• 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.

Count of Reval

Colonel
7 Badges
Apr 14, 2009
911
30
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Deus Vult
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • 200k Club
I wanted to share this with you here too. I asked the AI, ChatGPT, one day a following general question...


ME:
What elements a good strategical war game (board or video game) should include in order to simulate adequately an armed conflict?


CHATGPT:
There are several elements that a good strategic war game should include in order to simulate an armed conflict effectively:

1. Realistic military units: The game should include a wide variety of military units that are true to life, including different types of infantry, armor, artillery, and air power.

2. Terrain and weather effects: The game should take into account the terrain and weather conditions that can impact military operations, such as mountains, forests, and rain.

3. Logistics and supply: The game should include a logistics system that simulates the need to supply military units with food, ammunition, fuel, and other resources.

4. Politics and diplomacy: In order to accurately simulate an armed conflict, the game should include a political and diplomatic layer that allows players to negotiate with other countries and make alliances.

5. Morale and fatigue: The game should take into account the morale and fatigue of military units, as these can have a significant impact on their performance in battle.

6. Random events: To add an element of unpredictability and realism, the game should include random events that can change the course of the conflict.

7. Multiple victory conditions: The game should have multiple victory conditions, such as conquering a certain territory or achieving a certain level of economic or political power, to give players a variety of ways to win.


ME:
Maybe some more elements?


CHATGPT:
Here are a few additional elements that a good strategic war game might include:

1. Economic system: A robust economic system can be an important part of a war game, as it allows players to build and maintain their military forces and manage their resources.

2. Research and development: The game could include a system for researching and developing new technologies, weapons, and tactics, which can give players an edge in battle.

3. Espionage and sabotage: To add an element of secrecy and deception, the game could allow players to engage in espionage and sabotage against their enemies.

4. Public opinion: The game could include a system for measuring and managing public opinion, which can be impacted by the player's actions and decisions.

5. Population and infrastructure: The game could take into account the population and infrastructure of the countries or regions being fought over, as these can have an impact on the conflict.

6. Psychological warfare: The game could include a system for engaging in psychological warfare, such as propaganda campaigns and psychological operations, to try to demoralize the enemy and win the support of the population.

7. Command and control: The game should have a system for allowing players to give orders to their units and manage their military operations.

8. Historical accuracy: Depending on the setting of the game, it could include historical accuracy in terms of the military units, weapons, and tactics available to players.


-------------------------------------------------------------------

In the light of the lists above AoD seems to be pretty perfect.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:

MJF

Lt. General
9 Badges
Dec 31, 2005
1.533
133
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • March of the Eagles
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
I would say that conceptually, the only thing AOD is weak on is #6 in section 1, although there is a setting to increase this likelihood. Without that setting, about the only random element is battlefield deaths of key commanders.

The game is a bit weak in #1 of Sect 1, in that most build mobile units with SP Art only attached, etc -- but the BrainTrust is working on expanding the # of attachments, and IIRC, penalties for simplistic formations and brigading.
 

Czarina Julie

Czarina
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
945
640
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
The game is a bit weak in #1 of Sect 1, in that most build mobile units with SP Art only attached, etc -- but the BrainTrust is working on expanding the # of attachments, and IIRC, penalties for simplistic formations and brigading.
Yes, we are and we always want to hear your ideas. As a member of the release, I know that I brought some ideas as other the other have but those ideas are limited. Limited by what we team members brought. Unlimited, would be all of the people that play the game and their ideas.

We might not get every idea into AoD or have to wait for some ideas to be added, but no ideas equals no changes :) So everyone, toss those ideas out here on the forum.
 

MJF

Lt. General
9 Badges
Dec 31, 2005
1.533
133
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • March of the Eagles
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Colonel
Yes, we are and we always want to hear your ideas. As a member of the release, I know that I brought some ideas as other the other have but those ideas are limited. Limited by what we team members brought. Unlimited, would be all of the people that play the game and their ideas.

We might not get every idea into AoD or have to wait for some ideas to be added, but no ideas equals no changes :) So everyone, toss those ideas out here on the forum.
Well, In case I didn't list these before, or listed them where they're not easily seen, let me get some late 2¢ in:

Despite my previous rants against Darkest Hour, here is what I think AOD could "copy," below.

1. List in your interface all units under your command, not just your own nation's units (Land, Sea, Air groups). It is a PIA to be searching around for, say, allied Naval transports or air units, etc that are easily "lost" on a load from a saved game. As it is now, we must "hunt around" the map for them.

