August Storm Mod Review

[Spartanlemur]

NATO counters are the deal-breaker for me. Pass.

 

[jackda]

I remember this mod from HoI3, though I think I never played it. Looks interesting, especially with the focus changes and battleplan AI improvements.

Would you recommend August Storm for multiplayer? I don't play much of SP.



This is true.

I've seen other mods do coloured symbols too though, like GGA for BICE in HoI3. I think it might be one of those cases where a modder thinks it "looks cool", without having any real life basis behind it.

Generally speaking if any colour is applied to NATO symbols, it is blue for friendly and red for hostile.

On a more local tactical level colours are in my experience always used, and these colours are blue (friendly), green (neutral), red (hostile) and yellow (unknown). But this is generally squad to company level stuff, so it's well below the scope of the game.

AS NATO counters are different precisely because they use different colours. But, we haven't invented those colours choice, it does exist in another system :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_colours_of_the_Heer_(1935–1945)
So AS mixed both of them, you can't say it has "no real life basis behind it".

 

[jackda]

NATO counters are the deal-breaker for me. Pass.

And using big giant animated cartoon soldiers on a Grand Strategy Wargame's map, is even more than a deal-breaker for me.

 

[Fulmen]

AS NATO counters are different precisely because they use different colours. But, we haven't invented those colours choice, it does exist in another system :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corps_colours_of_the_Heer_(1935–1945)
So AS mixed both of them, you can't say it has "no real life basis behind it".

I know what Waffenfarbe is, we use it in the Finnish Defense Forces. But I've never seen it being applied to NATO symbols, except in certain HoI mods.

 

[Spartanlemur]

And using big giant animated cartoon soldiers on a Grand Strategy Wargame's map, is even more than a deal-breaker for me.

I can understand why people like NATO counters. Admittedly it does give it a more realistic feel, as though you were a general commanding from the top down.

But then again, there are weather effects, a 3D map, and you don't have all the paperwork which real-life WW2 generals had to deal with

Hearts of Iron 4, like any Paradox game, is a balance between realistic strategy, and abstractions of what's happening "on the ground". The thing that varies for us as players is where we like the line to be drawn between realism and visual spectacle. I suppose I draw my line in a different place to you.

It's your mod though at the end of the day.

 

[Archie]

Thank you so much for posting your review! For casual players (like me), this is a great benefit--since I don't know how well some of these mods play.

 

[Atomcreator]

Well then Atom+ - you won't need your ears, but eyes and an open mind will certainly be of immense value.........

The story of the Trans-Saharan railway begins in the 1880's with a French expedition to survey possible routes.
Camel trains had been crossing the Sahara for years and the Tuareg People were the traditional guides and custodians.
Here is what happened - the Tuareg did not want European encroachment into their lands and the expedition was wiped out.
NB: It was not the "shifting sands" you describe that stopped it.
It was the Tuareg.

As a reminder - the game begins in 1936 - there is no war - so infrastructure projects like this can happen.

Fast forward to the 1960s.
The Mauritania Railway - crossing the Western Sahara - was completed in 1963.
As you can see, the rail lines have NOT been swallowed by those treacherous "shifting sands of the Sahara [that] have swallowed whole towns before, never mind a flimsy railroad track" that you describe -- and the railway still operates today.

View attachment 202727

This 2014 article in a British newspaper clearly proves that railways CAN be built across deserts.

Here is a great video with Michael Palin on his trip across the Sahara.

So yes, Atom+, I am serious.

You're just arguing for the sake of it. You know as well as I do that a sahara railroad was beyond anyone on a practical scale for a myriad of reasons which I am not going to go into. I shouldnt have to, because its absolutely obvious. Its a completely ridiculous notion in the context of this game.
However, if you have the mindset of a sandbox player then anything is achievable.

