My Carrier, My Carrier, My Empire for a Carrier..

[Zorgoth]

Look, what I am saying is, as Paradox is still in HOI2 alpha, they have room to add/remove features, game play, etc...and since this has turned into a thread about how we think naval combat should turn out, I am simply putting my vote down as:
If Johan and the crew are having trouble finding ways to improve the HOI style of naval combat to the point where a Pacific campaign is playable simply on its naval merits, then I would rather have less navy than have it HOI style again.

@The ancient mar
You say "naval centered players to enjoy a good WW2 Pacific simulation", I am sure you enjoyed HOI, but did you really enjoy it on the basis of a naval sim? I enjoyed it on the basis of having stratigic command of an alliance with the possibility to invade Canada if I saw fit. HOI is one of the most replayed games I have ever own (catching up on CivII), but honestly, despite being a U.S. navy buff, the Pacific theater was never the most enjoyable part. So, my 2 cents for HOI2 is either naval combat improves or gets streamlined. Of course I would like former, but not if it means that the overall experience has to suffer.

 

[unmerged(30686)]

But if you make managing fleets require micromanaging them the army players will skip the part entirely as with HoI1. I'd suppose there are more army than navy guys buying the game.

Maybe the answer is to have levels of management contolled by sliders for army navy and air

That way a player can define those areas he's interested in and wants to manage more closely?

 

[unmerged(26876)]

...no one argued to give single ships orders...

...my suggestion was that if your fleet have contact with an enemy fleet you get an pop-up with the option to give your fleet orders (posted above) and maybe have the chance to choose primary targets for your fleet...

...just playing HOI and its absolutely stupid that my CAGs always attack the transports of the enemy fleet first while getting shot down by the only CA in the fleet !


.

FIRE AS YOUR GUNS BARE!!!

No, even in WWII the ships engaged was still a matter of chance. In the Battle of the Coral Sea aircraft sent to intercept an aircraft carrier and a crusier stumbled apon another aircraft carrier en route and attacked that as a target of opportunity. Just as well too - the aircraft carrier and crusier they were sent to destroy were infact a tanker and a destroyer...

Make the ship enguaged a random thing. Use a weighting system where more 'valuable' targets have a greater chance of being selected - but war is fickle - you do not always get to select the target you want.

 

[unmerged(32776)]

If you wanted to be truly evil you could have a factor where you are accidentally attacked by your own planes. HMS Sheffield was attacked by FAA Swordfish in 1941 because they thought she was Bismarck, similarly US B17's from Midway came back proud of having sunk a Jap cruiser. The irate Us Submarine commander who hurriedly crash dived soon put them straight.

Blue-on-Blue anyone?

 

[Grosshaus]

sorry to say that - but this really a #?#*&!#* argument !


...hope that HOI will have both - cause WWII also had an europe theatre as well as a pacific one...

...and even for the europe theatre the battle in the atlantic was most important for the allies to ship troops and supplies !


.

I do know navy was important in WW2 and it should be that also in the game. But it doesn't need to be tedious to handle even if it's important, an excellent example of this would be Victoria's tech research system. It's easy and elegant, has drastic gameplay importance and is the most realistic one seen in any grand strategy game. Now compare that to HoI1 technology system, which was aimed to be highly realistic. It failed to do that, since it had so much human involvement it was easily exploitable. While being exploitable it also was quite tedious to use by those players who liked to focus more fully on warfare only.

btw. Glad to know there are fellow Paradox fans living in Graz, let's grab a pint in September when I've moved there

This is preferably fixed by a change in the Naval combat model, and if the player should be able to prioritize naval strikes (I personally think it should be determined by the Fleet commander, weighing in his traits/skill level for a sound decision) it should be done beforehand.

Exactly, perhaps modified by tech/doctrine changes.

 

[unmerged(11874)]

I see no reason for greater control over navies--this was a large part of the problem with HoI naval combat, having to directly order a wolfpack to disengage against the Royal Navy, or having to manually move RN destroyer groups randomly across the Atlantic to try to snag those same submarines.

