I've played Hoi2 Armageddon quite a lot and am now playing AoD. I've also looked into Hoi3, but haven't bought it yet. Hoi3 seems to have some improvements which make a lot of sense, but I still have a few suggestions which might benefit each of the branches of the Hoi-tree. So, here goes.
-The economic model in Hoi bases games is very limited. I would like to propose a better modelling of the Great Depression and of an actual economy, without it devolving into horrendous micromanagement or anything like that.
1a) Take out the 'lock' on IC during the earlier years in Hoi bases games, the socalled 'peacetime effect'.
Instead, it would be better to limit the demand for consumer goods, leading to a shortage of money, the real limitation. Without that money, no extra units should be available to be built anyway, so the locking out of IC would then be unnecessary. I believe that in Hoi3 the economic model is improved, allowing for 'deficit spending' at least with regard to the lend-lease program. Instead, you could just float government bonds to increase the spending limit a little, or conquer nations like Germany did and can do to take their foreign currency supplies, or improve your economy. See also point 2.
Why? Because in reality, the US could have built a massive navy, air fleet and army if it had wanted to. But there was no political support for that until too late and no allocation of money until just before the war broke out. As for the UK, same thing there. Churchill advocated for expanding the Navy (he considered the King George V class battleships to have inadequate armament) and attacked the government in Parliament for not keeping in step with the German Luftwaffe, allowing the RAF to fall dramatically behind. There could even be an event for this, allowing a speech made by Churchill to make a choice for expanding the RAF, resulting in a better position for the UK in 1939.
Perhaps there could even be a series of policy decisions which can be taken whenever the sliders have the correct positions. For instance, a high interventionism rating could make it possible to allow deficit spending for expanding the armed forces.
Edit:
1b) No enormous stockpiles
Often I get a huge amount of supplies when I conquer a country and I've seen that the USA has stockpiles of up to 4000k of just about everything. This should be impossible. Not only is it unrealistic, Japan and Germany had oil stockpiles for about a year or two when war broke out, but it also hurts the game. It means I can take over another minor nations stockpile and suddenly I can fight on for a couple more months or even years. Germany, Japan and the UK should be directly affected by being cut off from their sources of supplies. If Germany is using U-boats to interfere with supply convoys, the UK should be hurt in its supply situation. With only a relatively small number of submarines, the German navy managed to cut Britains supply lines for weeks on end, decreasing UK supply levels to reserves for maybe three months. Only Ultra (the interception and decryption of German signals) allowed the RN to sink enough submarines to turn the tide of war in the Atlantic. Germany and Japan were also waging a desperate battle, trying to reach areas rich in resources, especially oil, conquer and hold them, in order to be able to continue the war. They lost when Germany failed to reach the oil-rich Kaukasus and Japan lost its merchant navy and was no longer able to ship oil from the Dutch East Indies to mainland Japan. Finally, it just doesn't make sense for nations to trade in resources they already have or pay money to get more of resources they already have a lot of. This would theoretically result in huge, unused stockpiles and drive up prices for the rest of the world.
End of edit.
2) Connecting manpower pool with dissent.
The manpower pool is a bit odd. Basically, it means people are free for employment in (military) factories or in the armed forces themselves. This pool expands over time unless you use it, without ill consequences. However, this is not realistic. In reality, the Western economies had -huge- numbers of people unemployed and this led to dissatisfaction with the current governments, allowing Roosevelt to come to power on a platform of doing something about it by creating a public works program, while in Germany and Italy the Nazi party and the Fascists became popular as they were seen as a way out. Therefore, the more manpower is available, the bigger the dissent hit, while radical policy changes should also be more easy to do (ie: a change in ideology of two steps in one year with a -decrease- in dissent instead of an increase). Furthermore, manpower should increase with 'gearing up for war' events and declaration of war events, as women would be put into the factories so men became available. In the US, the civilian economy could be supported by creating large programs, such as improving infrastructure, building naval and air bases, or building energy plants (such as the Hoover dam). A decrease in the manpower pool due to more people working should also result in a higher tax income for the nation, resulting in more money available for spending. In addition, there could be deficit spending by nations, up to a point, and bonds could be issued, especially during the war. In Germany, people would mostly just be put to work in producing war materials and improving infrastructure (building highways).
