Hearts of iron 3 -my conclusins and suggestions - mega post

It seems it came back to hunt them, Semper Fi was a step away from sand box.
Concerning EU it covers such a long time period that creating something less sandbox would be really hard.
I don't think there aren't things that can be done, but it is more understandable.

But maybe let's get back on topic.

This is a thread on interface.

I would want the game to allow for choosing the level of realism and then yes.
But if i would have to make a choice i would make the minors weaker with would improve the game with majors, but destroy the game with those small countries.

I understand that players can wish to play minors, but they are already far more capable then in reality and a average player can conquer half of the world with countries like Hungary, Turkey, Romania and so on. However i don't get why people want to make them even stronger because they cant beat Germany with Nepal.
What were you thinking playing Estonia or New Zealand? Why do you think you should be able to defend this country against a major?
What kind of complaint is that?
I cant destroy a tank with my fists, do something about it?

I'm not sure what is appealing to you in playing this kind of countries, any kind of achievement with them feels unbelievable, they should pretty much fall if a major so much as blow at them.

You can play every country, but you should not by no means do it.

Deathbunny said:

Serial,

Well....I didn't really want to take on Germany with Nepal.

Click to expand...

You said you wanted to stop the SU with Estonia, well first of if you can somehow cause a stalemate then your not so far from conduction an offensive and second i just exaggerated what you said, both are ridiculous.

I was more or less thinking of, what if my New Zealand submarines screwed with the Japanese or USA carriers in the Pacific? But I can't get a submarine built in time to even take part in the war. I would expect to get stomped if I took on a major head-on. That is not my point.

And I don't see why Sweden has to be a pushover, either.

Click to expand...

Well from what i know people did stop Germany with Sweden (in HoI), and a 7 million country compared to a 60 million country should be a pushover.

I am not asking for every small country in the game to be more powerful. And i understand for multiplayer it would throw off the gameplay. But if I choose to play a single player as Peru, or Cuba....why not make it interesting?

Click to expand...

No it would not destroy multiplayer, it would destroy immersion with i want in singielplayer game because i play those almost exclusively and I do not want to see Peru owning south america.

Why do I have to play one of the major powers? For Realism? It IS a game, after all....

Click to expand...

And why don't you want to play majors or minor power (countries like Romania, Hungary and so on).
Yes it is a game, but it is a game with tries to simulate reality (more or less).

Why can't you simply cheat or modify save? That way you will have what you want and don't break the game.

And why not take a country with actually can do what you want? The effect will be the same. You don't care about realism then why do you care about the name of a country your playing, or it's geographical position. You have Australia just around the corner and you can do achieve what u want, but from some bizzare reason it has to be New Zealand (a very weak country), why?

I was actually hoping with all the work you seem to have done, you would have a good suggestion for making playing a small country more fun.

Click to expand...

Those countries are weak because HoI is the most realistic game on WWII and those countries are almost unplayable because those countries did not play any role and the majority of people care far more about (at least some level) of realism then for those countries to be playable.

The writing of those suggestion is extremely time consuming and I'm not even sure i will publish all suggestions i planed and the matter of making those kind of countries more playable does not concern me, personally there was not a single time when i even thought about playing this kind of countries.
To make them stronger just add them more IC, manpower, research and mystery solved.

Hearts of Iron III (HOI 3) is a grand-scale strategy game designed by enthusiasts of World War II history, and focused on the military, political, economic and diplomatic interactions worldwide between 1936 - 1948. Every effort at maximizing both realism and playability has been made, and an excellent balance has been found.
---
It’s time to take command and lead your nation through World War II, the largest conflict in world history. Hearts of Iron III lets you take charge on any front, as any country, and through a variety of scenarios.

From the official HoI 3 advertisements

Click to expand...

Signature from a user above.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Deathbunny said:

Frankly, for someone who had such great ideas for making the game better, I am surprised you are so resistant to the concept of making small countries more fun to play.

Click to expand...

You are surprised?
When i had written you that making those suggestions is so time consuming that i probably wont post all i actually wanted, then it is surprising that I won't make them on a matter with does not concern me?

And what problem do you see in simply adding IC, manpower and more leadership to those countries?
That is why the majors are the majors, they have lots of it.

Deathbunny said:

"No it would not destroy multiplayer, it would destroy immersion with i want in singielplayer game because i play those almost exclusively and I do not want to see Peru owning south america."

***I fail to see how my suggestion would have any effect on your game. Unless you decided to play as Peru, or another small country, which you obviously don't.***

Click to expand...

You mean that only if a player takes over them they are stronger?
Well that is a good idea, I said at the beginning of the first post (in response to you) that it should be optional as a way of customizing realism and that way your idea would do no harm to anybody and you and people who enjoy this kind of things would be happy.

*** I played as the Soviets and USA....and what can I say, playing as Germany or Hungary is boring to me. I like the idea of trying to affect the outcome of world events in an unexpected way.***

Click to expand...

You can also do that with the majors.
And i don't know why you think doing things that were not ever remotely possible is exciting.

*** I actually did some checking, and New Zealand (just as an example), provided 150,000+ troops and 30 medium bombers to the European theater, and kept another 100,000 troops at home. You cannot come anywhere near that in HOI 3. So much for realism there.***

Click to expand...

Well then this should be fixed.

I suppose this should read, .....as any country, as long as it is one of the ten major powers.

Click to expand...

And its exactly what it said.
You can play every coutrny but if it is realistic then you should not expect that those countries would be strong enough to be fun to play and not only major powers but also minor powers (in HoI definition).

2. Hearts of Iron 3- My suggestions and conclusions- TECHNOLOGY

HEARTS OF IRON 3– MY CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS


0. Introduction

Welcome, to my second thread: “Hearts of Iron 3 – my conclusions and suggestions”, this time on technology. It will be longer then the first thread but far less picture heavy and it will it will concentrate on a single topic- “Necessity the mother of invention”- the technology system created by me.

0.1 Reaction on my thread

The reaction on my first thread (or rather post) was good, but many of the issues it concerned were not discussed. Nevertheless I decided to continue work on this new thread.

EDIT:

Finally i have the answer why there was no reply from the developers and i can stop harassing them.

Maybe if it would be more controversial it would get more attention and more dedicated posters, maybe if I would e.g. say that someone’s mama is fat. xD

0.2 Text? This is madness! This is Clausaaaaawitz!!!

Some of the people, who did post in my thread, said that some of the things I had proposed where very hard to do, because it adds some more text data into the game, or some simple algorithms. Now if that was hard by their standards, then I am sure they will hail this impossible.

0.3 What’s next?

A busy time is starting for me so I don’t know when I will be posting a next thread. I will gradually create it and post it when it is finished, but it may take a few months.








TECHNOLOGY
0.4 Overview

The system with I would propose would be both very realistic, elastic and give the game more depth.
I did mention it in a few threads (almost no on read it). It is aimed mainly for the more realistic mode of the game (and major countries). The system in all previous HoI games did not provide any of that. The most recent from HoI3 did try and it was an improvement, but the penalties caused by negligence an area were so minimal that did not really matter. You still could get the latest carrier tech even if you never built them, with preventing was one of the designer goals (at least they claimed so).

The overall concept was great, but the execution poor, at least in threms of realism (many people probably liked it). The distinction between theoretical (research), practical (production, maybe trails) and combat experience (well... combat), between different unit types, as well as its impact on production was basically very good. The proportions were wrong. It turned out that the actual consequences on the gameplay was illusionary.

