HOI 4: What do you want to see?

[Barvinok]

Of course, the attrition rate should be huge, as well as supply demands. Only specialized polar warfare/mountain troops could work there. But for the sake of finding resources, it should be an option.

[Rummy]

What i really would like to see is some kind of way to incorporate private industries and engineers and researchers into the game
So:
you set the goals of what you need and fund several companies to develope the tank (lets say)
the stats you want and the technology/experience of the time determine how long it takes
eventually the comapnies each give you a design that may or may not be exactly what you want
you have to choose a design and start production on it, also you could have several designs being produced at once

this isnt just for tanks, but aircraft, small arms, artillery, ships... that way not every country has the same stats on their units, and more inovative (you could institute an inovation level) countries would be better suited to fight
i think that would be awesome

I think this previous idea I had regarding research would get the closest to achieving your wishes, though maybe you might be able to alter the concept and be able to post a even better idea for Paradox to consider (the more in depth and detailed ideas we post the better).


Leadership points would still be applied in the same manner for Spies, Diplomacy points, Research and Officers. Though for ‘research’ it will be very similar to ‘Officers’ where for each 1 point of leadership used in the slider it will pay for 50 academics (scientists/engineers/military theorists) each day. However unlike ‘Officers’ there is no pool or adding them up, as the slider bar will automatically adjust the leadership bar for the number of scientists needed that day (like IC and upgrades). If one day you need 800 academics it will (unless capped to a fix limit to spend on research by you) take out 16 leadership points to be spent on research, though if the next day you finish a research task and only need 775 academics, it will automatically adjust to only take 15.5 leadership points for research (excess leadership points not spent on intelligence or diplomacy either will be automatically added to the leadership points spent on Officer training).

Each research item will need a different amount of time and academics to research. Eg researching a B24 bomber will take 80 scientists 180 days and researching something smaller like better engines for a P-51 mustang fighter will only take 20 scientists 80 days.

The reason for this difference will be explained below, as you can customise the units being researched, and depending on the complexity you specify in the research tenders, the number of scientists you need will vary.

There will be two types of tech tree research. You can research 'individual modules', which will be like in HoI3 and add armour skirts to a light/medium/heavy tanks, gun armament on equipment currently being produced like the T34 tank being upgraded to a T-34/85. The same for aircraft with better engines, guns etc. And then the usual electronic computers, front line medic stations, blitzkrieg doctrine, mass assault doctrine etc. and like how it is currently in HoI3, the amount of scientists and specific amount of time will always be the same for these as they are not customizable.
However there will also be another way of researching entirely new designs for armoured and air units.

When you want to research the next type of armoured or air unit type. Research contracts for unit designs will be tendered out and each country will have a multitude of different companies to choose from, like in HoI2. Though this time you will select two companies who will at the end of the research period, each present you with a prototype of the desired unit type. Each company’s prototype unit will have varying attack/defense values, IC build cost (or hopefully factory production per month as popularly requested, and also in a previous idea/post of mine) etc.

When putting out a tender contract you will have the option of making it standard/historical of what your country designed for each type of unit (preset and normal length of time to research, unit IC build cost, unit statistics of attack defense values etc), however you can also choose to adjust a multitude of customisable tender options which will influence the statistics and build costs of the the two prototypes which will be presented to you at the end of the research period.

Eg. Design the - Panzer 4 tank (you would select any of the three options in each row)

Chassis _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pz 38 - - - - Pz 3 - - - - - - Pz 4
Armament _ _ _ _ _ _ _30 mm - - - -50mm - - - - -75mm
Armour thickness _ _ _ slim - - - - - moderate - - - -heavy
reliability priority _ _ _ _low - - - - - moderate - - - -high
Production quality _ _ _mass - - - - semi-mass - - - normal

Length of research time - 25 weeks (Automatically adjusted based on options selected above)
Required amount of Scientists per day - 50 (Automatically adjusted based on options selected above)

(anything bolded has not been researched yet)


* The values above for most items like armour thickness/reliability etc will depend on the type of unit being produced for its time. Eg giving a stug tank destroyer heavy armour will not make it equivalent to a JagdTiger, but more similar to the same defense/toughness values as a JagdPanzer 4 (next stage/type of tank destroyers).

