I've been on the forums a lot lately and have been noticing people talking about hoi3 mechanics. Since I've never played hoi3, I was wondering if someone would be nice enough to explain the differences between the two.
Compare/Contrast hoi3 and 4
- Thread starter Tarnoyan Warrior
- 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.
There's a lot of differences, I don't expect I'll remember them all off the top of my head, but I will try to summarize for you. Keep in mind that HoI3 today is after 3 major expansion packs, each with a year of dev time, so you're comparing the final form of HoI3 to the in-progress Hoi4. A lot of major mechanics were only added or fleshed out to HoI3 with these expansions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was no "World Tension" meter, instead, being able to declare wars and pass laws such as conscription or mobilization was based around "threat" and "neutrality". Each country had "threat" with each other country. If Germany created a lot of threat, and the countries around Germany had low enough "neutrality", they were able to declare war.
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was a resource called "leadership" which the player needed to channel into Research, Espionage Points, Officers, and Diplomacy Points. You controlled how much leadership went into each thing. 1 point of leadership could research 1 technology, or generate a certain number of officers per day, or generate a certain number of espionage or diplomacy points per day. Small countries would have 6-10 leadership, large countries like Germany would have closer to 30.
In Hearts of Iron 3, there were a huge number of technologies compared to HoI4 since you could research many technologies at a time. Most technologies were "repeating", with years attached. For example, "infantry small arms" would have a 1936, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1949... version.
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was no separation between Military, Civilian and Naval factories. There was a generic resource called "IC" which built everything, and there was a single production queue for IC, ships, aircraft, land units and so on. IC was assigned to - "Production", "Supply", "reinforcements", "upgrades", "consumer goods".
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was no such thing as "equipment", land units simply had a certain number of stats based on technology. If you build a unit with 1941 equipment, and wanted to upgrade it to 1943 equipment, you needed to assign IC to "unit upgrades" and they would slowly be upgraded. Similarly, if a unit was damaged, you simply assigned IC to "reinforcements" and the damage would be repaired as long as you had enough manpower.
In HoI3, there was no "production efficiency" in the same way there was in HoI4, since there were no production lines. Instead, you had a system called "practicals". Building tanks increased your Armored Vehicle practical, building infantry increased Infantry Practical. This boosted research speed for related technologies, and reduced the build time for future units of that. Practicals faded over time without use.
In HoI3, manpower was a steady income instead of a flat percentage of population. With a high conscription law, your manpower would increase at some abstract number like "2 per month", which might represent 2000 or 20000 men or something like that. In HoI4, you pass a conscription law and all eligible people are granted to you in manpower, but the increase over time is very slow to represent population growth.
In HoI3, you had a full Order of Battle. Every division could be assigned to a corps, which was assigned to an army, then an army group, then a theatre. Each division, corps, army, army group and theatre would have its own leaders.
In HoI3, there was a simple espionage system. You assigned spies to enemy countries, and they would give you intelligence, or fight enemy spies, or do coups. In HoI4 currently there is no espionage, however parts of the old system are incorporated through "decryption/encryption", and there is a system for coups and influence separate from espionage.
In HoI3, air wings were manually controlled and told to cover certain areas or fly to specific provinces to do bombings in support of specific attacks. In Hoi4, you assign to air-regions and tell them to perform certain missions. In Hoi3 air wings had HP, while in Hoi4 they are modelled as individual planes that are lost and need to be replaced.
In HoI3, there was a full, detailed (but also buggy) supply system that traced supplies that you built from your capital or a local supply depot to the front lines. In HoI4, supply is a bit more abstract, you don't build them directly, they come from regions and flow. It's simpler and less impactful, but less buggy and doesn't require as much attention.
In HoI3, there was no concept of unit training or early deployment. You simply had laws that controlled how highly trained units were. You couldn't emergency deploy, nor could you perform on-map training on units to boost up their XP.
In HoI3, you did not have equipment or equipment stockpiles, but you did have resource stockpiles. Metal, Energy, Fuel, Crude Oil, Rares, Supplies and Money were the resources you had, and you traded for them. Any surplus was stockpiled allowing you to build up massive stockpiles pre-war that could last you for years. In HoI4, resources are not stockpiled, they are simply in surpluss or deficit, and control how fast you build things. In Hoi3, you needed 1 energy, 1 metal and 1 rare for every unit of IC.
In Hoi3, units used both supply and fuel. In Hoi4, fuel is abstracted into production and units only use supply to move.
