HoI3 1.4 and the future

[POemil]

- I would like to see a slider option at teh start of the game where you can adjust how historical you want your game to be. The percentage could then influence Ai decision making. Like that each player can chose for himself how historical he wants his game to be. Because personally I would like an experience that resembles WOII a bit more, and I think I am not alone in that. But obviously there are other who prefer the fantasy style, so why not please us both?

-Make some more work of the surrender events for majors; bitter peace, Vichy France,...
Maybe devise some conference system to simulate the Yalta conference, or an axis counterpart when they have victory in reach. You know, something where you can carve up the world with ur allies.

 

[POemil]

What I would also like to see is a tickbox for your HQ units, if you enable it, they automaticly position themselves optimally for their subordinate units. Like that you could direct your frontline troops in Barbarossa yourself, while their HQ units, follow on their own initiative a few provinces behind.
Basicly what I want is the ability to give AI control to the movement, and movement only, of your HQ divisions. With some minor modifications you can probably even just copy paste this from the Ai.

 

[unmerged(156365)]

Would it be possible to manually set up your theaters? That way you can set up new theater HQ's and everything.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

Since people have stopped reading the thread, I'm sure this thing is due to get locked soon.

Besides, Johan hasn't been posting anything further (which means he is hopefully trading notes with Kallocain from his own thread and then getting ready to make 1.4 even better ).

 

[Lockerius]

Something I posted on another thread about naval escorts and how they die so easy cause they always charge into gun range:

Give a separate priority to the escorts, again, aggressive, defensive, and passive. Make those represent how kamikaze-like the escorts are. On aggressive, the escorts would go forth and get squashed, but maybe get in a few licks before they go down. On defensive, perhaps they would sally forth and intercept enemy units that get close (dont really know how to specifically model this). On passive, the escorts cling to the heavies like a scared infant to his mom's leg.

Each more aggressive level of priority would put them at greater risk of damage.

Would be fairly easy to implement (I think) by giving escorts the extra offensive/defensive values based on what stance they are in, similar to if an infantry unit is dug in.
__________________

As to how to implement the actual code for this, I have no idea. Sounds like a lot, as it requires altering the naval combat window, and reworking of the math.

Just the same, to me it sounds like a way to make naval escorts live longer.

 

[ShockoPopper]

If there's still time for 1.4, I'd like to see exploit removed where assigning more than 100% officers results in huge orginization increase. Having a greater than 'full' ratio of officers if anything will contribute to bureaucracy and in-efficiency more than anything else. I think you should have to balance this throughout the game, and just jacking it up to 200% or so doesn't contribute anything to unit organization, IMHO. I simply don't like the way this is handled in the game. I'd suggest a cap at like 120% (if you want to 'train forward' officers for units pending), and for unit org have no impact above 100%. Just a thought.

 

[themousemaster]

If there's still time for 1.4, I'd like to see exploit removed where assigning more than 100% officers results in huge orginization increase. Having a greater than 'full' ratio of officers if anything will contribute to bureaucracy and in-efficiency more than anything else. I think you should have to balance this throughout the game, and just jacking it up to 200% or so doesn't contribute anything to unit organization, IMHO. I simply don't like the way this is handled in the game. I'd suggest a cap at like 120% (if you want to 'train forward' officers for units pending), and for unit org have no impact above 100%. Just a thought.

Sounds reasonable. I never knew how a divisions had "150% officers" anyway. Although, there should really be no cap to "forward training"... if you want to train 3X the offficers you need, fine... just don't give a >100% bonus

 

[unmerged(51809)]

Hi! 1 good thing to make better in 1,4 is the chat. In the the log messages box, the messages are tiny and small and alot of things appear in it. So what i thought that can help, is to put the players massages in the color (RED) to make a change and to permet the players to see better what peoples said in this little messages box. (RED) I just wish it s not to late to make a better game for us.

 

[JASGripen]

Sounds reasonable. I never knew how a divisions had "150% officers" anyway. Although, there should really be no cap to "forward training"... if you want to train 3X the offficers you need, fine... just don't give a >100% bonus

Its more like you teach and train 200% of the officers you need, but of course you only got 100% of them in the organisation. You sort out the worst half of the 200% and get some boni in combat due to spent leadership.

One could of course discuss exactly how much this would yield in effect, but I don't see this as a problem for my suspension of belief.

 

[RickN]

- "The game is not 100% historical". Yes we know, this is something we want to do with our games, and have been upfront about for 5 years.

I haven't read all this topic yet, but I would like to see a link to one -- just one -- person complaining that the game is not 100% historically accurate.

No one, not one single person, is demanding 100% accuracy. I have complained about the accuracy since 1.0 and would be happy if it even resembled history. (Except for the Finns. Let them keep invading Pacific Islands like they did back in, ummmmm, never mind)

So, in a related note, not fixing the allied cooperation, means that the game will retain its ahistorical sandbox 'one country against the world' mode. It also means that the $40 I spent on HOI3 is the last dime I spend with Paradox.

 

[Inbrainsane]

I haven't read all this topic yet, but I would like to see a link to one -- just one -- person complaining that the game is not 100% historically accurate.