* Changing the armament from a 50mm caliber to 75mm, will drastically increase its hard attack value, but also potentially lower its soft attack value. Could also add in an option to make one in twenty produced units a infantry support tank, which will increase the soft attack values, but lower hard attack etc.

* You can specify to use existing items/components already researched on another unit, like when researching the Hetzer tank destroyer which despite historically being designed and built in 1944 used the Pz38t chassis designed back in 1938, and re-using previously designed components like this will drastically reduce the research time and number of scientists required, but will also heavily influence the units statistics (eg movement speed and the weight limit which will influence how much armour can be added and thus the defensive values or if a certain gun size/turret can be added etc). By choosing a prior researched component, for example a tank chassis, it will immediately unhighlight any incompatible options in the customize list. For instance, if researching the Panzer 4 tank, but to save scientist points and research time by building it on a much earlier and smaller Pz38 or Pz3 chassis, the option to add a 75mm gun armament would be unselectable as an option due to weight on the suspension etc, and in addition you would not be able to select heavier than usual armour thickness either.

For a good example, if you have researched a Panther tank, than when designing a JagdPanther (tank destroyer) on the Panther tank chassis it will be drastically quicker and require much less academics /scientists than if you hadn’t already researched the Panther.

* Demand an item to be capable of normal, semi-mass or mass production. This will obviously greatly enhance the number of units capable of being produced from one factory each month (or lower IC build cost), however it will also drastically reduce the values of the unit (like attack/defense) as the units quality will suffer, as they choose to say build cast iron tank turrets instead of welding plates etc.

* You should be able to select the reliability of the unit being designed, a high reliability will result in a much longer research time and/or slightly fewer units being produced, but the brigade will have a much higher organisation regain rate, to simulate fewer tanks breaking down during offensives. So armour thickness not 'reliability' will determine both defense and toughness statistic values (as it should be)

Air unit design could look like this

For a medium bomber

Bomb load capacity _ _ 1,000kg - - - -2,000kg - - - -3,000kg
Range (km’s) _ _ _ _ _ 300 - - - - - - 400 - - - - - - 500
Durability (defense) _ _ light - - - - - -moderate - - - heavy
Manoeuvrability _ _ _ _ low - - - - - - moderate - - - high
Speed _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ low - - - - - - moderate - - - high
Production quality _ _ _ mass - - - - - semi-mass - - -normal

Length of research time - 40 weeks
Required amount of Scientists per day - 60


Range/bomb load capacity options (etc) displayed would depend on the type of air unit selected. Eg range somewhere from 200 to 400 for close air support (stukas) and 600 - 1,000 for strategic bombers etc.


Changing any of these requirements will in addition to changing the approximate unit values & production rate submitted by the competing companies, will also alter the research time and number of scientists required.

Then when you click on submit for tender it will bring up a list of all companies suitable for the type of research being undertaken, Eg capital ships, submarines, aircraft engines etc. Next to each company there will also be a short description of what they’re good at. Eg Messchermitt and Fock Wulf excel at short range fighter design though one may have a greater skill or focus/emphasis in speed or maneuverability or mass production etc. Or Dornier are likely to design a medium bomber with better statistics than Messchermitt due their more advances in that field etc (Each company will have minor differences, even over their rivals in the exact same field). In addition, each country's companies could be adjusted to produce slightly (5% - 10%) better or worse units statistics to reflect historical accuracy. For instance Germany's superior optics for tanks etc.

You will only be able to choose a maximum of two competing companies for each contract (Unlike HoI2 a company can work on more than 1 contract at a time though).
Competing companies for a tender could produce random/variable statistical values of attack/defence/speed/production per month etc values against each other by anywhere from 5% to 20% and will be presented to you by the competing companies at the end of the tender period. You then simply look at the values of each option and click on one to select that prototype for production.

[Hegira2k]

more of scenarios, Advance AI... I say. of HOI4 or whole new game.