Making the tech system is much harder than improving interface or anything that I presented in the last thread. While creating the base of the system (triggers) it turned out that there could be some problems, some things that the system does not anticipate, I did present them as well as my proposed solution, however it is not said if any one of them is even needed. Some could not do anything useful at all, some could have only limited impact. The problem is that because the system is just a concept it is extremely hard to foresee how it will behave and what kind of interactions may take place.
I had made the trigger system itself quite easy to implement, however those various support systems could complicate things.

Designing this system I wanted to make the game dramatic (with it was not), there appears a problem (tactic, design whatever) with have severe consequences, but the player can quickly counter this threat (partially), if not for this technology would become too powerful and without the changes I want to make in the tech system it would totally break the game.



NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION
1. HEARTS OF IRON 3 TECH SYSTEM FALTS
1.1 Theoretical, practical, combat experience + need

The theoretical value was overrated, the practical under, but the most underrated value was the combat experience and the need war provided. In reality it was the most crucial element and contributed to maybe even 60-70% of the progress made in technology. That’s why research (especially of military equipment) is relatively slow in pre-war years (with is not represented at all in HoI) and gets speeded-up by the outbreak of war and also why many pre-war designs (and tactics) in practice turn out unsuccessful. The player could research state of the art designs in areas that he never invested before.

1.2 Leadership

The other problem with the technology system is “Leadership”, with when I heard about I thought it was a cool concept, but in reality the division between technology, intelligence, officers and diplomacy was almost completely irrelevant, everybody (almost) always chosen to put everything into technology. Problems cause by neglecting all those other areas? No problem, just swing the sliders and it will be back to normal in no time…
I think the fact that your actions do matter and that you can’t do everything (in therms of technology) every time that you have to choose would promote replay-ability and if someone likes the old system, than he can either tune down the difficulty, or cheat.
However those are just the faults, more on leadership later.

-4-2. NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION- MY VISION OF THE TECH SYSTEM

Theory < practical < combat experience < need - when it comes to research.

Theory < combat experience < practical <need- when it comes to production speed.

Cause of the large contribution of combat experience the research will be significantly slowed before the war and get a large boost after the start of the war, also the production will be boosted, because of the increasing efforts to produce more equipment (combat experience), as well as the fact that war uncovers some none-essential and cumbersome elements of the designs with can be removed in order to speed up production (combat experience).

Research won't be only affected by THEO, PRCT and CE, but most significantly by some scripted events (or maybe rather algorithms). Those events shape the need for inventions in the highest degree with was most important in research. Theory will provide most of the assets, knowledge for research, but it will be the need with will put priority on the research, pool funds, invite for tenders, sacrifice the long trails, risking problems, errors (especially initially), to shorten the development process and rush into production, with should probably be done abstractly.

2.1 Pros and cons of my system

This is the system of my dreams. Not everyone would have liked it (there is no single thing that everyone likes), but I think many players would be pleased. Realistic, elastic, dependent on what the player dose, as well as the opponent and adds a lot of unexpected (and realistic, not from thin air), twists into the game. The enthusiasts of randomness can get a different outcome every time (of course if someone who wants a minor to have space ships won’t be satisfied). The players that like history can get a very accurate representation of the progress of research if the AI plays it historically. It would also be very immersive (“Immersion is everything”). The only major drawback is that it’s much more complicated to make then the current tech tree, especially balancing.

2.2 Real life example of how necessity is generated:
Battle of France (1940), Battle of Arras.

NOTE: I’m almost exclusively writing about tanks, to show mechanisms with work in the development of new designs (and I’m using the word “design” over and over again ) and technology. That’s because I know the most about them, they were one of the most (if not the most) rapidly evolving type of equipment in the war and the majority of the examples from them can be translated to other fields.

Germans invade France. The vast majority of German armored forces are obsolete (PZI, PZII). Weak in infantry support, totally useless in tank to tank combat and they break with every gust of wind. The Allied forces are much better equipped. Overall in tank quality French and the British outclass and outnumber the Germans.

On 21 of May 1940 a group of Matildas, along with some other tanks, pushes back the Germans. No anti-tank gun in Heer’s arsenal that can handle armor this thick. The only thing that stopped them was Rommel’s skill and his use of the Luftwaffe’s, 88mm (if not for them Rommel would not do much).
Overall the battle was an Allied failure, the counter attack was repulsed. The Germans suffered fewer losses. Nevertheless this attack was a shock to the Germans and one of the few successes (if you can called it that) of the Allied in that period.

I present this battle as an example of an event that was the source of change in technology, but it also a testimony of how superior doctrine can overcome deficiencies in design quality, and on how much of an impact can a superior design have on the battlefield if used properly.


2.3 The effects of necessity:
What does this encounter (example) mean for technology?

1. Germans implement the tactics (adding to the training- adding almost instantly a new training doctrine) of using the 88mm against tanks (not that it was the first time but that’s an example), their armor can't handle to some point neglecting the advantage.

2. The chassis that can handle it is equipped with more armor, slightly increasing the cost, quick research of the method and tools to apply the armor (for example: the development of PzKpfw III Ausf. H, with production started 5 months after the start of the campaign- maybe 4 months of research?), to the point with gives them sufficient protection to stay effective on the battlefield.

3. Take the larger guns (if they have them, if not they research it) out of their arsenal and adapt them for the under gunned tanks (+ cost, + re-tooling time) with can handle them.

4. The research of tank destroyers is boosted.

5. The 37mm Pak 36, in infantry units turn out ineffective and it was to be replaced with the 50mm.

6. The development of the new tank is (very) slightly boosted.

Most of possible tank counter measures researches (known by then) were probably (more or less) boosted.
Now some of you must be wondering why was development of the new design so insignificantly?

2.4 Reasons for decreased effect on research in real life:
That’s why

1. The French and British did not have a large advantage in design, but they had a large advantage in the overall quality of their tanks. Still, most of their tanks were also obsolete and built them to fight in a trench war (most were very slow). The Matildas were deployed in small numbers.

2. Brilliant plan of von Manstein ("Sickle Cut"), with had total element of surprise, leading in a few days to destruction of large portion of the Allied army (along with its best units and equipment) with minimal losses, effectively deciding the fate of the campaign.

3. The ineffective use of tanks (by the Allied)- dispersion between infantry divisions, denying the tanks unleashing their full potential, using them as infantry support, not the main force.

4. German air superiority, very good land to air cooperation, successful use of the Ju-87 "Stuka".

5. Incompetence of the French command (especially the high-command), obsolete tactics.

Those and other factors did contribute to the rather limited impact of Allied armor superiority on the Germans. The fact of the unexpected lightning victory, made Germans think, that there is no need for a new tank.

Probably if the campaign would be longer, there would be more Matildas, or Allied tank tactics would not be ineffective, the effect would be bigger, it the extent of damage caused by the superior allied armor (not only Matildas) would be high enough, it would in reality cause a significant the speed up of research.

2.5 How could that correspond to the game?
Example of how the events (or algorithms) work:

Group of better tanks, faces a group of worse tanks, the worse take larger losses and lose the battle, this triggers the losing side to produce counter-measures, this triggers the upgrading of present designs, to raise their combat effectiveness and if this is not enough triggers an entirely new design (if e.g. there are some innovations that can be implemented only in existing chassis with are successful, cost effective) features can be added to the existing chassis (e.g. sloped armor, wide tracks), triggers the research of a new design. The need of with determines the speed of research and the need is the severity of damage caused by the disadvantage, as well as the status of the campaign. If the campaign is won swiftly despite the disadvantage, then the progress of work over the new designs and solutions slowed.

The algorithm described above would be hard to make an easier version (the one I finally chosen) and a detailed description in the section called “Scripts”.



