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

[unmerged(217455)]

First, I commend you on this (obviously long and hard) work you have done. PI, please hire this man!

Second, I do not have time at the moment to give the detailed response for each of your points (though, it is deserved). I will try to do that later, but I will say that I love every suggestion you have made here, except one: 5.1. I do not think Air should be handled by AI (though, I think AI option should be available at any/all possible levels of the game). If I understand your explanation, it is because it is very difficult to coordinate *timing* of air attacks with land attacks. Correct? If so, I think there is a more ideal solution (see below).

Third, there are a few things I think might be added to your suggestions.

1.) General events and subsequent decisions - One thing I have come to feel, is a general lack of intimacy with my nation and other AI nations within the game. What I mean is, it occasionally feels as though I am playing Risk with my armies, instead of leading my nation/people/generals/allies in war. IMO, this is because of a lack of interaction between myself and other world leaders, as well as my own government. Without going into to much depth, I will simply suggest what I think might be an easy remedy - more "events".

When I say more events, I am not suggesting that 50 annexation events pop up throughout the game, but rather more minor events occur between player and other world leaders, as well as our government. For instance, a small event might be Churchill requesting a meeting with Roosevelt after the Fall of France (with player as Roosevelt). At this point the player can decide to meet with him [+20 relations with Allies, +4 neutrality at home (US isolationist mentality), -20 relations with Axis] or not to (-5 relations Allies, +2 national unity). Simple events like this, scattered throughout the game (mostly among major combatants), with some detailed (maybe a paragraph) write ups would make the game feel much more intimate, IMO. Images of those whom you are speaking with would also add much to the feel.

2.) ETA on unit *final* destinations - I am quite sure this must have been brought before, but it would be incredibly useful not only to know when a unit will arrive at its adjacent province, but at his *final destination* as well. I am not sure how hard this would be to implement, but I can't imagine it would be incredibly difficult.

To your early point (if I understood it correctly), I think this would drastically help the player coordinate land/air/sea attacks much more efficiently.

EDIT: 3.) HoI-pedia - There really need to be an in-game reference document/interface. For those who have played Civ4, think "Civilopedia".

Basically, this could be as simple as Manual + Strat Guide + Supply Manual + any/all Supplements, all organized neatly, and incorporated into the game as a quick reference/dictionary.


Grr, there were more but they have already flown out of my head...

P.S. Are you photoshopping those graphics, or are you modding the GUI in some way?

 

[unmerged(217455)]

I agree then there are some more pressing matters, but from Paradox stand point it should be almost a must.
I heard that the voice actor (it would not take time away from HoI) playing Nicko Belick form GTA IV got 2000 dollars for his services. That is 70 copies of HoI, do PI think this would not sell even 70 more copies?

It is obvious that Paradox games throw people away cause they high learning curve and Im an example of that.
It is not about mastering, but even learning the basics. The especially first contact with this kind of game is overwhelming.

About mastering HoI, then don't you think if a man mastering HoI would give you advice, you would learn how to play faster, and better?
And this is pretty much whats a good tutorial is all about.
Of course most tutorials only teaches the basics, but that another problem there is, they teach those basics, and stop there.
The player have to discover on his own by trail and error what things are effective and with not, how things work.
Thats one of the reasons why i came up with reports.

I agree completely. I've owned HoI3 vanilla for months, but when I first attempted to play it, I found myself completely disoriented. I went through the first two tutorials and found them (a) to be lacking much critical information as if they were thrown together last minute, (b) to include far too much text for a tutorial, and (c) to not be as visually appealing as most tutorials are (aesthetics counts, folks! ). Because of this, I quickly knew it would take me hours, if not days, to even begin having fun with the game; hence, I gave up and only returned once SF was released.

 

[reynanuy]

I am 200% behind all interface changes, they are sorely missing from the game and many of the ones you suggest should have been there from day 1. Some other changes I think are too complex to implement and add little, at least to my play style in which I don't really micro anything at all and don't care much for strict historic games. Anyhow great post, it really shows you spent a lot of time on this and I, along with everyone here it seems, appreciate it a lot; since it illustrates perfectly what we want on this game. So thanks for your effort and keep the posts coming.

