HoI4 DLC going into the wrong direction: adding micro instead of meaningful additions

[seattle]

Disclaimer: This is not a suggestion, but intended to be an open discussion. So please don't bury it in the suggestions forum graveyard!
-------------------------------

The philosophy behind HoI4 was: Scrap all that bloated crap from HoI3 that sounded cool, but didn't make sense gameplay-wise and instead streamline the product to shift the focus towards long-term macro decisions.
In my opinion that worked out very nicely.

Now with the "expansions" instead of continuing on that path, they introduce more micro crap instead of meaningful additions.

Examples:

• Combat Log: --> Okayish, but since it doesn't show inflicted casualties it's mostly useless. The detailed combat history is a waste because most combat lasts a couple of hours so it produces an endless list of skirmishes.
  
• Request Lend Lease --> Annoying and I doubt that many people use it.
  
• Equipment Conversion --> pure micro, could be abstracted or simply left out of the game
  
• New Diplomatic and Puppet Interactions: (License military technology to bring other nations’ weapons to the field or sell your advances to the highest bidder.) --> might do something in MP, but seriously in SP I doubt that it will bring anything but nuisance to the table
  
• Puppet stages from integrated to dominion --> barely noteable and if anything will increase micro to deal with puppets

It's like this completely rash and irrational HoI3 design philosophy all over again. Let's collect cool ideas for the next expansion. This sounds cool, let's implement it...

Dear devs, there is so much untapped potential left that you should tackle before adding those rather useless little micro elements which partially work and partially are a nuisance.
Why not instead focus on one major addition per expansion simulated on a macro level like the original philosophy for the game was.

Here's a start:
- espionage and intelligence
Intelligence was one of the key factors in WW2 from Turing and the Enigma to the decryption at Midway and the deception of D-Day.
This is tailor-made for a macro level implementation. Dedicate resources to it by means of research, a provincial improvement building, laws, ministers, NFs, events, national modifiers etc.
Let the player allocate espionage on a macro level via slider for counter-espionage and espionage, the latter being distributed percentage-wise among the enemy nations.

You could even implement it into the battle-planer! Save espionage points to invest them in a battle-plan. Think of D-Day. You prepare a large-scale invasion and invest a ton of saved up espionage in that plan. The enemy wouldn't be warned ahead of the invasion and you would gain additional benefits like lifting the fog of war in an area, gaining bonuses etc.

---------------------------

Bottom line: Focus on singular major macro additions instead of adding more and more complicated mechanisms that barely increase complexity and add little substance to the game!

What do you guys think about that?

 

[Dalwin]

But naturally, the features you like, such as espionage, will not add micro. Usually the logic of your arguments is better than this.

By all means criticize the DLC because you think they are thin on actual new features and mechanics. Saying they are increasing micro, however, is spurious at best, especially if one then considers your suggested alternatives. This game is not heavy on the micro. The main source of it is the poor performance of the unit controller which forces players to control most units manually. If that is improved to the degree that it seems it is going to be, we will be back to the complaints of the game playing itself. The level of micro required is not a very good angle to criticize.

I also get the impression that the changes to air war are focused on UI both for readability and ease of control. I think some of us are going to be disappointed that there is not more change to how the fighting itself is conducted. We won't know for sure until that DD reveals details. It does appear that this is going to be another significant source of micro reduction.

 

[seattle]

But naturally, the features you like, such as espionage, will not add micro. Usually the logic of your arguments is better than this.

By all means criticize the DLC because you think they are thin on actual new features and mechanics. Saying they are increasing micro, however, is spurious at best, especially if one then considers your suggested alternatives. This game is not heavy on the micro. The main source of it is the poor performance of the unit controller which forces players to control most units manually. If that is improved to the degree that it seems it is going to be, we will be back to the complaints of the game playing itself. The level of micro required is not a very good angle to criticize.

I also get the impression that the changes to air war are focused on UI both for readability and ease of control. I think some of us are going to be disappointed that there is not more change to how the fighting itself is conducted. We won't know for sure until that DD reveals details. It does appear that this is going to be another significant source of micro reduction.

My espionage example was a simple on-the-fly brainstorming without having thought about the details obviously.
The point being: Instead of bloating a DLC with meaningless little mechanisms, they should focus on one major addition instead such as espionage. Personally I would love a railway system more than everything else.

