Hearts of Iron 3: the future?

[Tahuti]

Many people, including me would be curious how Hearts of Iron 3 would turn out. Considering EUIII has 3D graphics and fully random events (as opposed to pre-scripted events), its likely HoI3 Will be much like it.

What do you think about it, and would you think out would happen?>

 

[Gunneroid]

I would like 2D. 3D really adds nothing to the game. A much more detailed 2d map with actual objectives like bridges, rivers etc would be great. I say stay with 2d, make it bigger and high resolution. The meat of the game is the strategy not the visual so work on that.

So is there anything in the pipes anyways? I am ready to play HOI3 anytime now so come one!

3D does add something, as someone said before - LESS LAG.
People complain about endgame slowdowns, and even midgame slowdowns, but letting the graphics card handle the video leaves the processor for, well, processing the game information rather than functioning sprites. A more detailed 2D map would lead to the downfall of your game around 1942 if you were playing from '36.

 

[Bullfrog]

3D does add something, as someone said before - LESS LAG.
People complain about endgame slowdowns, and even midgame slowdowns, but letting the graphics card handle the video leaves the processor for, well, processing the game information rather than functioning sprites. A more detailed 2D map would lead to the downfall of your game around 1942 if you were playing from '36.

I hope this is the case when it comes out.

 

[humancalculator]

Lets hope Paradox looks at the enhancement forum while they make HOI3

 

[unmerged(59662)]

I'd like to see scenarios ranging from 1914 to 1964. It would be great to be able to develop a country over 50 years and *really* change history with a tech tree reaching into the equal of the early or mid 80s.

 

[Draigh]

I'd like to see scenarios ranging from 1914 to 1964. It would be great to be able to develop a country over 50 years and *really* change history with a tech tree reaching into the equal of the early or mid 80s.

Too late.

 

[humancalculator]

I'd like to see scenarios ranging from 1914 to 1964. It would be great to be able to develop a country over 50 years and *really* change history with a tech tree reaching into the equal of the early or mid 80s.

it would be to easy to TAKE OVER Z WORLD.

 

[unmerged(110676)]

it would be to easy to TAKE OVER Z WORLD.

And I bet people would still groan when something goes slightly unhistorical.

 

[unmerged(88397)]

after reading the announcments and news about hoi3 i must change my previous opinion
i was agains hoi3 and hoped for a community patch - now i just cant wait for hoi3! it looks great!

 

[humancalculator]

And I bet people would still groan when something goes slightly unhistorical.

Thats consumers for you.

 

[takedown47]

i was frustrated by historically inaccurate games in previous paradox titles not because stalingrad never happened or japan won midway but because the ai was just retarded. i want the ai to be formly guided toward a strategic objective in a EU3: In Nomine style mission system.

there needs to be more detailed economics similar to victoria revolutions which was a great game so that invading norway as germany to protect swedish metal imports is neccessary. loose the old "consumer products" and give us more detail as to what exactly people want. You might also allow the player to enact certain policies (similar to EU3 national decisions) which adjust factors.

eg. you might play UK and enact "Pass Metal Recycling Program" which gives you a production boost to spitfires.
eg. you might play as Soviet Union and enact "Militia Frontline Service Duty" which gives you a 33% production bonus for Soviet Militia and with a -5% morale reduction.
eg. you might play as Germany and enact "National Wartime Effort" reducing civillian need for cars, furniture and other non essential luxuries. downside: only available when at war.

you have national factories that are 100% owned and operated by you. When you invade a country you can seize their factories or destroy them. If you are at peace and have seized factories you can ship them back to your national provinces for reassembly (soviet union did that in 1945).

more detailed economic model would also give allied bombing missions over germany and france essential for winning the war. bomb a rifle ammunition factory complex and watch as german troops run out of bullets on the eastern front mwuhahaha. no serious that would be awesome.

more tactical control over infrasture bombardment. use stukas to bomb either railways or roads. blitzkrieg on a country using stuka's to terrorize civillians will slow down enemy troop movements through a province.

also politics needs to be enhanced so that prewar national and foreign policy can be more detailed. players need to be able to organize meetings between heads of state/government, send delgates to diplomatic conferences, create new international organizations. one of the things that was missing from HoI2 was prewar League of Nations and postwar UN. If Germany won the war what would the international peace organization look like? let the player create one, perhaps an Axis Bloc of countries against the Free World. ai leaders have different personalities making them less predictable. Hitler ai is more risk taking, stalin more defensive but also a risktaker. churchill determined never to surrender no matter the cost, roosevelt ai more focused on american economy than League of Nations etc. i dont want to be attacked by the Soviet Union over Berlin for no apparent reason, i want Stalin to storm out of a diploamtic peace conference after we refused to give him Berlin because then i'd be able to gauge to some degree his intentions.

diplomatic options available dependant upon your foreign minister's abilities.

ribbentrop can bully german neighbours into giving up territory provided there is a 5% or more german population. bring back pie graphs from victoria revolutions for each province. i want to know what percentage of the population in each province are of a particular religion/nationality/economic status.

more cold war inspired exploits like broadcasting propaganda to your national population to boost civillian and military morale.

i'd also love to be able to run the country and reshape the world after i win the war otherwise whats the point? do i just sit around for 3 years between 1945-1948 looking at the map until its game over and i find out i won?

just some ideas.

 

[GrazieRoma]

...

I really hope they will improve the graphics. I personally think EU III: In Nomine looks good, and i would like HOI III to be in 3D.

Im also hoping that they change the battle mechanism to a much better looking one. I wanna see the troops assaulting and firing on each other

Lastly, i would like an alteration of the ending of the game. Its not satisfying simply to look at a scoreboard after you finished a long game.

