It there much point in using armored cars?

[ecpgieicg]

That being said, there's hypothetically a UI that can make this all magically less of a burden, but even when I play other GSGs, I see how hard it is to present information to players in an intelligible way.

In conjunction with tutorials that walk through the UI.

The good example for me is Steel Division 2. It's campaign maps (dubbed the General Mode) are really good but is not necessarily intuitive. The tutorial walks through the most basic -- the basic rules, and the UI -- nothing else. With that, the player can then focus his learning and intuition on the actual game dynamic -- in SD2, that's all the in real time strategy mode. In HOI4, in contrast, I'd say much of the UI requires reading upon elsewhere.

 

[Black_Shade]

I will use an example from another Paradox game about how complexity (and interface) can negatively impact player experience.

I have a good friend who loved playing Stellaris before the elimination of tiles. When Stellaris implemented all those new buildings and mechanics, my friend was no longer interested due to being overwhelmed with new stuff. I really liked some of the new stuff (even if I think the system had problems), but it was too close to playing a spreadsheet for my friend.

That's a real issue. There's a point where the closer a game appears to a spreadsheet, the narrower the audience. And while it's not how I view things, I have to acknowledge that's a part of how it works.

That being said, there's hypothetically a UI that can make this all magically less of a burden, but even when I play other GSGs, I see how hard it is to present information to players in an intelligible way.

It turns out that it wasn't just your friend that got turned off by the economy rework of Stellaris. The AI hasn't been able to play the game since 2.2 either!

Back to the original topic: Has there been actual tests done on the impact of recon on tactic selection, particularly where the attacker has a large frontage but the defender doesn't? In those instances, the defender having a tactic advantage and being able to lower the combat width seems like it might make recon valuable.

So far reading this thread I get the impression that not only should I not build ACs, I shouldn't waste a support company or research slots on recon period!

 

[ecpgieicg]

So far reading this thread I get the impression that not only should I not build ACs

AC does help your manpower.

I shouldn't waste a support company or research slots on recon period!

Yes. But you can probably afford engineer + recon. Or engineer alone.

If the game wasn't poorly balanced and that supply matters*, logistics company would be the priority. But we are not there yet.

*Dev will eventually rework supply.

 

[seattle]

In conjunction with tutorials that walk through the UI.

The good example for me is Steel Division 2. It's campaign maps (dubbed the General Mode) are really good but is not necessarily intuitive. The tutorial walks through the most basic -- the basic rules, and the UI -- nothing else. With that, the player can then focus his learning and intuition on the actual game dynamic -- in SD2, that's all the in real time strategy mode. In HOI4, in contrast, I'd say much of the UI requires reading upon elsewhere.

I find the stats pages of "Strategic Command: War in Europe/World at War" pretty good.
Simple Excel graphs that compare losses of all major nations, Convoy losses, etc.

PDS should get a license of Microsoft PowerBI pro.
Nothing beats a Dashboard with drill-down functions.

 

[safe-keeper]

These are two areas vanilla could really stand to fix, in my opinion. Vanilla lets us produce many more divisions than the nations had in the war and then lets us put them on attack without pause until the war is over. Their is little sense of unit and time scarcity in vanilla, something the leaders in WW2 dealt with constantly.

In vanilla there are no deadlines, because you can keep attacking until the AI is dead. If there were operational lengths, as you mentioned, then time would matter much more. If you cannot knock out the enemy before your operation runs out of supplies or seasonal weather ends it for you, then the enemy gets time to rebuild and bring in new tech. This would simulate the ebb and flow of the war much better than vanilla does now. Time mattered. Risks were taken for that very reason.

The lack of unit scarcity in the game also takes some of that risk taking out of the game. If you want to invade the USSR, then how do you protect all those western beaches? In vanilla, you just spam divisions to hold the ports and still have enough divisions to defeat the USSR quickly.

This abundance did not exist in the war.