In HoI3, there was only "AI control" or full manual control for units in combat. HoI3 was mainly designed for full player control with non-critical fronts being relegated to the AI. In HoI4, the battle planner is AI controlled but designed for constant player intervention alongside the AI. In HoI3, you could set objectives for the AI but it was quite poor. In HOI4, you set frontlines and tell the AI where to advance. It's an improvement over hoi3 ai control, but still has problems that need fixing.
In HoI3, there were no peace conferences, just "war goals" that you added during the war. If you ended the war and forgot to set war goals, the war simply ended in white peace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, in my opinion HoI3 is a more complex game, but not necessarily better. HoI3 version 1.0 at launch was pretty bad and a complete technical mess, HoI4 1.0 also had problems but was much more stable and well rounded. Certain aspects of HoI3 (with Their Finest Hour expansion) are superior to HoI4 as of today. I believe that HoI4 will eventually surpass HoI3 in almost every area, and that currently it is a more fun game to play. But this is just my perspective - HoI3 is also a more challenging game, has a higher degree of complexity (for better and worse), so some of the more hardcore players will consider HoI3 to be more fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was no "World Tension" meter, instead, being able to declare wars and pass laws such as conscription or mobilization was based around "threat" and "neutrality". Each country had "threat" with each other country. If Germany created a lot of threat, and the countries around Germany had low enough "neutrality", they were able to declare war.
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was a resource called "leadership" which the player needed to channel into Research, Espionage Points, Officers, and Diplomacy Points. You controlled how much leadership went into each thing. 1 point of leadership could research 1 technology, or generate a certain number of officers per day, or generate a certain number of espionage or diplomacy points per day. Small countries would have 6-10 leadership, large countries like Germany would have closer to 30.
In Hearts of Iron 3, there were a huge number of technologies compared to HoI4 since you could research many technologies at a time. Most technologies were "repeating", with years attached. For example, "infantry small arms" would have a 1936, 1939, 1941, 1943, 1945, 1947, 1949... version.
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was no separation between Military, Civilian and Naval factories. There was a generic resource called "IC" which built everything, and there was a single production queue for IC, ships, aircraft, land units and so on. IC was assigned to - "Production", "Supply", "reinforcements", "upgrades", "consumer goods".
In Hearts of Iron 3, there was no such thing as "equipment", land units simply had a certain number of stats based on technology. If you build a unit with 1941 equipment, and wanted to upgrade it to 1943 equipment, you needed to assign IC to "unit upgrades" and they would slowly be upgraded. Similarly, if a unit was damaged, you simply assigned IC to "reinforcements" and the damage would be repaired as long as you had enough manpower.
In HoI3, there was no "production efficiency" in the same way there was in HoI4, since there were no production lines. Instead, you had a system called "practicals". Building tanks increased your Armored Vehicle practical, building infantry increased Infantry Practical. This boosted research speed for related technologies, and reduced the build time for future units of that. Practicals faded over time without use.
In HoI3, manpower was a steady income instead of a flat percentage of population. With a high conscription law, your manpower would increase at some abstract number like "2 per month", which might represent 2000 or 20000 men or something like that. In HoI4, you pass a conscription law and all eligible people are granted to you in manpower, but the increase over time is very slow to represent population growth.
In HoI3, you had a full Order of Battle. Every division could be assigned to a corps, which was assigned to an army, then an army group, then a theatre. Each division, corps, army, army group and theatre would have its own leaders.
In HoI3, there was a simple espionage system. You assigned spies to enemy countries, and they would give you intelligence, or fight enemy spies, or do coups. In HoI4 currently there is no espionage, however parts of the old system are incorporated through "decryption/encryption", and there is a system for coups and influence separate from espionage.
In HoI3, air wings were manually controlled and told to cover certain areas or fly to specific provinces to do bombings in support of specific attacks. In Hoi4, you assign to air-regions and tell them to perform certain missions. In Hoi3 air wings had HP, while in Hoi4 they are modelled as individual planes that are lost and need to be replaced.
In HoI3, there was a full, detailed (but also buggy) supply system that traced supplies that you built from your capital or a local supply depot to the front lines. In HoI4, supply is a bit more abstract, you don't build them directly, they come from regions and flow. It's simpler and less impactful, but less buggy and doesn't require as much attention.
In HoI3, there was no concept of unit training or early deployment. You simply had laws that controlled how highly trained units were. You couldn't emergency deploy, nor could you perform on-map training on units to boost up their XP.
