My HoI4 Wish-List

[inteljoe]

That's my solution to most of HOI4's problems. Granted, HOI3's got a pretty hefty share of its own. I really wish Paradox had made something about half-way between the two, with some of the better features of each.

They will... With DLC...

This is the case with ALL Paradox games. The initial release is fun, but gets boring because it lacks depth or content to explore. But every six months (or so) there is a DLC pack that is released that improves the game slightly in one way or another. I feel this is one of the best ways to improve on a game. You can't make something perfect once, it needs to be improved upon with time. Time costs money, and that's why the patches are released with paid content.

HOI3, EU4, CK2 are all the same. Stellaris and HOI4 will follow suit.

I am happy that HOI4 is doing as well as it is for Paradox (with the stats they disclosed in the last DD/PDXCon). I always felt that the previous titles didn't get a lot of attention compared to EU4 and what not due to being in a kind of niche market. I just hope that they continue to add content to the game like EU4 and the like (in that EU4 was first released in 2013 and it still gets DLC).

In steam you can play the previous patches, load up 1.0 of HOI4 and compare it to 1.4 with DoD. You will find a year later it is much better to play. Does it need more work? Absolutely! Will HOI4 ever be finished? Hopefully five years from now we are all complaining about some obscure fact about the latest DLC being released under the Season Pass 4 and why I had to pay $29.99 for it.

 

[ChaChaLoco]

This is factually incorrect. Two of those nations surrendered (third won the war).

I should clarify I meant they would never surrender easily, no half-measures, no second-Versailles, etc. Whereas it seems to me minors and some other nations should be more open to white-peace and to making certain concessions.

 

[ChaChaLoco]

They will... With DLC...

This is the case with ALL Paradox games. The initial release is fun, but gets boring because it lacks depth or content to explore. But every six months (or so) there is a DLC pack that is released that improves the game slightly in one way or another. I feel this is one of the best ways to improve on a game. You can't make something perfect once, it needs to be improved upon with time. Time costs money, and that's why the patches are released with paid content.

HOI3, EU4, CK2 are all the same. Stellaris and HOI4 will follow suit.

I am happy that HOI4 is doing as well as it is for Paradox (with the stats they disclosed in the last DD/PDXCon). I always felt that the previous titles didn't get a lot of attention compared to EU4 and what not due to being in a kind of niche market. I just hope that they continue to add content to the game like EU4 and the like (in that EU4 was first released in 2013 and it still gets DLC).

In steam you can play the previous patches, load up 1.0 of HOI4 and compare it to 1.4 with DoD. You will find a year later it is much better to play. Does it need more work? Absolutely! Will HOI4 ever be finished? Hopefully five years from now we are all complaining about some obscure fact about the latest DLC being released under the Season Pass 4 and why I had to pay $29.99 for it.

I really doubt I'll be playing HoI4 in 5 years. I certainly won't be shelling out $10-15 for what Paradox considers "content-filled DLC". I think a lot of the game's problems stem from poor fundamental design decisions and a lack of clear vision about their market. Do they want to make a war-game or a casual map-painter? What do the fans want? I, at least, want the former but got the latter. My suggestions here would be a means of redressing those flawed decisions and setting up a better foundation for the game going forward, while trying not to alienate the latter market by making the complexity avoidable or easy to understand. The PRIMARY issue with HoI3 was NOT its depth or complexity, it was its awful UI, poor methods of relaying crucial information to the player, and lack of means to avoid micromanagement if you wanted to. All of those problems can be fixed/avoided without needing to throw out as much of the depth/complexity of the game as they did for HoI4.

 

[inteljoe]

I really doubt I'll be playing HoI4 in 5 years. I certainly won't be shelling out $10-15 for what Paradox considers "content-filled DLC". I think a lot of the game's problems stem from poor fundamental design decisions and a lack of clear vision about their market. Do they want to make a war-game or a casual map-painter? What do the fans want? I, at least, want the former but got the latter. My suggestions here would be a means of redressing those flawed decisions and setting up a better foundation for the game going forward, while trying not to alienate the latter market by making the complexity avoidable or easy to understand. The PRIMARY issue with HoI3 was NOT its depth or complexity, it was its awful UI, poor methods of relaying crucial information to the player, and lack of means to avoid micromanagement if you wanted to. All of those problems can be fixed/avoided without needing to throw out as much of the depth/complexity of the game as they did for HoI4.

