Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

HOI 4: What do you want to see?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
As far as I understand it Windows automatically assigns HoI3 to more than 1 core (2 cores total from what I experience with most of the work on Core 1)
You don't need a Core I7 or I5 for this any combination of a multi-core processor plus Windows will work I think.

I7 and I5 are only special in that they can hyper-thread so their 4 cores become 8 virtual cores, something some older single core processers were also capable of (Pentium 4 if memory serves me right) and won't help you at all unless you work with programs fully designed for multi-threading and only then will give maybe 10%-ish boost compared to just using 4 physical cores.
 
First off, I am rooting for a very good patch and an even better expansion of HOI3. This game still has so much potential for further development that HOI4is quite out of the question for some time, I think.

I would like to see many more events, no superstacks and a much improved AI for patches and expansions.
 
I don't want to see a HOI4 from Paradox - I would prefer to see a good 1.4 patch that does as promised and does not create more problems. I would (albeit unwillingly) like to see an awesome expansion pack that addresses alot of people's concerns about the game currently that won't be addressed in 1.4 as well as include some of the wish lists (like an OOB module that truly works well).
 
HOI 4?:rofl:

No thanks, i would not see any more like this crap!
I will NEVER again buy anything like this, i dont wish to be betrayed another time!:mad:

Close your company an make Muffins or something like this, your skills in making games is not good enough and its a shame that you take mony for something like this stuff.

Farewell to all the Fanboys who dont realize that this company will only get your money and for this they give us an unplayable game which dont have 10% of what was promised!
 
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.
 
Kaiser Bill said:
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.
Click to expand...

u jus made my head hurt
 
I bet for a modern fictional conflict which lead us to the WWIII. I would like some NATO-China-Arabs-Russia-Middle and South America war.

The title can be:

Hearts of Iron: Modern Warfare....oh, wait!
 
Rebel44 said:
Yeah, I would love scenario like what is described in book Red Storm Rising written by Tom Clancy.

Red Storm Rising was an amazing book:cool:, if any of you haven't read it go read it now while your playing, then you'll daydream of what HoI would be like in modern day, or 1980's like in the book and think of massive modern tank battles with A-10's strafing T-90's while F-15 Eagles knock out enemy Mig-29's... oh god its already starting

I still like to see WW2 games come out, it's basically my favorite part of military history.:cool:
Click to expand...
 
Vasily said:
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?
Click to expand...

1. 3D maps, that can be rotated, tilted and zoomed. Use googleearth if you have too.

2. Light tanks evolve into mediums and cease being a buildable item at some point. Mediums evolve into MBTs. Or in the case of USSR, the JS-3 becomes the T54. Work it out. None of the HOI family of games has been satisfactory in this regard.

3. Inf can be upgraded to motorized or mech. Cav can be upgraded to Inf, Armor, motorized or mech. My dad enlisted in the Horse Cavalry in 1939, his Cav division ended up the 6th Armored Division.

4. Corps artillery. Organic corps artillery.

5. No provinces. Dynamic front lines.

6. Reduce Strategic Air to its historic effect. Near none. Germany's economy was growing right up to the end of the war. Germany's benzene production also grew, right up to the end of the war.

7. There needs to be a re-balancing of Units. A T-26 division (or division of Matilda and Cruiser Tanks, for that matter) in no way equals a Pzkw III/IV division (this has a little to do with land doctrine and nearly everything to do with Quality and Design). Some divisions should be more "powerful" than some corps.

8. And similarly, some way should be found to model the historic differences in strength of the various Great Power's division size units. Not all divisions were created equal. Again, no member of the HOI family has been successful with this.

9. TAC, CAS and INT/FIGHTER are nice to have, in a tactical level game. I'm not sure it wouldn't be better just to simulate these in the background based upon a percentage of IC.

10. Supply Trains. Whether they be 20 mule teams, the Red Ball Express or the Berlin Airlift, I don't care.

11. Bridges and Bridging. All major rivers must be bridged. Bridges must be held. Bridges can be targeted for bombings and destroyed. Men and material (supplies) stop crossing when the bridge(s) is destroyed. Just because you hold both sides of the Rhine doesn't mean you can get significant supplies and personnel across.

12. Landing craft (amtracs, LCP, LST, LCA and the like) Just having marines ain't enough. Especially since most landings by the American military was done by the Army, not the Marines. These items evolved during the war . . . just like armor and everything else. The Pacific theater has been neglected.