NOTE: I did post this screenshot again because it also concerns triggers.



3. PUTTING CONCEPT INTO LIFE
3.1 How to make that work?

When i first thought about how to make this system work, I tried to think about all the factors that did stimulate research, that shaped the need for invention and I created a formula (with I did discus below), however it would require some heavy computing but most of all balancing would be very hard.
After some more thinking I realized that most of the job I was trying to do with a complicated formula could be done with a simple script. The only factor that is required is what I called “time of exposure”(not to nuclear waste if that’s what you’re thinking) with is explained below. If I would have to compare it to something in HoI, it would resemble the secret weapons branch of technology, just that it is unlocked by a trigger based on technologic development criteria and my is based on comparison of two designs.



3.2 Scripted Counter-Measures

This is the most crucial part of the system. Instead of making a complicated formula the counter-measures for every design would be scripted (according to what they were or what they could be). If the statistics of a design do not change then you can anticipate what effect it would have on another design. They would be recognized by level.

3.3 Level of development

Every design would have their level not consistent with other types of designs created at that time or their performance, but order in with they were (really) developed thus the counter-measures (from one trigger) of different types would not necessarily be on the same level. This distinguishment between levels would be important because it would allow for relating the present level of countries research is the triggers counter-measures. Same or higher and nothing happens, lower well obviously the trigger goes off, but what if it is two levels behind?

3.4 Multiple triggers and bonus

It will often occur that a country will more than one level behind the designated trigger. This would cause multiple triggers going of unit that country reaches the level scripted as the trigger design counter-measures. Because of the would be researched maybe 30-60% faster for simulating things
like the fact that technology was most likely known and the bigger need for improvement.
Now I’m not sure of the numbers of the bonus (I did pretty much pull it out of the air), because it could maybe allow for too fast technological advance of countries that are behind.


3.5 Time of exposure

Time of exposure (avg. number in battle x time in battle) is the only factor that (I think) is (probably) required for this system to work. It would forbid the situation when a single encounter causes a trigger.

3.6 Influence cessation

Influence cessation is the point after with a factor stop’s its influence forbidding situation in with an insignificant event can lead over time to a significant and unwanted effect. This mechanism would also reduce the computing power needed for this system, restricting the amount of data needed.

3.7 Comparison

With two designs are compared? On the trigger side it would be the best design (from its category e.g. medium tank=medium tank) with crosses a certain production quantity (e.g. 100 overall). On the side of the country with causes the trigger to go of (the owner of the superior design). Previously I thought that maybe it could be the most numerous design, but that way the T-34 (at least initially), KV-1 and Tiger would have no impact on research.

3.8 Chain reaction

As you can see from the example I presented the trigger would be a whole chain reaction. The appearance of a superior design would cause a whole series of triggers with would include all the possible counter-measures, if the previous became inadequate.

3.9 Design triggers order:

How severe the enemy designs advantage would be from the best of your designs would determine with trigger gets activated:

-using existing designs
-modifying existing designs
-using some existing parts to create a new design
-creating an entirely new design

Depending on their performance they would fall either into stop-gap or (let’s say) solution category.
The research (or not) time would be shaped accordingly.



4. FORMER FORMULA

Trying to figure out how to replicate this effect in the game I came up with a formula with would and it was quite good it only required scaling different factor and balancing with unfortunately would be extremely hard (doable but probably hard).


Here it is for viewing purposes (and in case I did miss something):

I’m not good at math but that’s the basic lay out of the formula determining the severity of damage done by a type of equipment causing to boost the research.

FORMULA:



It is not perfect (actually it’s probably far from perfect) and its raw in some sense, but it’s a base for improvements. Most importantly the numbers have to be adjusted to imitate the different degrees of influence that they have on the outcome, but that’s also doable.

It is really hard to think of a system with would take into account everything, so that it would work as it should in every scenario, for every major.

4.2 Why chose those factors?
4.2.1 Stronger unit stats/Weaker unit stats

Shows the objective difference in quality between the designs, with is important, because the impact done by a design will not necessarily perform according to its stats, because of various other factors and the impact on research should also take into account the quality of the overall design.

4.2.1.1 Why is it most important?

At first I thought that DDT is far more important, but after thinking about it I came to the conclusion that if that was true the T-34 or Tiger would have only limited effect on enemy technology development.

T-34- In early stages of Barbarossa there was only a hand full of T-34 and where all quickly destroyed, yet the Germans were very much impressed and desperate for a stop-gap. This means that the dominating factor was the quality of the design and its features.

4.2.2 Damage dealt/Damage taken

Would take into account all the factors that contribute to the outcome of battle and showed the actual impact that a unit had on a battlefield.

4.2.2.1 Why this?

Tiger- In therms of overall statistics did not do all that well, it had great firepower, armor and when it appeared it was virtually indestructible, however in therms of overall stats it was not look as good as it could seem (reliability problems, expensiveness, difficult production). The power it had (toned down or up by stance) would give it the punch that did impact technology.

4.2.3 Avg. quantity in battle x time in battle

This factor is designed to forbid situation in with the trigger goes off after one encounter with a single design.
It would be treated separately and if it would not pass a certain level, then the new design (or research boost) would not be triggered no matter what the other values are.

4.2.3.1 Is it necessary?

I’m not certain is this really necessary and maybe it is better to not include this into the game, especially that it could be probably represented by the DDT. If that is so then it should be excluded from the formula.

Click to expand...

5. SIMPLER TRIGGERS
5.1 Less complicated versions of triggers presented earlier

Some triggers like tank triggers I presented would in many cases cause a chain reaction not only affecting the tank itself but also whole range of other counter-measures (depending on the situation), like improvement of infantry anti-tank guns, tank destroyers, tactics, some even new tactic, but there were also far less complicated triggers that would only provoke a single type of research (e.g. tank or fighter etc.), some weapon types would almost exclusively cause “simple” triggers to go of like e.g. artillery.

5.2 Other triggers

For the most of the time I did discuss tank triggers with can be very easily adapted for other types of war equipment but what about other types of triggers? I will discuss some of them here and describe some basic principles, again I can’t test this so I don’t have a solution for every scenario, so if paradox is going to do it I won’t give them everything on a silver plate (not that Paradox will even consider adding my system).

- In “Battle of Britain” I did mention that Germany would develop long range fighters because of it, now how to script that? It really simple, if bombers fly unprotected without escort (because fighters are out of range, not because other factors) then they are bound to take heavy losses (at least against other majors), enough those mission and a new model of existing plane or a completely new one is triggered. However if the only trigger factor is range the research should not be as fast as if it would have been combat performance issues.
- I did mention “bombing proof factories” another simple trigger, enough IC damaged and you can research it.
- Tactics as I said would have a very complex tech tree, most of them would be developed without triggers, but their development would be started or intensified by one and their research speed would depend on how severe is the effect of what they are trying to counter (not specifically) with would be rated by the state of the part of the conflict they are a part of (in case of anti-sub research the tonnage war). The tactics with would be caused by a trigger would be countering a specific measure like a new weapon system that works in some specific conditions or a change in behavior with makes the previous tactics ineffective (generally anything that can be countered by tactics).



6. “NORMAL” TECH SYSTEM

The trigger systems should be incorporated into the standard (but modified) system, research would be conducted normally without any trigger just much slower.

6.1 Trigger problem

Conducting normal research along with the triggers could cause a problem, normally a player has all his leadership in technology already utilized and when the trigger appears what would he do?

a) The player would simply add the triggers and prioritize them (just like puling funds from a less important project into an urgent one).
b) Adding more research points, but this would either break the system or it would require for the research of triggers to be longer with is also bad.