 

[The Albatross]

You're just arguing for the sake of it. You know as well as I do that a sahara railroad was beyond anyone on a practical scale for a myriad of reasons which I am not going to go into. I shouldnt have to, because its absolutely obvious. Its a completely ridiculous notion in the context of this game.
However, if you have the mindset of a sandbox player then anything is achievable.

I have provided references that prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Sahara railway was not just planned, it was feasible AND built.
Without supplying any research yourself, you stated that it was impossible;

"This is wartime. Sure you can waste your money on building up infrastructure.. but it was NEVER an option. Those projects you describe were major peacetime initiatives, costing vast sums of money. Investment in the future, something that would benefit the country for years to come. Not something to enable an army to pass once or twice.
Plus, the maintenance would have been horrendous.
The shifting sands of the Sahara have swallowed whole towns before, never mind a flimsy railroad track."

It depends upon the level of "immersion" you desire.
Think of a swimming pool.
Children & the aged & infirm swim at the shallow end.
Others choose a deeper level of "immersion."
Experienced swimmers and athletes do this as it challenges & strengthens them.
I choose the deeper or more immersive end of the HOI spectrum.

Here is another example - Spartanlemur just made this statement;
"NATO counters are the deal-breaker for me. Pass."
Clearly this type of troop/corps indicator is too challenging for him.

You also insisted;
"The No mans land mod is essential."

Clearly you guys wish a more shallow level of immersion.
That is your choice - and you have expressed your opinion.

I have also made my choice, yet you cannot accept it;
"Its a completely ridiculous notion in the context of this game."

When I last messaged Cpack, he was gathering logistics references with a view to coding railway related transportation.
Cpack is also a modder, so I will be interested to see what comes from his ideas too.

 

[Atomcreator]

I have provided references that prove - beyond reasonable doubt - that the Sahara railway was not just planned, it was feasible AND built.
Without supplying any research yourself, you stated that it was impossible;

"This is wartime. Sure you can waste your money on building up infrastructure.. but it was NEVER an option. Those projects you describe were major peacetime initiatives, costing vast sums of money. Investment in the future, something that would benefit the country for years to come. Not something to enable an army to pass once or twice.
Plus, the maintenance would have been horrendous.
The shifting sands of the Sahara have swallowed whole towns before, never mind a flimsy railroad track."

It depends upon the level of "immersion" you desire.
Think of a swimming pool.
Children & the aged & infirm swim at the shallow end.
Others choose a deeper level of "immersion."
Experienced swimmers and athletes do this as it challenges & strengthens them.
I choose the deeper or more immersive end of the HOI spectrum.

Here is another example - Spartanlemur just made this statement;
"NATO counters are the deal-breaker for me. Pass."
Clearly this type of troop/corps indicator is too challenging for him.

You also insisted;
"The No mans land mod is essential."

Clearly you guys wish a more shallow level of immersion.
That is your choice - and you have expressed your opinion.

I have also made my choice, yet you cannot accept it;
"Its a completely ridiculous notion in the context of this game."

When I last messaged Cpack, he was gathering logistics references with a view to coding railway related transportation.
Cpack is also a modder, so I will be interested to see what comes from his ideas too.

Great info. I'll tell Rommel and Monty.
I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know.

 

[Deathshead419]

Wow, this looks really good. Apart from the ugly NATO symbols which I find clash horribly with HOI IV's aesthetics.

And we can't switch them off...

Oh well, back to waiting for Paradox to fix everything.

 

[Praetori]

I've seen other mods do coloured symbols too though, like GGA for BICE in HoI3. I think it might be one of those cases where a modder thinks it "looks cool", without having any real life basis behind it.

Generally speaking if any colour is applied to NATO symbols, it is blue for friendly and red for hostile.

On a more local tactical level colours are in my experience always used, and these colours are blue (friendly), green (neutral), red (hostile) and yellow (unknown). But this is generally squad to company level stuff, so it's well below the scope of the game.