2. Ground attacks against exposed units by CAS's cause little damage in AOD. In DH they hit pretty hard, which is more realistic.

3. In DH, carrier attacks on enemy fleets in port, while still a fast drain on Org, cause actual and more accurate damage. In AOD they are almost useless until later in the game- if then. Could you imagine the Pearl Harbor attacks slightly damaging 2-3 BB's instead of the actual devastation caused in 1941?

4. If it would be possible to add DH's listing of commander choices by attribute....Yay!

5. The discussion of adding more than 1 brigade to ground divisions is on the table, as is the ability of certain brigades to assist all units in a single Corps or maybe even single army's stack. Construction engineers and Recon (Cav brigade formations, spotter planes AC's or Jeeps with mounted MGs) in particular should do this. Equally important I think is penalizing a player who only adds the same brigade(s) to all units in a stack. Imagine a Corps of infantry with only towed or SP Artillery assisting, but no AA, AT or recon units attached? They wouldn't last long, and without bridge builders, they might not move very fast if crossing rivers while attacking.

One Idea here could be that, if the unit is dug in/not moving/not attacking or supporting attacks, then an AA, Sapper Eng, AT etc, brigades would add their attributes to the entire corps (much like the Eng brigade does on defense now), but if the stack is moving/attacking/supporting attacks, an attached brigade (excluding Const Eng's - a bridge is a bridge - and recon, that radios in to the Corps commander) supports only the single division. This might not be doable, I realize. An example here could be a Corps of 1 Inf/AA & Art + 1 Inf/AT & Art +1 Inf/Sappers & Constr Eng. Don't want a penalty for no active Recon? Then pick the brigade you will do without to swap, or add another ground unit, or perhaps we allow the attachment of a 3rd brigade of recon units...? Of course, Heavy Tanks or TD's can substitute for AT or even SP Art. Mobile armored divisions should be particularly vulnerable to CAS/TAC ground attacks if they are without SP AA, unless Int/MRF Air Sup missions are happening in the province.

In 1989 in LA I met a man who was in Recon for Patton's 4th Armored Division. I think they were in Armored Cars, but I'm not sure. He fought in The Bulge. He said he didn't feel a let-down at the end of the war. Amazing.

BTW, what is the difference between an AG and SP Art? If none, why have AGs? Also, in Vanilla HOI II, you were unable to attach TDs to Armored Divisions. This makes sense to me.

6. The DH "Air Scramble" idea as good. Not sure about the "Naval Scramble" or "Sneak Move" ideas.

7. We should be able to help our allies. Not just by autosharing techs, but by giving away brigades as well. In particular, if we have assumed MC of an ally's forces, we should be able to assign our brigades to them.

8. We should be able to attach light tanks and perhaps even Med tank brigades to ground units. Lt Amph Tanks to Marine units in particular. Maybe we can now -- I don't usually get that deep in to see!

9. I vote for returning the Generals command structure to the original HOI II/DH actual WW II design: MG's - 1 Div, Lt. Gen - 3, Generals - 9, FM's - 12. Also, promotions should remove one skill level from the commander, and maybe even reset to 0 his experience count. Wait until he goes up 1 level by getting over 100 exp, then promote.


Some other "Housekeeping:"

A. As has been mentioned by Mr. BOnarpte and possibly others, ASW brigades are too strong before 1942.

B. Can we do something about the Naval combat bug RE air vs surface units? If your air units are in Naval Attack mode, and engage an enemy fleet, your surface ships are unable to engage. They don't detect. They don't fire. The friendly air attacks can't scare them off that badly!

C. Gibraltar should have a beach. 1 sea province only. As a mountain that is (usually) fortified, it won't be an easy invasion, but it had a beach!

D, Can we do something about the terrible production sliders? They work well in DH, but here I am constantly struggling with keeping my supplies away from either 10,000 or 0. Constant adjustments -- most tedious.

E. Is is possible to fix the Naval units loaded game bug? As it now stands, when you load from a saved game, all allied Naval units that you have MC'd "Lose" their orders! They show the new base to head to, for example, but they are just sitting there - brain dead. Since as mentioned in #1 above, you don't have them listed in your interface, you must 'hunt around" for these units after a game load.

F. As I mentioned in the past (somewhere), a general who is assigned a field command and a research slot should have his research speed cut in 1/2 unless he is sitting still. You can't be working on a major project and actively commanding troops in combat at the same time without something having to give.