 

[Dalwin]

I completely agree that more significant new game systems need to be added. Espionage is a fine example of such. It is the entire argument pivoting around the level of micro-management and how that is affected by the DLC to which I objected. It is probably also the main source of all the thumbs down votes you are seeing.

For me the system I would like to see expanded is logistics, especially as it pertains to the concepts of supply line length and fuel usage. I do not want to bring back stockpiles for fuel or generic supplies. There are plenty of refinements that could be added to the current simple system without bringing back those. This could also be done without losing the high level of transparency enjoyed by the current system.

I would also like to see some increase to the command hierarchy, but only if it is functional. I want something to make it easier to control my forces and not some pile of busywork whose main function is to increase immersion. One could even tie these two together such that part of the function of the command chain is to improve the flow of supplies and replacements to their subordinate units.

Both of those, logistics and command hierarchy, sound like steps back toward HOI3. In a sense I suppose they are, except my wish is to move from the current position only about 10-20% in the direction of where such things were in HOI3. I want more in these areas, but I do not want anything even remotely as cumbersome as what we had in the past.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

[...]
Examples:

• Combat Log: --> Okayish, but since it doesn't show inflicted casualties it's mostly useless. The detailed combat history is a waste because most combat lasts a couple of hours so it produces an endless list of skirmishes.
  
• Request Lend Lease --> Annoying and I doubt that many people use it.
  
• Equipment Conversion --> pure micro, could be abstracted or simply left out of the game
  
• New Diplomatic and Puppet Interactions: (License military technology to bring other nations’ weapons to the field or sell your advances to the highest bidder.) --> might do something in MP, but seriously in SP I doubt that it will bring anything but nuisance to the table
  
• Puppet stages from integrated to dominion --> barely noteable and if anything will increase micro to deal with puppets

[...]

Here's a start:
- espionage and intelligence
[...]

What do you guys think about that?

Log: I like such features, but yes, the current version is not as useful as it could be.
Req. LL: Playing majors, I agree. But as a minor (esp. as a Commonwealth minor) I totally disagree. I actually stopped playing my current Canada playthrough because UK insta-cancels my (granted) LL requests.
Eq. Conv: I'm _really_ looking forward for that feature!
Diplo / Puppet stuff: As with the LL. For majors I agree with you (mostly), for minors I disagree.

I totally disagree with you saying those features above require much micro...

Espionage and Int: Agree, would like to see that feature, too.

My conclusion: It's bad luck for you that the feature you seem to want most is not yet implemented (but I think it will eventually, just be patient).
But personally I'm totally happy with the current additions of quipment management and Lend Lease stuff. (I'm not happy with promising a major DLC and then releasing a "country pack", though, but that's another story...)

 

[Alex_brunius]

Bottom line: Focus on singular major macro additions instead of adding more and more complicated mechanisms that barely increase complexity and add little substance to the game!

What do you guys think about that?

Isn't this exactly what Paradox is doing with the upcoming expansions and patch though?

Revamping airwar can only be described as a very major macro addition. Trying to tackle some of the big AI issues probably qualifies as well in terms of effort even if it might not qualify as a "new feature" directly.


Equipment conversion and Licensing I suspect can be very cool additions for majors as well, and help define big parts of your strategy. I can play as Italy and totally skip tank research myself while buying production licenses and then converting these tanks as needed into SP variants for example. That's a completely new way of playing the game.


Request Lend Lease working also seems like a feature of HUGE importance if you want to enjoy a historical Soviet campaign where your survival hangs on a thread.

 

[mursolini]

Well, HOI4 still has a lot of technical debt that has to be taken care off. Which, logically would mean that expansion packs will be light on new big systems and heavy on content.

Which, is great, IMO. Taking care of front AI shuffling and Air war are great goals.

 

[ringhloth]

They want to add espionage. But if we just put espionage in the game because it's a box every strategy game needs to check off, we end up with a half baked system that plagues the game for far too long, which happens with basically every strategy game (including many PDS games). I'd rather have no system than HoI3 or HoI2 where it basically adds complexity for no real gain in interesting game mechanics. Espionage in games is a difficult subject to breach, so while it is definitely in the works, it's probably going to take a long time to see ideas come to fruition. I think a lot of times, people assume that when the devs take no action to fix something, especially something that the community complains about, they don't care about that issue. But that's often not the case: more likely, it's that they also agree that its a problem, but don't have a firm solution yet, and devs never comment on basically anything they don't have a firm "yes, we're adding this to the game."

