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.
You don´t need a drastic rework of the system like the OP suggested. Small things like making logistical bombardment more powerful would be a good step. It should destroy infra AND supplies the units are carrying, and infra should cost IC to repair.
As a matter of fact I really miss Arsenal of Democracy approach. Most things destroyed should cost IC to repair.
Good suggestion. I like it. Or if they must be on the map then have just 3 types like they do for EU and CK (inf, arm and art).
Well, as far as submarines, you would send them out on missions, and you wouldn't be in constant contact with them
I can agree with abstracting submarine warfare away from the map, and have them as the same kind of ressource convoys/escort are.
But that would presume that the convoy system is unchanged, which i hope not.
As for airforce they must be more useful, but absolutely not taken off the map.
A part from CAGs and gimmicky log bombing i don't think they make much a difference in hoi3 (planes are way too expensive and get shredded way to quickly).
But that would presume that the convoy system is unchanged, which i hope not.
As for airforce they must be more useful, but absolutely not taken off the map.
A part from CAGs and gimmicky log bombing i don't think they make much a difference in hoi3 (planes are way too expensive and get shredded way to quickly).
As long as we can't ignore the air-war as a major power I'm fine with a system that is between HoI3 and what the OP suggested. I don't require air power to be completely abstracted. I just like the flying counters gone and see the planes where they bomb or fight. I want to click on their HQ to redirect their missions and see a nice overview of all my air-powers missions in the map clearly visible when I plan missions for my air HQs.
Ignoring air power must be catastrophic in a WWII game.
Last edited:
Sure but I´d rather ask the multiplayer crowd what they think about it, because using arguments like "versus the AI you can win with no planes and even cavalry" really doesn´t work. We all know the AI sucks, saying that is like saying that zerg rush is still OP because the AI still can´t deal with it. PAradox balances EU 4 for example using multiplayer as a basis. Same with Relic and Blizzard.
I wouldn't mind not knowing the exact position of your subs at all times, you can see them attached to a base but your orders are indirect
it would be weird for planes tho
it would be weird for planes tho
Well, I'd think you should be able to work that one out yourself fairly easily.
Or were you simply attempting to ridicule the idea?
Subs I can see the rationale for, airforces I'm not sold on. I'm loathe to see yet another aspect of game play abstracted away in the name of progress.
Which is a reasonable conclusions. I also did mention that it might be more of an AI problem than a mechanic problem. I just pointed out that if it were still the case in multi-player it is a serious problem. One of the problem with game mechanics is that by ignoring one part you can usually boost the other side and perhaps even so much that you are that much stronger to fully overcome and surpass being average in many things. Might not be a problem...
I am glad there is such a fierce debate on this topic.
The problems of air combat in HOI3 were excellently summarized here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?613547-Wishes-for-Air-Combat-in-expansion
my small input here as for the abstraction:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-expansion&p=13954628&viewfull=1#post13954628
As a reply to "Beaga", who states that air combat in HOI3 was fine and nobody was complaining about it:
Air combat in HOI3 was totally horrible and in fact was a strongest factor which made me stop playing the game alltogether (last straw was an expansion called The Finest Hour doing nothing whatsoever to improve it. Paradox should have named it "Insult to Injury" instead). There were other issues, like tech tree, the sliders management, trading, supply system, but nothing was ever close to how shitty the air combat was.
Naval combat was only slightly better. And when air and naval part met, the shitiness mutually multiplicated - see CAG and carrier issues.
Without these two parts totally overhauled, HOI4 will be just what HOI3 was, ie decent land warfare sim, but unplayable in any theaters where planes and ships did any role, so, in fact, just an eastern front sim minus the planes.
The problems of air combat in HOI3 were excellently summarized here:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?613547-Wishes-for-Air-Combat-in-expansion
my small input here as for the abstraction:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...-expansion&p=13954628&viewfull=1#post13954628
As a reply to "Beaga", who states that air combat in HOI3 was fine and nobody was complaining about it:
Air combat in HOI3 was totally horrible and in fact was a strongest factor which made me stop playing the game alltogether (last straw was an expansion called The Finest Hour doing nothing whatsoever to improve it. Paradox should have named it "Insult to Injury" instead). There were other issues, like tech tree, the sliders management, trading, supply system, but nothing was ever close to how shitty the air combat was.
Naval combat was only slightly better. And when air and naval part met, the shitiness mutually multiplicated - see CAG and carrier issues.
Without these two parts totally overhauled, HOI4 will be just what HOI3 was, ie decent land warfare sim, but unplayable in any theaters where planes and ships did any role, so, in fact, just an eastern front sim minus the planes.
Shut up and go troll elsewhere. I never said it worked well and if you cared to actually look the thread instead of auto-ad hominem I´m one of the people that ask the most for change, as long as it isn´t change for the sake of change, but change based on gameplay + history and that will improve said gameplay.
The OP wouldn´t change the most critical aspects of why the system is bad (and YES I did say it has flaws in this thread, more than once) while removing the fun of actually having planes in the game for many people. I don´t want to see the effect of bombings by report spam and WILL be vocal about it.