 

[Cybvep]

Great stuff. While I don't think that all of this will get implemented, minor things could be done easily in the next patch and they could benefit the game immensely. Interface changes are always welcomed and they do not require so much work as AI or game balancing, for example. Some of your suggested features are not purely related to interface, though (new missions etc.), and those would be harder to implement. Also, I wouldn't count on things like "reports" etc. - they would probably require too much computing power for too little gain.

IMO PI should focus on improving existing, often unused features. A good example would be Automatic Deployment - your suggestions would make it much more useful. Also, it would be nice if the "Reserves" mission would actually work - currently it's pointless.

Things like attaching support brigades to units in the production screens would be extremely helpful, too, and they would greatly reduce the micro required in the deployment screen. It would be nice if the AI was able to use it, too, in order to "match" its unit composition with LUA templates. It would greatly improve handling of "Superior Firepower" doctrine by the AI (and the player).

Regarding automated airwings etc. - it could be done easily by adding "Manual Control" 'stance'. Players would be able to automate aircraft/navy/army control and handle the rest themselves. I don't know why it's not possible to do it.

Auto-promotion was in HOI2 and I don't know why it was removed from HOI3. It worked fine and if someone didn't like it, he/she could simply uncheck the option.

Auto-scouting sounds like an additional gameplay element, but it's possible to do it manually by sorties and patrol orders etc. It's just painful and sometimes units on patrol are a little too boldy and they end up somewhere near the Southern Africa. What I would like is the integration of the results of patrols (spotted ships etc.) into naval mapmode. Seazones with spotted ships could be colored in purple (or sth else) and ship movement could be shown by arrow "trails", which would gradually fade away (in a week, for example).

I'm surprised that you didn't write anything about diplomacy and intelligence mapmodes/tabs. In HOI2 it was possible to check other countries' diplomatic stance at a glance with two clicks (first one on a province, second one on the diplomatic mapmode), which is currently not possible. In HOI2 we had some general information about enemy units easily available in the Intelligence tab ("We estimate that this country has 3 Capital Ships, 5 Carriers and 70 smaller ships" etc.), while in HOI3 getting anything from "Military Espionage" is really painful.

 

[SirGrotius]

You, my friend, are a madman. I like that.

Good ideas!

 

[WarDog]

A lot of good observations there. I rely liked the idea of redestributing your leaders automaticly after set priorities between theatres.

Keep up the good work!

 

[wolf1455]

Very well done, but I dobt dev will do it without taking out more money.
But u should get the money if they incorporate it

 

[serial]

Second, I do not have time at the moment to give the detailed response for each of your points (though, it is deserved). I will try to do that later.

And still it is the longest reply yet.

5.1. I do not think Air should be handled by AI (though, I think AI option should be available at any/all possible levels of the game).

I agree, i do not want it to be controlled exclusively by AI/

If I understand your explanation, it is because it is very difficult to coordinate *timing* of air attacks with land attacks. Correct? If so, I think there is a more ideal solution (see below).

Kind of yes, but not quite.
Its more about micromanagement, how much attention it requires.
Things like changing the target of attack every time a changes the point of attack, and constantly monitoring for attacking fighters, with in real life were normal, but in HoI there are really a big deal. The player is forced to send in his own fighters manually. Another matter is watching for losses (with are unproportionally high).



ATTENTION: From now on if I will add any new ideas I will make them in way similar to this one below, as well as add the page its in on the bottom of the first post.


5.3. AD AIRCRAFT MANUAL CONTROL SIMPLIFYING (AD. AIRCRAFT)

I came up with some new elements for the AIRCRAFT with i did not mention in the original post.


