OOB Hearts of Iron IV and III

[Anymox]

Going from the dev diary of the 22nd, it is now clear that Hoi3's OOB system has been abandoned.
In Hoi3 there was an OOB system ranging from the Division level, over Corps-, Army- and Army-group-level until reaching Theatre level. This system has now been done away with, instead using only the Army- and Theatre level.

I'd like to see your opinion on the matter. Personally, I think this step took away far to much complexity and over simplyfied the system, even making it less clear. It also takes away alot of the realism, as a normal Army would never have looked like that.

 

[Anichent]

edit: I changed my criticism. I agree with Division-Army and skipping Corps. I just wish divisions could have leaders.

 

[Zaku]

I'm happy that they got rid of the OOB.
It's one of the main reasons why I never played USSR in HOI3.
Every time I played eventually I just had enough of the constant micromanagement of the corps HQs and constant shortage of major generals.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

To paraphrase what I said in another discussion on this topic....I really enjoyed setting up the OOB in HOI3 but not the chore of assigning all those division commanders....I think an OOB down to Army or Corp level would have been a good compromise.
There are so many things in HOI4 that look like they will be huge step ups from HOI3 so I can't complain too much, but this is one thing that I'm definitely going to miss.

 

[Cowsnipe]

In my opinion, hoi3's oob was just too much to keep track of. You can easily spend hours setting it up, and need to do so again and again over the course of a game. In multiplayer you can just forget about that, there's just too much micro.

 

[Anichent]

People keep saying they "had" to spend time on it...but there was an auto-assign box you could check off. Technically you could play the whole game never having bothered. There you had an option.

In HOI4 you have no option to micromanage even if you want to.

Its not a "chore" if you have the choice. In my opinion changing something is one thing. Removing an option is always a negative.

 

[bwc153]

There's at least a dozen threads from almost a year ago about this topic, similar to the counters threads.

The new OOB in HoI IV is absolutely superior in terms of the game's form and flow. The AI could not use it in HoI3 and making the AI try to abide by it for HoI4 would sacrifice time the AI programmers could do to improve the AI elsewhere. In addition, adding it to HoIV would still provide for an easier game because the AI, even if it were programmed to try and keep CoCs in mind, will certainly make mistakes with their OOB that a good player would not.

 

[Zaku]

People keep saying they "had" to spend time on it...but there was an auto-assign box you could check off. Technically you could play the whole game never having bothered. There you had an option.

AI couldn't really auto manage the corps HQs, they always lost their divsions eventually. Even Armies were often out of range.

 

[Anichent]

AI couldn't really auto manage the corps HQs, they always lost their divsions eventually.

True. but I don't care about corps. I just liked division commanders. Corps were always annoying

 

[ausfatcat]

To paraphrase what I said in another discussion on this topic....I really enjoyed setting up the OOB in HOI3 but not the chore of assigning all those division commanders....I think an OOB down to Army or Corp level would have been a good compromise.
There are so many things in HOI4 that look like they will be huge step ups from HOI3 so I can't complain too much, but this is one thing that I'm definitely going to miss.

Same here, liked setting up the army nicely but once war begun lose a few units produced a few units you would have to spend a long time again getting it right, the auto assigned sucked as well

 

[Wraith11B]

Herein lies the rub: we've gone from a highly-detailed, very complex game system which (semi-)accurately portrayed the issues of Army Command and Control (less so for the Naval or Air Forces) to one that is very simple in concept.

On the first hand, the HoI3 is relatively easy to grasp for human players, even if a pain to deal with. The issue was that the AI couldn't handle it. Now we have a system that the AI and humans can handle, but that gives an issue to player's who wonder why it has to be child's play easy. I still have to say that I believe the system could be tweaked only slightly and give us superior rewards: a two-tiered system that has a FM/FADM at the theater level (think Kesselring or Nimitz who commanded zones of "joint" forces) who's experience dictates how big of a front he can control and the Army/Fleet level with generals who's skills dictate how many units can be attached to their command.

This is really a minor tweak to the system already in place and would be the best cross between the HoI2/3/4 systems that I could come up with which could best answer the concerns I've seen the most of and yet be fairly simple to implement.

 

[jsquared1]

I didn't mind the old system. I think that is partly because going in to the army has given me a respect for order and subordination. My greatest problem with the old system was always forgetting to move my HQs until after they were out of range and couldn't catch up quickly enough. All and all I think it is a good change

 

[Kovax]

AI couldn't really auto manage the corps HQs, they always lost their divsions eventually. Even Armies were often out of range.

That is an understatement. I once saw AI Germany launch an invasion of Denmark with an "army" consisting of one INF division, a GAR division, and around 5-6 HQs. Obviously, blitzing with a GAR unit isn't the most effective tactic, and the HQs were counter-productive in this case, all but one or two having no attached divisions. More than a year later, Denmark was still independent, and I eventually had to send troops of my own to take it for GER. The AI wouldn't attack with its HQs, but it appears to have counted them as "units" involved in the attack, so it never sent more troops.

 

[SuiciSpai]

Much better now IMHO

 

[ringhloth]

The OOB we have right now is better than it has ever been. Right now, the OOB that we have (no, it isn't gone, just different) portrays 3 levels of organization. The division level, a group above that, and then a group to manage those groups (theaters are very different than they were before). Which is exactly how I used HoI3 OOB, and how many other very experienced players did, too. You had one large group that you assigned swaths of infantry to, and gave it to AI control - the AI is great at managing infantry, far better than I ever will be. Then, I made a separate army where I had my armored divisions, my special forces, and other important assets, and personally commanded that to make breakthroughs and envelop enemies. In HoI4, you can make big groups of divisions you just want to defend a front, while you have smaller groups who you personally take command of, making sure your breakthrough goes as you want it to.

Now, with this dev diary, we know you can, say, make a theater that only contains those smaller groups, which IMO is just better than HoI3's organizational system in all aspects. I have everything I had before, except now without micromanaging the command structure and keeping HQs in range, and I can more easily find groups within that structure without having to say, select 5 divisions before I find the one in the army I want, then have 2 more clicks to get up to the army, then remember which corps was the one that I wanted, then click a corps, then go back up to the army because it was the wrong one, then click on the right one. Now you click the theater, and then all of your most important groups are there, and you can easily remember which is which, because a beautiful picture is all you have to associate with it.

 

[HeilLoki]

What I dislike:

1.) They removed A LOT of customization by getting rid of OOB completely. E.g. I can't create my perfect forst buster division anymore, because I can't stack bonuses from different OOB-levels.

2.) They removed a great way to gain overview. I'm ok that players can choose to play without creating a proper OOB. If they thinks it's good enough, only having 2 levels of differentiation, then I'm fine with it and they shouldn't be punished. It's like putting all your vacation snaps into on folder. If you think, that's enough "overview" for you, ok. However, I want my vacation snaps sorted by country, day and location. Windows never told me that I can't have more than 2 folder-levels. Why can't I have more depth with a Pdx game?

Everyone suggesting that overview is gained by removing depth and making it wider instead, has no experience in any HoI game, nor in the military. Please play HoI 3 and put 200+ divisions in only Theatres and Army Corps-levels. You think, you gained overview, instead of losing it, because you didn't differentiate even more? Really? Start the game an compare a proper OOB vs Theatre-Army Corps. Just compare it. Now try to manage a huge front like Germany vs. Soviet Union

3.) They removed a lot of flavour. In HoI 3 there was a simple "auto" button, if you didn't want to setup all your leaders down to the division level, but if you wanted to do that, you could. It just added a lot of flavour to know all your leaders with a face and a name to it.


What I like:

1.) There are no HQs on the map anymore. I always found it annoying having to move your HQs.

2.) There is no range anymore.

 

[HeilLoki]

That is an understatement. I once saw AI Germany launch an invasion of Denmark with an "army" consisting of one INF division, a GAR division, and around 5-6 HQs. Obviously, blitzing with a GAR unit isn't the most effective tactic, and the HQs were counter-productive in this case, all but one or two having no attached divisions. More than a year later, Denmark was still independent, and I eventually had to send troops of my own to take it for GER. The AI wouldn't attack with its HQs, but it appears to have counted them as "units" involved in the attack, so it never sent more troops.

So the AI was dumb. Your solution is to get rid of OOB, instead of creating a better AI?

I didn't mind the old system. I think that is partly because going in to the army has given me a respect for order and subordination. My greatest problem with the old system was always forgetting to move my HQs until after they were out of range and couldn't catch up quickly enough. All and all I think it is a good change

Exactly, but instead of throwing the system out of the window, they should've just removed on-map HQs.

 

[Vidkjaer]

edit: I changed my criticism. I agree with Division-Army and skipping Corps. I just wish divisions could have leaders.

Well, divisions has leaders. It is just the same leader it shares with other divisions. Would you rather have 50 different generals each with their own traits so you micromanage which division has the most optimum leader?

 

[Ultimate_Hobo]

Before i learned HoI 3, i found the OOB system horribly intimidating and i imagine its the same for most new players.

However, having learned the game, its actually quite simple. My only real gripes with it are that for large nations it can take ages initially setting it up (after that additions take no time at all), managing all the divisional commanders was a lot of effort and the max range on corps and armies could be way too small outside of Europe, so much so that using corps in siberia or africa was just pointless since they often couldnt even reach the adjacent province. That and the AI is incapable of managing it.

I think i will miss the OOB system. Its very satisfying to have a nice neat army with everyone organised into 1st mechanized corps, 3rd eastern defence group etc etc. It also made it easy to find units you were looking for in large stacks since you could use the menu rather than having to manually look through them. I hope that the new system allows at least some level of breaking down of your forces. I really hope the 'field marshals' (or whatever their called) who can command unlimited divisions dont have to command the majority of your army and that there are enough other officers to create smaller groups for those of us who want something resembling the old OOB system.

Most of all, i really hope the engine still has the capacity to mod it back in and that some wonderful person will do so though i dont think this will happen.

 

[ringhloth]

2.) They removed a great way to gain overview. I'm ok that players can choose to do without creating a proper OOB. If they thinks it's good enough, only having 2 levels of differentiation, then I'm fine with it and they should be punished. It's like putting all your vacation snaps into on folder. If you think, that's enough "overview" for you, ok. However, I want my vacation snaps sorted by country, day and location. Windows never told me that I can't have more than 2 folder-levels. Why can't I have more depth with a Pdx game?

Everyone suggesting that overview is gained by removing depth and making it more broad instead, has no experience in any HoI game. Please play HoI 3 and put 200+ divisions in only Theatres and Army Corps-levels. You think, you gained overview, instead of losing it, because you didn't differentiate even more? Really? Start the game an compare a proper OOB vs Theatre-ArmyCorps. Just compare it. Now try to manage a huge front like Germany vs. Soviet Union

The reason why you can't play HoI3 with just the 2 organizational levels is because of the "only 5 x per x" limit. If that wasn't there, I could easily manage a 300-400 division army with only corps and armies.