One reason for that might be that the game really doesn't support it very well. Go off script very far and you're going to run into nonsense like Bitter Peace and Fall of France firing when Germany hold less than a quarter of the enemy land Italy does. Or you'll get a rampant MittelEuropeanische "minor" snaffling up the traditional expansion room of Germany with neither the Germans nor the Allies, nor, heaven forfend, the USSR even batting an eyelid. The first world war started because of a Russian declaration over Austrian adventurism in the Balkans, and that area has never stopped being of strategic interest to the Russkies, even after they got rid of their Tsar. The game insists on remaining on its Rheinland-Anschluss-Sudetenland-Danzig-Phoney War-Fall Gelb rails rather than attempting to bend, or even sway a little with the winds of change. If you take a thermite cutting charge to those rails, it just kinda stops, a lot of the time. Eventually this leads to dissatisfaction and disillusionment and people interested in the counter-historical stop playing until the next expansion, when they come back in the, generally unfulfilled, hope that things have improved.
-
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
One reason for that might be that the game really doesn't support it very well. Go off script very far and you're going to run into nonsense like Bitter Peace and Fall of France firing when Germany hold less than a quarter of the enemy land Italy does. Or you'll get a rampant MittelEuropeanische "minor" snaffling up the traditional expansion room of Germany with neither the Germans nor the Allies, nor, heaven forfend, the USSR even batting an eyelid. The first world war started because of a Russian declaration over Austrian adventurism in the Balkans, and that area has never stopped being of strategic interest to the Russkies, even after they got rid of their Tsar. The game insists on remaining on its Rheinland-Anschluss-Sudetenland-Danzig-Phoney War-Fall Gelb rails rather than attempting to bend, or even sway a little with the winds of change. If you take a thermite cutting charge to those rails, it just kinda stops, a lot of the time. Eventually this leads to dissatisfaction and disillusionment and people interested in the counter-historical stop playing until the next expansion, when they come back in the, generally unfulfilled, hope that things have improved.
It's done like that to produce a balance in which historical outcomes are the rule, when everything is AI controlled.
My favorite game included the following;
As Japan (and a member of the Axis) I DOW on Vichy France, whom was guarenteed by Germany, whom naturally didnt live up to their guarentee...and while at war, Vichy France joined the Axis, which I, their enemy was a member of, as we continued to fight each other, while being allied with each other, Vichy France embargoed Germany, the Faction leader that invited them to join the Axis, and whom guarenteed their soveriegnty and yet didnt defend it. Dizzy yet?
As Japan (and a member of the Axis) I DOW on Vichy France, whom was guarenteed by Germany, whom naturally didnt live up to their guarentee...and while at war, Vichy France joined the Axis, which I, their enemy was a member of, as we continued to fight each other, while being allied with each other, Vichy France embargoed Germany, the Faction leader that invited them to join the Axis, and whom guarenteed their soveriegnty and yet didnt defend it. Dizzy yet?
Yes it's almost impossible to play as Minors because of the MP issue. Luckily Paradox games can be changed quite easily.
Just start a game as a minor.
Hit the ~ or ` button next to 1 to open your console.
Type "manpower xxx" where xxx = how much MP you want. Ex: manpower 500 will give you 500 MP making minors be able to do more then just build a few divisions that you can't even mobilize.
Just start a game as a minor.
Hit the ~ or ` button next to 1 to open your console.
Type "manpower xxx" where xxx = how much MP you want. Ex: manpower 500 will give you 500 MP making minors be able to do more then just build a few divisions that you can't even mobilize.
Did you seriously just make up numbers to make a point? None of those numbers are even close to 1939 figures.
The German numbers i believe incl Austria and Czechoslovakia. I think Germany was around 69 mil themselves or thereabouts.
