Old complaint... new plea

[skulig]

... what I'm saying is, let us WW2 nerds play with our broom bristles. Its no excuse to ban brooms just because you can't stand the sight of one without feeling compelled to pluck the bristles. Some of us actually LIKE plucking the bristles of brooms. Just leave the broom bristles alone if you can't handle them or if plucking broom bristles bores you so much.

I think the HOI game will always be a WW2 nerds game and for those of us that are, the game suffered from the OOB cut and the removal of HQ units, and it seems needlessly. Sure there are those that don't mind or don't know what they are missing (Europa Universalis or Victoria fans perhaps?) But many of us really liked it and I hope that that message has at least been delivered by this little tirade.

 

[browd]

I've no objection to OOB options for those who value the immersion, but a multi-level OOB should not convey bonuses that only the human player can take advantage of. That was (in my view) the real flaw of the HOI3 system, and why I stopped using it. The AI was hardly a challenge in HOI3, but I found that my getting org, logistics, reinforcement chance, etc. bonuses that the AI couldn't obtain or maintain just killed the fun, while my foregoing those bonuses added a bit to the challenge.

 

[geckoman1011]

... what I'm saying is, let us WW2 nerds play with our broom bristles. Its no excuse to ban brooms just because you can't stand the sight of one without feeling compelled to pluck the bristles. Some of us actually LIKE plucking the bristles of brooms. Just leave the broom bristles alone if you can't handle them or if plucking broom bristles bores you so much.


I think the HOI game will always be a WW2 nerds game and for those of us that are, the game suffered from the OOB cut and the removal of HQ units, and it seems needlessly. Sure there are those that don't mind or don't know what they are missing (Europa Universalis or Victoria fans perhaps?) But many of us really liked it and I hope that that message has at least been delivered by this little tirade.

No, the bristles get in the way of the rest of the game. Why play a grand strategy game if you are just going to click 5000 times to micro your army? In that case just go play an RTS. And to think that just because you like a sloppy OOB makes you a WW2 nerd (and somehow disqualifies those who dont like managing brain dead HQ units) is just absurd. Im not passionate about WWII history because I dont like a cluttered OOB in some game? Right...

 

[epicmemory]

The issue is, of course, that there is a wide range between the HOI3 system (overly tedious, by all accounts) and the HOI4 system (effectively non-existent).

A good middle ground would be something like the following:

1. Theatres (how they exist now, except an overall Commander/General/Whatever for each one that confers X bonus)
2. Army Groups/Fronts/Field Armies (you'd assign each Army Group a specific commander, who would give X bonus/penalty to the Armies/Corps underneath it. Each Army Group would be assigned to a specific Theater)
3. Armies/Corps (the army system we have now, with a group of divisions forming an Army)

With the above, you could have an OOB for Fall Gelb, for example, that would have:

von Brauchitsch (I guess?) as the overall commander/field marshal for the "Western Front Theater"
Army Group A under von Rundstedt
Army Group B under von Bock
Army Group C under von Leeb

You'd then have each actual "Army" assigned to respective Army Group, e.g., the 1st Army would have Infanterie-Divisions 1-8 and would be assigned to Army Group A, 2nd Army would have 9-16, and be assigned to Army Group B. Each Army would, of course, have an assigned general.

I don't like HQ units present on-map, but I do think they would be necessary here in some fashion to prevent players from using one theater, moving army groups around all the time, and so on. I'd prefer an off-map HQ system so we don't have too much clutter, maybe another map mode where we can see the HQs highlighted and so on.

The system I propose above adds 2~ish layers to the current OOB system, makes it at least passibly more realistic, and would help limit player cheesing by abusing unlimited FM bonuses and so on.

 

[VampiRos]

Please tell me one thing (besides the looks): What can you do with the old OOB you can't with the new one?

I would rather get more focuses, AI work, espionage... then one cosmetic OOB...

 

[rust95]

The issue is, of course, that there is a wide range between the HOI3 system (overly tedious, by all accounts) and the HOI4 system (effectively non-existent).

A good middle ground would be something like the following:

1. Theatres (how they exist now, except an overall Commander/General/Whatever for each one that confers X bonus)
2. Army Groups/Fronts/Field Armies (you'd assign each Army Group a specific commander, who would give X bonus/penalty to the Armies/Corps underneath it. Each Army Group would be assigned to a specific Theater)
3. Armies/Corps (the army system we have now, with a group of divisions forming an Army)

With the above, you could have an OOB for Fall Gelb, for example, that would have:

von Brauchitsch (I guess?) as the overall commander/field marshal for the "Western Front Theater"
Army Group A under von Rundstedt
Army Group B under von Bock
Army Group C under von Leeb

You'd then have each actual "Army" assigned to respective Army Group, e.g., the 1st Army would have Infanterie-Divisions 1-8 and would be assigned to Army Group A, 2nd Army would have 9-16, and be assigned to Army Group B. Each Army would, of course, have an assigned general.

