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

MY NEW THREAD IS FINALLY HERE:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=496336

THE FIRST PERSON WHO SUBMITS A REPLY ON ALL ITEMS WILL GET 100 000$ THROUGH MR. JASON FRANCISZEK (TRANSACTION THROUGH THE PHONE).

Porcupine1981 said:

I hope this post won't disappoint you (but probably it will).

What you are suggesting is amazing, and I would absolutely love to see it in HOI.

But I am unfortunately certain that it will never get in.

Click to expand...

More substance is welcome, but if i would allow for only this kind of posts then i would have 5 replies.

Spruce said:

Old school tanks rock !

Click to expand...

Yes they do xD.

egslim said:

Not speaking for the forum administration, but I think I can answer that question for you.

Your post takes far too much time to read, and offers too few constructive improvements that can be practically implemented in the game.

I think your time and energy would be better spent giving assitance to one of the existing mod-projects.

Click to expand...

How can they say that it does not offer any constructive improvements if they won't read it (to long to read)? If they think it sucks, then why wont they simply say so?

And why do you think they cant be practically implemented?
I would want you to state with you think are that way.
I did propose a lot of things and many of them were restriced to simple interface changes, even as small as creating one button with is anticipated by many people.

Paradox did implement features posted on the forums numerous times (usually just a single one) and because (in your opinion) it offers few then they cant either respond to it or implement it?

Thx, finally some clarification.

Number 2-Thats what i expected as one of the unlikely reasons.

rambotobe said:

Hi Serial
I have read your article with great pleasure, and would like to a lot of your ideas implemented, as many others also comments. You just have to remember why PI can't come out at say "we will use all your ideas". It's all about money. I think that you could clame money for your ideas, and that would ruin PI. If it was Word and you came up with a killer function, do you think that Microsoft would just implement it, don't think so, not with the legislation we got at the moment .

Click to expand...

I doubt that.
I do not have patent for the proposed features.

It seems that the thread (not Zed)) is dead 1 day after the publication of the technology part. Not a single reference to a concrete feature and 3 or 4 expressions of support...

Not good.

Well i got finally a word from the developers or rather the moderator stating their policy.

I guess it maybe is to long and to concentrated on a single subject, but there are few other much shorter themes discussed and the basic rules of the main one is also very short.
I hope that people did not notice that i published the second part (because its in the middle of the thread) but i think thats not true and it is simply just too long.

"Conlusions and suggestions" - SHORTER VERSION

HEARTS OF IRON 3– MY CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
PART 2 - THE SHORTER VERSION


*0. Introduction

ATTENTIONE:

Welcome to “Hearts of Iron 3 – my conclusions and suggestions – technology - shorter version”. The reaction to my initial post of technology was almost nonexistent and (probably) one of the main reasons for that was the initial posts length.
As an attempt to revive this thread I will post a shorter version of my original post on technology containing mainly the basic principles of my systems. If someone wants more then he can simply find it on the fifth page for the full thread.

Now to encourage you to reading here are some statistics:
The part on my technology system (“Necessity…”) had been shortened from 8 000 words to 1 800 and the most essential part describing the concept and a real-life example () is only 350. With is only half of that of the “Army Generator” in the Interface post.
The whole thread (post) had been reduced 3 times and it would be far more, but I decided to leave the part on statistics and the teaser unchanged (I think it is interesting) and is over 30% shorter than the one on interface.



LEGEND:
• - This part is a shorter version of the one in the original thread.

– The main idea of my technology system had been tagged with a “thickening “.

NOTE: I did not adjust the table of content so that the reader can know what is absent.

TECHNOLOGY
0.4 Overview

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).
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

Those factors were valued incorrectly (in therms of realism). Theory far to important and in contrast the combat experience (with means war and the need generated by that war) was very significantly underrated. Developing e.g. state of the art tank without ever building any is not a problem.

1.2 Leadership
The problem with leadership was that everybody (almost) always chosen to put everything into technology and if this would (but it almost never does) go wrong? 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.
However those are just the faults, more on leadership later.


*2. NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION- MY VISION OF THE TECH SYSTEM
Basically:
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. The need will be caused by appearance of a weapon/tactic etc. it will be kind of an action reaction system.