That's a fairly understandable point of view.

i think PDX is doing a great job and delivering a decent product that otherwise fills my want for a WW2 simulator. Could it be better? Sure! I think HOI4 is probably the best out of the series in terms of mechanics and the way it works. Time will tell if PDX will continue to improve and build upon it to hopefully deliver an even better product from the time it was released.

 

[ChaChaLoco]

That's a fairly understandable point of view.

i think PDX is doing a great job and delivering a decent product that otherwise fills my want for a WW2 simulator. Could it be better? Sure! I think HOI4 is probably the best out of the series in terms of mechanics and the way it works. Time will tell if PDX will continue to improve and build upon it to hopefully deliver an even better product from the time it was released.

There are elements of HoI4 that I think are far superior to the previous titles, and there are many elements that I think are not (for instance, those listed). Ultimately it's a very mixed bag for me. Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the time I've had with the game. But it just doesn't have the staying power for me like other PDX titles do.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

1. I have to disagree, the wheels of war are greased with money. Money makes the world go round. To have a game set in the 20th century and not have money is strange. PLUS the money idea solves some problems and limitations that relying on CIC has.

• First problem: CIC for trade with other nations (excluding puppets) always seems to be 1 factory for 8 of whatever resource (even though some resources are rarer and more valuable than others) there is no negotiation or supply/demand forces at play.
• Second problem: Country A cannot use CIC to purchase 5,000 trucks, or small arms, or whatever else, from Country B. The only trade between nations in this sense is lend-lease and that's only after war begins, but countries were certainly trading prior to war.
• Third problem: Diplomacy between nations is and always will be neutered without currency - are we to forget that the whole reason USA even bothered providing lend-lease to UK, putting aside FDRs alignment with the Allies, was because the UK agreed to the cash-and-carry provisions?
• Fourth problem: Impossible to purchase basing rights/military access or ability to transport trade through a neutral country as a middle-man.

Yes, money rules the world. I know that. I still don't see any reason for the introduction of money/currency besides of CIC in that game. All of the things you said could be solved by CIC.

2. Supply system of HoI3 was messy, but I prefer it to HoI4 if they improved it. I see no compelling reason to do things on a State level rather than province level, presuming build costs for CIC/MIC, air-bases, rocket sites and nuclear reactors stay the same, you will just be building them in a more specific location so it involves no more clicks. Literally the only one which would actually add to micro and more clicks is infrastructure (the very one you supported). IN ANY case, the anti-micro argument is stupid anyway, that problem is easily solved by being clever about commands, e.g. Shift+LMB queues 1 infrastructure to build in every province in that State. That way you as the player have the choice to micro or not, IMAGINE THAT A SANDBOX GAME WITH CHOICE.

You realise that my (anti)micro-argument was for point 3, not 2?
I still disagree that province-level factories are actually needed, but I wouldn't mind either.

3. Again, I disagree. Air-zones are a stupid idea: you will always be bombing something you don't want to bomb with them. WIth the painting system I propose you can just bomb London if you want, or the entire Maginot line, or an entire State, or as many provinces as you want within range - and it'd be easy to do with the painting tool RMB+drag does one province at a time, Shift+RMB does entire States at a time, ctrl+RMB does every enemy province in range. Bingo, bango, bongo. Easy as pie, now micro and macro players can do exactly what they want. I wouldn't be opposed to adding the ability for players to attach air-wings to theaters and let the AI deal with it if that's what some people want. Although, in my own personal opinion I'd never do that as what's the point of playing the game if I don't actually fight the war.

I agree that with your proposal both player types could - in theory - do what they want. But in reality the macro-player would have a disadvantage compared to the micro-player. So the macro-player would be forced to do the micro-system - esp if the province-level factories from point 2 were implemented.

Now, why am I doing the micro-argument here, but not at 2? Because I constantly had to adapt and change the assignments. The factory is "fire and forget".