I don't like HQ units present on-map, but I do think they would be necessary here in some fashion to prevent players from using one theater, moving army groups around all the time, and so on. I'd prefer an off-map HQ system so we don't have too much clutter, maybe another map mode where we can see the HQs highlighted and so on.

The system I propose above adds 2~ish layers to the current OOB system, makes it at least passibly more realistic, and would help limit player cheesing by abusing unlimited FM bonuses and so on.

Nail and head. Exactly what is needed and perfectly capable of being implemented. The HQ issue is the only one that really requires some innovation, but Paradox have shown they're plenty capable of coming up with innovative UI with Stellaris and HoI4.

 

[Duke_Dave]

The issue is, of course, that there is a wide range between the HOI3 system (overly tedious, by all accounts) and the HOI4 system (effectively non-existent).

A good middle ground would be something like the following:

1. Theatres (how they exist now, except an overall Commander/General/Whatever for each one that confers X bonus)
2. Army Groups/Fronts/Field Armies (you'd assign each Army Group a specific commander, who would give X bonus/penalty to the Armies/Corps underneath it. Each Army Group would be assigned to a specific Theater)
3. Armies/Corps (the army system we have now, with a group of divisions forming an Army)

With the above, you could have an OOB for Fall Gelb, for example, that would have:

von Brauchitsch (I guess?) as the overall commander/field marshal for the "Western Front Theater"
Army Group A under von Rundstedt
Army Group B under von Bock
Army Group C under von Leeb

You'd then have each actual "Army" assigned to respective Army Group, e.g., the 1st Army would have Infanterie-Divisions 1-8 and would be assigned to Army Group A, 2nd Army would have 9-16, and be assigned to Army Group B. Each Army would, of course, have an assigned general.

I don't like HQ units present on-map, but I do think they would be necessary here in some fashion to prevent players from using one theater, moving army groups around all the time, and so on. I'd prefer an off-map HQ system so we don't have too much clutter, maybe another map mode where we can see the HQs highlighted and so on.

The system I propose above adds 2~ish layers to the current OOB system, makes it at least passibly more realistic, and would help limit player cheesing by abusing unlimited FM bonuses and so on.

very good idea. It creates more immersion, without making stuff to complicated.

 

[208]

Just leave the broom bristles alone if you can't handle them

Maybe he's just trying to sweep the whole thing under the rug....

 

[Alexander Seil]

... what I'm saying is, let us WW2 nerds play with our broom bristles. Its no excuse to ban brooms just because you
can't stand the sight of one without feeling compelled to pluck the bristles. Some of us actually LIKE plucking the bristles of brooms. Just leave the broom bristles alone if you can't handle them or if plucking broom bristles bores you so much.

I think the HOI game will always be a WW2 nerds game and for those of us that are, the game suffered from the OOB cut and the removal of HQ units, and it seems needlessly. Sure there are those that don't mind or don't know what they are missing (Europa Universalis or Victoria fans perhaps?) But many of us really liked it and I hope that that message has at least been delivered by this little tirade.

I like having fancy OOB's, but without any clear idea of what they would do in game, besides apportioning completely arbitrary bonuses, it goes against current, and correct, PDX philosophy of avoiding features that do not add any meaningful decisions (besides the nasty tradeoff between efficiency and fun). You should note that even in the world of "hardcore" wargames (i.e., WitP, TOAW and the like), OOBs are usually an afterthought, or hardly very detailed. The only exception are Panther Games sims, but those games are built entirely around grand tactical-level command and control problems, not grand strategy.

I think what the game needs is NOT an OOB. It needs a General Staff, with rivaling generals' and admirals' factions vying for resource allocation, possibly tied to a faction-based political system overhaul. That's an interesting problem to tackle as a "national gestalt" that we play in the game, rather than trying to optimize OOB composition to match doctrine, or something. I know people around here want every damn rivet on a tank modeled, but it's a grand strategy game. There should be more to a WW2 grand strategy game than just pushing panzers around. Literally 100's of other games for that.

EDIT: @podcat, I summon thee to bestow your wisdom on this thread and drop frustrating hints about a vague and uncertain future.

 

[epicmemory]

I like having fancy OOB's, but without any clear idea of what they would do in game, besides apportioning completely arbitrary bonuses, it goes against current, and correct, PDX philosophy of avoiding features that do not add any meaningful decisions (besides the nasty tradeoff between efficiency and fun). You should note that even in the world of "hardcore" wargames (i.e., WitP, TOAW and the like), OOBs are usually an afterthought, or hardly very detailed. The only exception are Panther Games sims, but those games are built entirely around grand tactical-level command and control problems, not grand strategy.

