HOI 4: What do you want to see?

[Starcraftmazter]

Minor nations (eg. hungary, romania, bulgaria, finland) just don't seem to matter anymore. They seem a lot more of a drag than a useful asset. This was somewhat better in hoi2 I think because of blueprint sharing - but this can't happen in hoi3. And that's the other thing, the research sharing system while makes good sense on the surface, does not seem particularly useful in a single-player game.

The ability to create custom resource dumps of arbitrary size to prepare for invasions, mitigate possible encirclements, correct inadequate behaviour in the supply system at times.

The naval battle system seems unrealistic and silly because it always comes down to mega stacks of carriers. When in WW2 was there ever a naval battle with 20 carriers on each side? Maybe CAGs shouldn't get such generous stacking penalties to allow this.

I would really really like to be able to do this:
1. Bring up some sort of army reorganisation screen
2. Get well presented information about the numbers of each brigade.
3. Be able to very easily and quickly reorganise all brigades by specifying a template
- So for instance, the soviet union has massive amounts of infantry and other stuff, after I can form 5 brigade units, I just want to say, "right, reorganise every piece of infantry and artillery into divisions comprising of x INF and x ART brigades."
4. Organise the control structure in some way, - ie. "then put x of each such division into a corps, and y such corps into an army".

The sheer amount of hours it takes to build the required divisions and reorganise the control structure is a daunting exercise for any major, and for USSR it is like being sent to a gulag
So if there was an extremely simple and powerful way to do it as outlined above, that would be really good!

 

[GreatStuff]

I'd like to see better conditions for multiplayer, the game could be divided into a SP mode and a MP one, sacrificing historical accuracy for balance purposes.Maybe even some MP tournaments organised by Paradox?

 

[Munin]

Modern day scenario!

Plenty of options: Possible conflict between Russia and NATO countries because of melting ice caps, north korea goes nuts!, China decides to take Taiwan by force => US has to react, Russia georgia war and Nato intervention in Georgia, EU-Russia war because Ukraine joins the EU, Play Pakistan to use its intelligence agency to help the taliban fight NATO in Afghanistan and help bin laden hide, Play Iran to see if you can make a nuclear warhead without having a war with Isreal and Western nations, War for the Falklands part II, Play Khadaffi/Mubarrak and see if you can beat the rebels (now mubarrak will have at least something to do in his prison if he can get his hands on this game) ...

WWII is fun, but there comes a time that even HOI needs to move on and try something new. Plenty of wars and possible wars, you guys already showed that with one of your new naval games
Also: an improvement of the game engine to make it run even more smoothly and have less game crashes.

 

[nimrod123]

The sheer amount of hours it takes to build the required divisions and reorganise the control structure is a daunting exercise for any major, and for USSR it is like being sent to a gulag
So if there was an extremely simple and powerful way to do it as outlined above, that would be really good!

general consenses on the USSR (as far as i have seen) is to simply disband the lot and restart


oh! oh! oh! can we also have that darkest hour thing when holding down ctrl or shift in the deploment window auto groups the units you select? please!

 

[Alex_brunius]

The naval battle system seems unrealistic and silly because it always comes down to mega stacks of carriers. When in WW2 was there ever a naval battle with 20 carriers on each side? Maybe CAGs shouldn't get such generous stacking penalties to allow this.

20 Carriers on each side would give a stacking penalty of 40 CAGs * 2.5% each = -100% efficieny

So you'll never see such a stack victorious in a HoI3 Naval battle either...

 

[unmerged(185411)]

I would like to see a better, more historic feeling interface, a longer timeline (say from 1929 to 1955 or so at least) and maybe some movies where they do the nazi salute or something. Larger formations where you can put support brigades like at least 6 or 7, and especially the counters need work. Right now, when you zoom in the counters get bigger. I don't like that. I would like to see provinces with borders you can turn off or no provinces at all, and battle lines, battle lines don't just follow provinces in real life. And im sick of units retreating after thev'e lost like 3 men. 3 MEN ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!! out of 12,000 men they lose 3 men ffs and their retreating. I think that there are too many modifiers, most people would disagree with me here, but it seems like at times people are just playing a game of modifiers, Reduce the stack penalty for sure (sometimes sheer weight of numbers DOES work). Air units should not cost a whopping 15 IC for interceptors, (while battleships cost like what, 10) ANd one final demand, well 2. Firstly, some music that sounds like war not crap that you put your baby to sleep with, and also, Better MP support, so that people don't have so many problems getting online. ONe version, one world, one game, everyone can play.

