A bonus is alright, yes. But 50% does sound like way too much. 20% perhaps 30%, but not 50%.
- 1
Impressions from the #HOI4PressEvent
- Thread starter Victor Cortez
- Start date
-
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.
And that is the fundamental flaw with Plans, more equal with the AI really means just as stupid as the AI and yet the whole point of creating a Plan is for it to succeed but if the best way to make a Plan succeed is to actually not have one ( manual control) are you not in the end just fooling yourself and role playing when using a Plan.
It would seem to me that Denkt is correct the player has to be forced to use a Plan otherwise in makes no sense, Paradox are obviously trying to force the player to use Plans by having a bonus for using them but that is at odds with what we know is the best way to control your Divisions.
So how will the player attempt to gain more control over what their Divisions do if they must use a Plan, they will clearly create more detailed Plans which will lead to more problems because the more detail within a Plan the more likely you will need to change those orders once that Plan is being implemented.
- 3
- 1
Being pushed to use a plan by such a huge bonus does seem a little annoying yes but if you think about it it really doesn't lessen the strategic choices you are making. Weighting up when to give direct orders and when to allow subordinate commanders more leeway is an important element of military leadership. Directly controlling armies might lead to better strategic outcomes but at the expense of tactical ones. It could be representative of the issues that leaders faced.
- 1
On the other side, making a plan seems to be a cool challenge. For me the 50 % bonus concerning the plan seems just right. I have to focus on everything (watch the terrain, consider the strength of my divisions, have to foresee couterattacks and have to use my troops as optimal as possible). And this will make the game hard to master, creates a good learning curve and makes me happy, when a plan works. I imagine having the game next year and sitting with a glass of whisky or wine in front of the map, have the game paused and spend hours and hours of planning my invasions (i'll probably tend to play germany in the first game). And if i fail, i have plenty of stuff to think about and very good reasons to start another game. So in my opinion, this feature will make the game very long-living.
The only thing i hope right now is, that the battleplanner will be worked out nicely, so that it allows me, to create a lot of variety and details in my plans.
The battleplanner is one of the most reasons, why i can't wait to play the game (aside with the production planning, naval warfare and division templates).
- 3
Which is exactly why the Plan give bonuses. Which is better? Manual control or 50% combat bonus? It probably depends on lots of factors, including how good you are at making Battleplan and manually controlling your units. The important thing is that neither is the best option all the time.
They reason Denkt is (possibly) wrong is because, again, manual control still gives advantages. You need to weight which is better in each situation. But, yes, in certain situations the intended design is that the Battle Plan is the most optimal way to play.
I say "possible" because, of course, it all depend on how strong the Battle Plan is. Too week and manual control is always best, too strong and Battle Plan is always the way to go. Impossible to say right now, though (not to mention Paradox probably haven't balanced it yet)
Exactly. Having Battle Plans don't take always skill from the game. If anything, it gives more skill sets the player must master in order to play optimally. You need to be able to create good Battle Plans that play themselves, but you also need to be able to notice when it is the best time to intervene manually and what are the best manual moves you need to make. Each of them is a different skill that you must master to play at peak efficiency. Hopefully, being good at just one or 2 of them is enough to play the game satisfactorily.
- 1
And bonus for executing plan goes up with time - so it likely takes a long time, to reach 50% bonus.
- 1
If the bonus is low or non existence, using battlesplanes becomes just a handicap which is not the point of battleplanes at all.
With the possibility of a big bonus everyone is going to have to use the battleplan system if they wan't to do well. You will never be able to design the perfect plan, but a good plan will allow you to take as much of this bonus as possible, using manual control then needed. You don't lose the whole bonus by using manual control, how much you lose depends on how much you derivative from the plan. A good plan will thus only need smal derivations and thus you get alot of bonus.
With the possibility of a big bonus everyone is going to have to use the battleplan system if they wan't to do well. You will never be able to design the perfect plan, but a good plan will allow you to take as much of this bonus as possible, using manual control then needed. You don't lose the whole bonus by using manual control, how much you lose depends on how much you derivative from the plan. A good plan will thus only need smal derivations and thus you get alot of bonus.
- 4
I just hope for the world that I wasn't the only to notice Northernlion's description of national unity.
"Every country has something called national unity, which is a representation symbolically of basically how much unity they have nationally"
The man won it all right here and I'm so much happier now than before hearing it. x)
"Every country has something called national unity, which is a representation symbolically of basically how much unity they have nationally"
The man won it all right here and I'm so much happier now than before hearing it. x)
yeah, the speed and max also depends on doctrines etc
- 6
- 3
"Great battleplan doctrine"...hasn't that been the typical french doctrine in hoi3? I guess the french might get a good bonus then
Also, if you watch closely, you'll see that his simplistic battle plans (basically just advance on a wide-front across the enemy border) were not very successful at all. It took him about a year as the USSR to finally over-run Romania and he was still bogged down in eastern Turkey when the video ended. If you look at the casualty counters in the war info screens, he was also taking pretty heavy casualties, about on par with those of Romania and Turkey combined, which from a more competent player wouldn't be the case as the USSR I would imagine.