 

[mursolini]

They want to add espionage. But if we just put espionage in the game because it's a box every strategy game needs to check off, we end up with a half baked system that plagues the game for far too long, which happens with basically every strategy game (including many PDS games).

Hoi4 just isn't lending itself to espionage well.

IRL the state of enemy economy was unknown, production quantity was also unknown. People had rough estimates, but that was about it, and getting better data was the goal of spies. In HOI production capacity in general is well known. What we don't know is what balance of civilian/military factories is there, and what do they produce. What could be useful here, is getting alerts when a country changes production lines to new models and overall factory distribution.

In military, knowing division templates would be good. Also, how many divisions of types are there, and where they are. Unfortunately vs AI it is pretty useless, unless AI learns spearhead tactics, and knowledge of attack point will be crucial. Also, logistics would have to be slowed down, a lot, so you can't just move army groups worth of units thousands of kms in 1-2 days.

Obviously same applies to fleets.

That would be about it for espionage, if we don't count soft power, coups and diversions, but those tend to be ridiculously op or not worth resources.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Hoi4 just isn't lending itself to espionage well.

...

Obviously same applies to fleets.

That would be about it for espionage...

I think your underestimating the value of naval intelligence here quite drastically.

In reality naval intelligence helped decisively decide the battles of both the Atlantic and the Pacific in favor of the Allies, allowing them to follow the movement of enemy fleets, ships and submarines, read their codes and learn when and where they were going to attack and foil their plans.


How cool wouldn't it be to have to plan Carrier port strike operations like Taranto or Pearl Harbor for months by having your spies learn the location of the enemy fleet, and if you catch the enemy by surprise you score devastating blows, but if the enemy intelligence finds out of your plans they can turn into failures like Japans attack on Midway instead...

 

[mursolini]

I think your underestimating the value of naval intelligence here quite drastically.

In reality naval intelligence helped decisively decide the battles of both the Atlantic and the Pacific in favor of the Allies, allowing them to follow the movement of enemy fleets, ships and submarines, read their codes and learn when and where they were going to attack and foil their plans.


How cool wouldn't it be to have to plan Carrier port strike operations like Taranto or Pearl Harbor for months by having your spies learn the location of the enemy fleet, and if you catch the enemy by surprise you score devastating blows, but if the enemy intelligence finds out of your plans they can turn into failures like Japans attack on Midway instead...

Well I did describe how it help land operations to know what enemy produces, and where units are, and where a major operation is going to happen.
Then I said same applies to fleets.

 

[Alex_brunius]

To clarify: My point of disagreement is your claim that the game doesn't lend itself to espionage.

Classic espionage and intelligence operations which most other games draws inspiration from regardless of their genre even derives from the WW2 era and the cold war that followed it!

 

[PsychoLold]

The point being: Instead of bloating a DLC with meaningless little mechanisms, they should focus on one major addition instead such as espionage.

Seeing how the AI goes crazy with a 'meaningless little' mechanic like lend-lease I would still rather wait for major features until the AI is in good shape before unloading more TODOs onto the AI programmer(s). Sorry, I know this argument is very common in this forum, but it is still very valid in my opinion.

As for brainstorming on how to make a good espionage system:
I would like to see a system where every nation has a spy pool from which it can assign spies to tasks, like gathering intel on battle plans in certain regions, naval movements and the state of another nation (division numbers, industry, ...), also counterespionage, lowering NU of enemies etc. This would be a bit more micro-heavy than what you suggest, but I think it might be more rewarding than a slider. I think sliders in general are a pretty bad concept for things like espionage, because players tend to search for a sweet spot and leave the slider there once the game action gets more intense and you need to pay attention to a lot of other things. In HoI3 for example, I found my favorite slider settings for leader points pretty quickly and rarely ever thought about them.

You could even implement it into the battle-planer! Save espionage points to invest them in a battle-plan. Think of D-Day. You prepare a large-scale invasion and invest a ton of saved up espionage in that plan. The enemy wouldn't be warned ahead of the invasion and you would gain additional benefits like lifting the fog of war in an area, gaining bonuses etc.

That's a good thought, but wouldn't it be a no-brainer to just always use this on your invasion plans (especially in MP)? But in principle, I agree that 'espionage resources' (however you implement them) should be able to be linked to the battle planner.

I hope that HoI4 gets an espionage system that is immersive and rewarding, because there is no strategy game in which I enjoy the espionage system.