A long medley of half-completed ideas (for HoI3?) that may not even be quite possible

[Myth]

(eee, it looked prettier and more organized in word)

Disclaimer: these ideas are probably not even half-thought out, may not be remotely doable and can probably be considered little more than features of a my fantasy WW2 game. with that out of the way, have fun reading

(Ideal) Map (& some of its Mechanics)
The map should be based not on the province, but on the coordinate; and it would be 3D. This would allow more rivers (and of varying widths), and more specific chains of hills and mountains (and of varying heights) as well as more towns and cities to conquer.
Buildings are built right on the map. Factories are built in actual locations, as are AA guns, missile bases and whatnot. Infrastructure, rather than being upgraded on a provincial level, is upgraded by another connecting road between two towns/cities or by upping the quality of the road (two different things, as many bad quality dirt roads would be much harder to travel with in heavy rain than one paved highway). Fortifications are built either via waypoints set down, or automatically on the best defensive features (along a range of hills, behind a river, etc). Because of this, they may also be then built in depth (rather than the simple fortified province of HoI2).
A map like this would allow for a more tactical experience. For example, players may garrison a defensive line with infantry and keep an armored division in reserve in what would be, in HoI2, the same province. With this sort of map, however, the tank division doesn’t get thrown into combat right away (and so wouldn’t take strength and organization losses from the very beginning), and can be sent to where a breakthrough may seem imminent—the sort of tactical choices that HoI2’s map doesn’t allow (not to this same level, at least).
Breakthroughs could thus be made on a local level, such as that of a division, rather than on the quite large provincial level. The player commands a division somewhere, and it would then take up the best defensive positions available to it. A division would, by default, only cover a certain amount of frontier mileage (whatever the standard is, I have no idea how much a single division could adequately cover), but the player should have option to change these divisional boundaries. There should also be an option to automatically stretch the divisional line until it reaches its neighbors to provide a continuous line.
This would also allow for true urban battles, such as Stalingrad was historically, in that division after division can be sucked into the streets and fight to the point of annihilation, beginning with fighting in the suburbs and growing ever closer to the city center. Another plus of this kind of map is that it could allow for bridges over rivers, which were historically quite important for troop movement. The possibilities of bridges are many (including new missions, such as a CAS/TAC mission to destroy bridges).
However, the map would necessarily have to be rather larger than the present HoI2 map to allow for all this.

Leader Attributes
Degrees
There should be degrees of attributes for leaders: incompetent (-150%), weak (-50%), standard (100%), strong (+50%) and par excellence (+100%). Montgomery, for example, could perhaps be an incompetent Panzer Leader but a strong Offensive Doctrine. (100% refers to the standard bonus, such as +10% armored combat for panzer leaders, and all other degrees are based off of that one).

New Attributes
There should be even more attributes. My ideas are as follow (solely for land commanders, as those are who I am personally most interested in):
- Set-Piece Battle Planner, which decreases rate of organization loss in battle (of attack), but also decreases speed of movement and increases time before giving new commands after battle. Gives a malus to defensive battles.
- Impetuous, which increases speed of movement and gives a bonus to attack.
- Organizer, which increases organization of all units under his control somewhat, and decreases the rate of organization loss in battle and advancing.
- Frontline Commander, which increases the morale of the troops under his command, as well giving bonuses to both attack and defense.
- Air-Land Coordinator, which gives a bonus to ground-attacking air units operating above his unit.
- Ruthless, which increases rate of strength loss during battle, but also benefits attack.
- Cautious, which decreases rate of advance and in battle decreases chance of breakthrough (both yours and enemy’s)
- Flexible, which decreases time before giving new commands after battle, and decreases effect of being attacked in the flank.
- Daring, which increases the chances of making breakthroughs/encirclements in battle.
- Partisan Leader, which decreases the strength and organization losses to a militia division on combat by a large percentage.

Note that some of these are effectively opposites and thus cannot have an incompetent degree, as that would not make sense; or having one just wouldn’t make sense. These are Impetuous/Organizer, Ruthless, Set-Piece Battle Planner, Flexible, Cautious/Daring. Daring and Impetuous could probably be incorporated into one single trait.

