An Idea: Take Airforces and Submarines off the map
- Thread starter DoomBunny
- Start date
-
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 think if they are important, it is important to get them right. Moving away from counters flying across the map doesn't have to make them less important or involve less interesting choices.
The problem really isn´t removing importance, but more how the effects will feel diluted.
The good thing with both HOI 2/3 air wing model is that you instantly see the modifiers and above all the DAMAGE you´re dealing or taking.
If you put that as a system where, say, you order 500 tactical bombers to bomb Belgium and all you get is a report on how many planes were shot down and how many troops they killed, you lose the feedback (or at the very least the "emotional" link to what they done) and thus it will be all too easy to put everything on auto and don´t care anymore.
Specially because due to the small province system, you will have one report for each province and let´s be honest, who will waste time checking all of those everyday?
Agreed, but do you really read all the HoI3 bombing reports? What's the difference? If the battles were still shown on map or in the outliner or both, it would really be no different. I suggested a more informative air map mode that combines the strategic warfare stats with the combat statistics, as well as air AOs given regionally. I'd think these taken together would be plenty of info to make it connect emotionally (if you will) with the player.
I already don't care about the HoI3 system, because it's way too annoying to micromanage my planes along an advancing 1000km front. You get to use your planes for 1 day out of every 2 weeks if they get intercepted and chewed up, and then you forget about them for 3 months, and then you forget to change the coverage zones of your interceptors (or they are now too far behind the lines and out of range), etc etc etc ... I just end up ignoring aircraft after a while. Meanwhile the AI which never gets annoyed by tedium is slowly whittling away at your troops unopposed.
Probably a combination of the current and proposed system would be better. Subs and aircrafts stay on the map, you can pick one 'unit' separately and assign mission to them, or left them in the centralized command as you proposed and left the AI to handle the necessary reorganization and units selection. That way one air or submarine 'unit' can have their airplanes or submarines spread in different location at the same time doing their own mission, but again, you can still focus one 'unit' to one particular mission, say transporting paratroopers, bombing one army unit etc.
Speak for yourself, I don´t have anything against the wings system. If it feels boring micro, blame the tiny province model which forces you to micro so much to spread attacks, or the bad AI that doesn´t know how to focus attacks properly. NOT the wings themselves.
And as I said removing the wings would do barely anything to change that. You would still have a system based on tiny attacks over a wide front. With the only difference being that you are going to be spammed with tons of silly reports you won´t bother to read, instead of air battles like in HOI2/3.
As usual people don´t understand the cause of the effect...
Last edited:
+1 both are great ideas. I was going to say especually aircraft but no. Rwally both have to be implemented. As you said, the way thibgs are now makes air combat unrealistic, and micromanagy. This way you'd have more influence with the aircraft on your land combat, and it would allow to more realistically model the petroleum consumption of operations. Why has this not been implemented yet??
I like the idea for subs - this is already done for convoys and escorts, why not have subs the same.
I also like the idea for strategic bombers, however I'm less sure about tactical bombing.
I also like the idea for strategic bombers, however I'm less sure about tactical bombing.
I like the way submarines were deployed in HOI3. Same with aircraft. I like the options available too. Seems like a good way to do it.
But I would like more options on when we are able to have the subs/air take a break from action so they don't need so much attention. For example, stand down when strength is below 50% or when ORG is below 60% but return to action when STR gets back to 75% and ORG gets back to 90% (or whatever you decide).
But I would like more options on when we are able to have the subs/air take a break from action so they don't need so much attention. For example, stand down when strength is below 50% or when ORG is below 60% but return to action when STR gets back to 75% and ORG gets back to 90% (or whatever you decide).
It is just great to see how many people read only the title and are completely against the idea without even bothering to read what it is about. Reading in Hoi forums is a bit like watching soap operas ... can be fun occasionally 
I read it. Im not a fan.
Id rather see convoys and escorts actively moving across the map. Along with that, id like to see an elimination of the abstraction of damage done to ships entirely, and replaced with an actual engagement system, where a bomb, torpedo, or cannonade actually hits a ship, and either sinks it, damages an engine causing it slow, does superficial damage, or even giving you an option to scuttle.
