What I want to see in Hearts of Iron 4 is the ability to self-determine how many and which provinces my puppet state may have. I also want to see the possibility to decide which provinces the defeated country will cede to me (similar to Europa Universalis 3).
-
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
Random thoughts that might have been mentioned before:
More control of the supply sources and centres.
That the OOB is reflected in the front so the divisions are gathered at adjacent provinces and not spread "randomly" around the front.
Better use of multi-core systems.
"Seamless" transfer from Victoria (IV?!?) so a game can continue if I own both.
More control of the supply sources and centres.
That the OOB is reflected in the front so the divisions are gathered at adjacent provinces and not spread "randomly" around the front.
Better use of multi-core systems.
"Seamless" transfer from Victoria (IV?!?) so a game can continue if I own both.
This would be a waste of resources IMO. I would prefer if the devs didn't concentrate their efforts on things like that. There are many more important features.
Map:
-Convert the retangular projection into a true spinable 'globe' co-ordinates for regions can be held in spherical polar co-ords, just make sure that the poles do not have terminators along the map polar-axis.
Reason: Would help sort out the problems with historical distances between A and B, particularly in Russia, China and around the equator.
-Keep number count of regions simmilar, but instead split up some of the large 'odd' regions with strange shapes or 'spurs across rivers'
Reason: Too many regions creates lag, and for the mos part the region density is good enough to promote tactical commands within a strategic game. Focusing on map quality and accuracy will endeer players who micro-manage, and for those that don't the world isn't being lagged over with trying to display 101k regions at higher altertude viewpoints.
-Make infrastructure more important, with nowhere in the world except the great cities of the day having Lv.10 infra, and major railline stand out from areas with just road networks. Infra should in many ways be vastly cheaper in IC to build, but take a fair time. Roads aren't built in a day. Futhermore have weather make a much greater impact in low infra areas in comparison to high. Not just a simple addition/subtraction effect, but an exponant of diministing returns. Improve the AI pathfinding to use a Lagrangian althorithm for shortest path with Strat. Move, while tatical is the most direct,
Reason: Obviously it is easier to rebase from point A and B by using exsiting infrastructure links, rather than trying to march through a marsh. Simmilarly for logistical supply. Ergo, rather than terrain infra be a modiffer to combat, it should moddify the way units move across the map. For instance, in Borneo the central part of the island in 'inaccessible', but it not really, it would just prove impossible to fight there in a manner befitting the times. But the game pathfinding will still try and send you through it if it could.
In terms of weather, again seasonal changes effect the infrastructure as well as the troops. Hence when areas are 'artic' surely the infra level should drop representing roads/lines closed off due to snow. etc.
Production:
Naval/Airbases
I think the port production for naval units is a great idea, but should also be extended to where ships can rebase to. Hence small ports will only have 'berths' for smaller naval vessels, while national fleets shall need a true milltary port like Scarpa Flow in order to rebase.
Simmilarly airfields should have a 'air wing cap' on the number of airwings that the base could support. In a simmlar manner, although production for air wings should be left in the 'factory queue' rather than map location.
Reason: Versimilitude, and the fact that since any old port acts as a naval base there is no way of really preventing completely crazy things such as moving the entire Italian fleet to Malta etc.
Serial Production
Should have a 'gearing up' bonus. I.e. heavy industry is put in place for a continued production of a single type of item. This compares to 'one off' or small production runs which don't invest the same startup production capital.
Reason: Versimilitude, and rewarding doctrinal or well planned production orders.
Modular Upgrades:
Although many nations were able to upgrade their tanks and fighting vehicals during the war, there was a limit to how many times this could be done for some of the lighter and less well built tanks and aircraft. This should be represented by a 'weight limit' based on the engine and armour/airframe of these vehicles to how many times you can upgrade the fuel, or armaments of the vehicle to 'modernise' it.
Reason: In my opinion it is sometimes far easier to spam out a large production of inferior tanks/aircraft which you then continually upgrade thoughout the war. Therefore the concept of 'obserlessance' never comes into effect.
The same is true with infantry divisions, even the smallest nations can simply through research get an army which on paper is comparable to major nations, irrespective of the fact that really these nations didn't have the industrial will, or capacity to keep pace with the majors. Although extrapolated here would not be the best move.
Leadership
Should be 'mobile', nations could move men far easier than they could industry. Therefore loss of land should not seriously hamper avalible Leadership.
Reason: Versimilitude, and the fact that minors should be able to access links back home should they become GiE, therefore becoming vital intelligance forces for their allies.
-Convert the retangular projection into a true spinable 'globe' co-ordinates for regions can be held in spherical polar co-ords, just make sure that the poles do not have terminators along the map polar-axis.
Reason: Would help sort out the problems with historical distances between A and B, particularly in Russia, China and around the equator.