The first option would be much easier to do (would require hardly any change) and much better, obviously the trigger are priority research and if they have to put some low importance projects on hold then so be it.

6.2 Detailed tech system

My system would be far more detailed than the present it would include full design history (with did enter production) and evolutions of designs (e.g. from Panzer IV ausf A to ausf J) and in some cases even the player would choose who is the winner of the biding (biding), failed designs (e.g. Crusader, BT-7, Me 110), tactics (e.g. factory bombing) and generally a very complex tree of tactics, things like bombe proof factories, as well as presents of maybe some more important improvements of the production process.

6.3 Semi-automatic

I’m sure many people would welcome this kind of diversity into the game but not necessarily the work that comes along with it would rise dramatically, however if some things could be handled automatically it would not really matter.
Triggered technologies could be generally added automatically (the player would be notified) as priority research and this alone would take a lot out of player’s shoulders, also as a less radical solution,

6.4 Trigger only

Trigger only would be the technologies in research with must be triggered in order to be researched. I don’t know if this will be ever needed but it did occur to me that there is such a possibility. Probably a much safer and better way would be just setting a long development period for this kind of technology (without a trigger). The kind of designs it would most likely apply to would be “breakthroughs” (9,2,6).

6.5 The standard

Well the mysteriously sounding “standard” I a tag with would apply to technologies with had become common (standard) therefore easier to research (even of trigger only items).
The tricky thing about there can be significant differences between how things play out in different two games, so the way it was handled in HoI3 may not work. Now this problem can be easily resolved by triggers, the only difficulty would be defining what and how high would it be. My (very raw) proposition would be that a technology that is at least year or two behind at least two majors then it becomes standard.
Maybe the game does not play all that differently and anything more than the Hoi3 system won’t be required.


7. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF TANK DEVELOPMENT
7.1 Soviet Union- T-34

The T-34 was the work horse of the Soviet Union tank forces and a superb design. After beginning of Barbarossa the Germans were shocked with the quality of the tank usually associated with crudeness. It was crude alright but at the moment it entered service maintained the title of the best medium tank (in therms of performance) right until somewhere in April 1942. The T-34 was regularly upgraded, once every year or so. The changes did not change much in tanks performance and were mainly aimed for improving production issues (minor triggers, combat experience, practical). Then in late 1942 the Tiger appears and in mid-1943 the Panther. Those two designs were the trigger for development of the T-34/85.Probably the Panther was the main impulse (further increase of speed of research).



8. OTHER DESIGN TYPE DEVELOPMENT
8.1 Small arms

Infantry weapons, was one of those fields in with development was slow. There were not many attempts of simplifying production and few models of weapons were released. The mainstay of most armies at the beginning and end of the war was the bolt-action rifle and in many cases also the same model. Well the reason for this is that no one thought that they could put armor on people or just increase the caliber to not only kill, but to kill, kill people . Now seriously there was no way back then to make infantry resistant for small arms fire so any kind of rapid development analogical to that of the tank could not occur. The only way of improvement was developing entirely new type of fire arm. The war seen the propagation of the SMG (MP-40), later Semi-Automatic rifle (M1 Garand) and mam portable anti-tank weapons. World first assault rifle (STG-44) and General purpose machinegun (MG42). Countries did not seem to rush with development of their own versions. Every major had their own SMG, but they were deployed in limited numbers (probably cause they were only suitable for close range combat). The British did not even bother to develop a semi-automatic rifle and even with it being a large improvement (or at least so it seems) over the bolt-action rifle, only the United States deployed them in large numbers. It took two years for the Soviets to develop a response to the STG-44 and they were the first to do that. The “Hitler’s Saw”, MG42 (GPMG) was not adapted by anybody until after the war. This would suggest that this kind of weapons should take long to develop and triggers effect on research speed should not have (in most cases) as severe effect as in tank development. The trigger does simulate need and the development of those weapons was not that argent.
The exceptions from this were those man portable anti-tank weapons, but their development was associated with tanks (obviously) and it evolved along with it. Before the war countries developed anti-tank rifles, but armor thickness increased and they soon became inadequate. The appearance of at-rocket launchers (Panzerfaust, Bazooka) gave back the ability of infantrymen to destroy tanks.
Those anti-tank weapons were quickly adapted by most majors, but the Soviet Union did not adapt this solution till after the war. Nevertheless it was one of the (if not the most) rapid developments in small arms.

8.2 Artillery

Artillery did not undergo any revolution in most cases it was only caliber that changed, especially in therms of AT and AA artillery with were triggered by changes in tanks and aircraft. The only radical change was the appearance of rocket artillery, but it was not associated with a leap in performance.

8.3 Aircraft

Aircraft did get through many modifications, but differences between them were not all that dramatic in most cases. Most (or all) majors had an aircraft (I mean especially fighters) with turn out adequate (or more) at the outbreak of war and stayed in service in one way or another until the end of the war, not being on the top of the box, but still an effective machine. Every active side (majors) in the conflict after a few months, would get a new version of the aircraft, fixing some short come’s exposed by war experience, slightly affecting the stats. Most of future upgrades would be up gunning and increasing the power of the engine, to keep up with something that the enemy released e.g. the British release Spitfire mark X after encountering them the Germany initiate the research of the BF109 G (to keep up) and starts the development of FW190.

8.3.1 Battle of Britain

The Battle of Britain (or some event of this sort) for example (with is almost always ignored) would have consequences to the technology system like causing Germany to develop long range fighter and it would take more time for Britain to develop effective doctrines for strategic bombings (as the victim they also learned their lesson).

8.4 Doctrines

Doctrines in HoI3 are done very unrealistically and had limited effect on what happened on the screen (more on that later).
The doctrines in HoI2 were made more realistically the impact cause by doctrines was quite severe.

8.4.1 The hacker antivirus relationship

Now that is not exactly realistic but is far more then in HoI now days. Generally doctrines as counter-measures are a very important part of the trigger system. The point is to make something similar to the hacker v anti-virus relationship, one side develops tactics (or anything that can and was countered by tactics) the other counters it and so on. Both sides can change roles but it is mostly the attacker that has the upper hand and the defender who adapts.

8.4.2 Effective/ineffective

The evolution of doctrines would generally mimic its historical course and if this means that trying to fix a problem it would not help or even reinforce the problem then that’s exactly what’s going to happen (dramatizm).

8.4.3 Existing tactics/new tactics

In most cases the distinction between the doctrines that can give you a bumpy ride and those with are more straightforward can be made by dividing them into tactic that have to be conceived and those with are already out there (already developed by another country).

Now doctrines - Would take longer to develop and adaptation would be generally slower and much more gradual rather than (or at least it seems so) a leap and those mentioned earlier bumps, cases of ineffective solution would happen to them.

Existing doctrines-The adaptation of those doctrines would be similar to the parabola and it would implicate to e.g. adapting of Blitzkrieg doctrine, or rather elements of it (lead role of tank etc.) by other majors after the successful French campaign.

8.4.4 Parabola

The evolution of most doctrines warfare doctrine should be more or less a parabola. The first improvement would be a leap but the effect of later ones would gradually fall (of course it would not start climbing back again like in the proper parabola) e.g. +80% (It’s just an example), then a few months later +20, then +15, +5, till it reaches the maximal level of effectiveness.

8.5 Tonnage War
8.5.1 Fortunes of war

The “reports” was one of the way of spicing up this part of the conflict, but the trigger system would do it far more good it would allow for experiencing the “good times” with u-boots destroying convoy after convoy being almost totally immune, as well as total hopelessness.

