I completely agree, however the idea that "it's more complex so it must be a better system" is a pervasive one.
- 3
if you think that AA and AT are useless than you don't understand how they work - especially for AA. it reduces 75% of CAS damage, and air attack reduces air inferiority penalties by up to around that as well, as you approach around 112 air attack.1. Currently in Hoi4 Regular/Rocket Arty is the only arty that's effectively used in every engagement. AA and AT only offers tiny Soft Damage. AT is barely used against tanks because the AI doesn't build enough tank divisions and spreads its units all across the wide front. So AT is mostly used against soft units for little gains when you could have added regular arty instead (there's a cost to using AT and AA too. Resources, factories, brigade slots)
2. Simplifying arty would help with AI division templates, would give units more of a fighting chance in general across the front if for example Anti Tank guns were generally attached to units because right now the AI hardly equips infantry divisions with AT (which makes player tank divisions sorta unstoppable), would cut down on the current micromanagement with having to juggle different arty types and tank arty variants in the Designer, Factories, and Equipment Stockpile
I never said they're useless. Just that in direct combat head-to-head with divisions in *most* battles against the AI, those Soft and Hard Damage stats are just tiny buffs to damage whereas Regular and Rocket Arty consistently is used to their full potential by dealing out a lot of Soft damage which hits infantry hard.if you think that AA and AT are useless than you don't understand how they work - especially for AA. it reduces 75% of CAS damage, and air attack reduces air inferiority penalties by up to around that as well, as you approach around 112 air attack.
the issue is that the AI isn't good enough at making hard divisions or using its airforce for these to be necessary. however for MP AA and AT are fine as-is.
you're thinking combat is just "who has more soft attack" and still undervaluing AA. frankly, even if you have 60% air superiority AA is still useful, as much so as any type of support arty.I never said they're useless. Just that in direct combat head-to-head with divisions in *most* battles against the AI, those Soft and Hard Damage stats are just tiny buffs to damage whereas Regular and Rocket Arty consistently is used to their full potential by dealing out a lot of Soft damage which hits infantry hard.
That's my issue, there's not enough cases where AA and AT are used to their best potential, hence why i'm in favor of just rolling all Artillery types into one so players and the AI can consistently get the most out of their Arty.
Anti Air should at least get a buff in Urban terrain. Again, AA historically proved to be highly effective (high gun elevation, pierces concrete, etc.). But yes, AA does have a general use if enemy air superiority is a thing. But you're still omitting Anti Tank which does bare bones Soft Damage when the AI is incapable of amassing tank divisions in an area.you're thinking combat is just "who has more soft attack" and still undervaluing AA. frankly, even if you have 60% air superiority AA is still useful, as much so as any type of support arty.
and i still think overall your idea doesn't make much sense. part of the fun of the division designer is being able to specialize. so if you don't fight in bad air you save ICs by not investing in AA, for example. if you don't have to engage enemy tanks you save by not making AT. if you aren't pushing with your infantry and didn't go SF doctrine you save by not adding arty.
grouping them all up into one company is a huge oversimplification in an already oversimplified game.
sure, AA could be buffed to have some soft attack and urban bonus, i have no issue with that. but saying "AT is bad because it doesn't have soft attack" is silly. that's the point - you're making a tradeoff.Anti Air should at least get a buff in Urban terrain. Again, AA historically proved to be highly effective (high gun elevation, pierces concrete, etc.). But yes, AA does have a general use if enemy air superiority is a thing. But you're still omitting Anti Tank which does bare bones Soft Damage when the AI is incapable of amassing tank divisions in an area.
"Oversimplified game"
Uh-huh, I assume you must be a BLACK ICE mod fan. Or a fan of the dozens and dozens of new Naval Research upgrades and Naval Designers which many seem to find overwhelming and so they don't try to understand the new naval system.
I'm all for abstractions and streamlining complex concepts. The problem with HOI4 is that there's so many contradicting mechanics where they want to be big picture like HoI2, but also they want to have the scale and micro-intensive gameplay of HoI3. The Battleplanner being the epitome of this. Awesome, having the ability to cover the frontlines and launch these major offensives. Oh wait, why is the Battleplanner putting my tank divisions in the Swamp/Mountain/etc instead of the plains? Why are there so many provinces? And so on and so forth. The Frontlines and Battleplanning system honestly would be less of a problem if the game streamlined and abstracted the world to have fewer but bigger provinces for the AI to take advantage of.
Yes, and the trade off for AT is that most of your units aren't going to face tank divisions because the AI doesn't adequately concentrate its tank forces. And the Frontline system for both players and AI is deadset on spreading units as wide as possible to cover the border. It's why im hoping not only will the AI/Battleplanner concentrate armored forces at certain points, but that they will be a way to have Mobile Reserves react to high priority points without the Player having to babysit them. Basically, better automation.sure, AA could be buffed to have some soft attack and urban bonus, i have no issue with that. but saying "AT is bad because it doesn't have soft attack" is silly. that's the point - you're making a tradeoff.
i don't really like black ice, though i do like the naval system. it's just that the division designer is already so oversimplified, i don't see the need to remove an entire category of division types. navy really isn't that complex - light attack targets screens, heavy attack targets heavy ships, and torpedoes target capitals and convoys. if people don't want to understand a system that, again, is hugely oversimplified from real life that's on them. go play world conqueror or something.
if the ai isn't using the battleplanner how you like just micro your units. the whole fun of hoi4 is that it balances allowing for fun, micro-intensive combat and large-scale, abstracted warfare. however going back to the hoi2 division designer, where you just research singular "upgrades" and have no real room for unique specialization, sounds horribly unfun to me.