[blakbird]

I'd love to play a version of this game where controllable units are battalions not divisions. This would obviously be more tactically oriented and would necessitate a zoomed in map that would allow for more interesting terrains, buildings, weather, defensive structures etc etc.

Maybe this tactical option could appear when fighting for an opponents capital/VP provinces. "Commander will you be taking direct command?" or something like that.. I just think it would be cool to have a epic tactical battle for Stalingrad, for example, where the city is broken up into smaller 'hexes' or something like that.

Sometimes I'm feeling a little less Manstein and a little more Rommel. Know what I mean?

This is just pure fantasy but It'd be fun to have.

[Tyrant44]

everything from hoi3 WAD (not a farce release like hoi3 1.0) plus a larger map (3k to 15k provs last time lets see 15k to 45k provs this next version.), buildable supply depots, battlion level divisionable builds with brigades able to operate independantly with an attached leader. far more variety of bits to build not just the tech version but competing designs captured conversions (czechs tanks p35t /p38t for example but chenilette lorraine assault guns too) attachable companies of heavy tanks as they were actually used not the brigade strength units we see currently, buildable trucks for better logistics to move the supplies between the buildable depots, intrinsic divisonal supply depots and truck capability, realistic use of army level reserve units

a polished game that can have REAL expansions produced for it, not large patches 'called' expansions. anything that is currently DLC actually bolted INTO the game and tested enough not to slow the arse out of the game engine (many times optimisations done BEFORE release version launch, not AFTER.).

[Big Nev]

I for one am strongly in favour of the individual special forces tech’s being multi-level.

I’d like to see an additional tech for recoilless guns to give MTN & Parras some Hard Attack.

I think that Amphibious Warfare gives too big a jump as is. It should be split in to two for a 20% bonus at each level. Or maybe only 15%. Each a level a little easier to attain to retain balance.

I also think there should be an Amphibious Armour tech to allow a bonus (penalty reduction?) to armour for crossing rivers/assaulting beaches. Also in at least two levels giving a maximum of, maybe, 20% for LARM, 15% for ARM & 10% for HARM (Churchills are early HARM right?) representing the use of duplex drives, flotation screens, pontoons, wading gear & snorkel upgrades to existing equipment and (maybe after another/different tech) for building real amphibious armour like the T37 & T38, the Schwimmpanzer II, armed & armored Buffalo variants and, of course, the utterly deadly (well it would have been!) Ka-Mi. The only submarine-launchable tank armed with a pair of 24” torpedoes that I know of. And they thought it was cool to put Typhoon rockets on a Sherman.

The idea of transport techs to allow support of amphibious operations sounds like a good idea but proper landing ships were purpose built therefore, IMHO, they should be built as a separate transport unit available after the appropriate research and not applied as a tech to existing transports. Launching an invasion from purpose built assault ships would reduce the amphibious penalties for ANY units they carried.

So, the two Amph’ Warfare techs would give a 15% bonus each & launching from an assault ship might give another 10% to bring it in-line with where we are now with just one tech level.

Of course, an “Assault Ship” would represent a fairly large number of ships with attendant landing ships/craft. They would have improved air & sea defense too so would be considerably more expensive than a humble transport.

As for who gets what at the start? Well, all sorts of things were being experimented with prior to 1936 but nothing much had been perfected.

Well, OK, the Russians did have a lot of light swimming tanks by 1936 (and even air transportable tanks!) but they weren’t deployed as brigades. Everybody else (except maybe Japan) should start from scratch.

I would also like to be able to choose between my techs. I want to be able to have a heavy tank that’s slow with lots of SA and other heavy tanks that are fast(ish) with more HA. I’d like the distinction making between German & US tank destroyers. The German versions were, generally slow & well armored whilst the US versions were very fast at the expense of protection. Am I making sense?

I’d also like to see the upgrade times for aircraft drastrically reduced. At the moment, it’s just way too long, especially for CAGs. Why the build time for CAGs has been tied to that for CVs is beyond my understanding. It doesn’t work anyway as I’ve frequently finished CVs and had to wait months for their aircraft that were started at the same time. Upgrades should take a few weeks, not lots of months. Build times should also be considderably shorter.