2.1 Pros and cons of my system

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. 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.

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 other tanks, halted and pushes back the German advance. There was no anti-tank gun in Heer’s disposal their arsenal 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). 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. It was also an impulse for changes in the German armored forces (and not only).

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.



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


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

After thinking about it 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.



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). 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.

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.


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?
The player would simply add the triggers and prioritize them (just like puling funds from a less important project into an urgent one).

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.


8. OTHER DESIGN TYPE DEVELOPMENT
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).

8.5 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.


OTHER SYSTEMS ASOCCIATED WITH TECHNOLOGY

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

It seems that before the transition to war production the attempts to raise production efficiency were very limited. Production had to reach very high numbers (with was provided by the transition to war economy and both can be easy scripted) for the manufacturing methods to be severely improved and also did increased efforts to simplify designs to be more suitable for mass production.
It seem it was either a requirement or a matter of choice.

*10.2 Combat experience

Combat experience as I said at the beginning would over time produce design simplifications.

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?

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.

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. 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?




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.

*12.3 Childhood dieses

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.


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.

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 attack of the Luftwaffe (with was barely hanging to air superiority) 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 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 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 know that this 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 it 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 to go this way. To Me It is obvious that what makes people fascinated in heavy tanks was how they exceled 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 he attacker gets 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.

harvesarmy said:

You're main idea about research seems to be based around the fact that the theory of a tech, the practical in implementing the tech and the need for the tech are key. Well first of all I would like to say that the part about necessity being the mother of invention is a good idea in theory. However I think this lends itself too much to abuse by minor powers.

For example if i were to play as a South American country such as Brazil then I could just go to war with the US and because I would encounter some of their units attacking me, and presumably they are much better so I would get a large boost to my production and technology, due to my high need for better techs. I would like to know, would the advantage for necessity be somehow based on the amount of leadership in a country or the amount of industry to stop such exploits from happening?

Click to expand...

I did anticipate that and (maybe not full) address them (among other things) in "Japanese Problem" and "Technological skill"
Countries would have a base level of its prowess in technology. I proposed for it to be dealt mainly with leadership and also a mixture of theoretical, practical and combat experience just like now and/or a base level of technological skill (stiff hard to change). It doesn't really matter that those countries will get the triggers cause they will still be restrained by leadership and/or maybe some of the other things i proposed.

Secondly using the same example as above, what would the event for encountering say a sherman tank say? As far as I know there were not many designs of tank being created or researched in minor countries at the time of WW2. Added to this is the amount of work that would be needed to implement all the different events and triggers. What if Brazil encountered a better Argentine tank? Would there have to be an event for that too? So while I understand that adding many specific designs to the game would add a great amount of historical flavour, this would also be to the detriment of the sandbox feel to the game.

Click to expand...

Because (as you said) there were a only a hand full of designs researched and created by them. The tech tree would look similarly to the one of the majors but the gaps would be filed with large amount of generic designs. The alternative is for Paradox to create a tech tree of new (made up) for every minor, or chose designs from other countries to to be adapted into it (better, but more cumbersome).
Also as i said in "Scripted counter-measures": The fact that an interaction that would cause the trigger could occur between two designs that this would be scripted. Now there is a huge number of minors so it would take some time (i suspect a tiny fraction of what making the new map took). Considering how many gaps most minors would have in their tech system if the could be done extremely easily with a single set of generic tech tree (excluding the ones that a country actually created).
In "Japanese counter-measures" i did also point out that there were countries surprisingly advance in some areas (including minors), but they were restrained with their tiny industry capacity.

I must say I do like the idea of having seperate "classes" of technology. Creating an entirely new engine for a tank would require more effort than bolting or welding on some extra sheets of steel. However I think this could be easily abstracted by the difficulty levels currently in the game.

Click to expand...

Its more like a guide line helping to determine realistic and logical times of research depending on their difficulty.

