Ideas for a HoI3

[unmerged(84988)]

I was sitting around just now, thinking about my Kaiserreich AAR, when I got some ideas:

• Secret Alliances: I had the idea of somehow simulating, in the AAR, war between Iron Guard Romania and Bulgaria. My major idea is being able to secretly be in an alliance with a country, say, if you play as a puppet state. In this fictional option, I could secretly alligne myself with IR Romania, and "declare" war on them, causing war with Hungary, which is my ally. In the Declare War window, if you have a secret alliance, you could have the option of "only 'declaring'" or something, and being able to give troops and whatnot to the Romanians.
• Proxy Wars: If you're allied with a nation, and the nation goes to war with another, you can have the option of going into full war with your ally, or fighting a sort of Proxy war. Such as with the Korean or Vietnam war (on the Commie side), where only supplies and whatnot are given, and maybe opting to get military control over said country.
• Alternate History Events: Perhaps there could be more events relating to either path in event options, I noticed some limitation, like if you choose option B in historical event A it will lead to ahistorical event C.

I'll list more when they come to me.

 

[unmerged(85007)]

The idea of proxy wars whould be awsome

 

[OscarIsaiah]

Proxy war's are a great idea. They were pretty much the main way the Soviet Union and America actually [militarily] fought, supplying countries aligned with them hardware, money and guns.

I also think there should be more alternate history events and more flexible diplomatic system.

Also some new sprites would be nice Maybe change each countries uniforms a little.

 

[Balesir]

I agree that 'Proxy Wars' is a great idea for an enhancement. Another kinda related one I would like to see is the capability to play more than one country - especially in MP. Playing a minor in MP with the majors played is not very appealing now - but multiple minors might be interesting. Then in SP playing the entire Axis from 1936 (or 1933??) or USA/Commonwealth from 1941 could be quite appealing.

 

[hellfish6]

You can kind of fight proxy wars now. When I'm the UK, France or USA I always donate some units to the Republican Spanish (a couple infantry divisions and interceptors), and give them free trade deals for raw goods and supplies. I might try it with the Ethiopians someday too.

 

[Alex_brunius]

You can kind of fight proxy wars now. When I'm the UK, France or USA I always donate some units to the Republican Spanish (a couple infantry divisions and interceptors), and give them free trade deals for raw goods and supplies. I might try it with the Ethiopians someday too.

Yes Indeed proxy wars work good as it is. A minor with a large military (say finland 39) should have to devote half its IC to just supplies for the army. Free supplies will thus effectivly double their longterm warmaking potential! With allies providing blueprints for them the research will double aswell. Short term benefits come from donated advanced divisions such as ships, tanks & aircraft.

 

[unmerged(84988)]

Yes Indeed proxy wars work good as it is. A minor with a large military (say finland 39) should have to devote half its IC to just supplies for the army. Free supplies will thus effectivly double their longterm warmaking potential! With allies providing blueprints for them the research will double aswell. Short term benefits come from donated advanced divisions such as ships, tanks & aircraft.

I did that once as Yugoslavia with Republican Spain, but it didn't seem to have much effect. But you can't do my example though really, with only pretending to be at war but really being allies.

Idea:

• Rebellion Negotiation: When a nation has some kind of rebellion, with just plain old rebels, you can negotiate with them, and if you offer a peace treaty, they could become their own nation. I mean, if it dosn't become a revolt nation to begin with. Generally I guess more revolt nations, and for some, instead of requiring one province to start in to become a rebel nation, if they start anywhere in a given area they can become a rebel nation or something. I dunno, dumb idea.
• No 3D citys!: It's one thing I hated about EUIII, those dorky little low poly city view things.

 

[DesertSnow]

I think the AI would only be able to use this feature through scripts-events. So i think it isn't a nice idea.

Of course, if we are talking about "sending supplies to a nation during wartime-> increased alliance chance with that nation", then no problem.