 

[takedown47]

I really hope they will improve the graphics. I personally think EU III: In Nomine looks good, and i would like HOI III to be in 3D.

Im also hoping that they change the battle mechanism to a much better looking one. I wanna see the troops assaulting and firing on each other

No i hate this obsession game strategy devs have with 3d. eu3 in nomine is awesome but it lags like hell when there is alot going on. some of my best experiences with paradox games have been played on 2d maps (ie. Victoria was an awesome game because it was all about gameplay not graphics). when people talk 3d i only get excited if paradox has tactical combat like total war where you manuever units around on a 3d map but that isnt going to happen they've already said so. 2d allows devs to focus less on making 3d models (which doesnt influence my decison to buy the game or not) and focus instead more on really good indepth gameplay for hardcore grand strategy fans. besides its less realistic if your armies are represented by walking 3d soldiers (wtf? lol) marching across the map. in HoI2 i always used the nato style counters.

Lastly, i would like an alteration of the ending of the game. Its not satisfying simply to look at a scoreboard after you finished a long game.

yep so would i. although if they focus to much on 3d modelling in what should be a strategy game then this aint going to happen. but yes i agree with you on that second point.

 

[unmerged(107768)]

I think Hearts of Iron 3 would be good with 3-D esque graphics, like those sprites made by Bebro or EUIII. Those make the game feel a bit more realistic and less generic. There should also be more technologies and leader pictures, etc. (more details!) put into the game. Especially for the countries that use generic unit sprites. I ONLY play as Ireland and would like it if each country had a unique picture for their units. The gamplay should still be pre-scripted mostly, with little loopholes for spins and twists - BUT NOT SO MUCH AS TO GUT THE GAME. I want to play WWII if I buy a WWII game. The AI should also be made with the ability to counter all of those unhistorical spins and twists, so that you're not pushing over half of Russia with 50 divisions if you attack from the north.... It would also be nice if there was an expansion pack that you could purchase to take you into the Cold War and drop off around the 90's when the soviets collapsed. : / Just an idea.

 

[unmerged(107768)]

some of my best experiences with paradox games have been played on 2d maps (ie. Victoria was an awesome game because it was all about gameplay not graphics). yep so would i. although if they focus to much on 3d modelling in what should be a strategy game then this aint going to happen.

I agree completely with the fact that 3-D will ruin a game if you focus on graphics instead of realism and gameplay. That's the main reason I love the HOI series. The map doesn't have to be 3-D, but it is nice to have 3-D sprites. Sorry, I wanted to add that on -

 

[Seten]

Why complain about the evolution of pdox engine in term of modability?
No pdox game propose more modding option than EU3+IN from scrippted historical event to national decision once the critera are met up to direct regional handling with local flag....

Just look at what mmg did (and what they will do with the futur mmp version)

I'm sure that in hoi3 you will be able to :
- adapt the map more to your conveniance
- have a generic ai well script for all the country of your invention
- handle special province status (put flag like on suez to decide who can pass or not , if mussolini is in prison there etc)
- Put mission to direct player and the ai (destroy X number of planes during the britain battle)
- Implement national decision : red army purge decision , red army rework decision etc etc
- No limitation to how handle the tech tree , maybe we can even hope to specific tech tree depending on the nation...

As for lag thing... well it all depend on how old the comp is. I got a new one , hoi2 lag far more than eu3+IN (wich dosn't lag at all, can play at max speed, it go too fast)
And you have to admit that computer are evolving , and when hoi3 will go out, more people will be in my case of EU3 faster than hoi2 than hoi2 faster than eu3 =/

 

[Gmatt]

Couple things I would like to see.

1) Brigades. These were historically, the smallest unit that stayed the same. It may make it more complicated, but the other thing I would like to see would help.

2) More interactive Brigade/Division/Corps/Army management. Make it so that you can, if you wish, change who is leading each brigade, division and corps in your army group, so that more of your generals can gain experience (Albeit slower if they are not the general commanding). With Brigades, it would require a Brigadier rank also. For there never was just one guy at the top, you had all those commanders, all the way down.

I would like to be able to customize my divisions basically, have the 1st Armoured Brigade have 2 armoured brigades, 1 motorized brigade, 1 artillery regiment or so on, for example.
And the ability to have independent Brigades, so you don't have to send a whole division off to garrison Greenland, yet have a mobile unit, unlike the current Garrison.

Of course, it could all be set to be automated for those who do not want that level.

3) The tech tree could be expanded, slightly, but I found the HoI Tech tedious, so I like how they grouped them together in HoI II, so you research the techs automatically.

 

[unmerged(107768)]

Couple things I would like to see.

1) Brigades. These were historically, the smallest unit that stayed the same. It may make it more complicated, but the other thing I would like to see would help.

2) More interactive Brigade/Division/Corps/Army management. Make it so that you can, if you wish, change who is leading each brigade, division and corps in your army group, so that more of your generals can gain experience (Albeit slower if they are not the general commanding). With Brigades, it would require a Brigadier rank also. For there never was just one guy at the top, you had all those commanders, all the way down.

I would like to be able to customize my divisions basically, have the 1st Armoured Brigade have 2 armoured brigades, 1 motorized brigade, 1 artillery regiment or so on, for example.
And the ability to have independent Brigades, so you don't have to send a whole division off to garrison Greenland, yet have a mobile unit, unlike the current Garrison.

Of course, it could all be set to be automated for those who do not want that level.

3) The tech tree could be expanded, slightly, but I found the HoI Tech tedious, so I like how they grouped them together in HoI II, so you research the techs automatically.

Sounds pretty nice, although I don't want the division-brigade interface to become TOO complicated - but I like the idea. I really don't care for the HOI tech tree at all. It takes almost the whole game to get anything decent if you're a small country. It's too complicated. HOI2 was a much better set-up.