-
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.
don't upragded brigades keep their original name? Like Infanterie-Regiment X becomes Mtn Brigade 1? Would be better if the names didn't change.
I have been nagging about the brigades' names since HoI3 came out, but appearently nobody else cares about different names for different countries
I have been nagging about the brigades' names since HoI3 came out, but appearently nobody else cares about different names for different countries
don't upragded brigades keep their original name? Like Infanterie-Regiment X becomes Mtn Brigade 1? Would be better if the names didn't change.
I have been nagging about the brigades' names since HoI3 came out, but appearently nobody else cares about different names for different countries
They should keep their names. I need to check up on that though.
I can foresee many potential problems here. If I upgrade all 3 Arm brigades of a 3 Arm Division, wouldn't the division disappear?
Why not keep the brigades on-map, but just faded-out because they are in upgrade? Heck, give them an in-upgrade 40% combat malus, but let them able to fight! These shouldn't be in the build queue, they should just be figured into the upgrades category IMO. People will not use this to fiddle-around with their favourite divisions. As a Soviet player, I will probably be building hundreds of LARM-LARM-MOT-MOT-ART divisions which I intend to be ARM-ARM-MEC-MEC-SPART in time for Barbarossa. The UK will be converting it's entire field force of infantry to motorized divisions (at least they did historically). The ability to upgrade brigade type will completely change player build-schemes, and they will be counting on it to always have forces available.
I have a gloomy feeling that you guys went for the worst possible implementation of this long-requested feature. I hope I'm wrong.
Then what happens when all of the brigades in a division are selected for upgrade? And how are they redeployed after upgrade if the units are surrounded? I suspect there is a rule that only units in deployable territory (connected to capital) can be upgraded in this fashion.
What if the division is destroyed, surrounded, disbanded, or otherwise not available?
Since the Brigade in question will be removed from the map I think the way it is implemented is good. Even if you want to upgrade all INF to MOT you wouldn't do it all at once, esp if at war.
Question: is there a peliminary release date yet? Any chance of it being in the 1. week of June (Wife & Kids are with the in Laws that week
)
Considering that the debate on the balance between historical and ahistorical will be around for as long as historical strategy games are made, it probably won't help much to go too far down that path. Yet, what I think we all agree on is that either extreme is problematic, and I'm happy to see that PI is moving away from a heavily "sandbox" war game in the 1930s to 1940s to a game that tracks more closely to the second world war. It is all about immersion and believability, and I'm glad to hear PI take that view.
Great work. I hope to see WW2 being most likely to start on or near the historical date, and the same goes for key entry dates like the war in the Pacific, etc.
Great work. I hope to see WW2 being most likely to start on or near the historical date, and the same goes for key entry dates like the war in the Pacific, etc.
I don't think it's as dramatic as "worst possible implementation". But I do agree that upgrading brigade-by-brigade would be extremely tedious. Just something with selecting multiple divisions and upgrading all of one type to all of another type, or making upgrades possible through the OOB editor, would be good. Or maybe you can mark, for instance, 100% of your inf for upgrade to mot, but not all of them are put in the queue right away (because they'd be stuck there for a long time, you probably wouldn't be able to do all of the upgrades at once).
@ the replies from page 1: I meant start of war, end of war, anything about war lol. but with a caveat below.
@ Federkiel - I actually never played HoI2, and attempted HoI1, but was put off by the learning curve at that point (I've since changed my tastes to want more in depth games, like hoi3, X3, etc.) But I'm not saying that hoi3 should abandon all notions of historical accuracy given its specific implications that its a largely historical game. to that end, i'm simply proposing the challenge that the game be designed so that the player has free reign to be as ahistorical as they want (within the limits of the resource and faction systems), but yet still allowing the player to follow the RL pace of WWII through events and decisions, as is really done now.
