Anyone finds Sahara and northern Canada fun?
- Thread starter Pyramid_Head
- 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.
Exactly. Just a load of idealism. The problem isn't worth the manhours that would be sunk into fixing it so just implement NML and be done with it.
I cannot understand for the life of me why the devs won't implement a no mans land into the game. It is more historical that way, and it would help solve a lot of the attrition issues that the AI has.
Also other Paradox games have them in them, and EU4/CK2 have been implementing lots of small areas you can no longer cross recently.
I would hope the devs give the no mans mods a go and see what the difference is. I really like it in Black Ice. And in North Africa it works well as you get a sense of reality as the British where able to defend places like El Alamein as it was a small area that the Axis had to go through and you couldn't go round.
Also other Paradox games have them in them, and EU4/CK2 have been implementing lots of small areas you can no longer cross recently.
I would hope the devs give the no mans mods a go and see what the difference is. I really like it in Black Ice. And in North Africa it works well as you get a sense of reality as the British where able to defend places like El Alamein as it was a small area that the Axis had to go through and you couldn't go round.
- Philosophical tangent. Seeking understanding regarding no No Man's Land?
Just double checking, are you (2d person plural...applies to many) searching for understanding of why No-Man's land is not in HoI4?
If so, this thread could help explore the possible reasons why impassable terrain does not exist in HoI4. If anything, it would be an intellectual exercise to gain insights.
(Alternatively, I suppose we gamers could demand, "Hey! Paradox. Justify the absence of impassable terrain!" Or perhaps some more civilized request would bear more fruit in the quest for understanding. Yes. The latter approach would be more polite. I admit, I got a bit dramatic there.)
Many of the posts on forums throughout cyberspace revolve around...
to be understood as to understand,
I don't care if it's ahistorical (e.g. France sometimes going communist is fine with me) but armies crossing huge deserts or glaciers is seriously unrealistic which is indeed a problem.
At this point it seems like pure stubbornness. Still have not seen a good reason for this. Just block the Sahara thru Sudan and make Italian East Africa puppet colonies. The damage this is causing to gameplay isn't worth the"realism".
This is an article about the specific logistics for driving across French Equatorial Africa (some jungle, the Sahel, then the Sahara) from a WW2 intelligence bulletin magazine produced by the US Army. It generally took a month to cover 1,000 miles against no opposition and required a whole lot more trucks than usual. Which jibes with Leclerc having a truck per 9 men to move ~3,000 light infantry and some camelry 1,500 miles against essentially no opposition (just a few Auto-Saharan companies of 120 men) in 6 weeks.
That's about the largest force you can move and supply at that time which amounts to a few mot inf batt., maybe 1 cav, and a couple support companies smacking into units too small to represent. As an example the Italians had 4,000 trucks in Libya in 1940 which at Leclerc's rate would have allowed 36,000 troops to be motorized leaving the other 214,000 completely stuck and likely starving. Or the other way they would have needed 30,000 trucks to motorize all of their troops (plus tens of thousands of more trucks to carry the fuel, water, spare parts, and extra soldiers for all the extra trucks), which in either case it can easily be imagined what a nightmare of a traffic jam that would have made the desert tracks through the Sahara.
There is really no reason to waste time modeling what is best done via recon buffs if anything and auto-occupation of impassable provinces just to represent a single raid by one unit at the very low end of the unit scale that had almost no impact.
As for Arctic Canada, all you need to do is read an account of the US/Canadian operations on Attu and Kiska or the US/UK invasion of Archangelsk in 1919 to know why no operations larger than platoon or so would be conducted there ever.
That's about the largest force you can move and supply at that time which amounts to a few mot inf batt., maybe 1 cav, and a couple support companies smacking into units too small to represent. As an example the Italians had 4,000 trucks in Libya in 1940 which at Leclerc's rate would have allowed 36,000 troops to be motorized leaving the other 214,000 completely stuck and likely starving. Or the other way they would have needed 30,000 trucks to motorize all of their troops (plus tens of thousands of more trucks to carry the fuel, water, spare parts, and extra soldiers for all the extra trucks), which in either case it can easily be imagined what a nightmare of a traffic jam that would have made the desert tracks through the Sahara.