3) Better modelling of a standing army / drafted army.
In theory, a standing army is expensive, smaller, but better trained, while a drafted army can be cheap, huge but inexperienced. However, the Max org bonus makes it very attractive to just switch to a 100% standing army. In reality, this isn't possible, there would never be enough volunteers and once WW2 is over, everyone would be left with a huge, expensive army. Moreover, most nations had a twofold approach. Germany, before 1936, was bound by the Versailles Treaty and could not only not have an air force, but also no army of over 100.000 men. That army was largely professional as a result, at least for the officer corps, which led to a small but well trained army. Britain? Same story. They had no need for a large army, but kept a small, well trained army that was at least as disciplined as that of the Germans. The US, again, small army in peacetime. During (the approach to) war, army sizes exploded by introducing compulsory military service. This did not replace the well trained (core) army, it just added numerous divisions to the existing professional divisions. The difference being that the new divisions consisted of conscripts who had little more than basic training and mostly reserve officers until they ran out of those too. Here, there should be a clear distinction between original, core, standing army units and new drafted divisions. This can very easily be modelled by just giving the core units more experience points and make them loose some or all if they lose some or most of their strength in battle.
It would be even better if a nation could have, for instance, 10 core standing army divisions and a number of drafted divisions. Say Germany expands it forces in 1936. It already has 10 standing basic infantry divisions. Now it expands, with 5 more standing divisions and 5 drafted divisions. The new standing divisions gain a bonus of, say, maximum 10 experience points over time, as they are put through exercises each year and / or used in battle. The new drafted divisions are basically replaced each year, as the tour of duty of a group of soldiers expires. Therefore, they don't get much beyond a basic level of experience.
Now, when war breaks out in 1939, Germany can put its 20 (15 + 5) divisions into the field, plus mobilize a further 15 divisions easily. Those are the drafts of 1936, 1937 and 1938. The larger the pool of reserves, the more units can quickly be called up. For the Soviet Union, with a fully drafted army, this would mean poor troop quality, but also a -huge- reserve pool. However, mobilisation could only go either against the manpower pool (if available) or against the industrial / agricultural pools, which then have to be replaced by women.
I believe this is at least partially modelled in Hoi3, but perhaps this can be improved upon.
4) Better modelling of a war economy
During the war, only Germany largely maintained its civilian economy, only deciding on 'Totaler Krieg' or Total War in 1943, when the war was already all but lost. Until then, the Germans had placed emphasis on armaments production, but had tried to avoid domestic dissent by keeping the civilian economy largely intact. The US and especially the UK, were seriously short of certain materials and were forced to introduce rationing, in order to make sure the armed forces got what they needed and, in the UK, everyone had at least a basic supply to eat. This could be modelled by again decreasing the consumer goods need, in the UK perhaps by an event that urges people to create their own vegetable gardens, as happened in real life, in the US by introducing rationing, in Germany by a 'Totaler Krieg' event.
5) Better modelling of political alliances
In AoD I've played as the USSR, helping out France and the UK by DOW-ing Germany in June / July 1940. Despite helping them out, I was not part of their alliance and seen as an aggressor, therefore the US declared war on me as soon as I'd defeated Germany and its Axis allies. There is simply no way for the USSR to join the Allies even though the USSR was one, at least as far as the war in Europe was concerned. Japan was another matter until 1945. But the USSR should be considered a full partner in the war in the west and should get credit for helping out the Allies if it does so, as long as it does not conquer and keep formerly free nations such as Poland or the Low Countries. However, as the USSR I couldn't even give back the Low countries to their rightful owners! This should be easily modelled. If any nation joins any Allied war, they should get the ability to give back territories to the other nations who've joined the war. It should be entirely up to the player. Also, belligerency should be less if one declares war on an aggressor and its Allies, and decreased if all Allied territories are released once the war is over. In addition, there could be a 'United Nations' event and a 'division of Europe' event where the USSR makes certain promises to the Western Powers. Only when it doesn't keep its promises should its belligerency increase.
