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

[kionas76]

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.

No,what players want naval aspect to be is accurate representation of the WW2 situation.Not anymore my CV be a hit absorber of BB guns because everytime they manage to get within range,not any more naval based air kill trans and leave the important target get off,not any more 10 DD units in open sea be able to kill 4 BB because normally the BBs whould have damaged them badly even before the DD manage to aproach,not any more ships of a TF getting damage from a convoy that passes throught the area even if the TF is only passing and not engaging the convoy,not any more unescorted convoy damage a BB unit,not any more a fleet with radar has no option on whether to engage or not a superior enemy,not any more many many other stuff that badly hampered any attempt whatsoever to play a dissent pacific theatre.
Thats what no onewant any more.

 

[kionas76]

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.

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

Jan Peter

NO WAY.
In HoI you dont only play Adolph or Tojo or Franklin you also play each and every divisions/wing/ship/province commander and that was the way in HoI1.
A Victoria like tech tree with uncertainty means that a German player starts the war with Pz 1 armed with machine guns tanks and almost till the end of war keeps on with them because THIS IS THE WAY IT HAPPENS IN REAL VICTORIA.Otherwise why its 1890's and i have still manowars?
Yes please if Paradox wants a potential disaster as a new game go ahaid,the only syer thing will be bankrupt and close.

 

[Phaedrus]

NO WAY.
In HoI you dont only play Adolph or Tojo or Franklin you also play each and every divisions/wing/ship/province commander and that was the way in HoI1.

Not really. The role is closer to CinC, but it's a split role that's for sure. If you played the individual Division Commander you would have a lot of tactical, local decisions to make. You only supply marching orders to the individual divisions, the rest is handled by the division commander.

While too much abstraction makes for boring gameplay (MoO3), it's really not interesting to have naval micromanagement in a grand strategy game. Per-fleet standing orders for engagements and patrol would be nice (a requirement IMO), but let's not go deeper than that.

 

[Zorgoth]

No,what players want naval aspect to be is accurate representation of the WW2 situation.Not anymore my CV be a hit absorber of BB guns because everytime they manage to get within range,not any more naval based air kill trans and leave the important target get off,not any more 10 DD units in open sea be able to kill 4 BB because normally the BBs whould have damaged them badly even before the DD manage to aproach,not any more ships of a TF getting damage from a convoy that passes throught the area even if the TF is only passing and not engaging the convoy,not any more unescorted convoy damage a BB unit,not any more a fleet with radar has no option on whether to engage or not a superior enemy,not any more many many other stuff that badly hampered any attempt whatsoever to play a dissent pacific theatre.
Thats what no onewant any more.

How is what you have written and what I suggested at all exclusive? Of course there are things that needed to be fixed with the HOI naval system (or Vicky or whatever). Hopefully HOI2 will have a better target designation system to avoid ships being damaged based on where they are in the stack. You have already seen a picture where ships are unable to engage a carrier. This suggests to me that range is being taken into account, so I would think that BB will be able to take down destroyers most of the time. With convoys, that is a gripe about the mechanics of HOI, and I suspect that it will be dealt with in HOI2. As for choosing whether to engage or not, well if it was a probabillity, modified by capitain and naval commander, then yes. But otherwise you need a pop up box for every encounter, or it is a clickfest. While doable in SP, that will kill naval MP.

 

[kionas76]

Not really. The role is closer to CinC, but it's a split role that's for sure. If you played the individual Division Commander you would have a lot of tactical, local decisions to make. You only supply marching orders to the individual divisions, the rest is handled by the division commander.

While too much abstraction makes for boring gameplay (MoO3), it's really not interesting to have naval micromanagement in a grand strategy game. Per-fleet standing orders for engagements and patrol would be nice (a requirement IMO), but let's not go deeper than that.

Why is it that naval should be abstracted and the ground not?Isnt it supposed to be a strategic game for every type of combat and not only land?
If you can order each division what to do than i want the same for ships.Thats all.

 

[jpd]

NO WAY.
In HoI you dont only play Adolph or Tojo or Franklin you also play each and every divisions/wing/ship/province commander and that was the way in HoI1.

Actually, it's not. You are the supreme commander. You assign corps commanders and tell them to take some province. They go about their business accomplishing that, without you having the opportunity to interfere with the local battlefield tactics. You can watch the battle unfold, and order a retreat or sending reinforcements in. You can not direct the local artellery regiment where to fire, or when the tank batallion should advance. That's the job of the corps/division commander, which you are clearly not.

A Victoria like tech tree with uncertainty means that a German player starts the war with Pz 1 armed with machine guns tanks and almost till the end of war keeps on with them because THIS IS THE WAY IT HAPPENS IN REAL VICTORIA.Otherwise why its 1890's and i have still manowars?

