**Suggestion thread:** What would you like to see in a patch 1.3?

1 Casuality Statistics
2 more Cold War Support (maybe a new techtree with models from 1940 to 1980?) this would surely encourage new fan made scenarios and mods
3 Optionto call allies into a war (or not) - important for Decolonisation Wars Post WWII

Originally Posted by israelien View Post
d) Let Nuclear Subs carry missiles

Click to expand...

I recall reading a HoI II thread where someone found that there were text entries for this incorporated into the gamefiles, which a Dev or Moderator confirmed. They were going to implement this but found it to be too difficult (or, something like this).

Click to expand...

I'd love to know why its so hard - its can't be that different from the code in HOI 1 that allowed Carriers to hold actual Air Wings.

This - 10000000. Have you wondered why AoD lags?

Click to expand...

I believe the reason that AoD lags is that it calculates a separate ESE for for every province for each individual country based on the Infra level of every province along the path used to transport the supplies from the that countries capital to that particular province.

Which is realistic and awesome, but does require masses of calculations (i reckon its worth it, but I get that others will disagree - maybe in 1.04 or 1.5 as a misc.txt toggle......... pretty please?)

allow to select the same kind of air/sea units, even the ones with different ranges, so i can make them do missions en masse. i HAAAAATE having to pick one each of my 60 subs to send them on missions when on AoD i could just pick a group and ctrl click a province and make it do its mission. PLEASE IF ANYTHING IS FIXED LET IT BE THIS!

I want to see more freedom and choice in events and without. The game so far is way too linear.

Well top three suggestions

destroyers and subs should be represented 1 to 1 , not 1 reprsenting 10 ships or subs. This is something I got used to in CORE and find I like better, plus when putting units together with capital ships you are not overloading your fleet with escorts


in your build que adding the port name to ship builds, If you lose control of this port you would thus lose shipyard and the ship maybe event driven to determine scuttling,captured or in near completion was able to move to the closest friendly port??. also would eliminate launching ships in ports that have been recently captured.

interface would like the option to take total control of allied and puppet countries. In a current game with spain as an ally they are researching carrier techs???, have seen the same with landlocked allies also, way to cumbersome to save reload as the change it then go back and reissue all new orders to all ut units

sarge11 said:

destroyers and subs should be represented 1 to 1 , not 1 reprsenting 10 ships or subs. This is something I got used to in CORE and find I like better, plus when putting units together with capital ships you are not overloading your fleet with escorts

Click to expand...

CORE is changing this back to one representing multiple next patch because the AI can't handle the single-ship representation and the huge fleets required.

As for AoD: I never had lag problems at all, but this might be because both of the computers I've played on are quite powerful in processing and RAM terms.

Cybvep said:

... or maybe their logistical system? It is very good, but IIRC the devs admitted that it was very taxing on the CPU.

Click to expand...

Sorry but AoD works badly if you have really old PC, mine is like 4 years old and it works without problems, sorry but we would not have moved out of windows 95 if noone used it because some hardware was to old for it even if it's so much better.

Sorry but imo this is very wrong argument.

- a reworked 1914 scenario. The scenario is there, but it needs a lot adjustment. It's actually the only reason why I bought the game...

*Tanks to be less impermeable and soft. In RL, tank divisions took massive casualties and literally hundreds of tanks were lost in single battles: not 5% strength loss every two weeks as is the case now. This was also the reason they were so expensive as a whole, not the cost of any individual tank in a division, but to replace, repair, and resupply them.
*Tanks or other mechanized motorized units to consume steel as part of being built, and more importantly as part of repairs/reinforcements. As part of the above point, if your tank divisions took a bad beating, you'll have to use up quite some steel and possibly oil along with manpower and IC to reinforce them.
*Claims to be distinct from cores. Cores should represent where members of an ethnicity or culture lived an where dissent wouldn't be accrued by an occupation, while claims represent political cores. For example, Germany would start the game with cores from Alsace-Lorraine to Memel to South Tyrol, but claims only on germany proper (basically, the "cores" situation of germany in 1936 IIRC). Of course, that means they wouldn't be infinitely placeable anywhere but to act more like cores act now: given and revoked by events. Or you could manually add claims outside of events, for a dissent hit, belligerence boost, and -50 relations or similar...

TremblingBlue said:

I want to see more freedom and choice in events and without. The game so far is way too linear.

Click to expand...

Mainly due to the fact that alternate history timeline events aren't fleshed out i think. AAR-CCIP is fairly deterministic as well currently due to the same reason (I actually coded some events to take care of minor player cheating/ahistoric stuff like annexing a warlord faction to help force things along).

Sorry but AoD works badly if you have really old PC, mine is like 4 years old and it works without problems, sorry but we would not have moved out of windows 95 if noone used it because some hardware was to old for it even if it's so much better.

Sorry but imo this is very wrong argument.

Click to expand...

I like being able to play DH on my netbook.