6) Better modelling of Lend-Lease
The US greatly supported the UK and they both greatly supported the USSR. Nevertheless, although there are lend-lease shipments in the game, the UK -never- gets even a single tank from the US nor does the USSR even receive any trucks. Any units the player hands over to another nation arrives with zero strength, while strength is a combination of vehicles and men. Instead, there should be a flow of units minus their manpower and the UK and USSR should have pools of trained soldiers ready to man those tanks and aircraft to complete the units. Therefore units should arrive at zero org but with about 50 (armoured / air forces) to 90 percent of strength (infantry). Also, it should be possible to give trucks to another nation and thereby increase its TC instead of it just being based on how much IC you have.
7) Better modelling of industries
One thing that makes little sense is that if the USSR builds a battleship and by the time the ship is ready they have a port on the Mediterranean for instance, they can just deploy the ship there. I think it could be very interesting to have at least a few categories of industries, for instance:
-General (can do anything not too big)
-Automotive (can build passenger cars as well as trucks, but can be switched easily to tank production)
-Engine factory
-Airplane factory
-Shipyard
-Tank factory
-Steel Mill
-Armaments factory
-Conglomerate (combines many things into one)
Each of these would have a speed bonus to production capacity for the type of units/product they are specialised in and a penalty for anything else, which would result in dedicated production lines becoming available in the production queue. When a unit is finished by that factory, it becomes available in that location, instead of in a random province or in the capitol.
This would mean the UK would have dedicated slots available for warships, meaning at the start of the game in 1936 it would actually be possible to reinforce the Royal Navy, while it would be hard for the UK to build anything else, as it was in reality. Furthermore, the Bismarck would appear in Hamburg, the Sovietsky Soyuz in Leningrad and not in a completely random province. It would also create a host of new options:
-Relocating production for China and the USSR would have an actual effect, the temporary transition would mean a drop in production capability
-It could be made possible to bomb those specific industries, resulting in measurable disruption of what that factory is producing, so a raid on John Brown in the UK could delay the Duke of York.
-Capturing Essen would eliminate the Krupp factories, crippling German war production
-IC cost for warships could be increased as it would primarily affect the dedicated shipyards. As a result, you would be forced to choose between building sister ships to the Bismarck and Tirpitz or expanding your submarine force, as the Germans were forced to do when WW2 broke out about 5 years too early.
Edit: 8) Reworking the tech tree
As it is, the tech tree in AoD is basically the same as in Hoi2. In Hoi3, the model is quite different, but I'm not entirely clear on how it works there. The way I see it, it could be more realistically modelled:
Any unit consists of several components. For a tank, plane or warship it could be hull/airframe, engine, armament, armour. Each component should be upgradeable individually and parts should be interchangeable. The Germans used the Flak 88 mm gun as a stand alone gun, as well as for their Tiger Tanks and tank destroyers. The Soviets did likewise.
A hull could be based on a specific weight. IE, the Royal Navy should be able to easily switch from anything from a 10.000 ton hull to a 50.000 ton hull as they've built those before and have designed them during the interwar years. The Germans didn't have that advantage and should at the start in 1936 be limited to a 10.000 ton hull. Using these components it would be possible to design battleships with high speed and few guns, quadruple turrets to limit space, or have various generations of tanks based on how many tons a hull can be, and which gun is available for it to carry. So, in order to build a Panzer III you would need a smaller hull and smaller gun than for an advanced Panzer IV. When you build a unit, you could choose from various option, arriving at the best possible design. The AI would just choose those options which most closely resemble the actual historic units and you could press on ahead in order to gain an advantage. Every component would have a basic element, size, weight, power for gun, hull and engine respectively. The bigger and more powerful, the better.
In addition, I would like it to be possible to set more than one tech team on the same task. It would limit your options, while allowing you to rush the design of the T-34.
Furthermore, it would be possible to accurately model the restrictions of the various naval and armaments treaties. The US and UK considered limiting themselves to 35,000 ton battleships with 14 inch guns at most, whereas the Japanese opted out and announced the construction of huge warships. Using this model you can restrict the actual construction to a certain size hull and a certain size gun unless you opt out of the agreement or it expires.
Also, a bigger hull would give you more protection, a bigger gun a longer range and more firepower, etcetera. Building a T-34 would trigger an arms race with Germany, etc. Getting behind in one of the component techs would hurt you and redesigning while already building should significantly delay completion the further advanced construction is. Also, it could be made to matter if you have previously built a certain ship. Construction of the Sovietsky Soyuz class, easily the biggest ships built until that time, posed the USSR with various problems and this should affect construction time. Also, in relation to the factory model as above, it should require an expansion of shipbuilding capacity.