8.5.2 The British Perspective

The British would learn that capital ships are ineffective in escorting (report), create a special light ship classes (corvette, frigate), develop depth charges, design long range naval bombers, adapt to detect and attack submarines (onboard radar) and cover the convoy routes, search for the enigma (event e.g. 4% of capturing it for every destroyed submarine after a won battle) them and going from totally ineffective tactics and gradually improve to at some point to hopefully (depending on how Germany responds) gain the upper hand.

Hearts of Iron 3- My suggestions and conclusions- TECHNOLOGY part 2

9. SIMULATING DIFFERENCES IN COUNTRIES BEHAVIOR AND OTHER AFFECTING FACTORS

The system I came up with would basically determine the speed of research depending on what the player and opponent did but it does not replicate the attributes of different countries.
Some countries behaved differently under same circumstances (presumed by my system), some factors are gone from the equation and for sake of the balance, frame rate as well as because of (maybe) lacks in knowledge. Here I will discuss those factors with may or may not be needed and propose a solution.

9.1 Country stance
9.1.1 Simplicity and Performance

“Simplicity and performance” refers to the stance that a country takes in choosing between simple (susceptible for mass production) or more quality driven (not to how well a country is adapted for mass production). This is what would make counties choose between Sherman, T-34 (simplicity) or Tiger, Panther (performance). Well now my system does not creating new (not existing) designs so…

9.1.1.1 Trigger modification

First and (I originally thought about) is lower trigger level for heavier designs (performance) and higher (simplicity), however I’m not sure wouldn’t it be kind of a cheat, or even would it actually do its job (just I don’t know what the consequences can be without testing, however it may help solve this problem.

9.1.1.2 Stats modification

The second way would require the modifying stats of the designs depending on the stance.
The designs that would normally be developed in the time like e.g. Panther would have properties more similar to Sherman but maybe with some German “trademarks”.

9.1.2 Quality or Quantity

It is another proposition for shaping countries preference and no it is not the same thing as 9,1,1.It would determine how a single design is produced modifying its statistics. On one side of the spectrum there would be 50-year warranty parts and on the other crude welding like those on the T-34.
All would have their good and bad sides (it would affect production cost, time and statistics). Some would be totally unpractical (like full quality), but the point is to make at least two worth selecting. The effect of this as I would see it would not be very significant, the statistics would be only slightly affected and the biggest change would be in cost and time.


9.2 The German problem
9.2.1 Choice - PROBLEM

Germany, the country most commonly associated with quality (in WWII) is the cause of a major problem. In the Polish and French campaign the majority of German tank forces where still Panzer I and II’s and they consisted of a large portion of Barbarossa’s lineup and until the appearance of the Tiger (late 1942) didn't have much in common with quality and then they suddenly made the change from a relatively light 25t Panzer IV G/H to a 45t Panther?

There were no gradual signs of this ongoing transition, the Germans did produce more and more heavier designs like PZIII and PZIV at the expense of PZI and II’s but most majors had taken this kind of steps years before and the mainstream rival designs were still heavier (M3, M4, T-34) and then without a warning the Panther and Tiger come out.

9.2.2 Why? - SOLUTION.

The Panther was originally designed to match the T-34 and adapt the innovations it provided, but the project was delayed because of Hitler who did not want the Panther to resemble (at least on the visual side) the T-34 and it is probably because of those interventions that the Panther was such a heavy design, it was simply a matter of choice.

9.2.3 How to control it? - SOLUTION.

If it was a matter of choice then how to control it? Both will have their good and bad side and the transition would add some penalties with would be really severe if the country does not have enough skill in this field.

I did thought about making something similar to the slider with would decide on what side of the spectrum a country is but the example displayed above seems to have exposed that it was faulty.

9.2.4 Relative quality - SOLUTION.

Quality is relative the tank that was synonymous to quality in 1940 could be scrap in 1941 and this time difference is what distinguishes the country preferring (or if it’s a matter of inability it doesn’t matter) quality and quantity.
After the appearance of the Panther every major country did produce new designs to counter their effect like IS-2, T-34/85, Sherman Firefly, Pershing etc.

9.2.5 Technological skill - SOLUTION.

Well it is obvious that the skill that a country possesses in technology will also matter but it is quite surprising how much off the development of research depended on determinism rather than the relative abilities of the scientific elite.
There was not one case during the war (maybe I’m a little over simplifying) where a one of the country defined as a major (and probably many minors also) were not able to provide some counter-measure against a technology and later replicate it (in a period of 1-2 years) despite all those differences in skill the problems were almost exclusively of other nature (e.g. industry connected).

9.2.6 None-tech related research - SOLUTION.

Now this phrase may sound like it would deny itself, but it is the distinction between research concentrating more on the technic then an actual technological breakthrough, now let me give you an example to shed some little light on the matter:

Adding more armor to tank chassis does not require any (or almost) work on the technic of applying it, creating new chassis (when tank have been already developed) does require some technic development but most tools are already out there. Now switching conventional engine into a jet one (researching that engine) is an invention, requires lots of research.

Distinguishing this (with is as hard as getting some information and adding one line to every research item) would allow to categorize research by the time it takes to develop. Those times would be more like guidelines they would not be the same for items of the same category. Technical items would also be far more susceptible for high “start point”.
The most important role of this division would be determining with research is affected by with factors. Technological research would be more affected by technological skill and technical by e.g. practical. The less of both the faster the research.

I’m not sure is this division necessary, but if done right it would lead to far more realistic (better) outcomes.


9.3 The “Hetzer” problem
9.3.1 Maus vs. Hetzer - PROBLEM.

The Hetzer is an example of a great efficient design that not only very effective in battle but also extremely reliable, cheap and easy to produce, somewhat of a German T-34.
Now you might say it was caused by German desperate war situation and their need for increasing numbers (and it is probably one of the reasons), with could be simulated with Germans leaning towards “quantity”. But how is that consistent with the fact that the Germans did produce even heavier designs like ridiculous “Jagdtiger” or “Maus”, this suggests that they did go even deeper into “quality”.
Well the obvious explanation is the Czech factory (or factories) that did produce designs based on PzKpfw 38(t) were not capable of producing designs based on a larger chassis (I don’t think the simple fact of the delay of production would stop them in this case), now this could be replicated by distinguishing different sizes of factories but is it not too much detail?

NOTE: Considering how much would my production system would reduce micromanagement (however I need to analyze It some more and I will when I will be writing on production), maybe it worth it? The production would be more difficult to set but would not be changed constantly as it is now (it can be set in series of course but that does not work for me).

If the Germans would have no choice then they would continue producing that design instead of switching to heavier ones and continue down that path of development, however there is another way.


9.3.2 Development patterns by quality and mass production - SOLUTION.

I had an idea to divide designs developed (including only tanks) between quality (like Pershing, Panther, Tiger) and mass production (like Sherman, T-34, Panzer IV, Hetzer), they would be developed parallelly and the speed of their development would depend on is a county would be more into Quality or Mass production (9,1), However I’m not sure is it not only unnecessary complication of the game and would it serve any actual porpoise, so I’m just putting it out there as a possibility.