From a CS standpoint, AoD's convoy system is very inefficiently designed since it is resource intensive for a task that does not need to be resource intensive. I don't care how "realistic" it is, certain degrees of abstraction should be there. Not everyone runs a supercomputer. I really like DH's engine's efficiency (efficient coding is a pain to do, so props to Martin).

Oh, God, I forgot the biggest one for myself:

Make it so you can use the Space Button for pausing the game AND renaming units! Nobody wants to use Pause Break, it's such an inconvenient place for a button you have to use so incredibly often, I have to hold my keyboard so awkwardly!

Limith said:

I like being able to play DH on my netbook.

From a CS standpoint, AoD's convoy system is very inefficiently designed since it is resource intensive for a task that does not need to be resource intensive. I don't care how "realistic" it is, certain degrees of abstraction should be there. Not everyone runs a supercomputer. I really like DH's engine's efficiency (efficient coding is a pain to do, so props to Martin).

Click to expand...

I think that is one of those things that doesn't get enough praise, mostly because the casual player doesn't "sees" what goes on.

Adding a new feature isn't really that hard, but the repetitive cycle of improvement Martin goes through for years now is just something not many people can do imo.
If you ever checked the Mobilization events you will know, I for sure can't stick to optimzed coding.

-check all old code that relates to a new feature
-fix bugs in the old code
-clean up old code to improve performance
-add a new feature
-fix bugs in the new code
-fix bugs in the old code that suddenly become obvious
-go over the whole thing again to optimize performance

Click to expand...

It gets sometimes "a bit" frustrating when you wait for your favorite new feature, but the results speak for itself. And a lot of the crazy softcoded things we did or are going to do were just impossible to implement without slowing the game down to a crawl on the original engine.

T.j. Arnold said:

Oh, God, I forgot the biggest one for myself:

Make it so you can use the Space Button for pausing the game AND renaming units! Nobody wants to use Pause Break, it's such an inconvenient place for a button you have to use so incredibly often, I have to hold my keyboard so awkwardly!

Click to expand...

Wasn't rule of this thread to edit your first post, I'm the only one who did that?


Mods please clean this thread, because devs will miss many good ideas because of ton of useless posts between.

Most posts seem to be asking for casualties stats.

Fernando Torres said:

Most posts seem to be asking for casualties stats.

Click to expand...

You think?
Look at it like this: If you finally cave into our demands, nobody will ever clamour for this reform ever again. Plus, we're easy to please. Casualty stats regardless of accuracy will pacify even the most militant among us. The only ones complaining about accuracy are the developers themselves.

Cold War events/support most definitely.

seattle said:

You think?
Look at it like this: If you finally cave into our demands, nobody will ever clamour for this reform ever again. Plus, we're easy to please. Casualty stats regardless of accuracy will pacify even the most militant among us. The only ones complaining about accuracy are the developers themselves.

Click to expand...

Can you please stop jumping at me like that?
You know very well there is nothing I can do about it. I told Martin for more than 1 year that I wanted this feature but there is nothing I can do to speed up the process.

Cold War support/scenario/features is at least on second place

Tankist/45 said:

Cold War support/scenario/features is at least on second place

Click to expand...

Still need to fix the default scenario's. Like Limith said: Flesh the events out.

It's nice to have cold war support, but some people need to get that far without rage quiting :]

T.j. Arnold said:

Oh, God, I forgot the biggest one for myself:

Make it so you can use the Space Button for pausing the game AND renaming units! Nobody wants to use Pause Break, it's such an inconvenient place for a button you have to use so incredibly often, I have to hold my keyboard so awkwardly!

Click to expand...

That's actually interesting because when i played Hegemania(don't know spelling) i hated space being pause, if they implement that then there should be a way of changing it back!!

Developing interwar scenarios and a cold war one would take ages so i won't suggest it being as it has been repeated loads. (i want them but i think this thread was aiming at smaller things)

Suggestions -

-Convoys do need sorting out i think, even if its just for trade (AoD does have a good trading-convoy system that you might be able to make more efficient)

-CHINA,CHINA,CHINA. As Japan it is really hard to force them back from the initial frontlines. AI Japan manages it somehow but it always wins or loses, it needs to be altered somehow so its more even(this would be difficult being as japan will need to also invade india,indonesia and the pacific islands). also under this suggestion, communist china needs to be beefed up (in reverse to nat china being down powered) i've always wanted to play as commie china from the start of the civil war to the unification after ww2 but it will never happen as it is. (i don't blame the devs as not much CW work has been done yet)

-I noticed the guy on the first couple of pages talking about light ic and heavy ic, this would be almost impossible to reflect in game i think but i reckon that there should be some form of "market" for weapons for the weaker countries so they are better to play as. (honestly who doesn't play as the Uk,USA,France,Germany,USSR,Japan or Italy??... no one...... yeah i thought so...)

- (this is an interface suggestion..ish) Synthetic Oil factories like AoD, i miss them. It's the main thing that i do miss, it's one of the main things it has over DH for me.......