Together, the combination of new attributes and degrees for these attributes will make generals more personalized to themselves. As it is (in vanilla HoI2), Guderian, Von Manstein and Rommel are all nearly identical. With not only new attributes but degrees of attributes, they will become more unique.

Ministers
Attributes
There should, generally, be more attributes for ministers. However, besides this very vague want, there should be unique attributes for the major ministers of the major countries (Germany, Italy, Japan, USA, UK, SU, maybe more). These ‘major ministers’ would be those who historically were in office. Thus, Albert Speer the armaments minister would give not just an IC bonus, but also decrease the production time of units across the board, but Gustav Krupp would have his standard +10% to armor research. Hitler the chief of the army would decrease the effectiveness of his leaders by some fair amount, while still supporting the doctrine of decisive battle. Such unique touches to the major government players of the major nations would make playing with those nations more fun and give them more flavor. This would do a bit to get rid of the many duplicate ministers that there are (how many princes of terror does Germany have?!).
Another variation is that the ministers would get some sort of bonus to their attributes if they’re on office at the correct time, while those who are not get a similarly-sized malus.
AI
The ministers should have their own AI. In certain countries (such as Germany and the SU), they may mildly conspire against each other, so that eventually it may become a pain to keep a certain minister in office (ie, so that keeping him produces very slight but steady dissent), while replacing him with whoever conspired against him would lower that dissent. This would be more apparent in totalitarian countries than democratic countries. It would require research into the influence with the totalitarian leader each minister wielded, so that a completely unknown minister could not unseat Himmler, for example. A bonus (if you will) would go to the historic minister (of that time), so that if Albert Speer conspired against a Hjalmar Schacht who was in office in 1944, it is more likely that Speer would win in his machinations. It shouldn’t be a hard-coded thing though, that Jodl always conspires on this date to oust this other person, it would have to be semi-random (but keeping within the plausible of the time).
Of course, if a certain intriguing minister gets too annoying, there should be an option to remove them from the cabinet (which would increase dissent some amount, but then they’d never be a problem ever again).
Degrees of Attributes
There should be skill levels for minister traits as well, along the same lines as the leader traits. After all, Hitler may have favored decisive battle but he didn’t exactly get good results, he would chalk up as in incompetent as chief of the army. Because no player in their right mind would put that sort of minister into power, this is where the minister AI just mentioned makes its major contribution to the game.
This addition would make ministers more unique beyond what is already offered by new attributes.

Unit Production
Training
There should be an option to train units to a certain standard. There would be conscript, which is the lowest standard, and consequently the fastest to create, and has a malus to its battle abilities. Second would be draft, which is just a (minor) step above conscripted. Then there is garrison*, which is the very base standard and thus doesn’t have either a malus or bonus to it. Frontline is better than garrison, and the first that carries a bonus with it. Finally, there is elite, which is the very highest and consequently takes the longest to create, but its bonuses are fairly considerable. (These bonuses would probably be due in part, if not mostly or wholly, to greater experience due to a better training program).
Land doctrines should limit what any one country may train, the Soviet Union should perhaps not be able to train anything better than garrison until a certain technology finishes. Oppositely, Germany cannot train below garrison until a certain technology. Others are limited otherwise, Britain may perhaps be limited to garrison until a war-year technology. Alternatively, events may fire that open up a certain training option, or perhaps just once a certain date is reached (much as for new technology teams and leaders).

*This may not be the best name, but I couldn’t think of one that fits better and implies ‘standard’ while keeping in the same kind of feeling (if you would) of the other names.

Attachments
Each division may already have its own attachment. However, corps-level units sometimes had their own attached support, such as artillery or engineers, as well. It should be possible to attach a brigade attachment to a corps (a unit commanded by a Lt. General), which them affects all the divisions in that corps.
The possible addition of an attachment to corps level (and only corps level) would be a squadron of CAS. This would represent the very close connection between army and air force that was sometimes revealed (such as during the ’44 campaign in North France by the US forces). Perhaps this attachment type could only be given to those corps commanded by a Land/Air Coordinator, and are automatically disengaged from the corps and sent to the force pool if that leader leaves to command another unit.
Other possible attachments could be those of infantry, armor (medium, not just light), cavalry, militia and otherwise, divisional types. These brigades would have the fighting power of 1/3 of the division (as a brigade is 1/3 of a division, right?).
One final thing for attachments is that they should increase the strength of a division, much like in Victoria, (but be separate, much as organization apparently is in Doomsday) and should have the possibility of being destroyed in battle individually from the division.