9.4 The Japanese problem
9.4.1 The islander - PROBLEM.

Another problem is Japan with as a highly developed country (at least in therms of industry) with advance technology, however have fallen far behind in tank.
Well now the first “part” (as ill call it) of Japans tech development works great with my system, they war experience in China they did not encounter many tanks, they were dominating in every field with did slow their research, however fighting the USA they continued to build light designs.
The probable reason is the nature of the fighting that took place through the majority of war with took place on islands, mainly in the jungle, or hills with seriously impaired the effectiveness of tanks.
In actuality it did impact Japanese research and they did produce something similar to the Sherman in performance, however most of the designs developed because of the appearance of the Sherman were produced in very small numbers or even get passed the prototype phase, but why?
Well again, difficult terrain, the islander nature of Japan with made it impossible to attack without a strong navy with did put heavy emphasis on naval and air production.

9.4.2 Terrain penalty - SOLUTION.

Since the only data collected is the “time of exposure” there is no way of determining whether it is affected by anything, but there is a simple solution.
The only thing required here is the information on with type of terrain a battle was fought and this would cause the “time of exposure” to get a penalty, so that more time would be required for the trigger to go off (maybe it should be true for all terrain type).
This penalty should not be high (a high penalty could serve as a guide for the AI), because the fact that the Japanese ignored tank production so much was far more a matter of choice then technology limitations and its small impact.


9.5 The start point
9.5.1 - PROBLEM.

The start point is the spot in technology development from with a country enters the game, the fact is that sometimes (luck, skill) countries starting from scratch do create very successful designs (6,1,5).
Sometimes it’s normal, if a technology is new then there is no experience in that field and the best one (in that realm) is often the lucky one (skillful also).
However it did happen quite often e.g. in 1940 a country with 1918 tech (In HoI therms) had actually deployed 1938 technology.

Well the state of German technology before the war is a great example of both, because of the restrictions laid by the treaty of Versaille any kind of hardware had to (and was) be developed just a few years before the start of the war and yet they were initially extremely successful in almost all field. Many historians actually consider it an advantage, the rest of the major countries were restrained by convention with after with after the I WW (where tanks took their first steps) seen as an addition not the main force. Twenty years of development and the technology finally allowed for the true potential of the tank to be unleashed, but the misconceptions of the “Trench war” (there was no way of testing it) caused them to be largely underestimated. However the Germans (lost the war, tried to get the edge) did correctly anticipated that the tank will play the leading role in the war.

Now in most cases this can be solved by simply setting the tech tree accordingly before the start with is done now anyway.

9.5.2 Tech tree start point - SOLUTION.

But what if it occurs during a game?
Here are some propositions:

- Special bonus if the player starts investing in an area (very basic, partial and not elastic solution).
- Historical accurate start point (for history fans).
- Random picked start point (for sandbox fans).
- Start point dependent on skill in a closely connected field (script) computed by probability, it would also determine the values of skill in the new field. The basic idea is to allow for steps in one way or another (dependent on players actions, historical predetermination and some random chance).

The last one is my favorite and it is not hard to make (harder than the rest, but they don’t require almost any thought at all). Now this system cannot reward (and in majority of cases it didn’t) neglecting an area and to ensure that no complicated math is involved. Now here are some guidelines:

-The tech tree start point should never be higher or the same as the best in the competition and even in best scenario should be behind them.
-It should be dependent on skill as well as luck (chance).
-Close to historical outcome (unless the player modifies the skill in any meaningful way).
-The goal is for it to be a possibility but not a potential research technic it should not be profitable to ignore an area.

And that’s about all I can think of right now.


9.6 Design perception
9.6.1 Prejudice - PROBLEM.

The way in with a design was perceived determined what impact it had on research, if a country (or rather its leadership) does not see the worth of a design then how good it is does not make any difference. It would be very useful in directing AI behavior (production) depending on the perception (internally), but it was designed as an addition to the Trigger system.
I am not entirely sure would it really be needed (for the trigger system), but I will write about it just in case. It would describe how a country sees a technology, design, tactic (local or foreign) and this would determine what kind of course of action it takes.

9.6.2 Rating - SOLUTION.

The subject would be rated in two ways, before and after it had been tested/encountered, (again) to not put much load on the computer those values would be scripted and would depend on what kind of designs/tactics etc. (similarly to the trigger system) it would encounter.
Before the subject would be tested/encountered it would have the same value for every country (based on the one from with the design etc. originates from) it would have informative value (the second values would only state that it was not tested) more than any actual impact (therefore maybe unnecessary).

9.6.3 Perception = trigger - SOLUTION.

The design perception is very closely related to the triggers and resembles many (or even most) of their features, however it is not the same. I said I’m just putting it out there maybe it could be adapted in one way or another, just something to consider.


9.7 Status
9.7.1 - SOLUTION.

Status would be another script with would affect the predetermined triggers by a percentage according to what it would be.

9.7.2 Campaign status - SOLUTION.

I did mention in the beginning. It would be really simple and (at least on its own) probably would consume only trace amounts of processing power. It would have a couple levels of intensity (maybe 4-6) and would at most go maybe 20% both ways modifying the basic impact of the trigger design.
How would it be estimated?

How would this status be estimated?

I have a couple of ideas, don’t know with would actually estimate the campaign status:

1.Counting provinces lost and gained- it would be relative to the theatre size it concerns (or maybe some other distinction).
2.Victory points lost/taken- related to the number of VP in a theatre or a conquered country, but maybe that could be too little to go on.
3.Battles won, battle lost ratio- Also could be related to a theatre size. 10 battles won on the Balkans is practically won war, 10 battles on the eastern front is practically a stalemate.
4.Comparing army strength- It would work like something of estimated enemy strength, but it would compare the two armies from a set point in time (often beginning) to present. This is probably the most accurate way, if compared strengths of armies would rise in favor of the player controlled country it would be progress.

This data could also serve as a guide for AI behavior.

9.7.3 Campaign prognosis - SOLUTION.

It would be based on the same data, but with some additions.
I would take the Compared strength and compare the industry capacity as well as manpower reserves of both countries. It would be more conclusive then the status, so it could be a better tool to determine the research speed bonus or penalty.

9.7.4 War losing bonus - PROBLEM and SOLUTION.

The many amazing and sometimes insane inventions of the scientists of the late war Germany was not solely an effect of their skill and ingenuity, but also the doing of their desperation (with is a more extreme form of need ). The closer Germany was to defeat the more effort was being put into research to compensate for the deficiencies in other areas, however none of those “Wundewaffe’s” turned out to have any significant (from various reasons) impact on the course of war.

The point is to add a bonus to countries that are losing the war (majors) if the disadvantage they are facing is very severe (like in German situation since 1943). It is hard to estimate how large it should be, maybe 15-20%, maybe it should be relative but not in percentage. The hard war situation would have to persist for some time in order for this to take into effect.

9.7.5 Air status - SOLUTION.

The air status would gather the data required for some special air related triggers like those for e.g. strategic bombing counter measures (not aircraft related). It would also serve as information for the player and the AI. The trigger for e.g. “bombing proof factories” would be simple a preset number of damaged IC.



OTHER SYSTEMS ASOCCIATED WITH TECHNOLOGY

10. PRODUCTION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TECHNOLOGY
10.1 Practical- Everything or nothing

As I said at the beginning is the most important part of the process of improving production is practical (changing economic policy would affect crude raise of numbers the most). I had reached a conclusion (I’m not sure correct) that countries (excluding the initial adaptation to production) do make hardly any effort to improve numbers before they switch to war economy.
USA, Britain, Soviet Union all those countries did (more or less) make the transition to war economy as soon as their entered the war (Soviet Union even before he war).
On the other hands Germany did not undergo this change right until the early 1943 and before then even when the tide was turning against Germany there were still little efforts to simplify designs, as well as on the factory side, improving methods of production seemed to go over an even deeper stagnation.

