Hearts of Iron 3- My suggestions and conclusions- TECHNOLOGY part 2
9. SIMULATING DIFFERENCES IN COUNTRIES BEHAVIOR AND OTHER AFFECTING FACTORS
The system I came up with would basically determine the speed of research depending on what the player and opponent did but it does not replicate the attributes of different countries.
Some countries behaved differently under same circumstances (presumed by my system), some factors are gone from the equation and for sake of the balance, frame rate as well as because of (maybe) lacks in knowledge. Here I will discuss those factors with may or may not be needed and propose a solution.
9.1 Country stance
9.1.1 Simplicity and Performance
“Simplicity and performance” refers to the stance that a country takes in choosing between simple (susceptible for mass production) or more quality driven (not to how well a country is adapted for mass production). This is what would make counties choose between Sherman, T-34 (simplicity) or Tiger, Panther (performance). Well now my system does not creating new (not existing) designs so…
9.1.1.1 Trigger modification
First and (I originally thought about) is lower trigger level for heavier designs (performance) and higher (simplicity), however I’m not sure wouldn’t it be kind of a cheat, or even would it actually do its job (just I don’t know what the consequences can be without testing, however it may help solve this problem.
9.1.1.2 Stats modification
The second way would require the modifying stats of the designs depending on the stance.
The designs that would normally be developed in the time like e.g. Panther would have properties more similar to Sherman but maybe with some German “trademarks”.
9.1.2 Quality or Quantity
It is another proposition for shaping countries preference and no it is not the same thing as 9,1,1.It would determine how a single design is produced modifying its statistics. On one side of the spectrum there would be 50-year warranty parts and on the other crude welding like those on the T-34.
All would have their good and bad sides (it would affect production cost, time and statistics). Some would be totally unpractical (like full quality), but the point is to make at least two worth selecting. The effect of this as I would see it would not be very significant, the statistics would be only slightly affected and the biggest change would be in cost and time.
-13-
9.2 The German problem
9.2.1 Choice - PROBLEM
Germany, the country most commonly associated with quality (in WWII) is the cause of a major problem. In the Polish and French campaign the majority of German tank forces where still Panzer I and II’s and they consisted of a large portion of Barbarossa’s lineup and until the appearance of the Tiger (late 1942) didn't have much in common with quality and then they suddenly made the change from a relatively light 25t Panzer IV G/H to a 45t Panther?
There were no gradual signs of this ongoing transition, the Germans did produce more and more heavier designs like PZIII and PZIV at the expense of PZI and II’s but most majors had taken this kind of steps years before and the mainstream rival designs were still heavier (M3, M4, T-34) and then without a warning the Panther and Tiger come out.
9.2.2 Why? - SOLUTION.
The Panther was originally designed to match the T-34 and adapt the innovations it provided, but the project was delayed because of Hitler who did not want the Panther to resemble (at least on the visual side) the T-34 and it is probably because of those interventions that the Panther was such a heavy design, it was simply a matter of choice.
9.2.3 How to control it? - SOLUTION.
If it was a matter of choice then how to control it? Both will have their good and bad side and the transition would add some penalties with would be really severe if the country does not have enough skill in this field.
I did thought about making something similar to the slider with would decide on what side of the spectrum a country is but the example displayed above seems to have exposed that it was faulty.
9.2.4 Relative quality - SOLUTION.
Quality is relative the tank that was synonymous to quality in 1940 could be scrap in 1941 and this time difference is what distinguishes the country preferring (or if it’s a matter of inability it doesn’t matter) quality and quantity.
After the appearance of the Panther every major country did produce new designs to counter their effect like IS-2, T-34/85, Sherman Firefly, Pershing etc.
9.2.5 Technological skill - SOLUTION.
Well it is obvious that the skill that a country possesses in technology will also matter but it is quite surprising how much off the development of research depended on determinism rather than the relative abilities of the scientific elite.
There was not one case during the war (maybe I’m a little over simplifying) where a one of the country defined as a major (and probably many minors also) were not able to provide some counter-measure against a technology and later replicate it (in a period of 1-2 years) despite all those differences in skill the problems were almost exclusively of other nature (e.g. industry connected).
