HOI vs EU: what kind of game I'm hoping for

[unmerged(6909)]

I'm hoping that HOI will be very different from EUII.
It's not that I think that EUII was bad - it was very good indeed but there was something I really missed and this will come into play hopefully when the theatre is WWII: complexity.
Yes, EUII covered 400 years of history, there was an event engine, there was a very good model of diplomacy,etc.... but:

In EUII it was possible not to care about anything after a certain point of time besides watching your BB carefully to avoid early BB wars.
It was possible to launch attacks with single armies. It didn't happen very often that you needed to combine or time the arrival of armies to be succesful so in most of the cases your plans weren't that complex.

WWII is very different not only when it comes to the combining of different units:
"Haha, I'm going to attack Britain,...wait, my infantry is ready, I have some ships, but where are my planes?"
That's something you had to plan for several months before (or how fast you can postion your units).

Well this one was obvious, but what anout the next one:
"Haha, I'm going to build 10000 tanks and crush these russians... wait... my recruitment pool is nearly empty and I won't get enough men until the end of the war because I used them for my marine".....many turns ago.

The same applies for raw materials, research etc.

In EUII you could replace everything within a very short time period because after the first years most of us had a decent econmy no matter which country was choosen to play. Cavalry, infantry....it didn't matter that much after the first hundered years. Infantry was the better choice very often because could assault a fortress. Why bother with cavalry? Choose your opponents and crush them early. Whatever you lost you could easily replace it.
A bit of planning made victory easier to achieve but it wasn't neccesary. That's what I didn't like about EUII.
I'll repeat it just to make sure that noone is going to flame me: I liked EUII very much (and EUI, too) but after some time and different nations there wasn't that much left.
The scope of the game, 400 years, made it impossible to make the outcome of a game realistic when a human player is opposed to AI.

HOI seems to be very different from what I've read in the FAQ and seen in the screenshots. Combined arms, longterm production (ships), etc....
That's what I'm hoping for when it comes to complexity - and all of this in a large-scale game like HOI is going to be.
If Paradox is going to make a victory for the axis very hard to achieve (really hard!) and if they add a level of complexity to their promising large-scale game without degrading to a micro-management game... than I know which game I'm going to play for the next year(s)

 

[N Katsyev]

No flaming from this side anyway. However, I'm not in anyway gonna say HOI vs EU, i'm gonna love both and i'm gonna play HOI like i've played EU, for longer than any other game i've ever owned. EU2 had its drawbacks, and one will whine about them from time to time which is just human and HOI will have them too, but its still going to be a kick arse game that i'm going to love. I have the feeling playing one for a while, will make the other that much more refreshing to play.

 

[unmerged(8622)]

There will never be the game that satisfies all gamers, we should accept this!
HoI is gonna be a kick ass game, believe it folks!
-SS

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Have a look at this weeks screen shot in particular the force pool. Those ships are going to take years to build and I'd imagine that Planes and Ground units won't take that long but will be in the same vane.

 

[Spruce]

I hope there will be new ways (compared with EU2) to make the difference on the battle field.

Just the colliding of some army groups in a province and watching the losses isn't that interactive.

I want to enjoy my Bismarck!

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Spruce
I hope there will be new ways (compared with EU2) to make the difference on the battle field.

Just the colliding of some army groups in a province and watching the losses isn't that interactive.

I hope your right about there being more to ground combat in HOI. My biggest fear about HOI is that the ground combat won't be involving enough. My hope is that I will have more control over ground combat that just move and watch.

 

[unmerged(6909)]

More control over land combat:
Napoleon had some control over land combat. Battles were fought in a relatively isolated area. Well, the main commanders at that time had a problem with communication but still they had much influence. They had nearly full information because the battlefield was small, armies were relatively immobile and much smaller compared to WWII.

In WWII most of it should be about preparation and coordination. The HQ didn't had much impact once the orders were given. So the Germans decided to give more power to their commanders in the fields. They allowed them to make their own decisions knowing that they had more knowledge than the HQ once the armies were moving.
This was one of the biggest advantages for Germany. They had the doctrines, materials,... and they knew that the HQ couldn't plan everything, so their commanders in the fields were allowed to exploit opportunities (for break-throughs) without asking the HQ all the time. That's modern warfare and this was something that the Allies had to learn. They weren't prepared for a modern war.

The Player is the "HQ" of a nation. There shouldn't be any possibility to intervene once a battle takes place (maybe with an enormous time-delay to order a withdraw).

According to the FAQ HOI will be like this. You can schedule your attacks and your armies will arrive in certain province....hopefully your bombers weren't intercepted....hopefully the infantry will arrive in time....and hopefully the enemy isn't stronger as expected.
That's very complicated and complex. That's what WWII was about ...and not direct intervention by the HQ: "Well, I think that this Panther should attack these two Shermans...".
Stuff like this is something for individual tank or regiment commanders but it doesn't belong into a large-scale game.

Well, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, ....,those may be handled differently because those units were unilkey to get into disorganistaion


My main concern about the game.....:
How will the AI be able to handle situations like this?
It sounds too complex especially when you compare the AI neccessary for tasks like this to the AI in EUII.
On the other hand:
In EUII the playing was rather linear. Move an army, destroy enemy etc... Not much to think about. This also meant that bad moves were quite obvious.
In WWII everything was based on..plans, expections, uncertainity. The actual moves of the AI in HOI may look stupid to you but you don't know if the AI had a clever plan before.
The same will apply to the human player. You can make wonderful clever plans but when they fail because you "forgot" to order your planes to get into Paris ten days ago your plan may look very silly.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Nebukadnezar

The Player is the "HQ" of a nation. There shouldn't be any possibility to intervene once a battle takes place (maybe with an enormous time-delay to order a withdraw).

