HoI 2 too HoI 3 too HoI 4

[Shadow Master]

Just some things about the games history to date and my ramblings...

In HoI 2 we had tech teams, then in HoI 3 they were done away with (IDK why), hope to see them back in HoI 4.
In HoI 2 we had useful puppets, then in HoI 3 they were badly nerfed (IDK why), hope to see them back in HoI 4.

In HoI 2 we had aircraft that couldn't engage ground units attacking a provinces defenders, because they were out of range. This was not fixed in HoI 3 as far as I know(IDK why), hope to see this fixed in HoI 4.

Anyway, feel free to comment and add your own...

 

[nikssims]

I dont like tech teams. I hope they are not it. HOI3 system for me feels better to use. Dont understand what do you mean with airplanes. Everything works fine for me.

 

[Shadow Master]

When playing HoI 2, there are times when your CAS cannot fight the enemy ground troops, that your ground troops in the same province are fighting, because they are 'out of range'. This is caused by the abstraction of the ability of a province to handle airforces being limited to a single airbase icon, and then calculating ranges from this single icon to where the ground units are fighting. This not being fixed was one of the reasons I never bought HoI 3.

As for the tech teams, why do you not like them?

 

[FOARP]

When playing HoI 2, there are times when your CAS cannot fight the enemy ground troops, that your ground troops in the same province are fighting, because they are 'out of range'. This is caused by the abstraction of the ability of a province to handle airforces being limited to a single airbase icon, and then calculating ranges from this single icon to where the ground units are fighting. This not being fixed was one of the reasons I never bought HoI 3.

You never bought HOI3 because, very occasionally, the attacking units would be that extra ~20 miles out of range? Do you know how often this actually happens in-game?

 

[Shadow Master]

Far more often than that, I am afraid. This problem (amoung others) is indeed the reason I never bought HoI 3. If you cannot fix something that is obviously broken, but decide to mess with things that are not broken...

This problem is caused by the abstraction model used in-game, and rather than fixing this, they left this problem and went and got rid of the puppets and tech teams, neither of which was broken.

 

[Beagá]

Tech teams were taken out to make the game more sandbox.

I personally would rather see a system where Money + Tech team + Practical is used. I´m strongly against BS like conquering leadership, as Germany (to use the most obvious example) NEVER used french scientists, spies or diplomats... But if you remove that you would have the "sandbox" people complaining that they can´t conquer the world as Bulgaria, and screw you if you think that should be impossible anyway.

 

[nikssims]

As for the tech teams, why do you not like them?

I suppose you are asking me right? Well biggest thing why i dont like it is because i hate having to (most of the times it isnt even a "tech team", ussualy it is popular industrial center of nation, doesnt makes any sense to me) change all the time those tech teams to research different things. Another reason is becasue i started playing HoI3 first, and it is hard to move from new version and get used to what many people consider "classic".

 

[208]

Far more often than that, I am afraid. This problem (amoung others) is indeed the reason I never bought HoI 3. If you cannot fix something that is obviously broken, but decide to mess with things that are not broken...

This problem is caused by the abstraction model used in-game, and rather than fixing this, they left this problem and went and got rid of the puppets and tech teams, neither of which was broken.

Just because you don't know why they were changed (or not) doesn't mean there weren't good reasons. It's fine not to like stuff in a game, but at least be honest and recognize that it's a difference of opinion rather than insinuating that the developers are idiots.

It has been confirmed that there will be no return of HoI2-style control of allied forces, but you will be able to invite them to your battle plans and hopefully direct them more effectively than in HoI3. Air combat/units are being reworked and we don't have any details about that yet.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

They have also stated they are bringing back tech teams, however not like HOI2 tech teams. That's all thats been said.

I also Prefer HOI3 research system over HOI2... however I prefer HOI2 Tech sharing with allies over HOI3. In HOI3 it's more realistic, however you have no idea what your ally is research so trying to increase their practical is worthless. At least in HOI2 the AI would get 50% bonus to everything you gave it, enabling useful allies for Germany.

And yes I do think research teams were broken, I like that they are out of the game. The main reason is they never increased skills or leveled up, and only the majors could actually play really. Minors were stuck with 2 to 3 tech teams that could never learn anything new, and even if you conquered all of Europe you still have 2 tech teams.

 

[EmperorTojo]

It has been confirmed that there will be no return of HoI2-style control of allied forces, but you will be able to invite them to your battle plans and hopefully direct them more effectively than in HoI3. Air combat/units are being reworked and we don't have any details about that yet.

Meh, I really want puppets I can control.. Why is this so hard to make? Some game that is almost a decade old did this just fine apparently. It is unnerving to let the AI do its own thing where I can only influence it minimally. Give me full control if I want, please. What logical reason do they have for not introducing this feature?

 

[Yaromir]

Tech team gameplay experience sucked though. Select tech you want to research -> click a techteam -> scroll through tech team list until you find a suitable one -> click again -> click on "start" button

tedious and not fun

 

[Vacceo]

I hated the deterministic tech teams. Why my navy sucks if I´m Soviet and no matter what I do in game I´m still gonna be worse? Why do I have to get crappy tech teams if I´m playing a minor?

Honestly, no thanks.

 

[Bluestreak2k5]

I made a post about how I think things could be improved in HOI4 with tech sharing... which was horrible in HOI3 IMO. They have said they are bring tech teams back, but not like HOI2 tech teams, so I went under that assumption.