Upgrades for ships. These should only be possible while the ship is in port. Preferably a home port.

Upgrades for ships. It should also be possible to upgrade engines, armamenst & even armour. Yes, it takes ages, but should be possible. The ship would be totally un-useable during this time however.

A bigger map with many more provinces would enhance the tactical appeal of the game. Twice as many? Three times as many? More?

I believe that placeable supply depots is a non-starter as the supply engine would require a re-write, but a unit that has an apparent high supply draw without actually using supplies should be possible. This would cause supplies to stockpile in its location for use later on. This quartermaster unit would then be configurable as to its maximum store of supplies & fuel separately and what it's apparent draw would be so as not to overload the supply network.

Transport ships being capable of transporting/storing supplies/fuel. Load ‘em up at a home port & take your supplies with you. Off load (slowly) at a beach head or at a port if it’s not already at capacity. I know you're not going to give use this unless you can figure-out how to have the AI use it. But I want it and you did ask

Half size transport planes. They are simply too expensive for many countries to build.

I’d like to see bigger divisions too. Well… not actually bigger, just comprised of more units to offer greater flexibility. Start with 8 brigades and go up by one for several levels of research. This would mean cutting brigade sizes in half too. I just want more flexibility of composition.

I’d like MTN, PARA & MAR HQs? At least at division level but I’m not sure it’s realistic.

There’s no such thing as a CAG aircraft. CAGs were made up of torpedo bombers, dive/skip bombers & interceptors. The interceptors on a CV would be classified as Multi-roll in game terms. I’d like to be able to adjust the composition of my CTF air arm to suite the job they are going to do. More CAP, for example when operating within enemy airspace, more dive bombers when supporting landings etc.

I think that’s enough for now.

I’ll probably have another go later.

[kdfsjljklgjfg]

Really, the main thing I want to see is more freedoms being taken. I just felt like there was so much more you could do with HoI2, whereas in 3, you're pretty much locked into the existing WW2 scenario with historical buildups.

I want to recreate my HoI2 game of a Bulgarian powerhouse, without having to spend years generating threat and lowering neutrality to be able to fight one nation.

Also, the return of a Victoria conversion. I want more Grand Campaigns!

[Abadon777]

A PTO naval style of play. Ships that take damage and can lose speed,organizaton that also reflects their attack ability. Naval Hq's commanded by Naval commanders and the ability to mine ports. Submarines that can attack enemy ships in port as and will take damage if there is a mine field present. Limiting the number of ships in a fleet to 16 or 24. No more 100 to 200 ships in one fleet. A better naval sytem where carriers can be damage and sunk by surface ships or subs. Limit the number of ships that can be in one port to 20 units, two units per every naval base size. Naval Hqs' that can use floatplanes or flyingboats that can spot enemy ships one or two zones away. Transports that can carry fuel or supplies and be attached to a naval fleet.

[Cybvep]

Upgrades for ships. These should only be possible while the ship is in port. Preferably a home port.

Upgrades for ships. It should also be possible to upgrade engines, armamenst & even armour. Yes, it takes ages, but should be possible. The ship would be totally un-useable during this time however.

You can mod this. However, IRL extensive upgrades could take as long as building the ship from scratch, so you will achieve a realistic effect by disbanding the ship and building a new one...

A bigger map with many more provinces would enhance the tactical appeal of the game. Twice as many? Three times as many? More?

Are you joking? HOI3 already has more than enough provinces. Minor countries already struggle with even manning their frontlines and given the fact that there is usually less MP available in HOI games than IRL and minors are additionally nerfed, doubling the number of provinces would cripple them... More provinces would also confuse the AI - it already has problems with force concentration and is very bad at prioritising targets or giving ground in places with low strategic value. Moreover, from the player's perspective, micromanaging long frontlines is already very hard - there is no need to make it any harder. IMO the number of provinces should either be the same or even be reduced by ~20% - not to HOI2's levels, but sth between HOI3 and DH would be good. We must remember that it's a grand strategy game at its core, not a tactical game.