At the same time, I think a expontentially greater flexibility in your naval preferences would be outstanding. From what I gather, naval combat will in fact be "mission based"--example one, I order a wolfpack to go convoy hunting, set their run/fight tolerances, and let those bad boys loose; example two, I tell the 1st Air Fleet to try to cripple the USN at Pearl Harbor, design the plan of attack, and let them go to it.

Direct command over land divisions is fine, because it's not a test of reflexes; air and naval combat, however, occur so quickly but are so vitally important that designed or open-ended missions with lots of flexibility are just as if not more important than the admittedly wicked awesome combat system Johan seems to have developed.

 

[kionas76]

Not really. Perhaps there will have to be a trade-off? I mean you could argue that the Air War was extremely important. What if it is (within reasonable limts) impossible to have detailed Tactical/lower level Strategical control of both the Land and Air War. Wouldn't you agree than a minor trade-off is the best way to go?

However we do not really know how things will work yet so it is no idea being overly negative (or positive ) yet. I'm sure even you will be more satisfied with the Naval aspect of HoI 2 than HoI.

It is true we dont know how it will be in HoI2.However HoI1 air naval and Pacific was as bad as possible and i dont wont to see a trade off on which navy pays the price once again.
As simple as that if naval aspect of the game isnt good then the Pacific campaign will get screwed and this will(in a domino theory way)affect the whole game.
Even a u-boat player whould like to have a chance to order his subs on what to or what not to engage in battle but HoI1 didnt give that chance.

 

[kionas76]

The people who so seriously dislike that will get an actual naval sim.
The war in the pacific is the only place where a more detailed variant is really needed and we're getting it, albeit hopefully not at such a level that individual ships need to be given orders.
What I would *love* to see however is giving individual *fleets* orders akin to Imperialism where you'd have different levels of aggression when encountering enemy fleets.

Never asked for a naval sim.However everybody knows very well that problem in HoI1 had the naval and air(less but still)components so it is there that the dev. team should put more focus.
Of cource some improvement over land portion whould be nice but since this was better detailed in previous game it needs less attention now.
So what i am asking about combat and its mechanics is a 33%naval/33%air/33%land.All of them are important and what i am looking forward(and i am sure not only me)is a balanced air naval aspect as good and detailed as ground combat is.
After all HoI 1 wasnt a ground combat simulation but a strategic game which should have equally important all the aspects of combat,right?

 

[kionas76]

First of all in response to an earlier post subs in Vic didn't require telephones, they required electronics. Electronics just happened to have the symbol of a telephone.
But if you make managing fleets require micromanaging them the army players will skip the part entirely as with HoI1. I'd suppose there are more army than navy guys buying the game.

Victoria has its own forum for talking.However if you check it i am sure you will get a 1st hand exp. about how people dislike naval aspect there(atleast the majority of them).

I want as much micro for naval air as much the army will have.
A player who prefers to play Germany or SOV will do that no matter how good or bad is naval aspect and that is what happened in HoI1.However there are players like me who play countries focused in all 3 aspects of warfare and not only 1 mostly and that is why the naval face of HoI 1 was top say the least dissapointing.Thus that is why io beliave it should be equally important for all to have the naval air game as good/realistic as ground combat is.
HoI 1 and 2 arent groung war sims.They are strategic games and all the forms of combat are equally important.

 

[unmerged(15723)]

It is true we dont know how it will be in HoI2.However HoI1 air naval and Pacific was as bad as possible and i dont wont to see a trade off on which navy pays the price once again.
As simple as that if naval aspect of the game isnt good then the Pacific campaign will get screwed and this will(in a domino theory way)affect the whole game.
Even a u-boat player whould like to have a chance to order his subs on what to or what not to engage in battle but HoI1 didnt give that chance.

Well any game will have to have trade-offs. The land combat aspect in HoI is abstracted and so will the Naval aspect in HoI 2 be, even if the levels vary. Even if the naval aspect (i.e. the way player controlls the naval warfare) in HoI 2 will be more abstracted than HoI doesn't mean it will be less realistic, ratyher the opposite. Hopefully Paradox can make the Pacific war both realistic and not too abstracted.

 

[kionas76]

Of course, one could have a bit more detailed naval orders available, but have a checkbox for if the commander of the fleet handles it or if the player takes direct action. This would pander to the fleet-minded players and would not unduly hinder those who are more interested in land-warfare. This largely becomes a matter of how many features can be squeezed in before release.