In HoI3, you did not have equipment or equipment stockpiles, but you did have resource stockpiles. Metal, Energy, Fuel, Crude Oil, Rares, Supplies and Money were the resources you had, and you traded for them. Any surplus was stockpiled allowing you to build up massive stockpiles pre-war that could last you for years. In HoI4, resources are not stockpiled, they are simply in surpluss or deficit, and control how fast you build things. In Hoi3, you needed 1 energy, 1 metal and 1 rare for every unit of IC.
In Hoi3, units used both supply and fuel. In Hoi4, fuel is abstracted into production and units only use supply to move.
In HoI3, there was only "AI control" or full manual control for units in combat. HoI3 was mainly designed for full player control with non-critical fronts being relegated to the AI. In HoI4, the battle planner is AI controlled but designed for constant player intervention alongside the AI. In HoI3, you could set objectives for the AI but it was quite poor. In HOI4, you set frontlines and tell the AI where to advance. It's an improvement over hoi3 ai control, but still has problems that need fixing.
In HoI3, there were no peace conferences, just "war goals" that you added during the war. If you ended the war and forgot to set war goals, the war simply ended in white peace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, in my opinion HoI3 is a more complex game, but not necessarily better. HoI3 version 1.0 at launch was pretty bad and a complete technical mess, HoI4 1.0 also had problems but was much more stable and well rounded. Certain aspects of HoI3 (with Their Finest Hour expansion) are superior to HoI4 as of today. I believe that HoI4 will eventually surpass HoI3 in almost every area, and that currently it is a more fun game to play. But this is just my perspective - HoI3 is also a more challenging game, has a higher degree of complexity (for better and worse), so some of the more hardcore players will consider HoI3 to be more fun.
Except for the parts that they took out and are not used anymore, the most important being fuel, both stockpiles and unit use. They designed Hoi 4 to not use systems like those ever again so you won't ever run into problems of fuel shortage which will mess up your land divisions, air forces and navy which was a very important part of WW2. As it is right now, once a unit is produced, it has unlimited fuel forever.
To me, Hoi 4 compared to 3 is 3 steps forwards 2 steps backwards, it adds a lot of very nice things. The best example is the division builder and the ability to make variants of the same equipment/plane etc. At the same time though it takes away things like the management of fuel and supplies, officer ratio and other bits and bobs which they could have included in Hoi 4 without too much trouble and won't be too hard for new players to learn.
On a personal note and bias, I miss OOBs the most as I think with the way the AI handles fronts and fights in hoi 4, it would be easier to manage them if there was something to help separate groups of the same big unit and tell them to do things separately. Right now its basically army sizes of 24 or super huge armies of 1 to infinity, nothing in between which would allow you to use more generals and their bonuses. You can sub divide the units to do multiple things but having a visual OOB makes it much easier.
Something that is worth to point out as well with HoI3 is that while it was massively complex, and had alot of systems included in release, the game had so many in fact that alot of them were totally broken, and in a state that was 10 times worse then any mechanics in HoI4 was at release ( except maybe the AI which at release was "just" 2-3 times as bad as HoI4s AI 
).
For example at release in HoI3 I could as Germany from the historical 1939 start point (in one of my first games) within 3 months invade Poland, France and USA successfully... ( Range of naval Transports were broken and AI did not bother to send out either the US or UK navies to try to stop the undefended transports ).
Another super complex system that Paradox spent alot of effort for but that ended up adding very little in HoI3 was weather mechanics, which used simulated low and high pressure areas to create weather fronts updating by the hour province by province and tracking exact amounts of precipitation. You could still invade Russia in the winter though without any penalty that hurt or significant attrition ( yes even less penalties then in HoI4 which is mostly attrition penalty, but at least are noticeable and hurt if you face resistance ).
While HoI3 did have fuel it didn't work out very well because it was available in abundance, it could be stockpiled and it was only consumed when your units actually were moving. And to add on top of that the supply system was very "sensitive" to moving units around or using SR, meaning you could have tanks or planes easily end up with no fuel and need 20 days to start getting more even if they were in perfect supply home territory and they were the only units there drawing supply.
Diplomacy and Espionage also was very complex, but very hard to understand how they worked, and in the end with very little impact of the game.
Release HoI3 also had the ability to build "reserve" divisions for a fraction of the cost, which was later reinforced when you mobilize. This meant that as Germany you could build 100 "reserve" Panzer divisions for 10% of their full cost in peacetime, and since HoI3 didn't use equipment like HoI4 does they only cost 2% of the full cost to reinforce to 100% strength...
To be honest I much prefer the approach taken in HoI4 where I feel that the system that the devs have added, all at least work mostly the way intended, they do impact the game in meaningful ways and it's fairly easy to understand how they work as a player.
Small correction here, 2 energy, 1 metal and 0.5 rare was consumed per IC in HoI3.
http://www.hoi3wiki.com/Resources#Raw_materials
Otherwise great post!
).For example at release in HoI3 I could as Germany from the historical 1939 start point (in one of my first games) within 3 months invade Poland, France and USA successfully... ( Range of naval Transports were broken and AI did not bother to send out either the US or UK navies to try to stop the undefended transports ).
Another super complex system that Paradox spent alot of effort for but that ended up adding very little in HoI3 was weather mechanics, which used simulated low and high pressure areas to create weather fronts updating by the hour province by province and tracking exact amounts of precipitation. You could still invade Russia in the winter though without any penalty that hurt or significant attrition ( yes even less penalties then in HoI4 which is mostly attrition penalty, but at least are noticeable and hurt if you face resistance ).
While HoI3 did have fuel it didn't work out very well because it was available in abundance, it could be stockpiled and it was only consumed when your units actually were moving. And to add on top of that the supply system was very "sensitive" to moving units around or using SR, meaning you could have tanks or planes easily end up with no fuel and need 20 days to start getting more even if they were in perfect supply home territory and they were the only units there drawing supply.
Diplomacy and Espionage also was very complex, but very hard to understand how they worked, and in the end with very little impact of the game.
Release HoI3 also had the ability to build "reserve" divisions for a fraction of the cost, which was later reinforced when you mobilize. This meant that as Germany you could build 100 "reserve" Panzer divisions for 10% of their full cost in peacetime, and since HoI3 didn't use equipment like HoI4 does they only cost 2% of the full cost to reinforce to 100% strength...
To be honest I much prefer the approach taken in HoI4 where I feel that the system that the devs have added, all at least work mostly the way intended, they do impact the game in meaningful ways and it's fairly easy to understand how they work as a player.
Small correction here, 2 energy, 1 metal and 0.5 rare was consumed per IC in HoI3.
http://www.hoi3wiki.com/Resources#Raw_materials
Otherwise great post!
Last edited:
That does not mean it will not have them in the future. Many of the aspects you listed could be incorporated (with some abstraction) into existing systems. Supplies can be made into something "burdening" civilian factories (1 factory for x supply used, also limiting standing armies of civilian economy countries) and oil (1 oil for y supply used for simplicity or by introducing separate "fuel use" stat), and so on for other systems (I would really love Corps as a optional level of organisation in an army and a separate command group type)...
It is my understanding that there is the intent to introduce at least one more level to the OOB of HOI IV.
I don't miss the HOI3 OOB even a little. It is one of the primary reasons that I never want to play HOI3 again.
I'm hopeful that if they add more of an OOB to HOI4 that it is less tedious to deal with than HOI3's.
Unfortunately I love HOI3 OOB very much. In additional, if adding staff chief to Corps/Army etc is great. And I like the combat log for individual General in HOI2 a lot.
Hoi 3 oob was deep and complex, but required a lot of investment and micromanagement. Compared to 3, my new game startup time (to setup, pick research, etc before hitting unpause) is a fraction of what it was under 3. Especially playing a major!
Here you go, fixed that for you.
I have a feeling this is going to turn into a ten page arguement between which one was better. Like we needed more flame fuel.
Lol.
Yea, I agree it was a lot of time. Once setup it wasn't that bad imo, but I concur it didn't add a whole lot. It was a tad more realistic since it fleshed out a command structure and commander bonuses did trickle down.
Yea, I agree it was a lot of time. Once setup it wasn't that bad imo, but I concur it didn't add a whole lot. It was a tad more realistic since it fleshed out a command structure and commander bonuses did trickle down.
Two further things to add:
HOI3 in its latest edition had a strategic warfare ledger that was supposed to show you how you were doing in terms of sinking convoys, strategic bombing etc. The problem was the thing was totally bugged and gave you bizarre and confusing statistics that made no sense.
HOI3 also had a complex resistance/uprising feature. You built resistance cells which could be deployed into enemy-occupied territory and give you additional recon and other buffs. Once the cell had built up enough you could convert it into a partisan combat brigade which could re-take territory. Whilst this sounds good in theory, in practice it created a massive whack-a-mole task for anyone occupying enemy territory, with them repeatedly having to move their forces back and forth to destroy partisan brigades which had almost zero combat potential. It became a total drag and was one of the things that stopped me from long-running games.
HOI3 in its latest edition had a strategic warfare ledger that was supposed to show you how you were doing in terms of sinking convoys, strategic bombing etc. The problem was the thing was totally bugged and gave you bizarre and confusing statistics that made no sense.