In almost every war-game I've played (with the exception of a few like Harpoon etc) it's a mixup of different GUI styles. As you say, when color is used it's red for bad and blue for good (with the exception of blue on blue, as friendly fire isn't).
In reality however the shape of the icon determines affinity/belonging. Friendly units are the rectangles (so commonly used for EVERYTHING in civilian market wargames) while hostile formations are diamonds (rarely used in civilian wargames).

In reality the standard is based around the need to, in the simplest way possible, draw sitrep maps or orders while in the field, in the back of a vehicle on a bumpy road or at a HQ with just a pair of pencils on an overlay (or directly on the map with a black-lead pen), in a way that is coherent and understandable by any soldier who sees it.
Since colored pencils can be in short supply the shape is the defining characteristic. Color is a visual aid as well but mostly used in digitized environments.

NATO counters are great for those that know them but I can imagine it being very troublesome for people who don't, especially when the entire standard is used with all the bells and whistles. Mixups like the ones used here and in other games can be ok but sometimes they're even more confusing since you're used to a color or shape to mean something specific IRL but means something else in-game.

That being said the counters could look like whatever as long as there's some good GUI design behind them. NATO counters are very good IF you're out in the bushes where the end-user might only have a map and a pencil since they're designed with that type of operating environment in mind. That however, doesn't mean that it's the best method to convey information in a game played indoors on a computer.

 

[Fulmen]

Friendly units are the rectangles (so commonly used for EVERYTHING in civilian market wargames) while hostile formations are diamonds (rarely used in civilian wargames).

When I was in the army we used the diamond shape for hostiles like you say, but somehow I got the impression that the different shapes were only used on a smaller tactical level. Now that I think of it, it makes a lot of sense to always use them, whether it's just a few companies on the map or dozens of divisions. I've just never seen this on maps with bigger formations, but this is probably because most such maps that I've seen are from a time before NATO counters (WW2) or games/documentaries which perhaps incorrectly draw all symbols as rectangles.

In reality the standard is based around the need to, in the simplest way possible, draw sitrep maps or orders while in the field, in the back of a vehicle on a bumpy road or at a HQ with just a pair of pencils on an overlay (or directly on the map with a black-lead pen), in a way that is coherent and understandable by any soldier who sees it.
Since colored pencils can be in short supply the shape is the defining characteristic. Color is a visual aid as well but mostly used in digitized environments.

Yeah, makes sense. We carried markers with us but I imagine in a real scenario those might not always be available.

 

[Praetori]

When I was in the army we used the diamond shape for hostiles like you say, but somehow I got the impression that the different shapes were only used on a smaller tactical level. Now that I think of it, it makes a lot of sense to always use them, whether it's just a few companies on the map or dozens of divisions. I've just never seen this on maps with bigger formations, but this is probably because most such maps that I've seen are from a time before NATO counters (WW2) or games/documentaries which perhaps incorrectly draw all symbols as rectangles.

I've seen both variants. Especially historians or analytical presentations of battles past uses rectangles (as there's no "enemy" in that regard) but varying in color.
I've also seen shades of orange->red being used on different "hostile" units to highlight their estimated experience or combat proficiency.

Standardized use should be diamonds for hostiles though (no matter the level).

Yeah, makes sense. We carried markers with us but I imagine in a real scenario those might not always be available.

Exactly. The system is based upon the most basic tools that could be available (a piece of coal and a surface to draw on) and then builds from there. If you have colored markers then adding color is customary but that usually means there are some shaved staff monkeys available to do so.

(the person in the picture has nothing to do with the above text, but look at all them shiny pens though, and a map table big enough to sleep on)

 

[Fulmen]

I've seen both variants. Especially historians or analytical presentations of battles past uses rectangles (as there's no "enemy" in that regard) but varying in color.
I've also seen shades of orange->red being used on different "hostile" units to highlight their estimated experience or combat proficiency.

Standardized use should be diamonds for hostiles though (no matter the level).



Exactly. The system is based upon the most basic tools that could be available (a piece of coal and a surface to draw on) and then builds from there. If you have colored markers then adding color is customary but that usually means there are some shaved staff monkeys available to do so.

