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

[Natvander]

Sorry for quoting the entire post - posting with an iPhone isn't easy!

I haven't had any performance issues yet. Germany certainly builds more aircraft than in vanilla

Another feature request - an improved intel map that displays the last information you received on any province (such as via passing aircraft etc). Intel aircraft would be cool too.

Im waiting for the FTM expansion (and good reports) before I get into HOI3 but the little things Ive always wanted in WW2 games are-

-nation specific regiment names (or the ability to mod it yourself)
-mod-able terrain types- specifically, multiple urban levels. Tokyo is not the same as NYC!. A simple light/medium/heavy designations should be sufficient.
-3 types of carriers. CV, CVL AND CVE!

I would also support ideas for ship construction to be tied into available facilities (ie no more serial production of 15 fleet carriers just because you have the IC), ability to deploy units in overseas regions (ala Victoria1) and squadron level air units that can be grouped as with land units (Id love to have individually named squadrons-would be great for immersion purposes)




Does this have any impact on slowdown late game & AI build levels?

 

[Metz]

Just for my information, what would you suggest removing from the diplomacy/intelligence screens to make room for the images of the 10 ministers?

Perhaps a button under the Politics options that says "Government", where it shows all ministers and government type.

 

[Mongoose33]

1) Add infinite unnamed leaders/commanders (e.g. Bulgarian Soldier № 1,2,3) in case the war goes well and more troops formed then expected. Leader’s experience shouldn’t be wasted. Moreover, if someone runs successfully armored divisions for a decade he should catch this armored bonus at some point. Or die in shame.
2) My failed allies (e.g. Turkey, Finland or Persia) shouldn’t be annexed by USSR in case I’ve achieved Bitter Peace. The same should be applied to the same situations. In other words: annexation should be always reversible for defeated countries.
3) Provinces should be tradable. As a Germany I don’t need Karelia and its insurgents. As I know they are close to fins so I would be nice to give some precious gift to Mannerheim. Actually he has got some sentiments to Leningrad as well… Depends on my current state I should have possibility to give it to him as well.
4) I would like back those gift system from first HOIs. USA is not the only power that can use Land Lease system and give resources for free.
5) Ideological similarity shouldn’t impact to interstate relationship. Let’s face it: Commies used to love fight against Commies (USSR-China, Chine-Vietnam, Vietnam-Kampuchea). Same should apply to Nazis. Not sure about Democracies (UK-Argentine is not the best example).
6) There should be some insurgents in some counties by default. E.G. Chechen rebels in Northern Caucasus after the Winter War and Ukrainian nationalists after Poland fall. God damn it, those province aren’t cores for USSR. Thousand of dead Reds and those notorious deportations prove it.
7) Hire Iron Cross modders.

 

[Balesir]

Two things. First off the start was 1936 so alot of what you want has already been done in game due to the starting time. By 1936 the board was pretty much set and the pieces were moving to their proper places.

I can't quite make out whether you are trying to challenge new ideas to refine them or are simply against new ideas for their own sake, but I'll assume the former until it becomes clear that the latter is true.

I had noticed that the game starts in 1936, as it earliest scenario, just as HoI and HoI2 (in all incarnations) did before it. But modders have made attempts to push back the start to 1933 or earlier, and developing mechanisms that might allow this to be done with some degree of plausibility would be a good thing, IMO. In addition, the inflationary results of deficit spending were not confined to the earlier period; essentially the same thing as had happened to the Mark (resulting in the advent of the Reichsmark, via the Rentenmark) happened to the Reichsmark through the war (leading to the introduction of the Deutschmark in 1948).

As for the German assisnation attempts these weren't tied to dissent so much as to hitler himself. There were like 200+ attempts and many of them happened before 1936. Also his early victories reduced dissent but that really didn't stop the planners in trying to kill him. So as for hitler I'm not sure of the causation relationship of dissent and coups/assinations and even the correlation is pretty sketchy.

Yes, but as time went on they were sponsored by more senior/"established" and supposedly "loyal" figures. If assassination were to be included in the game, national disunity would, I imagine, be a key requisite for it to have any significant chance of success.

 

[Chaoslord666]

Please bring back the option that special traits could be earned in combat (wood-hunter, mountain-expert etc.) as it were in HOI2! Or make it more easy to Mod Traits.... At the moment it is not possible to make traits concerning "mountain_attack".... "river_attack" is possible and is used, why not the other terrain specialists.... it would give so much more flavor and more tactical possibilities with a minimum of changes in this!

Another cool thing would be "orders" given to the Main Commanders dependable on how many battles they won, or even that some important provinces are defined where the leading commander could get a reward in form of "Iron Cross (+5% XP gain) or something like that if he wins the battle. For lost battles a Morale or XP Malus of the Commander.... so that you are forced to take the commander out of the service on this front and perhaps give him a new chance on a less endangered Frontline

At least some more "role playing" Elemets for the Commanders would increase the deepness of the game enourmous!

 

[wright1331]

I would really love to see the Invasion AI get some love.

Having the allies actually able to land in mainland Europe with large number of forces would really help out "the Motherland"!

 

[Oof]

For lost battles a Morale or XP Malus of the Commander.... so that you are forced to take the commander out of the service on this front and perhaps give him a new chance on a less endangered Frontline

Though i like the idea a lot, what about the SU or Nat China? If the idea is implemeted the SU would be out off commanders a year after Barbarossa!

 

[Chaoslord666]

Though i like the idea a lot, what about the SU or Nat China? If the idea is implemeted the SU would be out off commanders a year after Barbarossa!

I'am sure that it can be balanced... assigning the commander to fresh new units let him win again. Or implementing a maximum malus. But i think loosing a battle should not be without any consequences. Also in reality when a Division gets a commander with a bad reputation this has consequences on the troops under him. But a +25%/-25% limit of benefit/malus should be realistic. For Example: A -25% Commander could increase his stats by winning again by 5%. You would not be out of Commanders, but it would be necessary sometimes to help out the weaker ones, although they get better by winning again. Or you really assign them to another front (fighting partisans for getting back better skills). Also a reduction of the malus to -2% by tactical withdraw (redrawn by the player) could help, to balance this.

 

[Oof]

The SU and Nat China do nothing but lose for at least a year (if player controlled) and have almost no partisans to fight. It really would mean that they both will not have any commanders left after a year!

I get yot point and it would be more realistic, but it would have very bad consequences in the game for countries that always start the war losing. It could actually unbalance the game for the Allies and the Comintern.

 

[unmerged(157847)]

1. Bravo on the suggestion to have leaders gain traits as time goes on (including negative ones if they really lose a big-time battle -- and no, not some random 'Disastrous Battle of Nowhere' where nothing actually happened).

2. It has been mentioned before, elsewhere. Now I will mention it again here, because i curse this situation *EVERY* TIME I start a new game: the default for assignment of generals to divisions and HQs should be 'NONE' for human-run countries, with a clickable button to auto-fill them if you want, NOT the other way around which is the mess we currently have. At least do this for the 36-start. Or add a button to remove all generals.

 

[Oof]

2. It has been mentioned before, elsewhere. Now I will mention it again here, because i curse this situation *EVERY* TIME I start a new game: the default for assignment of generals to divisions and HQs should be 'NONE' for human-run countries, with a clickable button to auto-fill them if you want, NOT the other way around which is the mess we currently have. At least do this for the 36-start. Or add a button to remove all generals.

Yes please. In that respect the SU is the most annoying because of the large army.

 

[Sark]

My biggest issue with HOI3 at this point is that we still haven't seen any changes to the deeply flawed (IMHO) command system. What I'm referring to specifically is that I can take any commander and make them command any unit regardless of historical reality. There is no way Rommel would have been commanding a corps or army in 1939, and yet in HOI3 I can promote him on up and do just that. It's one thing to give players freedom, it's another to give them totally unrealistic freedom.

HOI2 had this reasonably solved and I don't understand why HOI3 didn't at least adopt the same approach. For those that don't remember or didn't play HOI2, leaders could be promoted but if they didn't have enough actual experience they would lose a level of skill after each promotion. So Rommel had to start as a division commander and work his way up if you wanted to maintain his high skill level. While I'd ideally like to see an option where I don't know how good my leaders actually are until they've done some actual leading, the HOI2 approach was at least a reasonable compromise.

Sadly it does not look like FTM is addressing this issue. Which is too bad because on the whole I like HOI3 more then HOI2.

 

[Der Vogelfanger]

A minor addition and probably easily implemented: a drop-down selection box for the ledger, so you can pick the page you want to look at, without having to flip through several.

 

[cfp]

2. It has been mentioned before, elsewhere. Now I will mention it again here, because i curse this situation *EVERY* TIME I start a new game: the default for assignment of generals to divisions and HQs should be 'NONE' for human-run countries, with a clickable button to auto-fill them if you want, NOT the other way around which is the mess we currently have. At least do this for the 36-start. Or add a button to remove all generals.

This, god please this. It's a nightmare when playing the larger countries especially.

I would even be willing to do a little legwork to make sure the auto-assignments were correct (i.e. no more Guderian controlling the 4th Pz army in the June, '41 scenario.) OOBs are only a few clicks away.

 

[Johan]

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.

I think you'll be happy with FTM then.

 

[impspy]

I think you'll be happy with FTM then.

Alright!

 

[jju_57]

I can't quite make out whether you are trying to challenge new ideas to refine them or are simply against new ideas for their own sake, but I'll assume the former until it becomes clear that the latter is true.

HOI was and is at its core a wargame. I support new ideas that add to this. If I wanted to play the game diplomacy I would do that. Resources are limited and the more time the devs spend on eye candy or things that in all honesty add very little is precious time they don't spend on the war portion of the game. I want subs fixed much more than seeing inflation represented in the game.

Yes, but as time went on they were sponsored by more senior/"established" and supposedly "loyal" figures. If assassination were to be included in the game, national disunity would, I imagine, be a key requisite for it to have any significant chance of success.

Let's say for argument sake you are correct. How do you equate NU levels to assination attempts then? And does this apply to all countries? If not why not? Do you have to fall below 70 NU? 40NU?

But I don't think there is a causation between Hitler's assisnation attempts and German NU. And in fact I don't even see a strong correlation especially since there were attempts every single year he was in power and German NU went up and down.

 

[Danmark Rising]

HOI was and is at its core a wargame. I support new ideas that add to this. If I wanted to play the game diplomacy I would do that.

Diplomacy is a significant and essential part of any military conflict. Without Diplomacy (or the failure of it) you don't have a war in the first place.

In HOI3 the minor powers depend heavily on diplomacy to survive as they don't have any other means to compete against the majors.

 

[jju_57]

Diplomacy is a significant and essential part of any military conflict. Without Diplomacy (or the failure of it) you don't have a war in the first place.

In HOI3 the minor powers depend heavily on diplomacy to survive as they don't have any other means to compete against the majors.

For those who have forgotten remember that when HOI3 was released PI was pushing lots of diplomacy and the whole triangle thing. What that got us was some really wierd games and tons of complaints, like Switzerland joining the allies in 1939. So diplomacy has to take a back seat to reality or what might have been feasible.

And I know this is almost sacrilegious to say but PI should spend their resources on getting right playing majors before they do that on the minor countries. In fact they should rank them with second tier countries like Hungary getting fixed after the majors, third tier like Brazil next and fianlly bottom tier countries like Afghanistan. I would rank them in how important they were to World War 2 and the time period covered. Nothing against these coutnries but if they did nothing or were not really involved then less resources should be spent there.

 

[Danmark Rising]

Diplomacy is so much a part of war that it can't take a back seat regardless of if we are talking only about Minors or majors.

For those who have forgotten remember that when HOI3 was released PI was pushing lots of diplomacy and the whole triangle thing. What that got us was some really wierd games and tons of complaints, like Switzerland joining the allies in 1939. So diplomacy has to take a back seat to reality or what might have been feasible.

Things like that only happen because the game continues to treat the AI and players exactly the same. Just because you give the player more tools to influence the tides of the game by means of diplomacy doesn't mean you have to give the AI the exact same tools. No, an AI controlled Switzerland should not be joining the Allies in 1939. But a player controlled Switzerland shouldn't be held to that same limitation.