Everyone has his likes and dislikes and nobody want to get hindered by his dislikes.
That is however for both army and naval fans.Keep that in mind.
Anyway i think it wont be difficult to have the option of chosing your target when ordering a fleet to sail.
For example a u-boat checkbox could have options like:hit trans only/hit trans and escorts/git escorts only/hit line ships only before he sends the unit to patrol.This way he has given a command depending on what he wants and isnt bothered anymore except from checking the unit for casualties/repair.
Wont be difficult and i think even an army oriented German player whould like that.

 

[kionas76]

Well any game will have to have trade-offs. The land combat aspect in HoI is abstracted and so will the Naval aspect in HoI 2 be, even if the levels vary. Even if the naval aspect (i.e. the way player controlls the naval warfare) in HoI 2 will be more abstracted than HoI doesn't mean it will be less realistic, ratyher the opposite. Hopefully Paradox can make the Pacific war both realistic and not too abstracted.

The trade off you mention for HoI 1 wasnt exactly that.It was a fairly good made ground combat for a very badly designed naval.This inst a trade off,rather an unbalanced and ugly cituation which i am not looking forward to see again.So i ant to be able to give commands to ships as much as i can give to evry division of every corp.This is a trade off.
Therefore as abstracted the naval will be the same for the army.An equall opportunity for both naval/ground warfare fans to play not a specific sim but a really strategic game who puts all elements under same importance.And yes more abstracted less realistic actually and not the opposite as you beliave.

 

[kionas76]

Victoria's tech research system. It's easy and elegant, has drastic gameplay importance and is the most realistic one seen in any grand strategy game.

The tech tree of Victoria wasnt as easy and elegant you say.A minimum info for the player concerning inventions,the way some of them fired or not plus other things made it an unpleasnt feature.The only good thing about it is that nothing like that will be included in HoI2.
HoI1 tech tree might be too detailed but atleast the player had all the info for ewvery tech up to his eyes and didnt had to memorise them like Vic. in order to know what every invention gives.Even more he could do some timetable with them and not beg the PC to fire the invention as soon as possible.
I still cant forget how i had manowars and frigates(both wooden ships)in 1890s while i had all the techs required for better ships only because some stupid invention didnt fire.

 

[unmerged(15723)]

The trade off you mention for HoI 1 wasnt exactly that.It was a fairly good made ground combat for a very badly designed naval.This inst a trade off,rather an unbalanced and ugly cituation which i am not looking forward to see again.So i ant to be able to give commands to ships as much as i can give to evry division of every corp.This is a trade off.
Therefore as abstracted the naval will be the same for the army.An equall opportunity for both naval/ground warfare fans to play not a specific sim but a really strategic game who puts all elements under same importance.And yes more abstracted less realistic actually and not the opposite as you beliave.

When I mean trade-off it is not only between different aspects of the game but also constructing a game with limited resoucres with game mechanics that can reflect WW2 as a whole and the various war scenes in a reasonable good way. That is what Paradox is doing I presume. This game is not for naval warfare fans, ground warfare fans or even both. It is for WW2 fans. Still I think (both you and me) will be satisfied with the Naval combat in HoI 2 (or t least think it is better than in HoI).

 

[Grosshaus]

The tech tree of Victoria wasnt as easy and elegant you say.A minimum info for the player concerning inventions,the way some of them fired or not plus other things made it an unpleasnt feature.The only good thing about it is that nothing like that will be included in HoI2.
HoI1 tech tree might be too detailed but atleast the player had all the info for ewvery tech up to his eyes and didnt had to memorise them like Vic. in order to know what every invention gives.

That has nothing to with what the feature was like, but instead of how it was portrayed and supported. If all that had been in the manual, as they should have, then you'd have had no such worries

 

[kionas76]

That has nothing to with what the feature was like, but instead of how it was portrayed and supported. If all that had been in the manual, as they should have, then you'd have had no such worries

Does that change any facts on how easy was for the player to use it?No it doesnt actually.Even if it was in the manual as it should i doupt that a player plays a game with the manual open and even if someone does he usuallyu forgets it.Instead it is prefearable to be as close as possible to users eyes as HoI1 tech tree was.