Last edited:
I'm OK with aircraft not being abstracted, but I cannot fathom a way where the aircraft would work the way it is supposed to in this province system (i.e. if you decide not to utilize aircraft the same way you would the land forces, you should lose the war horribly 100%, no questions asked), and not make it way way too micro heavy.
aircraft warfare in all hoi games were arcade at best, and I always ended up just using interceptors since other aircraft was really not necessary. you could also just use static air defence / radar without the interceptors - i.e. win the war as germany, using 0 aircraft. this should simply be impossible.
there is also the issue of AI using aircraft ineffectively, other than strat bombing.
... I don't know; I'm all for non-abstracted version that doesn't make the game a tactical one rather than a strategy game, but I don't see it happening. which is why I'm for more abstraction here.
same goes for subs.
aircraft warfare in all hoi games were arcade at best, and I always ended up just using interceptors since other aircraft was really not necessary. you could also just use static air defence / radar without the interceptors - i.e. win the war as germany, using 0 aircraft. this should simply be impossible.
there is also the issue of AI using aircraft ineffectively, other than strat bombing.
... I don't know; I'm all for non-abstracted version that doesn't make the game a tactical one rather than a strategy game, but I don't see it happening. which is why I'm for more abstraction here.
same goes for subs.
Sure, but the point is, making abstracted planes wouldn´t solve anything. If you didn´t need planes as Germany was because, well, the effect of enemy planes was weak (due to balance and above all AI), not because the game had air wings. Big difference. The problem is real, problem is, many people fail to see the real causes of said problem and imagine all kinds of crazy solutions.
right, but I think the point here is, it would be much easier for AI (and the player..) to handle the system if it were abstracted. abstracting could indeed solve the problem; a mixture of airbase based aircraft and army `attachments` that allows both static (i.e. help this army, or air superiority here) and specific (logistical strike these provinces) missions could solve the problem and make it easier for AI as well as the players.
of course, if some people play for micromanaging the divisions / aircraft (which is ok, each to his/her own
), then they wouldn't like this solution. but this brings the question: what is hoi? IMHO, it is a strategy game with some tactical elements in it. which is why I don't see abstracting tactical parts without undermining the strategic decisions as a problem; I don't play the game for tactical decisions, I play it for strategic ones.
of course, if some people play for micromanaging the divisions / aircraft (which is ok, each to his/her own
), then they wouldn't like this solution. but this brings the question: what is hoi? IMHO, it is a strategy game with some tactical elements in it. which is why I don't see abstracting tactical parts without undermining the strategic decisions as a problem; I don't play the game for tactical decisions, I play it for strategic ones.
Let's look at the problem with air combat in HoI3 before getting worked up about potential solutions.
As I see it, the problem is that the HoI design has always favored land combat, and as a rule treats the air unit almost exactly like a land unit, with the exception that it does not take or hold land. This means that the stacks of units in HoI1 and 2 had a returning role in HoI3. Also, the idea that an air unit operated as a whole entity wherever it went. It also abided by the rule of "less strength, less org = less effectiveness." While this works for a land unit that operates as one entity, an air unit, by its very nature, is far more flexible. In fact airpower is a third dimension to warfare and it's main advantage is flexibility via extreme mobility. So in effect, HoI mechanics limit air units' main advantage by treating them so similarly to land units.
As such, we see that the air unit is quite often beaten to the point of near destruction, especially when encountering the infamous stacks of enemy air units (which is predictable, hence the need to form your own stacks). The entire unit, despite being somewhat intact after even a devastating battle, has to wait for reinforcement and reorganization.
In reality, an air unit does not need to reorganize. If it loses planes, even a horrific amount if them, it doesn't need to consolidate or move into a rear position to reinforce. It has the flexibility to continue to send its remaining planes on sorties. There is no need for an air unit to sit and wait for supplies or to wait for the baggage train to reach the front line.
An air unit fulfills many missions quickly and goes home to rearm. That's about it. Damaged or otherwise unserviceable aircraft are removed from the roster, and it's go time for the rest.
The main point of contention here is the air units most obvious likeness to land units: it's representation in the UI. It's always been a counter that operates as a whole. This mechanic is a huge abstraction in itself since actual air operations were rarely undertaken by a whole group or wing at the same time. Command and control, logistics of the runways, coordination during the mission and tactical considerations simply did not allow it. The reason we have this in HoI is purely for ease of use.
If we want realism, but playability and less clicks, as well as fun, I'd suggest air unit management and combat be transformed to a more fluid regional combat model.
If we set combat parameters regionally, an air corps could be responsible for the airspace in its assigned region. This region could be domestic or foreign, and it assignment should be based on range.
So for instance, I want to bomb Japan with B-29s based on Iwo Jima. I select my air corps HQ, tell it to focus on daytime strategic bombing in x region. It then moves a little graphic or some sort of indicator over that region. Done. Every day whatever planes can fly go there and bomb. Their target depends on the most target rich province and works down from there. Alternatively I can just tell the corps to bomb everything simultaneously, or bomb all resources, or bomb all of one resource, or all IC in the entire region. Every day, my planes split and perform 5-6 bombings, at the same time!
