Fundamental Errors

[unmerged(11317)]

Those are some fairly minor ones compared to the others. I spent two years preparing a huge invasion army for Russia, and planned everything out to the last detail. Then when the battle started I rolled over russia so easily, that I realized I never needed to plan in the first place. The same with the USA. I conquered USA so easily it was sad. At one point there were 60 divisions of US fighters sitting in Los Angeles without a single Infantry defending them!!! So I killed all of them with one infantry guy.

There is no need to plan any attacks in this game. Or to plan anything really. Just build some troops and run over them bad guys. HOI is a beer & pretzles game.

 

[unmerged(11008)]

Originally posted by Hardrada
At one point there were 60 divisions of US fighters sitting in Los Angeles without a single Infantry defending them!!! So I killed all of them with one infantry guy.

There's a good plotline for Rambo IV

 

[unmerged(5067)]

Originally posted by Hardrada
Those are some fairly minor ones compared to the others. I spent two years preparing a huge invasion army for Russia, and planned everything out to the last detail. Then when the battle started I rolled over russia so easily, that I realized I never needed to plan in the first place. The same with the USA. I conquered USA so easily it was sad. At one point there were 60 divisions of US fighters sitting in Los Angeles without a single Infantry defending them!!! So I killed all of them with one infantry guy.

There is no need to plan any attacks in this game. Or to plan anything really. Just build some troops and run over them bad guys. HOI is a beer & pretzles game.

The problem is the AI.

 

[Zagys]

Originally posted by Samourai Steven
You seem to want to 'redo the war', while I rather want to completely 'rewrite history'.

He's said no such thing. Frankly, I'm a bit tired of seeing everyone who wants HoI to accurately model historical constraints being labeled as some sort of historical determinist.

ALL OF US want to be able to rewrite history in the game. However, some of us (including myself) think that rewriting history is all the more satisfying if we are actually effected by the constraints under which the historical participants operated.

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Originally posted by Samourai Steven
The problem is the AI.

Its way more than the AI. The Combat and ind/tech models are messed up as well. If they were fixed, it would help out a lot with making this a challenging game.

 

[unmerged(9381)]

Alex,

I for one did not think you were bashing the game just to bash it. Most of your comments were valid and well written.

Also, you have a good take on the game, and I was wondering if you were in contact with Paradox? They could use your insight at this point.

 

[DrVonCool]

Re: Counter-rebuttal

Originally posted by Alexander Seil
And to DVC's post, specifically: Right, I can't name such game except WifPC but that is months away.

Believe me when I say this, Alex. I would LOVE to see WiF-PC reach fruition; it would be -- hands down -- the most complex WWII grand strategy game ever made.

But you and I know both know that the one-man force behind the game (Chris Fibonacci, I believe) isn't going to get the thing out in a couple of months. And even if he does, it's going to take an army of Fibonaccis years to come up with an A.I. that can handle it.

It's coming, I know. But it won't be competing with HOI, or even HOI2. Probably not even HOI3, 4 and 5, either.

Glad to see you're getting something out of HOI, though. Take care.

 

[unmerged(2392)]

Alex may be a little blunt but his points are valid. I don't think he wants to redo the war. He wants the simulation to be more realistic, so that he can rewrite history in a better system.

In effect, he maybe saying that the "game sucks", but he is not *just* saying it. He is also explaining, with some very good points, *why* he thinks the game isn't good enough. Now, knowing what the problem is is the first step to fixing it. Like he said, a lot of the problems are unfixable. But maybe some of them are fixable? Maybe, just maybe, some of these comments are useful in the making of HoI2?

Good posts, Alex. Don't be discouraged by some of the less than well thought out posts here.

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Believe me, Alex wont be discouraged
He has been with us for a long time now and certainly isnt a "shrinking violet"........

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by Samourai Steven
No offense taken, Alexander. Your posts are interesting and your criticism is constructive - not 'whining'.

On the other hand, and so that non- or potential players have a more complete view of the situation, it is natural that some of us defend HOI:
1- Paradox will patch and improve the game (but can not redesign the game engine, admittedly), so the AI will certainly improve.

So that potential players have an idea of the current state of the AI on the very hard/furious setting, this being only the second game played by me, the first lasting only a few hours to learn the controls, and without using excessive tac-bombing to kill units and without reloading (except for crashes):

Nationalist China Annexes Germany, 1942

That is not a nice picture for anyone who believes he is going to face a challenge in the game. The AI had better improve markedly, even if it means by letting it cheat (though I know Johan hates the thought )

 

[unmerged(9938)]

Originally posted by pcasey
I think the deeper problem is that the EU system was:

A) Really only good at modelling land combat
B) Dependent on attrition and fortifications to slow down combat and prevent players from massing huge forces in single provinces.

HOI introduces aircraft and a dramtically reworked naval model, neither of which seem to work well, and does away with attrition, leading to so rather interesting operational dispositions.

I agree. Air and sea combat feels too much like land combat. Some suggestions:

- you need to micromanage your fighter defence. Each intercept mission has to be ordered by the player, unless the province attacked is occupied by a fighter division. You should be able to order your fighters to fly CAP missions, or to intercept automatically when enemy aircrafts are within range. In my opinion this is a better way to simulate air superiority.

- bombers set to interdict, should intercept enemy ground forces by them selves.

- you should be able to see the operating range for different air units when you choose an air mission for that unit (interdict, bomb, intercept, cap: for instance by greying out the operation radius).

- air combat should be inspired by the system in TOAW.

- there are in my opinion to many sea areas. Naval combat need to reflect the vastness of the ocean, in a game where you don't count how many boxes a ship can move each turn you only need to have operational sea zones: North Sea, Baltic Sea, North Atlantic etc. (and if you like costal sea zones).

- like ground units ability to be given orders to faint and to blitz naval units need to be able to avoid or to decoy.

- numbers of ships paroling a sea zone increase chance of interception. Tech increase chance of interception or ability to avoid. Air patrol in sea zone increase ability to detect.

- ships in port should have an option like fighters to intercept if enemy is spotted at sea (pre-programmed by player).

- ships should sink faster, one capital ship is jus one capital ship. The more damaged it is the more likely it is to be sunk. It should not be able to retreat if it looses its org. value. Slow ships intercepted by faster and stronger ships should not be able to retreat at all (unless they win the battle of course).

- ships should be represented with % supply instead og % org. Damage should decide if ship tries to retreat or not.

- ships should return to port if low on supplies, and then return to programmed task by player. It should not be able to return immediatly (should spend a couple of days in port, mabye a week unless ordered to do so by the player, but then at a loss of moral/ efficency).

- Naval combat and sea zones should be inspirede by WiF (bordgame)

cheers

TMO

 

[unmerged(8082)]

I agree almost 100% with Alexander Seil's points. I agree that the game would have more accurately simulated the feel of WW2 combat if had been hex-based rather than province-based. I would expect that this is not a feasible modification and might only be incorporated down the road in a HoI 2 or later.

With respect to what might be feasible in the short-term here are some suggestions:

In addition to improving the current catatonic AI (which I presume is being worked on diligently) the game machanics need to be changed to make conquest more difficult as well as less rewarding.

1) Supply should not be all-or-nothing. One solution might be to track supply lines from a unit at the front to the nearest functioning railhead. Supply (and therefore unit effectiveness) would diminish with distance from the railhead and with weather. Valid railheads would be any home province, as well as captured provinces, but only after a certain length of time had passed. The time interval would be higher in the case of Russia owing to the different railroad gauge. Also, perhaps it should be a function of base province infrastrusture and/or terrain, but these are not necessary refinements. Old boardgames that simulated Barbarossa used to have specialized railroad repair units. I am not suggesting that, but perhaps the player could hit a button on a newly captured province that would initiate establishing a railhead there, and sometime later, it would become a valid supply point. This should cost ICs.

2) A player should have the option of razing a province if he feels it is likely to fall to the enemy. Infrastructure and IC would be permanently reduced by an amount that depends on how long between the time he decided to raze it and it becomes captured by the enemy. Of course, he should also have the option to stop the razing if he decides that he might be able to hold on to it. Any damage already done would stay, of course.

3) It is not realistic that a newly captured province immediately becomes available to the captor. First, it should require a garrison to curtail partisan activity. The size of the required garrison could depend on the population of the province and perhaps the terrain. Second, IC and resources would only become available to the captor after some time interval (probably longer for IC than for resources). ICs should probably need to be expended to be able to use the captured province at all.

4) Major cities should be much harder to take, and prolonged fighting in the province would reduce its IC.

5) I agree with Alexander Seil that non strategic movement should cost org points. I would also add that for armored/mechanized units it should also result in substantial unit losses.

I don't know if any of the above are workable in a patch, but they would add enourmously to the realism and challenge of the game IMO.

As a last point, despite the game's shortcomings, I do not regret the $40 I spent as I have had quite a few hours of fun before I discovered all the problems. Also I think that Paradox deserves congratulations on several excellent and ground-breaking features of this ambitious game, as well as the willingness to consider constructive criticism from customers.

 

[unmerged(1095)]

Originally posted by pcr
I......
As a last point, despite the game's shortcomings, I do not regret the $40 I spent as I have had quite a few hours of fun before I discovered all the problems. Also I think that Paradox deserves congratulations on several excellent and ground-breaking features of this ambitious game, as well as the willingness to consider constructive criticism from customers.

... and it is looked at and considered and debated ....

 

[frunk]

Originally posted by pcr

5) I agree with Alexander Seil that non strategic movement should cost org points. I would also add that for armored/mechanized units it should also result in substantial unit losses.

This is an excellent point. When traveling fast armor/mech/mot frequently lost more combat effectiveness than when in actual combat. Much of this was tanks and trucks breaking down or running out of gas (see any of Rommel's desert campaigns). Of what was lost, most was rapidly recoverable (as tanks were repaired, units reformed, supply columns caught up etc.). In addition units should suffer similar, but less severe, org/strength losses in combat, quite apart from what was inflicted upon them by the enemy. The chaos of combat situations naturally degraded unit effectiveness.

I think just the org loss could represent the "recoverable" portion of the drop in combat readiness, while the actual unit strength drop could represent irrepairable losses. I'm not sure this loss should be substantial, but it should be felt. The longer such units are without rest (from combat or movement) the amount of irrepairable losses should start ballooning. The org loss definitely should be substantial in either case.

If this is simulated, there should be tech increases that mitigate these losses, or the possibility of "oversupplying" units to allow them to run for longer in such conditions (stocking up of fuel/spare parts for vehicles before undertaking the expedition). The first option should be very expensive to research, representing the coordinated supply infrastructure/quality assurance required. The second should be very expensive except for the smallest armies.

Maybe there should even be a supply level set for the army, with higher supply levels only possible with tech advances. This supply level would not change the initial org level of units, but it would effect the degradation of org/strength in movement or combat as well as the rate that org/strength could be gained back when at rest. Ideally this supply level could be tied into the infrastructure of the province it inhabits, as well as the line of supply it was tracing.

Ah, hooray for added complexity and getting whatever we want!

 

[unmerged(2695)]

Attrition rates etc.

The normal attrition rate of a US WWII military unit was 0.7pct through accidents, sickness, whatever.. Accounting for returned personnell etc normal peacetime attrition should be a steady 0.1 pct to account for fatal personnell losses. In comparison the attrition rate for attacks on a fortified position was in teh reion ofd 20-15pct the first day and a steady 8-10 pct for each consequitive day.

But strength losses do not in themselves reduce the combat strength of a formation by the same rate. This is because the firepower in most armies is generated by crew-served weapons. IRL a formation could be at 70 pct strength and retain 100 pct combat power. Combat power then drops geometrically if the units trength is reduced below 50 pct. At 30 pct a unit cannot really fight.

Except for Russian inf divisions after 1942 that had a special TOE for that contingency and the German, which had the organization flexibility to organize ad hoc combat teams that had a combat power out proportion to theri actual numerical strength.

This is where the organization varaible enters the equation.

Unit strength represents Initial Equipment and manpower. Organization represents readiness. Combat strength is a function of the two.

IRL full strength units are usually at less than 100 pct strength (ie German panzer divisions Jun 22 1941). (No German division was ever at 100 pct strength because men were always going on leave - except possibly during May 1940 and June-July 1941)

Travel results in disorganization, recoverable losses of equipment and is covered by the organization variable. Total equipment fallout is rare, however. And it is organizational ability that determines recovery rate.

In HoI divisions are usually committed into corps-scale actions. It is possible that they may be committed piecemeal, but at the HoI level (grand-strategic) that is a very fine detail comparable to, say, deciding on what kind of consumer goods should be produced (e.g. canned salmon vs canned tomatos). HoI is not a tactical game.

The same consideration goes for supply. Except in special tactical situations, like an encirlement, units are either in or out of supply. A unit out of supply will disintegrate. There are strange situations, like the US Army in Iceland being reduced to an armed rabble (or something) because Reykjavik could not support three divisions. But that is probably easy to correct. Units do not "stock" up on spare parts, ammo or fuel beyond that mandated by their TOE. Scrounging and organizing are equally details (like should we produce nylon stockings now that we have the technology and increase consumer goods supply by two - that's a very good idea as an added incentive for reseraching materials tech BTW) . The differences between armies are again covered by org factors and logistcs technologies. It's just too bad that the AI is so bad that the effect of these technologies never really are brought to bear on combat - except for the Germans.

 

[frunk]

Re: Attrition rates etc.

Originally posted by Hardu

The same consideration goes for supply. Except in special tactical situations, like an encirlement, units are either in or out of supply. A unit out of supply will disintegrate. There are strange situations, like the US Army in Iceland being reduced to an armed rabble (or something) because Reykjavik could not support three divisions. But that is probably easy to correct. Units do not "stock" up on spare parts, ammo or fuel beyond that mandated by their TOE. Scrounging and organizing are equally details (like should we produce nylon stockings now that we have the technology and increase consumer goods supply by two - that's a very good idea as an added incentive for reseraching materials tech BTW) . The differences between armies are again covered by org factors and logistcs technologies. It's just too bad that the AI is so bad that the effect of these technologies never really are brought to bear on combat - except for the Germans.

This was a great post, and I'd like to comment on all of it, but I'm just going to focus on this paragraph.

It is true that units are basically considered in or out of supply, but that is papering over a lot of complexity. Being "in supply" in a US unit during this period was very different from being "in supply" in an Italian unit. The availability and quantity of supply as well as the sophistication of the distribution network was much higher on the US side. Due to the distances and complexity of the Pacific and European campaigns, the US had no choice but to develop these support mechanisms.

This meant that assuming initial combat effectiveness was comparable between the two units, after two weeks of hard fighting/travel the US formation was going to be in better shape from receiving replacements for rapidly depleted supplies like ammunition or fuel. It could be argued that a higher Organization value would represent this, but than the initial effectiveness of the US unit would be higher as well.

I agree that the units themselves do not stock up on supplies, at least not on a scale that would at all matter in terms of HoI. However the supply depots just behind the combat formations would be increased before a big offensive, amphibious invasion, or other large scale action. Since supply lines aren't represented as anything but an abstraction, it seemed simpler to propose that the units themselves could be "oversupplied". I stated it poorly in my initial post, not making the distinction between game abstraction and real world situation.