Apart from the obvious QoL issues, I was disappointed with the battle planner for exactly this reason. We're so close to having a BP that makes us draw up operations, with arrows and everything, prepare our armies, and then have them carry out their orders, with player intervention where needed (which even increases the speed the divisions lose their planning bonus, which is a nice touch), and then have to end the operation and take up defensive positions when the troops are exhausted, the armies disorganised, or in need of better supply lines.

All it takes is for the planning bonus to actually matter. Right now it's just that, a bonus that makes already combat-capable divisions fight even better. The planning phase should prepare the divisions in an army for battle, and then as the operation went on they would accrue various penalties until you had no choice but to stop the battle plan.

Edit: ammunition shortages would help, too, of course.

 

[Fireforce20]

Apart from the obvious QoL issues, I was disappointed with the battle planner for exactly this reason. We're so close to having a BP that makes us draw up operations, with arrows and everything, prepare our armies, and then have them carry out their orders, with player intervention where needed (which even increases the speed the divisions lose their planning bonus, which is a nice touch), and then have to end the operation and take up defensive positions when the troops are exhausted, the armies disorganised, or in need of better supply lines.

All it takes is for the planning bonus to actually matter. Right now it's just that, a bonus that makes already combat-capable divisions fight even better. The planning phase should prepare the divisions in an army for battle, and then as the operation went on they would accrue various penalties until you had no choice but to stop the battle plan.

Edit: ammunition shortages would help, too, of course.

James Holland the historian summed it up with the term "operational reach" in his War in the west book (a nice look at the strategic, operational and tactical levels from pre war up to June 1941). He summarised hat with Germany as whole not being a motorised society by comparison to the western allies and US it meant its operational reach was poor and told true by Autumn 1941 in the east when all 3 army groups supply lines dampened or stopped any thoughts of further deep breakthroughs.

A mechanic inhibiting indefinite offensive would be literally a game changer and something I would welcome. Although I guess they have to have an eye on not weakening Germany to much by this in the game by not going as far as the reality the Germans had a disorganised and poorly standardised industry with over engineered equipment would give it too heavy a penalty.

Is lowering the reliability of medium and heavy armour one potential avenue to put a limitation on offensive actions that takes a step towards reality? Or perhaps a negative German national spirit reflecting the over engineered tenancy of its industry giving a penalty on reliability? Another option might be generally lower reliability for all nations mech equipment and then add a new stream in the industry tech tree for boosting quality of equipment, biased towards mid to late war.

 

[seattle]

James Holland the historian summed it up with the term "operational reach" in his War in the west book (a nice look at the strategic, operational and tactical levels from pre war up to June 1941). He summarised hat with Germany as whole not being a motorised society by comparison to the western allies and US it meant its operational reach was poor and told true by Autumn 1941 in the east when all 3 army groups supply lines dampened or stopped any thoughts of further deep breakthroughs.

A mechanic inhibiting indefinite offensive would be literally a game changer and something I would welcome. Although I guess they have to have an eye on not weakening Germany to much by this in the game by not going as far as the reality the Germans had a disorganised and poorly standardised industry with over engineered equipment would give it too heavy a penalty.

Is lowering the reliability of medium and heavy armour one potential avenue to put a limitation on offensive actions that takes a step towards reality? Or perhaps a negative German national spirit reflecting the over engineered tenancy of its industry giving a penalty on reliability? Another option might be generally lower reliability for all nations mech equipment and then add a new stream in the industry tech tree for boosting quality of equipment, biased towards mid to late war.

Play the Total War mod or BICE. Logistics are completely overhauled. Germany can't rush from Warsaw to Archangelsk in one strike. Units, particularly mobile ones, consume more supplies. Fuel is more scare and the operational reach in general is way more realistic.
You have to invest heavily in logistics companies (you can add up to 3 different support companies for supplies), repair infra and build more as you proceed deeper into Russia.
You won't see 50 panzer divisions either...

 

[ecpgieicg]

I find the stats pages of "Strategic Command: War in Europe/World at War" pretty good.
Simple Excel graphs that compare losses of all major nations, Convoy losses, etc.

PDS should get a license of Microsoft PowerBI pro.
Nothing beats a Dashboard with drill-down functions.