4. Transport ships were separate to convoys in HoI3, so I meant transport ships. But Landing Craft should be added too. Certainly having convoys transporting troops is a horrible idea which lets players do crazy things like invade USA as Japan in 1936.

We simply have a disagreement in terminology here, I think. A transport transports things from port A to port B. If these things are troops or resources or weapons doesn't matter.
Landing craft on the other hand are needed for the invasion you mentioned. I simply don't see the need for separation of transport and convoy.

 

[Cardus]

That's my solution to most of HOI4's problems. Granted, HOI3's got a pretty hefty share of its own. I really wish Paradox had made something about half-way between the two, with some of the better features of each.

That is what I asked longtime ago: give us HOI3+ instead of EU with a WWII flavor.

I would be very happy just with a HOI3 expansion having the split between manpower from hardware and HOI4 production system

 

[Cardus]

They will... With DLC...

This is the case with ALL Paradox games. The initial release is fun, but gets boring because it lacks depth or content to explore. But every six months (or so) there is a DLC pack that is released that improves the game slightly in one way or another. I feel this is one of the best ways to improve on a game. You can't make something perfect once, it needs to be improved upon with time. Time costs money, and that's why the patches are released with paid content.

HOI3, EU4, CK2 are all the same. Stellaris and HOI4 will follow suit.

I am happy that HOI4 is doing as well as it is for Paradox (with the stats they disclosed in the last DD/PDXCon). I always felt that the previous titles didn't get a lot of attention compared to EU4 and what not due to being in a kind of niche market. I just hope that they continue to add content to the game like EU4 and the like (in that EU4 was first released in 2013 and it still gets DLC).

In steam you can play the previous patches, load up 1.0 of HOI4 and compare it to 1.4 with DoD. You will find a year later it is much better to play. Does it need more work? Absolutely! Will HOI4 ever be finished? Hopefully five years from now we are all complaining about some obscure fact about the latest DLC being released under the Season Pass 4 and why I had to pay $29.99 for it.

Sure, but how much that cost compared with the old system where you bought the game and then the expansions?

 

[tekkenfreak]

I also would like to add a point on your wish-list and I hope they read that and think about it.
Today I have encircled and completely cut off 800k US American soldiers with Germany in North Africa in multiplayer. I thought: Yes I have him!
Then he simply deleted his entire army and got all of his manpower and his equipment back in his pool. I mean whaaaat?!
1st: Why is that possible?
2nd: I would think about a restriction that you can only delete troops on your own territory, maybe another 2nd restriction that they must have full organization to prevent people deleting their fully cut off army which is unrealistic and really annoying.
3rd: Maybe you could add a function that units can only be deleted where they have been deployed? To prevent people from deleting their army when it gets encircled on their own soil..?
4th: If you are not able to add such a function could you not add that the equipment and manpower needs to be shipped with convois from e.g. Africa (where you delete your army) back to the United States? So that people can intercept the convoys and sink the equipment and manpower?

I think it's really unfair. I have lost 1.5 Million men in this war and the USA only 250k because they made it to save their entire army with this unrealistc and annoying tactic....

Greetings

(I'm sorry if this might be a post that would belong to another topic)

Why not just say that you can't delete if you're out of supply or adjacent to an enemy controlled province?

 

[ChaChaLoco]

Yes, money rules the world. I know that. I still don't see any reason for the introduction of money/currency besides of CIC in that game. All of the things you said could be solved by CIC.

Umm, explain to me how you could use CIC as it currently is to do one-time purchase agreements for a certain amount of materiel. What, you loan them the factory for a certain amount of time in exchange for a certain amount of materiel? That just seems needlessly complex, just add money! Another thing is that money, and unit maintenance/upkeep cost, would be a great way of limiting division spam (particularly in the late game) and a potentially a good way of forcing countries to scale down their war readiness once a war ends. Currently, a country can continue to spam divisions as long as it has equipment and manpower (and late-game, if you've won WWII, you will have a ridiculous amount of equipment and manpower and could field a stupidly high amount of divisions) - upkeep costs, maybe scaling with size/amount of divisions and being effected by enacted laws, could potentially help solve that issue. In terms of enacted laws, War Economy and Total Economic Mobilisation could reduce the money your CICs generate, but decrease upkeep costs for military units, whereas Civilian economy could do the opposite (increased military upkeep, but increased CIC money generation). Thus, an incentive to scale back laws once war is over (more money!) money could potentially be used for espionage, internal politics, technology/research, etc. There is LOADS of scope to be creative here. Far more creative than if you try to do all this with CIC.