-Keep number count of regions simmilar, but instead split up some of the large 'odd' regions with strange shapes or 'spurs across rivers'
Reason: Too many regions creates lag, and for the mos part the region density is good enough to promote tactical commands within a strategic game. Focusing on map quality and accuracy will endeer players who micro-manage, and for those that don't the world isn't being lagged over with trying to display 101k regions at higher altertude viewpoints.
-Make infrastructure more important, with nowhere in the world except the great cities of the day having Lv.10 infra, and major railline stand out from areas with just road networks. Infra should in many ways be vastly cheaper in IC to build, but take a fair time. Roads aren't built in a day. Futhermore have weather make a much greater impact in low infra areas in comparison to high. Not just a simple addition/subtraction effect, but an exponant of diministing returns. Improve the AI pathfinding to use a Lagrangian althorithm for shortest path with Strat. Move, while tatical is the most direct,
Reason: Obviously it is easier to rebase from point A and B by using exsiting infrastructure links, rather than trying to march through a marsh. Simmilarly for logistical supply. Ergo, rather than terrain infra be a modiffer to combat, it should moddify the way units move across the map. For instance, in Borneo the central part of the island in 'inaccessible', but it not really, it would just prove impossible to fight there in a manner befitting the times. But the game pathfinding will still try and send you through it if it could.
In terms of weather, again seasonal changes effect the infrastructure as well as the troops. Hence when areas are 'artic' surely the infra level should drop representing roads/lines closed off due to snow. etc.
Production:
Naval/Airbases
I think the port production for naval units is a great idea, but should also be extended to where ships can rebase to. Hence small ports will only have 'berths' for smaller naval vessels, while national fleets shall need a true milltary port like Scarpa Flow in order to rebase.
Simmilarly airfields should have a 'air wing cap' on the number of airwings that the base could support. In a simmlar manner, although production for air wings should be left in the 'factory queue' rather than map location.
Reason: Versimilitude, and the fact that since any old port acts as a naval base there is no way of really preventing completely crazy things such as moving the entire Italian fleet to Malta etc.
Serial Production
Should have a 'gearing up' bonus. I.e. heavy industry is put in place for a continued production of a single type of item. This compares to 'one off' or small production runs which don't invest the same startup production capital.
Reason: Versimilitude, and rewarding doctrinal or well planned production orders.
Modular Upgrades:
Although many nations were able to upgrade their tanks and fighting vehicals during the war, there was a limit to how many times this could be done for some of the lighter and less well built tanks and aircraft. This should be represented by a 'weight limit' based on the engine and armour/airframe of these vehicles to how many times you can upgrade the fuel, or armaments of the vehicle to 'modernise' it.
Reason: In my opinion it is sometimes far easier to spam out a large production of inferior tanks/aircraft which you then continually upgrade thoughout the war. Therefore the concept of 'obserlessance' never comes into effect.
The same is true with infantry divisions, even the smallest nations can simply through research get an army which on paper is comparable to major nations, irrespective of the fact that really these nations didn't have the industrial will, or capacity to keep pace with the majors. Although extrapolated here would not be the best move.
Leadership
Should be 'mobile', nations could move men far easier than they could industry. Therefore loss of land should not seriously hamper avalible Leadership.
Reason: Versimilitude, and the fact that minors should be able to access links back home should they become GiE, therefore becoming vital intelligance forces for their allies.
Please. End whack-a-mole. Please.
Partisans should be handled abstractly. Depending on the country and occupation policy, a certain level of partisan activity should be a drain on supplies, resources produced by that area, and/or manpower. A player could then reduce that activity by stationing garrisons at key points. The worst thing partisans could do would be to organize into formal brigades and start marching across the countryside, turning themselves into an easy-to-find-and-destroy target.
Partisans should be handled abstractly. Depending on the country and occupation policy, a certain level of partisan activity should be a drain on supplies, resources produced by that area, and/or manpower. A player could then reduce that activity by stationing garrisons at key points. The worst thing partisans could do would be to organize into formal brigades and start marching across the countryside, turning themselves into an easy-to-find-and-destroy target.
This. Above all else.
And the timeline should stretch into at least the year 2012, and preferably the future.
It would make for awesome MP games. Building up your countries. Having some wars. Maybe just to grab a special resource that will help you in the long run. Peace again. More building/teching.
Much more interesting than fighting the same conflict with the same countries over and over again.
I know it will never happen, but it doesnt cost anything to dream.
More varied sounds and music. Stuka sirens for example. Full 3d map would be nice too.
Also improve the naval game, especially as it relates to combat and subs.
Make airpower a little more relevant and with more specific mission options. An example would be click on province and choose to attack port, ships docked on port (with collateral damage of course) and infra away from port (see 1942 CLs did not have anti-air missile with radar guidance).
Also improve the naval game, especially as it relates to combat and subs.
Make airpower a little more relevant and with more specific mission options. An example would be click on province and choose to attack port, ships docked on port (with collateral damage of course) and infra away from port (see 1942 CLs did not have anti-air missile with radar guidance).
The Imperial Might of the Holy Corugian Empire has this suggestion to make.
For HOI4 it would be cool if the AI was replaced by something that actually offered a challenge.
