OOB+Generals. When do PDX release OOB Staff, Corps level and more generals like in HoI3?

[permanently_afk]

• hundreds new leaders per major nation, dozens for minors (use HoI 3 database for traits etc, adjust for new features)

No. I don't want "Scrolling, The game".

 

[kimidf]

This image perfectly sums up why HQs should never come back. I'll throw in an IMO just in case people are about to grab the pitchforks.

I agree the system used in the HOI III was very bad that it was annoying and confusing that it would have to be re-adapted that system to make it something simpler and less chaotic as it has been done with the fuel system or the spy system of the HOI III and I think it would be feasible to adapt it in some way in HOI IV

 

[kimidf]

Corps need to be added at the very least as an organizational tool. Doesn't need to have a gameplay effect. Having a World War 2 grand strategy game without Corps is just goofy.

The army corps system in the game is in force in some way I play as an army system but it lacks a division command system that I think should also be

 

[kimidf]

HoI4's main selling point as far as I know was that the barrier for entry was lower than its predecessors due to less micromanagement needed and simpler features. As a result it has way more players than the earlier games and is much more successful.

Putting in extra unnecessary micromanagement will not add anything positive to the game, and would remove that main selling point. There is zero need for another layer of army management, and the two we have now are fine. You want fewer divisions in each control group? Then don't put 24 divisions in each army, put less. 24 is the maximum, not the minimum.

The only thing that would change is requiring extra generals, extra clicks, and extra time to do what we already do now, which is to have our divisions go where we want them to go, and have commanders buff all their stats. If corps were added our divisions would still go to the places we need them to go in the same numbers, the process to do so would just be more complicated for no reason.

I do not believe the vast majority of the player base wants the game to be more complicated unless it adds something valuable to the game, which a corps system does not.

I think it is inevitable that there will be an important leap forward in increasingly complex mechanics and something more micromanagement because the game has already been released for five years and it is more than enough time for people to have settled down as has happened in the EU IV

And it is clear that they will have to introduce new increasingly complex mechanics.They will be the main commercial incentive for future dlcs where trees will no longer be the main strengths of these since they will surely be introduced more and more are medium or small countries few assets to sell for them only important sales but there are other more sweet incentives

 

[unrealcraft]

No one would use a complex OOB unless the game provided a significant advantage for doing so. Stacking general traits is already OP in the game, and the player who does it better wins most of the time. Adding another layer of complexity on top would make this even more pronounced, and even more punishing to someone who doesn't engage with the system(triple adaptable, anyone?).

And it's not just my opinion, it's the majority opinion. More people dislike it than want it to return. Even the agree/disagree ratio on the original post in this topic says that more people don't want an OOB system than want one, and this thread is practically made to self-select a (small) sample size of mostly people who would want an OOB. 20 people out of 30,000 is not going to make Paradox change their minds, or at least I certainly hope it won't.

Paradox would not have removed the feature had it been well received. As it is, I've barely touched hoi3 but I've heard horror story after horror story about the awful OOB system from people who did play it extensively and had the hours to back up their opinions. When a system is so bad that people who haven't played or barely played the game know how bad it is, you know better than to put that system into a sequel in any capacity.

I would absolutely use a more in-depth OOB even if it provided exactly zero combat bonuses. Having a more realistic system is it's own reward. If I remember correctly, HOI3 had different skill interactions at different echelons. If PDX chose to implement an expanded OOB and skills at echelons above Division, they should certainly restrict skill stacking.

It's the majority opinion, on the forums, which doesn't represent the entire or even a majority of the player base. Don't try to speak on behalf of everyone. I would bet most players don't want a perfect recreation of HOI3s OOB, as it was too complex and the UI made it too hard to manage for the average player. But restricting everyone to a simplistic OOB because you don't care to use anything more in-depth, even if it was completely optional, comes off as odd.

Paradox removed several features from HOI3 going into HOI4 because they wanted the game to be more accessible to the average gamer, not because they were necessarily bad systems. And a more complex OOB in HOI4 would also get the benefit it's improved UI.

 

[Pzt_Kami]

I read it, I just didn't like the suggestion. If it doesn't add anything meaningful to the game and there's really no downside to ignoring it (which conversely means that there is no benefit for using it), then it's a complete waste of developer time.

Then apparently you didn't read it with patience ! because I proposed some tools in the Corps' header which for example can be especially used for battle planner. but even without them , corps can (at the very least) works like a simple grouping tool just as mentioned in Louella's post.
Plus this system has another bigger benefit and that is Immersion ! it seems guys like you forget why different games are made and gaming can mean different for different people. PDX made HoI IV based on WWII for a reason. That reason is immersion. some people (like your kind) prefer less of it but some like us want much more of it (and sometimes are ready to pay for it as well). That's why things like skin packs are made and sold well. and I'm sure no sane mind can compare the usefulness of a mere skin compared to an important/historically authentic mechanism here.

And just don't ask me to go on about uselessness , as there are many features of this game that I personally feel not as useful in this game. In my opinion , in many regards a usefulness of a feature is mainly based on the point of view of the person being asked about it

I'm agree with @CrasherZZ ,people just intentionally use messy HoI3 OoB to just use it like a club against corps argument. while deep down we all know even an in-depth Corps mechanic cannot be as complex in HoI IV

 

[safe-keeper]

Also, it seems like up to several posters in this thread hear "corps" or "OOB" and get this image in their head of a super-complicated system they'll be forced to use for no real benefit, just because the grognards want it for teh immershun.