You realise that my (anti)micro-argument was for point 3, not 2?
I still disagree that province-level factories are actually needed, but I wouldn't mind either.

Well, great, then we agree the change should be implemented because it doesn't materially negatively effect players who prefer to play the way you do.

I agree that with your proposal both player types could - in theory - do what they want. But in reality the macro-player would have a disadvantage compared to the micro-player. So the macro-player would be forced to do the micro-system - esp if the province-level factories from point 2 were implemented.

Now, why am I doing the micro-argument here, but not at 2? Because I constantly had to adapt and change the assignments. The factory is "fire and forget".

You will always have to adjust your planes anyway because of air-zones, just more or less frequently depending on the size of the air-zones. With my proposed system you could fire and forget using the option to run the mission over every enemy province within range (only having to re-base from air-base to air-base - which you do now anyway), or just use the State-painting tool to paint a very large area of operation. Combined with your proposal to let the AI do all that for you, which I'm not opposed to though I'd never support using it, everyone would be happy. Don't be contrarian just to defend a game your invested in when legitimate improvements can and should be made.

On the point of micro v macro, time to face the facts that a player good at micro will always beat a player who relies on macro. That's just the way it is, and if you let the AI fight your battles for you a good player will always win, assuming all other things being equal. Secondly, it's supposed to be a grand strategy, it should (and does! *cough*encirclements*cough*) reward players who are willing to spend the time to micro, or to go off and do the math. Both CK2 and EU4, and all other grand strategy games, and even RTS and turn-based strategy games in general reward that.

We simply have a disagreement in terminology here, I think. A transport transports things from port A to port B. If these things are troops or resources or weapons doesn't matter.
Landing craft on the other hand are needed for the invasion you mentioned. I simply don't see the need for separation of transport and convoy.

No it very much matters, some nations have loads of convoys at the start of the game, and so if convoys can still transport troops they could still pull off gamey manoeuvres. Maybe let convoys transport troops but not ever for naval invasions. Naval invasions should require landing craft which no nation should have at the start of the game and should not be possible to build until a few years in unless rushing the tech from day 1 to get it earlier (earlier as in 1938 instead of 1939/1940 or something).

 

[ChaChaLoco]

Why not just say that you can't delete if you're out of supply or adjacent to an enemy controlled province?

That is the ideal solution in my opinion. I see the other person's post as more of a bug report than discussion on how to improve game mechanics, though.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Umm, explain to me how you could use CIC as it currently is to do one-time purchase agreements for a certain amount of materiel. What, you loan them the factory for a certain amount of time in exchange for a certain amount of materiel? That just seems needlessly complex, just add money! Another thing is that money, and unit maintenance/upkeep cost, would be a great way of limiting division spam (particularly in the late game) and a potentially a good way of forcing countries to scale down their war readiness once a war ends. Currently, a country can continue to spam divisions as long as it has equipment and manpower (and late-game, if you've won WWII, you will have a ridiculous amount of equipment and manpower and could field a stupidly high amount of divisions) - upkeep costs, maybe scaling with size/amount of divisions and being effected by enacted laws, could potentially help solve that issue. In terms of enacted laws, War Economy and Total Economic Mobilisation could reduce the money your CICs generate, but decrease upkeep costs for military units, whereas Civilian economy could do the opposite (increased military upkeep, but increased CIC money generation). Thus, an incentive to scale back laws once war is over (more money!) money could potentially be used for espionage, internal politics, technology/research, etc. There is LOADS of scope to be creative here. Far more creative than if you try to do all this with CIC.

