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

[Danmark Rising]

Have you checked out the HPP mod. From what i gathered its more flexible when it comes to diplomacy and government type(?)

Yes, I have, I play it a lot. It makes the game a lot better but it's still far too limiting.

"I just don’t get your your point because the possibility to play ahistorical games on the diplomatic level is already there, yet you are complaining you can’t. Just don’t expect that the AI wont try to counter your moves and you dont always get the outcome you like."

There is still not enough flexibility in the game Playing as Denmark, there is almost no way to prevent Germany from invading you through diplomatic means unless you join the Axis. That shouldn't be the case. There simply needs to me diplomatic tools available to the player that the AI doesn't have access to.

 

[Balesir]

I think you'll be happy with FTM then.

Cool! Thanks for the info, Johan!

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.

Ah, OK - in that case it seems I didn't explain my train of thought sufficiently, because we are broadly on the same page. I agree totally that HoI is primarily a wargame, with economic and diplomatic elemets to support that. But I see a specific problem in HoI currently with "Support Our Party"; in my current game I had to cheat (change savegame) to avoid the UK going Nordic League in the 1940 election because of several PA countries hitting the "Support Our Party" button. There was nothing at all I could do about it as a player, apart from counterespionage (which keeps it down, but does not reverse it) or "Support Ruling Party" (which, if you don't also do counterespionage, will be swamped). This is both unrealistic and detracts from the core gameplay, IMO.

The fix I suggest for this is to make "Support Our Party" ratio by (1 - NU). This seems reasonably logical and nerfs "SOP" attacks against stable democracies. But it leaves a gap, in that democracies that suffer dissent (for whatever reason) do not necessarily lose NU, when (a) they should, and (b) dissent historically increases support for extreme parties (or allows them more freedom to organise). So, I suggest tieing high CG production to NU reduction. This has a few neat effects: (1) it makes CG boosting to flatten dissent as soon as it pops up a more dubious proposition, which I think is good because this feature was always gamey in HoI (we tried to come up with a good way to 'fix' it in AoD but haven't found one, yet), (2) it gives a penalty for lack of fiscal discipline (i.e. overproducing CG to raise cash - commonly thought of as "printing money" in EU, but more a 'money supply' issue in more modern games) and (3) as a side-effect, it reduces NU in cases where dissent has been avoided (by "printing money" or whatever) thus representing such things as the German inflation.

In other words, I wasn't saying "this should be in the game to model hyper-inflation" - I was saying that there is an issue with gameplay now that detracts from the central, ongoing wargame that is HoI. Here is a fix for that problem, and, incidentally, it would kinda-model this other stuff as well - neat!

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?

You don't need to specifically model ad-hoc assassination attempts (if such things even exist). Just factor NU into coup attempt and assassination chances in the espionage system (when and if these are included).

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.

Maybe not. My intent was never to model these things - they merely struck me as supporting the plausibility of the changes I was suggesting. If they don't, I think the tweaks I suggest still stand as a sound game system; if they do, then that's something else that might hang off the basic framework.

 

[Balesir]

That's part of my point, there is absolutely no reason why that has to be the case. The AI should generally play in a historical manner. The Player should not be held to those same limitations.

While I understand a little what you want, this will not be possible in a way that will give any satisfying sort of game for a long time - possibly never. It's hard enough to program an AI to respond appropriately to a player as it is, without giving it the enormous nerf that the human knows all of its plans and intentions beforehand. The historical leaders did not know what their opponents planned to do; that is a situation you will never replicate with a "fully AI-historical" game.

 

[Oof]

There is still not enough flexibility in the game Playing as Denmark, there is almost no way to prevent Germany from invading you through diplomatic means unless you join the Axis. That shouldn't be the case. There simply needs to me diplomatic tools available to the player that the AI doesn't have access to.

Its simply the way the world was in those days. Countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc, could either join the Axis or be conquered. What you want is the possibility to stay out of the war with a minor country until it suits you. Thats completely unrealistic and I certainly hope not a priority for Paradox!

 

[Danmark Rising]

Its simply the way the world was in those days. Countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc, could either join the Axis or be conquered. What you want is the possibility to stay out of the war with a minor country until it suits you. Thats completely unrealistic and I certainly hope not a priority for Paradox!

It is in no way unrealistic if the diplomatic tools are there.

It is also highly unrealistic for Germany to invade Denmark when it's relationship is 200, Denmark has given Germany Transit rights, Denmark is sitting next to Germany in the faction triangle, and Germany has been offering Denmark to join the Axis. But it happens every time I play Denmark. It would make far more sense for the Allies to Invade me than Germany.