13. Afrika Korp
 
Shootist said:
1. 3D maps, that can be rotated, tilted and zoomed. Use googleearth if you have too.

2. Light tanks evolve into mediums and cease being a buildable item at some point. Mediums evolve into MBTs. Or in the case of USSR, the JS-3 becomes the T54. Work it out. None of the HOI family of games has been satisfactory in this regard.

3. Inf can be upgraded to motorized or mech. Cav can be upgraded to Inf, Armor, motorized or mech. My dad enlisted in the Horse Cavalry in 1939, his Cav division ended up the 6th Armored Division.

4. Corps artillery. Organic corps artillery.

5. No provinces. Dynamic front lines.

6. Reduce Strategic Air to its historic effect. Near none. Germany's economy was growing right up to the end of the war. Germany's benzene production also grew, right up to the end of the war.

7. There needs to be a re-balancing of Units. A T-26 division (or division of Matilda and Cruiser Tanks, for that matter) in no way equals a Pzkw III/IV division (this has a little to do with land doctrine and nearly everything to do with Quality and Design). Some divisions should be more "powerful" than some corps.

8. And similarly, some way should be found to model the historic differences in strength of the various Great Power's division size units. Not all divisions were created equal. Again, no member of the HOI family has been successful with this.

9. TAC, CAS and INT/FIGHTER are nice to have, in a tactical level game. I'm not sure it wouldn't be better just to simulate these in the background based upon a percentage of IC.

10. Supply Trains. Whether they be 20 mule teams, the Red Ball Express or the Berlin Airlift, I don't care.

11. Bridges and Bridging. All major rivers must be bridged. Bridges must be held. Bridges can be targeted for bombings and destroyed. Men and material (supplies) stop crossing when the bridge(s) is destroyed. Just because you hold both sides of the Rhine doesn't mean you can get significant supplies and personnel across.

12. Landing craft (amtracs, LCP, LST, LCA and the like) Just having marines ain't enough. Especially since most landings by the American military was done by the Army, not the Marines. These items evolved during the war . . . just like armor and everything else. The Pacific theater has been neglected.

13. Afrika Korp
Click to expand...



all of these plus multithreading and 64bit FTW
 
6. Reduce Strategic Air to its historic effect. Near none. Germany's economy was growing right up to the end of the war. Germany's benzene production also grew, right up to the end of the war.

Try telling that to the good people of Dresden or Hamburg or better still Tokyo.

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.

We also have absolutely no idea how much germany's production was hampered by the strategic bombing campaign. How much potential for growth was arrested? How much industrial capacity was expended in moving all those factories underground?

Check out the growth in military industrial capacity in the USA between 1940 and 1944, or the SU, or even the beleagured Islands of the Kingdom of Great Britiain. German industrial capacity grew yeah, but not nearly as much as her enemies.

Not enough effect to make any inroads against growth is all to often equated, quite unfairly, with = no effect. Whilst everyone else exapanded massively Germany expanded somewhat.
 
7. There needs to be a re-balancing of Units. A T-26 division (or division of Matilda and Cruiser Tanks, for that matter) in no way equals a Pzkw III/IV division (this has a little to do with land doctrine and nearly everything to do with Quality and Design). Some divisions should be more "powerful" than some corps.

With the greatest of respect exactly what are you basing this bizarre comment on? Have you read the stats for a PKfW III and early Iv models? They suck. You aint gonna get through the frontal armour of a matilda with either model at a distance greater than the length of a tennis court.

The german tanks were weaker in most cases than their allied counterparts in the early war the advantage was nothing to do with technical superiority it was about operational deployment and use. That is the remit of the doctrines.

The failings of early British infantry and cruiser tanks were generally more about technical reliabilty and especially operational deployment - little or no integral support esp. infantry, no HE ammo for main armament etc... If you want to punish early model British tanks for mechanical reliability I can look forward eagerly to the later war to watch Nazi over engineered Pz V & VI suffering equally. But of course we like to forget that tehse things were actually terrible machines to repair and prone to a number of mechanical faults.

In general British tanks were better armed (for an anti-tank) and either considerably faster, or considerably better armoured than their german counterparts. This remained a constant feature pretty much until the application of the Sherman as the principle medium tank.

Why then did they do so crap?
Virtually no infantry support
Very limited integral artillery
Not enough engineers, AT, AA, C & C
An utterly dumb as a brick concept that the war would be faught entirely different form how it turned out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back