So, now you have reached a point where I finally can agree to you.
But that's basically because you're now mentioning (for the first time) domestic economy (besides of troop upkeep where imo the current system with the need of producing equipment to keep them fighting is sufficient). With integrating domestic economy, trade, diplomacy and the other things you're mentioning (and if the dependencies of those are well elaborated) I agree that another currency besides of IC might be useful and actually add depth to the game. And not just adding money because there has to be money.

Well, great, then we agree the change should be implemented because it doesn't materially negatively effect players who prefer to play the way you do.

No, we agree that it could be implemented without any harm. Since I don't see any improvement compared to the current system I can't say it should.

I'm sorry being pedantic here, but it's a significant difference to me.

You will always have to adjust your planes anyway because of air-zones, just more or less frequently depending on the size of the air-zones. With my proposed system you could fire and forget using the option to run the mission over every enemy province within range (only having to re-base from air-base to air-base - which you do now anyway), or just use the State-painting tool to paint a very large area of operation. Combined with your proposal to let the AI do all that for you, which I'm not opposed to though I'd never support using it, everyone would be happy. Don't be contrarian just to defend a game your invested in when legitimate improvements can and should be made.

So basically you're proposing to make the air zones extremely small (i.e. air zone = province) and keep everything else unchanged. Well, besides of adding the "attack everything in range"-option. Which is useless. And I think you know that.
Increasing the amount of air zones and thus decreasing their size results in having to adapt the deployments even more often than now. Which is fine and needed to a certain degree. Which is why I approve the current development of dividing some of the existing air zones in smaller ones. Your proposal is just overshooting, I think. I might be wrong, ofc.

However, I am not contrarian to defend the game (and never was). It's worse. I'm contrarian because I don't see an improvement in your proposals to the current system - which does NOT mean that I think the current systems are perfect and cannot be improved.
And you might have noticed that, if I thought your arguments being convincing or if you elaborated your ideas some more (as the economics part above), I eventually agreed to you on some points or we found some compromises. That's what such a platform is for.

On the point of micro v macro, time to face the facts that a player good at micro will always beat a player who relies on macro. That's just the way it is, and if you let the AI fight your battles for you a good player will always win, assuming all other things being equal. Secondly, it's supposed to be a grand strategy, it should (and does! *cough*encirclements*cough*) reward players who are willing to spend the time to micro, or to go off and do the math. Both CK2 and EU4, and all other grand strategy games, and even RTS and turn-based strategy games in general reward that.

I am aware of all that points. However "That's just the way it is" is not a good argument. It's no easy task to satisfy "micros" and "macros" in equal measure and in general one of those two will suffer more or less. However, you have to be aware that HoI IV was advertised as being more on a macro scale in comparison to the other titles. HoI III (or CK II and EU IV for that matter) lacks the tools for many macro stuff (e.g. battle planer). Which is/was fine because it is/was designed that way and suits the targeted audience. HoI IV is designed differently and targets another audience. It tries to be a satisfying experience for the "older" audiences as well. Which is no easy task. But the more the "oldies" are getting satisfied the more the "newbies" are being repelled. Especially if both groups meet in competition.

And GSG does not mean "do everything by yourself". Mind you it doesn't mean "let the AI handle that for you", either.
In fact I am personally more on the micro-side and I approve micro. But that doesn't matter for the argument.

We simply have a disagreement in terminology here, I think. A transport transports things from port A to port B. If these things are troops or resources or weapons doesn't matter.
Landing craft on the other hand are needed for the invasion you mentioned. I simply don't see the need for separation of transport and convoy.

No it very much matters, some nations have loads of convoys at the start of the game, and so if convoys can still transport troops they could still pull off gamey manoeuvres. Maybe let convoys transport troops but not ever for naval invasions. Naval invasions should require landing craft which no nation should have at the start of the game and should not be possible to build until a few years in unless rushing the tech from day 1 to get it earlier (earlier as in 1938 instead of 1939/1940 or something).

Now, why exactly did you say "no"? You basically repeated what I said. I don't see any "gamey manouvers" here...

Let me rephrase my question: What is - in your opinion - the difference between a transport and a convoy that is significant enough to justify a separation of those two?

