OOB+Generals. When do PDX release OOB Staff, Corps level and more generals like in HoI3?

  • 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.
This thread has been rather interesting to read. One of the most common counter claims to the crowd pushing back against the inclusion of fantasy and alt-history paths was that no one was forcing them to play with them, they could just stick to historical. Does that same response not apply to those against a real OOB? Why can't they just not use it?
Because with a "real" OOB as you put it, that would require use of it in order to play optimally. You're not punished for not using a certain focus path. A total rework of the army system is completely different. Almost no one wants to be forced to overcomplicate things just because a few people are nostalgic over literally the worst feature of HoI3.
 
  • 10
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Because with a "real" OOB as you put it, that would require use of it in order to play optimally. You're not punished for not using a certain focus path. A total rework of the army system is completely different. Almost no one wants to be forced to overcomplicate things just because a few people are nostalgic over literally the worst feature of HoI3.
It may be the worst feature in your opinion. I, and several others apparently, would like it or something analogous to it to return in HOI4. And if what you say is true and a real OOB is too hard to use, would the player sticking to the simple OOB not have the advantage?
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
It may be the worst feature in your opinion. I, and several others apparently, would like it or something analogous to it to return in HOI4. And if what you say is true and a real OOB is too hard to use, would the player sticking to the simple OOB not have the advantage?
No one would use a complex OOB unless the game provided a significant advantage for doing so. Stacking general traits is already OP in the game, and the player who does it better wins most of the time. Adding another layer of complexity on top would make this even more pronounced, and even more punishing to someone who doesn't engage with the system(triple adaptable, anyone?).

And it's not just my opinion, it's the majority opinion. More people dislike it than want it to return. Even the agree/disagree ratio on the original post in this topic says that more people don't want an OOB system than want one, and this thread is practically made to self-select a (small) sample size of mostly people who would want an OOB. 20 people out of 30,000 is not going to make Paradox change their minds, or at least I certainly hope it won't.

Paradox would not have removed the feature had it been well received. As it is, I've barely touched hoi3 but I've heard horror story after horror story about the awful OOB system from people who did play it extensively and had the hours to back up their opinions. When a system is so bad that people who haven't played or barely played the game know how bad it is, you know better than to put that system into a sequel in any capacity.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Because with a "real" OOB as you put it, that would require use of it in order to play optimally. You're not punished for not using a certain focus path. A total rework of the army system is completely different. Almost no one wants to be forced to overcomplicate things just because a few people are nostalgic over literally the worst feature of HoI3.
looks like you and guys who think alike didn't even bother to read/watch my post which was a proposal for a simple corps mechanic in the previous page Link ! just take a minute and review it ,you will find this system does not at all mess with current system and can be skipped for those like you who prefer simpler mechanic to control their armies !

I want to remind everyone (especially the Devs) that a grand strategy game which is about simulating an important war like WWII cannot ignore such important aspect of the warfare especially when the game represented Division and Army but not the unit in between which of course is Corps. No matter how this game wants or claims to be simple ,it's just stupidly unacceptable.

P.S : I'm all for more in depth mechanism for Corps regardless of my proposal !
 
  • 4
  • 3
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Because with a "real" OOB as you put it, that would require use of it in order to play optimally. You're not punished for not using a certain focus path. A total rework of the army system is completely different. Almost no one wants to be forced to overcomplicate things just because a few people are nostalgic over literally the worst feature of HoI3.
Listen buddy, don't tell me this isn't nostalgic for you /s

OmuhYFf.jpg
 
  • 6Haha
  • 3Love
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
No one would use a complex OOB unless the game provided a significant advantage for doing so.
The significant advantage is that you get a new tool to organize your army.

A forced OOB, where you get penaltized for not using it? No thanks. The ability to somehow group my army divisions into 'corps' and be able to give orders to those corps when I feel the need? Yes please.

Also, let's be honest, as long as the AI can handle it, HoI4 probably needs some restrictions on how far apart divisions can be. An army with some of its divisions on the eastern front and the rest in North Africa shouldn't function as well as an army with all its divisions in the same area.

Paradox would not have removed the feature had it been well received. As it is, I've barely touched hoi3 but I've heard horror story after horror story about the awful OOB system from people who did play it extensively and had the hours to back up their opinions. When a system is so bad that people who haven't played or barely played the game know how bad it is, you know better than to put that system into a sequel in any capacity.
It could be highly useful. For example, you could Control-click a division corps HQ, for example, to select its entire corps, which was hugely useful when moving large numbers of units. On-map HQ units were a pain, and reorganizing after offensives could be a pain (although the picture above my post is of either an AI or some player deliberately not caring about keeping his troops organized -- I could just as well post a picture of an overflowing and disorganized filing cabinet and use it as 'evidence' filing cabinets are bad), but all in all, it certainly did have its uses.