5.3.1 Default mission
The problem with giving manual orders is that you always have to go through the "mission screen", instead of clicking only once.
Now i do not wish the "mission screen" (as i called it) gone i just want a way to disable it. The player would assign a mission to an air fleet and from this moment forward it would be this would be its default mission (as well as other settings) , so that all the player has to do is right click.
If you don't like the idea of activating this feature, and prefer e.g. a check box in the "mission screen", then let me know, give me your opinions.
If however he wants to make some adjustments he simply presses CTRL+LMB

5.3.2 Default area type
Default missions were the main concept, but it quickly occurred to me that this can create a problem with choosing are of operation, but i found a simple solution.
In the "mission screen" the player would chose the criteria from with the AI chooses provinces (they would revolve over the province clicked by the player) with should be subjected to the mission. Those criteria would be province, area, and so on (if you have ideas, post them).

5.3.3 Default location criteria
Those are default criteria for different mission type, heres a list:
-Intercept, and Air Superiority- presence of bombers, or fighters.
-Interdiction - enemy forces behind the front.
-Ground Attack - supporting fighting friendly ground units.
-Logistical strike- high infrastructure, important transit location.
-Strategic bombings- victory points, high industry capacity.
-Naval strike - vulnerable fleets.

Some of them maybe in the game, but thats a example.

5.3.4 Default minimal strength
It is the strength below with aircraft mission is halted with is set by the player, and becomes default until he decides otherwise.

5.3.5 Default stance
Analogical to the (7.2) fleet stance in the opening post.

5.3.6 Default mission priority
To further reduce micromanagement the player would be able to choose mission priority (if he wishes so). After there is nothing left to do in therms of the main mission, the idle aircraft would turn their attention to tasks lower on the priority chart like e.g. fighter intercepting enemy fighters, would start bombing, or attack enemy ground units (if it is capable).
Obviously you don't want to waste much aircraft on them, so you could set lower (independent) minimum strength for them.

5.3.7 Order queue
The situation can change rapidly, but the amount of time it would save would probably compensate for that, I'm sure i would rather to set a queue once, then give separate orders.
The player would only need to set (or not, just go with the default value) time line for different actions to be carried out.


NOTE:
The "manual control simplifying" follows the philosophy of automatization, because it achieves this simplification through it.



5.4. SUPPORT ARMY/ATTACK ARMY

5.4.1 Support army
Just another way of reducing micromanagement.
Instead of giving normal orders the player would only set this mission type on a selected corps, army, army group etc. and the chosen air fleet would support it in chosen manner (here the mission priority would get in handy).
The normal mission types (with would define the nature of support), would be here somewhat of a submission.

5.4.2 Attack army
Attack army is the opposite of support. Instead of supporting your armies it would concentrate on attacking a particular enemy army.

Third, there are a few things I think might be added to your suggestions.

1.) General events and subsequent decisions - One thing I have come to feel, is a general lack of intimacy with my nation and other AI nations within the game. What I mean is, it occasionally feels as though I am playing Risk with my armies, instead of leading my nation/people/generals/allies in war. IMO, this is because of a lack of interaction between myself and other world leaders, as well as my own government. Without going into to much depth, I will simply suggest what I think might be an easy remedy - more "events".

Thats true, and thats one of the reason why I proposed the reports system.
It could state, that some general is doing great, and speaking...

When I say more events, I am not suggesting that 50 annexation events pop up throughout the game

[...] of annexation, a report could pop-up on its consequences.
Raise of threat, and make e.g USA more likely to enter the war.

, but rather more minor events occur between player and other world leaders, as well as our government. For instance, a small event might be Churchill requesting a meeting with Roosevelt after the Fall of France (with player as Roosevelt). At this point the player can decide to meet with him [+20 relations with Allies, +4 neutrality at home (US isolationist mentality), -20 relations with Axis] or not to (-5 relations Allies, +2 national unity). Simple events like this, scattered throughout the game (mostly among major combatants), with some detailed (maybe a paragraph) write ups would make the game feel much more intimate, IMO. Images of those whom you are speaking with would also add much to the feel.