In a similar vein, it would be interesting to redesign the land doctrine tech tree. You now have to choose between various flavours early on and after that, you're stuck. Instead, it might be possible to research various doctrines and combine the best of all of them. I would suggest elements like combined arms tactics, air/ground cooperation and things like that rather than broader doctrines as the basis for how an army fights. Furthermore, land doctrines should effect the need for training as some tactics and strategies need to be rehearsed more than others. As it is now, the Soviet Union is handicapped unless as the player you decide to switch to the German doctrines early on. The Soviet doctrines are not necessarily inferior, the implementation of them certainly was and the purge hurt the Red Army tremendously. That and the loss of experienced soldiers and officers during the early stages of Barbarossa should be much more detrimental to how well the Soviet troops fight than the doctrines themselves.
For the French, this kind of diversification would make it possible for them to listen to DeGaulle and switch from an infantry / fortification focus to an armour focus. Other principles could include concentration of force, exploitation, deep penetration and so forth. The AI could even be modeled to more extensively use certain strategies after researching a certain tech. Switching basic priciples could also, temporarily, lower the max org as the army adapts to new principles. For this to work it might be necessary to make certain tech teams available earlier. I've always found it odd that people like Eisenhower or Bradley are only available until later, while they were in the army from WW1 onwards. Someone like DeGaulle, for all his faults, was never listened to until the Germans proved him right.
Edit: 9) Naval/Air HQ
I find it a bit odd that Naval groups have a hard maximum number of units, making it difficult to combine forces when dealing with a large enemy fleet. In truth, some vessels were fitted as flagships, mostly battleships and carriers, allowing an admiral and his staff to command from a separate bridge. There have also been experiments with command ships, especially for large scale amphibious operations which often totalled hundreds of ships just as support, not including the troopships, supply vessels and landing ships. Perhaps this could be included as well, ie. a battleship / carrier functioning as an HQ when commanded by a Grand Admiral and eliminating the stacking penalty? Once the AI starts escorting its invasion fleets this would be very useful.
An Air HQ could do the same, eliminating a stacking penalty if combat is joined in a region covered by an HQ.
-The economic model in Hoi bases games is very limited. I would like to propose a better modelling of the Great Depression and of an actual economy, without it devolving into horrendous micromanagement or anything like that.
1a) Take out the 'lock' on IC during the earlier years in Hoi bases games, the socalled 'peacetime effect'.
Instead, it would be better to limit the demand for consumer goods, leading to a shortage of money, the real limitation. Without that money, no extra units should be available to be built anyway, so the locking out of IC would then be unnecessary. I believe that in Hoi3 the economic model is improved, allowing for 'deficit spending' at least with regard to the lend-lease program. Instead, you could just float government bonds to increase the spending limit a little, or conquer nations like Germany did and can do to take their foreign currency supplies, or improve your economy. See also point 2.
Why? Because in reality, the US could have built a massive navy, air fleet and army if it had wanted to. But there was no political support for that until too late and no allocation of money until just before the war broke out. As for the UK, same thing there. Churchill advocated for expanding the Navy (he considered the King George V class battleships to have inadequate armament) and attacked the government in Parliament for not keeping in step with the German Luftwaffe, allowing the RAF to fall dramatically behind. There could even be an event for this, allowing a speech made by Churchill to make a choice for expanding the RAF, resulting in a better position for the UK in 1939.
Perhaps there could even be a series of policy decisions which can be taken whenever the sliders have the correct positions. For instance, a high interventionism rating could make it possible to allow deficit spending for expanding the armed forces.