More abstraction isnt the answer. Then it just becomes a matter of clicking something once, and never touching it again and watching the game go by.
The strategy of logistics overseas should be revamped, ill grant you, but not removed through abstraction as a game device you actually play, as opposed to watch.
When your transports leave, what time of year, the weather, what formation, what route, should all be choice, and thus giving the submariner player on the other side, to anticipate those moves, and counter them.
As for planes, if you abstract them to the point you dont even have to place them on the map, how does the other side ever have to figure out where your aircraft are based?
One of the major problems with this entire series, is how badly the opening day of Barbarossa goes.
The air system is abstracted to the point that actually destroying an entire group on the ground is impossible, let alone the amount of prep that went into deciding what bases to strike.
Theres thousands of pages of debate on how best to do it in War in the East.
Its a non starter here.
Thats the problem. Not the micromanagement.
Whats going to happen June 22nd? You just have a script delete 70% of the soviet airforce? Peal Harbor same thing. Just have an event pop up and delete those ships, take those ships out of Japans ports, move them for the player, and move them back?
Heck, if you dont do something about the damage abstraction, youre forced to do that, because it cant actually happen given the game rules. You rarely destroy big ships, in big stacks, with huge stacks of planes. Same for any of the strikes against Italys ports. Or Malta.
If you abstract it to the point you need events to make things saunter on convincingly, then youre just watching the game, and not actually playing it.
What it honestly boils down to is interface.
If you could click on an enemy unit, bring up a menu that has an air attack button, click that, it brings up every airunit in range, you click a mission type and settings, altitude, click the units you want to do that mission, and let it go, that would alleviate a huge amount of micromanagement, without having to sacrifice anything. You can still build and place your airforce, have the strategy of building and using it, but it wouldnt be such an annoying mess to send aircraft to do the simple things you want them to do.
While im ranting.....how about fleet colliers so we can get rid of the ridiculous range penalty for most ships, and add recon planes, and allow them to fly over nations youre not at war with. And id really like bad weather to sink ships, and damage air units. Id like to see constant attrition on air units, even if they never go into combat. Training costs alot of planes and pilots.
Id rather see convoys and escorts actively moving across the map. Along with that, id like to see an elimination of the abstraction of damage done to ships entirely, and replaced with an actual engagement system, where a bomb, torpedo, or cannonade actually hits a ship, and either sinks it, damages an engine causing it slow, does superficial damage, or even giving you an option to scuttle.
More abstraction isnt the answer. Then it just becomes a matter of clicking something once, and never touching it again and watching the game go by.
The strategy of logistics overseas should be revamped, ill grant you, but not removed through abstraction as a game device you actually play, as opposed to watch.
When your transports leave, what time of year, the weather, what formation, what route, should all be choice, and thus giving the submariner player on the other side, to anticipate those moves, and counter them.
As for planes, if you abstract them to the point you dont even have to place them on the map, how does the other side ever have to figure out where your aircraft are based?
One of the major problems with this entire series, is how badly the opening day of Barbarossa goes.
The air system is abstracted to the point that actually destroying an entire group on the ground is impossible, let alone the amount of prep that went into deciding what bases to strike.
Theres thousands of pages of debate on how best to do it in War in the East.
Its a non starter here.
Thats the problem. Not the micromanagement.
Whats going to happen June 22nd? You just have a script delete 70% of the soviet airforce? Peal Harbor same thing. Just have an event pop up and delete those ships, take those ships out of Japans ports, move them for the player, and move them back?
Heck, if you dont do something about the damage abstraction, youre forced to do that, because it cant actually happen given the game rules. You rarely destroy big ships, in big stacks, with huge stacks of planes. Same for any of the strikes against Italys ports. Or Malta.
If you abstract it to the point you need events to make things saunter on convincingly, then youre just watching the game, and not actually playing it.
What it honestly boils down to is interface.
If you could click on an enemy unit, bring up a menu that has an air attack button, click that, it brings up every airunit in range, you click a mission type and settings, altitude, click the units you want to do that mission, and let it go, that would alleviate a huge amount of micromanagement, without having to sacrifice anything. You can still build and place your airforce, have the strategy of building and using it, but it wouldnt be such an annoying mess to send aircraft to do the simple things you want them to do.