Battle Events
There must be several more possible battle events that may be added in, beyond the dozen or so that are already in HoI2.
- Ad hoc defense / Kampfgruppe Defense (Only applicable when on defense): It counters (ie, ends) a breakthrough battle event (and also perhaps the following ‘infiltration’ and ‘wave assault’ battle events) by the enemy early (most likely with the enemy’s spearheads being cut off and destroyed, thus the enemy takes large strength and organizational losses). This would be heavily favored by the late German technology tree.
- Infiltration (only applicable when on attack): This battle event would end up decreasing the strength of the attacking forces some perhaps considerable amount, but it would completely wreck the organization of the defenders. Would be heavily favored by the Japanese technology tree.
- Wave Assault (only applicable when on attack): his battle event increases the strength losses of the attacking units an appallingly large amount, but the strength and organization of the defending units are also fairly damaged. It can occur when the attackers outnumber the defenders by some wide margin (2:1, 3:1?). This would be heavily favored by the Soviet and late Japanese technology trees.
- Breakout (only applicable when on defense): A breakout ends an encirclement battle event, the defender takes higher than normal strength and organizational losses but ends the risk of such a situation continuing through hostile encirclement.


Headquarters Units
There could be up to four separate HQ units. One already exists, the divisional HQ unit. It should act as it already does. However, it should be renamed Army (Group) Headquarters. Another HQ would be a brigade attachment. It would be useable by Lt. Generals and serve as a Corps Headquarters, and could be attached to any Lt. General. It would have the same effect as an Army HQ, except that its effects are localized simply upon the corps commanded by that Lt. General. Effects from an Army HQ and from a Corps HQ would mildly stack (meaning that the whole AHQ would be apparent, but only half the CHQ).
A CHQ should be upgradeable to an AHQ if the Lt. General is promoted to a General. (Meaning that the new General automatically commands a divisional HQ unit or, once it’s upgraded, he will).
A third possible HQ unit would be a unit that could only move by strategic redeployment, like garrisons. This unit could be a THQ, or Theater Headquarters, and would give its bonus to every unit within its region. It could only be commanded by a Field Marshal. A THQ’s bonuses would be significantly larger than a normal (ie, A or C) HQ, but these bonuses would be divided between all the units within the region (cumulatively added on to what they’re already feeling), so that the effect is widespread but will probably end up being kind of small.
The final possible HQ unit would the HQ of the Chief of Staff and can be commanded only by him, and he cannot command any other unit while remaining Chief of Staff. Also, it cannot move unless the capital changes (which is where it strategically redeploys to). He would have a custom rank (ie, Chief of Staff) and does not have a real command limit (except that the Chief of Staff leader has a skill level, and that skill x 100 could equal their command limit, which would be x2 because of the HQ). Such an arrangement ties in with ideas in the next section. This sort of HQ would be exactly like a THQ in purpose, except it affects all units everywhere and has a larger original bonus.

System of Command
First, the ranks should be made unique for each (major) nation. American corps, for instance, could be up to 4 divisions large, but would still be commanded by a Lt. General.
Secondly, there should be a hierarchical system of command. In divisional-sized defense, the Mj. General in command of that division would give his bonuses due to traits and skill level. In corps-sized defense, the Lt. General. Army- and army group-sized, the General/Field Marshal.
In attack, the overall commander of the attack (say, a Lt. General for a corps-sized attack) would give his bonuses due to traits/skill level, but the divisional commanders would add in their respective bonuses due to traits/skill level for the divisions they command. The effect, though, it not cumulative, which may sound strange but I will provide an example. If the Lt. General is a skill 4 weak Panzer Leader and a Strong Offensive Doctrine while one of his subordinates is a skill 3 Panzer Leader (ie, standard) and a weak Offensive Doctrine, it would take the best of both. Thus, it would be (for that sole division) as if commanded by a skill 4 Panzer Leader and a Strong Offensive Doctrine. (This would allow, given a level playing field in all else, for one division to be able to break through enemy lines while another fails; after all, some Mj. Generals were better than others and some complemented their commanders better than others. It could also be kind done so that those with conflicting traits would not work well together, ie a Cautious commander and a daring commander would end up giving a malus to the division.)
In attack with army group sized forces, the next up would be the chief of the army and would work exactly the same way.


