commanders, and allowing the player to see the full disposition with pop-up tooltip info boxes on mouse over.
Furthermore allow you to give specific commanders specific researched doctrines and stances. Commanders default to their 'traits' for these without player involvement, however as the AI techs up a doctrine tree commanders become more likely to gain traits along that doctrine line (same for your own forces).
4. Divisions will not move out of communication range of their corps and so on
This will help with the AI making ridiculous rearrangements of their army after a while of combat.
Attaching Cav/Mot divisions at higher levels allows you to plug holes, or if a corps is set to the 'elastic defence' doctrine, then it will hold itself in reserve to plug holes in the line when they occur etc.
Overall, army groups, armies and corps should stay all together on a front.
5. Supply lines follow HQ groups, or special logistics brigades from 'supply dumps'
Supply dumps default to the local army group. From here a supply train automatically forms to the army HQs via shortest possibly route priority infrastructure and logistics brigades. Log brigades acting as local nodes that speed up and enlarge throughput (the route being calculated after Log brigades effects taken into account).
When supply’s reach the army HQ it follows the same pattern to Corps, and only from then on follows to each division.
For the lazy player allow a tick box option to train Log brigades with HQ units.
6. Region specific commands
Quite simply when you click on a region as to bring up the info window, give it some options. “Priority attack (1-3)”, "Priority defence (1-3)”, "Set as Supply Dump" (stockpiles 1,000 supplies for instance, for distribution). "Allied objective priority (1-3)" "Spy here (province)", "Port Strike here (1-3)" (flags port strike missions to focus here)
Likewise an "Invade here" option, whereby when you use shift to select an attack path it sets the starting region as (priority attack 1), then all the surrounding region on the axis of attack as priority attack 2, when the first region is taken, the next one in the series becomes priority 1, and the next 2 ect.
The higher up a HQ you select, the more resources the AI will have to make this attack path happen. Allowing you to define axis of advance far simplier and allow for spearhead attacks, encirlments and similar far easier.
For instance an AI that is teching through the Blitzkreig doctrine, sets its attack paths at army level, causing multiple corps and divisions to plough through a very small front region, with the best units designated to the highest priority regions, and so forth.
An AI on Human Wave doctrine might select paths at divisional level, only ever going forward in a broad front. Grand Battleplan being halfway between the two at corps level.
Although for both of those, selecting a HQ higher up the chain, will allow for more units to be involved in creating that axis of advance.
Side Note:
Make province AA attack all aircraft path finding through the region as well as attacking. Same for mobile AA (which isn't in combat). Thus mobile AA is something you keep behind the lines again mostly.
7. Airbase based aircraft & range markers for air wings
I must admit this idea comes from somebody else, but its a good one. Airbases are set missions (opened by clicking on the airbase) showing idle air wings (NB: air wings are made smaller and cheaper representing planes on a field, ergo CAGs and other air wings are same size). Then each air wing can be given a mission set. Close Air Support, Ground Interdiction, Air Suporitory (radar reducing org. loss due to frequent flying) etc.
Then the airbase itself flys the missions as appropriate within range. Again doctrine dictates what kind of air wing commanders develop, and their traits dictate the missions for the AI.
9b. Air wings can only rebase within double their operational range
9c. Cags consider the carrier as their airbase
8. Port based shipping & range markers for fleets
Like the airfields, the same for ports, with a drag and drop option to move ships from 'fleet' to 'berthed' or 'repair and refit' or 'upgrade' (where you can choose what to upgrade using the 5 point system).
Likewise the port shows incoming/outgoing supplies/resources, throughput, losses and the 'supply dump' effect of a port (all ports are supply dumps by default).
By dragging and dropping ships into fleets from a general 'berthed' status, and showing you the parameters of your current fleet composition (possibly with some sprite graphics of the fleet) it allows you to apprise a fleet at a glance and with great simplicity.
Again missions can be chosen for fleets from the port (convoy raiding, patrol (with as many patrol points selected as you wish, path-finding done by shortest route) Invade here (for fleets containing transports with troops, brigades being able to be moved onto transport ships by drag and drop again from a troops tab)
9. Enhanced diplomacy and an overhaul of neutrality.
While factions should be retained 'as is', the possibility of forming 'alliance factions' should be allowed. This works just like the faction drift, allowing you to influence nations to join your alliance. This only works if you have an alliance. Alliances with any of the faction powers is a faction alliance.
