The problem I have with them is that they are worthless as targets, i.e. when I conquer the province with rocket test sites, I gain nothing and the enemy loses nothing. Also, bombing them doesn't hamper rocketry development in any way.
-
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.
- Status
You are right, bombing rocket test sites should hamper rocketry research, not just cost repairs.
Also, when conquered, whe should be able to use them at our profit after some time to repair, refit and understand the technology (as the enemy should have sabotaged the facilities, destroyed or bring out the plans or documentation, and the technology may be different from ours). Maybe we could be able to use effectively only a portion of the test site to reflect all of these obstacles.
I'd kind of like a mish-mash of Victoria II, EU3, and HOI3, but I know it probably won't happen.
To have the warfare aspect of HOI 3 combined with the industry and pop's of Victoria, along with the more fluid borders/countries/diplomacy of EU3, not to mention the timeline of all three combined would be awesome.
Again, it probably wouldn't happen, and would be far too complex, but still.
To have the warfare aspect of HOI 3 combined with the industry and pop's of Victoria, along with the more fluid borders/countries/diplomacy of EU3, not to mention the timeline of all three combined would be awesome.
Again, it probably wouldn't happen, and would be far too complex, but still.
* 2d is ok. More fun for me.
* More details will enough for me. Cause i guess everyone like this game due to its complex and detailed play style. It would be more fun.
* And yes we want hoi4 !
* Utopia : Maybe one day (can be hoi 10) we can play it like total war series and can command every single unit if we want. Ofc this is not a request from the dev team. Just dreaming
* More details will enough for me. Cause i guess everyone like this game due to its complex and detailed play style. It would be more fun.
* And yes we want hoi4 !
* Utopia : Maybe one day (can be hoi 10) we can play it like total war series and can command every single unit if we want. Ofc this is not a request from the dev team. Just dreaming
Maybe, one day, people will stop wishing for a hippo with the neck of a giraffe. Just saying. Mixing HoI with TW would be about as good an idea as to mix civilization with panzer general - and we all know, how great that worked, dont we? I dont know more than anyone else here does, but i´d be willing to bet, that nothing like this is in any way compatible with PI´s design philosophy and what they want their games to be like. You want TW? Go play TW! Nothing personal, just me getting annoyed by the persistant reoccurance of this (completely useless, imho) idea, cluttering up suggestion-threads. I wonder if CA´s forum is also full of suggestions asking them to make their strategic maps run on real time, just like PI-games...
Good franchises can actually be ruined by player request. I knew silent hunter V was going to suck, when i read what the players asked for in the fora (full 3D walkable sub-interior - like that mattered in a subsim...) - sometimes some people actually do get what they ask for - for better or worse. Keep clamoring for 3D battles long enough and HoIX will have all its ressources poured into that, with very little left for the actual game, with the likely result, that it becomes a crappy game, which cant even compete in that 3D-department, for there will always be other games, doing that much better.
(once upon a time, map-change requests were forbidden on this forum... now, i know, i am not supposed to discuss forum rules, and thus will leave it at that)
Good franchises can actually be ruined by player request. I knew silent hunter V was going to suck, when i read what the players asked for in the fora (full 3D walkable sub-interior - like that mattered in a subsim...) - sometimes some people actually do get what they ask for - for better or worse. Keep clamoring for 3D battles long enough and HoIX will have all its ressources poured into that, with very little left for the actual game, with the likely result, that it becomes a crappy game, which cant even compete in that 3D-department, for there will always be other games, doing that much better.
(once upon a time, map-change requests were forbidden on this forum... now, i know, i am not supposed to discuss forum rules, and thus will leave it at that)
Last edited:
Fans give ideas. The devs have to sort them out and implement the ones which they find feasible and fitting the game's design philosophy.
Now, after the xth iteration, and considering how easy it is to figure that this utopia is actually a dystopia (yeah, let´s have 30 battles in the east, each day! - it sure wont get repitive very quickly... - and the AI will of course be a challange in those battles, too, right - i mean like in CA-games, it is...), i´d hardly call that an idea, though. I dont think it´s asked to much, for the idea-givers to at least have spent minimum thought on what they are suggesting. If the ´idea´ would come up only like once a year, i´d just ignore it - but it crops up way too often. In fact, it´s becoming a threat to the franchise, i feel. If it will be the most requested feature for HoI4, i can see PI actually trying (and failing, hard - except maybe commercially, which will be the temptation for them to try it in the first place). You know, how classical cRPG died? Just like that.