More events? I'm all for that, but I'm not sure is getting into this much detail is something good.
Anyway I did sometimes imagine how in HoI a meeting takes place, and the different sides are negotiating, but I'm not sure is that a good idea.
If it would be a proper negotiation it could look like a RPG dialog (with is probably bad), and if it is just something like negotiations in HoI right now, but in instead of exchanging resources, a exchange of overall support e.g. negotiating lend-lease (and its extent), the transfer of old destroyers to the British, involvement in the war on some front, well it could also be good, and much more sensible, but how would that actually work out?

2.) ETA on unit *final* destinations - I am quite sure this must have been brought before, but it would be incredibly useful not only to know when a unit will arrive at its adjacent province, but at his *final destination* as well. I am not sure how hard this would be to implement, but I can't imagine it would be incredibly difficult.

Maybe simply put one under another?
the first is ETA, and the second FETA (final).

To your early point (if I understood it correctly), I think this would drastically help the player coordinate land/air/sea attacks much more efficiently.

That would be good, but this is more about overall simplifying, and automatization. And I'm more trying to coordinate land and air, and air and sea, but i do not contribute much space for that.
Sea and land? Well, there is not much that you can do here, but i have a idea:

Check box for shore units (units currently on the shore), called "shore bombardment". This will make the AI use an idle fleet on mission shore bombardment (or one designated by the player), and support it either until this option is not turned off, of until it the unit leaves shore provinces.

P.S. Are you photoshopping those graphics, or are you modding the GUI in some way?

No unfortunately I'm not a programmer, those are photoshop, or more like "MS Paint" :rofl:

 

[Jazumir]

5.3.1: The default mission would have to be displayed permanently on the air-units card (shoulnt be a problem, though).

5.3.4.: For this to work really properly, i´d suggest a button on air-groups (e.g. units with more than one air-unit of same type), called and functioning as ´equalize losses´ (or something snazzier), so that if one of your 3 fighters (same type, same tech) gets to 20% STR, while the other two are at 80%, it would, on return to base, re-distribute the STR (and unit-EXP accordingly) to (20+80+80)/3 = 60% STR for all three of them - and take that as the base for the minimum default STR comparison. Alternatively, it could just always do this, without a button. Optionally, it could take some time to re-distribute, with air-base level to planes on base ratio as the defining variable (but i dont think this is really needed).

5.from there on: I think one can take things too far. Be careful not to make ´simplification´ out of ´simplifying´ - if you know what i mean... If the aim is to reduce micro-management, long-priotity charts probably arent the way to go. I´ll make a little excourse here:
Besides HoI3, i am currently playing ´Dragon Age: Origins´. It´s a RPG with a ´party´ (multiple characters to steer). Each person in your group has a set tactic for battle, which you can adjust to your hearts liking (it´s a really well implemented feature IMO). The thing is though: when you do change a tactic, and a character levels (gets new attacks, for example), that tactic wont adjust automatically anymore (it´s set on ´custom´), unless you set it back to ´auto´, reverting your prior changes. So you end up fiddling with the tactics each time a character levels. Or you do it like me, and dont adjust the tactics at all (only the stances, which are in both games), since fortunately, the standard ones seem pretty good and well thought out, given the vast array of choices.
So, i think at a certain level of detail, a well-thought out automatization achieves a lot more than over-customization. Specifically, this means, that those ´priority charts´ should be sort of an internal part of the game, internal to its AI sort of. I cant say, to what extent this is already true for HoI3 (but TACs do have ´ground attack´ as default mission, sort of, and fighters have ´intercept´ marked when opening the attack-screen the first time).
Also, HoI3 is a competetive strategy game, whereas Dragon Age is a SP-RPG, which isnt all too hard (you play it for the story, not the challange, mostly). When there is a setting, no matter how minor its advantage and how tedious it to be achieved, in MP-wars (i assume), but also for crazy SP-players (i know - no not really ;P), it might feel nesseccary to use it. A buddy of mine was a compulsive Vic-POP-splitter - how annoying - in order to compete, i´d have to do it, too!