G. Finally(?) some things that might not be doable. A country in your alliance should have the choice of going to war with another nation that the alliance leader DOWs after your friendly country has joined your group. Examples are Japan - in the Axis but not DOWing the USSR, and Bulgaria not DOWing the USSR. As it stands now, Germany and Japan can't share techs without Japan & the USSR being at war.

Second, when a nation "Demands Territory," you should be able to counter-offer. "No Comrade Beria, you can't have back all the territory our Glorius Axis Alliance acquired from your predessor, but if it will calm you down, how about Leningrad, and a line back to the Urals? You can have that -- if you promise to leave our Finnish friends alone! Now, should you accept our generous counter-offer, and continue to behave yourselves, then after we kick the Brits out of India we might even give you some, or all, of that! What'd ya say?" Now that would be cool.


That's all I can think of for now. TY!!!!!
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
Reactions:

KostasL

Dead already!
6 Badges
Jan 17, 2005
1.019
57
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
2. Ground attacks against exposed units by CAS's cause little damage in AOD. In DH they hit pretty hard, which is more realistic.
This is something that i am almost sure you can fix it yourself by adjusting the misc.txt file of the game.

3. In DH, carrier attacks on enemy fleets in port, while still a fast drain on Org, cause actual and more accurate damage. In AOD they are almost useless until later in the game- if then. Could you imagine the Pearl Harbor attacks slightly damaging 2-3 BB's instead of the actual devastation caused in 1941?

This is also something that i am almost sure you can fix it yourself by adjusting the misc.txt file of the game.

4. If it would be possible to add DH's listing of commander choices by attribute....Yay!

This would be nice!!!

B. Can we do something about the Naval combat bug RE air vs surface units? If your air units are in Naval Attack mode, and engage an enemy fleet, your surface ships are unable to engage. They don't detect. They don't fire. The friendly air attacks can't scare them off that badly!

This is a huge bug...most frustrating and disappointing !!!

D, Can we do something about the terrible production sliders? They work well in DH, but here I am constantly struggling with keeping my supplies away from either 10,000 or 0. Constant adjustments -- most tedious.

This would be nice!!!

E. Is is possible to fix the Naval units loaded game bug? As it now stands, when you load from a saved game, all allied Naval units that you have MC'd "Lose" their orders! They show the new base to head to, for example, but they are just sitting there - brain dead. Since as mentioned in #1 above, you don't have them listed in your interface, you must 'hunt around" for these units after a game load.

Another major bug...not so important to fix as the above mentioned naval battle bug...

 

Czarina Julie

Czarina
9 Badges
Apr 11, 2008
945
640
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
1. List in your interface all units under your command, not just your own nation's units (Land, Sea, Air groups). It is a PIA to be searching around for, say, allied Naval transports or air units, etc that are easily "lost" on a load from a saved game. As it is now, we must "hunt around" the map for them.
Agree!! Added to 1.14 list

2. Ground attacks against exposed units by CAS's cause little damage in AOD. In DH they hit pretty hard, which is more realistic.

3. In DH, carrier attacks on enemy fleets in port, while still a fast drain on Org, cause actual and more accurate damage. In AOD they are almost useless until later in the game- if then. Could you imagine the Pearl Harbor attacks slightly damaging 2-3 BB's instead of the actual devastation caused in 1941?
I think we should wait on these until the 1.13 release has been fully tested. The team is currently playing the 1.13 release for issue like this.

5. The discussion of adding more than 1 brigade to ground divisions is on the table, as is the ability of certain brigades to assist all units in a single Corps or maybe even single army's stack. Construction engineers and Recon (Cav brigade formations, spotter planes AC's or Jeeps with mounted MGs) in particular should do this. Equally important I think is penalizing a player who only adds the same brigade(s) to all units in a stack. Imagine a Corps of infantry with only towed or SP Artillery assisting, but no AA, AT or recon units attached? They wouldn't last long, and without bridge builders, they might not move very fast if crossing rivers while attacking.
Adding more than 1 brigade to air and land units is already scheduled for 1.13 and is pretty close to being finished. I disagree on the concept of penalizing units based on brigades they or have too many of. I understand your point but, IRL, divisions had their own organic engineers, MPs, medics, MI, etc. usually in battalion sized units.

You might want to look at 1.14 thread regarding engineers and the new concept of river provinces for crossing difficulties. A lot of what you mention about these brigades are already scheduled in the 1.14 release.