 

[ChaChaLoco]

So, now you have reached a point where I finally can agree to you.
But that's basically because you're now mentioning (for the first time) domestic economy (besides of troop upkeep where imo the current system with the need of producing equipment to keep them fighting is sufficient). With integrating domestic economy, trade, diplomacy and the other things you're mentioning (and if the dependencies of those are well elaborated) I agree that another currency besides of IC might be useful and actually add depth to the game. And not just adding money because there has to be money.

Sehr gut!

No, we agree that it could be implemented without any harm. Since I don't see any improvement compared to the current system I can't say it should.

I'm sorry being pedantic here, but it's a significant difference to me.

I think a core design philosophy should be that if you can make someone better off without making anyone worse off, you should do so. In this case, players like me could be made better off without other players being made worse off.

So basically you're proposing to make the air zones extremely small (i.e. air zone = province) and keep everything else unchanged. Well, besides of adding the "attack everything in range"-option. Which is useless. And I think you know that.
Increasing the amount of air zones and thus decreasing their size results in having to adapt the deployments even more often than now. Which is fine and needed to a certain degree. Which is why I approve the current development of dividing some of the existing air zones in smaller ones. Your proposal is just overshooting, I think. I might be wrong, ofc.

I think we are destined to disagree on this forever. I nevertheless hold that if my idea were implemented as stated players would be given more choice without being forced to go through increased tedium. The 'attack everything in range' option is not useless, but it is certainly the least effective, as it paints with a very broad brush. Even if it is set to only target enemy provinces and only apply to those provinces that are in range for the actual air wing selected (potentially useful on the Eastern Front for CAS for instance - particularly if CAS are automated not to run ground attacks on provinces without divisions in them). The state-level painting would be a good in-between for macro-oriented players. I'd even be fine with keeping air-zones for people that wanted to paint by air-zones to save even more time, but the system should operate on a province-by-province basis and I should be able to paint as such. I just think air combat and the air game would be so much better this way. You could bomb exactly what you want, have the same air-wing run naval strikes over the English Channel while also bombing the ports on the English Coast (not possible at the moment, you need two air-wings). Maybe I'm wrong, and of course how it would work in practice is uncertain and depends on how PDX implement it. I'll re-iterate that if the air-game is on a province level and air-wings travel through provinces then this allows them to be intercepted along the route (solving the problem of teleporting air-wings).

I am aware of all that points. However "That's just the way it is" is not a good argument. It's no easy task to satisfy "micros" and "macros" in equal measure and in general one of those two will suffer more or less. However, you have to be aware that HoI IV was advertised as being more on a macro scale in comparison to the other titles. HoI III (or CK II and EU IV for that matter) lacks the tools for many macro stuff (e.g. battle planer). Which is/was fine because it is/was designed that way and suits the targeted audience. HoI IV is designed differently and targets another audience. It tries to be a satisfying experience for the "older" audiences as well. Which is no easy task. But the more the "oldies" are getting satisfied the more the "newbies" are being repelled. Especially if both groups meet in competition.

I really think the newbies could acclimate to complexity if it is presented in the right way. I mean, the division designer and the related stuff behind that are probably more complex than what I'm suggesting, and people seem to be able to handle that alright. I'd argue a big contributor to that is the fact that the UI is pleasant to use and easy to navigate.

Now, why exactly did you say "no"? You basically repeated what I said. I don't see any "gamey manouvers" here...

Let me rephrase my question: What is - in your opinion - the difference between a transport and a convoy that is significant enough to justify a separation of those two?

Yes, I believe I misread that. Time-zone differences, every time I've responded to you it's been 1am or later. One of the reasons I wanted to split convoys from transport ships is for Japan's benefit. If we say that Landing Craft are required for naval invasions, and they cannot be built before their respective technology is researched, and their respective technology cannot be researched until late 1938 or 1939 (to prevent gamey invasions of the US in 1936, for instance). Then how is Japan to use naval invasions against China in 1937 unless Convoys also transport troops for naval invasions, and if they do, then what is to stop Japan from pulling off a gamey invasion on the US coast, and then (after seizing one port) using the rest of their 200+ convoys to transport entire armies there. If transport ships were separate to convoys, and convoys could not transport troops at all or perform naval invasions, then Japan could be given some, but not many, transport ships at the start of the game (to use against China and to move troops around the Pacific) but if they wanted more to use against USA they'd have to build them. Of course, another solution to this would be to improve the USA AI so they defend their naval waters a bit better.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