I think what the game needs is NOT an OOB. It needs a General Staff, with rivaling generals' and admirals' factions vying for resource allocation, possibly tied to a faction-based political system overhaul. That's an interesting problem to tackle as a "national gestalt" that we play in the game, rather than trying to optimize OOB composition to match doctrine, or something. I know people around here want every damn rivet on a tank modeled, but it's a grand strategy game. There should be more to a WW2 grand strategy game than just pushing panzers around. Literally 100's of other games for that.

EDIT: @podcat, I summon thee to bestow your wisdom on this thread and drop frustrating hints about a vague and uncertain future.

The tentative system I outlined above is what I would consider to be a reasonably bare-bones OOB mechanic, one that can be effectively implemented without any major shifts in game mechanics (exception being the HQ concept, but that's workable of course). It'd be fairly trivial of a change, but one that would dramatically increase player immersion and can meaningful gameplay impacts as well...make good generals rare, good Field Marshals even more so, increase the presence of negative traits in commanders and make it cost PP to remove an entrenched "old guard" commander from your OOB, for example.

The goal is to force the player to make hard decisions about where to allocate limited resources. In the case of an OOB, the limited resources are truly effective commanders, backed by a General Staff mechanic that can influence the development of your doctrines.

I suppose there could be a new faction mechanic put in where, in addition to party affiliation, there's another pie chart that shows the balance and influence of Army, Navy, and Air in your nation, with corresponding mechanics to influence your nation's way of thinking (using PP to improve your Army General Staff, which in turn boosts your Army in X, Y, and Z ways while potentially weakening your Navy and Air or simply not conferring any bonuses). Then again, this is very, very, very tentatively abstracted in the game already via the Research System, which forces the player to use a limited number of research slots (think of them as National Drives or efforts, so to speak) to focus on the parts of their nation they want to enhance.

The implementation of an even basic OOB as the one I outlined above does not require any major shifts in game mechanics, requires very little in terms of new actual content, and would go a long way towards increasing player immersion with only a small increase in overall game complexity. That, in tandem with a more detailed and involved General Staff mechanic like you mentioned, could be a pretty useful addition to the game.

 

[Alexander Seil]

You're proposing a micro-heavy system that only produces localized choices, which the devs clearly de-prioritize, and for good reasons (grand strategy game, it is). Of course, tactical combat is detailed, but that's mostly to give meaning to long-run production and technology decisions. There are barely any choices below the grand-operational scale in the game. Min/maxing corps leaders would seem tacked on in this environment. Deciding between foreign policy demands of Tojo and IJN seems a natural fit to the scale, on the other hand.

I'd also dump the pie charts, they're way too abstract. Stellaris and Crusader Kings got this right, just borrow what works. Discrete, nation-specific factions and some personalities in charge of them who can double as army leaders, ministers and heads of state (the Stellaris bits), and palace intrigues requiring appeasing different groups to prevent a political crisis (CK).

 

[epicmemory]

I don't think having an additional layer of OOB would be that micro-heavy. Currently, we have Theaters (a currently useless UI mechanic at best, with zero gameplay impact) and Armies (which can consist of millions of men led by 1 guy, a ridiculous system for a WW GSG by all accounts). The only difference I am proposing is the addition of a single layer in between the two in order to make some semblance of sense when it comes to the organization of military forces in the context of a WW2 game.

This is also a game where we can manually control individual divisions and brigades, where we have battleplans drawn down to specific cities and individual rivers, and where we choose precisely which airfields host a certain number and type of aircraft, so there is at least some lower-level tactical and operational stuff in play. If we can manually issue commands to individual divisions under the command of a FM and no-one else, I think there's at least some room for OOB mechanics that can spice up unit control.

There's a disconnect between the current system, where we can have a single FM controlling 500+ divisions (and where there is no penalty for doing so) and zero interaction with our units below the Theater level, and a HOI3 system of endless tedium and overly ugly and unnecessary mechanics like on-map HQs and all that jazz. The specifics of bridging that disconnect are up to the developers of course, but I do stand by the idea that some form of Theater/Army Group/Army OOB can be implemented that have a positive effect on gameplay and immersion.

At the very least, I do think we need some sort of operational OOB that is solely a UI change to enable us to have better organization. Current system is just one step too simplistic for my tastes, I suppose.

I like discrete, nation-specific factions so long as the game doesn't turn from fighting the Germans to fighting X faction led by Y guy who wants Z doctrines and all that. @Khevenhuller mentioned in other threads about how having particular theorists, commanders, and general staff with particular talents could be dramatically enhanced to provide more meaningful decisions to players about how to manage their domestic environments and doctrines, so that could work as well.