Ok, now you’re losing me completely. I’ve thought about many things that could be changed in HOI4 but never about reducing the number of provinces.The game just has too many provinces.
I’d be happy with more provinces if the enemy AI, Frontline AI didn’t struggle with the amount of provinces.Ok, now you’re losing me completely. I’ve thought about many things that could be changed in HOI4 but never about reducing the number of provinces.
And I don’t understand it . If you reduce the number of provinces in northern Spain you will have all mountains and the battleplaner will push into. Now you have at least the one hills tile at the coast and you can micro push through there or let the battleplaner do whatever it does.
Why do you care so much?But also placing the wrong type of unit at or against detrimental terrain is aggravating.
No. If you want a game like that play HOI2. The tiles add to the gameplay a ton and allow you to maneuver your armies to your liking and make it less blob on blob.The Frontlines and Battleplanning system honestly would be less of a problem if the game streamlined and abstracted the world to have fewer but bigger provinces for the AI to take advantage of.
Anti Air and especially Anti Tank arty seem to be so rarely used meaningfully in combat.
sounds to me like you should be playing world conqueror or hoi2 or civ, then.Yes, and the trade off for AT is that most of your units aren't going to face tank divisions because the AI doesn't adequately concentrate its tank forces. And the Frontline system for both players and AI is deadset on spreading units as wide as possible to cover the border. It's why im hoping not only will the AI/Battleplanner concentrate armored forces at certain points, but that they will be a way to have Mobile Reserves react to high priority points without the Player having to babysit them. Basically, better automation.
That said, i don't have much faith in the AI. It's been 5 years and the AI still throws away dozens of divisions defending Central Africa for no strategic gain. The game just has too many provinces. If the game had fewer provinces, a lot of my issues be fixed or addressed better, including artillery types being more utilized in fewer but bigger provinces like HoI2.
The problem for me with Naval isn't the combat necessarily. It's that you have countless different templates and modules, which you then can upgrade but Tier 1 ships can't upgrade to Tier 2 ships for example so now you have a lot of outdated ships to juggle with. That and the overwhelming new research tree that's possibly the biggest research screen in the game.
And it's just a hassle to upgrade existing modules because not only do you need to go to the Naval Designer and improve the module, but you then have to tell your ships to get retrofitted which takes time and there's no notification for when they're done.
It all feels like feature creep and something i hope HoI4 simplifies in the future.
My issue with experimentation and variety is that the AI doesn't take advantage of it to provide interesting challenges. I have a feeling most players don't even look at the opposing enemy templates and goes: "Aha, then I will counter this template by adding X and Y." No, what most likely happens are players just putting out default meta 20w and 40w divisions.
Maybe in MP it's a different situation.
For me though, i'm okay with fewer unit types and streamlining. Unity of Command 2 have very few unit types. Infantry, Motorized, Mechanized, and Armored units, with about 10 or so possible support attachments. Maximum of 8 'main brigades' and 3 'support brigades'. I also liked Shogun 2 and Three Kingdoms Total War over the other games because you had a very easy and readable cast of units (i.e. Peasant soldiers -> Imperial/Samurai Soldiers -> Elite Soldiers and a 1-2 faction specific unique units) whereas the other Total War games just went crazy like having a 12 different types of Cataphracts in the same faction.
it sounds like this guy's idea of fun is "build civilian factories, tell my units which front to go, and then mappaint" and that he wants the game to be designed so you don't have to learn about it to be good at it.Why do you care so much?
If one likes the micro he can place his units perfectly. The game has this option.
If one doesn’t like the micro he is perfectly able to win the war by drawing some lines with the battleplaner and pressing play. (He has to beat the enemy in economy diplomacy production templates...)
The battleplaner is the cruise control. If you want to drive perfectly you have to do it manually.
I cant believe people can't actually read...We see AA used quite extensively against human opponents in our MP games.
You do know how finicky the Battleplanner is, AND how it incentivizes the system because it gives you Planning Bonus, right? Like, if there was no Planning Bonus, i'd be happy to not use it. But the game punishes you for not using it. And microing the Frontlines system is a nightmare. Drawing countless battle lines, having to baby sit them because they will expand or contract automatically, you will have frontlines encircling EMPTY provinces, and it's just a cluttered ugly mess visually.Why do you care so much?
If one likes the micro he can place his units perfectly. The game has this option.
If one doesn’t like the micro he is perfectly able to win the war by drawing some lines with the battleplaner and pressing play. (He has to beat the enemy in economy diplomacy production templates...)
The battleplaner is the cruise control. If you want to drive perfectly you have to do it manually.
sounds to me like you should be playing world conqueror or hoi2 or civ, then.
No. If you want a game like that play HOI2. The tiles add to the gameplay a ton and allow you to maneuver your armies to your liking and make it less blob on blob.
I think you'd like the free RISK game they have on steam since it doesn't have all those stupid naval techs and artillery types. In fact they only have one type of unit.
More smooth brain thinking here.it sounds like this guy's idea of fun is "build civilian factories, tell my units which front to go, and then mappaint" and that he wants the game to be designed so you don't have to learn about it to be good at it.
And here.but why should you have to learn about the game mechanics to wc? that makes no sense