EDIT: Aside from PI´s ressources, such a feature would ruin the game, anyways. If the suggestion was at least: ´I´d like a spin-off, in which you command a single corps (of your choice) embedded in a bigger AI-run campaign, with TW-like battles... ("HoI - tactical episodes", or some such)´ - now, that´s something different - still wrong company´s forum, maybe, but at least plausible as a game-idea, imho.
EDIT: Aside from PI´s ressources, such a feature would ruin the game, anyways. If the suggestion was at least: ´I´d like a spin-off, in which you command a single corps (of your choice) embedded in a bigger AI-run campaign, with TW-like battles... ("HoI - tactical episodes", or some such)´ - now, that´s something different - still wrong company´s forum, maybe, but at least plausible as a game-idea, imho.
Last edited:
I agree in general with your points. For land battles it's a given, there is just no way to make it work.
So if anything like that is even to be contemplated it can only involve battles:
* That generally speaking only happen very rarley (Perhaps about once a month at max).
* In order to be interresting, those battles you are allowed to control also needs to be important or decisive.
* A big plus is if it's battles that are already hard to represent well with the current HoI engines (so that we actually add something meaningful).
Am I the only one here that think this sounds just like HoI3 naval combat?
It also doesn't have to be zoomed in to a single province or putting you in control off single airplanes or guns. But what if the game actually zoomed in and you are given direct control of all air and naval assets in range? In essence the only thing done is that we get a free map (the province borders are removed) and the time resolution is changed temporary from 1hour/tick to perhaps 1min/tick. What suddenly happens is that gun-ranges, positioning, CAP and airplane/ship speeds actually start to matter a whole lot more then they ever can in a game constrainted by crude time and province accuracy.
And since the scale is more RTS, there are no more need for pretty graphics, the same models used ingame (those that are never put to good use if you play with counters) can be used here to. If Starcraft 1 doesn't need pretty graphics to be a fun RTS I see no reason why any focus needs to be on graphics like the TW series. Here I agree with Jazumir, don't focus on graphics, thats not what sells HoI, focus on gameplay always.
Basically I am convinced you could take all stats, weather, data, map and 3d models already in game, and make a decent RTS "Naval combat game" out from it for very little effort (since it all is just there waiting to be put to use).
You can also do a whole lot more with that system if some extra work is put into it. For example instead of having Carrier hangar techs make Carriers harder to spot (=wtf?) like currently, they could reduce the actual reload/refuel time of CAGs recovered.
Last edited:
The beauty of HOI is its "war map," planning philosophy. Unlike an RTS where the player dies and spawns, in HOI the HQ directives succeed or fail. More detail (geographically, OOB'ly, chain of command'ly) will not change the nature of HOI. A dead player is a destroyed or replaced HQ (eg. politician, army group HQ, battalion HQ) who would have to "respawn" as another entity. When Rommel dies, he dies.
In naval terms I can see sea-based naval HQs as being a ship itself (much as a land-based HQ is a rudimentary combat unit). Even a politician could have a unit form but it wouldn't have too much "on screen" purpose unless politicians argued it out in some kind of forum or voted (depending on government type) in parliament. Naval is simplified due to negligible terrain demands. To be happy, lower level land-based HQs would expect to plan around terrain features (not difficult these days as global terrain and infrastructure can be read off databases).
access to the engine, so the modders can inevitably fix the game faster than the devs can or will do.
that is only going to happen when they stop using the engine and even then it is more then unlikely. if they would do that nobody would have to pay for the games anymore.
Or you could be a little positive for once
The odds of it happing is pretty good since it did happen with the HoI2 engine, and they dealt with your concerns by only giving source-code access to modders with both coding knowledge and good ideas.