Pretty much every country has less MP than it should have, including the majors. It is just more visible in case of minors, because with MP nerf they become useless. No nation really "run out of MP" IRL except in late 1944 and in 1945. Usually the quality of recruits plummeted and that was the biggest effect of "MP shortage". Also, you could have problems with MP because of logistical/organisational issues - the USA had big problems with infantrymen in 1944 in Europe, despite the fact that they didn't really run out of men. They just couldn't keep up with training and sending reinforcements overseas (not all kind of reinforcements, though).
Last edited:
Can't say that I agree.
In HoI3 Japan can easilly build 150 divisions, In reality they could commit no more then 13 divisions to their assault on the entire Pacific, many places had to be attacked and taken by single brigades using HoI3 definitions.
In HoI3 Germany has no problems to field 300 divisions until 1941, impossible in reality.
Same with UK, they have huge amounts of manpower.
If they run out depends on how heavy the fighting is, which is not possible to compare with reality. The allies in reality was not invloved in much heavy fighting historically, so if you play historically as the UK you should have no problems to land in Normandy with at least 100 divisions by 1944 in HoI3. Same with USA really, if you build them up without commiting to major action 100 divisions to spare for an offensive by 1944 is well within your reach.
Here is the problem - RL divisions varied in composition by country, so comparing the number of divs can be quite misleading and since you can build any division type as any country, then, well... Also, in HOI3 Japan usually has access to vast Chinese MP reserve after conquest of China, while IRL the Japanese failed to conquer China and while about 1 million Chinese collaborators helped them, they were mostly garrison/militia units fighting partisans in China. Additionally, the Chinese theatre pinned large number of men, which couldn't be used elsewhere. Oh, and there was a shortage of shipping, so the number of men that could be deployed in the Pacific was severely limited by logistics alone. Most of this is not true in a typical HOI3 game.
That's because IC is not a real constraint in HOI3 (mostly because of how "reserves" work, esp. Volunteer Army exploit), while MP is underestimated, so you can burn all your MP very very quickly. Just check the size of the German Army in 1944 - it was much bigger than most people seem to think. That doesn't mean that Germany should have 1944 OOB in 1940, but it shows their potential (after years of fighting, mind you).
One word - India. 2,5 million of freaking VOLUNTEERS. In HOI3, its MP is included in the UK's MP poll.
Last edited:
I'm not talking about "after conquest of china", Im talking after the "historical" seizing the coast we now have in TFH.
Because the 1944 OOB had drafted most of Europe yeah? If I do that in HoI3 I can still have an army with twice as many divisions as historical without even pushing it.
This is also not historical. The devs moved most of stuff there in order to make it "worthwhile" to seize the coast and after that wargoal is triggered China doesn't pin most of the IJA, either. Also, you can build anything using that MP, while IRL Chinese divisions were of questionable quality. Nice that you ignored everything else that I said.
By 1944 Germany would have no MP to have what it had IRL, esp. if you include Volkssturm and stuff like that. Oh, and I don't have to mention the fact that they were fighting for years in the East and lost many men in the process, do I? Here it would be hard to compare things, though, because war usually ends in 1942 in HOI3.
The problem i see it is as i stated earlier the Divisional slice is not really present. For example if every US Brigade required 3x the manpower (2x being support brigades which you never will see and dont go into combat) you would see a major difference in the MP of Majors. But as it stands just to make the game competitive Paradox creates all kinds of MP events for Germany, without them they couldnt survive.
I remember a book by Dunnigan that broke it down for the US, i forget exactly, something like 65k MP per division in Europe and 95k in the pacific, of which about 12k was actual fighting men. In WWI Turkey had troops on the Russian Front with no shoes, in WW2 nations like the US often had things like a Bakery attachment lol
Even if you get the "total" MP numbers correct (which they dont) you have to distribute them and modify them correctly (which they dont). Essentially in HOI3 the available MP pool is actually available for combat units, not overall. Forget the fact that we arent counting the Industry and Economy requiring extra MP, im talking just Combat Divisions.