 

[Secret Master]

And im sick of units retreating after thev'e lost like 3 men. 3 MEN ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!!! out of 12,000 men they lose 3 men ffs and their retreating.

Units never retreat without a reason. Sounds like the ORG of those units is garbage OR they are in reserve and everyone else retreats, taking them along with.

Air units should not cost a whopping 15 IC for interceptors, (while battleships cost like what, 10)

You do know that INT takes many less days than a BB, right? The length of time needed to build those units means that the BB costs over twice the IC of the INT. It's 15 IC per day versus 10 IC per day. That's not the same thing as an INT costing a total of 15 IC and a BB costing a total of 10 IC. That would be stupid and would make navies ultra cheap (which they aren't).

 

[griswolds686]

Not sure if this has been mentioned but here goes:

Link the reinforcement rate and cost to the production IC and cost and practical. This would eliminate the cheesiness of reserve exploit. If a tank division gets down to 99% strength, it should take 99% of the production cost and time to get it back to strength.

Also, lets see a difference between manpower and equipment.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Air units should not cost a whopping 15 IC for interceptors, (while battleships cost like what, 10)

Thats because every air "unit" represents 100 airplanes.

So just using the base industrial cost you actually get 224 airplanes for the cost of one battleship. Probably even more since they are cheap to reinforce with new airplanes and since airplane practicals that reduce cost are much easier and quicker to get then battleship practicals.

Link the reinforcement rate and cost to the production IC and cost and practical. This would eliminate the cheesiness of reserve exploit. If a tank division gets down to 99% strength, it should take 99% of the production cost and time to get it back to strength.

And instead people would complain that the 25% strength tanks they built as reserves for 100 IC in one year takes 100 IC in reinforcement for 3 years just to reach 100%. strength

YES thats how much it would cost.

 

[The Cabl3 Guy]

I'd like an easier way of microing convoys and resources.
I mean in the case of creating a supply or resource convoy it is really confusing unless you've already memorized what ports you want to use.
Also going through a long list is annoying because sometimes I don't see the port name at first.
The auto thing works well but what if I want to make an alternate path so they don't get sunk by the opposing navy?

 

[Secret Master]

And instead people would complain that the 25% strength tanks they built as reserves for 100 IC in one year takes 100 IC in reinforcement for 3 years just to reach 100%. strength

YES thats how much it would cost.

Not to mention it would make reserves pointless.

Reserves can be exploited horribly, but they should have a place in the game as a balanced option. I'm not sure how I would do it, but I wouldn't want it to become a pointless option anymore than I want it to be a no-brainer.

 

[nimrod123]

Not to mention it would make reserves pointless.

Reserves can be exploited horribly, but they should have a place in the game as a balanced option. I'm not sure how I would do it, but I wouldn't want it to become a pointless option anymore than I want it to be a no-brainer.

maybe experince and ORG penalties (have an attached moddifer to reserve units?) removeing the penalties after X amount of combat as they become battle hardened

 

[griswolds686]

Not to mention it would make reserves pointless.

Reserves can be exploited horribly, but they should have a place in the game as a balanced option. I'm not sure how I would do it, but I wouldn't want it to become a pointless option anymore than I want it to be a no-brainer.

The option is totally different from reserves. You would rather leave reinforcement broken and fix the reserve issue?

As it is now a unit getting shattered 1.) never happens and 2.) isnt a big deal b/c in a few weeks a brand new division can be built for a fraction of the original cost. Its a pretty big issue IMO...always has been. You would have to adjust reserves of course but that is a much smaller problem.

 

[Henri]

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but I would like pro-made optimum OOBs so I don't have to spend 2 hours re-doing the OOB when I start a game. This could probably be done NOW, if some kind expert simply poseted a saved game with say the German 1939 OOB already prepared.