Just thing about the number of times Hitler ordered his troops to stop or not retreat. (I'm not stay it's a good thing. I'd agree about a delay linked to doctrine if the orders need changing). Like you pointed out the German armies in WWII had very fast command and control so the player could have control over this forces (see below for what I mean).

That's very complicated and complex. That's what WWII was about ...and not direct intervention by the HQ: "Well, I think that this Panther should attack these two Shermans...".
Stuff like this is something for individual tank or regiment commanders but it doesn't belong into a large-scale game.).

Were did I ask for this level of control. I meant about division level control and allowing the army commanders to set tactics for his Divisions/Corps and have some control over their commitment.

Just look at the battle of France the German High Command didn't want Gurderan and Co to breakout of their Bridgeheads over the Meuse because they were ahead of schedule. But they did so anyway. From a German point of view early WWII wasn't about planning and then winning. It was all about applying that plan by using superior command and control and deviating from it when needed.

My main concern about the game.....:
How will the AI be able to handle situations like this?

Well on this we can agree. It's also the reason that I don't thing I/we'll get to control our armies beyond move and watch.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Originally posted by Kiith

I hope your right about there being more to ground combat in HOI. My biggest fear about HOI is that the ground combat won't be involving enough. My hope is that I will have more control over ground combat that just move and watch.

It is a strategic game with units on a divisional level. With that proviso, how much control would you realistically hope to have?

 

[unmerged(6909)]

Originally posted by Kiith

Just thing about the number of times Hitler ordered his troops to stop or not retreat. (I'm not stay it's a good thing. I'd agree about a delay linked to doctrine if the orders need changing). Like you pointed out the German armies in WWII had very fast command and control so the player could have control over this forces (see below for what I mean).

Yes, Hitler ordered Guderian to head south in Barbarossa for example. That's a kind of order I think it will be implemented. But when those armies were on the march south it was very difficult to give additional orders. You can't stop a big army - even if its your own. It should be very difficult at least.

Were did I ask for this level of control. I meant about division level control and allowing the army commanders to set tactics for his Divisions/Corps and have some control over their commitment.

Sorry for that. I misinterpreted your words.
The smallest unit will be division. I haven't heard about tactics for them but you can give them at least different orders for a upcoming fight (..camouflage for example. trading organisational level for aircover).

Just look at the battle of France the German High Command didn't want Gurderan and Co to breakout of their Bridgeheads over the Meuse because they were ahead of schedule. But they did so anyway. From a German point of view early WWII wasn't about planning and then winning. It was all about applying that plan by using superior command and control and deviating from it when needed.

There is a good chance that this behaviour will be implemented by the loyalty. A loyal commander will follow exactly to your schedule. A less loyal commander...may vary them.
Yes, it's the commanders...not the human player (HQ) who has better knowledge. So I doubt it will be likely that the human player is allowed to take over control once a battle is going to start. That's out of the reach of the HQ.
This disobeiance (sp?) was not directly part of the german doctrine of modern warfare but they encouraged their officers to think and make decisions because they knew that they had to. Even WWI has teached Germany a lesson about that. Usually it was the german army who attacked and was on the move - with known results concerning communication. "A bad decision is better than no decision at all". The result was that some officers had their own thinking and combined with better information they chose to act on their own. The HQ gave orders, yes, but they already knew that a lot of their orders were timed-out by the time they arrived at the field-commanders.
Now, an order not to march on may be different,...but on the other hand...it was Guderian. One of the guys behind the Panzerwaffe and Blitzkrieg. He knew that he was better in that kind of war than his HQ. Very often he went with the attacking armies dangering himself to avoid receiving orders which he knew could only stop him. He thought (rightfully) that noone was able to order him something to do or not to do when they couldn't reach him
Not every german officer acted like him. At least not on the same scale

The time-schedule I've talked about: I've read in the interview at strategyfirst that you give the order for an army to arrive at a certain point of time in province X. It's up to the commander then how he gets there. A bad commander may move to early...or too late...or tries to fight on the march,etc while a good commander may follow your directions,...until there's a good opportunity along the road.
Sounds like a good system to implement the uncertainity of WWII.

Well on this we can agree. It's also the reason that I don't thing I/we'll get to control our armies beyond move and watch.

But there is enough for the human player left to do. To gather your different armies at a certain point of time in province X is a difficult task. You need to equip different armies with AA-support, attach the fitting commander to a mobile unit, etc before you order them to march. There is a lot of planning involved..exactly what the HQ, OKW, etc had to do.
The rest is left to the commanders involved. That's their job.
It sounds like a very promising game every time I read more about it

 

[unmerged(3168)]

Originally posted by Nebukadnezar
The rest is left to the commanders involved. That's their job.
It sounds like a very promising game every time I read more about it

I agree again. I'm pleased with the system that is slowly emerging for HOI in the form of the screenshots were getting. I just found the combat in EU very frustrating (I know that was part of whole experience for that time and war in general). I'm just hoping for something more from HOI. I'd be ecstatic if there were just a few more orders that you could give your armies other than the ones we've read in the preview

I guess that my focus of control over combat comes from my wargaming of WiF and Europa background. I'd forgotten that the purpose of HOI was too put you in the drivers seat of a nation, not manage and controlling every move by each of your units. So thanks for the reminder

 

[Vulture]

HoI will resemble EU II on some points... After all the game is built on the same engine. From there, HoI goes a totally different direction. With all the modern & fast moving units involved, you can't sit back and roll over Russia like you could in EU II, you'll have to stay focussed. The threat of submarines, strategic bombings, etc etc is always nigh. Simply put, HoI will kick ass