Yes, I believe I misread that. Time-zone differences, every time I've responded to you it's been 1am or later. One of the reasons I wanted to split convoys from transport ships is for Japan's benefit. If we say that Landing Craft are required for naval invasions, and they cannot be built before their respective technology is researched, and their respective technology cannot be researched until late 1938 or 1939 (to prevent gamey invasions of the US in 1936, for instance). Then how is Japan to use naval invasions against China in 1937 unless Convoys also transport troops for naval invasions, and if they do, then what is to stop Japan from pulling off a gamey invasion on the US coast, and then (after seizing one port) using the rest of their 200+ convoys to transport entire armies there. If transport ships were separate to convoys, and convoys could not transport troops at all or perform naval invasions, then Japan could be given some, but not many, transport ships at the start of the game (to use against China and to move troops around the Pacific) but if they wanted more to use against USA they'd have to build them. Of course, another solution to this would be to improve the USA AI so they defend their naval waters a bit better.

Now I see your point.
The solution might be to restrict the range of landing craft. So they could be used to invade China from Japan but not to invade the USA from Japan.
The later landing craft techs could increase the range signifcantly. Or - and that would be even better - make fleets as a valid base/starting point for landing craft. IRL most invasions in the pacific theatre were afaik launched from ships and not from land.

 

[ChaChaLoco]

Now I see your point.
The solution might be to restrict the range of landing craft. So they could be used to invade China from Japan but not to invade the USA from Japan.
The later landing craft techs could increase the range signifcantly. Or - and that would be even better - make fleets as a valid base/starting point for landing craft. IRL most invasions in the pacific theatre were afaik launched from ships and not from land.

Yeah, I agree with you there. At least that way you'd be forced to actually island hop a bit. Right now you can order a naval invasion spanning the entire world, which is ridiculous. Even having an invasion from the Western French Coast to the Eastern US Coast stretches the imagination a bit. Making fleets as a valid base/starting point would be good. I don't know how well that would mesh with the way fleets work with respect to sea-zones though.

 

[mabus81]

My wishlist:

1.) Be able to assume and relinquish command of allied armies any time
2.) Be able to lend-lease with landlocked nations as Japan
3.) make unescorted bombers like clay pigeons
4.) when i split fleets in half, ships should not only be splitted evenly by class but also among each class evenly by technology level
5.) take transport planes out of the air warfare mechanics and include them in the equipment required for paratroopers, then half modifiers for low supply for paratroopers (due to suppy drops by transport planes bound by the particular paratrooper division)

 

[Adar1]

I ceirtanly agree with the main core of Poster's relieves and suggestion, and 100%+++++ with what @Kovax and @Cardus have both written here

("give HOI3+ instead of EUIV II ww flavoured" genial!)

Regarding the AIR SYSTEM suggestion in particular:

the old HOI3 system of a trackable flying unit would-be-very-nice-to-be but not necessary. The abstracted system they envisioned for HOI4 isn't that bad at all! Many advantages, in terms of reduced complexion and processing burden, + infinetly easier UI; I would not go back to HOI3 air interface, that not!

Just do it better, by heaven's sake. Starting with first, no more teleport, in any way

take example from the War in the West air interface, matrix game (uh oh! am I walking on mined terrain here?)

BTW air regions can be modded and reduced.

Thank you @ChaChaLoco for your post

 

[ImKampf]

Can you imagine the AI handling the fuel feature though- forget Moscow, the AI wouldn't be able to drive a panzer to Minsk!

 

[That Queer]

Can you imagine the AI handling the fuel feature though- forget Moscow, the AI wouldn't be able to drive a panzer to Minsk!

But HoI3 had fuel, and the AI did it all fine. The only place HoI3 AI faltered, was with OOB's, it simply couldn't handle them all.

 

[inteljoe]

Wasn't one of the reasons they decided to "simplify" the logistics system (compared to other games in the series) was to cut down on CPU time?

I remember HoI3 running like a dog, compared to 4.