• 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.

Wminus

Major
15 Badges
Dec 2, 2011
529
123
  • Darkest Hour
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Semper Fi
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Victoria 2
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
EDIT: I think many people here are confused, thinking more complexity => more strategy. That's wrong. It goes like this: more complexity, with an AI able to handle it => more strategy. The last1 is especially true for this game - the AI in HoI3 is simply horrendous and does unforgivable mistakes (are those here who're crying for more complexity not noticing the weak ai..?). So if the game was simplified, and the AI improved to an appropriate level, we might very well get a game requiring MORE thinking and better strategy. Just take a look at Shogun 2 total war - its battle-gameplay is remarkably simple compared to Empire: total war's, yet it requires much more strategy due to the existence of an AI able to master it.

Would you like more provinces, more specialized units, more technologies, more policies, more control over the economy etc. etc. etc. ?Or would you like to keep things simple and clean, and more AI-friendly? Or combination of the two paths?

Ie, should HoI4 become more, or less, micromanagement intensive?

My opinion: This is a wargame, so I'd say keep the focus on combat and simplify/abstract everything else. This way we don't have to deal with half the techs/brigades/policies being utterly useless, or dwell too much time on really annoying and time consuming "max-min" type of work.

I like the general combat mechanics of HoI3, but they are crude. So instead of starting over I'd suggest fixing things. Good places to start are:

1) Balance every unit type to be useful and worth building in not-too-specific circumstances - regardless of their historic usefulness.

2) Avoid getting making players choose between building one or the other unit. For example right now you either build TACs or CASs, light cruisers or destroyers, heavy cruisers or battleships etc. Why not make it useful to build all of them at once?

3) Streamline as much as possible. Why are there a dozen different air & naval missions? Most are completely useless, while others are do the same thing. Logistical bombing is a prime example of being redundant - IRL strategic bombing and interdiction represented what logistical bombing does in HoI3, yet we have all 3 air missions for no good reason. Missions like naval sorties are prime examples of being useless, and they would be even if they worked properly.

4) Make organizing armies less of a micromanagement hell. Oh, and I never understood why you made the Italian and Soviet armies so historically "organized" in the scenarios.. Jeez no need to spend hours doing things historically, and making sure the player will also spend hours redoing everything so things will become manageable.

To sum up, imo, PI should just massively improve, and simplify, HoI3 (especially the AI) and call it HoI4.
 
Last edited:
I'd love what you described, while adding things like reasonable after war borders, some nice flavor events in-case history goes differently than in OTL, oh, and a better tutorial. Instant purchase than.
 
The game you desire, I would not buy. I enjoy the complexity of the current game and the decisions it forces. I hate the "go as fast as we can" approach that many desire, prefering to think about my actions and the potential consequences. I would like to see it balanced a bit more so that there is a need to produce balanced forces rather than the specialization we see now.
 
1. Yes.
2. Hell no.
3. NO NO NO NO.
4. No, but make reorganization slightly more automated.

Oh, and it is not pure wargame. Wargame - battle scenarios. And some Panzer general/etc series, where you don't plan longterm, only how to win this battle.
That is beauty of HOI series, that you have to plan short term (up to 3 months) and longterm (next year). And failure in one leads to failure in other.

P.S. And complexity on existing level is pretty golden middle way. *slightly* more complexity - manpower and materials would be welcome, but I am fine as it is.
 
The trick is to make it complex, but keep the interface simple to understand. Make the "top level" controls fairly "idiot-proof", but allow lots of in-depth tinkering if you want to dig deeper. Complexity for its own sake is a bad thing, especially when you have multiple mechanisms that do essentially the same thing, and the differences aren't adequately explained to a new player (like some of the espionage and diplomacy options); complexity that you can at least see working, but don't need to micromanage constantly, is great. There's a huge difference between "simple" and "simplistic".