This tells us that probably the production had to reach very high numbers (with was provided by the transition to war economy and both can be easy scripted) for the production methods to be severely improved and also did increased efforts to simplify designs to be more suitable for mass production, the other explanation is an error by the leadership (with was quite common in case of Germany). It is obvious that the larger the number of produced tanks, airplanes etc. the bigger the experience and easier improvements of the process, but do the production figures really need to reach such high numbers to start making a difference?
Both options seem pretty odd and both would be easy to add, the first one would provide a more historical outcome.

10.2 Combat experience

Combat experience as I said at the beginning would over time produce design simplifications.
However if those simplifications would be associated with performance improvement (new model of tank) then it could not occur if the change would be significant. The alternative is setting production upgrades independently of production ones. If the player would not have a trigger

10.3 Design types experience

The general idea here was very good, but the division was very stiff, artificial, researching or producing of e.g. tanks did not add any experience to tank destroyers etc. and that I would like changed. Both do share many similarities and should at least partially (50-30%?) affect the other.



11. UPGRADE SYSTEM
11.1 Upgrading
11.1.1 What if?

The technology system is the place to discuss “obsolescent deigns”, however I can’t discuss it without introducing my upgrade system (with I intended to do in the production part).
Upgrading of units is very cheap compared to normal unit cost and in consequence (at least that’s my impression) the impact caused by the upgrade is minimal compared to what it could be.
There were many weapons with if deployed in high numbers could change the course of war (not necessarily win it) and by neglecting the importance of hardware the game is taking away the chance to exploit those opportunities. There were only 400 000 STG-44 produced, what would happen if you could equip the whole army?
The system would be based on constant production, the produced equipment would be directed to create new divisions, some reinforcements and some for upgrades and the designs that would be exchanged for a better model would not magically disappear.

11.1.2 Difficulties

Introducing of this system would cause some problems. Certainly the original one was much more transparent and did not require much of work and however it did ignore a very important part of war. Production could go (for the most part) similar the original system, the difference would be that the player would have to prioritize between upgrades, reinforcements and forming new divisions.

NOTE: More on this system in the thread concerning production.


11.2 Obsolescent design

This is something I would really like to see in HoI. The therm obsolescent applies to a designs with are outclassed so badly that it takes huge losses and is totally ineffective against the enemy leading design, so that it should be retired (about with the player would be informed about by a report). Now this is especially true for tanks which did sometimes turn from an efficient design into a useless one in year. But instead retiring those e.g. Panzer II, why not modify the supper structure and fit 105mm howitzer (Wespe) for a small portion of the cost? This could be done either within the report, or similar to the new unit upgrade.
This kind of event could also serve as a trigger, sometimes a new use for the design was found only because the previous was ineffective.





12. DIVERSITY
12.1 Upsides/Downsides

Every design had their upsides and downsides and distinguished in one way or another, production cost, difficulty of repairs, performance in different terrain, speed, full consumption, range, not only combat stats. You will find none of that in Hearts of Iron, designs are totally generic and do not resemble most designs in almost anything.

12.1.1 Tiger

One of the most annoying (to me) examples of this is the Tiger. I would far more rather to see a Tiger that would fight like a Tiger and pay for it 3 or 4 times as much as for a Panzer IV, then to have this colorless, shapeless something that in HoI is called a Tiger. In Hearts of Iron, the Tiger (with was designed as a break through tank) is worse in offensive then Panzer IV. I do not deny that heavy tanks did excel in defensive, but the Tiger not good as a Panzer IV in offence!?
I would want every design to more or less resemble what they actually were not only in name.

12.2 Unsuccessful designs

War produced some unsuccessful tactics, features, designs and sometimes whole blind alleys of technology development with where faults where often brutally exposed by war and those designs I would like to add into the game.

12.2.1 Why?

The main idea that made me propose this is the fact that I wanted to make standardization an issue, also to add more choice and some unpredictability. How would it manifest you ask?
Well if the enemy would attack in a point in with that feral design is stationed then it may put a hole in your lines (that’s the theory).

12.3 Childhood disease

I’m not sure is this the correct therm in English, but it is meant to describe the severe problems that designs like Panther suffered on their debut, because they were rushed into production at expense of (especially) the prototype phase. This would another way of improving immersion and depth.
It could be as simple as a large penalty for the first month (or so) of combat (shorter for lighter deigns). I would have it adapted to every design individually or maybe even make an elastic system with would make the problems increase along with the speed of research and drop of skill.



13. SINGLE PART- MULTIPLE DESIGNS
13.1 Kind of logical…

In developers diaries it was said that in HoI technological system one part could be used in many different designs and not researched separately for every single one of them, it sounded great it was logical, realistic and they kept the promise, kind of. It did apply only in some cases and it was rally annoying (at least to me) that I had to e.g. develop separately the same rifles for infantry, mortised and cavalry. Why did the developers do that? Well I think for better balancing and to give more things for the player to do, but I don’t like that idea.

13.2 Logical

What I would do is keep the original idea and go all the way with it, no half-measures to improve balance or complicate he tree. When the player develops 7,5cm PaK 40, then I can use it in Panzer IV, StuG III and every other design that used.

13.3 The stop-gap

Of course the PaK 40 and KwK 40 is not exactly the same and development of the method to fit an anti-tank gun into a tank torrent or superstructure (e.g. 30 day research), those would often serve as the stop-gap I talked about, a quick (partial) remedy for a desperate situation.



14. TECH TEAMS
14.1 No way Jose!

Our beloved tech teams where not incorporated into HoI because the developers did not find a way to fit them into the new system, well I did.

14.2 Just tech team

The first way I came up with to add them in the game was only for the purpose of immersion.
The companies (or people) that did design a weapon etc. would be displayed in the research screen next to that design. They would not actually do anything, just look cool



14.3 Bidding

This is an evolution of the first idea, born cause of the need of diversity in HoI’s.
At the end of research a screen would appear in with the player could choose between two designs that did (in reality) last to the final stage of the bidding. Some of them would probably be much worse than the design that did get into production, but many would have their upsides supporting choice.




15. LEADERSHIP
15.1 It’s of no consequence

I wrote earlier the ability to distribute leadership had illusionary impact on gameplay, was highly unrealistic and was another way of letting the player to do whatever he wants without any consequences.

15.2 Closed system

The first system I came up with is a closed system in with values for espionage, diplomacy and research are pre-set based on their historical performance. But I doubt people will like it.

15.3 Open system

The second system is more open, the default version would allow for slight adjustments in this are (maybe 1/3) and the second version would be designed for arcade mode (or generally low realism game setting) and the player would be free to distribute those point as he see fit.



STATISTICS

16. DESIGN STATISTICS SUGGESTIONS
The excuse

Johan said in an interview on Hearts of Iron 3 that no matter what the unit statistics will be people will be unsatisfied. Before the premier of the game I didn’t know what he precisely meant by that, but it became quite obvious after the game shipped. It was an excuse- “if I can’t satisfy everyone why bother trying?”. Well it is true that you can’t satisfy everyone and it seems that guys from Paradox followed this philosophy designing most of the game (the easy way I mentioned). Those statistics were as generic as they possibly could be, every new model +1 to statistics, also designs of certain types did often cross the line of performance “traditionally” reserved for another with I also would like to see.
I could list what I think is wrong about every single design but it would be only a waste of time. I did already state what I want from the system and the rest of information’s that are needed to do this is in the encyclopedias, history books or even on the internet, I will however add my suggestions (mainly) on some design types.