That having been said, I'm very happy with the (a)historical balance as it currently exists in 1.4. I'm only voicing my concern because I'm perceiving some of the SF changes to be pushing the game towards limiting the ahistorical options. In the end, its just about the options. IMHO, hoi3 should restrict the player to ahistorically plausible (and I use plausible loosely) options (no wildly radical situations), yet with still balancing the historical timeline, as it currently, largely, does. If Germany can go to war in 1938, it should be able to do so if the player feels comfortable by it (balanced by threat, so maybe Germany won't get its historic allies in this case). On the other hand, waiting to start the war in 1940 via the Danzig event would pace the game historically.
Each path has its advantages and disadvantages and its own attractive characteristics. I am completely immersed in my current ahistoric game as Germany. The Allies DOW'd me in 1938, Poland is still independent, and Italy only joined the Axis in November 1939! Hungary in Jan 1940. And they're my only two allies lol. But like I said, I don't want to see either the historic or ahistoric option curtailed at the expense of the other. Its this balance that has me addicted to hoi3, and I don't want to lose that!
Thank you for the great reply though. This is a very enlightening and stimulating debate
IMO, a proper implementation would have been:
- Converts on-map
- "Converting" malus forces players to keep them in rear-areas
- Since they are on-map, players can still use them in emergencies
- My placing them in the upgrade cycle, they don't clog-up the actual build-queue with potentially HUNDREDs of conversions.
The current implementation:
- Converts off-map (the brigades literally disappear on vacation)
- They are unavailable in emergencies. The conversion would have to be canceled.
- The build queue is clogged up.
- Converting all brgs in a div probably makes it disappear
- It screws with the player's OOB by taking things out, even momentarily. Big no-no.
- It either bases it's return on the unit's internal ID or it's name. If it uses the name, it'll mess-up. If it uses the ID, what if you swapped some brigades around in the meantime and the original unit no longer exists?
So many things are going to go wrong here...
1) Battle events
I am little confused about the event Victory at Moscow - you are playing as Germany, you are victorios and a message talking about successful Russian defense of their Capital...
And to nitpick - if the event describe "real history", than it is wrong in statement, that by Hitler Moscow was "primary military and political objective". Even in autumn 1941 Hitler was not decided to strike at Moscow and did not want to fight for this city - even for Operation Typhoon the goal was to destroy Soviet army (near Vjazma), Moscow was secondary objective, which was accapted later, because old German generals wanted to capture Moscow
2) Upgrades of units
will be possible?
Inf -> Mot Inf -> Mech Inf
Light Tank -> Med tank -> Heavy tank
I am little confused about the event Victory at Moscow - you are playing as Germany, you are victorios and a message talking about successful Russian defense of their Capital...
And to nitpick - if the event describe "real history", than it is wrong in statement, that by Hitler Moscow was "primary military and political objective". Even in autumn 1941 Hitler was not decided to strike at Moscow and did not want to fight for this city - even for Operation Typhoon the goal was to destroy Soviet army (near Vjazma), Moscow was secondary objective, which was accapted later, because old German generals wanted to capture Moscow
2) Upgrades of units
will be possible?
Inf -> Mot Inf -> Mech Inf
Light Tank -> Med tank -> Heavy tank
for immersion.
@doomdark - re the brigade upgrade feature, how will this affect research? if LARM -> ARM -> HARM -> SHARM, then the larm techs would be, more or less, obsolete in favour of the stronger arm (since h and sh are kinda useless even when available). I can see this working for arty, at, aa, and inf since the stat techs are common across them all (so its the armour tech i'm curious about).
Yes, thats because it was pretty clear that the capture of Moscow would not lead to the defeat of the Soviet Army and the capitulation of the SU. In HoI3, the taking of moscow results in SU defeat because of the Supply System :wacko:
I really like the upgrade system, the mod I am working on features for Germany 3 medium Panzer brigades. 1 for Pz Kpwf III, 1 for IV and 1 for Pz Kpfw V. With various models ofcourse.
Realistic there were still many III designs and IV designs at the end of the war, Pz Kpfw IV design was the most produced German Tank type.
But with this upgrade system you can decide to upgrade yor Pz Kpfw III brigade to IV brigade if you want. More freedom and immersion!
Thank you!