9.2.6 None-tech related research - SOLUTION.
Now this phrase may sound like it would deny itself, but it is the distinction between research concentrating more on the technic then an actual technological breakthrough, now let me give you an example to shed some little light on the matter:
Adding more armor to tank chassis does not require any (or almost) work on the technic of applying it, creating new chassis (when tank have been already developed) does require some technic development but most tools are already out there. Now switching conventional engine into a jet one (researching that engine) is an invention, requires lots of research.
Distinguishing this (with is as hard as getting some information and adding one line to every research item) would allow to categorize research by the time it takes to develop. Those times would be more like guidelines they would not be the same for items of the same category. Technical items would also be far more susceptible for high “start point”.
The most important role of this division would be determining with research is affected by with factors. Technological research would be more affected by technological skill and technical by e.g. practical. The less of both the faster the research.
I’m not sure is this division necessary, but if done right it would lead to far more realistic (better) outcomes.
-14-
9.3 The “Hetzer” problem
9.3.1 Maus vs. Hetzer - PROBLEM.
The Hetzer is an example of a great efficient design that not only very effective in battle but also extremely reliable, cheap and easy to produce, somewhat of a German T-34.
Now you might say it was caused by German desperate war situation and their need for increasing numbers (and it is probably one of the reasons), with could be simulated with Germans leaning towards “quantity”. But how is that consistent with the fact that the Germans did produce even heavier designs like ridiculous “Jagdtiger” or “Maus”, this suggests that they did go even deeper into “quality”.
Well the obvious explanation is the Czech factory (or factories) that did produce designs based on PzKpfw 38(t) were not capable of producing designs based on a larger chassis (I don’t think the simple fact of the delay of production would stop them in this case), now this could be replicated by distinguishing different sizes of factories but is it not too much detail?
NOTE:
Considering how much would my production system would reduce micromanagement (however I need to analyze It some more and I will when I will be writing on production), maybe it worth it? The production would be more difficult to set but would not be changed constantly as it is now (it can be set in series of course but that does not work for me).
If the Germans would have no choice then they would continue producing that design instead of switching to heavier ones and continue down that path of development, however there is another way.
9.3.2 Development patterns by quality and mass production - SOLUTION.
I had an idea to divide designs developed (including only tanks) between quality (like Pershing, Panther, Tiger) and mass production (like Sherman, T-34, Panzer IV, Hetzer), they would be developed parallelly and the speed of their development would depend on is a county would be more into Quality or Mass production (9,1), However I’m not sure is it not only unnecessary complication of the game and would it serve any actual porpoise, so I’m just putting it out there as a possibility.
9.4 The Japanese problem
9.4.1 The islander - PROBLEM.
Another problem is Japan with as a highly developed country (at least in therms of industry) with advance technology, however have fallen far behind in tank.
Well now the first “part” (as ill call it) of Japans tech development works great with my system, they war experience in China they did not encounter many tanks, they were dominating in every field with did slow their research, however fighting the USA they continued to build light designs.
The probable reason is the nature of the fighting that took place through the majority of war with took place on islands, mainly in the jungle, or hills with seriously impaired the effectiveness of tanks.
In actuality it did impact Japanese research and they did produce something similar to the Sherman in performance, however most of the designs developed because of the appearance of the Sherman were produced in very small numbers or even get passed the prototype phase, but why?
Well again, difficult terrain, the islander nature of Japan with made it impossible to attack without a strong navy with did put heavy emphasis on naval and air production.
9.4.2 Terrain penalty - SOLUTION.
Since the only data collected is the “time of exposure” there is no way of determining whether it is affected by anything, but there is a simple solution.
The only thing required here is the information on with type of terrain a battle was fought and this would cause the “time of exposure” to get a penalty, so that more time would be required for the trigger to go off (maybe it should be true for all terrain type).
This penalty should not be high (a high penalty could serve as a guide for the AI), because the fact that the Japanese ignored tank production so much was far more a matter of choice then technology limitations and its small impact.
-15-
9.5 The start point
9.5.1 - PROBLEM.
The start point is the spot in technology development from with a country enters the game, the fact is that sometimes (luck, skill) countries starting from scratch do create very successful designs (6,1,5).