Edit:
1b) No enormous stockpiles
Often I get a huge amount of supplies when I conquer a country and I've seen that the USA has stockpiles of up to 4000k of just about everything. This should be impossible. Not only is it unrealistic, Japan and Germany had oil stockpiles for about a year or two when war broke out, but it also hurts the game. It means I can take over another minor nations stockpile and suddenly I can fight on for a couple more months or even years. Germany, Japan and the UK should be directly affected by being cut off from their sources of supplies. If Germany is using U-boats to interfere with supply convoys, the UK should be hurt in its supply situation. With only a relatively small number of submarines, the German navy managed to cut Britains supply lines for weeks on end, decreasing UK supply levels to reserves for maybe three months. Only Ultra (the interception and decryption of German signals) allowed the RN to sink enough submarines to turn the tide of war in the Atlantic. Germany and Japan were also waging a desperate battle, trying to reach areas rich in resources, especially oil, conquer and hold them, in order to be able to continue the war. They lost when Germany failed to reach the oil-rich Kaukasus and Japan lost its merchant navy and was no longer able to ship oil from the Dutch East Indies to mainland Japan. Finally, it just doesn't make sense for nations to trade in resources they already have or pay money to get more of resources they already have a lot of. This would theoretically result in huge, unused stockpiles and drive up prices for the rest of the world.
End of edit.
2) Connecting manpower pool with dissent.
The manpower pool is a bit odd. Basically, it means people are free for employment in (military) factories or in the armed forces themselves. This pool expands over time unless you use it, without ill consequences. However, this is not realistic. In reality, the Western economies had -huge- numbers of people unemployed and this led to dissatisfaction with the current governments, allowing Roosevelt to come to power on a platform of doing something about it by creating a public works program, while in Germany and Italy the Nazi party and the Fascists became popular as they were seen as a way out. Therefore, the more manpower is available, the bigger the dissent hit, while radical policy changes should also be more easy to do (ie: a change in ideology of two steps in one year with a -decrease- in dissent instead of an increase). Furthermore, manpower should increase with 'gearing up for war' events and declaration of war events, as women would be put into the factories so men became available. In the US, the civilian economy could be supported by creating large programs, such as improving infrastructure, building naval and air bases, or building energy plants (such as the Hoover dam). A decrease in the manpower pool due to more people working should also result in a higher tax income for the nation, resulting in more money available for spending. In addition, there could be deficit spending by nations, up to a point, and bonds could be issued, especially during the war. In Germany, people would mostly just be put to work in producing war materials and improving infrastructure (building highways).
3) Better modelling of a standing army / drafted army.
In theory, a standing army is expensive, smaller, but better trained, while a drafted army can be cheap, huge but inexperienced. However, the Max org bonus makes it very attractive to just switch to a 100% standing army. In reality, this isn't possible, there would never be enough volunteers and once WW2 is over, everyone would be left with a huge, expensive army. Moreover, most nations had a twofold approach. Germany, before 1936, was bound by the Versailles Treaty and could not only not have an air force, but also no army of over 100.000 men. That army was largely professional as a result, at least for the officer corps, which led to a small but well trained army. Britain? Same story. They had no need for a large army, but kept a small, well trained army that was at least as disciplined as that of the Germans. The US, again, small army in peacetime. During (the approach to) war, army sizes exploded by introducing compulsory military service. This did not replace the well trained (core) army, it just added numerous divisions to the existing professional divisions. The difference being that the new divisions consisted of conscripts who had little more than basic training and mostly reserve officers until they ran out of those too. Here, there should be a clear distinction between original, core, standing army units and new drafted divisions. This can very easily be modelled by just giving the core units more experience points and make them loose some or all if they lose some or most of their strength in battle.
It would be even better if a nation could have, for instance, 10 core standing army divisions and a number of drafted divisions. Say Germany expands it forces in 1936. It already has 10 standing basic infantry divisions. Now it expands, with 5 more standing divisions and 5 drafted divisions. The new standing divisions gain a bonus of, say, maximum 10 experience points over time, as they are put through exercises each year and / or used in battle. The new drafted divisions are basically replaced each year, as the tour of duty of a group of soldiers expires. Therefore, they don't get much beyond a basic level of experience.
Now, when war breaks out in 1939, Germany can put its 20 (15 + 5) divisions into the field, plus mobilize a further 15 divisions easily. Those are the drafts of 1936, 1937 and 1938. The larger the pool of reserves, the more units can quickly be called up. For the Soviet Union, with a fully drafted army, this would mean poor troop quality, but also a -huge- reserve pool. However, mobilisation could only go either against the manpower pool (if available) or against the industrial / agricultural pools, which then have to be replaced by women.
I believe this is at least partially modelled in Hoi3, but perhaps this can be improved upon.