First time hearing about the game. How is the game itself? (off topic but i can't help asking)

 

[seattle]

First time hearing about the game. How is the game itself? (off topic but i can't help asking)

Turn-based hex game with great a.i. and heavy scripting (all of which are optional).
Lot of historic decisions with great impact on the war.

I have both WW2 games War in Europe and World at War. Slight preference for the Europe version because of the scale (more hexes in Europe).

Bought SC: WW1 yesterday. Also fantastic. Managed to keep Britain out of the war for months due to not opting for Schlieffen. Keeping US neutral by keeping my UBoots restricted.

All Strategic Command games are on sale on Steam.
Make sure not to buy the "classic" SC games if a similar name from 2010-ish.

 

[Fireforce20]

Play the Total War mod or BICE. Logistics are completely overhauled. Germany can't rush from Warsaw to Archangelsk in one strike. Units, particularly mobile ones, consume more supplies. Fuel is more scare and the operational reach in general is way more realistic.
You have to invest heavily in logistics companies (you can add up to 3 different support companies for supplies), repair infra and build more as you proceed deeper into Russia.
You won't see 50 panzer divisions either...

I have been looking around for a mod to freshen my runs up, was thinking on this having heard it's very in depth but a beast to master at the same time. Have enjoyed hearts of Oak and road to 56 as mods I have used so far so BICE seems a logical step.

 

[seattle]

I have been looking around for a mod to freshen my runs up, was thinking on this having heard it's very in depth but a beast to master at the same time. Have enjoyed hearts of Oak and road to 56 as mods I have used so far so BICE seems a logical step.

Also love "Hearts of Oak" due to the historical grand offensives decisions. Something that adds a whole new strategic layer and long-term campaign planning to the game.
Unfortunately PDS is rather stubborn in this regard and insists on fixing the a.i. to a point where it magically is capable of doing that without decisions.
5 years later it still isn't capable of avoiding the front line shuffle...

 

[FindFloppies]

In conjunction with tutorials that walk through the UI.

The good example for me is Steel Division 2. It's campaign maps (dubbed the General Mode) are really good but is not necessarily intuitive. The tutorial walks through the most basic -- the basic rules, and the UI -- nothing else. With that, the player can then focus his learning and intuition on the actual game dynamic -- in SD2, that's all the in real time strategy mode. In HOI4, in contrast, I'd say much of the UI requires reading upon elsewhere.

Compare what you learn, and what you don't get told about when doing HOI4's tutorial with the same balance when doing EU4's tutorial. HOI4's complexity is way less than EU4 is, IMO. Also, some people like to play on lower difficulties, so they can experiment. The higher the difficulty, the less you can experiment w/o getting crushed. For example, if you like to experiment with navies, at higher difficulties, you really can't, because some ship types aren't worth building at that level, just because of the way the numbers work. Different people like different things, and they all gave Paradox money.

 

[FindFloppies]

I have been looking around for a mod to freshen my runs up, was thinking on this having heard it's very in depth but a beast to master at the same time. Have enjoyed hearts of Oak and road to 56 as mods I have used so far so BICE seems a logical step.

To me, BICE looks pretty nice, but I don't want to have to deal with uniforms, etc. Too deep *for me*. Worlds Ablaze has real promise to me, though. Ultra HOI4 has some great mechanics in it, great mod, but, there's some other things I don't like about it. Check it out.

 

[ecpgieicg]

To me, BICE looks pretty nice, but I don't want to have to deal with uniforms, etc. Too deep *for me*. Worlds Ablaze has real promise to me, though. Ultra HOI4 has some great mechanics in it, great mod, but, there's some other things I don't like about it. Check it out.

Focusing on the extra equipment for the sake of having extra equipment really misses the point of BICE.

The BICE equipment system rebalances the game and solved a lot of the vices in the game. (e.g. You don't have 40w all medium tank divisions anymore in BICE. Totally inefficient.