7. We should be able to help our allies. Not just by autosharing techs, but by giving away brigades as well. In particular, if we have assumed MC of an ally's forces, we should be able to assign our brigades to them.
Currently, you can semi-do this by bringing the expeditionary troops they give you to one of your national provinces and add the brigade. The other thing you can do is just give them a division with that brigade. Both these options you need to monitor your ally's manpower and reinforcement since you can end up "overloading" your ally, causing the brigade/division to wither away quite quickly.

In 1989 in LA I met a man who was in Recon for Patton's 4th Armored Division. I think they were in Armored Cars, but I'm not sure. He fought in The Bulge. He said he didn't feel a let-down at the end of the war. Amazing.
My dad was a medic with the medical detachment to the HHC (headquarters headquarters company) of the ("devils in baggie pants") combat engineers of the 84th "Lincoln Railsplitter" Infantry division. It was the division the Germans hit, in Marche, Belgium, after bypassing the 101st. The only thing he mentioned about the Bulge was how the Malmady massacre reinforced the soldier's resolve (basically pissed them off and made them fight even harder). There are some good interviews/documentary on youtube regarding the 84th ID.

When I was station in the 25th ID at Schofield Barrack, Hawai'i, I remember a 4th of July celebration where a WW2 Airborne vet was talking with a young airborne solider. The youngster was bragging to the veteran about how many jumps he had has done. The vet told him that he had only jumped 5 times, 2 of them were training jumps. The young pup didn't say anything after that :)


6. The DH "Air Scramble" idea as good. Not sure about the "Naval Scramble" or "Sneak Move" ideas.
Already scheduled for 1.14

8. We should be able to attach light tanks and perhaps even Med tank brigades to ground units. Lt Amph Tanks to Marine units in particular. Maybe we can now -- I don't usually get that deep in to see!
1.13 has this already

9. I vote for returning the Generals command structure to the original HOI II/DH actual WW II design: MG's - 1 Div, Lt. Gen - 3, Generals - 9, FM's - 12. Also, promotions should remove one skill level from the commander, and maybe even reset to 0 his experience count. Wait until he goes up 1 level by getting over 100 exp, then promote.
The team has already discussed this. Although the decision isn't finale, we all want it too.

A. As has been mentioned by Mr. BOnarpte and possibly others, ASW brigades are too strong before 1942.
This has been addressed in the 1.13 release and is currently being tested (and tweaked if necessary).

B. Can we do something about the Naval combat bug RE air vs surface units? If your air units are in Naval Attack mode, and engage an enemy fleet, your surface ships are unable to engage. They don't detect. They don't fire. The friendly air attacks can't scare them off that badly!
Yes!! Currently playing as Italy and had to invade Republican Spain in late 1936 after Nationalist Spain lost the SCW. I had 44 ships in one sea province and lost a loaded transport to one, only 1, frilling old tactical bomber. Like, really? Oh, and I had 4 tactical bombers bombing the airfield as that tactical bomber took off, sunk the loaded transport, and then returned the airfield being bombed.


E. Is is possible to fix the Naval units loaded game bug?
Already on the list

F. As I mentioned in the past (somewhere), a general who is assigned a field command and a research slot should have his research speed cut in 1/2 unless he is sitting still. You can't be working on a major project and actively commanding troops in combat at the same time without something having to give.
We are going to be addressing the issue (not sure if 1.13, but it appears more likely in 1.14) the issue where if a leader dies and they are also a minister, the minister goes away and vice-a-versa. Also, where if the leader can command more than one type of unit (land, air, naval) then once assigned to one type, they are not available to be assign to another type at the same time. As for your idea, we need to discuss more and see what everyone wants.

G. Finally(?) some things that might not be doable. A country in your alliance should have the choice of going to war with another nation that the alliance leader DOWs after your friendly country has joined your group.
This one is going to be a little tricky to do, due to how the AI supports their allies. When 1.14 begins, I'll look into the coding effort and let team know the effort.

Second, when a nation "Demands Territory," you should be able to counter-offer.
I'm fairly certain this won't happen. There was discussion on this forum already about this.

C. Gibraltar should have a beach. 1 sea province only. As a mountain that is (usually) fortified, it won't be an easy invasion, but it had a beach!
Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You'll find a very heated debate between me and a another player regarding this exact thing. In 1.14 there will be a beach (on the southeastern side) of Gibraltar.
 
  • 1Love
Reactions: