Odds and Ends I Would Love to See in FTM/HoI3

[Balesir]

FTM looks like having some very tasty additions, but I thought I would add a few items that I would dearly love to see:

1) Visible Politicoes: I miss being able to see other nations' government figures. At least most of them would be public figures, their politics and preferences fairly well known - it seems reasonable to be able to see who they are.

2) Non-land leaders in higher echelon posts. Not only did Air and Naval leaders run HQs on land to coordinate their respective forces, but it was fairly common for non-land leaders to hold higer-level posts (naval leaders commanding amphibious operations as "Army Group" or "Army" level leaders, especially). Theatre commanders were frequently from non-army branches, too. Just the ability to assign such leaders for their number rating would be nice - if they had effects from traits, too, that would be a nice bonus.

3) Air and sea "brigades". This is maybe a bit too complex for FTM, but having air units (Grpous/Gruppen) made up of squadrons and destroyer and submarine flotillas made up of individual ships - in exactly the same way as for land divisions - would be very, very nice. Even the facility to mod such a schema in would be very cool.

Anyone with votes for/against, or additional ideas/alternative ideas?

 

[Eddy Gemmell]

I'd certainly support those, Would be useful aditions.

 

[Oof]

@1:
Yes, the politics/diplomacy screen was perfect in HOI2, lets get it back in FTM! I wouldnt just like to see the government though, but also if the country in question is a democracy or not. The first games of HOI3 i played I tried to influence countries through spies that have no elections

@2:
A more flexible approach for the higher echelons would certainly be nice. As far as i am concerned a three or or four star leader should be able to command either land/sea/air units or a combination of those. The only ones that now can command all those units are four star land leaders.
Something else I would like to see changed is the fact that certain leaders can be commanders and minsters at the same time. I got no idea how one would be able to pull off commanding a corps in Europe and also run an armaments office in Washington for example

@3:
It already works that way with the only difference being that they represent more than one unit. I think it would be, as you said, to complex for FTM anyway.

New ideas:
- A hex based map (probably HOI4 material anyway)
- To manually handle some convoys and not all!
- To be able to chose the starting port of a convoy with new trade agreements.
- A stronger neutrality for historically stronger neutral countries (like Sweden, Turkey, the Netherlands, etc.)

 

[Oof]

Oh, forgot about that. I would love to see the possibility to block certain sea provinces for convoys. This way you can avoid for example the Med when playing as England. This could be done by using the same sollution Paradox created for defining theatres.

Something else I miss is a supreme command that controls all theatres and coordinates. And while I am at it, why not create one naval and air HQ per theatre that are are attached to the theatres?

 

[mac2636]

How about a cease fire or truce option as a step towards complete peace treaty, or as the case would normally be a cease fire to buy time to build up more troops.

 

[Oof]

How about a cease fire or truce option as a step towards complete peace treaty, or as the case would normally be a cease fire to buy time to build up more troops.

I wouldnt do that. There were no ceasefires during WWII and the Allies wanted an unconditional surrender. I dont think any of the Axis powers would have done anything different if things would have gone their way. And i doubt that the Cold War would have ended any different if there had been hostilities.

Besides the historical factor its probably very hard to do software wise. The realations with a country at war are always very bad, so even if the option is available in the diplomacy screen, it's very likely that you get an "impossible" result.

 

[jju_57]

#1 a wasste to be honest. You might look at it once or twice then never use it again.

#2 too arbitrary. Are there rules here or do you appoint Admiral Fletcher to be your European Theater commander? In all honestly there were only a few that could do it. And the only place it really makes sense is in the Pacific for theater.

#3 now this would be a real cool thing.

So in baseball you have a real nice .333 hitting percentage.

 

[Rancher]

Just sort the naval war PLEEEEASE.
How do you work out that batting average anyway, I dont understand rounders

 

[mac2636]

Originally Posted by mac2636
How about a cease fire or truce option as a step towards complete peace treaty, or as the case would normally be a cease fire to buy time to build up more troops.
I wouldnt do that. There were no ceasefires during WWII and the Allies wanted an unconditional surrender. I dont think any of the Axis powers would have done anything different if things would have gone their way. And i doubt that the Cold War would have ended any different if there had been hostilities.

Besides the historical factor its probably very hard to do software wise. The realations with a country at war are always very bad, so even if the option is available in the diplomacy screen, it's very likely that you get an "impossible" result.

Oof,

I wasn't necessarily thinking about cease fires between Axis and Allies. I was thinking more along the lines of conflict with or among minor countries outside of the major alliances. What made me think of it was in one of my games I decided to help out Republican Spain against Nationalist Spain (I'd already modded the game to where the Nationalists would win the civil war 8 out of 10 times). I was playing as France and decided that having an ally in SPR and also owning some of the SPA territory would be helpful later on. Except the SPA were very tenacious and I would have liked to end the conflict without giving all of the hard won territories back the a peace treaty does.

Also, there were some temporary cease-fires during WWII even between the Allies and Germany. Hürtgen Forest in '44 comes to mind, but I can understand the difficulty and complexity that this addition may bring.

 

[Oof]

Also, there were some temporary cease-fires during WWII even between the Allies and Germany. Hürtgen Forest in '44 comes to mind, but I can understand the difficulty and complexity that this addition may bring.

Ceasefires like that are small and are local while hostilities elsewhere continue. In Hoi3 a ceasefire like that would only apply to two provinces, yours and the enemies. A bit too much micromanagement? Anyway the game already makes that possible. Just dont attack, i mean the only time you can get a ceasefire like that is when both oppenents have been hurt badly and are not willing to attack. And that happens quite a lot in Hoi3...

 

[mac2636]

understood, the Hurtgen Forest was just an example of an actual cease-fire not something I was thinking should be implemented. The not attacking option still doesn't cover the the instances where a minor country would be willing to give up a couple of provinces to get a peace treaty with a major power that is slaughtering their already tiny armies. I guess that would create some game balance issues where you could just attack a smaller nation just to gain a port or industrial center.

 

[jju_57]

Just sort the naval war PLEEEEASE.

Yes Yes and more Yes.

How do you work out that batting average anyway, I dont understand rounders

I thought he was right on 1 out of three ideas so that would equate to 1 hit in three at bats or a .333 average which in baseball is still really good.

 

[Oof]

You mean a forced peace? From what i gather from the video diaries there are going to be some more options in diplomacy. I am not sure though if this is in it as well. But still, i cant recall any country that gave up some territory and signed a peace deal that arent already in the game as events....Czehoslovakia (Sudetenland), Finland (Karelia), Lithuania (Memel) and Rumania (Bessarabia).

 

[Balesir]

Oh, forgot about that. I would love to see the possibility to block certain sea provinces for convoys. This way you can avoid for example the Med when playing as England. This could be done by using the same sollution Paradox created for defining theatres.

I knew I would forget something! Yes - this would be very, very nice indeed!

#1 a wasste to be honest. You might look at it once or twice then never use it again.

Each to their own; I find it useful (especially for democracies etc. where the government changes) because (a) I find I can tell what the government of another nation is at a glance rather than by hopping between "Diplomacy" and "Espionage" working out what party is in power and what type of party that is, (b) I spot when things like the plots against Hitler succeed and (c) I get clues about an antagonist's strengths and weaknesses, likely policy and so on from what minor ministers it has.

#2 too arbitrary. Are there rules here or do you appoint Admiral Fletcher to be your European Theater commander? In all honestly there were only a few that could do it. And the only place it really makes sense is in the Pacific for theater.

Assigning naval or air leaders to purely army theatres would obviously be suboptimal due to their incompatible traits. Even so, Mountbatten commanded the Dieppe 'raid' and, later, the India theatre; HoI to date has had two "Mountbatten" leaders - one naval, one land. This is actually false - there was only ever one man - but he commanded both land and naval forces.

The AI choices should be "same type" unless they have no available leaders of the right type.

#3 now this would be a real cool thing.

Yes, wouldn't it? Also very neat in that several theatres and stations started out (at least) with just a few destroyers and/or just the odd few squadrons. I also find air forces tough to build up in the pre-war period - unrealistically so - because the chunk of IC needed is just so big. With land forces you can stream out brigades and combine them into divisions later; furthermore, you can raise them as reserves. With air forces, however, you can only raise ~7 squadrons at a time, which is quite limiting for minor nations or those with peacetime economy nerfs, especially.

 

[mac2636]

Ok maybe forced peace could or should be the term.

I understand the point that there may not have been any countries that gave up territory in a peace deal that aren't covered as events, but France didn't actually attack Nationalist Spain to gain territory and create an ally in Republican Spain IRL either. The point of the game is to change history somewhat right? Also doesn't using events remove flexibility?

Does it not makes sense at all that if a major power did decide to stop part of the way before completely conquering a minor nation that the minor's government would in certain circumstances give up territory in order to remain in power?

 

[jamhaw]

#1 a wasste to be honest. You might look at it once or twice then never use it again.

I used it all of the time in Hearts of Iron II.

 

[Oof]

Does it not makes sense at all that if a major power did decide to stop part of the way before completely conquering a minor nation that the minor's government would in certain circumstances give up territory in order to remain in power?

Yes and no. Take Finland for example at the end of the borderwar with the Su (Finland doesnt funtion properly right now, but in the Dev video dairy of FTM Paradox said thats gonna be changed ). At the end the SU player gets three options, puppet, annex or only take the border territories. Would you chose the last one? Because it would mean Finland starts to drift towards the Axis and the only thing that happens is you create a new enemy on your borders!

Dont get me wrong, i get your point. But besides the disdavantage mentioned above, it will always be hard to get something like this right in the software. But just maybe it will be in the diplomacy options in FTM???

 

[unmerged(71436)]

I used it all of the time in Hearts of Iron II.

Me too. But then, it was sort of the first thing to see when you opened the diplomacy screen. I certainly liked it.

 

[Oof]

Oh and another idea (just hope Paradox has the million programmers they need for our ideas ):

At the moment the player can construct whatever he wants in the quantity he wants. It does make the game fun, but its also a unrealistic. I.e. if the player decides to contruct BB's only, the player can dedicate the entire IC base to do just that while the IC capacity in Munich cant construct BB's.

In reality thats impossible. There are only some many factories that can produce tanks, dockyards that can build ships, etc. I would like to see somekind of limit. The amount of ships build could be based on the total amount of ports and their levels. And once contructed you should be able able only to base them in a port that was under player control at the start of the construction and if the port is lost before the build is finished the contruction is lost unless it has reached the level that it can sail to another port where construction can be finished. This combined with the idea of capturing and scuttling fleets would make a great improvement from my point of view.

Somekind of similar solution could be used for aircraft, but I havent figured out yet how to do this within the game for land units. Maybe historical capacity figures could be used?

One question remains though, would it take the fun out of the game or would it improve the game experience?

 

[jju_57]

Oh and another idea (just hope Paradox has the million programmers they need for our ideas ):

At the moment the player can construct whatever he wants in the quantity he wants. It does make the game fun, but its also a unrealistic. I.e. if the player decides to contruct BB's only, the player can dedicate the entire IC base to do just that while the IC capacity in Munich cant construct BB's.

Building a BB requires steel, wire, wood, plastic, glass etc. These items were all built using IC from many parts of the country. Your analogy is not accurate. While you are right that 100% IC should not be placed on just ships you also can't limit it to IC on the coast. That IC also covers training of the crew which can be done almost anywhere at the start. Once the ship is launched there are sea trials and the crew has further training on it. This is still building IC as it hasn't been comissioned yet. So the IC to feed those sailors come from other parts of the country.

Not as clear cut as you nor I try to make it out to be.