Sometimes it’s normal, if a technology is new then there is no experience in that field and the best one (in that realm) is often the lucky one (skillful also).
However it did happen quite often e.g. in 1940 a country with 1918 tech (In HoI therms) had actually deployed 1938 technology.
Well the state of German technology before the war is a great example of both, because of the restrictions laid by the treaty of Versaille any kind of hardware had to (and was) be developed just a few years before the start of the war and yet they were initially extremely successful in almost all field. Many historians actually consider it an advantage, the rest of the major countries were restrained by convention with after with after the I WW (where tanks took their first steps) seen as an addition not the main force. Twenty years of development and the technology finally allowed for the true potential of the tank to be unleashed, but the misconceptions of the “Trench war” (there was no way of testing it) caused them to be largely underestimated. However the Germans (lost the war, tried to get the edge) did correctly anticipated that the tank will play the leading role in the war.
Now in most cases this can be solved by simply setting the tech tree accordingly before the start with is done now anyway.
9.5.2 Tech tree start point - SOLUTION.
But what if it occurs during a game?
Here are some propositions:
- Special bonus if the player starts investing in an area (very basic, partial and not elastic solution).
- Historical accurate start point (for history fans).
- Random picked start point (for sandbox fans).
- Start point dependent on skill in a closely connected field (script) computed by probability, it would also determine the values of skill in the new field. The basic idea is to allow for steps in one way or another (dependent on players actions, historical predetermination and some random chance).
The last one is my favorite and it is not hard to make (harder than the rest, but they don’t require almost any thought at all). Now this system cannot reward (and in majority of cases it didn’t) neglecting an area and to ensure that no complicated math is involved. Now here are some guidelines:
-The tech tree start point should never be higher or the same as the best in the competition and even in best scenario should be behind them.
-It should be dependent on skill as well as luck (chance).
-Close to historical outcome (unless the player modifies the skill in any meaningful way).
-The goal is for it to be a possibility but not a potential research technic it should not be profitable to ignore an area.
And that’s about all I can think of right now.
9.6 Design perception
9.6.1 Prejudice - PROBLEM.
The way in with a design was perceived determined what impact it had on research, if a country (or rather its leadership) does not see the worth of a design then how good it is does not make any difference. It would be very useful in directing AI behavior (production) depending on the perception (internally), but it was designed as an addition to the Trigger system.
I am not entirely sure would it really be needed (for the trigger system), but I will write about it just in case. It would describe how a country sees a technology, design, tactic (local or foreign) and this would determine what kind of course of action it takes.
9.6.2 Rating - SOLUTION.
The subject would be rated in two ways, before and after it had been tested/encountered, (again) to not put much load on the computer those values would be scripted and would depend on what kind of designs/tactics etc. (similarly to the trigger system) it would encounter.
Before the subject would be tested/encountered it would have the same value for every country (based on the one from with the design etc. originates from) it would have informative value (the second values would only state that it was not tested) more than any actual impact (therefore maybe unnecessary).
9.6.3 Perception = trigger - SOLUTION.
The design perception is very closely related to the triggers and resembles many (or even most) of their features, however it is not the same. I said I’m just putting it out there maybe it could be adapted in one way or another, just something to consider.
-16-
9.7 Status
9.7.1 - SOLUTION.
Status would be another script with would affect the predetermined triggers by a percentage according to what it would be.
9.7.2 Campaign status - SOLUTION.
I did mention in the beginning. It would be really simple and (at least on its own) probably would consume only trace amounts of processing power. It would have a couple levels of intensity (maybe 4-6) and would at most go maybe 20% both ways modifying the basic impact of the trigger design.
How would it be estimated?
How would this status be estimated?
I have a couple of ideas, don’t know with would actually estimate the campaign status:
1.Counting provinces lost and gained- it would be relative to the theatre size it concerns (or maybe some other distinction).
2.Victory points lost/taken- related to the number of VP in a theatre or a conquered country, but maybe that could be too little to go on.
3.Battles won, battle lost ratio- Also could be related to a theatre size. 10 battles won on the Balkans is practically won war, 10 battles on the eastern front is practically a stalemate.