In regards to the CHina stuff i totally disagree with what they did. I never stop at seizing the coast myself. Japan had a long history with China and waited Centuries to conquer China. I have no doubt that IF Possible, they would have taken and subjugated the whole nation. Remember they wanted an empire, they needed resources yes...but they had no intentions with the Soviets (after the initial skirmishes) and no designs on the US, so besides India/Australia, China was the main target, again a long history between them. Often in the game developers/players try to rationalize by "what makes sense" now as we sit here, the fact is much of WW2 made no sense and many things were done for reasons other then common sense. This element cannot be overlooked.
Also the way the game is set up, a nation is better at something then another if its "teched" higher, which isnt really factual either. Some nations simply had a longer history and tradition of fighting, they were more advanced, had better officer corps, and a society that better prepared their men for the military. To say that brigades from all nations are equal if they are at the same tech level really isnt true. But thats how the game is designed. In reality you might have say;
abstract figures as an example;
US Brigade combat value 100 Men required 10k
Turkish Brigade combat value 18 Men required 3k
something along those lines, but the game is set up differentlly.
I remember a book by Dunnigan that broke it down for the US, i forget exactly, something like 65k MP per division in Europe and 95k in the pacific, of which about 12k was actual fighting men. In WWI Turkey had troops on the Russian Front with no shoes, in WW2 nations like the US often had things like a Bakery attachment lol
Even if you get the "total" MP numbers correct (which they dont) you have to distribute them and modify them correctly (which they dont). Essentially in HOI3 the available MP pool is actually available for combat units, not overall. Forget the fact that we arent counting the Industry and Economy requiring extra MP, im talking just Combat Divisions.
In regards to the CHina stuff i totally disagree with what they did. I never stop at seizing the coast myself. Japan had a long history with China and waited Centuries to conquer China. I have no doubt that IF Possible, they would have taken and subjugated the whole nation. Remember they wanted an empire, they needed resources yes...but they had no intentions with the Soviets (after the initial skirmishes) and no designs on the US, so besides India/Australia, China was the main target, again a long history between them. Often in the game developers/players try to rationalize by "what makes sense" now as we sit here, the fact is much of WW2 made no sense and many things were done for reasons other then common sense. This element cannot be overlooked.
Also the way the game is set up, a nation is better at something then another if its "teched" higher, which isnt really factual either. Some nations simply had a longer history and tradition of fighting, they were more advanced, had better officer corps, and a society that better prepared their men for the military. To say that brigades from all nations are equal if they are at the same tech level really isnt true. But thats how the game is designed. In reality you might have say;
abstract figures as an example;
US Brigade combat value 100 Men required 10k
Turkish Brigade combat value 18 Men required 3k
something along those lines, but the game is set up differentlly.
nerfing LS, MP and IC for the minors is the easiest way to turn them into speedbumps for AI vs. AI games, if BEL + HOL stopped the germans cold ever game from having IRL ammounts of all of the above, while germany had it IRL as well, this thread would be one of many "GER NOT CONQURING!!!! RAGE!!!"
its a consecison to the gods of game vs real life.
i wish HOI4 was on a fantsy world with no ties to this one, then the Dev's could make the lore as want'ed and no one could go "thats not real like history"
its a consecison to the gods of game vs real life.
i wish HOI4 was on a fantsy world with no ties to this one, then the Dev's could make the lore as want'ed and no one could go "thats not real like history"
BEL and HOl were speedbumps.
People love to gripe about MP. Well as 21oliver says the other side of that coin is the generic division in the game. If you want realistic MP then you need realistic divisions and capabilities. That way your minor country can have all the MP they want with the constraints of MP to division that each individual country had. Then we add in the fighting capability of each countries soldiers. Guess what you end up with? DEL + HOL will still be speedbumps. If you guys want to create some super strong army from a minor then go mod the game as what you want is more unrealistic then the way MP is right now. No way was a German division equal in combat performance to the minor country divisions. And that is the sad and unhappy truth that you need to face.