16.1 General aircraft suggestion

I will make this short. This is more of a combat system. I don’t exactly know what I should expect from the air force. The air force is definitely underpowered (except strategic bombings with are quite the opposite) in HoI3, the aircraft are taking ridiculously high losses compared to other branches (they have to be constantly monitored), often after a few weeks of fighting the air force can be almost completely wiped out after with it require months to recover (if you don’t want to put whole of your IC into it). I often witnessed situation in with attacking a country with almost full air supremacy as well as advantage in design and still took very high losses (with air cover).
On the other side they seem to swings the battle a fair amount but is it enough? After all it is the air force that is said to have contributed to the majority of destroyed Tiger tanks (along with their own crews). It does not seem to resemble the power of the Luftwaffe (with was barely hanging to air superiority) attack on the Soviets assaulting the German retreat from Kursk, with was so fierce that it alone stopped the advance and dealt so high losses to the enemy that they needed to retreat and regroup (effectively saving those units from being destroyed and the front from collapsing).
Probably one of the reasons why the air force seems so weak is the fact that land units (especially equipment) do not take almost any losses.
Summarizing my very general view is that if you can win the war without using the air force, then something is terribly wrong.

16.2 Multirole

Multiroles in Hearts of Iron 3 were weaker in intercepting then interceptors and were very weak in ground attack the only major advantage they had over Interceptors was longer range. It is logical that a specialized aircraft would carry out its tasks better then a multirole, but in reality things were often different. FW-190 in HoI was an multirole and in reality it was superior in BF-109 as an interceptor and in the same time was a very good ground attack aircraft. Again the stats of designs have nothing to do with what they actually were with is a major issue for me.

16.3 Strategic bombings

Strategic bombings are definitely overpowered, there effect should last longer, but be nowhere near as devastating. More on this in the combat system.

16.4 General tank suggestion

Tank statistics is a controversial matter. Relatively they were maybe more or less okay, but they did not pack the punch you would expect them to do. They did beat infantry (did take them some time) but this is too not what you would expect. The problem is not necessarily their stats, but there use. Blitzkrieg and most (or all) of the effective tank tactics developed during the war were all about massing huge amounts (of not only) armor in one place and attacking a weak spot in order to achieve a breakthrough.
Now the stacking penalty and the frontage system make this totally impractical and even distribution of division on the front makes the game look more like the good old fashioned trench war. The battle of Kursk seems to deny the sense of existence of those two concepts. Yes it was a German failure, yes they did advance only a few miles but it had nothing to do with the stacking penalty or frontage system and all to do with bad planning. After all Manstein did not shout-: “Cancel this operation, the stacking penalty is too great!!! It will be the end of Germany!!!”. Actually considering that the Soviet Union had the numeric superiority Zhukov should have said (considering what the SP and FS implicate):- “We need to have less troops then Germans!!! Disperse the division or it will be the end of Soviet Russia and our enlightened leader Stalin will need to flee to Brazil!!!”.
I do not deny that the stacking penalty exists and the basics assumptions are correct, the less the troops the better coordinated they are, but numeric superiority should be almost always better (excluding other factors).
I very much doubt that (judging on the example of battle of Kursk) the frontage system was a problem there. I do not possess the knowledge with would allow me to exclude it completely, but (at least it seem) one way or another impact was not significant (nowhere near what you can see in HoI).
I realize that the stackin penalty is designed to stop super-stacking on e.g. island or insignificant fronts like North Africa etc. and maybe bring some more stability to the fronts, however this system has so many draw backs that I think this effect should be achieved in a different way.
I did slip into combat system too much, more on this in the combat system thread.


16.5 Heavy tanks

I did already talk about Tiger, but this problem concerns many heavy tanks, some of them would more or less match the stats that developers did determine for them, but I don’t understand why did Paradox chose the way they did. To Me It is obvious that what makes people fascinated in heavy tanks was how they excelled in combat and dominated other tanks (of course had also many drawbacks) and not how did some unsuccessful designs perform.

16.6 Tank destroyers

Tank destroyers were obviously designed for tank destroying, they were not as good against infantry or strong points as artillery but in HoI they have a ridiculously low soft attack, maybe it should not be drastically higher but right now it is too low.

16.7 The Eighty-eight

The 88 is an example of a weapon with was designed for one purpose as a total surprise exceled in a totally different field. Thanks to this the Germans always were “shock-proof” in therms of tanks throughout the war. It was still only a stop-gap, but it reduced the impact of any tank design was reduced.
The point is that these kinds of events are extremely pro-immersive.

16.8 Open top/close top

In spite of what you may think I won’t be talking about the advantages and disadvantages of the cabriolet (the wind in the face, feeling for freedom, ups), but about sp-artillery, tank destroyers etc. and the significant difference in toughness and defensiveness between open top and close top (artillery, less because it is mostly behind the front).

16.9 Bizarre statistics in action

Most of the statistics for different design types look sensible, but the gameplay seems to not go the way that the stats would suggest it. The Jahda vs. Dermeister is a fine example of that. The paratroopers have statistics with would suggest that they will behave the way they should but it turned out that paratroopers were able to stop state of the art tanks. I have some suggestions for it with may make it work more like it should. I planned to discuss this in the combat section, but I will also present it shortly here.

16.9.1 Breaking point

Breaking point is very important for my vision of the combat system. Everything has a breaking point, holds one in one piece and at a certain point then suddenly collapses. The same can be applied to combat a division puts out stiff resistance and then finally breaks. When this happens the defender is pushed until the attack is out of momentum (also helping to determine when a design is no longer effective).

16.9.2 Strengths and weaknesses

Maybe there is some kind of system of strengths of weaknesses and I would guess that it is the distinction between hard and soft attack, but the impact is too insignificant. I’m not really sure how well it works but it is quite a good system, but perhaps (!) there is more to this than just hardness and softness in with case I would propose more detailed system (depending on designs properties not only its class).
The point is to make something of an advanced rock, paper, scissors. Infantry vs. tank division (with combined arms would win even if significantly outnumbered) equals high losses for the infantry and rapid retreat (the amount of anti-tank weaponry determines how high tank losses will be) etc.
Again HoI system seems to do it but the effect is not as significant as it should.



TEASER

17. The teaser– intelligence
17.1 When and where

My next thread will be (in all probability) on intelligence and will also (in all probability) be far shorter than this one. Johan said in an interview on HoI3 (and I’m paraphrasing) –“Hearts of Iron is the only serious grand strategy game because all the others are turn based and so on and are missing on the most key aspect of war with is “when”. I could not agree more, but is “when” really so crucial in HoI series? I would say no, especially that (thanks to the frontage system) where is even less important.

17.2 Overview

Well I want to make when and where very important and the first step to allow this is my intelligence system. The basic concept is to make the player (and the AI) aware of what the opponent is (could be) planning and let him prepare for it. This data would not be 100% reliable it could be also deceiving (intelligence as a weapon) and it would be based on probability. It would be associated with a system I called “detailed province value” with would determine the worthiness of attack on a province based on many different factors (including intelligence data) with would make it crystal clear where are the likely places of enemy and player attack.
Of course this system could not work alone, without changes in the combat system it would not really matter (in most cases) where the attack starts. Without changes to the production system a bad choice in therms of attack or defense could end in losing the war…

17.3 My goal

…My goal is completely the opposite. I did already list my goals concerning the individual threads (interface now technology), but I never before stated what is my goal with this entire series of threads. What I am trying to achieve with all those systems is to make the severe blows with shift the front even several hundred miles survivable and recoverable. In historical circumstances I would want to see the Soviet Union push back the Germans even they managed to reach the Volga.


And this would be all everything for this edition of “MY SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION” thread.
Thank you for your attention and good night (sleep tight) .