What I am trying to say is that if things had gone slightly differently and money had been invested into things other than tanks and planes, the result of the war could have been quite different. For example I would the concept of something like body armour really isn't that hard to understand and yet all the scientists in during world war 2 could not come up with it.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the fact that they did not came up with it. They did. Body armor had been known for ages and it was abandoned not because they forgot about it, but because there was no way to put enough armor on a soldier (assuming that he needed to be alive and able to run, or at least walk a reasonable distance) to sustain a arquebus or latter a musket round.
The fact was that there was no sufficient technology available. You need to remember that the majority of the bullets used in WWII were of much higher caliber then those used now and even modern kevlar vests could not stop them. From what i know there were a couple of those vests developed during the WWII but they were pretty useless. A model produced in Russia could stop a MP40 round (small caliber compared to other weapons) from 100m down to (with is the limit of its effective range).

I should think that people play hearts of iron to see how they would fare if they were fighting world war 2, not just to reanact world war 2 to the letter.

Click to expand...

First of my system is not following WWII to the letter and it is very far from it. It allows for freedom but when it makes sense (if there is a cause for that). Attacking countries in a different time, order, different countries, if those countries did develop their technology differently (by AI or player), or you (or they) enter the war in another time. All of this have a significant impact on research.

I also said that as a way of customizing realism the player could chose a less strict version, or perhaps simply the old system if the new made him/her uncomfortable.

I guess what I am really trying to say is that restricting most research ot what actually happened, sort of kills the game, (well it does for me).

Click to expand...

I some times would like this freedom also, but in most cases I would like the game make me do the best from what i have and try to find a alternate way like compensating in number, tactics etc. This is immersion, one country plays differently from another. I'm not saying that there would be now of modifying this, but i don't want to see a country that was very bad in something magically (for no reason) be great.
I did introduce something i called "the standard" and the "start point" with would allow that countries (at least the majors and "playable" minors) would not in most cases lag very far in technology.

Overall I would say that you simple cannot make the game too specific, because you would have to be specific with every country and nation - something which would be near impossible to do.

Click to expand...

No you do not have to be specific about every country and all HoI had been much more detailed (in that matter) with majors then any other countries.
Also most of the people (i think) care about the majors to be as immersives they can and maybe "playable" minors, not the rest.

Afterall can you name a specific type of Brazilian tank? Just because it didn't happen doesnt mean it couldnt have ever happened.

Click to expand...

And my system do not say that if Brazil had not tanks then it would not have any in my system. But they would be almost completely irrelevant in therms of immersion.
I am trying to figure out the mechanisms behind somethings like technology. It is very hard but it think what i did is far closer to actuality then anything that was in any of the other HoI game. In it would be possible to create a ideal system, recreate every factor just the way then (in this case) technology would be exactly like it would play out in reality if a certain set of circumstances would occur. The closer we are to reality the more believable the outcomes are not the opposite. The full freedoms system doesn't tell you anything because almost any outcome accept historical is not believable.

And about Brazil. In all probability have some low quality equipment (something similar to Hungary would be an optimistic version) and would probably produce them in very low numbers. As it was a country very far from the "action" it would almost certainly never switch to war economy and all this ignoring the fact of what kind of circumstances would have to occur to get Brazil into the war.

HEARTS OF IRON 3– MY CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
PART 2 - THE VERY SHORT VERSION

0. Introduction

My shorter version did not have almost any effect at all. So I decided to make a even shorter version. If this doesn't work then it will be probably the last attempt to review the discussion on my technology thread.


ATTENTIONE: This post had been compressed almost to the limits. The core of my system (NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVETION) had been packed into 350 words and the highlighted (IF YOU DON’T HAVE TIME READ ONLY THIS) into 120. The whole things is less than 1 600 words compared to 12 500 of the original post (8 times less) and 8 000 of the interface post (5 times less).

I hope that now so it’s so short then finally someone will read it.




TECHNOLOGY


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

The main idea of my system is to make technology development elastic, plausible and most importantly dramatic (something in the sense of hacker anti-virus relationship to represent the changing fortunes of war.
My system would consist out of the same elements, but with the addition of necessity.

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

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

All of those factors would be closely connected. Necessity would be by far the most important despite the fact that it would not actually provide any assets for research. It would however lead to increasing efforts and pulling funds (abstractedly) thus increasing research speed. Combat experience would simulate the general increase in research speed caused by war and the triggers would channel the specific need for designs, tactics etc.
Those designs would be counter-measures against a certain threat posed by enemy weaponry, tactics etc. It would largely an action-reaction system.
What, when and where, would be very important. Every difference of a single tech would lead to different result in the opposite country. The always ignored Battle of Britain would have a severe consequences aircraft related research.


