Other than a COC/OOB system, what is the one thing you miss the most so far?

  • 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.

safe-keeper

• ← 2mm hole in reality
54 Badges
Sep 6, 2012
9.231
16.436
livetkanfly.com
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris
  • Cities: Skylines - After Dark
  • Semper Fi
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Magicka
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Cities in Motion
  • For the Motherland
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III: Chronicles
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Field Marshal
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Steel Division: Normand 44 Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Steel Division: Normandy 44 -  Back to Hell
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Cities: Skylines - Snowfall
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Hearts of Iron IV: No Step Back
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
Inspired by the last poll about what people like the most so far, I thought I'd make an informal thread of my own about what feature people want the most.

Everyone already knows many of you want a detailed COC, so I suppose if that's your #1 wish, post whatever comes in second for you ;) .

Myself: railroads. Totally sold on this after the forum discussions we have had here. Basically a "second layer" of infrastructure that is strategically important to advancing armies. I can see the AI becoming an issue here, but I'd love to see this implemented and working.
 
Afaik, apart from the COC and divisional generals (the first I would miss it a lot if it is missing, not the second) there are no features that appear in HoI 3 that wont make it into HoI IV. Regarding new features, I think the political and intelligence tabs could get a bit of love.
 
A completely reworked (relative to predecessors) construction and deployment mechanic for naval vessels. For example being able to order construction of parallel groups of naval vessels tied to a location and not have them go from an abstract untouchable construction site to an abstract untouchable storage when done. Also then possibly not having to worry about deploying them one by one later, but have them arrive automatically where they were built. Furthermore requiring sufficient naval IC level in build locations for construction of different types of vessels, to represent having adequate facilities for making the various sizes of ships as well as having a definite cap on keels per location.

Granted what was seen in the very early gamescom footage is very likely subject to change, i am still likely to miss such kind of features.

That and the ability to have a severe pilot skill shortage.
 
This one is a bit hypothetical since we don't know the combat mechanics yet. Based on the assumption that things will not change that much from previous versions, I would really rather have seen the divisional components (in this case battalions) take a more direct role inside the combat engine rather than merely contributing to some composite stats for the division.
 
I'm not sure how much we know, for sure, of what isn't in (CoC notwithstanding ;)) - the dev team could still change their minds on some things, particularly stuff like railroads if they haven't finished building the supply system yet (we can only hope :)).

That said, I guess mine would be a toss-up between railroads and air transports. I miss divisional leaders as well, but at a strategic level railroads and air transports have more of an impact. Not the end of the world of course, I think so far the dev team is generally making some very good decisions.
 
This one is a bit hypothetical since we don't know the combat mechanics yet. Based on the assumption that things will not change that much from previous versions, I would really rather have seen the divisional components (in this case battalions) take a more direct role inside the combat engine rather than merely contributing to some composite stats for the division.

Why? It will barely change anything. Are you going to see one of the dozens of battles as soviets or germans to see what one infantry battalion is doing?

Of course you won´t. There is a line to be drawn, and not putting battalions on the combat map is more than acceptable, including regarding performance and chance of bugs.
 
Why? It will barely change anything. Are you going to see one of the dozens of battles as soviets or germans to see what one infantry battalion is doing?

Of course you won´t. There is a line to be drawn, and not putting battalions on the combat map is more than acceptable, including regarding performance and chance of bugs.

If the only contribution a battalion makes is to do things like add +2 to hard attack and +3% to hardness for the overall division stats, then having battalions as building blocks is mostly smoke. It will be a roleplaying element for those who are into division composition and ignored by others in favor of the bottom line stats.

This is no worse than any previous version of the game, but that does not stop me from being disappointed. Just the idea of tracking individual vehicle losses and of building divisions in more detail, in my opinion, calls for some of the detail to trickle into the combat engine.

This is all below the threshold of what players will see while playing, but it would be comforting to some of us to know how things were being done.
 
But isn't that exactly why the AT battalion would be part of your division template? To add that +2 HA?
 
A completely reworked (relative to predecessors) construction and deployment mechanic for naval vessels. For example being able to order construction of parallel groups of naval vessels tied to a location and not have them go from an abstract untouchable construction site to an abstract untouchable storage when done. Also then possibly not having to worry about deploying them one by one later, but have them arrive automatically where they were built. Furthermore requiring sufficient naval IC level in build locations for construction of different types of vessels, to represent having adequate facilities for making the various sizes of ships as well as having a definite cap on keels per location.

That would open up for the possibility to bomb ships being built in order to disrupt and delay the production :)
 
Why? It will barely change anything. Are you going to see one of the dozens of battles as soviets or germans to see what one infantry battalion is doing?

Of course you won´t. There is a line to be drawn, and not putting battalions on the combat map is more than acceptable, including regarding performance and chance of bugs.

You would not have to put the battalions on the map, but you could have them in the combat interface. Intead of a division having generic stats you would have each element having their own attack, defence, strength and org. This would open up for AT and ART to get prioritized by CAS and disrupting/destroying a division's capability to effectively counter tanks while not hurting the infantry regiments. Or having the infantry overrun by armor and making ART units highly vulnerable to such penetration.

It has the potential to give quite different and interesting results in combat compared to the old system.
 
Transport Planes - I like the new Air War system, but I am extremely sceptical about the Bomber=Transport implementation.

The Map - I know its a matter of taste, but I think it is just too 'cartoonish'.
 
You would not have to put the battalions on the map, but you could have them in the combat interface. Intead of a division having generic stats you would have each element having their own attack, defence, strength and org. This would open up for AT and ART to get prioritized by CAS and disrupting/destroying a division's capability to effectively counter tanks while not hurting the infantry regiments. Or having the infantry overrun by armor and making ART units highly vulnerable to such penetration.

It has the potential to give quite different and interesting results in combat compared to the old system.

I was always of the impression that losses in HOI3 ALREADY happened accordingly to vulnerability. A brigade that had low air defense would take more losses from air attack already... While if you had no hard attack tanks wouldn´t suffer. It worked well enough and only needed tweaks.

All such a system would add is more performance loss and chance of bugs. If both aren´t a problem in the new game, ok, but it´s up to Paradox. Besides, AT guns were crap targets for aircraft, just saying. They weren´t put in plains with a sign "Bomb me!", but concealed as much as possible.