Where to go for HOI5?

[Vlad123]

I don't understand why so many people urge to revert most of new mechanism in HOI4. Indeed there are many bad designs in HOI4. However, many features in HOI4 are well-designed but ill-implemented. Those features shouldn't be thrown out of the window and revert to old system in HOI2, instead we should figure out some way to fix them. Like battle planner, if its AI is fixed I believe most of players will never want to go back to HOI2 where you have to micro every units. There are also some good design receive negative review especially the decision of removing money from the game. People propose adding money back to HOI4 every month on this forum but many of them just adding unnecessary complexity.

Look there are 2 types of ideas:
1) good ideas from the start
2) bad ideas good/badly implemented, which even if they work badly must be removed.
Most of Hoi4's ideas are of type 2. Because? Because, I quote an old school friend of mine "great ideas on paper, they are horrible once made real" which is EXACTLY what happened on Hoi4. The idea of the peace system, of taking away money, on paper are beautiful, but, as also said by the Devs, many ideas they have put in, HATE them! (peace system first of all!). Hoi3's peace system was ugly, but at least it avoided you bordergore.
The hoi2 system, like pace, was fantastic! Ditto the search system ... maybe the only thing that didn't work very well in the old hoi were the puppets. Here is Hoi4's tiered system I really liked for puppets. And I would like it back in a Hoi5. But for 1 nice thing about Hoi4, there are at least 2/3 things to throw in this game!

PS: the adaptive mission are a old feature of Eu4

 

[LordLemos]

Let me tell you that although all the crashes I have been trying to back to HoI 3 to play lately and I love it, great game.

Dev's if, as a player, I can tell you something is: I enjoy your work.
Now if, as a player, I can give an advice: when you made HoI 4 a simpler game to be played it wasn't bad many people that had difficulties playing loved it but I think the problem is that now hardcore gamers could not play. In HoI 5 make it as hard as HoI 3 but with an option to let the Ai control everything for you if you liked it.

People enjoy casual gaming for sure but we love the challenging of micromanaging, large maps, pausing the game every game hour so you can check if everything is ok and etc. Make HoI5 be a better HoI3 with the features of HoI 4 that we liked.

 

[General WVPM]

Look there are 2 types of ideas:
1) good ideas from the start
2) bad ideas good/badly implemented, which even if they work badly must be removed.
Most of Hoi4's ideas are of type 2. Because? Because, I quote an old school friend of mine "great ideas on paper, they are horrible once made real" which is EXACTLY what happened on Hoi4. The idea of the peace system, of taking away money, on paper are beautiful, but, as also said by the Devs, many ideas they have put in, HATE them! (peace system first of all!). Hoi3's peace system was ugly, but at least it avoided you bordergore.
The hoi2 system, like pace, was fantastic! Ditto the search system ... maybe the only thing that didn't work very well in the old hoi were the puppets. Here is Hoi4's tiered system I really liked for puppets. And I would like it back in a Hoi5. But for 1 nice thing about Hoi4, there are at least 2/3 things to throw in this game!

PS: the adaptive mission are a old feature of Eu4

I don't see any way HOI3's peace system is better than HOI4's. In HOI3 you could just randomly annex nations instead of having them go into exile. This largely eliminated resistance. Conquering in HOI3 was terrible, since it caused the most extreme cases of border gore, like Germany annexing the Soviet Union, but Finland getting 1 road to Moscow as they rushed the capital. HOI4's system seems fine to me as long as you either play with other humans (who aren't trolling) and just disable AI peace negotiations (must have mod: Player-Led Peace Conferences (Steam)).

I've heard others praise the HOI2 system, which might be fine. But we should realize there is no real life example to base a WW2 victory on. The Soviets and Allies had to make a compromise and split the spoils of war. If one side won against all the other factions, then we have no idea what might have happened. For example, could Germany annex the Soviets or the USA?

 

[Basileus2]

Let me be revolutionary and say let's get rid of province tiles entirely. Have a map that you plop units down on and scale said divisions by their combat width across the entire map. Just a smooth map with no forced tiles to contend with - this would be a realistic simulation of frontline combat. Production / factories / rail heads / etc would be physical map locations and captured when the front line goes past them, a la Eastory's WW2 Eastern or Western Front series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36UrLDiTLvU&t=208s

This would require a whole new engine though, I suppose, so it probably won't happen till like HoI VI or VII...or ever.