I’d like to see bigger divisions too. Well… not actually bigger, just comprised of more units to offer greater flexibility. Start with 8 brigades and go up by one for several levels of research. This would mean cutting brigade sizes in half too. I just want more flexibility of composition.

That means more lag. More flexibility is good, but perhaps a more abstract slider system and equipment pools (100-200 tanks, 10-40 AA guns etc.) would be more appropriate. However, the combat system would have to be totally redesigned and the game would become more complex. Whether we need that is debatable.

There’s no such thing as a CAG aircraft. CAGs were made up of torpedo bombers, dive/skip bombers & interceptors.

Here I agree. It shouldn't be hard to allow the player and the AI to reorganise the structure of CAGs.

[Thanik]

I want to see only things that don't increase CPU burden and not player brain too (light ok, heavy not).
And more scenarios with limited (like decision to build 10 inf or 2 tank div) production.
And conqered territories should give more disadvantages to conqeuror. Like mix HOI 2+3...
And nice tutorial

P.S. And more options to lower level of graphics instead CPU performance.

[Cybvep]

I think the key is not to reinvest the wheel and focus on improving things which are not working properly or could use an overhaul. Things like naval combat, submarine warfare, the Lend Lease, the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War leave much to be desired in all HOI games and I hope HOI4 will change this...

[LoftenHenderson]

I honestly just want hoi2/AoD's tech system. I think it worked 10x better than the current one. Maybe even keeping leadership would be ok (though not preferable, I think putting a heavy emphasis on money is a better system and more historical), but I would love the return of research teams and more techs that lead to others, instead of having to research endless levels of the same tech almost constanly in order to stay modern. I much prefer the research one time move on approach

[Thanik]

I am afraid return to more historicity things, like giving nationality bonus(or special tech, special unit, or special research team)
Maybe more option to give more satisfaction to greater mass of consumers:>?

I think the key is not to reinvest the wheel and focus on improving things which are not working properly or could use an overhaul. Things like naval combat, submarine warfare, the Lend Lease, the Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War leave much to be desired in all HOI games and I hope HOI4 will change this...

Yes, yes, yes!! In almost all games East is not perfect. But it is hard to work to make one system to all Theaters
Or we wanna 100 world provinces and 3 units(air,naval,land) ,like other games who are named by the dev *strategies*(not Paradox ofc)

[magitsu]

Realistically HOI4 will include less than HOI3, because something has been learnt from previous experience.
Since naval and air obviously need more, land or something else current needs to give way. Simplification, focus.
More can only be built on solid ground.

I feel supply & logistics is core HOI like pops & econ are VIC. Maybe non GC-starts are one thing that can be axed to free resources for new things
Less troop types, less techs... grand strategy should mean primarily large scope, secondarily deep detail - not the other way around.

I am afraid return to more historicity things

Likewise. HOI does not need to move further towards historical like sandbox king EU3. Current is more than enough, and major PITA to get working (Japan v. USA still doesn't).

[Cybvep]

Features that worked perfectly fine in HOI3 should be reused in HOI4, unless other mechanics renders them obsolete. I'm quite sure that the game can be streamlined in some ways, as there are some things which are not really needed, e.g. LP as a province-based resource. Other game aspects will be changed, because improvements in some areas are a never-ending process, e.g. tech tress.

Pointless changes are bad and in the end you may have to return to the old system, anyway. For example, most of the HOI3's changes to ORG were unnecessary and the devs reintroduced no-ORG-regain-on-the-move and ORG loss for rebasing, eventually.

[plasticpanzers]

larger map would be fine. smaller countries (or any country) would be hard pressed to cover
every single point facing another nation and seldom did. you covered the approaches to cities
and transit points. An improved AI to control Corps level control would allow the player still to
do micro managment and construction of forces but let the Corps operate them and then assign
them as needed to Army, AG, or Theatre for human or AI control. No leader could control every
single unit in his army. Even AH was operating in the dark thinking he could pushing pins around
a map in Berlin or wherever.