People love to gripe about MP. Well as 21oliver says the other side of that coin is the generic division in the game. If you want realistic MP then you need realistic divisions and capabilities. That way your minor country can have all the MP they want with the constraints of MP to division that each individual country had. Then we add in the fighting capability of each countries soldiers. Guess what you end up with? DEL + HOL will still be speedbumps. If you guys want to create some super strong army from a minor then go mod the game as what you want is more unrealistic then the way MP is right now. No way was a German division equal in combat performance to the minor country divisions. And that is the sad and unhappy truth that you need to face.
What i would like to see modded is a version of HOI3 (perhaps go back a bit in technology) sort of on par with the PBM game Austerlitz. It is a game that represents the flavor of the Napoleonic era and where some nations are clearly better then others but not by so much they could simply conquer all. alot of strategy involved and all nations are playable. To me WW2 is an impossible war to accurately represent because too many of the elements cannot be translated into a game properly. In addition the human factor made it what it was otherwise it never would have played out the way it did. It leads to the Developers over compensating in ways that make no sense either. Germany (player run) early invading of the British Isles 1937). the Soviets DOW germany. why? early indications were they not only didnt fear Germany, but didnt like the west and currently had good trade relations with Germany, and with the UK embroiled in War the Soviets were even more free to look elsewhere (Middleeast, Asia etc...). And on top of that, how do you project a war as the Soviets against the Germans with no common borders in 37? The whole notion is foolish, its designed 1) as an afterthought to how people "feel" the Soviets should have been thinking, now that we know the results and 2) to try again and keep German aggression in check. Instead it should all be part of the threat/relationship tree and be one of numerous items (like trade) that modify nations relationships. If Hitler didnt 1) have an internal timetable for the invasion of Russia and 2) feel threatened that the Soviets were eyeing Romania and the Middle East, who knows how long they could have co-existed.
Personally i feel that the mobilzation and preparedness of armies as well as the attrition and casualty factors are way off in HOI3, these factors allow you to go from nation to nation to nation invading/conquering taking almost no losses in short periods of time. Especially for the Minor nations and those without real Military histories, they should be really nerfed. Example, If Im a nation like Bulgaria still essentially backwoods militarily and I invade and conquer Greece, it might have taken me 6months to a year just to get myself back together, reformed, orgainzed, before i could even evaluate my next target. In HOI3, its bam, one week after taking Greece, Im into Turkey, then bam right into Persia etc... same units, few reinforcements...
We simply are able to accomplish too much too fast, it should be curbed.
Edit: JJU the one thing in regards to minors however, yes they would still be minors, but currently some are simply unplayable. If they are going to be nerfed that bad, then they should simply be removed from the playable nations list. Give them enough MP to actually do something and simply modify the fighting ability. One way is to increase the time between tech level advancements, even that could be modified by say your IC level (for lack of a better industrialization rating). Trevor Dupuy had a good statistical book which i lost in a flood
basically he created a formula and went back and plugged in major battles from Napoleonics up to modern times, and used to come within 5% of the actual casualties (we used to use it for PBM games!). He rated the Germans as somewhere around 1.3 or so to 1 against the Western Allies, and 3-4 to 1 against the Soviets. Thats essentially a man for man rating. Another words a german brigade could stalemate 3-4 Soviet brigades. I can only imagine what minor nations would rate.
Personally i feel that the mobilzation and preparedness of armies as well as the attrition and casualty factors are way off in HOI3, these factors allow you to go from nation to nation to nation invading/conquering taking almost no losses in short periods of time. Especially for the Minor nations and those without real Military histories, they should be really nerfed. Example, If Im a nation like Bulgaria still essentially backwoods militarily and I invade and conquer Greece, it might have taken me 6months to a year just to get myself back together, reformed, orgainzed, before i could even evaluate my next target. In HOI3, its bam, one week after taking Greece, Im into Turkey, then bam right into Persia etc... same units, few reinforcements...