Yes.
I suggest that all HOI4 games be played over the internet to a new type of "wet-wired" computer. That is to say, a computer that consits of the actual living brains of HOI players who have volunteered to act as AI opponents. Yes. Inserted into their still quivering jelly-like brain tissues would be lots and lots of fine wires and tiny blinking electrodes that would allow them to interface with us avid gamers online. Tubes containing life nurting nutrients could be inserted into their bodies, with other tubes also (cunningly) inserted to drain away wastes. These "dedicated" AI opponents would not, therefore, need to eat or drink and could remain permantently online, never sleeping, thinking up things like devious ways to avoid easy Sealion invasions and how to thwart your plans at embarassing and inconvientent times.
I would volunteer, but my Empire needs me.
For HOI4 it would be cool if the AI was replaced by something that actually offered a challenge.
Yes.
I suggest that all HOI4 games be played over the internet to a new type of "wet-wired" computer. That is to say, a computer that consits of the actual living brains of HOI players who have volunteered to act as AI opponents. Yes. Inserted into their still quivering jelly-like brain tissues would be lots and lots of fine wires and tiny blinking electrodes that would allow them to interface with us avid gamers online. Tubes containing life nurting nutrients could be inserted into their bodies, with other tubes also (cunningly) inserted to drain away wastes. These "dedicated" AI opponents would not, therefore, need to eat or drink and could remain permantently online, never sleeping, thinking up things like devious ways to avoid easy Sealion invasions and how to thwart your plans at embarassing and inconvientent times.
I would volunteer, but my Empire needs me.
Besides minor improvements the main feature I would like to see in Hoi4 is a much improved AI in the strategic area, by making the AI smarter at taking decisions, through a logical tree based on available game data, and allied cooperation reworked.
Unfortunately some people will ask for bizarre things like suicide units or whatever.
Unfortunately some people will ask for bizarre things like suicide units or whatever.
Great post ^
Add some features, fix some not so great systems in the current version (supply?) but trying to morph into an end all - be all mish-mosh will surely ruin the game dynasty.
I like TW games and play'em but I recognize its a different game and to mix it all together will ruin things.
come back in a couple of years or when 3-4 more add ons have been released.
A fully functional surrender mechanics. Current one has been patched so many times yet it's still broken as hell.
Statistic of casaulties, they already have per battles, so why not?
Also better submarine system and major fixing for the Pacific War.
Also better submarine system and major fixing for the Pacific War.
That's my impression as well. The potential of this game is enormous for a lot of improvement through several expansions. I do not see the point at the moment for a Hearts of Iron 4.
Well, I think there is not any potential left for HOI3 ( there wasn't any either ). Paradox titles improved very much with every new sequel except for HOI3. Victoria II is definetely much better than Victoria I. EU3 is simply wonderful, probably the most profitable game of Paradox. I don't even see a reason to mention CKII, it is enormous improvement over CKI, even in its release state, very much bug free which is not something very common among Paradox titles.
Today, noone play EU2, CKI or Victoria I ( Check their subforums ). But there are huge amount of people still buying old HOI2 engine based fan-expansions. Reason is simple : Hearts of Iron 3 is FAILURE, it may not be so in terms of sales but it is so in terms of gameplay. I think only way to solve this problem is to leave HOI3 altogether and to create something that has the feeling of HOI2 and its fan-based expansions like Darkest Hour.
There are countless number of reasons why HOI3 failed but DLC and modding situation is even worse. HOI2 has also many deficiencies but excellent mods fixed most of these issues. Then look at HOI3; only two major mods : HPP and ICE. FTM was released more than a year ago and one of these mods is still not compatible, other one is in Alpha phase. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame modders in any way, they do this for free and we should be only grateful to them. I say that this situation shows the failure of HOI3. Two major DLCs, DIG and DISS. One Germany and one USA campaign. So, you see what HOI3 finally evolved into : fragmented one country based mods.
Paradox did wonderful job with CKII. I hope that now they could turn good old HOI and bring it to its deserved place once again. I remember that I read somewhere that FTM sales were less than that of SF. I take this as a good sign and hope for completely new sequel, not anymore expansions.
Well, in fact you agree with me in that there is a lot of space for improvement. However I think all the necessary improvement can be done within the already existing Hoi3 framework. Those improvements are what everybody knows, a much better and logical allied cooperation, an improved AI that at least doesn´t make huge strategic blunders, etc.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet.
But I'd like to see a color coded alert system on the game map.
For examples your being attack at Berlin so berlin will flash red continuously when under attack.
Maybe this can also be applied for the supply map as well?
This way I don't have to click around and drag a box around divisions to see whats going on.
Would make microing that much easier as well!
But I'd like to see a color coded alert system on the game map.
For examples your being attack at Berlin so berlin will flash red continuously when under attack.
Maybe this can also be applied for the supply map as well?
This way I don't have to click around and drag a box around divisions to see whats going on.
Would make microing that much easier as well!
- Status