The counter-measures would be scripted (weapon a = weapon b) and often there would be more then one for every menace (e.g. tank = tank, tank destroyer, anti-tank gun, tactics etc.). Some could be researched almost instantly and some would take very long, some would be very effective and others the opposite. Some designs would initial experience “childhood disease”. I would also forbid situations when a player researches a single rifle twice for two unit types.
Research would be conducted normally (without triggers), but much slower. However the speed of research would greatly increase if a technology becomes a "standard". Leadership would also be present.
The tech tree would be far more detailed. It would contain full evolutions of more notable designs (e.g. Panzer IV ausf A to ausf J) as well as unsuccessful and in some cases biddings in with i would revive the concept of tech teams.










2. TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTION

The production system would be affected by many factors associated with technology. Combat experience would improve production by e.g. eliminating bottle-necks. Practical would be far more important, however it would have to be associated with war economy (with i explain in my original post) in order to make significant improvements in production methods.

Design type experience would be divided into all associated types (one more, one less) and not illogically to just single one. Also designs could present symptoms of "childhood disease" (like the Panther) depending on how fast they were researched.


3. UPGRADE SYSTEM

In my system, upgrading would be simply producing new equipment (or if possible modifying) and replacing the old, not magic transformation for a few bucks. Neither would the replaced designs magically disappear. Their impact (and generally of technological advantage) would be larger so that those e.g. 400 000 STG 44's would make a far greater difference then a army fully equipped in them like you can see in HoI.
Also to accent the impact of technology designs could at some point so out classed (like Panzer II in Barbarossa) that it could only serve as cannon-fodder, however it would be possible to make a transition similar the one of Panzer II to Wespe.




4. DIVERSITY

All designs would have their up and downsides and distinguish in one way or another. Not only combat statistics, but things like repair suitability, reliability, production speed etc. They would resemble their real-life counter parts as closely as possible. 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 with all its problems, then to have this shapeless something that in HoI is called a Tiger.


STATISTICS

5. DESIGN STATISTICS SUGGESTIONS

Design statistics in HoI are as generic as they possibly can, every new model +1 to statistics and thats pretty much it.

5.1 General aircraft suggestion

I don’t exactly know what I should expect from the air force.
On the other side they seem to swings the battle a fair amount but is it enough? They take extremely heavy losses and it does not get even close to the power of the Luftwaffe (with was barely hanging to air superiority) attack on the Soviets assaulting the German retreat from Kursk. It was so fierce that it alone dealt so high losses to the enemy that they needed to retreat and regroup (saving retreating forces from destruction).
My general view is that if you can win the war without using the air force, then something is terribly wrong.

5.2 General tank suggestion

Tank statistics is a controversial matter. Relatively they were maybe more or less okay, however its not what you would expect. The problem is not necessarily their stats but there use. Blitzkrieg (and other effective tank doctrines) were all about massing huge amounts of armor (and not only) in one place and attacking in the weakest spot in order to achieve a breakthrough.

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 (at least in their present form).
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 (excluding other factors) always be better.

I know that it was designed to stop super-stacking, however this system has so many draw backs that I think this should be achieved in a different way.

5.3 Heavy tanks

Some heavy tanks would more or less match the stats that developers did determine for them, but I don't understand Paradox chose to go this way with all of them. To me it is obvious that what makes people fascinated in heavy tanks was how they (at least some of them) excelled in combat and dominated other tanks (of course had also many drawbacks).

5.4 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.


5.5 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.
Breaking point is one of my solutions for this problem and is very important for my vision of the combat system. A division puts out stiff resistance and then at some point suddenly breaks.


TEASER

6. The teaser– intelligence
6.1 When and where

My next thread will be concentrated on intelligence and will also. 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.

6.2 Overview

I want to make when and where a crucial element 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 could be also deceiving (intelligence as a weapon).

6.3 My goal

…My goal is completely the opposite. 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.