We simply are able to accomplish too much too fast, it should be curbed.
Edit: JJU the one thing in regards to minors however, yes they would still be minors, but currently some are simply unplayable. If they are going to be nerfed that bad, then they should simply be removed from the playable nations list. Give them enough MP to actually do something and simply modify the fighting ability. One way is to increase the time between tech level advancements, even that could be modified by say your IC level (for lack of a better industrialization rating). Trevor Dupuy had a good statistical book which i lost in a flood
basically he created a formula and went back and plugged in major battles from Napoleonics up to modern times, and used to come within 5% of the actual casualties (we used to use it for PBM games!). He rated the Germans as somewhere around 1.3 or so to 1 against the Western Allies, and 3-4 to 1 against the Soviets. Thats essentially a man for man rating. Another words a german brigade could stalemate 3-4 Soviet brigades. I can only imagine what minor nations would rate.
Last edited:
OOBs are one thing, the results we get are sth different. You can achieve "historical" results using unhistorical means, too. Even by using simple strategic effects you can nerf France so much that Germany will always conquer it quickly (historical) and boost the SU so much that Germany will never conquer it (historical). However, I'm quite sure that we wouldn't want to play such a game.
- 1
Hey 21oliver, I actually read that book. There are so many caveats that it makes the head spin. Attack vs defense, weapons, training, air power, artillery and effective placement of it, medical aid and on and on. Here is one example. Japan did not use a belt fed machinegun and instead had a longer cartridge that was prone to jamming and other issues. Also, the time spent sending lead down field was less. This impacted their defense and lowers their overall effective rate. Who knows how Japan would have fared with a MG 42? But the fact remains they had the equipment that they had and therefore suffered the consequences.
In no way does HOI ever even attempt to approach this kind of relationship. Research in fact goes against history in that all countries, including minors, can have the latest greatest best toys around. I get upset because people cry about MP but ignore all the other things that are abstracted. The devs have said on more then one occassion that the HOI series is the hardest for them to get right balance wise. The game if left to the AI should come out historically accurate in many of the tries. Yet the second you add in a human you destroy this balance.
As for which minor is unplayable I can name a bunch of them with or without MP. Luxembourg, Haiti, Liberia to name just a few. They don't stand a chance and we can play them. So why should any country not be playable simply because they get steamrolled? My view is this. If the country got creamed in real life then the AI should be able to defeat it 9999 times out of 10000 even if a human is playing it. Denmark should never be able to stand up to the Germans. A human Denmark should lose every single time unless they ally to Germany. This is not some fantasy LOTR Middle Earth game. There are some historical results that simply must be follwed even if it makes players mad that their favorite country stinks at WW2.
EDIT:
Cybvep, yes but historians actually argue whether or not France COULD have hald off for longer. If their strategy was different. If they had different equaipment, etc. Same goes for Barbarosa. Even today you have many historians that claim Germany could have won that fight. But name me just historian that says Denmark, Poland, Luxembourg, Netherlands or Belgium could have held off the Germans. There aren't any. No one disputes these results. So your argument is a red herring one. There are unhistorical results that are plausible and actually have a high degree of possibility. And then you have Eithiopia vs Italy. I doubt if anyone would ever argue that Italy could have lost that fight.
In no way does HOI ever even attempt to approach this kind of relationship. Research in fact goes against history in that all countries, including minors, can have the latest greatest best toys around. I get upset because people cry about MP but ignore all the other things that are abstracted. The devs have said on more then one occassion that the HOI series is the hardest for them to get right balance wise. The game if left to the AI should come out historically accurate in many of the tries. Yet the second you add in a human you destroy this balance.