 

[Zorgoth]

How about this:
Capital ships get represented (maybe with destroyer flotillas). PT boats, individual destroyers merchant raiders, subs, and transports (conveys) are abstracted. So you can have a battle of the North Atlantic, so the Japanese home islands can be strangulated, so the Japanese can cut Midway off from supplies, etc, but you do not have to do it directly. Imagine, you select the amount of resources you are going to devote to building transports, sub, PT boats, what ever. You decided broadly, where to deploy them. You select the level of effort you wish your researchers to devote to ASW, etc. You select if you want your subs to hunt merchants, warships, or both. But you don't send have to mess with the individual little ships.
Churchill once said his biggest fear was the sub war in '42-'43, and it was not a war of battles, but a war of curves and graphs.
And that is how I would like to see a lot of the naval things handled.
Big ships would be like in the newest screenshot. And so the strategic part would be how many to build, how much to research, where to base them. The player tactical part would be, do I make one big über-fleet as the Japanese and hope I blunder into the Allies, do you divide you fleets. Blue water or coastal support? Carrier or BBs is an easy one, but what if the Japanese had concentrated on light carriers? Only build super carriers? Are you going to hunt for the enemy fleet or keep close to your invasion force. There are a lot of fun things that could and can be done with the HOI style of navies, especially if some of the parts (the small ships, carrier aircraft, etc) are streamlined. Nobody wants to remove the navy entirely, they just don't want it to be a pain.

 

[jpd]

The tech tree of Victoria wasnt as easy and elegant you say.A minimum info for the player concerning inventions,the way some of them fired or not plus other things made it an unpleasnt feature.The only good thing about it is that nothing like that will be included in HoI2.
HoI1 tech tree might be too detailed but atleast the player had all the info for ewvery tech up to his eyes and didnt had to memorise them like Vic. in order to know what every invention gives.Even more he could do some timetable with them and not beg the PC to fire the invention as soon as possible.

Actually (apart from the lack of invention effects info), I found the Vicky way of handling tech the best of all Paradox games to date. It introduces a bit of uncertainty to tech development, just as in real life.

Do you really think that the Germans knew precisely, when they started in 1936 with armor development, when they would prototype the Tiger I, and what specs it would have? Of course not. But that is precisely what happens when you, the player, plays a game of HoI. That is totally unrealistic. Tech development and inventions should get a bit of randomness, and the Vicky model introduces that in a pretty good manner.

Ever played the original Master of Orion? There it worked even nicer. While you did know what tech was actually in the game, you didn't know which techs had been enabled for research when a game was started. So you simply could not count on the Planerary Shield V or the Scatter Pack X missiles to become available. Tech availability was random, as it should be.

Remember, in HoI (2) you are playing the nation's commander in chief, not the director of MIT. You can ask your scientists to come up with better ships, tanks and plains, but it's up to them to actually design and build the prototypes. You, the player, really ought not to be omnipotent and should not be able to work out on a calculator that in two years, three months and 15 days the design of your super tank is ready.

I still cant forget how i had manowars and frigates(both wooden ships)in 1890s while i had all the techs required for better ships only because some stupid invention didnt fire.

See above. Although I grant you that firing inventions ought to have some failsafe date, like in Imperialism.

Jan Peter

 

[unmerged(26876)]

It's clear from all the posts that many people would like more information on how fleets, navies, convoys, submarines and even the idea of commerce raiding might work.
I have a suspicion that the way airforces and aircraft missions, sorties and patrols work might work in a similar way.
We have seen hints in the interviews but nothing definate.

Clearly, the only way we are going to find out more is with information from Johan.

So that got me thinking, what is it that makes Johan talk?

Is it an EVENT? What triggers it?
I suspect it must be a Swedish Event? Does it trigger automatically on a certain date? Or is there user input? Does dissent have to be up or down?
Is there an event number?
If anyone knows - please tell me so I can 'F12' it.

 

[unmerged(12303)]

So that got me thinking, what is it that makes Johan talk?

probably like with everybody else - lots of free beer and free food

F