(the person in the picture has nothing to do with the above text, but look at all them shiny pens though, and a map table big enough to sleep on)

Interesting post.

Also:

shaved staff monkeys

 

[The Albatross]

Great info. I'll tell Rommel and Monty.
I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know.

.....clearly you are floundering at the shallow end of the pool old heart.
Especially when you choose to provide the EN [Rommel] with such sensitive information.
Just accept that you did no homework - no analysis - and no thinking outside the square!

"When everybody is thinking the same ~ somebody is not thinking"
~~ LTGEN George Smith Patton ~~

 

[jackda]

I can understand why people like NATO counters. Admittedly it does give it a more realistic feel, as though you were a general commanding from the top down.

But then again, there are weather effects, a 3D map, and you don't have all the paperwork which real-life WW2 generals had to deal with

Hearts of Iron 4, like any Paradox game, is a balance between realistic strategy, and abstractions of what's happening "on the ground". The thing that varies for us as players is where we like the line to be drawn between realism and visual spectacle. I suppose I draw my line in a different place to you.

It's your mod though at the end of the day.

HOI4 is a Strategic scale game not a Tactical scale's one. Means It is not supposed "to show what's happening on the ground". We always played Strategical WW2 games with NATO counters since Wargames/Boardgames exist. It seems we are too old to change our habits. Of course I can understand that younger players that never known/played classic Boardgames feel disappointed with those counters. I'm sure some of them will be able to make a sub-mod to "kill the counter father".

 

[Feltan]

This is an excellent mod that runs well. It is truly an improvement over vanilla, and I would recommend it to any serious player.

One minor exception -- the author's goal is (IIRC) to run the game until 1999. My best guess is that the timeline should end around 1960, give or take, given the current state of the mod. The lack of ICBM's, and a coherent AI response to them, gives pause .... and the tech tree needs naval and air upgrades. I suspect some/all of these are in the works. However, the add of helicopters and light tanks/ACR's is a very nice feature.

Regards,
Feltan

 

[Fulmen]

My best guess is that the timeline should end around 1960, give or take, given the current state of the mod. The lack of ICBM's, and a coherent AI response to them, gives pause .... and the tech tree needs naval and air upgrades.

I agree.

Fact is, most games don't even reach 1945. 1964 ended up being the limit in HoI2, AoD and I think DH. And if I'm not mistaken, it's also what HoI4 uses as the expiration date for ministers among other things. So if you really want to stretch the end date, '64 is where you want it.

 

[dermeister]

Hi, I'm one of the two principal developers of August Storm along with Jackda.

1. Our NATO counters use the same colouring system used with every single OOB diagram you will find on Wikipedia. For example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Russian_Ground_Forces.png

Feel free to look up the structure of the Army of any country on wikipedia, and you will find this colouring scheme. If you want Neutral/Ally/Foe, HOI4 implements that at the counter level (see the checkbox bottom right of your screen.)

2. We have introduced 3 impassible lines in the current version of AS, and the next will include even more. Paradox will have to fix the AI - but we will add all impassable lines. An impassible line means no Battalion+ army unit could ever pass it and maintain supply.

3. We are extending to 1999 and the next update will include Jets and more. You can find more at the AS thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/august-storm.942523/

 

[tom_jones]

1. Our NATO counters use the same colouring system used with every single OOB diagram you will find on Wikipedia. For example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Russian_Ground_Forces.png

Feel free to look up the structure of the Army of any country on wikipedia, and you will find this colouring scheme. If you want Neutral/Ally/Foe, HOI4 implements that at the counter level (see the checkbox bottom right of your screen.)

Out of curiosity, is there any explanation on the Wikipedia what colouring scheme they're using for their diagrams? As far as I can tell it's not provided with the diagrams, it's not included in the NATO symbols page, and for that matter, there's not even any explanation provided with the diagrams what the colours actually mean ...