As for which minor is unplayable I can name a bunch of them with or without MP. Luxembourg, Haiti, Liberia to name just a few. They don't stand a chance and we can play them. So why should any country not be playable simply because they get steamrolled? My view is this. If the country got creamed in real life then the AI should be able to defeat it 9999 times out of 10000 even if a human is playing it. Denmark should never be able to stand up to the Germans. A human Denmark should lose every single time unless they ally to Germany. This is not some fantasy LOTR Middle Earth game. There are some historical results that simply must be follwed even if it makes players mad that their favorite country stinks at WW2.
EDIT:
Cybvep, yes but historians actually argue whether or not France COULD have hald off for longer. If their strategy was different. If they had different equaipment, etc. Same goes for Barbarosa. Even today you have many historians that claim Germany could have won that fight. But name me just historian that says Denmark, Poland, Luxembourg, Netherlands or Belgium could have held off the Germans. There aren't any. No one disputes these results. So your argument is a red herring one. There are unhistorical results that are plausible and actually have a high degree of possibility. And then you have Eithiopia vs Italy. I doubt if anyone would ever argue that Italy could have lost that fight.
Last edited:
I was big in game design, and worked on WW1 and WW2 games way back in the PBM days. Just started dabbling with some PC elements when the whole internet thing started to explode. For me the most important thing was always getting the data correct. It was like the top of the Pyramid and i worked down. For example:
I might make MP units. Lets say a MP unit is 1,000 available able body men. And lets say for conversation sake 25% of all a nations population fall into available able bodied men.
I would simply plug in the numbers;
Nation A has a population of 100,000 so they would get 100,000 X 25% = 25,000 / 1,000 or 25 MP units
Nation B has a population of 40,000 so they would get 40,000 x 25% = 10,000 / 1,000 or 10 MP units
I have now made the game manageable in terms of "units" in game, and yet i maintained the integrity of the manpower ratio's between the two nations. THEN i would modify the units based on history/training/equipment/leadership/combat experience and whatever else.
Paradox has sort of gone about it backwards, they designed a game whereby the game achieves the result they want, but with all kinds of bandaids (decisions, events, nerfs, buffs), that none of it in the end resembles history. I never if i was them would have stated (says so in game) exactly what 1MP represents, i would have kept it abstract. I also wouldnt have followed the timeline of WW2 so closely through events and such, as you have now basically established it as a historical simulation rather then a general war game with the flavor of the time. The more you do that, the more i expect it to be accurate.
All in all i think the game itself (especially combat resolution) is a really cool game. If i had the knowledge of modding and was more motivated atm i would love a more generic abstracted war game using this model.
I might make MP units. Lets say a MP unit is 1,000 available able body men. And lets say for conversation sake 25% of all a nations population fall into available able bodied men.
I would simply plug in the numbers;
Nation A has a population of 100,000 so they would get 100,000 X 25% = 25,000 / 1,000 or 25 MP units
Nation B has a population of 40,000 so they would get 40,000 x 25% = 10,000 / 1,000 or 10 MP units
I have now made the game manageable in terms of "units" in game, and yet i maintained the integrity of the manpower ratio's between the two nations. THEN i would modify the units based on history/training/equipment/leadership/combat experience and whatever else.
Paradox has sort of gone about it backwards, they designed a game whereby the game achieves the result they want, but with all kinds of bandaids (decisions, events, nerfs, buffs), that none of it in the end resembles history. I never if i was them would have stated (says so in game) exactly what 1MP represents, i would have kept it abstract. I also wouldnt have followed the timeline of WW2 so closely through events and such, as you have now basically established it as a historical simulation rather then a general war game with the flavor of the time. The more you do that, the more i expect it to be accurate.
All in all i think the game itself (especially combat resolution) is a really cool game. If i had the knowledge of modding and was more motivated atm i would love a more generic abstracted war game using this model.
So France should always lose, even when the human player is controlling it?
Now that would be deterministic as hell...- Status