Research
Several have complained that the research system of HoI2 isn’t as detailed as that of HoI1. I haven’t played HoI1, and I personally like the HoI2 system quite a bit, but I think I’ve found a good way to make a compromise system between the two. The same system as in HoI2, except that you get to choose components for the technology, if applicable. Example, for a medium tank (say, the Panzer III) one would get to choose the type of gun, engine and whatnot from dropdown lists that would be the research components. These would be added to a basic ‘Panzer III’ chassis, so the stats for each component would be added to the basic PzIII stats. However, choosing better components would naturally take longer to research, and the end product would be more expensive. This sort of system would give much of the flexibility of the HoI1 system (as I see it) while retaining the virtues of the HoI2 system. (And naturally, this would only apply to actual technologies—not doctrines and maybe not industrial technologies).
This would require that all unit models have a basic, empty chassis and that every component you add (the options for which would be historical for that model unit so that, say, Crusader IIs don’t get 88mm guns) would have its own stats. Also, this would lead to component and chassis blueprints, which will somewhat encourage using the same components over and over for quickest (but not necessarily best) research. It would also allow for the historical introduction of self-propelled artillery and other technologies, as another example, use that PzIII chassis blueprint and develop SP-ART with it and a howitzer gun and a couple other components. The flexibility of this system is such that not only those who wish for tanks between nations to be different but those who want the very detailed HoI1 system or the streamlined HoI2 system would be happy (as default components would be the historical ones, for those who did not want to fiddle with all that). Also, if the component as not been researched yet, then it should be possible to change it even as the entire general technology is being researched.
Also, there should be technologies that facilitate spies, perhaps as a land doctrine or (perhaps preferably) as part of a diplomatic doctrine tree. These spy technologies would be the OSS for the USA, SAS for the UK, Abewr for the Germans and the KGB (I’m very sure that was a relatively late creation, ’43 I think, but I forget what the previous incarnation was called) for the Soviet Union.

Diplomatic Doctrine Trees
Soviet Union: Socialist Isolation (actions cost more, longer time between actions and there’s a small chance of any action with a non-leftwing government backfiring on the SU and lowering relations; pre-war doctrines). For war it turns toward a type of Socialist Aggression (actions cost way less [back to normal], shorter time between actions [back to normal] and any action with a country that is at war with the country the SU is also at war with has an incredibly higher chance of success)
USA: Capitalist Isolation (actions cost more, longer time between actions, actions more effective; pre-war). For war it turns toward a Capitalist Mobilization (actions cost way less [back to normal], shorter time between actions [back to normal] and any action with a country has an incredibly higher chance of success).
UK/France: Capitalist Reaction (cost of diplomatic actions higher, time between diplomats take longer but is scaled with the belligerence of the target nation where higher belligerence is lower cost and time; pre-war). It turns into Capitalist Mobilization with the outbreak of war.
Germany/Italy/Japan: Fascist Expansionism (diplomatic costs are less, diplomats come fast, there is a chance of the action backfiring so that relations worsen; pre-war). By wartime, it turns into Fascist Isolation (diplomatic actions cost more, diplomats come slowly, there’s a chance that the action will backfire, and countries can cut off relations with you at will).
These diplomatic doctrine trees would also include doctrines for spies and their activities.

(did you actually read all of it? )

[ztanz]

Long post, but you have some good ideas.. Too bad that you surely will have to reprogram hoi2 to get it all to work ^_^

[Myth]

well, I was thinking toward HoI3

[DanDaMan]

"buildings modeled right on the map"???
You're talking about making the entire world in 3d. Do you have any frickin idea how many buildings there were in the world in 1939? 100s of millions of itsy bitsy little buildings. And if you're modeling that scale you'd have to make the trees too. And each one is so small that if you zoomed in far enough to even see it as anything other then a greyish tinge to a single pixel, you wouldn't be able to see anything else going on. I'd settle for a 50m resolution 3d elevation map.

My wish for HOI3 would be to do away with the province system for divisions and have a vector "frontline" between two countries that allows divisions to be anywhere.

[Myth]

by buildings, I meant those that you build. such as IC, flak towers and air fields