Spies can increase neutrality, but at a very much reduced rate (like national unity)
Allow multiple spy missions, and uncap the number of spies. However captured spies generate threat, as well as decrementing your protection and quality of espoionage as codes and operational techniques are uncovered.
Make spies able to generate many of the historic events. Eg. Raising propaganda for a political party (other than the ruling as well for government changes), organise a coup, or kidnap one of the politicians.
Make the success of such missions be weighted against the repercussions of failure. Then make certian nations enact those missions, while others tend not to, always keep the choice to enact any of these missions slightly random.
Allow the 'undeclared war' if the mutual threat is enough to declare war allow military actions short of actual invasion are allowed. Therefore bombing, naval combat (strategic warfare).
Thus Pearl Harbour...
If you are attacked in such a manner, you can enter a full war with the bonus of having been attacked for mobilisation, or select to back down and become a puppet or have provinces on the border occupied. Similar to the annexation of the Sudetenland. Thus allowing gunboat diplomacy.
Allow 'peace deals', including within factions, thus allowing you to pull out of a war if your surrender process is say less than 35%.
Peace deals would allow you to transfer regions (worth calculated on content), and could be selected off the main map with simple left clicks. Reparations could be paid, etc. etc.
The AI simply works our how 'much' you are offering, less the threat you pose, how much the demands are 'worth' and if the demands are less than the 'offer' it accepts the deal. With rejected details you get a reason why. Breaking deals of this nature increase the cost of your demands in future dramatically as you are no longer trustworthy. In general, such detials would carry a cavaet of having to immidiately demobilise or simmilar to prevent gaming the system. Remobilising within the 'game era' without good cause (e.g. ally attacked) results in major generation of threat from previously signed partners.
10. Better Icon/Map information
Counters need to be more intuitive, showing strength, org. and supply as well as a small indicator to show how matched they are with the enemies troops adjacent are, (so long as you have some intelligence level, thus making intelligence gathering more important)
without having to enter some skirmish to find out.
With this allow recon missions for aircraft and submarines.
Also spies on military intelligence missions show the unit counters on the map over the fog of war, clicking on them allows you to see the units known about in as much detail as your spys have found out.
When your in a battle, allow you to choose a 'rout' option, or a 'tactical retreat', defensive leaders generally retreat, offensive one tend to press until their troops rout. Rout gains you an enhanced movement speed to fall to the rear (2 provinces back) for say 3 days, they loose all organisation and can't be reordered until the division reaches that point but reorganise much faster after that point. Tactical retreat allows org. gain on the retreat, but you still take casualties as the battle continues, until the army has moved back to the province directly behind.
Thus allowing you to form collapsing centres, or delaying attacks with far more ease. If enacted at higher HQ levels, then it pulls combat units back as one.
On the map allow the infrastructure map to include weather effects. Furthermore make bridges exist on some region links!!! While other river crossings (without engineers) are nigh impossible. To place emphsis on their strategic quality.
Likewise, let's have a factory icon to show those centers, and the air/naval map combined as an 'operation map' showing air combat, bombings, convoy attacks, all with their own unique icon, as well as a twin pair slider for how far back you want to look (within the last year for instance, but not last month).
Make combat buildings building levels effect the cost of construction. For example Lv.1 forts don't cost as much as Lv.2 ones in IC and so on, however practical gain ramps with quality of building. Therefore Lv.1 buildings give next to nothing in practical, but Lv.10 ones give say 3.0 practical a piece.
This means its 'easy' to create a front-line airstrip, or mulberry harbour 'on the spot' like was done during the war. Whereas here, it takes the better part of a year to build, and by then the front has moved on.
Or
In regions with an engineer brigade present they can have the option to build Lv.1 combat structures only (during which the brigade cannot be moved), but you get your structure in ~3 weeks depending on con.pract.
Likewise, if Eng and Log brigades were needed to be present in the region to repair structures (apart from 'urban terrain') this would make battlefield devestation far more potent, making a proper case for cutting supply lines, as well as defending 'behind the front-line'.
These are some of my thoughts, do you agree with them, think them to be a move in the right direction?
Last edited:
- Status