Sad thing is, it really needed only one more small patch to be really useful. For example an auto-organize system that just took all the divisions you had selected and put every five adjacent divisions into a corps, every adjacent corps into an army, and so on, creating HQs as neccessary. And an "assign to nearest HQ" button if HoI3 didn't have one already. And an end to the hard cap of number of units (for example, you couldn't have more than five divisions in a corps).
 
  • 4
Reactions:
So far nobody suggested there must be mechanics or pourcentage bonus on corps level as in HoI3.

I accept people might disagree but please don't create false argument.

In the current system you can only simulate the corps level until some point. You need generals to lead them and new generals cost A LOT to recruit. Many countries don't have enough generals any way.

As for the argument Corps level would make it more complicated to manage your troops, I find it puzzling. Imo it is the lack of the corps level that makes troops management much more difficult. It is easier to shift troops here and there according to need by groups of 2/3/4 divisions. The corps level help you to institutionalise it. It is especially handy when you manage your specialised troops like Mountainers, Marines or Airborne and even Armored troops. As they are typically too few to be used on the level army.

Right now there is nothing between 1 and 24 size armies.

I really like Pzt_Kami's suggestion.
 
  • 3
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Never, I hope. The HoI3 iteration was a confusing mess, and only served to add uneccessary micro. I don't want to play spreadsheets.

The BP could do with a few upgrades. Call 'em "Corps" if you must. But then brace for the incessant whining sure to follow.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Does that same response not apply to those against a real OOB? Why can't they just not use it?
Well, if you read the original post:
Order of battle and generals. When do PDX release Corps level and more generals like in HoI3?
Current system is too simplified.
...it reads like a request for this to be added to core gameplay. You can skip focus trees, you can only try to ignore on-map game mechanics.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Removing division level generals would make HOI3's OOB system a cake walk to setup.
I find the army level used in HOI4 more of a restrictions than anything. If you want to optimally use a general, you need 24 tank division, if you start to mix division under your general, you won't get the traits you need, if you put only 6 tank divisions, you won't make enough XP.
You could remove HQ if HQ range is such a pain, but it would overall improve the ability to organize my troops. Need a landing? Just select my special operations army, and select the marine corps.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
when the game represented Division and Army but not the unit in between which of course is Corps. No matter how this game wants or claims to be simple ,it's just stupidly unacceptable.
But the game does represent Corps. It is called "Army". Think of it as Corp/Army if necessary. It is the missing command level that is the issue.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
looks like you and guys who think alike didn't even bother to read/watch my post which was a proposal for a simple corps mechanic in the previous page Link ! just take a minute and review it ,you will find this system does not at all mess with current system and can be skipped for those like you who prefer simpler mechanic to control their armies !

I want to remind everyone (especially the Devs) that a grand strategy game which is about simulating an important war like WWII cannot ignore such important aspect of the warfare especially when the game represented Division and Army but not the unit in between which of course is Corps. No matter how this game wants or claims to be simple ,it's just stupidly unacceptable.

P.S : I'm all for more in depth mechanism for Corps regardless of my proposal !
I read it, I just didn't like the suggestion. If it doesn't add anything meaningful to the game and there's really no downside to ignoring it (which conversely means that there is no benefit for using it), then it's a complete waste of developer time.
The significant advantage is that you get a new tool to organize your army.

A forced OOB, where you get penaltized for not using it? No thanks. The ability to somehow group my army divisions into 'corps' and be able to give orders to those corps when I feel the need? Yes please.

Also, let's be honest, as long as the AI can handle it, HoI4 probably needs some restrictions on how far apart divisions can be. An army with some of its divisions on the eastern front and the rest in North Africa shouldn't function as well as an army with all its divisions in the same area.


It could be highly useful. For example, you could Control-click a division corps HQ, for example, to select its entire corps, which was hugely useful when moving large numbers of units. On-map HQ units were a pain, and reorganizing after offensives could be a pain (although the picture above my post is of either an AI or some player deliberately not caring about keeping his troops organized -- I could just as well post a picture of an overflowing and disorganized filing cabinet and use it as 'evidence' filing cabinets are bad), but all in all, it certainly did have its uses.