So, long rant made short: I think customizable priotity lists are crossing the line to ´detailism´.

 

[Cybvep]

5.3.4.: For this to work really properly, i´d suggest a button on air-groups (e.g. units with more than one air-unit of same type), called and functioning as ´equalize losses´ (or something snazzier), so that if one of your 3 fighters (same type, same tech) gets to 20% STR, while the other two are at 80%, it would, on return to base, re-distribute the STR (and unit-EXP accordingly) to (20+80+80)/3 = 60% STR for all three of them - and take that as the base for the minimum default STR comparison. Alternatively, it could just always do this, without a button. Optionally, it could take some time to re-distribute, with air-base level to planes on base ratio as the defining variable (but i dont think this is really needed)

Or PI could simply get back to "Reserves" mission. It was a really good concept IMO.

Cutomised automation is good, as long as it stays automated! I would love to get a possibility of giving AI more detailed orders, e.g. perform convoy raiding missions at night only and only if str > 50%; perform strategic bombing in provinces rich in rares; don't fight for air superiority, just defend your own provinces etc.

Currently the available options related to automation are quite limited and player often has to watch for unexpected stupid AI actions, which defeats the point of automation...

 

[serial]

Some other changes I think are too complex to implement and add little, at least to my play style in which I don't really micro anything at all and don't care much for strict historic games.

I understand your talking about e.g. "Army Generator"
The basic tool (containing most of its functions" is very simple, and allows to organise the whole army in a few seconds, don't you see anything appealing in this (even if it does not fit your style)?.
It is complex, because I'm covering all the basis, and it does not require much more effort to make then the basic tool.
Furthermore, it allows for rapid distribution of the support brigades.

Some of your suggested features are not purely related to interface, though (new missions etc.), and those would be harder to implement.

Yes, they are not, but they are not purely gameplay either.
I decided to add those mission into interface, because i created them thinking about simplifying and it does not change the gameplay in any significant way, basically it makes things already possible in the game, easy (and practical) to do. Also i don't think that making a algorithm with makes one object follow another fits the definition of hard.

Also, I wouldn't count on things like "reports" etc. - they would probably require too much computing power for too little gain.

On the contrary (in My opinion). What the reports are basically doing, is borrowing the data (for the most part) already in the game, and gives them to the player. Considering the case of "Tonnage war" (screen in "Reports"), the only data not lying and waiting is the tonnage.
What is there then to compute?
In some cases a simple script, to make the massage pop-up in the end of the month and a trigger for others to make them appear in certain situations.
This, plus and some scripted text, and there you have reports.

Little gain?
The reports would provide the player with many useful informations like whats effective, and whats not, bring his attention to some problems with the might had missed, informing about consequences, making him act, giving them a hint of what he can do, and handling him the key to the mechanics behind the game (somewhat of a in-game tutorial).
It brings some life, and flavor into some emotionless conflicts like the spoken tonnage war. It gives the player a better picture of the situation, letting him actually feel the impact his decision make, and thus motivate him (if the informations are good) to continue them. It also brings in more statistics.

I would say, a great gain for little effort.

Regardless, if a decision would be made to add the Reports in some kind of simplified way (i have no idea why this would happen) it can be a very usfull tool.

IMO PI should focus on improving existing, often unused features. A good example would be Automatic Deployment - your suggestions would make it much more useful. Also, it would be nice if the "Reserves" mission would actually work - currently it's pointless.

I agree that right now there are to many things wrong with this game to think about adding completely new features, but when thats out of the way, they may try to add them and I'm quite sure that with benefits for the game.

Auto-promotion was in HOI2 and I don't know why it was removed from HOI3. It worked fine and if someone didn't like it, he/she could simply uncheck the option.

I can't recall any auto-promotion to be present in HoI2.
I remember that generals had adjusted rank accordingly to the time a scenario started, but nothing els.