And 64-bit multicore would be nice too.

And maybe some training games, which would be small games where one has to practice some of the stuff in the game. For example, bunker-busting, a defense in depth, making a pocket - you get the idea. Even for an experienced wargamer, this game is hard to master.

Henri

PS: And BTW, the multicore support that For the Motherland introduces DOES increase the speed considerably. For instance loading the game is at least 5 times faster on my I7 8-thread computer. I bought FTM for about $4 yesterday on Impulse (you need Semper Fi already installed).

 

[griswolds686]

And instead people would complain that the 25% strength tanks they built as reserves for 100 IC in one year takes 100 IC in reinforcement for 3 years just to reach 100%. strength

YES thats how much it would cost.

Your making a silly defense for a broken mechanism. How many "reserve" armor divisions were fielded in WW2? Or, for that matter, why didn't Hitler build 25 panzer divisions in reserve than select the "Krupp reserve exploit" decision and field 10 times as many tanks?

1- With reinforcement the way it is now you never have to worry about a war of attrition. IRL the Heer was reduced to 3/4 of its Strength on the Eastern Front after the opening campaign. In HOI's current form you can burn through a 1000 manpower because it is too easy to reinforce the front. Lose 100 tanks and 5000men in a horrible counter attack? No worries..tomorrow all will be replaced at 1/4 charge See what I mean? Its broke. This is the main reason I advocate this...not for reserves sake.

2- Reserve divisions aren't built when you want to activate them. All the men are trained, all the equipment is already built. All you are doing is marshalling them together. So technically you could build 20 panzer divisions in reserve, but most of the IC would be on the front end. Reserves could be solved by this:

Once activated the unit goes to 100% strength immediately, but has its org set to 0% and reserve divisions might have a slighter lower morale than regular. This way it takes a few weeks to get them to full org. This would represent all the men an material being marshaled. Maybe not the perfect fix, but tis a lot better than it is now.

 

[Secret Master]

Your making a silly defense for a broken mechanism. How many "reserve" armor divisions were fielded in WW2? Or, for that matter, why didn't Hitler build 25 panzer divisions in reserve than select the "Krupp reserve exploit" decision and field 10 times as many tanks?

1- With reinforcement the way it is now you never have to worry about a war of attrition. IRL the Heer was reduced to 3/4 of its Strength on the Eastern Front after the opening campaign. In HOI's current form you can burn through a 1000 manpower because it is too easy to reinforce the front. Lose 100 tanks and 5000men in a horrible counter attack? No worries..tomorrow all will be replaced at 1/4 charge See what I mean? Its broke. This is the main reason I advocate this...not for reserves sake.

Well, since manpower is finite, I don't see too much of a problem here. What is all that IC going to do for you if you are running a deficit of 500 manpower like I was earlier this week?

"Great, look at all this IC. Let's build something... Wait, I have no manpower at all. Should I build a TAC? Nope. A STR? Nope. A BB perhaps? Nope. I know, I'll build some MPs to cut down on partisan activity. Nope. Well, I guess I can take my 400 IC and spam airfields and RADAR. What's that? Ordering a level 10 airfield today still means it will take a year or two to finish? Gah!"

Never worry about a war of attrition? You should ALWAYS be worried about a war of attrition if you are Germany. Playing Germany, I can rush agriculture and earn 47 manpower a month, and if I get in a pointless slugfest with the Soviets where I can't encircle enough divisions or seize objectives quickly enough, I will easily lose way more men per month than the 47 I gain. All of that happens while Stalin takes his 1200 advantage in manpower and keeps pumping up the Soviet army.

2- Reserve divisions aren't built when you want to activate them. All the men are trained, all the equipment is already built. All you are doing is marshalling them together. So technically you could build 20 panzer divisions in reserve, but most of the IC would be on the front end. Reserves could be solved by this:

Once activated the unit goes to 100% strength immediately, but has its org set to 0% and reserve divisions might have a slighter lower morale than regular. This way it takes a few weeks to get them to full org. This would represent all the men an material being marshaled. Maybe not the perfect fix, but tis a lot better than it is now.