 

[unmerged(63614)]

whats everyones opinions on territory size? bigger like axis and allies ? smaller?

would games with an imperial tonne of provinces be too micromanagy
would axis and allies types be too difficult to any type other than generic tactics? does having too few ( large provinces ) mean that the game loses out allmost entirely in the strategy department.

also when germany faught russia it was basically once the war wasnt finished in a blitz manner; once the war dragged onwards was it basically a battle of attrition: how can having great reserves or defence in depth be accuratly modeled because when i used to play hoi2 i used to find i had pretty 2d defence with no contingency: can this sort of thing be phased out so that if you do it and its not i.e a maginot line then u simply get rolled over like in barbarossa (( hostorically the russians had massive encirclements and loss of equipment )) also can captured equipment be modelled and lol heres just one more whats a hoi3 combat system might/ going to look like? Will it be my head bashes yours who' strongest wins or will the player be able to say actually lets cancel operation A after a few hours i have a feeling that even if i manage to win this battle im stuffed or perhaps he can push the right but save the left. sort of strange game ideas to give the player aspects on how he wants his battles to be faught. not just ' they are always faught best and if you fail its not our fault! ' type of thing/

 

[Balesir]

The key thing for me is that all territories should be closer to the same size, so that the various systems for combat, supply etc. work reasonably consistently. Currently a battle works the same, with the same time factors, whether it is between a division in Gibraltar and assaulting forces or one division each side wandering around the vastnesses of the Sahara or the wilds of Siberia, where the territories are enormous!

I don't favour tiny provinces - this is supposed to be strategy, not grand tactics - so some areas could have larger provinces as well as some getting smaller. For the same base reasons, I don't like orders for units that cause them to move provinces in support. Better, in my view, would be to be able to give divisions roles within the province they occupy. Sort of like the 'battle line and reserve line' concept in EUIII but with orders giving the player more control over the role of specific units within the force. This could/should work for both attack and defence - main and reserve lines for defence, spearhead and followup forces for attack.

 

[unmerged(63614)]

this idea was talked about a pretty while ago the idea of *comprise your own divisions*

here are the battalions ( thanks to hellfish )

HQ and Staff Cadre

Militia Bn
Garrison Bn
MP Bn
Lt Inf Bn
Inf Bn
Marine Bn
Mountain Bn
Machinegun Bn
Engineer Bn
Recon Bn

Lt Cavalry Bn
Cavalry Bn
Lt Armored Car Bn

Tankette/Lt Inf Tank Bn
Lt Tank Bn
Med Tank Bn
Heavy Tank Bn

Lt Artillery Bn
Med Artillery Bn
Heavy Artillery Bn
Mortar Bn
Heavy Mortar Bn
Lt AA Bn
AA Bn
Heavy AA Bn

Signal Bn
Medical Bn
Horse Transport Bn
Motor Transport Bn
Logistics Bn

Airborne Bn. Glider Bn. Mechanized Bn. Lt Mechanized Bn. Mech Engineer Bn. Commando Bn. Airborne Commando Bn. Med Armored Car Bn. Heavy Armored Car Bn. Motor Cavalry Bn. Armored Cavalry Bn. Helicopter Recon Bn. Medium Infantry Tank Bn. Heavy Infantry Tank Bn. Medium Assault Tank Bn. Heavy Assault Tank Bn. Superheavy Assault Tank Bn. Superheavy Tank Bn. Amphibious Tank Bn. Airborne Tank Bn. Main Battle Tank Bn. Lt Antitank Bn. (towed) Antitank Bn. (towed) Lt SP Tank Destroyer Bn. SP Tank Destroyer Bn.
=========all available after new researches ================
Heavy SP Tank Destroyer Bn
Medium SP Artillery Bn
Heavy SP Artillery Bn
Superheavy SP Artillery Bn
Rocket Bn
(towed) SP Rocket Bn Heavy SP Rocket Bn Lt SP AA Bn Medium SP AA Bn Heavy SP AA Bn Heavy Motor Transport Bn Helo Transport Bn Ordnance Bn Amphibious Transport Bn Armored Amphib Transport Bn

how might a division be made? what if you build divisions normally but they are kindov ' ' empty ' ' with regards to specialised soldiers. So before the division is made its ' nucleus' like when the germans rebuild the 6th army or when they decided to build grossdeutschland from scatch. What if this nucleus has ' slots ' perhaps 12? perhaps when it reaches certain experience it can have 15?
then these hellfish elements which are basically battalions get slotted in and if there is a historical precidence for making them super divisions like the big red one of the us armed forces or over sized gaurds divisions well mayb that can be incorporated too?

so what say ye? does hellfish' long awaited @ build your own divisions @ idea make it into Hoi3?

summary:
( how id like to see it )

you may build a division core in production screen while also naming it. This unit is/has only got pistols; basic training; ceremonial swords; helmets etc.