There is really no reason to waste time modeling what is best done via recon buffs if anything and auto-occupation of impassable provinces just to represent a single raid by one unit at the very low end of the unit scale that had almost no impact.
As for Arctic Canada, all you need to do is read an account of the US/Canadian operations on Attu and Kiska or the US/UK invasion of Archangelsk in 1919 to know why no operations larger than platoon or so would be conducted there ever.
Make it impassable, save for few specialized units. Make AI use few templates for said units. That, at least, will limit number of equipment AI will lose but still will leave a space for small operations.
For example, add a new type of units - Rangers with bonuses to forest\desert combat similart to Marines and Mountaneers. As forests and deserts seldom intersect, they could be versalite in filling both roles, instead of creating separate unit types.
For example, add a new type of units - Rangers with bonuses to forest\desert combat similart to Marines and Mountaneers. As forests and deserts seldom intersect, they could be versalite in filling both roles, instead of creating separate unit types.
It'd just make things needlessly complicated (especially for the AI) to have impassable terrain be passable for special units. Better and easier to just have infrastructure 0 be impassable.
An alternative to impassable terrain could be to have the wastelands divided into a small number of large provinces. For instance the Sahara desert could divided into around 5 provinces. Furthermore, give those provinces reduced combat width (say 20 o 40) and reduced supply . This would allow to defend the front with very few divisions and would still allow the possibility of attacking across the desert with a small force like Leclerc did.
Thing is - AI will still send there legions upo legions, battling through this reduced width to death even faster than attrition will burn him.
AI battling to death is something to be aware of.
Would it be OK if the designers program the AI to behave differently? At the same time that CharlieFox's suggestions were implemented, the AI could be programmed not to battle to the death.
If the ai was able to use specialized units instead of regular divisions according to terrain;
If the ai was able to build division templates to deal with low infrastructure;
If the ai was able to stop sending more divisions than can be supplied to Africa;
If the ai was able to not strand divisions in high attrition areas to die on the vine;
If the ai would refuse to send unescorted convoys on suicide missions to Africa;
If, if, if. Have you seen anything that gives you confidence PDS can accomplish this?
Those who are annoyed by this only think that way because they're too lazy to manage the large African front. They can't or won't multitask, so it's a pain for them to handle the AI ambitions in Africa while they're busy doing the 'real deal'. If you're so annoyed by this, then just garrison some meagre troops to protect your lands there and be done with it. Or if you're not in the Allies then just capture what matters to you and leave a small garrison. If the AI ends up beating you there, then well you just better benefit from them not committing those units to the mportant front lines and win quickly.
Looking at all those ifs, I think I prefer my chances in the lottery. Besides, it all those issues were addressed, the game would be so greatly improved that no one would be much concerned about complaining with the situation in Africa.
To some extent, the African campaign is a scapegoat for what is wrong with the game. We all know some things are wrong and the AI does not perform as we would like. Even new players can also see at a glance that some strange things happen in or on the way to Africa. Clearly it is partly at fault for the flaws in the bigger picture, but how much of the burden of blame really belongs in Africa? I would speculate that its proper share of the blame is far less than the amount of discussion it has gotten since release. It is simply such an obvious flaw that it becomes an easy target.
Completely wrong. Those who are annoyed are not so because of laziness in coping with another front. The problem stems from not wanting to see the AI (as either side) waste so very many resources on such an unimportant front.
I don't think it is.
Given the complaints about PTI in HOI3 and other Paradox titles, it seems to me to be a consequence of satisfying one group of players.
There's no PTI in HoI3, all provinces can be traversed if you build infra.
Its because those provinces dont have strategic regions assigned to them. Just give them a dummy region and its fine. You can see my post about it in the bug forums.