Auto-scouting sounds like an additional gameplay element, but it's possible to do it manually by sorties and patrol orders etc. It's just painful and sometimes units on patrol are a little too boldy and they end up somewhere near the Southern Africa.

Again, scouting is not really a system in the game, but it is possible. However it is a pain to do it manually. Me as much hours i played HoI games i never tired it.

What I would like is the integration of the results of patrols (spotted ships etc.) into naval mapmode. Seazones with spotted ships could be colored in purple (or sth else) and ship movement could be shown by arrow "trails", which would gradually fade away (in a week, for example).

Yes i would too:
7.1.2

I'm surprised that you didn't write anything about diplomacy and intelligence mapmodes/tabs. In HOI2 it was possible to check other countries' diplomatic stance at a glance with two clicks (first one on a province, second one on the diplomatic mapmode), which is currently not possible. In HOI2 we had some general information about enemy units easily available in the Intelligence tab ("We estimate that this country has 3 Capital Ships, 5 Carriers and 70 smaller ships" etc.), while in HOI3 getting anything from "Military Espionage" is really painful.

Diplomacy is not really that important. I agree, that the information should be as transparent, and easy to access as possible, but i did not think much about it, I was focusing on more important fields.
However it will probably have some suggestions.

Concerning map modes i did come up with some when i was thinking about how to fix some problems (for example the map mode for "deployment improvement") and they are here, in this thread. I did not have any larger issues with the existing tabs and I pretty much think their okay.
However similar as with diplomacy I have not put much thought in that.

In therms of intelligence I have (I think) a great idea how to make it an important gameplay (including things like deception) element and maybe i will even a whole thread to it.
And in the same time allow for some complication on the front with would not be possible, without that intelligence system.

 

[Snaggleooo]

I agree completely. I've owned HoI3 vanilla for months, but when I first attempted to play it, I found myself completely disoriented. I went through the first two tutorials and found them (a) to be lacking much critical information as if they were thrown together last minute, (b) to include far too much text for a tutorial, and (c) to not be as visually appealing as most tutorials are (aesthetics counts, folks! ). Because of this, I quickly knew it would take me hours, if not days, to even begin having fun with the game; hence, I gave up and only returned once SF was released.

Be thankful you got a tutorial. Victoria (+Revs) is a more complicated game than HoI and you were thrown pretty much into the middle of the Pacific with only a passing knowledge of swimming. As a HoI2 player and a war history fan, I picked up at least the basics of HoI3 almost immediately. Btw, I'm not saying a better tutorial isn't needed, because it is, but just that I, and many others I believe, picked it up reasonably easily.

 

[Hptm. Jaadoo]

Lets hope, that PI atleast picks up a few of these ideas...

 

[Cybvep]

On the contrary (in My opinion). What the reports are basically doing, is borrowing the data (for the most part) already in the game, and gives them to the player

I don't think that the game records the info about damage inflicted by specific units to other specific ones, e.g. T-34 tanks and Tiger tanks.

Moreover, the game would need to recognize smaller "wars" (operations and invasions, e.g. Fall Gelb) and somehow differentiate between casualties inflicted during a specific conflict - again, it should be done on unit level, because how else will the game be able to "report" that model x is effective?

Tonnage war could probably be done, because the game already records convoy and ship looses and NU changes. The text and effects would have to either be more generic or a good deal of devs' time should be spent on it. What happens if Argentina destroys some Brazilian convoys?

Don't get me wrong - it would be a cool feature if the devs implemented it, but I simply doubt that it will happen.

I can't recall any auto-promotion to be present in HoI2.

Really? I'm pretty sure that it's there.

Diplomacy is not really that important.

HOI3 proves you wrong. When Switzerland, Sweden and Benelux countries are fighting with Germany in 1938, then some intensive diplomatic work certainly happened:rofl:

 

[Austerlitz]

I would also like a feature that was in hoi 2 that told u the total number of divisons in the province without having to selct,it would make things lot easier especially barbarossa where my standard divs are 2 inf 1 art brigades ,and the schwerpunkt divs with 2inf,2art,1 at brigades/or 2 inf 2 art.