 

[Vlad123]

Let me be revolutionary and say let's get rid of province tiles entirely. Have a map that you plop units down on and scale said divisions by their combat width across the entire map. Just a smooth map with no forced tiles to contend with - this would be a realistic simulation of frontline combat. Production / factories / rail heads / etc would be physical map locations and captured when the front line goes past them, a la https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36UrLDiTLvU&t=208s

This would require a whole new engine though, I suppose, so it probably won't happen till like HoI VI or VII...or ever.

Fun fact: an Italian browser game managed to do this in 2006! IN THE DAMNED 2006!
The peace hoi2 system is nothing short of WONDERFUL!
1) you can make peace on your own against another nation
2) peace on your own vs the other faction.
3) your faction vs single enemy
4) your faction vs enemy faction.

and 5: you could have created your own faction without too much National spirit trouble!

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I don't understand why so many people urge to revert most of new mechanism in HOI4. Indeed there are many bad designs in HOI4. However, many features in HOI4 are well-designed but ill-implemented. Those features shouldn't be thrown out of the window and revert to old system in HOI2, instead we should figure out some way to fix them. Like battle planner, if its AI is fixed I believe most of players will never want to go back to HOI2 where you have to micro every units. There are also some good design receive negative review especially the decision of removing money from the game. People propose adding money back to HOI4 every month on this forum but many of them just adding unnecessary complexity.

If HoI V is made by the same dev team as HoI IV, they could learn from their mistakes.

The hoi2 system, like pace, was fantastic! Ditto the search system ... maybe the only thing that didn't work very well in the old hoi were the puppets. Here is Hoi4's tiered system I really liked for puppets. And I would like it back in a Hoi5. But for 1 nice thing about Hoi4, there are at least 2/3 things to throw in this game!

I don't see any way HOI3's peace system is better than HOI4's. In HOI3 you could just randomly annex nations instead of having them go into exile. This largely eliminated resistance. Conquering in HOI3 was terrible, since it caused the most extreme cases of border gore, like Germany annexing the Soviet Union, but Finland getting 1 road to Moscow as they rushed the capital. HOI4's system seems fine to me as long as you either play with other humans (who aren't trolling) and just disable AI peace negotiations (must have mod: Player-Led Peace Conferences (Steam)).

HoI III peace system was better. GiE could have been implemented on top of it (e.g. as a DLC)

 

[Duke_Dave]

Any feature that people want can be implemented in HoI4, I think the issue is that people want a philosophically different game and that won't happen because PDX sits quite happy between Total war and more hardcore strategy games. It's simple economics this crowd brings in more cash than the more hardcore minded strategy fans. I don't see much of an issue tbh. Rather than hoping HoI4 will become the game I want I just look for games closer to that and play HoI for what it is.

 

[--Yigito123--]

HoI III peace system was better.

Am I remembering the same HoI III as everyone else in this thread? Because the HoI III I remember didn't actually have a peace system, at all. There was the bare necessity of scripted peace events for the historical WW2 and like two very strict ahistorical scenarios (I've aired my grievances with the scripted peace deals of this game more than enough in the past, so I won't now), and all ahistorical wars ended with the first country to declare war fully annexing the loser while the others got exactly what they occupied, which in most cases was one-province corridors to victory points and random blobs of occupation jutting off into nonsensical directions.

What are people thinking of when they say the HoI III "peace system" was "better"? I genuinely don't understand, can anyone clarify for me?

 

[demon72]

If we talk abou a "peace system" the most urgent issue from my point of view would be the OPTION for all nations that got "called in the war" to get out of the war if the nation that "called them in" capitulates OR if they get declared war / have to defend from/against a third party and have to defend their home-country! (e.g. that Japan can't take an "empty" Australia that easy).