Let's say Japan AI has an air corps based in that region. It has interceptors, so it contests that region's air space. Ok, so my bombers get intercepted. Since we use regional parameters, my bombers are spread out.
Depending on the intercept effectiveness, maybe 30 bombers are intercepted, the combat only lasts 1 hour... and 4 are shot down. The combat occurs on screen and in the outliner, just as in HoI3. There could be a notification but I would turn these off. I'd select the air corps to ensure the planes were replaced.
Say I forget about this ongoing mission for months. I can set a monthly or weekly report to pop up and tell me how I was doing. If I take a lot of losses, I can cancel the mission or tell the corps to halt when at a certain strength using a slider. Or I could add some long range escorts to the air corps and they'll automatically engage the enemy fighters, thus hopefully lowering my bomber losses.
As I see it, the problem is that the HoI design has always favored land combat, and as a rule treats the air unit almost exactly like a land unit, with the exception that it does not take or hold land. This means that the stacks of units in HoI1 and 2 had a returning role in HoI3. Also, the idea that an air unit operated as a whole entity wherever it went. It also abided by the rule of "less strength, less org = less effectiveness." While this works for a land unit that operates as one entity, an air unit, by its very nature, is far more flexible. In fact airpower is a third dimension to warfare and it's main advantage is flexibility via extreme mobility. So in effect, HoI mechanics limit air units' main advantage by treating them so similarly to land units.
As such, we see that the air unit is quite often beaten to the point of near destruction, especially when encountering the infamous stacks of enemy air units (which is predictable, hence the need to form your own stacks). The entire unit, despite being somewhat intact after even a devastating battle, has to wait for reinforcement and reorganization.
In reality, an air unit does not need to reorganize. If it loses planes, even a horrific amount if them, it doesn't need to consolidate or move into a rear position to reinforce. It has the flexibility to continue to send its remaining planes on sorties. There is no need for an air unit to sit and wait for supplies or to wait for the baggage train to reach the front line.
An air unit fulfills many missions quickly and goes home to rearm. That's about it. Damaged or otherwise unserviceable aircraft are removed from the roster, and it's go time for the rest.
The main point of contention here is the air units most obvious likeness to land units: it's representation in the UI. It's always been a counter that operates as a whole. This mechanic is a huge abstraction in itself since actual air operations were rarely undertaken by a whole group or wing at the same time. Command and control, logistics of the runways, coordination during the mission and tactical considerations simply did not allow it. The reason we have this in HoI is purely for ease of use.
If we want realism, but playability and less clicks, as well as fun, I'd suggest air unit management and combat be transformed to a more fluid regional combat model.
If we set combat parameters regionally, an air corps could be responsible for the airspace in its assigned region. This region could be domestic or foreign, and it assignment should be based on range.
So for instance, I want to bomb Japan with B-29s based on Iwo Jima. I select my air corps HQ, tell it to focus on daytime strategic bombing in x region. It then moves a little graphic or some sort of indicator over that region. Done. Every day whatever planes can fly go there and bomb. Their target depends on the most target rich province and works down from there. Alternatively I can just tell the corps to bomb everything simultaneously, or bomb all resources, or bomb all of one resource, or all IC in the entire region. Every day, my planes split and perform 5-6 bombings, at the same time!
Let's say Japan AI has an air corps based in that region. It has interceptors, so it contests that region's air space. Ok, so my bombers get intercepted. Since we use regional parameters, my bombers are spread out.
Depending on the intercept effectiveness, maybe 30 bombers are intercepted, the combat only lasts 1 hour... and 4 are shot down. The combat occurs on screen and in the outliner, just as in HoI3. There could be a notification but I would turn these off. I'd select the air corps to ensure the planes were replaced.
Say I forget about this ongoing mission for months. I can set a monthly or weekly report to pop up and tell me how I was doing. If I take a lot of losses, I can cancel the mission or tell the corps to halt when at a certain strength using a slider. Or I could add some long range escorts to the air corps and they'll automatically engage the enemy fighters, thus hopefully lowering my bomber losses.
On reports: What if you could click on a HQ and get a summary of planes shot down/lost, shipping sunk/submarines lost, etc. by all subordinate units in the past day/week/month(s)? Then you wouldn't have to deal with any popups, it would be more flavorful than the ledger, and you could get a report whenever you wanted and at whatever granularity you wanted.
I would support a more off-map approach for the air forces - I'm also one of the people who didn't have the patience to micromanage them even though I like to micromanage all of my land forces. :wacko: I would like an approach where the planes would be added (and shuffled between) air bases and given orders from there. There could then be an on-map indicator for each base with planes that would show info such as combined strength (and composition?) of the forces, losses suffered and, for example, air superiority status in the area to indicate success of the air missions. So you would see the general situation with a glance and could then get more detailed data by clicking the airbase.
That's how I envisioned it myself so thanks for typing that all out Bullfrog!