4.Comparing army strength- It would work like something of estimated enemy strength, but it would compare the two armies from a set point in time (often beginning) to present. This is probably the most accurate way, if compared strengths of armies would rise in favor of the player controlled country it would be progress.
This data could also serve as a guide for AI behavior.
9.7.3 Campaign prognosis - SOLUTION.
It would be based on the same data, but with some additions.
I would take the Compared strength and compare the industry capacity as well as manpower reserves of both countries. It would be more conclusive then the status, so it could be a better tool to determine the research speed bonus or penalty.
9.7.4 War losing bonus - PROBLEM and SOLUTION.
The many amazing and sometimes insane inventions of the scientists of the late war Germany was not solely an effect of their skill and ingenuity, but also the doing of their desperation (with is a more extreme form of need
). The closer Germany was to defeat the more effort was being put into research to compensate for the deficiencies in other areas, however none of those “Wundewaffe’s” turned out to have any significant (from various reasons) impact on the course of war.
The point is to add a bonus to countries that are losing the war (majors) if the disadvantage they are facing is very severe (like in German situation since 1943). It is hard to estimate how large it should be, maybe 15-20%, maybe it should be relative but not in percentage. The hard war situation would have to persist for some time in order for this to take into effect.
9.7.5 Air status - SOLUTION.
The air status would gather the data required for some special air related triggers like those for e.g. strategic bombing counter measures (not aircraft related). It would also serve as information for the player and the AI. The trigger for e.g. “bombing proof factories” would be simple a preset number of damaged IC.
-17-
OTHER SYSTEMS ASOCCIATED WITH TECHNOLOGY
10. PRODUCTION FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TECHNOLOGY
10.1 Practical- Everything or nothing
As I said at the beginning is the most important part of the process of improving production is practical (changing economic policy would affect crude raise of numbers the most). I had reached a conclusion (I’m not sure correct) that countries (excluding the initial adaptation to production) do make hardly any effort to improve numbers before they switch to war economy.
USA, Britain, Soviet Union all those countries did (more or less) make the transition to war economy as soon as their entered the war (Soviet Union even before he war).
On the other hands Germany did not undergo this change right until the early 1943 and before then even when the tide was turning against Germany there were still little efforts to simplify designs, as well as on the factory side, improving methods of production seemed to go over an even deeper stagnation.
This tells us that probably the production had to reach very high numbers (with was provided by the transition to war economy and both can be easy scripted) for the production methods to be severely improved and also did increased efforts to simplify designs to be more suitable for mass production, the other explanation is an error by the leadership (with was quite common in case of Germany). It is obvious that the larger the number of produced tanks, airplanes etc. the bigger the experience and easier improvements of the process, but do the production figures really need to reach such high numbers to start making a difference?
Both options seem pretty odd and both would be easy to add, the first one would provide a more historical outcome.
10.2 Combat experience
Combat experience as I said at the beginning would over time produce design simplifications.
However if those simplifications would be associated with performance improvement (new model of tank) then it could not occur if the change would be significant. The alternative is setting production upgrades independently of production ones. If the player would not have a trigger
10.3 Design types experience
The general idea here was very good, but the division was very stiff, artificial, researching or producing of e.g. tanks did not add any experience to tank destroyers etc. and that I would like changed. Both do share many similarities and should at least partially (50-30%?) affect the other.
-18-
11. UPGRADE SYSTEM
11.1 Upgrading
11.1.1 What if?
The technology system is the place to discuss “obsolescent deigns”, however I can’t discuss it without introducing my upgrade system (with I intended to do in the production part).
Upgrading of units is very cheap compared to normal unit cost and in consequence (at least that’s my impression) the impact caused by the upgrade is minimal compared to what it could be.
There were many weapons with if deployed in high numbers could change the course of war (not necessarily win it) and by neglecting the importance of hardware the game is taking away the chance to exploit those opportunities. There were only 400 000 STG-44 produced, what would happen if you could equip the whole army?
The system would be based on constant production, the produced equipment would be directed to create new divisions, some reinforcements and some for upgrades and the designs that would be exchanged for a better model would not magically disappear.