 

[serial]

5.from there on: I think one can take things too far. Be careful not to make ´simplification´ out of ´simplifying´ - if you know what i mean... If the aim is to reduce micro-management, long-priotity charts probably arent the way to go.

Saying "long-priority charts" you speak of "mission priority"?
If yes then you don't have to use it, whats the problem?

I´ll make a little excourse here:
Besides HoI3, i am currently playing ´Dragon Age: Origins´. It´s a RPG with a ´party´ (multiple characters to steer). Each person in your group has a set tactic for battle, which you can adjust to your hearts liking (it´s a really well implemented feature IMO). The thing is though: when you do change a tactic, and a character levels (gets new attacks, for example), that tactic wont adjust automatically anymore (it´s set on ´custom´), unless you set it back to ´auto´, reverting your prior changes. So you end up fiddling with the tactics each time a character levels. Or you do it like me, and dont adjust the tactics at all (only the stances, which are in both games), since fortunately, the standard ones seem pretty good and well thought out, given the vast array of choices.
So, i think at a certain level of detail, a well-thought out automatization achieves a lot more than over-customization. Specifically, this means, that those ´priority charts´ should be sort of an internal part of the game, internal to its AI sort of. I cant say, to what extent this is already true for HoI3 (but TACs do have ´ground attack´ as default mission, sort of, and fighters have ´intercept´ marked when opening the attack-screen the first time).

I played Dragon Age, it is hard to compare the amount of micromanagement in it with any HoI game and yet as you said that you preferred to leave it to the AI. However as you also said the condition for this is for it to be made well.
Now look at HoI3, and how many automatic systems are useless cause the AI does something wrong, and the same applies to aircraft, with control I'm trying to fix.
My previous experience, suggests that expecting the AI to take care of aircraft all on its own is unrealistic and probably the forums would soon be filed with complaints.

Why so much customization options?
Why not? It is not overwhelming, those who would not want to use it would not even have to see it (an expandable menu). Others would welcome this solution. The less space for decision to the AI the smaller chance of any errors. And even if you think you won't need one of the tools, it may turn out that you will turn towards it, because others are not enough.
You can't really decide will any feature be useful or not until its actually in the game.

I'm not sure if you are only against "mission priority" or all of "manual control simplifying".
Well to me it's a great feature, as i said I'm not sure how they will work out, especially all together, but the "mission priority" did give me the opportunity to extend the time on with the aircraft could operate on one order, and some much needed flexibility. A few guidelines and in theory a fleet can run for months.

Also, HoI3 is a competetive strategy game, whereas Dragon Age is a SP-RPG, which isnt all too hard (you play it for the story, not the challange, mostly). When there is a setting, no matter how minor its advantage and how tedious it to be achieved, in MP-wars (i assume), but also for crazy SP-players (i know - no not really ;P), it might feel nesseccary to use it. A buddy of mine was a compulsive Vic-POP-splitter - how annoying - in order to compete, i´d have to do it, too!

HoI3 a competitive strategy?
There are no ligs in HoI, most of the people play offline, and most of the player who play online because the AI is weak.
The only criteria under with it can be considered "competitive" is because it actually have multiplayer.

I'm not sure where your going with this.
Your complaining on the fact that there are some players with take huge effort to get a small improvement and are getting the upper hand?
But how a minor advantage, make it so much harder, and annoying for you?

Simplifying could make those concept not so crazy, and not annoy you so much.

Be thankful you got a tutorial. Victoria (+Revs) is a more complicated game than HoI and you were thrown pretty much into the middle of the Pacific with only a passing knowledge of swimming.

Yeah, be thankful, those tutorial things are so unusual in games those days.
Even very simple games have tutorials, and it only proves how unpolished Victoria was.