Fair enough. I agree; reserves are way too cheap on the front end. But what you propose would make them no different from building active duty divisions. The whole point of having reserves in the game is to provide a mechanic for something historical and to make it a strategic decision players have make. The current system makes reserves a no-brainer. Your solution would make active duty divisions a no-brainer.

I wish I had a better proposal, but I don't.

 

[Jazumir]

There´s alot of things i´d like for HoI4, but most of all, i´d like the corps to be the basic unit size in a game of global scale, not the division. If lone divisions were treated like lone birgades now, mostly, it would simplify the game sooo much. Most of the pointless HQ-units gone, less units out of range for the AI... We could have realsitic army sizes - not half that - and still be able to manage them more easily than today´s... and a supply system using the remaining HQs as nodes and stocks and sophisticated algorythms for HQ-range-penalties (not just on/off). No divisional commanders.

Next, leadership should not be an on-map ressource, but a function of manpower and IC (and possibly other nationwide modifiers).

Those two above will then sort of autofix the minors.

Air-wings individually automatable, to support and protect the command´s units they are attached to.

Constuction battalions to speed up facility construction.

Seperate transports for amphibious landings.

Reconsideration of the attack delay.

Diminishing returns on the officer ratio (if >100%) and ressource stockpiles (´spoilage´ if > 1 year stock).

Borrowing troops (actively) from your allies for leadership-cost.

Better war resolution (still).

Better AI (still).

 

[Alex_brunius]

Your making a silly defense for a broken mechanism.

Where did I state that I defended the mechanism?

It's one of my top things I'm trying to convince the Devs to fix...


I just don't agree with your solution since it greatly reduces the fun once war starts by forcing everyone to spend all their IC on reinforcements.

 

[griswolds686]

Never worry about a war of attrition? You should ALWAYS be worried about a war of attrition if you are Germany. Playing Germany, I can rush agriculture and earn 47 manpower a month, and if I get in a pointless slugfest with the Soviets where I can't encircle enough divisions or seize objectives quickly enough, I will easily lose way more men per month than the 47 I gain. All of that happens while Stalin takes his 1200 advantage in manpower and keeps pumping up the Soviet army.

My argument focused on the rate of reinforcement vs the rate of construction. Your argument is void here. I agree that Germany has to watch its manpower..thats a no-brainer. Im saying that its far too easy to refit divisions than it should be. It should take just as long (if not longer) to replace a cannon in the field than to build a cannon in a factory. Same thing with a rifle squad or a tank platoon. Do you see the difference in the point I'm making? My example didn't spell that out perfectly. I should have clarified that the men and material lost would be there the next day at 1/4 the original cost.

Fair enough. I agree; reserves are way too cheap on the front end. But what you propose would make them no different from building active duty divisions. The whole point of having reserves in the game is to provide a mechanic for something historical and to make it a strategic decision players have make. The current system makes reserves a no-brainer. Your solution would make active duty divisions a no-brainer.

Not at all. The draw back to reserves would be that they would be cheaper to maintain in peacetime. I never said have 100 str at peace...only after you mobilize they shoot to 100% str but must regain org from 0. This would take a couple weeks which would simulate pulling the men and material from "reserve". There should probably also be a logistics penalty for a few weeks too. This would simulate all the trains being tied down moving masses of men and material across the country. I think I have a good idea tbh.

 

[griswolds686]

I just don't agree with your solution since it greatly reduces the fun once war starts by forcing everyone to spend all their IC on reinforcements.

I said:

Once activated the unit goes to 100% strength immediately, but has its org set to 0% and reserve divisions might have a slighter lower morale than regular. This way it takes a few weeks to get them to full org. This would represent all the men an material being marshaled. Maybe not the perfect fix, but tis a lot better than it is now.

Just like the above post. All the men and material would be built on the front end than sent into reserve. Once mobilized a number of temporary penalties could be implemented (lower org/morale, logistics etc) Also, reserve divisions in general should probably have slightly lower experience/moral/org anyways, but that just my opinion.