Especially if Britain capitulates, some sort of event-chain for all commonwealth nations would be great:

• host british Exile Government
• support british Exile Government
• fight for independency from the british (with the option for britain to try to put down that uprising and annex that nation)
• there are certainly more and better options

The second issue would be additional "trade" options in a peace conference for "reperation payments"

e.g. nation A sends X rubber for Y years to nation B for a white peace with nation A.



The third issue would be a more graduated system of "core provinces":

• core provinces 1st grade
• core provinces 2nd grade (e.g. lost oversea-territories due to Versaille-treaty for DR)
• target province 1st grade
• target province 2nd grade

Means there would be provinces that would be "1st picks" for a nation in a peace conference down to provinces that are a "no pick"-choice.

EXAMPLE: all "Mare Nostrum" provinces would have a higher pick-rating for Italy, than other provinces.

All nations should have a individual priority for provinces depending on their "in-game-mission" from the "national-focus-tree"!


IMPORTANT 1: if nation A annexes nation B, nation A would also get all "picks" from nation B (to reduce complexity for the initial set-up)

Means: with "Anschluss" DR would not just get Austria, it would also get all core and "target provinces" from Austria.


IMPORTANT 2: there should be made no difference in costs between pupetting, annexing or what-ever at this point, it should be more like the "Jalta-Conference".

 

[cursorhiker]

While I don’t really agree with the HoI3 peace system being better (both have their issues), the old system’s simplicity led to less stuff like the Allies balkanizing the RGOC while annexing random bits of China, puppet Reichkommisariats alongside the countries they govern (ie both RK Niederlande and Holland existing as democratic nations), and other weirdness. Granted you still had random bits of territory but IMO the border gore is worse in 4.

 

[Praetori]

Look there are 2 types of ideas:
1) good ideas from the start
2) bad ideas good/badly implemented, which even if they work badly must be removed.
Most of Hoi4's ideas are of type 2. Because? Because,

All I read is "it's #2 because @Vlad123 thinks so".
Opinions differ. No matter how much I did like the detailed granularity of brigades, corps and mid-air interception in HOI3 it didn't work, at all, from an AI perspective.
Beating the AI in HOI3 was a breeze (so much that for the last 4 years of it's shelf-life I ONLY played HOI3 in MP). HOI4 is far from perfect but it's a much better GAME than HOI3 ever was. Do I miss some things from HOI3, sure, but it's mainly nostalgia. I've gone back and played it and it's not that great when you're actually comparing the two side-by-side. But that's my personal opinion.

 

[Vlad123]

All I read is "it's #2 because @Vlad123 thinks so".
Opinions differ. No matter how much I did like the detailed granularity of brigades, corps and mid-air interception in HOI3 it didn't work, at all, from an AI perspective.
Beating the AI in HOI3 was a breeze (so much that for the last 4 years of it's shelf-life I ONLY played HOI3 in MP). HOI4 is far from perfect but it's a much better GAME than HOI3 ever was. Do I miss some things from HOI3, sure, but it's mainly nostalgia. I've gone back and played it and it's not that great when you're actually comparing the two side-by-side. But that's my personal opinion.

I Speak of Hoi2...their pace are 100000 time better...and Hoi2, hoi3 have the event bitter pace can prevent to go to vladivostock to win...

 

[sodinium98]

Let me be revolutionary and say let's get rid of province tiles entirely. Have a map that you plop units down on and scale said divisions by their combat width across the entire map. Just a smooth map with no forced tiles to contend with - this would be a realistic simulation of frontline combat. Production / factories / rail heads / etc would be physical map locations and captured when the front line goes past them, a la Eastory's WW2 Eastern or Western Front series

This would require a whole new engine though, I suppose, so it probably won't happen till like HoI VI or VII...or ever.

Paradox wouldn't do that because of how much they affect not just HOI, but also all Clausewitz games that rely on the engine. It would be possible to do this with the existing engine, but changing a numebr of frameworks would be required.

Fun fact: an Italian browser game managed to do this in 2006! IN THE DAMNED 2006!

That engine was based on the idea of no provinces though I'm assuming, so would that really count?
On the other hand, if they really switched from provinces to no provinces, it must have been a simple system to change.

Just putting some points out there.