(( a basic divisions core ))​

then you build your elements or 'blocks'

call them battalions i guess you can - a.
select a generic mixture of battalions called e.g ( for example ) 1939 infantry unit. or you can double click this to see whats included for that layout
Or indeed click a tab at the top to buy/ create your own amounts of battalions.
Then once you have at least your first divisional core u can plop your 12 battalions into this and hey presto you have the division that your stragegy asked you to get. i.e You got a division heavey on the tanks (Hvy Tank Bn ) then its going to look like a panzer unit on the map. Same goes for mech or inf. But if you have a really strange mix i guess it can look like a generic sort of ' commando ' sprite

lol And if you want you can build 300 division cores and build nothing but 3000 rifle elements then have a really dysfunctional soviet rifle man army then so be it and you can do this. U might get cut to peices by a few tanks

The whole thing is designed to cut out the ' who ever builds most ' wins flaws in HOI2 when armys can be similar in size but obviosly a smaller nation cant afford the good tactics/reserch and troop types and when two similar powers fight each other its the best designed army that wins. Not just when * snap *
all my army is better than yours cus ive upgraded it. It would be better cus it has better parts in it. More tank elements in the right places et cetera.

> like when .... france fell in 1940 they actually had more of a similar type of tank to the germans but actually lost because they didnt build ' panzer divisions ' but put a couple of elements into each infantry division. Therefore coupled with tactics lost.....
so i think thsi idea has a historical presidence. & wud be good for HOI3

i also agree that armies should have ' roles within a province ' to make hoi battles more fluid also.
As a last thought on this idea. An idea to make this slots sytem easier indeed you can select a default set and pop they can either go to your stragtigic deployment pool or straight to the division core that you selected they would go to meaning its easy to play as you do now. but also allows you to play better ( making the game more fun ) in future versions of this game.
Its because this way battalions are set up as in real life but they have a place to go and if your screaming at the pc that u never want to build 3000 elements + 300 cores in a three day game well then mayb the division core can have only three or four slots and you can call them regiments?

im sure paradox can think of an easy way to get your couple of regiments '' elements '' go deploy straight into your divisions without you thinking.

hmm like a revised production screen/.

 

[hellfish6]

The key thing for me is that all territories should be closer to the same size, so that the various systems for combat, supply etc. work reasonably consistently. Currently a battle works the same, with the same time factors, whether it is between a division in Gibraltar and assaulting forces or one division each side wandering around the vastnesses of the Sahara or the wilds of Siberia, where the territories are enormous!

I don't favour tiny provinces - this is supposed to be strategy, not grand tactics - so some areas could have larger provinces as well as some getting smaller. For the same base reasons, I don't like orders for units that cause them to move provinces in support. Better, in my view, would be to be able to give divisions roles within the province they occupy. Sort of like the 'battle line and reserve line' concept in EUIII but with orders giving the player more control over the role of specific units within the force. This could/should work for both attack and defence - main and reserve lines for defence, spearhead and followup forces for attack.

I'm still of the opinion that provinces should be removed from the combat system entirely. Provinces should let you manage your territory/empire but that's all. Combat should be dealt with seperately, where divisions/corps/armies can maneuver freely and where terrain detail is a little bit sharper.

I made one of my semi-famous rants about this here:

http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?t=284480

 

[Balesir]

While I understand the attractions of a provinceless system from a 'realism/freedom' angle, I'm not in favour of it. My reasons are basically that it makes the game more like 'run-of-the-mill' RTS games where actual strategy (or tactics, for that matter) cease to mean very much compared to a 'get there firstest with the mostest' race. On the scale involved in a global game it is not possible to model the intricacies of terrain and local road nets that effectively channel or constrain operational movement; a 'province' system, if well executed, gives the same effect of segregated 'areas of command' without the need for micro-scale modelling of terrain and infrastructure details. I can quite see the possibility of moving to a simple, 3D borderless map - I just think it would be a mistake to do so. Naturally, YMMV.