Too complicated and confusing = overwhelming. Many potential customers will look, grunt out a "WTsomething-or-other", shrug and walk away.
Too simple and basic and **I** will walk away.
Too complicated with a gazillion options that don't do half of what they should, and nobody's happy.
 
I think the current level of complexity is fine and also one of the main reasons most people love the HOI games!
If changed I think there should even be more complexity, especially in managing the resource system, improving naval combat and the ability to closely follow some divisions like elite units.
Main improvements should be to make the game run more fluent and to improve the challenge of playing against the AI or/and introduce better multiplayer support.
 
Fewer bugs would be favorite. Or an AI that is actually competent. This ties into your request - the more complicated they make the game, the more likely it is to have bugs and the harder it will be to program an AI to challenge the player. HOI3 was awful in terms of stability. HOI3 was visionary in terms of being able to link units together, group them into corps, armies and army groups, etc.

I would hate to see a "dumbing down" of the franchise (Civ 5 style, yuk) but rather more work towards making unit organizations mean something other than just a leader bonus. It could have a direct effect on supply and logistics, for example, actually simplifying the game as supply would move from higher up units to lower ones, not from province to province (even if there's nothing there). It could have an effect on strategy if supply lines between HQ and its units are cut. Air power could reduce the ability of an HQ to keep its units supplied and organized. Etc. Instead of trying to make millions of tiny provinces ("hey look that's my hometown" is only cool for the first 2 minutes) they should work more on the strategic side by giving us options. Here is a tool to make you more effective, but look, this tool also has vulnerabilities here and here, depending how you deploy it. That sort of thing will keep brains working instead of tedious finger-clicking through a set micromanagement routine.
 
Remember that more complexity makes it more difficult for the AI, thus increasing the chances for boneheaded AI playing. And as GG War in the East has shown, adding more complexity also adds more chances for the player to play the system to obtain unrealistic results. So I would prefer a more streamlined system and a better AI. Although I admire GGWITE as one of the most admirable wargames, I gave it up because time has shown (see the forums) that winning this game means "playing the system", instead of playing war.

As an example of streamlining, consider technology: there should be a button for "make bombers faster", not "develop medium engine", or "more powerful rifles and mortars" instead of "infantry weapons 2". And ex[planations should be clearer like "this technology replaces 37mm guns on tanks by 50 mm guns".

Henri
 
Aggreement of (mostly) all, Traks!

4. Make reorganization a little more comfortable than in the current feature. PI had already done some optimizations, but redeploying big forces requires still patience. I would like to get a simple explorer-like version for this task, as once upon a time used in the Talonsoft-series. Very simple, but alert. But I don´t know, wether such a feature technically can be implemented in the game-design of PI.

5. If PI intends to broaden the game storyline to the Cold War in a future hoi-version (i hope so), the game will need of course more complexity esp. in diplomatic affairs, in options for human player and AI.

Regards
 
I think many people here are confused, thinking more complexity => more strategy. That's wrong. It goes like this: more complexity, with an AI able to handle it => more strategy. The last1 is especially true for this game - the AI here is simply horrendous and does unforgivable mistakes. So if the game was simplified, and the AI improved to an appropriate level, we might very well get a game requiring MORE thinking and better strategy. Just take a look at Shogun 2 total war - its gameplay is remarkably simple compared to Empire: total war, yet requires much more strategy.

1. Yes.
2. Hell no.
3. NO NO NO NO.
4. No, but make reorganization slightly more automated.

Oh, and it is not pure wargame. Wargame - battle scenarios. And some Panzer general/etc series, where you don't plan longterm, only how to win this battle.
That is beauty of HOI series, that you have to plan short term (up to 3 months) and longterm (next year). And failure in one leads to failure in other.

P.S. And complexity on existing level is pretty golden middle way. *slightly* more complexity - manpower and materials would be welcome, but I am fine as it is.
It isn't a pure wargame, but it's a wargame nontheless. Everything, including diplomacy, exists to supplement the war effort in some way or other.