While im ranting.....how about fleet colliers so we can get rid of the ridiculous range penalty for most ships, and add recon planes, and allow them to fly over nations youre not at war with. And id really like bad weather to sink ships, and damage air units. Id like to see constant attrition on air units, even if they never go into combat. Training costs alot of planes and pilots.
Last edited:
It is just great to see how many people read only the title and are completely against the idea without even bothering to read what it is about. Reading in Hoi forums is a bit like watching soap operas ... can be fun occasionally
Everyone read it.
Everyone understood what he meant. It´s just that many people disagree. If there are useless posts, are those like the one you just did.
No one here is dumb. The fundamental problem with the air system is the tiny battle model with hundreds of little strikes, and the AI that sucks at positioning air wings, both issues that would NOT be solved by the OP. And would probably be agravated as instead of 100 plane "blocks" the AI would have to handle fractions, while forcing players to totally give control of planes to the AI.
I agree - because of that IMO sub/convoy warfare and airwars should be moved to specialized off-map interface.
I'm onboard with the idea of abstracted submarines and strategic air warfare.
I'd still want to be able to move subs around tho, even if it's just on a 'strategic command level'; so I can put my subs in the English Channel, or Kattegat. I don't trust the AI to manage my sub or bomber forces completely "hands off" – but I guess the battle planner system could work well to simulate that.
For tactical air support and airspace superiority, I still think a unit based system is the best way to go tho.
I'd still want to be able to move subs around tho, even if it's just on a 'strategic command level'; so I can put my subs in the English Channel, or Kattegat. I don't trust the AI to manage my sub or bomber forces completely "hands off" – but I guess the battle planner system could work well to simulate that.
For tactical air support and airspace superiority, I still think a unit based system is the best way to go tho.
Sigh... you do realize how said interface would work? You would be Reading reports of 3 planes shot down and 10 guys killed every minute. Is that what you want?
10 minutes later you would either put
1- Everything on AI control
2- Remove casualties pop-ups.
Why do you assume that the pop-ups will have to be the same as HOI3? Isn't that just a problem with pop-ups that could be fixed? Did Churchill/Hitler/Stalin read hourly reports at this level of engagements? Not really. They would get a day's summary report of what happened on the front: ground, air and sea (something like Halder's war diaries, only without the prose, or some of those Stavka reports that you can read off the part of the Soviet archives on the internet).
I do agree hourly reports are stupid and should be a thing of the past. What's needed as a much improved strategic warfare interface to show how you're doing as a whole, and on different theaters of war.
Alternatively to pop-ups, one could have a simple readout of losses/kills on the same screen where you set up the groups.
I hated HOI3 air and sub war so much that I never build any of them. What was really ridiculous that I could easily win without air force! Actually it was a winning formula. Just focus building land forces and forget everything else. "Flying sprites" didn't make me feel like I was commanding WW2 era air war. Also managing subs in HOI3 was micromanage nightmare.
+1 from new better system for subs and airplanes. Abstracted somehow, maybe air HQ units could be shown on map. Each HQ represent air wing or air army of dozens or even hundreds of planes. Subs could have same HQ and several flotillas. More abstracted, less gamey, more realistic and less micromanaging.
+1 from new better system for subs and airplanes. Abstracted somehow, maybe air HQ units could be shown on map. Each HQ represent air wing or air army of dozens or even hundreds of planes. Subs could have same HQ and several flotillas. More abstracted, less gamey, more realistic and less micromanaging.
This is the problem when you give the player too much freedom over research, production and organization. Unless you role-play the system are too easily exploited. Paradox should apply more hard choices and not allow the player to swing from one end of the spectrum to the other without severe penalties. The fact that you could win the war as any of the major factions without any air-force just shows that the mechanic is not balanced or implemented properly. Although, I'm not sure if that would be true in a multiplayer game, if so it is more of an AI problem.
I'm also sure that both Air and Submarines will become more abstracted than before, exactly how remain to be seen. But from the information that leaked so far it sounds different enough that I'm hopeful.