What makes this game complicated.

[Henri]

There are many arguments to and fro about realism, complexity and so on. Without taking sides on these discussions, here is what I think makes this game "unnecessarily" complicated.

Having read dozens of AARs (yes they are really fun to read), EVERY good player that starts a game in 1936 playing say, Germany, immediately starts to plan around not what he will need in 1939 (Poland), now what he will need in 1940 (France), but what he will need in 1941 (Russia). This includes players who are the utmost supporters of realism in every aspect of the game. And this planning is by far the most complex part of the game.

Now I ask you: does anyone really believe that the German leadership was planning in 1936 how many Panzer divisions they would need in 1941 and how many brigades of medium tanks and engineers each division would need? And how many militia and military police they would need to occupy France and Poland, and which German and Polish provinces would need improved infrastructure to allow supplies for the invasion of The Soviet Union? I have nothing against those who enjoy this, but I l believe that such calculations needlessly complicate the game not to mention being highly unrealistic. This is called "gaming the system" where a player concentrates on beating the program instead of the enemy.

It is not obvious how to get around this. One way would be to automate the whole process of research and/or production to yield approximate historical levels, but this would not take away the knowledge that the player already has about what the status of production was in 1940 and other years. Perhaps adding a random factor to insert some unpredictability would help, but I am not sure.

Maybe total realism both historical and military is impossible, and maybe having a game allowing more historical variety would not be any more unrealistic than a game than ensures historical results by gaming the system. And maybe the former would be simpler. I don't know the answer.

Opinions welcome.

Henri

[cogitor]

I'm going to make the reverse argument.

The "predictability" of the course of the game actually detracts from complexity and difficulty. If a German player knows they will face Germany in 39, France in 40 and the USSR in 41 (give or take a year if you rush/fumble), the entire strategy can be streamlined from 36 to accomplish that, making things much simpler than they realistically should be. It invites minmaxing, in stead of a balanced approach that takes unpredictable possibilities into account. A player in 36 should have an incentive to "be" in 36, to build his forces according to current threats (and projections made as if he were in 36), modifying the strategy as the threats modify. So playing as France, for example, you would be wary of the Italian and Japanese Naval threat, in stead of just pumping out a thousand reserve land brigades, because you already know the other stuff won't matter (and, I guess, can't really afford not to since France is nerfed).

[blue emu]

@Henri: The same points which you cite as "flaws" are the very points that attract many of us to the game. I would certainly be against any changes which catered specifically to a single gaming "philosophy".

[Darlor]

Any military organization is continuously planning ahead. Looking out 3 years to what your organization might need for multiple different scenarios is the norm, not improbable.

[Henri]

Any military organization is continuously planning ahead. Looking out 3 years to what your organization might need for multiple different scenarios is the norm, not improbable.

Planning ahead is one thing, but planning ahead knowing and taking into account exactly which technologies and armaments will be available five years in advance is another...

Henri

[jbarnez]

Ok I'm pretty new here but I'm going to comment on this:

I disagree with the OP. (In my own humble opinion, what makes this game complicated is managing divisions & corps in the heat of battle. In my own current game in the middle of invading the USSR I have divisions that are supposed to be from the same corps that are literally hundreds of km apart - now I either have to figure out how to reunite them or reorganize my OOB on the fly)

In regards to the OP's thoughts, no I don't think that the German High Command was specifically plotting their OOB needs in 1936. They definitely were planning ahead however, and they certainly did plan in advance for Barbarossa. (Keep in mind, Operation Sealion never occured for real because of 2 reasons: 1. the Luftwaffe failed to achieve air superiority in a timely fashion 2. Hitler refused to delay the invasion of the USSR and many of the troops that were massed in France in the fall of 1940 needed to be transported east for the spring invasion.)

-barnez

[Darlor]

Planning ahead is one thing, but planning ahead knowing and taking into account exactly which technologies and armaments will be available five years in advance is another...

Henri

Generals are constantly meeting with arms developers to help with arms development, provide input on preceived needs, etc. Major corporations have 5 and even 10 year plans for their development organizations. Why would you expect a good military not to be equally farsighted?

[Cpt Crash]

To have historical military gaming as a hobby leaves one with a built in quandary; you know the future. There is no escape from this in any historical game. HoI gives a good amount of leeway to allow for some surprise. Making the game less involved/detailed will do nothing to eliminate 70 years of hindsight. Of course, those that learn their history from Hollywood will be fighting the war for the first time with HoI--and the ai will crush them

I'm sure many players employ some sort of house rules to try not to "game" the game.

[Portal]

In my opinion, every country should be as it was historically at the start, to allow greater ahistoric events. To be clear - right now, pretty much everything is built so Germany will do everything historically until about Barbarossa. Why not have a historic France, not one explicitly designed so it can be conquered by Germany? Or, historic minors that can actually live up to what they had IRL and not be crippled by lack of manpower and leadership.

[plasticpanzers]

1. All the preplanning can be for naught if you loose a series of battles (as in real life)
and cannot repair the loss before the war changes against you.
2. Operate the game with Diplomacy, Intel, and Politics run by the AI. This way you
will be at the mercy of the government of your nation in how you can run your war and
limited by the tools they can supply. You will only be able to effect tech and production
and the actual war operations. This can be far more restricting than just switching the
'difficulty' of the game and more fun as well as a bit more realistic.

[Gimpstar]

...Why not have a historic France, not one explicitly designed so it can be conquered by Germany?...

Because this would ruin the game as long as you don't play France or maybe Germany. There will not be a Barbarossa and UK can commit much more forces against Italy and Japan.

[Corugi]

The Imperial Might of the Holy Corugian Empire has this to say:

I appreciate what you are trying to say, however within the scope of the game and the tension that exists between historical simulation and historical possibilities, what you suggesting is unrealistic.

Rather, consider this: If you want a world war II like game that avoids all aspects of potential gamyness, then really you would have to create an entirely new alternative reality. A random generated map. Randomly spawned nations. Randomly created national attributes. Emplace HOI3 game mechanics and then you would have a game where historical events in our Human past would have absolutley no bearing on how you play the game.

End result? A game that has panzers galore, the same HOI3 game mechanics, but that is fought on an entirely fictional world that bears no resemblence to Earth at all other than it involves WW2 type technology and industry. Imagine something similar to, one of the Sid Meirer's Civilisation worlds ( but greatly more detailed) which is dedicated to the techinal age of the earlier 20th Centuary.

[Maestor]

Scale.

[cogitor]

You know what would help? If the AI reacted more to what you do in the pre-war period. Right now, it feels like the AI builds are very rigid. If the player, as Germany or Italy, decides to lay-up an a historically large navy, the UK should follow suit and make its navy also larger. If Germany conquers France in 1939, the Soviets should not build another factory, but scramble to pour everything in ground troops from the day Paris falls. Etc.

[Rancher]

This is again a subject that cannot really be answered to everyones satisfaction. HOI is a GAME played on a limited computer so unfortunatey we cant have everything. I feel that the original post would not help the game. We all play HOI to demonstrate how much better generals we are than the real lfe guys, so things cannot be straightjacketed. No matter what, we do have hind sight and so will always try not to make the same mistakes as IRL. The only way in which the basic game could be improved IMHO is by making the AI much better, but could that sort of intelligence be capable on the sort of computer that most of us play on. Or play a modern game where there is no such thing as hind sight.
As an example how many people if playing arab israelli wars would be caught out and have their airforce destroyed on the ground the first day? Personally my opinion is lets just improve the game weve got by improving firstly the naval game aand secondly the airgame sections (I wonder if Ive mentioned this before)