 

[Gort11]

One thing to keep in mind when proposing stuff like OOB - the more choices you add to a system like that, the less important every choice becomes. If I'm picking a field marshal for a hundred divisions, that choice is a big deal. If I have to individually assign generals for each of a hundred divisions, those choices are tiny and insignificant.

I've always been a fan of the idea of the "division ace". Like with pilots, your division leaders are all assumed to be average. However, pilots occasionally distinguish themselves and become aces, and you can assign those aces to specific wings. Let's have the same for division commanders! You can leave them in command for a big boost to their division, or you can promote them into generals with a specific trait.

You could even have rubbish division commanders that you can't fire without spending political power to do it.

 

[LostAlone]

Agree with having officers and the structure of the military hierarchy play a bigger role, perhaps even with a High Command staff etc. but to take if half way like you're suggesting... please no!! Currently I find the fighting in HOI4 without the OOB so uninteresting that I just create enormous army groups and play my campaigns on highest speed to get it over with... the interesting parts of the game now being the preparation for new wars and political playing around as well as the focus trees.

Oh I'm in no way saying that I have an easy answer to this; just trying to spitball ideas for what might add a little more spice to the system. Personally, I don't feel that the OOB would add a lot to combat really; it's a set it and forget it type of thing barring very specific circumstances.

I agree that being able to create big huge army groups the way the game lets us right now is silly. It also pisses me off that seemingly wherever I fight the Germans I'm always fighting a skill level 8 Manstein and that's just rediculous. I mean, the guy had some skills but not quite to that extent. So clearly we need to dial back on that and dial up the customization options.

However...

I think we need to be careful about asking for any system that will just be the same system with slightly more clicking to set it before we forget it. That wouldn't be better. Even if we have to re-jig the general staff and re-pick army commanders on every campaign, that's not really meaningful interaction. There is always going to be an obvious 'best' and if that's the case that's not meaningful interaction. That's just punishing players for not knowing that this matters and one you do know there's nothing more to the system. That's why I'm against having the full OOB unless there's real, meaningful choices to be made.

As a more radical idea; I wouldn't be averse some kind of 'exhaustion' system where by officers have to be rotated in and out to get their full bonuses and if you don't put them on leave then slowly those awesome Manstein/Runstead bonuses will slowly bleed down to nothing. This would give you a reason not to always be using your best officers and the more combat they see they less useful they become. Not a perfect way to model the realities of war, certainly, but quite true to the way that officers fell in and out of favor, were politiced into obscure commands, etc. It would also give you meaningful decisions to make; with all the good officers taking a smoke break which of the crappy unexperienced officers am I going to use? Should I even try to get one officer really heavily leveled in the early game or should I spread that XP out? That's a system that would work for me.

I still think that division and corp is too granular; I think the minimum size should be Army. Given that we are dealing with literally hundreds of divisons, which would be dozens of corps, I think army is realistically the smallest unit that you'd want to get into finessing the commanders for.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Eventually, I got too irritated by the fact that the HOI3 AI could never keep its HQs in range;

Yes, that is an issues. Some mods (BICE) extended the range which helped a lot. I am for fixing things so the worked well, not cutting things.

 

[Gamer_1745]

I've no objection to OOB options for those who value the immersion, but a multi-level OOB should not convey bonuses that only the human player can take advantage of.

That could/can be taken care of if the AI is too hard to program with some generic bonuses for the AI that would match the Human players using the OOB well.


P.S. Return the Mini-Map

 

[panzerzombie]

There is no overly fancy OOB needed, just a system where you could insert a subunit inside a formation by assigning an additional commander ( just like some discussion threads where a specific question answered leads to a branched thread ) .... the units belonging to that subunit (with own general) are pushed slightly to the right to show their status .... done.

At the moment you already have 2 Tiers ... the Theatre ( which could have a slot for a proper FM .. since they can have unlimited troops in vanilla why not ? ) and the armies of generals assigned to that theatre. If you just add another tier to represent Corps inside that army and you are done already.

As only units (in HOI3) directly assigned to the commander received the full bonus and only a diminished bonus was given to subunits, this its mostly cosmetic and QoL ... if a proposed OOB system would allow me to organize e.g. Panzerkorps inside of an Panzerarmy ( same as I do now but they are not inside any OOB beside the theatre ) so you could move whole corps to another army by clicking on the commanding general and switching/rightclicking him to another army just as you do now. The AI cant be bored so it doesn´t care about having to rearange troops, human players however ...

Same with orders, I like to micro panzerkorps and for that they normally have to stick together geographically .. but why not achieve that with a single click INSIDE the armies without needing to shuffle them or click each unit individually. At the moment they are sitting inside the theatres you created anyway.

Optional: Have the AI have a slight bonus for their units "as if" they could properly manage an OOB. So the player HAS to manage his own OOB to offset that bonus ... or not. ( ninja´d by Gamer)