Critical Issues to improve

[MAC]

I have played HOI2 a lot and even played several MP games. But at some point especially the unrealistic naval warfare made me simply realize, that with HOI2 I will never be able to "replay" WWII in a somewhat realistic way. I think many here are interested in trying out some "what if..." and testing their strategic skills compared to history.

In History a Sealion was an almost impossible undertaking - yet in HOI2 my mixed Fleet with a single Carrier was - due to how naval warfare works in HOI2 - able to delay the RN for quite some time and with minimal losses because it stayed at maximum range. Meanwhile the covered transport fleets unloaded division after division.

Playing naval focused nations also is not too realistic. And even house-rules dont help because it takes you the option to try out a new focus or risk something.

Besides the naval combat system I also rate air combat as a critical issue as well as ressources / trade. These issues are critical to the game since the Axis ressource problem was an important issue historically and should be somewhat ingame. And at some time of the war even the UK felt the loss of ships due to german submarines. And the lost airbattle over England was a fist step to loosing WWII for Germany. A mix of HOI and HOI2 research leading to more diversified unit stats (focusing lets say on Tank firepower and armament over speed or vice versa) would be a nice feature, too - but not as critical as naval and air combat and to some degree ressources/trade.

I have already suggested to take a look into "War in the Pacific". Such a air and naval combat system could be a great improvement for the HOI series.


What do you think are the most critical issues to be improved? What changes are needed to make HOI3 a more realistic, yet playeable successor of HOI2? Since there are other improvement discussion threads already I would like to discuss in this thread only what you rate critical to the game.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

A proper set of (actually working!) AI control parameters are paramount.

 

[bpscool]

I have played HOI2 a lot and even played several MP games. But at some point especially the unrealistic naval warfare made me simply realize, that with HOI2 I will never be able to "replay" WWII in a somewhat realistic way. I think many here are interested in trying out some "what if..." and testing their strategic skills compared to history.

In History a Sealion was an almost impossible undertaking - yet in HOI2 my mixed Fleet with a single Carrier was - due to how naval warfare works in HOI2 - able to delay the RN for quite some time and with minimal losses because it stayed at maximum range. Meanwhile the covered transport fleets unloaded division after division.

Playing naval focused nations also is not too realistic. And even house-rules dont help because it takes you the option to try out a new focus or risk something.

Besides the naval combat system I also rate air combat as a critical issue as well as ressources / trade. These issues are critical to the game since the Axis ressource problem was an important issue historically and should be somewhat ingame. And at some time of the war even the UK felt the loss of ships due to german submarines. And the lost airbattle over England was a fist step to loosing WWII for Germany. A mix of HOI and HOI2 research leading to more diversified unit stats (focusing lets say on Tank firepower and armament over speed or vice versa) would be a nice feature, too - but not as critical as naval and air combat and to some degree ressources/trade.

I have already suggested to take a look into "War in the Pacific". Such a air and naval combat system could be a great improvement for the HOI series.


What do you think are the most critical issues to be improved? What changes are needed to make HOI3 a more realistic, yet playeable successor of HOI2? Since there are other improvement discussion threads already I would like to discuss in this thread only what you rate critical to the game.

I think the multiplayer system in general needs to be improved. There are way to many crashes/in game bugs/problems with multiplayer in hoi 2. With Regards to naval and air battles. I find that the world in flames has an excellent/ realistic Naval and air force battles. It could be better...(less ghost fleets for example) or an Ai that is more determined and thinks strategically. With an EU3 engine i think that is all the more possible and look forward to what HOI 3 has to offer.

 

[MAC]

A proper set of (actually working!) AI control parameters are paramount.

True, this are the basics. Once you have played a MP game you are getting how great the game could be with a good AI.

Mhh .. WiF need to try it out - grmbl I just got a RL :rofl:
I stumbled over "Carriers at War" - how is the aircombat and naval combat system in this game? At least this screenshot looks interesting.

 

[unmerged(34869)]

While I agree with your points about realism (naval warfare, Axis resources, etc.), one must be careful not to become too "realistic." One doesn't want to play Germany and repeatedly see defeat in the mid 1940's. While we can celebrate the realism, it kind of dampers replay fun.

You are correct in saying that Sealion was not realistic given German naval resources at the time. But part of the fun of playing the game is trying to rewrite history in game fashion. Make it impossible to invade Britain would detract from the experience. I do agree that changes should be made. I'd love to see a Battle of Britain option in the game. Something where you would have to commit a certain amount of fighters and bombers to the mission and over the course of a few months if you maintain the fighters and bombers at required levels, there is some percentage chance you will succeed in destroying the RAF for some period of time. Just a thought.

It's ok to limit abilities of nations, just offset those with opportunites to correct those limitations by making certain strategic decisions.

 

[Orthank]

Stable and balanced multiplayer game is something that part of us is very much awaiting for.

 

[Chief Savage Ma]

Bombers must be able to target a specific province. I hate when the CAS fly over a retreating division to attack the dug-in garrison with an AA brigade.

 

[MAC]

While I agree with your points about realism (naval warfare, Axis resources, etc.), one must be careful not to become too "realistic." One doesn't want to play Germany and repeatedly see defeat in the mid 1940's. While we can celebrate the realism, it kind of dampers replay fun.

You are correct in saying that Sealion was not realistic given German naval resources at the time. But part of the fun of playing the game is trying to rewrite history in game fashion. Make it impossible to invade Britain would detract from the experience. I do agree that changes should be made. I'd love to see a Battle of Britain option in the game. Something where you would have to commit a certain amount of fighters and bombers to the mission and over the course of a few months if you maintain the fighters and bombers at required levels, there is some percentage chance you will succeed in destroying the RAF for some period of time. Just a thought.

It's ok to limit abilities of nations, just offset those with opportunites to correct those limitations by making certain strategic decisions.

I strongly agree with you here - the real fun ist the "what if". There is freedom of decision as well as realistic models needed to have good results, though.

Bombers must be able to target a specific province. I hate when the CAS fly over a retreating division to attack the dug-in garrison with an AA brigade.

True. I guess this was just a feature needed because elsewise bombing would have become too powerful due to lack of a CAP system like in WitP.

 

[Sneaking Viper]

While i do agree that some changes could be nice (Naval fleets better configured so they are not sitting ducks, AI dont redeploy all units to home country, AI dont cheat in grouping like having 12 interceptors in one group when the player only can group 4..etc) i dont think its the naval battle engine that are the error in the Sealion, i think its mainly that there are too few areas (2 steps of the boat and your in London) and that Britain AI dont really defend the East coast of england.

In History a Sealion was an almost impossible undertaking - yet in HOI2 my mixed Fleet with a single Carrier was - due to how naval warfare works in HOI2..

When did Germany have a fully working carrier in their fleet? (since you mention history as a example) sure if they had a working carrier in their fleet they might had a larger success holding the line against the RN, but now we are off the history book so we might also say that they had UFO's to help hence your delay tactics. I find it far more irritating that the entire Allied navy swims around the british isles.. i mean ok, the germans have in 1937 some CA and some old BC, Buuh uuh better get everyone and leave pacific alone, so we can face the foul germans (that we are at peace with and have a ok attitude to :wacko: ).

So in the end, i understand where your going but i think that to maintain the funfactor, history should only be the guide not the ruler.

 

[Bullfrog]

After playing the HOI series for 5 years now, I must say that I agree with the OP. It should be an open-ended game, of course, but the goal should be a realistic implementation of those variations.

While I should be able to build an operational carrier as Germany, which is only slightly ahistoric, the engine should recognize that a German fleet of one carrier supported by a surface fleet against many British BBs will not automatically stay out of range. The air warfare, while being simple in scope, is overly weak in many areas. In addition the generally predictable AI can take the fun out of a game quite early.

If I can take my lonely German carrier, supported by my Luftwaffe, to victory over a surface fleet, then so be it. But generally if a human player would act in a way that discourages my flamboyance, I would not risk my carrier.

If HOI3 can make the engine realistic, while keeping multiple or unlimited paths to victory that is great. But if the AI is such that I actually worry about losing, this game will be unmatched in brilliance.

 

[MAC]

A single Carrier or not would not have made the big difference in RL IMHO.
It does in HOI2 (under the right circumstances) because of the way naval combat works.

So far the AI, naval and air combat and an economic and trade system, that manages to create on the one hand a Germany and Japan with actual dire need for resources and on the other hand a UK that can be effectively strangled by subs economically (with usually insane stockpiles that is hard).