No one, not one single person, is demanding 100% accuracy. I have complained about the accuracy since 1.0 and would be happy if it even resembled history. (Except for the Finns. Let them keep invading Pacific Islands like they did back in, ummmmm, never mind)

So, in a related note, not fixing the allied cooperation, means that the game will retain its ahistorical sandbox 'one country against the world' mode. It also means that the $40 I spent on HOI3 is the last dime I spend with Paradox.

I generally dislike the "hoi2 should be a simulator" approach. But in RickNs post is some truth. I would also love that some countries behave more reasonable, and if this can be accomplished by country specific AI and OOB scripts, well let it be. Maybe in the expansion?

 

[AustinPowersFas]

Stable? Maybe.
Minor bugs? Could be.

But there is this bug that is very annoying. After some hours playing your game will keep crashing, it doesn't matter if you reload, reboot or restart. It will keep crashing.
I do know the cause: Database exceeding what will cause memory leaks or something. But i still don't know the solution yet (maybe someone has a solution? only thing i know is the removal of the info after sunk_ships {}, but this is not helping for me. I keep crashing in mid 1939).

This should be better in the future...

 

[Parabola]

My main wish for 1.4 and the future of HOI3 is AI improvements. For example the US being able to launch a D-Day style invasion, the Japanese and the US fighting it out over the Pacific islands, the USSR maintaining defences of it's vital cities during Barbarosa and so forth.

I see alot of mention of improving defensiveAi in future, that is good!

 

[Abadon777]

More control over Puppets' armies and the ability to build airfields or ports, and improve infrastructure in puppets and allies provinces.
The ability to place airfields or Naval Hq's into the popdown menue of airports and navalports.
Better naval missions where ships can bombard not only ground units in provinces next to coastal shores but also ports and especially airfields on coastal shores or located on Islands. Submarine missions that can attack enemy ships in port and coastal forts that can fire back at enemy ships engaging in shore bombarment.
Naval Hq's that creat better efficentcy in supplying and repairs and can be engage with the use of Patrolboats and recon or seaplanes to protect the coastal waters and mined ports.
Submarines should have a better chance of inflicting damage onto battleships and heavycruisers and not the other way around.

 

[johnbecool]

Allow ship design exchange

 

[Dalwin]

I understand that, hence the idea about linking supply routes to HQs. Since some distance control has to be done anyway, the HQ structure forms useful supply paths for units. A human could probably do it better than the AI, but the main point is that there would be no new decision making required for the AI. With such a system, you could automatically calculate things like using multiple ports for supply based on distances from a HQ to its direct underlings, and then to their underlings, and so forth. This should even allow optimizations for supply routing based on the fact that the HQ structure is a tree.

A Grigsby game from a couple decades ago used the HQ hierarchy as the supply chain and it worked very well. The supply stockpile was not kept in a big national reserve in the capital, but was instead spread to the various theater commands and then trickled down from there.

This coupled with the idea that attacking and to a lesser extend moving uses up more supply than sitting still, made for a surprisingly realistic supply chain model that did not require the limited CPUs of the time to over exert themselves.

Each division had a quantity of supplies on hand as did it's corps HQ and so on. As each calculated that it's stock was running short it would request more from it's parent HQ. If I recall correctly, you even had a limited ability to prioritize some formations over others to influence who the parent HQ supplied first if (or when) there were not enough to go around.

The "parent" for the top level HQs would be the production centers themselves.

Edit: one other advantage to such a system is that the problem with supplying through allied territory goes away completely. You still take distance and terrain and infrastructure into account mostly in the form of a wastage factor when supplies are transferred.

The drawback in terms of realism is that such a system gains much of its calculation efficiency by not tracking wether other supply transfers have effectively "used up" the infra in a territory.

 

[Laird]

Let me mention just one thing:

I bought Hoi III at it´s release day. I promptly installed it.

Until to-day, I was not able to play it online or even in LAN a single time! Neither in ver 1.1 nor 1.2 nor 1.3.

Tried it on three different computers of mine, by now (XP, Vista x64 and Win7 x64). I´m experiencing the Checksum-issue. Three machines, three different checksums. Sometimes even on one computer different checksums.

I got the german DVD.

If this problem remains in 1.4, I won´t ever buy an original HoI-Game. Neither HoI IV nor HoI MCMLXIII !

 

[Laird]

One more word: Wasn´t meant to be offending to anyone, I´m just very frustrated, sorely disappointed because of the money i spent in a game which doesn´t run as promised --- or at least runs someway properly.

 

[TheLoneGunman]

One more word: Wasn´t meant to be offending to anyone, I´m just very frustrated, sorely disappointed because of the money i spent in a game which doesn´t run as promised --- or at least runs someway properly.

Perhaps you can check and see if you can convert your "German" version to an "English" version.

That might solve your issues with the checksum.

I wouldn't know personally, but it's a thought. your best bet is to ask others with the German version, post on the tech support forum, or (as a last resort) buy the English version from GamersGate and download it.

 

[unmerged(139852)]

Loved hoi2 but lost interest in hoi3. it's just not as much fun.
Hope there will be hoi4.