 

[unmerged(59071)]

that i would like to see


kind of editable extra politics field for events and stuff



bonuses on ship types vs. other shiptypes like the bonuses in civilization 4 war gaming

 

[unmerged(59071)]

of course detailed statistics of how much lost and destroyed would be a must !



an idea on better simulating trading units



corresponding to that u would need to bring a division down into its components



also an very interresting idea would be the option of building and expanding specialized buildings like an military academy or the intelligence service.

 

[Balesir]

Nice pix!

I like the idea of military academies, etc. (although many nations will have them already in 1933/1936). I also have said elsewhere that I think 'troops' and 'equipment' should be separate elements of a unit, but I don't want to see tracking of individual tanks, AA guns and smallarms...

Detailed domestic political choices is an interesting idea, but gets rather close to some sensitive topics and seems likely to be fiddly to administer. The current, abstract system works reasonably well - maybe look to tweak it rather than totally revise it?

 

[hellfish6]

Interesting ideas, guys.

I'm not too keen on the individual tank/material/men thing, as I don't see it being much other than a flavor thing. I don't see it offering anything substantive to the game play experience.

The ship/fleet bonuses ala Civ4 could be useful - especially the collective fleet bonus, which would simulate the coordinating and training within a fleet (i.e. when under attack by a sub, the destroyers work together to hunt and kill it - as it is right now, I think HoI2 handles ship combat on an individual-to-individual ship basis).

The buildings are an interesting idea, but I wonder if it would be better for a Victoria-like game, where you control a country for a long time, instead of HoI where you only control the country for a little while (less than 10 years). If HoI supported a post-war game (besides just allowing the game to go to 1964, but actually supplied events and a tech tree) I'd support the idea a bit more.

The extra politics field is interesting, and would help replace the timed events. I gotta believe that it would be hard to do that for each and every country, though - and what's to keep players from doing all their reforms On Jan 2nd, 1936?

I love new ideas with graphics for illustration. Keep it up, even if the ideas are crazy. Sometimes crazy ideas that are well explained start making a lot of sense.

 

[Alex_brunius]

I'm not too keen on the individual tank/material/men thing, as I don't see it being much other than a flavor thing. I don't see it offering anything substantive to the game play experience.

I have to say I think the exact opposite. Individual rifles might be overkill, but tanks, subs, plane engines, soldier kit (for 100troops) great stuff!

Just think about it, If your units can lose individual tanks when attacked and a tank division with no tanks performs no better than a mot division. Then a few CAS or anti tank Art can really turn a battle around! Some american ARM divisions lost 500% of their tanks from d-day to victory (basically within a year), but their industry could replace them no problem, germanys could not. You can never simulate that kind of tank attrition war without equipment beeing separated from manpower.

When involved in a costly land war alot more production should have to go to replacing losses, not forming new units.

Separated equipment and training in the build queue would be a possible positive side effect of it aswell. If your in a dire situation just throw the men their equipment and pray for them to understand the manuals in time. If not in a hurry give them as much training as you can before more equipment finishes.

 

[Balesir]

Just think about it, If your units can lose individual tanks when attacked and a tank division with no tanks performs no better than a mot division.

A tank division without any tanks is effectively wiped out as a fighting element. This is STR 0. The men may survive (and maybe get to their own lines to reform the units) - but the division is at least temporarily dead.

Some american ARM divisions lost 500% of their tanks from d-day to victory (basically within a year), but their industry could replace them no problem, germanys could not. You can never simulate that kind of tank attrition war without equipment beeing separated from manpower.

Why not? You don't need to model every tank and AA gun to get this - reinforcements already take IC/days (i.e. equipment). Manpower losses are already effectively less than equipment due to 'trickleback' (i.e. wounded or broken troops returning after a period of time). The system here needs tweaking, maybe, but not total overhaul.

Separated equipment and training in the build queue would be a possible positive side effect of it as well. If your in a dire situation just throw the men their equipment and pray for them to understand the manuals in time. If not in a hurry give them as much training as you can before more equipment finishes.

The (much simpler) methodology I propose elsewhere of 'three element units' (manpower, equipment, transport) would allow this without pools of thousands of tanks and guns.

 

[Lord Finnish]

*lotsa pics*

*Jaw drop*

Is that real?
Or just photoshopped