EDIT: I think many people here are confused, thinking more complexity => more strategy. That's wrong. It goes like this: more complexity, with an AI able to handle it => more strategy. The last1 is especially true for this game - the AI in HoI3 is simply horrendous and does unforgivable mistakes (are those here who're crying for more complexity not noticing the weak ai..?). So if the game was simplified, and the AI improved to an appropriate level, we might very well get a game requiring MORE thinking and better strategy. Just take a look at Shogun 2 total war - its battle-gameplay is remarkably simple compared to Empire: total war's, yet it requires much more strategy due to the existence of an AI able to master it.
Would you like more provinces, more specialized units, more technologies, more policies, more control over the economy etc. etc. etc. ?Or would you like to keep things simple and clean, and more AI-friendly? Or combination of the two paths?
Ie, should HoI4 become more, or less, micromanagement intensive?
My opinion: This is a wargame, so I'd say keep the focus on combat and simplify/abstract everything else. This way we don't have to deal with half the techs/brigades/policies being utterly useless, or dwell too much time on really annoying and time consuming "max-min" type of work.
I like the general combat mechanics of HoI3, but they are crude. So instead of starting over I'd suggest fixing things. Good places to start are:
1) Balance every unit type to be useful and worth building in not-too-specific circumstances - regardless of their historic usefulness.
2) Avoid getting making players choose between building one or the other unit. For example right now you either build TACs or CASs, light cruisers or destroyers, heavy cruisers or battleships etc. Why not make it useful to build all of them at once?
3) Streamline as much as possible. Why are there a dozen different air & naval missions? Most are completely useless, while others are do the same thing. Logistical bombing is a prime example of being redundant - IRL strategic bombing and interdiction represented what logistical bombing does in HoI3, yet we have all 3 air missions for no good reason. Missions like naval sorties are prime examples of being useless, and they would be even if they worked properly.
4) Make organizing armies less of a micromanagement hell. Oh, and I never understood why you made the Italian and Soviet armies so historically "organized" in the scenarios.. Jeez no need to spend hours doing things historically, and making sure the player will also spend hours redoing everything so things will become manageable.
To sum up, imo, PI should just massively improve, and simplify, HoI3 (especially the AI) and call it HoI4.
Would you like more provinces, more specialized units, more technologies, more policies, more control over the economy etc. etc. etc. ?Or would you like to keep things simple and clean, and more AI-friendly? Or combination of the two paths?
Ie, should HoI4 become more, or less, micromanagement intensive?
My opinion: This is a wargame, so I'd say keep the focus on combat and simplify/abstract everything else. This way we don't have to deal with half the techs/brigades/policies being utterly useless, or dwell too much time on really annoying and time consuming "max-min" type of work.
I like the general combat mechanics of HoI3, but they are crude. So instead of starting over I'd suggest fixing things. Good places to start are:
1) Balance every unit type to be useful and worth building in not-too-specific circumstances - regardless of their historic usefulness.
2) Avoid getting making players choose between building one or the other unit. For example right now you either build TACs or CASs, light cruisers or destroyers, heavy cruisers or battleships etc. Why not make it useful to build all of them at once?
3) Streamline as much as possible. Why are there a dozen different air & naval missions? Most are completely useless, while others are do the same thing. Logistical bombing is a prime example of being redundant - IRL strategic bombing and interdiction represented what logistical bombing does in HoI3, yet we have all 3 air missions for no good reason. Missions like naval sorties are prime examples of being useless, and they would be even if they worked properly.
4) Make organizing armies less of a micromanagement hell. Oh, and I never understood why you made the Italian and Soviet armies so historically "organized" in the scenarios.. Jeez no need to spend hours doing things historically, and making sure the player will also spend hours redoing everything so things will become manageable.
To sum up, imo, PI should just massively improve, and simplify, HoI3 (especially the AI) and call it HoI4.
Last edited: