Perhaps adding some color codes between different army/corps troops. So its faster to read which division etc belong under what HQ, so its easier and faster to control them without makin them go messed up with other corps divisions
Counters
- Thread starter Stafroty
- 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.
I have not seen what is planned with the chain of command in HOI IV yet, but I would also like to have more information on the countes - like the level of the leader.
For my part I like the counters the way they are and with coloured counters mod or graphical augmentation in Black ICE its quite ok.
What would be a really great is to search for leaders - also the ones which are already assigned and a reassign command for divisions without a leader.
For my part I like the counters the way they are and with coloured counters mod or graphical augmentation in Black ICE its quite ok.
What would be a really great is to search for leaders - also the ones which are already assigned and a reassign command for divisions without a leader.
Im the exact opposite, i like the plain traditional nato counters. The busy counters of some mods actually prevent me from playing. I dont need all that additional info. Im in the minority it seems though...
We have been informed that divisions will no longer have leaders in HOI4!
I too like BICE corp, army, armygroup & theater HQ counter style.
The color variations are nice, and helps distinguishing them. I think HPP has it too.
In War in the East each German army has completely different colors from the others (if you are playing the Germans). The reverse is true if you are playing the Soviets. It works very well for this game.
It would not work at all well in HOI. WitE only covers one campaign it is not global and does not have to deal with the rainbow or 100+ other countries around the globe.
The most I could see doing with colors to distinguish formations would be either a colored dot in the upper left corner or a stripe down the left side.
It would not work at all well in HOI. WitE only covers one campaign it is not global and does not have to deal with the rainbow or 100+ other countries around the globe.
The most I could see doing with colors to distinguish formations would be either a colored dot in the upper left corner or a stripe down the left side.
i also meant that divisions under certain corps hq have all the same color code or something, and divisions under another corps hq have their own color code. whole counter dont have be be colored, but one corner of it or something.
Now the only way knowing which divisions are under which corps is known only by clickin the div, to find its HQ, or clickin the HQ to find its Divs.
If there would be somekind of graphical help, one would not need to click those at all, as its easily seen by eye, less clicking.
Now the only way knowing which divisions are under which corps is known only by clickin the div, to find its HQ, or clickin the HQ to find its Divs.
If there would be somekind of graphical help, one would not need to click those at all, as its easily seen by eye, less clicking.
well, if there is too much info in map, how about having just single empty box showing that there is division there, without any icon, number, name or anything on it, which tells if its cavalry, tank or infantry, or ship or planes..
To know what it is, you have to click through several layers of windows before you know what kind of unit it is. this way there would be not too much info.
To know what it is, you have to click through several layers of windows before you know what kind of unit it is. this way there would be not too much info.
I dont find myself getting that in detail with the individual units as others do because quite frankly the game doesnt require me too. I never make special units or worry about crossing rivers etc... there simply is no need. I often handicap myself by letting the AI handle combat and still accomplish the same results as those who micromanage every detail. So for me at least all that information is just chaos. Simple details are fine with me.
And some people claim that sarcasm doesn't work in print. Well done sir.
The point to counters, of course, has always been to provide condensed and useful information that is easily accessible. It should be considered the overview or summary of the situation with the details available in various other screens and reports.
You don't bother with these things only becasue the game is not challenging or accurate enough to make doing so worth your time. I bet if the game was a lot closer with the AI putting up a good fight, if the logistic and air war systems etc. better protrayed history (not to mention weather actually mattering); then I bet you'd care.
My point being that none of it really matters all that much. In a game where i can invade Afghanistan in January, Sealion the UK with nothing but transports, Amphib 20 units at once including armor from TPs and so on... for me at least who the leader of a division is, what his spec is and so on really has no impact on the battle, at least not when im fighting large battles. You know how i conquer the Soviet Union, i group all my German units in a single Theater HQ and give it 3 targets (Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad), whammo a few months the Soviet Union ceases to exist.
Now i truly wish the game wasnt this simple, i would love for it to be a really in depth game whereby it was necessary to blow up bridges and use special units and so on, unfortunately the game doesnt require us to do so, and i simply dont get enough "juice" to do it on my own, it seems like overkill...
Plus im old school (SPI, TSR, Avalon Hill, Decision games and so on....) I like my basic counters... (I like the simple map too, none of this 3d garbage)
Now i truly wish the game wasnt this simple, i would love for it to be a really in depth game whereby it was necessary to blow up bridges and use special units and so on, unfortunately the game doesnt require us to do so, and i simply dont get enough "juice" to do it on my own, it seems like overkill...
Plus im old school (SPI, TSR, Avalon Hill, Decision games and so on....) I like my basic counters... (I like the simple map too, none of this 3d garbage)
well have you ever tried Black Ice mod?
Put it on hard
I myself want that this game is more than just automated Risk game. (i bet you know that old dice game)
Yes, nato counters are good, if time would not flow as fast as it flows in game where one day is only second if even that. And if time goes as fast, it better to have all the info in hand easily, rather that one has to browse everything. Sure, let there be options that which kind of info there would be.
I bet that kind of option might make it loo like chaotic for some
Put it on hard
I myself want that this game is more than just automated Risk game. (i bet you know that old dice game)
Yes, nato counters are good, if time would not flow as fast as it flows in game where one day is only second if even that. And if time goes as fast, it better to have all the info in hand easily, rather that one has to browse everything. Sure, let there be options that which kind of info there would be.
I bet that kind of option might make it loo like chaotic for some
This same problem permeates so many areas of the game. It boils down to two basic camps. There are those who want the details (way too many details IMO) and there are those who don't bother with them because the game is too easy and in many ways unrealistic. How many times in the threads discussing potential changes to the air war have you seen players chime in saying that they didn't even bother with it. That they would just play without air units. That was not an uncommon stance and sadly they could still dominate the game even without an airforce.
I see what I think is a solution that the second camp would applaud, but the detail folks get apoplectic if it is even mentioned. Some of the game mechanics need to be greatly simplified. This is not only to make the game easier to play. It is not dumbing anything down (besides how can you dumb down a game where the AI is so pathetic that we can do the things we do). Simplification is not just so that the AI can be more competetive either.
Simplified mechanics if designed correctly give a much better simulation of reality than many of the complex mechanics currently in place. For example, a rule that said that in Russia in the winter the Germans got 50% movement and a penalty to org regain, would be very simple. It might not even be terribly realistic, but it would make winter matter more than it does now.
I too grew up with SPI and AH etc. Things did have to be simpler before we had computers to play on. However, computers are both a blessing and a curse to wargamers. The potential to design amazing and playable games is there, but so is the potential to abuse the computers ability to hold stats such that those stats become a bigger part of the game than they should be.
I played Black Ice but only for a bit, i cant for the life of me remember but there was something i didnt like about it (maybe it was the counters?)...
As far as games go i hate the way HOI3 buffs or nerfs you to make the game harder or easier. I have always been against that. We are here fighting for a more realistic historically accurate game and yet to make the game a challenge i have to cut all my ratings and double other nations? to me thats horrible. I prefer the way other games do it sometimes where on harder versions more things (disaster types) will happen to you, the Ai will be more aggressive etc... As it is the game usually barely resembles WW2 in its vanilla form, i hate the nerfing/ buffing. And in some cases all it does is create exploits. For example As Germany on H or VH all i really need to do is trade with the Soviets, they now have increased resources and are willing to trade to me. Sort of defeats the purpose.
As far as games go i hate the way HOI3 buffs or nerfs you to make the game harder or easier. I have always been against that. We are here fighting for a more realistic historically accurate game and yet to make the game a challenge i have to cut all my ratings and double other nations? to me thats horrible. I prefer the way other games do it sometimes where on harder versions more things (disaster types) will happen to you, the Ai will be more aggressive etc... As it is the game usually barely resembles WW2 in its vanilla form, i hate the nerfing/ buffing. And in some cases all it does is create exploits. For example As Germany on H or VH all i really need to do is trade with the Soviets, they now have increased resources and are willing to trade to me. Sort of defeats the purpose.
ye its long time u tried that BICE it seems.
but yes, game isnt even near perfect. hoi3 has some good qualities over hoi2 but many worse things as well. imo i dont expect hoi4 to be big warp ahead. More likely i expect much more simple game.
Great minds think alike! A short while back i suggested that similar buffs/nerfs be implemented into the game, i specifically mentioned Russia and China.
I have called for such things because all the key elements (weather, terrain, supply, attrition, casualties etc...) are not really represented well enough. Also Org instead of casualties deciding combat is horrible. Im so tired of winning a battle and neither side taking a single casualty. The same unit lasting for years with no reinforcement never having been destroyed. Also we are not required any real downtime to recuperate and re-organize. This allows us say as Turkey to take a dozen infantry divisions and attack Greece, the day after Greece falls we attack Bulgaria, the day after Bulgaria falls we attack Yugoslavia and so on...
I proposed that each nation would have a military assessment ratiing (A-B-C-D etc...) based on their Military leadership, training, and so on.... If Im Turkey and My Military rating is say D, im pretty much a WW1 style army. I indicate to my General Staff I want to invade Greece. regardless of what my threa/neutrality is, they come back with a random determination modified by my rating, in this case it may be 6 months until they have a solid plan to to invade Greece. It doesnt matter if i have all my units on the Greek border i cannot invade until the time is up. Likewise after the completion of a campaign, there would be a re-organization and recuperation period (also modified and determined by my military rating), and then i would have to plan all over again for my next campaign.
While most players wouldnt like being restricted so, it would clearly give a more realistic account. Realistically speaking a nation like Turkey could at best hope for one or two victories in the period surrounding WW2. No more minors conquering the world (unless you play in sandbox mode). Remember Germany took Poland in 39, France in 40 and attacked the Soviet Union in 41. We are able to game the system attacking multiple nations at once with no planning and no rest in between campaigns. Too gamey for my tastes...