There's dozens of possible ways to implement more layers of command in HoI4. No one's saying PDX has to go down the HoI3 route (although, again, it really required only a few tiny changes to not be the masive time-sink it was to set up and keep organized).

I'm agree with @CrasherZZ ,people just intentionally use messy HoI3 OoB to just use it like a club against corps argument. while deep down we all know even an in-depth Corps mechanic cannot be as complex in HoI IV

This. It's pretty intellectually dishonest, tbh, and I could do it for literally anything.

"You want me to store things on a computer?! Look at this! I'd never be able to find anything in this mess! Why on earth would I ever abandon my trusted typewriter and filing cabinet?!"

Edit: sorry, forgot to add the guy touching himself.

 

[Louella]

The example of the battleplanner shows where a corps feature would be useful.

As it is, you can assign a field marshal plan, an army plan, and plans for parts of an army, down to individual divisions.

Now you can just draw the field marshal plan and press go. And you can also do a lot of micromanaging.

What you can't do right now, is recall division groups easily.

And this is where a corps feature would come in. It could offer the player more control over the placement of divisions on a front.

Like, assign 24 divisions to a 4 province front, and 18 of them are in one province. A corps system could avoid that.

And when making multi stage battle plans, corps would act like bookmarks to reduce the amount of mouse clicking needed to draw complex plans.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

No. I don't want "Scrolling, The game".

Lists of Corps and Corps commanders should definitely be unfoldable. Everyone who wants to see army commanders only should be able to hide them.

But if you still don't like the idea,

Then don't buy the proposed DLC.

 

[cac579]

A hoi3 like system with way less micro would be cool.

I don't think it has to be the micro management mess that hoi3 was.
My example:
Corps:

Represented by HQ support company (some mods do this). Division combat width optimized around certain sizes. Requires new equipment type officers.
if officer count goes below 100% u suffer org penalties, org recovery, less initiative, and maybe some other combat modifiers.

HQ types:
Armored or Mobile HQ
Special forces HQ
Infantry HQ



No need for any nation wide org penalties as this would be handled by not having enough officers to fill ur divisions.
If you try to expand ur army you would need to also recruit (produce) more officers to fill out ur divisions.

Army:
Current generals maybe with lower unit counts. Can be assigned states to work in. Low, medium, heavy priority in sticking to assigned states (may move into another state temporally or slightly into a new state) . Will stick to frontline and will defend tiles 1-3 provinces back from frontline depending on set priority. Also includes terrain type priority, building priority (fort, air base etc) and river priority. Counter attack priority which allows units to counter attack so the enemy gets -50% penalty.

Requires officers to recruit (simulating another HQ but not directly connected to divisions)


This could be added to ease micro as currently at least in MP frontlines are rarely used. The trick we use is set the army to garrison in a neutral country and add them to a field marshal. Set a field marshal frontline offensive plan and you still retain the planning bonus. Frontlines would be extremely useful they add more tools to defend on the frontline and when getting attacked.

Army Group:

Current Field Marshals. Can be assigned to bigger regions/states. Requires Officers to recruit. Can reorganize army frontlines within stated state or region boundaries. On/off toggle.

Theater Group:

Maybe Add Theater leader. I wouldn't add more stackable bonuses though. Leader would be more for flavor and increase xp gain and organization of the rest of army maybe. If Leader is added it also requires officers to recruit.

Can be assigned areas like Western Front/Eastern front. Can reorganize Army groups States/regions. Toggle on/off.

Reserves can be added to this section and the ai will designate where it goes. This reserve system would be like the navy reserve system. The manual way will still stay but this will allow u to assign divisions in training to the reserves.


Navy:
Admirals can be assigned to theaters. Requires officers to recruit. Option to add ports to base out of. Can assign airplanes/army units to defend ports, provinces near the port, and airfields. Air will also support naval operations automatically if the air units are in range. Air or naval don't get bonuses for being in the chain of command which allows manual micro or add toggle within the theater for ai control of navy, air, and army.

This allows easier way to micro air and army to support naval operations.

Air:
Maybe add air leader similar to admiral (if u do also requires officers to recruit). If no air leader is added then air can just be assigned to theater and air use planes assigned accordingly. Toggle for air control of air so manual option is also allowed.
Air could possible effect HQs but not sure how it would be done since HQs wouldn't be on the map.

I would think air would be also have to be separated into soft attack, hard attack, and add ability to disrupt communications using an air mission.

Officers could could either be some building or resulting from population and factory level. Some laws/gain can affect officer gain. Max Cap on officer (maybe also affected by tech/laws). Officer pool will act like more like manpower especially when fighting.

What I have outlined is not exactly like hoi3 but it is a decent compromise. Its less about having on map HQs and more focused on macro tools to assign divisions while still maintaining some flavor. Having the Ai controls be more compartmentalized will make it so the ai is more focused.
Manual micro is still possible as you simply do not have to use any tools as you can just toggle them on/off.

This system will allow you to simulate expanding armies, the soviet great purge, marine units assigned to navies, and losses of officers during intensive fighting etc.
It will also allow less micro for air and army so have more time to focus on macro (unit assignment) or important tactical battles.