No, actually it's not. The modus operandi in Vicky is that inventions are very likely to happen (shortly) past their death date (which should be interpreted as the historical date), and having a much smaller chance of happening between the start and death dates (aka ahead of historical). And yes, because of the lack of a third date (the failsafe date in Imperialism), there is a very, very small chance that inventions are triggered either very late or never. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Part of tech being non deterministic must include that it comes late or never. It will force you to adapt, instead of always going to war as Germany in the autumn of 1940, knowing from the start in 1936 that you will do so with the Panther V.

You should not condemn an entire tech system, because of one freak occurence in one game of Vicky. If anything, play a couple of dozen games and base your conclusions on the average behaviour, not on the one or two exceptions.

I especially like the fact that some inventions are mutually exclusive, and to some extend drive parts of the tech tree itself, and that you, the player, have no influence over which invention will actually trigger. Increases the replayability of the game enormously, and will separate the good players from the average ones.

Jan Peter

 

[kionas76]

How is what you have written and what I suggested at all exclusive? Of course there are things that needed to be fixed with the HOI naval system (or Vicky or whatever). Hopefully HOI2 will have a better target designation system to avoid ships being damaged based on where they are in the stack. You have already seen a picture where ships are unable to engage a carrier. This suggests to me that range is being taken into account, so I would think that BB will be able to take down destroyers most of the time. With convoys, that is a gripe about the mechanics of HOI, and I suspect that it will be dealt with in HOI2. As for choosing whether to engage or not, well if it was a probabillity, modified by capitain and naval commander, then yes. But otherwise you need a pop up box for every encounter, or it is a clickfest. While doable in SP, that will kill naval MP.

This is an evidence(CV screen) and a good one but nothing more.I prefer to wait and see when its ready instead of overvaluing something and in the end prove myself as to fast.
Anyway once again i will say that if a decent well represented naval aspect is to be build it will require a lot of time and bright mind.Abstraction for the sake of the rest isnt the right thing to do.

 

[Phaedrus]

Why is it that naval should be abstracted and the ground not?Isnt it supposed to be a strategic game for every type of combat and not only land?
If you can order each division what to do than i want the same for ships.Thats all.

Uh... why this hostile attitude and banging your head against a wall?

There is plenty of abstraction in the land combat interface, which is what makes the game playable. If you had the role of tactical commander (where to focus artillery, where to put the AT-regiment, when to call in reserves) it would make for a failure when it comes to "Grand Strategy".

 

[Zorgoth]

Why is it that naval should be abstracted and the ground not?Isnt it supposed to be a strategic game for every type of combat and not only land?
If you can order each division what to do than i want the same for ships.Thats all.

Land combat is abstracted. Divisions are indivisable and refillable! All sorts of things go on that are not "realistic", but the point is that you (as the player) feel like you are directing a campaign that is how things could have turned out.

Do you want to control every ship that the U.S. had a float? Really? All of the destroyers, all of the subs, all of the PT boats, all of the tankers, merchant marines, etc...I don't. There has to be a minimum size for something to appear on a game this scale.

 

[kionas76]

Actually, it's not. You are the supreme commander. You assign corps commanders and tell them to take some province. They go about their business accomplishing that, without you having the opportunity to interfere with the local battlefield tactics. You can watch the battle unfold, and order a retreat or sending reinforcements in. You can not direct the local artellery regiment where to fire, or when the tank batallion should advance. That's the job of the corps/division commander, which you are clearly not.

No, actually it's not. The modus operandi in Vicky is that inventions are very likely to happen (shortly) past their death date (which should be interpreted as the historical date), and having a much smaller chance of happening between the start and death dates (aka ahead of historical). And yes, because of the lack of a third date (the failsafe date in Imperialism), there is a very, very small chance that inventions are triggered either very late or never. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. Part of tech being non deterministic must include that it comes late or never. It will force you to adapt, instead of always going to war as Germany in the autumn of 1940, knowing from the start in 1936 that you will do so with the Panther V.

You should not condemn an entire tech system, because of one freak occurence in one game of Vicky. If anything, play a couple of dozen games and base your conclusions on the average behaviour, not on the one or two exceptions.

I especially like the fact that some inventions are mutually exclusive, and to some extend drive parts of the tech tree itself, and that you, the player, have no influence over which invention will actually trigger. Increases the replayability of the game enormously, and will separate the good players from the average ones.

Jan Peter

Actually yes it is.In HoI 1 you are a divisional commander as well since you can if wish order every division separetly.
About Vici tech my example in only one of the lot incidents i have seen with the same more or less character.So its far from being a lone freaking incident as you said.
It not only that of cource.HoI tech tree was much more informative and thus helpfull that Vic. one.
Maybe it had a problem of balance between diferent techs and their IC/time cost but by far was more suitable than anything else for that game.
Paradox people have agreed on that simply by saying that Vic. tree will not be even remotely implemented in HoI2,instead a more simple and user friendly version of HoI 1 will be in and i like that.

 

[Slargos]

Actually yes it is.In HoI 1 you are a divisional commander as well since you can if wish order every division separetly.
.

Yes. You order the division.

A divisional commander would order battallions. Thus, you are not the divisional commander.

I concur with the previous speakers who've asked you to stop beating your balls against the wall.

 

[Phaedrus]

Actually yes it is.In HoI 1 you are a divisional commander as well since you can if wish order every division separetly.

Having the ability to order a division where to go on a per-division scale is not identical with wearing the divisional commander hat. A divisional commander must take tactical decisions based on enemy force, terrain, weather etc. This is not what you do in HoI. This is left to your pixel commander.

 

[unmerged(13933)]

No more popup messages. I dont want to tell admiral x what they should do everytime they spot enemy. Instead you should be able to set the unit's mission once and then alter it later if necessary.

Default mission for example for subs would be commerce raiding. That would mean sink every merchant ship, or transport if you wish, and otherwise avoid combat. Other missions could be shadow, ie. follow out of the enemyships range. Search or patrol, ie. look for enemyships within defined area. combat patrol or seek contact, ie. attack enemy ships within range. You would only need to change orders if you want to attack enemy fleet or follow it.

That could be improved so that your admiral x would estimate his chances against spotted enemy fleet and attack if he sees the odds favour him. Otherwise he would shadow or continue patrol.

You would only need popup for mesages like enemy fleet spotted in province x and then you could react on it,give orders, or not,trust the admirals judgement.

 

[Ghost_dk]

Actually yes it is.In HoI 1 you are a divisional commander as well since you can if wish order every division separetly.

Actually you are very wrong on this. I have never heard of an army commander who is not able to issue commends to the divisions under his command. On the other hand, the mere fact that you can issue orders to each seperate divioson proves you are not the divisional commander because then you would only be able to make suggestions to other divisions in the army.

Edit: beaten by two people. must not be my day

 

[kionas76]

Uh... why this hostile attitude and banging your head against a wall?

There is plenty of abstraction in the land combat interface, which is what makes the game playable. If you had the role of tactical commander (where to focus artillery, where to put the AT-regiment, when to call in reserves) it would make for a failure when it comes to "Grand Strategy".

Where exactly did you saw the hostile attitude?Please be more carefull before labeling someones post.

Why is so difficult for some of you to understand that i dont want a HoI2 build Europe-heavy and Pacific-light.
I dont wish to see once more a game with a very little time spend on designing naval cambat mechanics that will be a as accurate as possible to WW2 standards.

 

[kionas76]

Yes. You order the division.

A divisional commander would order battallions. Thus, you are not the divisional commander.

I concur with the previous speakers who've asked you to stop beating your balls against the wall.

So a divisional commander can order his battalions but not his division what to do?That funny.

Please you and the rest,even if you dont agree use civilised language because "beat your balls against the wall" isnt.

 

[jpd]

Actually yes it is.In HoI 1 you are a divisional commander as well since you can if wish order every division separetly.

That still does not make you a divisional commander. It simply means that you, the guy in the HQ, tells a divisonal general what you want him to do. He then goes out of his way, on his own to try and do that. You have absolutely no control over the deployment of the assets in the division. You would be a divisional commander if you could do that.

Jan Peter

 

[kionas76]

Actually you are very wrong on this. I have never heard of an army commander who is not able to issue commends to the divisions under his command. On the other hand, the mere fact that you can issue orders to each seperate divioson proves you are not the divisional commander because then you would only be able to make suggestions to other divisions in the army.

Edit: beaten by two people. must not be my day

Yes i can say the same for fleet.I have never heard of a Fleet admiral not capable of commanding each of his ships even if it is a small DD.
This is only one of the reasons why HoI represents command structure from division to general staff and ministries thus the player at any given time can be anything.Even the ultimate creator( ).

 

[kionas76]

That still does not make you a divisional commander. It simply means that you, the guy in the HQ, tells a divisonal general what you want him to do. He then goes out of his way, on his own to try and do that. You have absolutely no control over the deployment of the assets in the division. You would be a divisional commander if you could do that.

Jan Peter

This is your interpretation not mine.Rommel in several cases was with the battalion that mounted the peak of a charge.He wasnt a battalion commander mearly an offencive minded high rank who wished to be in the front line and command from there.Same applies to division.A divisional commander isnt only about battalion X goes there and does that.It is also about the whole unit as well.
Check HoI box.It clearly says the smaller unit is wing/division/ship(for heavy 1,for light a squadron).

 

[Zorgoth]

Where exactly did you saw the hostile attitude?Please be more carefull before labeling someones post.

Why is so difficult for some of you to understand that i dont want a HoI2 build Europe-heavy and Pacific-light.
I dont wish to see once more a game with a very little time spend on designing naval cambat mechanics that will be a as accurate as possible to WW2 standards.

Ok, in HOI land wars were fun and followed reasonable and possibly historical outcomes often enough that I felt like I was playing a WWII game. Air combat was irritating and unrealistic, so was naval combat. I just want to have an enjoyable game, where in a hands off situation, 50% of the time history repeats itself. In HOI that was certainly not happening in the Pacific. Adding level of complexity will not help it to happen in HOI2.