Realistic there were still many III designs and IV designs at the end of the war, Pz Kpfw IV design was the most produced German Tank type.
But with this upgrade system you can decide to upgrade yor Pz Kpfw III brigade to IV brigade if you want. More freedom and immersion!
Thank you!
That having been said, I'm very happy with the (a)historical balance as it currently exists in 1.4. I'm only voicing my concern because I'm perceiving some of the SF changes to be pushing the game towards limiting the ahistorical options. In the end, its just about the options. IMHO, hoi3 should restrict the player to ahistorically plausible (and I use plausible loosely) options (no wildly radical situations), yet with still balancing the historical timeline, as it currently, largely, does. If Germany can go to war in 1938, it should be able to do so if the player feels comfortable by it (balanced by threat, so maybe Germany won't get its historic allies in this case). On the other hand, waiting to start the war in 1940 via the Danzig event would pace the game historically.
Each path has its advantages and disadvantages and its own attractive characteristics. I am completely immersed in my current ahistoric game as Germany. The Allies DOW'd me in 1938, Poland is still independent, and Italy only joined the Axis in November 1939! Hungary in Jan 1940. And they're my only two allies lol. But like I said, I don't want to see either the historic or ahistoric option curtailed at the expense of the other. Its this balance that has me addicted to hoi3, and I don't want to lose that!
Thank you for the great reply though. This is a very enlightening and stimulating debate
Ah, i see. Our stances are not that different then.
As countless AARs of HoI 2 games indicate, there was quite a lot of player freedom to slip away from the 'road of history' if only the player desired to do so. There were WCs as Argentina etc. Virtually everything you might imagine.
Still, the basic outline was a 'ww2 environment'. A world roughly following the historical path if the player did not intervene. Slight chances in the events made possible that things could still go different. E.G. Poland accepting Germany's claims or JAP not going after China etc.
That's what i actually mean. Divergence was possible but divergence was not predetermined as it curerently is.
Sound like nice touches over all.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I think this is very important: will there actually be a strategic AI? Will it actually know how to set itself goals of attaining certain of these strategic effects and any other triggered modifiers (preferably ones that support its overall strategy). For that matter, will the AI at any level even know how to set for itself a broad strategy, and then coordinate based on that with the sub-AIs, e.g. tactical, production, research, etc?
Or will the AI just randomly stumble on the triggered modifiers? And will there continue to be next to no coordination between the various AIs, theatre, tactical, production, research, etc etc, precisely because there is no global strategic AI setting the broad goals for each nation?
I know you are doing your best to improve the AI Doomdark, I just want to continue to highlight how important this work is and how it needs to be a high (the highest even) priority. All the shiny new features in the world will count for very little if the AI can't at least feign some sort of quasi-intelligent use of them.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I think this is very important: will there actually be a strategic AI? Will it actually know how to set itself goals of attaining certain of these strategic effects and any other triggered modifiers (preferably ones that support its overall strategy). For that matter, will the AI at any level even know how to set for itself a broad strategy, and then coordinate based on that with the sub-AIs, e.g. tactical, production, research, etc?
Or will the AI just randomly stumble on the triggered modifiers? And will there continue to be next to no coordination between the various AIs, theatre, tactical, production, research, etc etc, precisely because there is no global strategic AI setting the broad goals for each nation?
I know you are doing your best to improve the AI Doomdark, I just want to continue to highlight how important this work is and how it needs to be a high (the highest even) priority. All the shiny new features in the world will count for very little if the AI can't at least feign some sort of quasi-intelligent use of them.
Precisely! Our positions are the same end by opposite means I would say. I'm just seeing this expansion as altering the balancing act between undetermined ahistorical choices and determined historical ones. I do think hoi3 works currently by allowing divergence from the predetermined historicism so that alternate realities are limited by realisitc possibilities (especially through the threat/neutrality mechanic). But I'm evaluating hoi3 as an absolute entity, not comparatively to its predecessors.
I think you're questions will be answered next week when the dev diary on Victory Conditions comes out? (hopefully anyway!
)