[ThePHD]

A game that uses all four cores of a cpu.

[ChargingPickett]

I would love to see all leaders have an "unknown" ability setting. Just because your Field Marshall has an apparent skill level of "x" doesn't mean he will perform adequately in the task assigned to him. Maybe it doesn't have to be a huge impact, but it would affect everything from morale to timely execution of orders to supply usage. Actual live-fire engagements are the only true test of a leaders' abilities. Some leaders would only be able to achieve victory in a slow methodical way, saving every life possible. Others would be able to achieve quick victories, but at horrendous cost of men and materiel. Only battle results would tell if a leader was inclined to one or the other extreme.

Make it un-moddable (other than turning it on or off) and a new random seed at every new-game start.

As for the map, the system from a modern war simulation (HarpoonII comes to mind, the public version, not the highly classified US DoD) would be ideal if workable. Scaling would only be really difficult at the poles (and if you're trying to flank your enemy by going through either polar region you may want to re-think your tactics!), and only front-line units that are actively engaged would be unable to move laterally along the front.

Alternatively, the present map system could be used, but add a "fuel range" to all units that require it. For example, a tank could travel as far as desired as long as supply is maintained and terrain is accessible. But a ship could only travel as far as it's on-board fuel could take it in terms of hours the engines turn at specific power output (listed speeds and range are for Cruise Speed settings; Flank Speed would increase speed by 75% but cut range by 67%; Full (Military) Speed would net +33% speed and -33% range; Creep/Steerage Speed would net -67% speed and +150% range, or something similar).

And since I'm wish-listing in a big way, vary the intensity of attacks to make "recon-by-force" more realistic. A player could attack using only 10% of their force for pure recon, 25-33% for light support attacks (both of these would not affect entrenchment levels of attacker), 50-66% for heavy support attacks (that will lessen their entrenchment level by a defined amount), 100% for a full attack (losing all entrenchment), and finally "bonzai" attacks that give 110% force multiplier for a set number of hours (losing entrenchment and doubling any losses taken by the attacker).

As an aside, when I first loaded HoI3 and zoomed in on the map, I was really excited to see the red dashes that define a nation's borders, mistakenly believing that they defined the width of front for each individual province. I was very disappointed to learn that every province would hold the same number of troops on the front-line regardless of province size. It was hard to come to terms in my mind that Singapore could have as many front-line troops in it as Dallas could without some kind of penalty to effectiveness. I got over it (for the most part), and learned to enjoy the game as it is. But I would gladly have paid triple for that one aspect. And trust me, that is a lot of $$ considering I had to buy 3 different times to finally get the game to run correctly and be able to add expansions (okay, I have AT LEAST $135/US tied up in this one game, which in turn made me spend another $50/US on EU3 lol). The way I figure it, that's about $60/US per post to this forum, and if PI doesn't like anything that I have to say on here they can bite it!! (Sorry, I had to vent for just a second.)

[glassoid]

How about an extended timeline to at least 1952, or a continuation of the war Comintern vs Allies. using the standard HoI map. IE just because the Allies and Comintern defeated the Axis, the game wouldnt have to end there. A world domination scenario if you will.

Something else I always wanted from a HoI type game is that I would like to take parts in the battles themselves. Not just move icons or brigades around the map. for example if I'm sending a fighter wing to intercept a bomber stream I want to be part of that mission. or Maybe a tank battle as well. Perhaps i'm smoking something but it'd be nice to see in the future this type of thing were u can actively participate in the battles themselves and not just move pieces about the map. I dont mean like Total War series where you control the armies in the battle map, but be one of the grunt or tanker or fighter pilot taking part in that particular battle. Maybe in 2022 when paradox grows larger

[21oliver]

I want an AI that does what its told if you give it such commands. If you have one unit in Germany and order it to attack Paris, then it should attack Paris, not retreat, go guard a port or whatever. This is the Military, they are supposed to follow orders. If you give it control with minimal or no instructions, then it can do what it wants.