4) Better modelling of a war economy
During the war, only Germany largely maintained its civilian economy, only deciding on 'Totaler Krieg' or Total War in 1943, when the war was already all but lost. Until then, the Germans had placed emphasis on armaments production, but had tried to avoid domestic dissent by keeping the civilian economy largely intact. The US and especially the UK, were seriously short of certain materials and were forced to introduce rationing, in order to make sure the armed forces got what they needed and, in the UK, everyone had at least a basic supply to eat. This could be modelled by again decreasing the consumer goods need, in the UK perhaps by an event that urges people to create their own vegetable gardens, as happened in real life, in the US by introducing rationing, in Germany by a 'Totaler Krieg' event.
5) Better modelling of political alliances
In AoD I've played as the USSR, helping out France and the UK by DOW-ing Germany in June / July 1940. Despite helping them out, I was not part of their alliance and seen as an aggressor, therefore the US declared war on me as soon as I'd defeated Germany and its Axis allies. There is simply no way for the USSR to join the Allies even though the USSR was one, at least as far as the war in Europe was concerned. Japan was another matter until 1945. But the USSR should be considered a full partner in the war in the west and should get credit for helping out the Allies if it does so, as long as it does not conquer and keep formerly free nations such as Poland or the Low Countries. However, as the USSR I couldn't even give back the Low countries to their rightful owners! This should be easily modelled. If any nation joins any Allied war, they should get the ability to give back territories to the other nations who've joined the war. It should be entirely up to the player. Also, belligerency should be less if one declares war on an aggressor and its Allies, and decreased if all Allied territories are released once the war is over. In addition, there could be a 'United Nations' event and a 'division of Europe' event where the USSR makes certain promises to the Western Powers. Only when it doesn't keep its promises should its belligerency increase.
6) Better modelling of Lend-Lease
The US greatly supported the UK and they both greatly supported the USSR. Nevertheless, although there are lend-lease shipments in the game, the UK -never- gets even a single tank from the US nor does the USSR even receive any trucks. Any units the player hands over to another nation arrives with zero strength, while strength is a combination of vehicles and men. Instead, there should be a flow of units minus their manpower and the UK and USSR should have pools of trained soldiers ready to man those tanks and aircraft to complete the units. Therefore units should arrive at zero org but with about 50 (armoured / air forces) to 90 percent of strength (infantry). Also, it should be possible to give trucks to another nation and thereby increase its TC instead of it just being based on how much IC you have.
7) Better modelling of industries
One thing that makes little sense is that if the USSR builds a battleship and by the time the ship is ready they have a port on the Mediterranean for instance, they can just deploy the ship there. I think it could be very interesting to have at least a few categories of industries, for instance:
-General (can do anything not too big)
-Automotive (can build passenger cars as well as trucks, but can be switched easily to tank production)
-Engine factory
-Airplane factory
-Shipyard
-Tank factory
-Steel Mill
-Armaments factory
-Conglomerate (combines many things into one)
Each of these would have a speed bonus to production capacity for the type of units/product they are specialised in and a penalty for anything else, which would result in dedicated production lines becoming available in the production queue. When a unit is finished by that factory, it becomes available in that location, instead of in a random province or in the capitol.
This would mean the UK would have dedicated slots available for warships, meaning at the start of the game in 1936 it would actually be possible to reinforce the Royal Navy, while it would be hard for the UK to build anything else, as it was in reality. Furthermore, the Bismarck would appear in Hamburg, the Sovietsky Soyuz in Leningrad and not in a completely random province. It would also create a host of new options:
-Relocating production for China and the USSR would have an actual effect, the temporary transition would mean a drop in production capability
-It could be made possible to bomb those specific industries, resulting in measurable disruption of what that factory is producing, so a raid on John Brown in the UK could delay the Duke of York.
-Capturing Essen would eliminate the Krupp factories, crippling German war production
-IC cost for warships could be increased as it would primarily affect the dedicated shipyards. As a result, you would be forced to choose between building sister ships to the Bismarck and Tirpitz or expanding your submarine force, as the Germans were forced to do when WW2 broke out about 5 years too early.