Sad thing is, it really needed only one more small patch to be really useful. For example an auto-organize system that just took all the divisions you had selected and put every five adjacent divisions into a corps, every adjacent corps into an army, and so on, creating HQs as neccessary. And an "assign to nearest HQ" button if HoI3 didn't have one already. And an end to the hard cap of number of units (for example, you couldn't have more than five divisions in a corps).
You can already just have smaller armies if that's what you want. And if you want to have more units under a general in multiple places, you can select some divisions and assign them to a control group hotkey to use them by themselves. I don't particularly care about the supposed immersion breaking of having one army with divisions in different parts of the world, to me it's a game not a simulator and an army is nothing more than a UI organization tool.
So far nobody suggested there must be mechanics or pourcentage bonus on corps level as in HoI3.

I accept people might disagree but please don't create false argument.

In the current system you can only simulate the corps level until some point. You need generals to lead them and new generals cost A LOT to recruit. Many countries don't have enough generals any way.

As for the argument Corps level would make it more complicated to manage your troops, I find it puzzling. Imo it is the lack of the corps level that makes troops management much more difficult. It is easier to shift troops here and there according to need by groups of 2/3/4 divisions. The corps level help you to institutionalise it. It is especially handy when you manage your specialised troops like Mountainers, Marines or Airborne and even Armored troops. As they are typically too few to be used on the level army.

Right now there is nothing between 1 and 24 size armies.

I really like Pzt_Kami's suggestion.
As I just said above, you can easily just create an army of only a few divisions or create a control group out of part of an army if you want to manage divisions in small numbers. It doesn't require adding any new systems at all and works perfectly fine. I've never had any problems with the current system, though I as a general rule I never use the battle planner to attack so maybe that's why.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
You can already just have smaller armies if that's what you want.
Smaller armies require more generals, though. I prefer to be able to take two dozen divisions and put them all under the highest-ranking available general.

And if you want to have more units under a general in multiple places, you can select some divisions and assign them to a control group hotkey to use them by themselves.
Yes, of course you can. But it's impossible to read from the division list which or even the BP UI which units are assigned where, therefore being able to group them somehow in the division list would be super-useful. If you don't feel like doing that, you can just refrain from using that feature.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Yes, of course you can. But it's impossible to read from the division list which or even the BP UI which units are assigned where, therefore being able to group them somehow in the division list would be super-useful. If you don't feel like doing that, you can just refrain from using that feature.
Maybe some of the sorting tools promised in today's dev diary can help with that, while not triggering HoI3 OOB flashback nightmares like the word "corps" seems to do. ;)
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Smaller armies require more generals, though. I prefer to be able to take two dozen divisions and put them all under the highest-ranking available general.


Yes, of course you can. But it's impossible to read from the division list which or even the BP UI which units are assigned where, therefore being able to group them somehow in the division list would be super-useful. If you don't feel like doing that, you can just refrain from using that feature.
If you only use divisions of the same template in an army as you should, I don't see why that would be a problem since all divisions are the same. Tapping the hotkey takes you to where the divisions are anyway, so I really don't know why it matters if they are grouped in the division list.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the HOI3 OOB mess is being used as a straw-man hare. The physical HQ was big mistake, and the division level micro was killing. A corps-level implementation in HOI4 need not have those features. For me, the purpose of having corps in HOI4 would be to reduce micro because the current battleplan function is so bad that it forces me to micro divisions anyway and constantly redraw front lines. Even if there were no net reduction in micro, I still think implementing corps-level operations is a better representation of WW2 combat operations.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
More generals, an extended OOB and battle planner, all of this would be perfectly suited for a DLC.

The discussion here proves it.

Those who want it would buy the DLC and enjoy the new mechanics and those who want the current, simplified version would just not buy it.

What the DLC should include:

  • Mechanics: Corps, corps commanders, OOB (not as complicated as HoI3)
  • hundreds new leaders per major nation, dozens for minors (use HoI 3 database for traits etc, adjust for new features)
  • unique portraits for these generals (hire some outsourced artists, similar to BftB focus tree coders)
What should NOT be included:

Focus trees. Noone should need to add the OOB mechanic in order to make country XYZ playable.
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm all in favor of a major update reworking the way the battleplanner works and maybe even adding different layers of command.

What I am absolutely not in favor of is adding a Hoi3 OOB system where you have to hyper micro the movements of hundreds of field HQ units. It needs to work with the established HoI4 systems, and not just be a thing they force in because HoI3 had it.
 
  • 4
Reactions: