Why just add an equippement called fuel that is use for supply tanks planes and ship, cost only oil to build. If a ship don't have any it can't move or only really slowly. So you can stockpile fuel.
General Criticism Thread
- Thread starter Marfach
- 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.
Dropped supplies and fuel justified because "stock piling was gamey way to never have shortages".
Supply a crucial element of war so abstracted to equipment attrition. Units need access to ports and supply route to be in supply of replacement equipment.
Equipment is built and stockpiled.
Supply a crucial element of war so abstracted to equipment attrition. Units need access to ports and supply route to be in supply of replacement equipment.
Equipment is built and stockpiled.
- 4
The game and the war had different needs, while stockpiling was important for the war the game may be better without them.
Equipment as stockpiles make alot of sense in terms of grand strategy.
Equipment as stockpiles make alot of sense in terms of grand strategy.
- 1
You think Equipment stockpiling makes a lot of sense in terms of Grand strategy, but not fuel?
An alternative would have been to make Storage space for fuel buildable, so each nation would start with a certain amount of storage space, and could then expand it. That would increase strategic depth for nations. The core of all strategy is the idea of opportunity cost. If you do one thing, you forgo the opportunity to do another thing. In this case, as say Germany, you can increase your fuel stockpiles giving you more time to seize Russian Oil Fields before shortages become critical, but in doing so reduce your ability to build arms, tanks and the equipment needed to actually seize those oil fields in the first place. It adds balance.
- 2
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for stockpiling weapons and equipment. I just think that having supplies and fuel as entities and improving that system would have been far better (see Marfach quote bellow)
I like this quote 'combat Leaders and Lessons': "You can live for months without mail; for weeks without food; for days without water; for hours without POL; but you cannot live for seconds without ammo."
- 1
exactly my point. paradox literally STOLE my money when it comes to HoI3, and I am still in the mood to demand a refund.....
let me put it like this.... a few months ago I uploaded HoI3 on my computer, vanilla version, and couldn't play it. IT WAS STILL UNPLAYABLE. I shouldn't have to BUY DLCs just to have a working game... but you guys with your hero worship of the company, no matter what is said or done, will continue to believe what you want... all I'm asking is that the version of THIS HoI be at least playable... is that too much to ask?
- 5
- 1
Well we are discussing game mechanics here, with the assumption the game will be in working order and relatively bug free on release. I'm not sure where you are taking this point, HoI3 was buggy on release therefore we shouldnt hold the studio to any high standard for HoI4? HoI3 is unplayable without DLCs and so if HoI4 is at least playable on release it doesnt matter that we consider some of their core game mechanics fundamentally flawed?
I can live with bugs, there is almost always a workaround, poor game mechanics are an entirely different story. I don't expect paradox to change much between now and release, so I don't expect any changes to the topics being discussed in the thread, but I do expect it to be possible for modders to make the changes being discussed in this thread. If it is not, it will be a failure on Paradox's part for effectively alienating some of their most loyal fans.
In my opinion, the problem here is those making HoI4 have a different vision for the game than some, or many, of those long time fans waiting to buy it. And that is fine, Paradox have not kept their changes, or the fact that they are trying to reduce the learning curve and appeal to a more casual audience, a secret, But we can still voice our criticism.
- 4
That was one of the funniest things ever posted on this forum. Thank you sir for the laugh!
- 2
Considering any show or restaurant costs easily 50$-100$ for 2-3 hours and I played hundreds of hours of HOI3, this is by very far the cheapest entertainment on the market !
So I am still grateful to them for that. I would consider myself in debt to them if only they were not draining my money with a never-ending flow of DLCs for CK II and EU IV (for which you have to re-learn the game mechanics).
I saw the HOI3 whole collection in sales as low as 5$-10$ a few times over the last year.
Last edited:
- 1
As I said the new system is flawed as it can't cope with reality: in WWII there were several insurrections (see my post) and in the Balkans there were about 50 divisions to deal with partisans and they were not able to defeat them.
I do agree it does not fit perfectly with reality, however it hits a nice compromise between reality and good gameplay, so, while you won't have an actual revolt, if you do not have military police in an area the partisans will sabotage logistics, military factories and generally make the area useless to you. After that its about finding a balance for policing them, personally I'm inclined to say it should be exceedingly difficult to effectively subdue partisans (in line with reality) but in line with paradox's goals of making the game accessible to a more casual userbase I doubt they will do that.
If you look at what Partisans can actually disrupt it will have a major impact on expansion, assuming it is not trivial to police, but this brings me back to no partisans in factionless conquered states.
I think funding partisans should also be a mechanic as the SU and UK were fond of cultivating partisan efforts.
You have seen a couple of games on Youtube. Do you think that in any of them you could find a good compromise between reality and playability? If yes then we have very different ways to see things as I rather prefer the bad mechanic of HOI3 over the nonexistent mechanic of HOI4. As in many cases there is no wrong or right answer but it is just a matter of preferences/tastes.
Last edited:
- 1
Well said. I think it is too early to be criticizing a game that has not even released yet, even if you have played the beta! Even just in the WWW streams they constantly mentioned a new version of the game "hot off the press" so it received tweaks and updates all the time.
Now don't get me wrong, I think criticisms are good because it helps the developers focus to make changes and make better games in the future, but until we are actually playing it, and I mean "really playing it=dumping hours upon hours", how do we truly know yet what works and what doesn't? The WWW streams just scratch the surface and it is not us in the driver's seat yet to get our criticism.
I too purchased HOI3 day one and I can remember being very excited for that game! I was also very disappointed when it was a buggy mess. I wanted to play it and have fun so bad but could not at the time. When future DLCs came out, it got fixed and I could have a blast and a blast I did have. When thinking about HOI4, I did not want that experience again for a game I consider my favorite of all favorites of all time! After waiting so long for HOI4, and patient I was, I want to be having a blast day 1! So my hopes in HOI4 have always rested on two things, that the developers poured their hearts into making the game amazing with full of detail, upgrades, new life streamlined appeal and fixes to old problems and super fun playable DAY 1.
Just by watching the WWW streams it seems they have achieved both of these hopes for me and I feel many of you out there can agree with me on that! The game truly looks amazing and ready! Until the game is released I am having fun reading all the debates and what ifs that you lovely forum members are coming up with but I think we are venturing "too critical" on threads like this when we have not even played it yet to really understand what works and what might not so much.
That is just my two cents anyways. Some of you guys make great points about like the fuel question and the lack of province names for immersion and the lack of an OOB structure that confused many apparently (but in reality HOI3 just lacked a clear tutorial to explain it but onine vids eventually did just that). So yes all great points, but I am just not ready to be critical yet of like for example with the fuel question, because maybe it will be more clear when I am playing it.
Again, just my 2 cents...
- 3
- 1
In the game Ukraine is part of the Soviet Union in 1936, owned and controlled by them with cores. There is no country of Ukraine.
In 1941(ish) in the game Germany invades Ukraine, there is still no country of Ukraine. Germany doesn't own it and doesn't have any cores. It occupies this part of the Soviet Union. And there are partisans.
There is no GiE, because there is no country of Ukraine, and therefore no government to go into exile. The government is that of the Soviet Union. They are not a GiE. They may (as real life) still be located at Moscow, or the capital may have moved to another city.
The partisans in the game are abstracted to be supported by the Soviet government not by some non-existent Ukraine GiE.
You say that the resistance came from within IRL. This is not correct. Many of the partisans behind enemy lines were originally Soviet Red Army members. As the German blitzkrieg advanced 100,000s of Soviet troops were surrounded in pockets. But significant numbers escaped, and continued operations behind the lines. Plus local Communist Party activists from the occupied areas joined.
While originally suspicious of these groups that were no longer under direct Red Army command, Stalin was persuaded to support them. Arms and supplies were provided by the Soviet Union. And further members were parachuted behind German lines. By the end of 1941 some 90,000 men were operating in partisan detachments across the occupied area (Ukraine, Poland, Byelorussia and a few in the Baltic States). The numbers grew from local recruitment, and from mid-1942 there was central organisation of operations by STAVKA (Soviet High Command).
Full details of these can be found here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans
These were joined by some groups which were independent of the Soviet operations. Some nationalist groups of men who had survived the civil war existed, or were formed from younger men, who did not want to return to Soviet control of their homelands. But appear to have been small in number and less effective, without the military support that the Soviet partisans got. And because the Soviet partisans were not above attacking them, or providing intelligence to the Germans about them.
There were also groups like the Bielski Brothers (Jews who escaped from the Polish ghettos) who were accepted by the Soviet partisans. The 2009 film "Defiance" was based on their story. It's worth watching.
Once the Soviet Army recaptured areas, partisan detachments generally disbanded. But in some cases they moved ahead of the front line, deliberately remaining in German occupied zones to continue to cause maximum disruption to their logistics.
I'm not aware of any Ukrainian nationalist groups fighting on once Ukraine was returned to Soviet control. I'm not saying there wasn't any, but they were probably short-lived and had no significant effect, because they had no external support. After the effects of German occupation, the Soviet Army was generally seen as a "liberating" force. The lesser of two evils.
The game makes no acknowledgement of internal forces like this anyway. Your example of the IRA for instance (who didn't operate in mainland UK until the 1970s) is not relevant. Internal opposition is only abstracted, and appears in the game if the level of support for their ideology reaches levels to force government change or civil war.
In the game, Soviet forces recapturing Ukraine returns full rights to the Soviet government to the manpower, factories and resources of the region. And also when they re-occupy Eastern Poland.
But that is not the case if Soviet forces advance into Romania, Hungary, Western Poland etc. Then they are the foreign occupiers and are subject to partisan activity, until the Axis surrenders and they can "liberate" the countries under communist governments or puppet regimes.
Last edited:
- 2
I will accept that currently the partisan system is trivial and nothing close to reality, however, the idea is good in principle (read: modders will probably fix it). It is trivial because a factionless nation has no partisans, and because it takes so little military police to actually subdue partisans. Would you agree that if factionless Nations had partisans and Partisans (particularly of factioned states) were very difficult to suppress it would make for a good system?
Tangentially, I think a great way to make partisans difficult to suppress would be to allow Nations to fund partisans, either for diplomatic power or at the expense of military equipment, this would also be more true to real life as partisans without outside funding would be relatively weak but those receiving foreign aid would be difficult to suppress, which reduces supply transportation and gives your enemies valuable intel about your military operations.
- 1
Very interesting points you make. I'll cede discussion here since I'm neither well versed enough nor willing to do sufficient research on the subject in order to try and find counter arguments (if there are any).
To return to the pure gameplay discussion: don't you find it odd that you don't have to occupy (militarily) annexed territory?
That's the basis of what I was talking about. It seems really strange to me that the population of a country would just stay calm and do nothing, with no military present.
You could argue that police and administrative repression (auxiliary police) are abstracted and off-map. But then, this would also be done in merely occupied territory, where the game wants you to use military police or divisions to supress resistance.
I therefore still think, despite your historical points raised, that annexed territory should have resistance like occupied territory (although in a weaker form).
just wanted to give you an answer to this question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Fyodorovich_Vatutin#Death
he was a Important general to the red army, it shows not all of Ukraine saw the Soviet Union as their true country
Last edited:
There is "resistance" - you only get to use 50% of the factory slots. And you don't get all of the resources or MP.
Seeing WW wednesday, hungary took out germany in 1940 with garrison units. What is gonna be the fun in playing soviet,britain or US, if a small weak nation can steamroll The third reich. Why do we need airforce when they a not needed at all. Why have tec if it doesn't matter and you can stomp the a.i in a matter of month with a basic small army. Please stop making Hoi into a sandbox where everybody can win, its WWII and should reflect that in the power of the counties. You have Eu4 for taking a small nation and making it a big empire. Hoi should concentrate on operational scale warfare, with high attention to detail ieg, supply, but at the moment it's just a mess.
- 2
That is not "resistance" in the way the game usually handles resistance. The 50% IC reduction can not be negated by military presence. Hence there is no reason to guard that area. Nothing bad will ever happen (aside from the IC reduction), regardless if you occupy the area or not.
IMO this models not resistance, but just unmotivated workers, administrative inefficiencies due to language or whatever.
I think it is better to give the player an incentive to guard those areas, so he has to decide if he takes troops out of the frontline or if he rather suffers the negative consequences that unguarded territory means (bigger IC hit, less supply throughput ect).
- 4