One Thing from HOI3 That I Really Miss...

[tmorrow911]

Is the old organization style. You used to be able to make corps, armies and army groups and you had to create HQ's for them and you needed manpower to staff them. All very sensible. You could also attach units to them, so you could have corps or army level heavy artillery (think railway guns) for instance or corps or army level heavy tanks or tank destroyers, military police, garrison or static units, etc. Planes could be tasked to the HQ's (similar to now) which provided you more flexibility than now. Planes could attach at the the corps or army level, not just the army group level. It meant there were tons more generals in the mix, which I grant must have been a pain, but that work has already been done.

Any chance we could get that back?

 

[Ilyasviel]

It was awesome, but too many people complained about the work required to do it, and the complexity, so I don't think it's gonna come back, even in hoi5. I think that those people never realized that you could just automate the entire OOB, which actually made it take even less work to organize a theatre than in hoi4.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

That thing made me skip hoi3.

Also we already have that in hoi4.... Theather > Armies > Divisions... --> templates inst enough?

 

[Trans_Atlantic_Drawl]

I would welcome the addition of corps but only as a way to assign niche units to a group of divisions. Can I afford a battalion of heavy tanks in every division? Unlikely. So it would be cool to assign a battalion as a support unit to an army corps and spread the bonuses among its divisions. It would also feel more realistic for units like amphibious tanks, tank destroyers, rocket artillery, commandos etc. this kind of already exists for railway guns but could be fleshed out better.

 

[AUG1024]

no gott daxxxx command chain any more

 

[pheonicia]

I would welcome the addition of corps but only as a way to assign niche units to a group of divisions. Can I afford a battalion of heavy tanks in every division? Unlikely. So it would be cool to assign a battalion as a support unit to an army corps and spread the bonuses among its divisions? It would also feel more realistic for units like amphibious tanks, tank destroyers, rocket artillery, commandos etc. this kind of already exists for railway guns but could be fleshed out better.

You can duplicate your infantry template for free, add heavy tanks as support, make a handful of these divisions, and then move them around to support where needed, which is essentially the same result but less automated.

 

[pdBravo]

It would be much better with the proper hierarchy, but for players who don't want that, there should be an automate for whatever level they want to automate at. Some might like to control from battalion level, while others only want to control army groups.
Even better if the automation was able to be different for the player in differing theatres.
Eg the British player might want to command at division level for North Africa, but leave East Africa at Army level. A German player might want to command at army group level in Russia but corps level in France. And so on.

 

[coffeelingfine]

I kinda liked in HOI3 having on-map army and army group HQs with the radio range system

 

[marxwasright]

There have been for a while divisional commanders. Since they are completely random it seems more like an attempt to change the old general promotion system than expand the OOB. I'm not sure what adding 'corps' or drawing a distinction between maj. and lt. generals would add when you can flexibly assign them already. HQs are better abstracted out, I believe. I did manage to create some great rolling 'pyramids' in HOI3. I also remember the HOI2 HQs who were great at capturing territory behind the lines because they were so fast, haha

I do weep for the lost HOI2/3 databases. Blame the fact every portrait needs to be drawn instead of using a tiny old blurry photo.

 

[Trans_Atlantic_Drawl]

You can duplicate your infantry template for free, add heavy tanks as support, make a handful of these divisions, and then move them around to support where needed, which is essentially the same result but less automated.

While it’s true you can duplicate divisions for free, it would then cost up to 30 XP to add armour to an infantry division for example.

I like the idea of a more flexible, cost effective system of army corps “assets” to better represent the way units were historically attached to divisions on a temporary basis.

 

[Erebus115]

Is the old organization style. You used to be able to make corps, armies and army groups and you had to create HQ's for them and you needed manpower to staff them. All very sensible. You could also attach units to them, so you could have corps or army level heavy artillery (think railway guns) for instance or corps or army level heavy tanks or tank destroyers, military police, garrison or static units, etc. Planes could be tasked to the HQ's (similar to now) which provided you more flexibility than now. Planes could attach at the the corps or army level, not just the army group level. It meant there were tons more generals in the mix, which I grant must have been a pain, but that work has already been done.

Any chance we could get that back?

Zero chance we'll get it back.

Another benefit of this system was that headquarters - and by extention, generals and officers - had a physical presence on the map, and the chain of command gave weight to every unit. In Hoi4, re-assigning your armies is lightning fast, and I've realized that there's really no feeling of weight or presence to armies beyond the division level.