Or you could be a little positive for once
The odds of it happing is pretty good since it did happen with the HoI2 engine, and they dealt with your concerns by only giving source-code access to modders with both coding knowledge and good ideas.
yes, but only after they made a new engine. they wont make a new engine anytime soon but constantly improve the clausewitz engine.
i thought they had, because CK2 isn't on clausewitz as far as i can remember, i think one of the devs said something about sengeko being a bridge to test some of the new engines in a bridging version of clausewitz
Yes, but modders aren't going to get access to HOI3's source code until Paradox is done making money off the game itself. They just released an expansion pack, so they aren't throwing in the towel any time soon.
comsubpac might annoy you with his posts, but this time he's right. Basically, you aren't going to get access to HOI3's engine until an HOI4 is in the offing. We had EU3 before EU2 was made available to a small group of people willing to license their mods.
It's not mean-spirited. It's just Paradox protecting it's investment.
Whether CK2 is actually a totally new engine, or still a "bridge" like Sengoku, is not something I can answer (and I've been playing it for 2 months!). Regardless, you aren't going to get access to HOI3's source until HOI4 is in the picture. And if you want access to the source for HOI4 so you can fix it faster than the Devs (according to a previous post), forget it. They just aren't going to do that.
It would be more productive to ask for improvements to naval warfare.
comsubpac might annoy you with his posts, but this time he's right. Basically, you aren't going to get access to HOI3's engine until an HOI4 is in the offing. We had EU3 before EU2 was made available to a small group of people willing to license their mods.
It's not mean-spirited. It's just Paradox protecting it's investment.
Whether CK2 is actually a totally new engine, or still a "bridge" like Sengoku, is not something I can answer (and I've been playing it for 2 months!). Regardless, you aren't going to get access to HOI3's source until HOI4 is in the picture. And if you want access to the source for HOI4 so you can fix it faster than the Devs (according to a previous post), forget it. They just aren't going to do that.
It would be more productive to ask for improvements to naval warfare.
i thought you weren't allowed to talk about that... naughty boy Mr. Secret Master!
OT: and I don't care what any of you say, i want placable supply dumps and to hell with how the ai deals with it
OT: and I don't care what any of you say, i want placable supply dumps and to hell with how the ai deals with it
The only part of his post I was objecting to was "even then it is more then unlikely"...
Something that happened with last game, and from what I can see resulted in at least two pretty decent games with their own fan bases isn't "more then unlikely" to be repeated.
how about reading the entire post?
"...when they stop using the engine and even then it is more then unlikely." just look at the games that are using the clausewitz engine. as long as one of this games is still developed further it is not going to happen. besides, even when the release the engine so that some people can buy a license that has no effect at any existing game. they will get the clausewitz source code but not the code of hoi3 and nobody but paradox will ever have access to the to the code of existing games. so hoi3 wont get faster or better without patches or expansions.
it has been discussed in the "ask paradox almost anything" thread a while ago and it is very unlikely that the engine will ever be released even if they stop using it because even the new games just use a advanced version and not a entirely new engine.
You haven't been around the CK2 forum in awhile, have you?
I'm press, not a beta. If they don't want me to record 90 minute videos of the game, they shouldn't send out an updating preview copy on Steam. And you aren't the only one who wants placeable supply dumps. I'm not one of them, but that's because I would settle for a simply change to the game rules where 90k of supplies isn't sitting in the capital. If it stockpiled in 5k chunks on various cores and IC provinces, I'd be happy. Stealing capitals would be less abusive.
You haven't been around the CK2 forum in awhile, have you?
And you aren't the only one who wants placeable supply dumps. I'm not one of them, but that's because I would settle for a simply change to the game rules where 90k of supplies isn't sitting in the capital. If it stockpiled in 5k chunks on various cores and IC provinces, I'd be happy. Stealing capitals would be less abusive.
i admit i haven't been following CK2
OT: an amazing thought, assign your national stockpile in relation to IC instead of capital, e.g. if you have 20IC total and you loss a province with 2 IC you loss 2/20 of your total national resource (or 10% for you less maths people).
maybe it would have to have a provision for cores only or something like the IC has been in your hands for more then 6 months, but since the game lasts only 10 years tops IC dosn't really change much over this time.
ALSO: i want to be able o give away and ask for provinces like in EU3 or darkest hour (preferable EU3 with the map you click on)
- Status