Development Diary #15 - 4th of February 2009

[unmerged(21821)]

Yup. If they decide that only the Axis should get a bonus, it's a 2 second tweak to a single file to give that bonus to other sides for your own gaming pleasure.

The best thing about Paradox games, customization to suit the individual player's tastes and preferences.

The problem with that is that unless you incorporate that to a major mod, it will affect the MP situation. There standards exist there, and thus the state of these features upon release cannot be merely shrugged off.

As for the amount of provinces, I fear that having an actual frontline will be much more difficult.. on the eastern front, at least. You need 'a lot' of divisions..

 

[OHgamer]

The problem with that is that unless you incorporate that to a major mod, it will affect the MP situation. There standards exist there, and thus the state of these features upon release cannot be merely shrugged off.
.

Surely that is something that the members of an MP game could mutually agree upon for the duration of their game as well, if they do not like the basic setup. Would not need to have a complete mod, just a single MP game "house rules" setup.

 

[unmerged(21821)]

Sure they can, though: Not everyone might be willing to give up an advantage.. might work in a game of friends, in a game of semi-random people, not so likely.

Besides, despite the level of moddability of the game, in the optimal case the features are well-thought and balanced straight from the box.

 

[OHgamer]

Besides, despite the level of moddability of the game, in the optimal case the features are well-thought and balanced straight from the box.

Of course "well-thought" and "balanced" might mean very different things to different players, everyones milage may vary with those terms.

 

[Piggy]

Sure they can, though: Not everyone might be willing to give up an advantage.. might work in a game of friends, in a game of semi-random people, not so likely.

Well isnt there usually a call out for MP games and its there that "house rules" are layed out and agreed too?

I've never played a HOI MP game but its not like there's thousands of people waiting around in some online gallery looking for a quick pickup game.

You either want to put in the effort to play a MP and will thus agree to some house rules or you dont. It seems easy to change, you could probably just have a template of the word file posted with the changes already made and all you would need to do is copy it to your game files (backing up the originals of course )

 

[Darkrenown]

What about the allied historical air superiority?

IF I was giving out major bonuses to everyone though Id give Allies = Sea, Axis = Air & Commitern = Land.

Allied air superiority was due to a mix of good tech and building a lot of planes.

A land/air/sea divide doesn't really make sense either. Japan had a lot of naval sucess in the early war. Germany had some nice surface ships even though they didn't have many and the most advanced subs. The US and UK had fine planes and eventually total air supremacy. While the Comintern had a very large army and in some cases fine equipment their doctrine was quite poor for the most part.

Overall I think most of the bonues are fine. The two that stand out to me are the Axis core combat bonus and the Allied CG requirements. I've already said why I don't like the core combat one, the reason I don't like the GC one is due to what someone said earlier in the thread: It means nations won't want to join the allies in peacetime (although I suppose you could model Poland and the low countries as GoI when only joining once the war starts it does deter any ahistorical diplomacy). It seems like high CG need should be a feature of democracies, not just the Allies. Also, the USA doesn't start out as a member of the Allies, so are they free to spend most of their GC building a huge military for 6 years before they are attacked?

Perhaps a nice bonus for the Allies would be Joint Command, which would allow you to intergrate allied units under your command into your own armies (assuming like in HoI2 you can't group non-nationial forces by default) whether from military control or expeditionary forces.

 

[Piggy]

It seems like high CG need should be a feature of democracies, not just the Allies. Also, the USA doesn't start out as a member of the Allies, so are they free to spend most of their GC building a huge military for 6 years before they are attacked?

Surely CG is also tied to your government type as well?

I cant see it just being based on the faction you're in, if that was the case then yes, the US could build up prior to war like dictatorships can.

That wouldnt make any sense... It must also be tied to government type?

 

[unmerged(121827)]

I've got to say, the first thing I'll do in HOI3 is to mod out all 'special powers' except for Axis limited war ability and maybe Comintern espionage bonus. It's good that the game is so moddable, everyone can customise it to their taste.
As for those that play MP, there will probably be some MP game settings, maybe 'no special powers' could be one of them.

 

[Darkrenown]

Surely CG is also tied to your government type as well?

I cant see it just being based on the faction you're in, if that was the case then yes, the US could build up prior to war like dictatorships can.

That wouldnt make any sense... It must also be tied to government type?

Well these are being presented as unique faction advantages (or disvantages), so it certainly seems like it's faction only. I suppose Johan could have meant the Allies have even higher CG needs than normal for their government types at peace and even lower than normal when at war, but even then it leaves out the USA which is the biggest nation nation you don't want arming too early.

 

[Nilmerf]

A sweet Allied special ability would be "Allied Occupation". Thus when they iniate the liberation of Europe, the provinces would be under the control of the whole rather than one nation. If the Americans land on the beaches first, why should the convoys be coming from New England? If the British land first, why should the Americans not have to supply? And if the Americans, British, and Canadians land at the same time, why should the map be splotchy?

Occupied IC, resources, and manpower could be split on an IC-proportionate level amongst the Allies until V.E. Day when they are given back to France, Holland, and Belgium.

 

[Alexander Seil]

A sweet Allied special ability would be "Allied Occupation". Thus when they iniate the liberation of Europe, the provinces would be under the control of the whole rather than one nation. If the Americans land on the beaches first, why should the convoys be coming from New England? If the British land first, why should the Americans not have to supply? And if the Americans, British, and Canadians land at the same time, why should the map be splotchy?

Occupied IC, resources, and manpower could be split on an IC-proportionate level amongst the Allies until V.E. Day when they are given back to France, Holland, and Belgium.

The real fix here is having them all under a unified command, not coming up with silly special abilities that have no basis in reality.

 

[Sangeli]

Well if you want to be historically accurate occupied territories under the allies should have no IC, manpower, or resource gain. It's not like the US decided to use French or Belgium factories after D-Day to help the war effort; hell, I doubt even occupied Germany, which was occupied by the west for a good number of years, contributed anything either.

Another thing that should considered is a different concept of core territories for commintern. Communism is inheriently class oriented, rather than nationally, so that a French or German communist would have no problem is joining the USSR. Therefore, the amount of resistence and production of territory controlled or occupied by the USSR should be dependent on how strong the communist party was in that area (probably not possible so just look to the previous owner's communist party).

Edit: If you're worried about which country controls which occupied territory why not have a system to easily trade occupied provinces with allies (as long as it is the Allies).

 

[LeeDub]

The Allies should probably free land for their friendly governments in exile. It makes little sense for them to get any benefits from occupied territory...

 

[espana33]

hurray for yugoslavia.. hopefully we get more events than last time.. more events about staying neutral or going axis would be really cool..although the huge dissent hit before always kinda seemed..off

 

[unmerged(54763)]

Wow so many provinces in Yugoslav teritories.

Nice stage to recreate chaotic but important war between factions there after defeat of Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Great.

 

[Bobb4]

I see in the screenshot the sprites are 3d and can be viewed from different angles but the terrain looks flat?
Will the terrain be raised like in Roman and will you be able to adjust your camera angle zoom in zoom out.

 

[unmerged(87312)]

In Dev diary 134127 we may see a picture of Bugaria :rofl::rofl::rofl: Actually will we see a picture of Bulgaria

 

[Razor]

Once again, splendid!

 

[Nilmerf]

The real fix here is having them all under a unified command, not coming up with silly special abilities that have no basis in reality.

How do you figure out the supply problem then? If you're playing as Canada, you may be able to put yourself as Supreme Allied Commander, but then who gets the logistical burden? Certainly the supplies shouldn't be coming from Halifax.

 

[unmerged(110232)]

Like I said earlier, any kind of bonus or penalty should not be based on faction but rather the individual nation's socio-political 'alignments.'

For instance, the UK should perhaps be hindered by CGs more so than France and less so than the USA.

Italy gets no defensive bonus for anything.

The Soviets might have an expansive and organized spy network, but not unless the player deems that a priority.

IMO, the bonuses and penalties thing has some potential but the current setup (as it was presented anyway) leaves much to be desired.

Also IMO, faction bonuses/penalties should apply to law making, some diplomacy, dissent, political alignments but certainly not on combat, and perhaps not on intelligence, production or anything that gives undo bonuses to all the nations in a faction.

I agree. There should be no faction bonuses. I think it is "gamey", and an excuse for not modelling it better.

One problem I see is why should something like Cuba suddenly get bonuses for joining the Allies?

I think it is better to keep alliances as purely a diplomatic thing. And let things like consumer goods demand be influenced by government type. Let Axis powers be able to wage limited wars not because they are a part of the "Axis alliance" but because they are fascist. Etc.