Post #1 and Post#3 explain how I think it could be done effectively.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?760486-SUG-Improved-Ally-research-sharing

 

[RedHunter]

I would like a return to puppets that are useful. And why can't you move supplies through areas you have puppeted? That is a stupid rule that just slows down war and gives less reason for puppets. If I invade China maybe I don't want to annex all that land, so I make them a puppet, but then I can't move my supplies through that area, it should be treated exactly like I had annexed them.

 

[208]

And why can't you move supplies through areas you have puppeted?

Because there's no label on the supplies that say whose they are. The game can't distinguish your supplies from your puppet's supplies, so it can't actually track two (or more) supply networks superimposed on top of each other. The compromise they chose is to have the puppet's supply network supply all the troops within its territory and you send sufficient supplies directly to the puppet's stockpile to cover the drain of your own troops.

 

[Solaxe]

Tech teams were taken out to make the game more sandbox.

I personally would rather see a system where Money + Tech team + Practical is used. I´m strongly against BS like conquering leadership, as Germany (to use the most obvious example) NEVER used french scientists, spies or diplomats... But if you remove that you would have the "sandbox" people complaining that they can´t conquer the world as Bulgaria, and screw you if you think that should be impossible anyway.

But Allies and soviets used german scientists... however I kinda agree with you on that one

 

[scroggin]

HOI2 gave more efficiency to serial builds HOI3 gave more efficiency with practical.............. I'm Hoping for a blend in HOI4.

 

[Shadow Master]

Just because you don't know why they were changed (or not) doesn't mean there weren't good reasons. It's fine not to like stuff in a game, but at least be honest and recognize that it's a difference of opinion rather than insinuating that the developers are idiots.

It has been confirmed that there will be no return of HoI2-style control of allied forces, but you will be able to invite them to your battle plans and hopefully direct them more effectively than in HoI3. Air combat/units are being reworked and we don't have any details about that yet.

I am not trying to be offensive, and should I manage that absent intent, then I apologise for doing so.hmy:

While I do recognize that it is indeed a matter of preference for what was familiar (in the case of the tech teams and puppets) over a new version of the game that would require me to learn the modifications to my playing preferences, the changes made in these two areas between HoI 2 and HoI 3 went a bit beyond that. Like Blizzard reworking the Necromancers to the point that they were broken (badly) by changes made in patches. It wasn't that I had to use different buttons, or order of click here, do that, but more on the order of, you can no longer play the game the way you were enjoying it, as the functionality has been fundamentally changed - learn a whole new way to play the game.

I didn't call the developers idiots directly, nor (to my thinking) did I insinuate this, but rather pointed out an area that was clearly broken in HoI 2 and was not fixed in HoI 3. I cannot see accepting a scolding for complaining about something that is so obviously broken as the use of CAS squadrons was in HoI 2. The problem here is one of the abstraction forcing unworkable limitations on the players units. In HoI 2, you have a single airbase icon per province. This is fine, as any other system is going to mean cluttering up the map with needless airbase icons. The abstraction of 'levels' of an airbase is also ok (but could be a bit better IMHO), as it lets you see at a glance how effective/extensive the province as a whole is as a host to airforces. Neither of these two things was broken nor unworkable, but then....

We seem to have CAS squadrons (or rather, all air forces) ranges somehow being wrongfully calculated based upon where in the province the one and only airbase icon is placed! Keep in mind that the compromises above for keeping the map uncluttered and informative, should in no way be tied to how the aircraft would actually be based/operated. In reality, you would not have a single airbase in a province, but rather you would have dozens, scores, or even hundreds of places where aircraft would be taking off and landing. These multitudes of places would not all be located right next to each other, but would rather be distributed about the entire province, and thus the range of the aircraft would not be calaulated from a single fixed location. That being said, we can assume that even the most dullard of commanding officers would deploy his forces to make proper use of them.

So the problem isn't one of the decision to limit the map to show a single airbase icon, nor to have the level superimposed. Both those things work. What doesn't work is then tying the abstraction of a single airbase icon to the airforces ranges. That is where the problem lies, and the solution must recognize and address this. How could this be done? I don't know the computer programming to write the solution for this, but I rather strongly suspect that it would not be a 'simple' fix. My (admittedly unlearned) thoughts would be to some how tie the ground forces to the airforces, with something like;

"IF ground forces (in the province) are engaging enemy ground forces from an adjacent province (either attacking or defending), Then
for purposes of range all aircraft (in the province) are considered to be within range of the enemy ground forces".

This would not totally fix the problem with ranges in HoI 2 (and perhaps HoI 3), but it would go a long way towards that goal. Hopefully, something like this can be implemented, so that we don't have the situation where the enemies ground forces can engage our ground forces, and yet be safe from our airforces, because of an abstraction being used in their range calculations.

 

[Mr_B0narpte]

Give me full control if I want, please. What logical reason do they have for not introducing this feature?

I completely agree. I don't see why they would remove the element of choice in this regard.

 

[Shadow Master]

So, who likes full or partial control over their puppets, as opposed to no control?
Who wants to be able to trace supply through allied/puppet territory?
Who wants tradable technologies (blueprints)?
Who wants to be able to assist an ally/puppet with research?