11.1.2 Difficulties
Introducing of this system would cause some problems. Certainly the original one was much more transparent and did not require much of work and however it did ignore a very important part of war. Production could go (for the most part) similar the original system, the difference would be that the player would have to prioritize between upgrades, reinforcements and forming new divisions.
NOTE:
More on this system in the thread concerning production.
11.2 Obsolescent design
This is something I would really like to see in HoI. The therm obsolescent applies to a designs with are outclassed so badly that it takes huge losses and is totally ineffective against the enemy leading design, so that it should be retired (about with the player would be informed about by a report). Now this is especially true for tanks which did sometimes turn from an efficient design into a useless one in year. But instead retiring those e.g. Panzer II, why not modify the supper structure and fit 105mm howitzer (Wespe) for a small portion of the cost? This could be done either within the report, or similar to the new unit upgrade.
This kind of event could also serve as a trigger, sometimes a new use for the design was found only because the previous was ineffective.
-19-
12. DIVERSITY
12.1 Upsides/Downsides
Every design had their upsides and downsides and distinguished in one way or another, production cost, difficulty of repairs, performance in different terrain, speed, full consumption, range, not only combat stats. You will find none of that in Hearts of Iron, designs are totally generic and do not resemble most designs in almost anything.
12.1.1 Tiger
One of the most annoying (to me) examples of this is the Tiger. I would far more rather to see a Tiger that would fight like a Tiger and pay for it 3 or 4 times as much as for a Panzer IV, then to have this colorless, shapeless something that in HoI is called a Tiger. In Hearts of Iron, the Tiger (with was designed as a break through tank) is worse in offensive then Panzer IV. I do not deny that heavy tanks did excel in defensive, but the Tiger not good as a Panzer IV in offence!?
I would want every design to more or less resemble what they actually were not only in name.
12.2 Unsuccessful designs
War produced some unsuccessful tactics, features, designs and sometimes whole blind alleys of technology development with where faults where often brutally exposed by war and those designs I would like to add into the game.
12.2.1 Why?
The main idea that made me propose this is the fact that I wanted to make standardization an issue, also to add more choice and some unpredictability. How would it manifest you ask?
Well if the enemy would attack in a point in with that feral design is stationed then it may put a hole in your lines (that’s the theory).
12.3 Childhood disease
I’m not sure is this the correct therm in English, but it is meant to describe the severe problems that designs like Panther suffered on their debut, because they were rushed into production at expense of (especially) the prototype phase. This would another way of improving immersion and depth.
It could be as simple as a large penalty for the first month (or so) of combat (shorter for lighter deigns). I would have it adapted to every design individually or maybe even make an elastic system with would make the problems increase along with the speed of research and drop of skill.
-20-
13. SINGLE PART- MULTIPLE DESIGNS
13.1 Kind of logical…
In developers diaries it was said that in HoI technological system one part could be used in many different designs and not researched separately for every single one of them, it sounded great it was logical, realistic and they kept the promise, kind of. It did apply only in some cases and it was rally annoying (at least to me) that I had to e.g. develop separately the same rifles for infantry, mortised and cavalry. Why did the developers do that? Well I think for better balancing and to give more things for the player to do, but I don’t like that idea.
13.2 Logical
What I would do is keep the original idea and go all the way with it, no half-measures to improve balance or complicate he tree. When the player develops 7,5cm PaK 40, then I can use it in Panzer IV, StuG III and every other design that used.
13.3 The stop-gap
Of course the PaK 40 and KwK 40 is not exactly the same and development of the method to fit an anti-tank gun into a tank torrent or superstructure (e.g. 30 day research), those would often serve as the stop-gap I talked about, a quick (partial) remedy for a desperate situation.
-21-
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.
-22-
STATISTICS
16. DESIGN STATISTICS SUGGESTIONS
The excuse
Johan said in an interview on Hearts of Iron 3 that no matter what the unit statistics will be people will be unsatisfied. Before the premier of the game I didn’t know what he precisely meant by that, but it became quite obvious after the game shipped. It was an excuse- “if I can’t satisfy everyone why bother trying?”. Well it is true that you can’t satisfy everyone and it seems that guys from Paradox followed this philosophy designing most of the game (the easy way I mentioned). Those statistics were as generic as they possibly could be, every new model +1 to statistics, also designs of certain types did often cross the line of performance “traditionally” reserved for another with I also would like to see.
