I guess this is a case of "lost in translation". I didn't mean to be offensive in any way. Either I didn't express myself correctly, or you misunderstood me.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I guess this is a case of "lost in translation". I didn't mean to be offensive in any way. Either I didn't express myself correctly, or you misunderstood me.
Chinese Civil War would be awesome if Commies had the chance to actually win it. I've played as Communist China once and I had to use lots of cheats in the form of custom events to make it feasible to beat both Japan and Nationalist China. It was quite fun after that though, beating both Axis and Allies.
Realistic Sino-Japanese War and the Pacific War are impossible without a more advanced logistical system and a real chance of war between the Soviets and the Japanese (esp. if there are few divs in Manchuria). Otherwise, the player will simply use all troops to beat China first and then overwhelm the Allies with numbers. Burma Campaign will be unrealistic, too, because both sides will be able to bring 1501515 divs to that theatre.
Just like it is very possible right now to have huge battles in the North African Desert. Same thing in the jungles of SE Asia. It should not be possible to sustain huge armies in areas like that. The campaigns in Africa and Burma were fought with fairly limited numbers of divisions. Logistics should be a real pain, especially in those harsh environments.
There is plenty of fun to be had as China, Brazil, Argentina, and Spain among others.
I would like:
- More events for minor countries.
- More events in Interwar period and cold war period.
- More events for minor countries.
- More events in Interwar period and cold war period.
Like this! Calm down, buddy, it's a Discussion Forum, we're all friends here.
Some sort of increased attrition impact is needed for low supply throughput imo to prevent large battles. Low infra or high dissent (even with garrisoning) means a negative impact on supplies for the front.
The ability to specify the targets of industrial espionage a bit, say into Army/Navy/Air Force/Industry. If in RL say Hungary would deploy spies in Italy they probably won't try to steal battlecruiser plans, but something which would be a bit helpful to their country.
This was probably mentioned already but I'll say it again. If possible an hoi3 system of the AI managing one or more of your fronts should be considered. In some games (see below) micromanaging all fronts becomes impossible.
Please NO! That is the second worst thing about HOI3 imo.This was probably mentioned already but I'll say it again. If possible an hoi3 system of the AI managing one or more of your fronts should be considered. In some games (see below) micromanaging all fronts becomes impossible.
LOL, really? Play the USA if you really want micromanagement. The Soviets only have one real front in a historical game. Japan is just too easy compared to the US.
Since we are talking about micromanagement, try playing the 1945 doomsday scenario in AOD!
Those were just examples. Heavy micro suxx - that's why I try to avoid the Eastern Front in DH, for example. It's simply unfun when you have to control 105165109516 units.
Full AI Control is only one option out of many. Partial/customised automation is the way to go IMO (HOI3-style reserve missions, mission queue, AOD-style automated sliders etc.)
My favourite part of the game is mannaging 6124562047602752756027456017650260124652016452012425460243043340253426426501256402436046 units at the same time! Makes me feel POWERFULLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!