 

[Hippob4]

Let me be revolutionary and say let's get rid of province tiles entirely. Have a map that you plop units down on and scale said divisions by their combat width across the entire map. Just a smooth map with no forced tiles to contend with - this would be a realistic simulation of frontline combat. Production / factories / rail heads / etc would be physical map locations and captured when the front line goes past them, a la Eastory's WW2 Eastern or Western Front series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36UrLDiTLvU&t=208s

This would require a whole new engine though, I suppose, so it probably won't happen till like HoI VI or VII...or ever.

There's Steel Division 1944 and SD2. Those games have a dynamic map control mechanic which would be reeeeally neat to see in HoI5 (or any Grand Strategy game)

Something neat too is that Steel Division has 'Raider' units that don't capture map territory, making them ideal for guerilla tactics and ambushes behind enemy lines. That would make the Chinese, Yugoslavian, French, Polish Partisans and more probably more interesting. Bypassing enemy frontline units, being undetected until combat starts.

This could probably apply to paratroopers too, dropping in and causing mayhem behind enemy lines but not being big large targets like they are in HoI right now.

Edit: in Steel Division, regular units that are cut off or are in enemy territory suffer from morale penalties, making them get suppressed faster and surrender.

Edit 2: I'm not asking for the scale of combat in Steel Division for a HoI5 game of course. The smallest units would still be divisions (or commando/partisan units).

Also, one neat thing about Steel Division's map control feature is that without proper recon or sight, you/the enemy can't see what exactly is creating a bulge in the map. That would create some interesting fog of war scenario and misdirection. Maybe this thrust towards X has a ton of units? Maybe it's a few units that are just largely opposed. I'm aware that HoI4 has created Fake Units as a Intelligence thing, but i think Steel Division does it more interesting where you can't always be sure where the major thrust is coming without effective recon.

 

[sodinium98]

There's Steel Division 1944 and SD2. Those games have a dynamic map control mechanic which would be reeeeally neat to see in HoI5 (or any Grand Strategy game)

Something neat too is that Steel Division has 'Raider' units that don't capture map territory, making them ideal for guerilla tactics and ambushes behind enemy lines. That would make the Chinese, Yugoslavian, French, Polish Partisans and more probably more interesting. Bypassing enemy frontline units, being undetected until combat starts.

This could probably apply to paratroopers too, dropping in and causing mayhem behind enemy lines but not being big large targets like they are in HoI right now.

Edit: in Steel Division, regular units that are cut off or are in enemy territory suffer from morale penalties, making them get suppressed faster and surrender.

In regards to the paratroopers, I think the large targets issue is one of the things stopping them from me deploying them frequently. I don't know if that is something I am missing out on, or a common issue with other players.


Those "Raider" units seem an interesting concept, but we need to keep each game to its own honestly. I think the devs should use one of the features from these games, notably the Raiders or something similar for me.

I will check out Steel Division and see personally how the mechanics are implemented.

 

[Hippob4]

In regards to the paratroopers, I think the large targets issue is one of the things stopping them from me deploying them frequently. I don't know if that is something I am missing out on, or a common issue with other players.


Those "Raider" units seem an interesting concept, but we need to keep each game to its own honestly. I think the devs should use one of the features from these games, notably the Raiders or something similar for me.

I will check out Steel Division and see personally how the mechanics are implemented.

Yeah, a problem i have with Paratroopers in HoI is just that they drop in as a whole fighting unit and can only control one province. It's not like you drop in as waves either to gain more and more strength hour by hour. But yeah, the problem with them too is that Paratroopers in HoI4 don't feel like they're really causing damage behind enemy lines, messing with logistics and reinforcements or holding some important bridge/road i.e. Pegasus Bridge. From what i've seen, HoI4 players just use paratroopers to create army-destroying encirclements or taking out VPs.

Steel Division is a really neat game. A lot of interesting and well implemented features that aren't in any other games. Best hybrid between arcade and simulation imo. The only flaws with it is mostly the multiplayer community because it looks like players want to play 10v10 games instead of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 like most RTS games. So there's dozens of lobbies that are stuck looking for 20 players to start the game. People drop every minute or so.

But if you find a multiplayer match, it's incredibly fun and rewarding.