Having said that, BICE is not for everyone. It is more intense. In other words, the benefits BICE provides come at a cost.
Also transparency is a much bigger issue than vanilla HOI4. Many mechanics that matter significantly (and add to immersion) are not explained anywhere or explanation difficult to spot. But you are ok as long as your first game is Germany. (Most things are well documented for Germany in BICE. Germany is most challenging but Germany tech is OP in BICE.)

 

[seattle]

Focusing on the extra equipment for the sake of having extra equipment really misses the point of BICE.

The BICE equipment system rebalances the game and solved a lot of the vices in the game. (e.g. You don't have 40w all medium tank divisions anymore in BICE. Totally inefficient.

Having said that, BICE is not for everyone. It is more intense. In other words, the benefits BICE provides come at a cost.
Also transparency is a much bigger issue than vanilla HOI4. Many mechanics that matter significantly (and add to immersion) are not explained anywhere or explanation difficult to spot. But you are ok as long as your first game is Germany. (Most things are well documented for Germany in BICE. Germany is most challenging but Germany tech is OP in BICE.)

That's why everyone who likes the idea of BICE, but feels like it goes too far, should try the Total War mod.
It's basically a streamlined version of BICE with many of the same mechanisms.

It's like when a band member releases a solo album. It's different, but it still has the same sound.

I play Total Mod more often than any other mod because it strikes the best balance between complexity and fluid gameplay.

 

[Harin]

I am playing the UK in a BICE game right now. I barely won the Battle of Britain with 500 fighters against the German 700 fighters and 1,000 bombers. I am not used to such low plane counts, but it made every plane feel important. I brought in fighters from every corner of the globe, because it mattered. The AI fighters were often better than mine, with higher agility and speed, until I started to whittle their numbers down. I cannot remember the last time the AI competed with me on quality of aircraft.

I will say BICE does a good job of making a player feel that each division, plane, and tank count. I am constantly having to watch production, as there are rarely an abundance of anything.

I also like how you can add infantry guns, machine guns, mortars, and small anti-tank weapons to your infantry battalions to make them stronger. My infantry divisions are not bad on the offensive, which is a good thing, because I do not have near as many as I am used to having.

It is a lot to digest and I am having to play slowly, but it is fun. I will try out the Total War and World Ablaze mods later.

 

[ecpgieicg]

I am playing the UK in a BICE game right now. I barely won the Battle of Britain with 500 fighters against the German 700 fighters and 1,000 bombers. I am not used to such low plane counts, but it made every plane feel important. I brought in fighters from every corner of the globe, because it mattered. The AI fighters were often better than mine, with higher agility and speed, until I started to whittle their numbers down. I cannot remember the last time the AI competed with me on quality of aircraft.

I will say BICE does a good job of making a player feel that each division, plane, and tank count. I am constantly having to watch production, as there are rarely an abundance of anything.

I also like how you can add infantry guns, machine guns, mortars, and small anti-tank weapons to your infantry battalions to make them stronger. My infantry divisions are not bad on the offensive, which is a good thing, because I do not have near as many as I am used to having.

It is a lot to digest and I am having to play slowly, but it is fun. I will try out the Total War and World Ablaze mods later.

On the other hand, if you play as Germany and UK/USSR are maned by AI, they get scripted stockpiles of fighters. So you actually need to come up with ways to compete against their numbers -- USSR especially. Plus EAI helps USSR to strike when you are most engaged with the allies.

I also like how you can add infantry guns, machine guns, mortars, and small anti-tank weapons to your infantry battalions to make them stronger. My infantry divisions are not bad on the offensive, which is a good thing, because I do not have near as many as I am used to having.

Definitely. The add-on mechanics is also used to make late-game mechanization highly potent. Germany is given a National Focus to get there a lot quicker -- simulating a piece of history that vanilla HOI4 does not. Mechanization in vanilla HOI4 really just means 40w of 20 medium tank battalions.

The add-on mechanics is a bit hard to negotiate for nations starting behind in tech though. Licensing helps but this solution is not at all transparent. So if the player does experience difficulty there, it will probably feel contrived.