More. And more realism.
What do I want in HoI IV?
1. A bigger map with… yes… even more provinces.
2. Carrier aircraft represented properly. There were three basic types of aircraft used bombers, torpedo bombers & CAP (interceptor) aircraft. NOT just one type of Catch All Garbage. Each had its role to play and you’d need to get the balance right.
3. Custom design of ships. The idea mentioned earlier, like in Space Empires (IV is a brilliant game) where you have “slots” to fill in various sized basic hulls.
Get rid of battle cruiser techc’s being researched separately. The whole shipping research should be streamlined. The idea of different engines in BC, BB or CV is flawed with no basis in real life. Many CVs were actually BC converted during (& sometimes after) construction anyway, capital ships (CVs, BB & BC) all have very similar engines. Even cruisers & destroyers use the same boilers & reduction gear steam turbines. Yes, there were a few notable exceptions like the diesel engines in the Deutschland class & some USN vessels (Colorado class) with turbo electric drives and separate rules/factors (fuel consumption?) may be applied for these technologies. The same goes for guns. And let’s have a distinction between main armament & secondary (anti-destroyer) armament. And if you want to combine your AD with AA, then there’s a cost. Quick training/firing (short) guns that are good against aircraft aren’t much use against fast destroyers. This was never shown as far as I know as I’ve never heard of a destroyer attack against any of the big USN battlewagons. In a similar vein, the Atlanta class cruisers were very good against aircraft but never had to prove themselves in a surface fire fight. There was even a destroyer class (Allen M. Sumner) fitted with the same battleship AA turret! There should be some kind of Henry Ford bonus for this.
The whole idea of battle cruisers is also flawed. What are they? The design premise is, fast enough to run down commerce raiders (ie CL/CA) and with the firepower to defeat them. Few good examples exist. Scharnhorst, Alaska & Dunkerque seem to be the best examples. Hood should not be considered this type of cruiser due to her slow speed during WWII even though she carried torpedoes! She was, simply a poorly balanced battleship displacing 50% more than the others three listed.
4. Different sizes of aircraft carriers. As has been posted earlier, the CVE is, typically, a converted freighter. The so-called Jeep Carrier carried 20-25 (ish) aircraft. Is this half a CAG wing or a full one? There are many “proper” carriers of differing sizes & complements from Ark Royal (50-60) up to Lexington (100-110). Those who wish to design their own ships could have a hull size (limited by a research level) into which they can fit so much engine power, hangar space, guns, fuel, ARMOUR, etc. in exactly the same way as some of us would like all ships to be user defined. I mean, just where does the late Ise fit in the grand scheme of things? Four double 14” guns, battleship armour & 22 aircraft!
5. Carriers CAN NOT recover aircraft while in port. This is an exploit to avoid surface engagement. They have to be steaming (the faster the better) in to the wind. I’ll draw the line at launching aircraft, but only under duress.
6. CAGs should recover organisation whilst on board their carrier. CVs have workshops to conduct all manner of repairs and even spare aircraft to replace some losses. All flight operations are planned on board. Carrier pilots did NOT fly to an island airbase to have a few good nights’ sleep! Carriers would receive replacements for losses but they would not swap out their entire complement for another set of wings that have been “re-charging” on land. I’m sorry, but this is bollocks.
7. Aircraft do not have infinite range when re-basing. Another exploit that needs to be fixed.
8. Placed factories. Your tanks, planes & ships should start off at places of major IC. This is particularly true of shipping. Large ships can ONLY be built in a few large shipyards. Very large ships may require specific upgrade to a province to allow this. Although the Kure shipyard was capable of building Yamato, the Mitsubishi docks at Nagasaki underwent significant re-work in order to build Musashi. So Japan could only build TWO SHBs at once. This seems to require shipping IC to be separated from all other IC. There are other instances of hull being broken-up to make room for more urgent projects so good shipyards ARE limited.
9. Perhaps we could have four types of IC. Shipping, Automotive, Aviation and everything else.
The “everything else” can be used to manufacture supplies and augment the other three. Gun factories make machine guns for infantry, tanks, planes & ships so it abstracts quite well. Artillery factories make the same kinds of guns used in AFVs & small ships.
10. Ships require officers. This is the best suggestion I’ve seen for limiting ridiculous fleet sizes. Make officers easier to obtain to retain balance, but ships need them just as they need manpower.
11. The idea of ships requiring steel (metal) in addition to IC is also sound. Building aircraft is labour intensive. It requires a lot of work per ton, AFVs, likewise but not so much. Large warships do not require the same amount of “work” per ton so… they should require significant IC and steel. I appreciate that manufacture has to be abstracted or aircraft would be almost entirely “rares” and tanks mostly “metal” but shipping is much more obvious. A 3000 men division with 10000 tons of vehicles & equipment or 3000 men crewing two battleships totalling 60,000 tons or more. Ships ARE steel intensive.
12. Speaking of building things. Over a YEAR to build a CAG? It took two weeks to build a Spitfire. TWO WEEKS!!! Yes, it takes ages to properly train the pilots. Maybe a couple of months, but not fourteen. Let’s see a real difference between green pilots & veteran pilots. The IJN should cream the USN after all the experience they have bombing the crap out of China.
13. As Japan, I want to be able to sell rares to Germany using their submarine (R-class) freighters. This was a rubber, zinc & tungsten lifeline to Germany which is not (as far as I know) modelled and should be relatively sink proof compared to standard merchants.
14. Paratroopers should take a casualty hit on every drop depending upon terrain. You do NOT parachute on to a nation’s capital & expect to survive. Another VP exploit. Woods are bad enough, hills? OK not much worse than open plains, mountains OMG! Buildings? Forget it! These casualties are dead but would be mitigated by First Aid & Tricleback. Gliders are worse still. They are virtually one-shot items as most were destroyed, many with the loss of cargo/equipment & personnel even when landing in open fields.
This is a start. It all adds up to more complexity (more realism?) and, IMHO, the more realistic the game engine & representations, the better the game will be.