I don't see anything at all wrong with this feature...in fact I think it's exactly the compromise we needed. One thing I hated about HOI3 was the all-or-nothing approach to AI control, it was a nightmare switching between micro management and AI control.
"The VP is right there...take it...take it!...TAKE IT!..TAKE IT YOU &%(!!!! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"
*Detaches unit from hierarchy, pushes it to the undefended VP while fuming.*
*Unit takes VP.*
*Reattach unit to random corp because I didn't memorize which one it was in.*
That's not even covering having your entire front rearrange itself after the breakthrough to Danzig, so instead of actually attacking they're just moving along around the front.
Also I don't usually play the UK or USA simply because in both cases there's a TON of naval stuff that has to be handled constantly that's annoying to manage.
The new AI management is going to be gorious.
I think some of you guys are misunderstanding what is meant by planning here.
Think for a moment abstractly, it's not as if officers down the chain have a magical battle map that must be followed exactly to benefit... It's a general plan, not an exact blueprint down to the last soldier.
It's preparing for an operation in every way--materially and training etc--not just drawing routes on the map. It represents actual supply and combat readiness for given objectives. It would be a nice feature even if there was no AI control involved.
Think Operation Barbarossa...that plan was not followed exactly, but did preparing for that exact plan help the Germans attack? Yes!
This. This exactly. "Planning" includes things like setting up forward supply depots and logistical trains, providing instructions on what roads are best for your units and where known enemy strongpoints are. Making sure your units are in shape, supplied, equipped and at the maximum possible combat readiness and so forth.
- 5