MP is a very important issue, too and it´s so much fun - just due to the time required it's not for everyone atm.

I was also wondering about leader deaths - do you rate them a useful and important feature? How would you implemet them? Personally i think it's pretty painful to loose your best generals with a "small chance when you attack/defend"-system, but I am all for a chance of death when their unit is destroyed...

 

[Bullfrog]

If there is a chain of command in HOI3, there may not have to be any difference in the way leader deaths are handled to make them more prevalent.

For instance, if I have a full army in combat consisting of 12 divisions, with a proper chain of command, I would have 12 mj.gens, 4 lt.gens, and either a 4 star or a FM in overall command. With 17 generals instead of 4 or less, and the same chance of a leader dying in combat (as in HOI2) then I am at least 4 times as likely to lose one of them, and most likely it would be a mj.gen.

With a proper chain of command I might lose a lot of generals, which is for some countries, very accurate.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Bombers must be able to target a specific province. I hate when the CAS fly over a retreating division to attack the dug-in garrison with an AA brigade.

No bombers must not be able to target a specific province, that would be solving the problem by adding un acceptable levels of micro management.

Why not have dug in numbers or retreating status be major factors when bombers decide where and what to bomb instead? Right now they only care about size of forces present.

It wouldn't be hard to program bombers to not even bother with the mission if they see all targets are to dug in to take losses.

By the same manner I would like air interception / defence to be changed. Noone had interceptors or fighters airborne unless they had good reason to belive enemy aircrafts could be found up there. So instead of mindlessly patrolling a zone aircrafts on Air superiority missions would automatically takeoff and intercept airunits in range only when they appear.

And for night interception of bombers, It would make sense if enemy aircrafts are only visable over provinces with radar at night.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

No bombers must not be able to target a specific province, that would be solving the problem by adding un acceptable levels of micro management.

How would that increase micromanagement? If you don't want to target specific provinces, just don't change the target from a whole area when giving the mission orders...

 

[Alex_brunius]

How would that increase micromanagement? If you don't want to target specific provinces, just don't change the target from a whole area when giving the mission orders...

Because:
1. You have to select if the mission is a specific province or an area type mission.
2. 24hours later when the retreating enemy tanks reach the next province the bombers must be given a entire new order.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

1. Why would you have to select it each time if it defaults to the last selection?
2. Only having to check in on air units whenever land battles are lost or won would mean a great deal less micromanagement than having to watch every air unit every hour to make sure they target something they can hurt instead of just suiciding to AA.

 

[Garmorn]

1. Why would you have to select it each time if it defaults to the last selection?
2. Only having to check in on air units whenever land battles are lost or won would mean a great deal less micromanagement than having to watch every air unit every hour to make sure they target something they can hurt instead of just suiciding to AA.

Then you will miss a lot. Units moving in or out of areas, not just losing battles, there will be far more battles to watch, defaults to last order might have it bombing the province you just attacked from if you are on the offense. These are just some of the problems. No think of all the problems the AI is going to have doing this.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Okay Wobbler, we have a problem.
The problem is airunits target the wrong unit. What to do?

Do we:
A. Make them smarter so they will target the right unit, or
B. Force the player to controll every single plane every single hour.

In any case selecting specific targets for your airforce is far far far below the strategic level of the HoI series. If you read my first suggestion you see that I want option A to make them smarter just so you won't have to monitor them all the time. Belive me with 10'000 provinces you WILL be forced to monitor them all the time if you can order them to bomb specific provinces.

Infact if HoI2 got 2000 provinces you will have to change bomb missions 5(nr of provinces) x 6(provinces per area) = 30 times as often in HoI3 compared to HoI2.

That is why im saying it would result in unreasonable amounts of micro management.

 

[unmerged(58571)]

I think having such an option would be a vast improvement for the AI, particularly if combined with an actual air AI being written and being moddable and air missions ending up something similar to this.
Why would defaulting to the last selected of wide area and single province targets cause air units to ignore new target orders? If that were the case, how would you even get them flying in the first place?

 

[Shabz]

It would be nice if you could for example give your CAS bombers an order to act as ground support to your troops in any battle happening within their range. So far it is a rather tedious excercise to use bombers properly. After an initial brakethrough, you hardly get the chance to use planes in support of the grunts...