I could list what I think is wrong about every single design but it would be only a waste of time. I did already state what I want from the system and the rest of information’s that are needed to do this is in the encyclopedias, history books or even on the internet, I will however add my suggestions (mainly) on some design types.
16.1 General aircraft suggestion
I will make this short. This is more of a combat system. I don’t exactly know what I should expect from the air force. The air force is definitely underpowered (except strategic bombings with are quite the opposite) in HoI3, the aircraft are taking ridiculously high losses compared to other branches (they have to be constantly monitored), often after a few weeks of fighting the air force can be almost completely wiped out after with it require months to recover (if you don’t want to put whole of your IC into it). I often witnessed situation in with attacking a country with almost full air supremacy as well as advantage in design and still took very high losses (with air cover).
On the other side they seem to swings the battle a fair amount but is it enough? After all it is the air force that is said to have contributed to the majority of destroyed Tiger tanks (along with their own crews). It does not seem to resemble the power of the Luftwaffe (with was barely hanging to air superiority) attack on the Soviets assaulting the German retreat from Kursk, with was so fierce that it alone stopped the advance and dealt so high losses to the enemy that they needed to retreat and regroup (effectively saving those units from being destroyed and the front from collapsing).
Probably one of the reasons why the air force seems so weak is the fact that land units (especially equipment) do not take almost any losses.
Summarizing my very general view is that if you can win the war without using the air force, then something is terribly wrong.
16.2 Multirole
Multiroles in Hearts of Iron 3 were weaker in intercepting then interceptors and were very weak in ground attack the only major advantage they had over Interceptors was longer range. It is logical that a specialized aircraft would carry out its tasks better then a multirole, but in reality things were often different. FW-190 in HoI was an multirole and in reality it was superior in BF-109 as an interceptor and in the same time was a very good ground attack aircraft. Again the stats of designs have nothing to do with what they actually were with is a major issue for me.
16.3 Strategic bombings
Strategic bombings are definitely overpowered, there effect should last longer, but be nowhere near as devastating. More on this in the combat system.
16.4 General tank suggestion
Tank statistics is a controversial matter. Relatively they were maybe more or less okay, but they did not pack the punch you would expect them to do. They did beat infantry (did take them some time) but this is too not what you would expect. The problem is not necessarily their stats, but there use. Blitzkrieg and most (or all) of the effective tank tactics developed during the war were all about massing huge amounts (of not only) armor in one place and attacking a weak spot in order to achieve a breakthrough.
Now the stacking penalty and the frontage system make this totally impractical and even distribution of division on the front makes the game look more like the good old fashioned trench war. The battle of Kursk seems to deny the sense of existence of those two concepts. Yes it was a German failure, yes they did advance only a few miles but it had nothing to do with the stacking penalty or frontage system and all to do with bad planning. After all Manstein did not shout-: “Cancel this operation, the stacking penalty is too great!!! It will be the end of Germany!!!”. Actually considering that the Soviet Union had the numeric superiority Zhukov should have said (considering what the SP and FS implicate):- “We need to have less troops then Germans!!! Disperse the division or it will be the end of Soviet Russia and our enlightened leader Stalin will need to flee to Brazil!!!”.
I do not deny that the stacking penalty exists and the basics assumptions are correct, the less the troops the better coordinated they are, but numeric superiority should be almost always better (excluding other factors).
I very much doubt that (judging on the example of battle of Kursk) the frontage system was a problem there. I do not possess the knowledge with would allow me to exclude it completely, but (at least it seem) one way or another impact was not significant (nowhere near what you can see in HoI).
I realize that the stackin penalty is designed to stop super-stacking on e.g. island or insignificant fronts like North Africa etc. and maybe bring some more stability to the fronts, however this system has so many draw backs that I think this effect should be achieved in a different way.
I did slip into combat system too much, more on this in the combat system thread.