Edit: 8) Reworking the tech tree
As it is, the tech tree in AoD is basically the same as in Hoi2. In Hoi3, the model is quite different, but I'm not entirely clear on how it works there. The way I see it, it could be more realistically modelled:
Any unit consists of several components. For a tank, plane or warship it could be hull/airframe, engine, armament, armour. Each component should be upgradeable individually and parts should be interchangeable. The Germans used the Flak 88 mm gun as a stand alone gun, as well as for their Tiger Tanks and tank destroyers. The Soviets did likewise.
A hull could be based on a specific weight. IE, the Royal Navy should be able to easily switch from anything from a 10.000 ton hull to a 50.000 ton hull as they've built those before and have designed them during the interwar years. The Germans didn't have that advantage and should at the start in 1936 be limited to a 10.000 ton hull. Using these components it would be possible to design battleships with high speed and few guns, quadruple turrets to limit space, or have various generations of tanks based on how many tons a hull can be, and which gun is available for it to carry. So, in order to build a Panzer III you would need a smaller hull and smaller gun than for an advanced Panzer IV. When you build a unit, you could choose from various option, arriving at the best possible design. The AI would just choose those options which most closely resemble the actual historic units and you could press on ahead in order to gain an advantage. Every component would have a basic element, size, weight, power for gun, hull and engine respectively. The bigger and more powerful, the better.
In addition, I would like it to be possible to set more than one tech team on the same task. It would limit your options, while allowing you to rush the design of the T-34.
Furthermore, it would be possible to accurately model the restrictions of the various naval and armaments treaties. The US and UK considered limiting themselves to 35,000 ton battleships with 14 inch guns at most, whereas the Japanese opted out and announced the construction of huge warships. Using this model you can restrict the actual construction to a certain size hull and a certain size gun unless you opt out of the agreement or it expires.
Also, a bigger hull would give you more protection, a bigger gun a longer range and more firepower, etcetera. Building a T-34 would trigger an arms race with Germany, etc. Getting behind in one of the component techs would hurt you and redesigning while already building should significantly delay completion the further advanced construction is. Also, it could be made to matter if you have previously built a certain ship. Construction of the Sovietsky Soyuz class, easily the biggest ships built until that time, posed the USSR with various problems and this should affect construction time. Also, in relation to the factory model as above, it should require an expansion of shipbuilding capacity.
In a similar vein, it would be interesting to redesign the land doctrine tech tree. You now have to choose between various flavours early on and after that, you're stuck. Instead, it might be possible to research various doctrines and combine the best of all of them. I would suggest elements like combined arms tactics, air/ground cooperation and things like that rather than broader doctrines as the basis for how an army fights. Furthermore, land doctrines should effect the need for training as some tactics and strategies need to be rehearsed more than others. As it is now, the Soviet Union is handicapped unless as the player you decide to switch to the German doctrines early on. The Soviet doctrines are not necessarily inferior, the implementation of them certainly was and the purge hurt the Red Army tremendously. That and the loss of experienced soldiers and officers during the early stages of Barbarossa should be much more detrimental to how well the Soviet troops fight than the doctrines themselves.
For the French, this kind of diversification would make it possible for them to listen to DeGaulle and switch from an infantry / fortification focus to an armour focus. Other principles could include concentration of force, exploitation, deep penetration and so forth. The AI could even be modeled to more extensively use certain strategies after researching a certain tech. Switching basic priciples could also, temporarily, lower the max org as the army adapts to new principles. For this to work it might be necessary to make certain tech teams available earlier. I've always found it odd that people like Eisenhower or Bradley are only available until later, while they were in the army from WW1 onwards. Someone like DeGaulle, for all his faults, was never listened to until the Germans proved him right.
Edit: 9) Naval/Air HQ
I find it a bit odd that Naval groups have a hard maximum number of units, making it difficult to combine forces when dealing with a large enemy fleet. In truth, some vessels were fitted as flagships, mostly battleships and carriers, allowing an admiral and his staff to command from a separate bridge. There have also been experiments with command ships, especially for large scale amphibious operations which often totalled hundreds of ships just as support, not including the troopships, supply vessels and landing ships. Perhaps this could be included as well, ie. a battleship / carrier functioning as an HQ when commanded by a Grand Admiral and eliminating the stacking penalty? Once the AI starts escorting its invasion fleets this would be very useful.
An Air HQ could do the same, eliminating a stacking penalty if combat is joined in a region covered by an HQ.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
