I miss not being able to blow up bridges. I miss not having mines both on land and sea. I miss sabotage. I miss PT boats.
Other than a COC/OOB system, what is the one thing you miss the most so far?
- Thread starter safe-keeper
- Start date
-
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.
Yea all the rest were just messing around. But I really will miss not having these in HOI4.
I miss the garlic and onion flavor Doritos that used to be available. They were in green colored bags and discontinued about 30 years ago.
I suppose I could say those Doritos are a metaphor for the CoC.
I suppose I could say those Doritos are a metaphor for the CoC.
It was Barbarossa that taught me to hate the OOB/COC system. So much micromanagement just to plan and organize things. Then the fighting actually starts and it becomes a nightmare.
Once, just once, I dedicated myself to playing a whole game of HOI while doing my utmost to keep my corps, armies and army groups organized and within range of one another. Never again.
Sounds like you should have CTRL-clicked more. Not to mention, Paradox didn't hire nuns to rap you on the knuckles if a division strayed out of range.
Now, if you had claimed carpal tunnel from re-organizing the Soviets for Barbarossa...that's a legit complaint
I didn't enjoy the hoi3 system either. Not that a OOB/COC concept has any explicit ties to hoi3 of course. The reason a hierarchy is warranted for hoi4 is simply because of that you don't want to micro 500 divisions when using the battle planner for a barbarossa. If the battle planner is going to be anything beyond haphazard throwing of units in any direction, you will want good and easy control over corps-sized groups that can also be quickly and easily selected as larger groups. Optionally of course, as it might not be warranted in smaller operations. It does not have to have anything to do with divisional leaders, bonuses, arbitrary unit limits, HQs, ranges or any other thing from hoi3; it would just be a neat tool for those many arrows and multiple phases and modifications of plans which a large operation will be sure to involve.
Well put. I still believe we are going to get something functional along these lines. Podcat did mention a few weeks ago that they are on something like their 3rd revision of the battle plan system since that early demo of the Polish campaign started all the forum uproar.
Oh, the memories
. I had a crack at this a bit as well. It's not too hard playing as the Brits, at least until you've got a large front in Europe, but playing as the Soviets it was a nightmare. In the end, I just started switching divisions between corps (and when I lost track completely, corps between armies) as they moved in and out of range, was just easier that way.
Oh, the memories
Yes. I found it made it much easier to manage if I did not fill every corps to 5 divisions. Leaving say one in three at only 4 divs gave flexibility for swapping them between corps as needed.
As frontage expanded (Axis pushing into Russia for example), I'd start spawning off additional corps and having some that only had 2-3 divs. Eventually you needed to form some additional armies as well to keep it all in range. It was not that hard to do, but it did not add greatly to the fun factor of the game either, in my opinion.
This does not mean I wanted the system to disappear entirely. Making it more user friendly would have been enough. I hear some of the expansions moved in this direction, but I didn't put many hours into any of the expansions and honestly played HOI3, less than a tenth as much as its predecessor.
Hmmm. Wish I had thought of that. Yeah, leaving empty spaces in corps and armies would help a little. The way it was for me, you couldn't reassign a division to somewhere else on the front without a. dealing with that division being out of radio range, or b. rearranging your entire OOB.
Encirclement with tanks and mobile warfare in general was incredibly fun, too
.But yeah, in hindsight, if it had been made more user-friendly I would have liked it a lot more.
Or if you had put some thought into it. IRL, divisions were moved from one corps to another quite often and entire corps were moved between armies and armies (and army groups) were formed, disbanded and reformed all the time. Seems like a fairly simple idea to copy, to me.Hmmm. Wish I had thought of that. Yeah, leaving empty spaces in corps and armies would help a little. The way it was for me, you couldn't reassign a division to somewhere else on the front without a. dealing with that division being out of radio range, or b. rearranging your entire OOB.
Encirclement with tanks and mobile warfare in general was incredibly fun, too
But yeah, in hindsight, if it had been made more user-friendly I would have liked it a lot more.
I don't get your complaint about keeping them in radio range either as it was very simple to do even before Battle Planner made it possible to draw your plans on the map instead of just keeping them in your head.
I'm sorry if I come across hostile and aggressive, I don't mean to be - I just cannot fathom this issue that apparently some players had.
EDIT: I will also miss dedicated transport planes.
Last edited:
Not all of us read military strategy history before playing computer games. There's your explanation
.
Lol this system will make my friend rage, he also reads and sets up the historical OOB for Barbarossa when planning it.
What you are missing from the game?
I'm missing this
1) money* (see note below)
Note
*
I'm missing this
1) money* (see note below)
Note
*