That said, the singleplayer skirmish, historical missions, campaign is really really good too. The AI, while not as good as a human player, is pretty competent and even does things I desperately want from HoI4. Namely: Create major thrusts.

The enemy AI in Steel Division are able to create concentration of force and launch a major offensive in an area to take control of the Victory Points. I'm really amazed the AI is able to concentrate a major force in an area. So yeah, definitely get Steel Division for the interesting well executed concepts, the campaign and offline (coop) battles that gives you compelling missions and surprisingly competent AI, and fun multiplayer.

In fact, Steel Division 1944 was published by Paradox before the devs solo-published the sequel.

 

[demon72]

There's Steel Division 1944 and SD2. Those games have a dynamic map control mechanic which would be reeeeally neat to see in HoI5 (or any Grand Strategy game)

Something neat too is that Steel Division has 'Raider' units that don't capture map territory, making them ideal for guerilla tactics and ambushes behind enemy lines. That would make the Chinese, Yugoslavian, French, Polish Partisans and more probably more interesting. Bypassing enemy frontline units, being undetected until combat starts.

This could probably apply to paratroopers too, dropping in and causing mayhem behind enemy lines but not being big large targets like they are in HoI right now.

Edit: in Steel Division, regular units that are cut off or are in enemy territory suffer from morale penalties, making them get suppressed faster and surrender.

Edit 2: I'm not asking for the scale of combat in Steel Division for a HoI5 game of course. The smallest units would still be divisions (or commando/partisan units).

Also, one neat thing about Steel Division's map control feature is that without proper recon or sight, you/the enemy can't see what exactly is creating a bulge in the map. That would create some interesting fog of war scenario and misdirection. Maybe this thrust towards X has a ton of units? Maybe it's a few units that are just largely opposed. I'm aware that HoI4 has created Fake Units as a Intelligence thing, but i think Steel Division does it more interesting where you can't always be sure where the major thrust is coming without effective recon.

just based on the video Steel Division looks like a RTS for me ?

 

[sodinium98]

Yeah, a problem i have with Paratroopers in HoI is just that they drop in as a whole fighting unit and can only control one province. It's not like you drop in as waves either to gain more and more strength hour by hour. But yeah, the problem with them too is that Paratroopers in HoI4 don't feel like they're really causing damage behind enemy lines, messing with logistics and reinforcements or holding some important bridge/road i.e. Pegasus Bridge. From what i've seen, HoI4 players just use paratroopers to create army-destroying encirclements or taking out VPs.

I see, that would probably be a DLC to improve it, knowing Paradox. I expect it will be a few years before HOI5 now, and I don't expect any of these changes to come anyway!

Steel Division is a really neat game. A lot of interesting and well implemented features that aren't in any other games. Best hybrid between arcade and simulation imo. The only flaws with it is mostly the multiplayer community because it looks like players want to play 10v10 games instead of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, or 4v4 like most RTS games. So there's dozens of lobbies that are stuck looking for 20 players to start the game. People drop every minute or so.

Steel Division looks to me like a mass-market game a bit more than HOI and these markets do generally have more people who like bigger matches, which might explain your problems.

That said, the singleplayer skirmish, historical missions, campaign is really really good too. The AI, while not as good as a human player, is pretty competent and even does things I desperately want from HoI4. Namely: Create major thrusts.

I do think that having a good singleplayer is important for all games, especially ones that otherwise neglect it.

 

[Hippob4]

just based on the video Steel Division looks like a RTS for me ?

It is, though it does have a Strategic Campaign mode where you assign units to battles and capture/hold territory. But i brought up Steel Division in the first place because someone asked about getting rid of the province tile system and replacing it with a map control/influence system. Steel Division is the closest thing that captures that concept in video games right now.

 

[Vlad123]

Paradox wouldn't do that because of how much they affect not just HOI, but also all Clausewitz games that rely on the engine. It would be possible to do this with the existing engine, but changing a numebr of frameworks would be required.




That engine was based on the idea of no provinces though I'm assuming, so would that really count?
On the other hand, if they really switched from provinces to no provinces, it must have been a simple system to change.

Just putting some points out there.

In which PDX game? not have provinces?