But please explain to me why 2) is such a terrible suggestion? You do realize that it actually means LESS complexity having to choose one unit over the other, instead of having to use both for flexibility? As an added plus, this added complexity wouldn't even warrant AI improvements
 
Last edited:
There's simplified war games out there. If I wanted simple, I'd buy one of those. This aint that, which is why I buy this.

I'd like to see Paradox follow up on the new stuff in HOI3 and add to it. Things such as functional Air and Naval command structures, an OOB designer ingame at least as functional and competent in design as those made by players to use as saved game editors, some actual thought into minimizing the overwhelming clickfest (ie: click on command, click on sub unit, click to remove subunit from command, re acquire the senior command, click on the sub unit, click to remove sub unit from the command, reaquire the senior command, click on the sub unit, click to remove the sub unit from the command, on and on, ad nausea, when reorganizing initial OOB of a major nation.)
I'd like to see HQs useable for what HQs were actually used for... things like control of reinforcement/upgrades/supply priority etc, rather than just places to park generals for bonuses.

As to detail...
http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
muahahaha!!

I want to be able to check quality control on armor plate production by scoping samples to check alloy mix, internal crystal alignment, etc... maintenance checks to make sure all my trucks have fresh spark plugs prior to launching an offensive...etc and so on, and the ability to pull out far enough to make sure them nasty aliens in Alpha Centauri aren't mobilizing to stick their floppy 8 fingered noses in my war.

Just joking... a little bit... on that last part.
 
. . . Just take a look at Shogun 2 total war - its gameplay is remarkably simple compared to Empire: total war, yet requires much more strategy. . . .

What makes that comment really interesting is that I was going to suggest you play Total War as an alternative to HoI3. I'm a long time fan of the TW series (and own all the games back to Medieval I) including Shogun 2. Does it require more strategy? Meh. Than what? Your average electronic chess game?

This fight has been fought on the TW forums again and again. "Make TW like EU3!" "TW sucks compared to EU3!" Strangely, I never thought I'd see the reverse here, but I was wrong.

Please: you're comparing apples and orangutans. The Total War series is a battle-based campaign game with limited historic accuracy. Remember the flaming pigs in RTW? Seriously? Except for a number of mods (RSII and EB come to mind), I'd have dropped RTW years ago. Shogun II is okay, and it may require more strategy at a battle level. But you can't seriously mean to say that the silly, generalized economy and the horrid, horrid diplomatic system THAT NEVER WORKED IN ANY TW GAME are better than what Paradox offers?

HoI3 (and EU3) are both history simulators, which are very different from the TW series. Detail is required. I'll stop now because I'm getting on soapbox, but feel free to petition Creative Assembly and Sony to make a WWII version of TW. Sure, I'd look at it.

But leave my HOI3 alone! :)

EDIT: Because I can't leave well enough alone, I'll just note that I've not played a TW game on easy and I've just started playing HoI3 on Normal. I wasn't really aware there was a working AI in any TW game?
 
IMO the devs should follow several simple rules:

1. Don't reinvent the wheel. If something worked well in HOI2/HOI3, don't change it. One of examples of NOT following this rule is the change in ORG rules in HOI3, i.e. ORG regain on the move, no ORG loss for rebasing etc. The rules which were mostly reverted to the old ones (more or less) in the end, anyway.

2. If the AI cannot handle the feature, then don't add it or change it in such way that the AI will be able to handle it. Production licenses - a great idea, but badly implemented, simply because the AI was not able to use the feature, so it became a kind of cheat.

3. Limit the well-known exploits. For example, PARAs have always been overpowered and there is no reason to repeat the same mistake yet again!

4. If a given feature makes the game more micromanagement-intensive, ask yourselves what does it bring to the game. It may turn out that the additional micromanagement is largely unnecessary. For example, in HOI3 units that are OOS "forget" their orders, so you have to order them to do the same thing again when the supply lines catch up - what's the point of this?