-23-
16.5 Heavy tanks
I did already talk about Tiger, but this problem concerns many heavy tanks, some of them would more or less match the stats that developers did determine for them, but I don’t understand why did Paradox chose the way they did. To Me It is obvious that what makes people fascinated in heavy tanks was how they excelled in combat and dominated other tanks (of course had also many drawbacks) and not how did some unsuccessful designs perform.
16.6 Tank destroyers
Tank destroyers were obviously designed for tank destroying, they were not as good against infantry or strong points as artillery but in HoI they have a ridiculously low soft attack, maybe it should not be drastically higher but right now it is too low.
16.7 The Eighty-eight
The 88 is an example of a weapon with was designed for one purpose as a total surprise exceled in a totally different field. Thanks to this the Germans always were “shock-proof” in therms of tanks throughout the war. It was still only a stop-gap, but it reduced the impact of any tank design was reduced.
The point is that these kinds of events are extremely pro-immersive.
16.8 Open top/close top
In spite of what you may think I won’t be talking about the advantages and disadvantages of the cabriolet (the wind in the face, feeling for freedom, ups), but about sp-artillery, tank destroyers etc. and the significant difference in toughness and defensiveness between open top and close top (artillery, less because it is mostly behind the front).
16.9 Bizarre statistics in action
Most of the statistics for different design types look sensible, but the gameplay seems to not go the way that the stats would suggest it. The Jahda vs. Dermeister is a fine example of that. The paratroopers have statistics with would suggest that they will behave the way they should but it turned out that paratroopers were able to stop state of the art tanks. I have some suggestions for it with may make it work more like it should. I planned to discuss this in the combat section, but I will also present it shortly here.
16.9.1 Breaking point
Breaking point is very important for my vision of the combat system. Everything has a breaking point, holds one in one piece and at a certain point then suddenly collapses. The same can be applied to combat a division puts out stiff resistance and then finally breaks. When this happens the defender is pushed until the attack is out of momentum (also helping to determine when a design is no longer effective).
16.9.2 Strengths and weaknesses
Maybe there is some kind of system of strengths of weaknesses and I would guess that it is the distinction between hard and soft attack, but the impact is too insignificant. I’m not really sure how well it works but it is quite a good system, but perhaps (!) there is more to this than just hardness and softness in with case I would propose more detailed system (depending on designs properties not only its class).
The point is to make something of an advanced rock, paper, scissors. Infantry vs. tank division (with combined arms would win even if significantly outnumbered) equals high losses for the infantry and rapid retreat (the amount of anti-tank weaponry determines how high tank losses will be) etc.
Again HoI system seems to do it but the effect is not as significant as it should.
-24-
TEASER
17. The teaser– intelligence
17.1 When and where
My next thread will be (in all probability) on intelligence and will also (in all probability) be far shorter than this one. Johan said in an interview on HoI3 (and I’m paraphrasing) –“Hearts of Iron is the only serious grand strategy game because all the others are turn based and so on and are missing on the most key aspect of war with is “when”. I could not agree more, but is “when” really so crucial in HoI series? I would say no, especially that (thanks to the frontage system) where is even less important.
17.2 Overview
Well I want to make when and where very important and the first step to allow this is my intelligence system. The basic concept is to make the player (and the AI) aware of what the opponent is (could be) planning and let him prepare for it. This data would not be 100% reliable it could be also deceiving (intelligence as a weapon) and it would be based on probability. It would be associated with a system I called “detailed province value” with would determine the worthiness of attack on a province based on many different factors (including intelligence data) with would make it crystal clear where are the likely places of enemy and player attack.
Of course this system could not work alone, without changes in the combat system it would not really matter (in most cases) where the attack starts. Without changes to the production system a bad choice in therms of attack or defense could end in losing the war…
17.3 My goal
…My goal is completely the opposite. I did already list my goals concerning the individual threads (interface now technology), but I never before stated what is my goal with this entire series of threads. What I am trying to achieve with all those systems is to make the severe blows with shift the front even several hundred miles survivable and recoverable. In historical circumstances I would want to see the Soviet Union push back the Germans even they managed to reach the Volga.
And this would be all everything for this edition of “MY SUGGESTIONS AND CONCLUSION” thread.
Thank you for your attention and good night (sleep tight)
.
-25-