As a HoI2 player and a war history fan, I picked up at least the basics of HoI3 almost immediately. Btw, I'm not saying a better tutorial isn't needed, because it is, but just that I, and many others I believe, picked it up reasonably easily.

But the tutorial is not really for HoI previous players, but for newcomers.
As i said, the first contact (and i meant first with this kind of game) is overwhelming.

I don't think that the game records the info about damage inflicted by specific units to other specific ones, e.g. T-34 tanks and Tiger tanks.

Thats true, but its just the question of saving this data, and the amount of this data would be minor compared to all the data already in the game, even if considering that this kind of data would be stored for every design, and all kind of things i mentioned in the reports.

Moreover, the game would need to recognize smaller "wars" (operations and invasions, e.g. Fall Gelb)...

Whats the problem? Some thing of this sort is already in EU3.
How could it (for example) recognize it?
The amount of troops involved, the countries that are involved (attack on Jemen would not be considered major) and this is just the ones i could think of right now. However I do not consider the minor conflicts a must, so if there would be any problem, they could be dropped.
Also to clarify, saying minor conflicts i did not mean the invasion Monaco.
What I'm trying to say is that those would be conflicts that actually took place, also making it easier to script.

[...] and somehow differentiate between casualties inflicted during a specific conflict - again, it should be done on unit level, because how else will the game be able to "report" that model x is effective?

I'm not sure what exactly do you mean saying "unit level", you mean division?
And why do you think it is the only way?

Tonnage war could probably be done, because the game already records convoy and ship looses and NU changes. The text and effects would have to either be more generic or a good deal of devs' time should be spent on it. What happens if Argentina destroys some Brazilian convoys?

Maybe they should put more effort into major reports, and leave the more generic to the minors.

Don't get me wrong - it would be a cool feature if the devs implemented it, but I simply doubt that it will happen.

I pretty much doubt any of proposed features will be implemented, no developer had even posted in this thread yet, and even if he would then it would not change much. Maybe a few interface features, nothing more.

It may take a while, but from the technical side it's petty easy to make.
The only problem, as you mentioned could be performance, but i doubt it could be significant.

Really? I'm pretty sure that it's there.

Well i remember (or don't) otherwise, and its my word against your word.
I don't see the point of further discussion unless someone actually decides to check it out.

HOI3 proves you wrong. When Switzerland, Sweden and Benelux countries are fighting with Germany in 1938, then some intensive diplomatic work certainly happened:rofl:

Its not a big matter to me, and there are not many things to be done with the interface. On the mechanics of diplomacy i will probably have something to say in my future thread.

 

[unmerged(212309)]

It would be great if someone from PDOX could quickly look over this and explain what is feasible in this suggestion (ie cost effective). We must remember that if PDOX doesn't make money on it, they likely wont do it (yes I know they give out patches for free but this is to create a loyal fanbase, they would not put in this amount of work for a patch). The amount of work this would require would likely mean an expansion pack.

 

[serial]

It would be great if someone from PDOX could quickly look over this and explain what is feasible in this suggestion (ie cost effective). We must remember that if PDOX doesn't make money on it, they likely wont do it (yes I know they give out patches for free but this is to create a loyal fanbase, they would not put in this amount of work for a patch). The amount of work this would require would likely mean an expansion pack.

Well, pretty much every company gives patches out for free does this mean they do not care about money?

 

[Tormentor]

whuaa! great work! I hope someone from Paradox will listen to you!

 

[unmerged(212309)]

Well, pretty much every company gives patches out for free does this mean they do not care about money?

The only reason any company gives out patches for free is to create a loyal customer base (who will buy the product they put out later). I think maybe you misunderstood my post.

What I am saying is PDOX (or any company for that matter) has a formula, literal or figurative. It says if a job takes X amount of manhours (patching a game), it should make Y amount of profit (loyal, repeat customers). Yes they give out patches for free, but what would be the cost in lost repeat customers if they did not fix their games?

Bottom line: they likely will not put in even close to this amount of work for a patch.