Is combat Province based or Regional based? Noticed a few mouse-overs and they seemed to indicate way more Divisions defending then would appear to be in the actual Province.
Well, it makes me wonder how easy it will be to switch from one battleplan to another. My concern is also for multiplayer games where players are skilled and play without pauses. It seems that it would be pretty difficult to use detailed battleplans outside of your original one upon a start of a war. Sure, Northnlion and Quill can draw a straight line against the enemy, but any sort of battleplan that requires multiple army groups trying to produce encirclements would likely take some serious time to construct. I also don't think it would be terribly crazy as it stands right now for MP groups to ban using battleplans from their games if it proves too cumbersome to use a detailed battleplan while a game is running.
Yeah, while the battleplan makes MP easier because you don't have to give orders manually the problem is how to find the time to make proper plans? Making a good plan can easily take 15 minutes or way more than that, time in which there's other aspects of the game that want to be taken care of. We'll have to see how time intensive things become.
On a different note: I would assume the mobile doctrine would get less of a battleplan bonus? Since they are more flexible.
I like how the Devs said repeatedly that they want to get rid of automation and try to make decisions more meaningful. I like this very much. So there will be no AI controlled diplomacy or research, BUT they force the player to automate actual warfare.
I also like how everyone seems to understand that AI battle plans will have it's flaws, because AI is dumb. Why would anyone defend a system he himself knows is DUMB! Why? Why do you want to get forced to use a dumb system?
It's not that people are against battle plans. They might help you defend german occupied France and conquer you Denmark, but the war against France or Soviet Union must be done manually, if you care about winning the war. It's just that people want to play the gameand not be depended on a decision of ANOTHER agent like a dumb AI (every AI is dumb) which WILL screw up your plans - and we all know that it will. This leads automatically to frustration.
Why would you defend punishing the player for not wanting to be frustrated? That's a recipe for desaster.
It's a simple rule: Do not force (!) the player to NOT play the game.
It is literally the same thing as if you could NOT choose what to research, but only what the AI thinks you want to research. And if you wanted to choose what to research yourself, it will cost 50 % more. Yeah, you still can manually influence other nations, but if you let the AI do it, you get a 50 % bonus. That's just... WHY?
I also like how everyone seems to understand that AI battle plans will have it's flaws, because AI is dumb. Why would anyone defend a system he himself knows is DUMB! Why? Why do you want to get forced to use a dumb system?
It's not that people are against battle plans. They might help you defend german occupied France and conquer you Denmark, but the war against France or Soviet Union must be done manually, if you care about winning the war. It's just that people want to play the gameand not be depended on a decision of ANOTHER agent like a dumb AI (every AI is dumb) which WILL screw up your plans - and we all know that it will. This leads automatically to frustration.
Why would you defend punishing the player for not wanting to be frustrated? That's a recipe for desaster.
It's a simple rule: Do not force (!) the player to NOT play the game.
It is literally the same thing as if you could NOT choose what to research, but only what the AI thinks you want to research. And if you wanted to choose what to research yourself, it will cost 50 % more. Yeah, you still can manually influence other nations, but if you let the AI do it, you get a 50 % bonus. That's just... WHY?
- 2
- 1
But the AI does as you say! You are giving the orders and if you fail, it's not because of the AI. It would be because of the plan. Since the game will be 100 % moddable, you can erase the battleplan-bonus right away...since we don't know much about the battleplanner, we should wait for the dd explaining it further...
- 3
- 1
First Screen you can see the indicator and the mouse-over showing an attack
Second screen just a second later, what battle is the indicator in the first screen actually indicating, the counters seem to be all over the place something which I knew would happen but would anyone care to try and decipher what I am looking at.
Where are the 4 Rumanian Divisions what Province are they attacking from?
Second screen just a second later, what battle is the indicator in the first screen actually indicating, the counters seem to be all over the place something which I knew would happen but would anyone care to try and decipher what I am looking at.
Where are the 4 Rumanian Divisions what Province are they attacking from?
- 2
- 1
- 1
I think the battle planner does a great job of putting in a game mechanic the idea that an operation, if properly planned and rehearsed so that each person from the top general down to the NCOs understand their part in the plan, is likely to be carried out far more effectively than one that is done on the fly, with orders changing often and constantly responding and fighting fires.
It also means the plan can be found out, which is a great risk reward exchange, do I WANT poland to know that I'm planning an attack through the north.
It would be nice if you could have greater secrecy control on plans, so it takes much longer to reach the full bonus for planning, but it's less likely to be detected, I wonder if this will be in the game/
It also means the plan can be found out, which is a great risk reward exchange, do I WANT poland to know that I'm planning an attack through the north.
It would be nice if you could have greater secrecy control on plans, so it takes much longer to reach the full bonus for planning, but it's less likely to be detected, I wonder if this will be in the game/
- 2
I guess some divisions joined the next province (compare the numbers). And the 4 romanian are divided in two provinces (3 and 1). So we have a 4:4 in the second screen
- 1
It turns out a little later that you can see the same indicator with 4 ROM v 18 SOV, and the same 4 SOV Divisions and 15 SOV Divisions still appear to be in the same provinces, I will see if I can capture another screen.
- 1