HOI3 also had a complex resistance/uprising feature. You built resistance cells which could be deployed into enemy-occupied territory and give you additional recon and other buffs. Once the cell had built up enough you could convert it into a partisan combat brigade which could re-take territory. Whilst this sounds good in theory, in practice it created a massive whack-a-mole task for anyone occupying enemy territory, with them repeatedly having to move their forces back and forth to destroy partisan brigades which had almost zero combat potential. It became a total drag and was one of the things that stopped me from long-running games.
Yeah, it gave immersion and... basically not much else in exchange for an hour of clearing up the default OOB. Of the bonuses were bigger, I wouldn't hate it as much maybe, but... Eh.
What I definitely do not want though, is the return of the HQ division or individual division leaders. A way to internally split armies into 'corps' for organising troops and battle plans better, or fleshing out theaters and allowing players to assign field marshalls to them, now that'd be much better.
Yeah, there were a lot of things in HoI3 that sounded good on paper yet just ended up making a huge undecipherable mess.
Interesting thread. My sole experience with HOI games is Arsenal of Democracy, which I understand is a version of HOI2?
I actually just posted a thread today asking Paradox to explain how all these variations of HOI relate to one another.
Ask Paradox (almost) Anything Thread (no support/tech or code questions)
I actually just posted a thread today asking Paradox to explain how all these variations of HOI relate to one another.
Ask Paradox (almost) Anything Thread (no support/tech or code questions)
The OOB system wasnt bad. The AI and Front Management systems were bad. The reason the OOB added unnecessary micro ic because the AI couldnt manage itself and move the OOB and keep a stable front line in its designated sector.
The front system in HoI4 is the perfect solution, imagine each Corps having its own designated front and attack orders.
The OOB adds so much more depth to the game in single player, and adds a layer of RP to the game. The streamlining was necessary for multiplayer but it has come at the expense of depth in those long sessions in single player.
http://www.hoi3wiki.com/Command_structure#Army_Organization
TL;DR: you had to build up your Order Of Battle as in RL:
Theatre -> Army group -> Army -> Corps -> Divisions/Brigades.
Each level had a designated unit (HQ) actually on map with a commander and some attachments (e.g. corps artillery). For running effectively these units had to be in radio contact to each other.
Personally, I liked that system and miss it sometimes.
/edit: Now we have armies with a commander but no designated unit and divisions. And all without any (spatial) limitations.
Order of Battle. Was a system mimicking the Chain of Command that Armies follow in real life (it varies from country to country). Usually follows the structure:
Theatre (Supreme Command) ----> Any Number of Army Groups ------> Each Army Group 5 x Armies ------>Each Army 5 x Corps--- ------> Each Corps 5 x Divisions
A German OOB before Barbarossa might look like this:
Theatre/Supreme Command: Eastern Theatre
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Groups: Army Group South, Army Group Mid, Army Group North
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AG South: 6th Army, 7th Army, 8th Army, 9th Army, 10th Army
AG Mid: 11th Army, 12th Army, 13th Army, 14th Army, 15th Army
AG North: 1st Army, 2nd Army, 3rd Army, 4th Army, 5th Army
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AG South)
6th Army: 14th Corps, 15th Corps, 16th Corps, 5th Motorised Corps, 41st Panzer Corps
7th Army: xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps,
8th Army: xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps,
9th Army: xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps,
10th Army: xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps, xx Corps,
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(6th Army)
41st Panzer Corps: 1st Motorised Division, 2nd Motorised Division, 6th Panzer Division, 8th Mountain Division, 1st SS Division
14th Corps: xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division
15th Corps: xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division
16th Corps: xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division
5th Motorised Corps: xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division, xx Division
Each one of these levels of command, from Theatre, down to Division level has it's own commander, who has his own traits, and can be promoted through the ranks as he gains experience/traits that you think will benefit a higher level of command.
WHAT A GERMAN OOB MIGHT LOOK LIKE LATE 41:
.jpg "TuCDgJr (1).jpg")
I know it all seems very complicated but once you get the hang of it, it really isn't. The issue was with the AI being unable to manage fronts effectively or keep good lines of communication between levels of command. AI control really wasn't a thing worth using on HoI3 (yet it needed it more than HoI4 does), so it meant microing huge amounts of individual HQ units, which is the only reason people dislike it.
With the new front system, the OOB system would be amazing. Unfortunately it was dropped to speed things up in multiplayer, which only 15% (?) of players play.
not true. the dev teams rotated what they were working on back then...