 

[jju_57]

Ah, OK - in that case it seems I didn't explain my train of thought sufficiently, because we are broadly on the same page. I agree totally that HoI is primarily a wargame, with economic and diplomatic elemets to support that. But I see a specific problem in HoI currently with "Support Our Party"; in my current game I had to cheat (change savegame) to avoid the UK going Nordic League in the 1940 election because of several PA countries hitting the "Support Our Party" button. There was nothing at all I could do about it as a player, apart from counterespionage (which keeps it down, but does not reverse it) or "Support Ruling Party" (which, if you don't also do counterespionage, will be swamped). This is both unrealistic and detracts from the core gameplay, IMO.

The fix I suggest for this is to make "Support Our Party" ratio by (1 - NU). This seems reasonably logical and nerfs "SOP" attacks against stable democracies. But it leaves a gap, in that democracies that suffer dissent (for whatever reason) do not necessarily lose NU, when (a) they should, and (b) dissent historically increases support for extreme parties (or allows them more freedom to organise). So, I suggest tieing high CG production to NU reduction. This has a few neat effects: (1) it makes CG boosting to flatten dissent as soon as it pops up a more dubious proposition, which I think is good because this feature was always gamey in HoI (we tried to come up with a good way to 'fix' it in AoD but haven't found one, yet), (2) it gives a penalty for lack of fiscal discipline (i.e. overproducing CG to raise cash - commonly thought of as "printing money" in EU, but more a 'money supply' issue in more modern games) and (3) as a side-effect, it reduces NU in cases where dissent has been avoided (by "printing money" or whatever) thus representing such things as the German inflation.

In other words, I wasn't saying "this should be in the game to model hyper-inflation" - I was saying that there is an issue with gameplay now that detracts from the central, ongoing wargame that is HoI. Here is a fix for that problem, and, incidentally, it would kinda-model this other stuff as well - neat!

I understand your position and we do agree for the most part. The whole spy thing is pretty much broken or shall I say not completely worked out yet. Of course when it comes to priorities I think PI needs to fix the comabt bugs first and then spend time on ideas that improve gameplay such as yours.

 

[Oof]

Germany has been offering Denmark to join the Axis. But it happens every time I play Denmark. It would make far more sense for the Allies to Invade me than Germany.

If you chose not to join the Axis its very realistic you get attacked.

 

[Danmark Rising]

If you chose not to join the Axis its very realistic you get attacked.

Not if your relationship with them is that high and they all ready have military access through the territory which is the only reason Denmark was invaded in first place.

 

[Oof]

Not if your relationship with them is that high and they all ready have military access through the territory which is the only reason Denmark was invaded in first place.

Not entirely true, taking Denmark also closed the Baltic to the Allies. Not unimportant from a military point of view.

 

[Danmark Rising]

Not entirely true, taking Denmark also closed the Baltic to the Allies. Not unimportant from a military point of view.

Germany wouldn't have needed to invade Denmark for that, had Denmark been on friendlier terms with Germany. Also, Germany could have easily blocked the Baltic with the use of U-Boats without the control of Denmark.

 

[jju_57]

Germany wouldn't have needed to invade Denmark for that, had Denmark been on friendlier terms with Germany. Also, Germany could have easily blocked the Baltic with the use of U-Boats without the control of Denmark.

Precious u-boats that I'm sure they would much rather send out sinking UK convoys then on a patrol mission.

 

[Danmark Rising]

Precious u-boats that I'm sure they would much rather send out sinking UK convoys then on a patrol mission.

It was just a possiable example. There were plenty of other rescourses Germany could have used to block Allied access to the Baltic without invading Denmark if they wanted to.

 

[jju_57]

It was just a possiable example. There were plenty of other rescourses Germany could have used to block Allied access to the Baltic without invading Denmark if they wanted to.

They invaded cause the old men needed to walk their dogs so why not invade at the same time?

But seriously the reason why had nothing to do with how Denmark was acting. The Germans needed airbases and other assets to support their invasion of Norway. Denmark was just in the way. So no matter how Denmark acts they still end up being invaded as long as Germany wants Norway.

EDIT:

Not if your relationship with them is that high and they all ready have military access through the territory which is the only reason Denmark was invaded in first place.

But the game doesn't allow you to attack from neutral countries so having access means nothing.

 

[Danmark Rising]

They invaded cause the old men needed to walk their dogs so why not invade at the same time?

But seriously the reason why had nothing to do with how Denmark was acting. The Germans needed airbases and other assets to support their invasion of Norway. Denmark was just in the way. So no matter how Denmark acts they still end up being invaded as long as Germany wants Norway.

EDIT:


But the game doesn't allow you to attack from neutral countries so having access means nothing.

Now your just arguing for the sake of arguing so I've said my peace and I'll move on. I still hold to my stance that the potential of this game is wasted by the way it currently ties the hands of the player preventing them from experimenting with all sorts of possibilities without the need to mod the game. We need more diplomatic tools to do this and those tools do not need to be available to the AI so that those who wish to play a more historical game can do so. Vicy 2 proves it's possible.

 

[Oof]

It was just a possiable example. There were plenty of other rescourses Germany could have used to block Allied access to the Baltic without invading Denmark if they wanted to.

Please stop hijacking the thread about FTM and start a thread about Denmakrk if its that important to you. You asked for opinions and got them.

 

[Balesir]

One further minor addition I would find useful - a message (pop-up/log etc.) when a unit reaches full ORG or STR. I try to rotate depleted units out of the line to rest and recover, but too often I find them at full strength having been "on holidays" for however long... The option to have a pop-up to tell me when they are ready for a return to action would be handy.

 

[kreppert]

The thing i would like to see is the ability to move supplies from port a to port b, not haveing to send them to the supply pool first the out. Or an ai in the shipping room that knows to take supplies off island that have no troops on them.

Island hopping in the pacific, you end up with supplys on island you dont have troops on. which you have to manual remove.

 

[unmerged(249479)]

My first post here on this forum: hi guys!

Nice to have so quickly found a thread on "Odds and Ends I Would Love to See in FTM/HoI3" when I searched for it ;-). I was looking for it because I was thinking about a few little things.

1. (Seen this one already a few times on the forums) the option to relocate some of your convoy lines manually. Could be done by simply having the ability as a player to designate certain sea areas where NO convoy may pass -ever. For example a few sea areas around Gibraltar, so that the convoys are forced to go around africa instead of through the med (Particularly after Italy enters the war). Or, perhaps more complex, ad a button to each existing convoy displayed in the production tab to bring you back to the map (in naval or supply view) to allow you to add waypoints for that particular convoy line. Or just drag and drop every convoy line -including its starting and end ports- with the mouse pointer when in the naval or supply view.

2. Related to number one above: I'd like to be able to click on the start and destination port of a convoy and change them. That is, when in that particular convoy-menu (the one where you can also cancel it). I would love to easily move all existing convoys that have, say, Dover as starting point to Liverpool if I think that is best (Allies also did some of those relocations during WW2).

3. Could the AI be made aware of player-made trade deals? I mean so that it does not cancel any player-made deal when trade is on AI-Control. I love to let the AI handle my trades because it does that quite satisfactory. However, I make trades myself as well. The trades I make are good enough trades...-but-... also for relation-making (I can ask 10 oil from venezuala in one trade, only gaining 15 relations but if I have enough diplomacy points, why not ask 5 oil twice...gives me 30 relations with them ;D). AI often cancels my trades when I switch on AI-trade again after my trades.

4. In all 3 games I played (european nations), Japan completely conquered all and everything of China. In just less than a year after the marco-polo bridge incident. And there was nothing any1 could do to help China. Nor were there any (visible) consequences to Japan in the form of worsened relations with the USA (remains at +200) or having it's threat increased faster the more it takes out of the China's. Wouldnt it be fair to say that the more aggression against China (definately its surrender) should really damage Japans relations with the USA (perhaps even to the point of an advanced embargo and freezing of Japans' assets in USA)?
Relating Japanese threat to it's aggression in China could mean an early US-entry into the war I reckon, if Japan is played by an unwary AI. So perhaps the Japanese AI could be made more reluctant to be aggressive enough to take -all- of China. To at least succumb a little for US pressure before the day of infamy comes.

5. Related to point 4 above. I was thinking that the UK could recieve a decision to construct the Burma-road when Japan blockades any trade with China. That is how the so-called allies historically bypassed Japans blockade of China and this was even the Major reason for Japan to attack Rangoon after december 7 1941 (to close this land-route permanently). Japan diplomatically forced the closure of the burma-road as well but it was only 3 months closed because of this pressure (maybe a possible decision for japan too, some 3,5 years after the opening of the road .

So those are my 5 cents. I greatly enjoy playing HoI3 so far but any or all of these changes -especially the convoys!- would just make it perfect for me.