5. HOI games are grand strategy wargames. We should be dealing with the big stuff, important strategic decisions etc. and anything that is done on a different scale must have a really good justification behind it in order to add something to the game and not annoy the players :).

6. Avoid making the same mistakes in general. Well-known examples include: overpowered/underpowered submarines using the same naval combat system as surface fleets, DOWing minor nations for CG reduction, superstacks of all kinds, no allied cooperation etc.
 
Last edited:
What makes that comment really interesting is that I was going to suggest you play Total War as an alternative to HoI3. I'm a long time fan of the TW series (and own all the games back to Medieval I) including Shogun 2. Does it require more strategy? Meh. Than what? Your average electronic chess game?

This fight has been fought on the TW forums again and again. "Make TW like EU3!" "TW sucks compared to EU3!" Strangely, I never thought I'd see the reverse here, but I was wrong.

Please: you're comparing apples and orangutans. The Total War series is a battle-based campaign game with limited historic accuracy. Remember the flaming pigs in RTW? Seriously? Except for a number of mods (RSII and EB come to mind), I'd have dropped RTW years ago. Shogun II is okay, and it may require more strategy at a battle level. But you can't seriously mean to say that the silly, generalized economy and the horrid, horrid diplomatic system THAT NEVER WORKED IN ANY TW GAME are better than what Paradox offers?

HoI3 (and EU3) are both history simulators, which are very different from the TW series. Detail is required. I'll stop now because I'm getting on soapbox, but feel free to petition Creative Assembly and Sony to make a WWII version of TW. Sure, I'd look at it.

But leave my HOI3 alone! :)

EDIT: Because I can't leave well enough alone, I'll just note that I've not played a TW game on easy and I've just started playing HoI3 on Normal. I wasn't really aware there was a working AI in any TW game?

I'm not comparing the two games, I'm merely saying that reducing complexity can result in a more strategy-demanding game.
 
There's simplified war games out there. If I wanted simple, I'd buy one of those. This aint that, which is why I buy this.

(ie: click on command, click on sub unit, click to remove subunit from command, re acquire the senior command, click on the sub unit, click to remove sub unit from the command, reaquire the senior command, click on the sub unit, click to remove the sub unit from the command, on and on, ad nausea, when reorganizing initial OOB of a major nation.)

http://htwins.net/scale2/scale2.swf?bordercolor=white
muahahaha!!

This is already implemented in FTM, where changing a unit's HQ from the OOB screen is done simply by clicking on the unit and dragging it to the new HQ. One click and one drag (and one could argue that this is a single operation), this is a BIG improvement. If you don't already have FTM, unless your computer can't handle it, you shouldn't be playing this game!

As for simple but difficult games to master, consider chess: it takes years to become a middling player (98% of players including me never reach the expert level - not to mention Master and Grandmaster and Supergrandmaster levels), but the rules are much simpler than those of most wargames. And chess only allows ONE move at a time, and most pieces can move only to 3 or 4 places, whereas most wargames allow AlL of the units to act on each move sometimes to dozens of places. This shows that adding complexity is not always required to make a game interesting and difficult to master.

Henri
 
Last edited:
This is already implemented in FTM, where changing a unit's HQ from the OOB screen is done simply by clicking on the unit and dragging it to the new HQ. One click and one drag (and one could argue that this is a single operation), this is a BIG improvement. If you don't already have FTM, unless your computer can't handle it, you shouldn't be playing this game!

Henri

Huh. I have FtM and did monkey around with that ingame OOB dealy a bit but couldn't get it to do a dang thing. Of course, I was trying to right click and get a sub menu to come up. Never tried click and drag. Thanks.
 
Huh. I have FtM and did monkey around with that ingame OOB dealy a bit but couldn't get it to do a dang thing. Of course, I was trying to right click and get a sub menu to come up. Never tried click and drag. Thanks.

Make sure that the OOB screen you use is not the one on the top right (that was already there in previous versions and that shows combats as well as units), but the OOB that you get by clicking on the vertical bar on the left of any unit's information box.

Henri