They will be very disappointed by all these new features, then:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ent-diary-supply.891122/page-46#post-20244150
- 2
- 1
OOB Hearts of Iron IV and III
- Thread starter Anymox
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ent-diary-supply.891122/page-46#post-20244150
Another Idea.
In the screenshot 24 you can see Theater with Generals. Just add 2 Lower Rank Commanders. One for just one Division and another one for 5-10 Division. They add some special skills and these Commanders are only buyed with experience so you cant spam them at any time and they are only worth the exp when they are needed in a special area for a long time something like that.
In the screenshot 24 you can see Theater with Generals. Just add 2 Lower Rank Commanders. One for just one Division and another one for 5-10 Division. They add some special skills and these Commanders are only buyed with experience so you cant spam them at any time and they are only worth the exp when they are needed in a special area for a long time something like that.
The AI was good if you knew how to give it specific orders (ie. what each level of AI means) and what it is great at (mostly just advancing along a wide front).
And the Red Army would not be one army, but rather a number of theaters broken into a number of command groups.
Actually, I don't think it's a matter of losing something but instead they have added much more to other arenas which used to be set to AI control by me at least since they had little to offer that the AI couldn't handle. I changed my mind on this subject and while it's been 2 years since this game was announced after seeing what Jakob and Johan have to think about in the game I realized they took a better direction by focusing on parts that sum up to the whole of being in an HOI4 game which is leading a country and not just armies. On the other hand by making it a bit less complex it will bring in new players which I hope will further their endeavor to make this the pinnacle of the HOI series, I have never back pedaled until now on the change to OOB's and Division commanders but seeing the game as a whole I like their concept better. (Still hate SPRITES FFS LOL)
- 2
- 1
Why not you post it on a new thread so it's far more easy to update and notice this helpful thoughts?
Divisions having leaders you can directly manage and swap out isn't good, IMO, it's far too much micro. Eliminating divisional commanders and getting rid of corps are two changes in HoI4 that, alone, if applied to HoI3 with no other modifications, would cut down maybe 25% of the micro in the whole game.
One alternative might be to have divisions not just gain experience linearly, but to possibly gain traits too from combat. You would never have to actually manage the leaders directly, but you would still partially replicate the extra flavour and gameplay impact of having division leaders with traits. Your mountain divs that fight in mountains might gain an extra +10% bonus in that terrain for example after fighting in it extensively. Then you'd have ways of selecting "all divisions with X traits in this theatre / army" to help you rearrange and sort them based on your needs for battle plans.
But I'd even live without that, I don't think it's important.
HoI3 did not just have a lot of micro, the micro was poorly distributed. In times of peace there were constant interruptions thanks to the sheer number of techs and the need to constantly manage it. HoI4 has fewer, but more influential techs. In HoI3 you spent time setting up your politicians, but it was front loaded and you only had to think about it once every election (if elections exist). Espionage was front loaded. Fiddling with brigade structure was a huge front loaded micro task that has been replaced by the template system - it's now super easy to alter massive numbers of it and actually distribute the new equipment WITHOUT having to place all the brigades one by one, manually merge them into divisions, and so on. Sorting out leaders and managing the OoB was a huge front loaded task that took FOREVER with large countries. The first few weeks of HoI3 in game time could take an hour of real time for a country like the USSR, then suddenly six months zip by like its nothing, then your techs start finishing, then you have to stop and manage production queues for divisions, then the war starts and you spend tons of time microing combat directly and you're back to snail's pace since you have to concentrate on very low level combat. It really was all over the place like that.
HoI4 from what we've seen should be a much smoother experience, with fewer sudden huge spikes in time consuming micromanagement like HoI3. And I totally respect them for that, even though there are serveral changes that I'm not a fan of and several design decisions I'm questioning strongly.
One alternative might be to have divisions not just gain experience linearly, but to possibly gain traits too from combat. You would never have to actually manage the leaders directly, but you would still partially replicate the extra flavour and gameplay impact of having division leaders with traits. Your mountain divs that fight in mountains might gain an extra +10% bonus in that terrain for example after fighting in it extensively. Then you'd have ways of selecting "all divisions with X traits in this theatre / army" to help you rearrange and sort them based on your needs for battle plans.
But I'd even live without that, I don't think it's important.
HoI3 did not just have a lot of micro, the micro was poorly distributed. In times of peace there were constant interruptions thanks to the sheer number of techs and the need to constantly manage it. HoI4 has fewer, but more influential techs. In HoI3 you spent time setting up your politicians, but it was front loaded and you only had to think about it once every election (if elections exist). Espionage was front loaded. Fiddling with brigade structure was a huge front loaded micro task that has been replaced by the template system - it's now super easy to alter massive numbers of it and actually distribute the new equipment WITHOUT having to place all the brigades one by one, manually merge them into divisions, and so on. Sorting out leaders and managing the OoB was a huge front loaded task that took FOREVER with large countries. The first few weeks of HoI3 in game time could take an hour of real time for a country like the USSR, then suddenly six months zip by like its nothing, then your techs start finishing, then you have to stop and manage production queues for divisions, then the war starts and you spend tons of time microing combat directly and you're back to snail's pace since you have to concentrate on very low level combat. It really was all over the place like that.
HoI4 from what we've seen should be a much smoother experience, with fewer sudden huge spikes in time consuming micromanagement like HoI3. And I totally respect them for that, even though there are serveral changes that I'm not a fan of and several design decisions I'm questioning strongly.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
I wonder why they don't do this:
1) Have theaters be commanded by Field Marshals.
2) Have one 'blank army slot' without a general in every theater - every division commanded 'directly' by the FM gets the bonus of the FM's skills (like Logistics Wizard) but no direct combat bonus (as in General skills)
3) Have the option of assigning Generals (with armies of 12 div max) to a Theater (under a FM). The 12 divisions would get the full bonus of General's skills, and some reduced amount of the FM's skills their Genreal is placed under (say 25% of the original bonus)
4) Battle plans could be made for every 'army', so for every general and the blank army spot under the FM.
That way you have a (albeit small) tiered command system, some kind of organization tool, and also some in-game benefit.
Edit: So the only REAL change to the system from now would probably a bit of a different interface, and that you can assign generals to field marshals in a kind of subordinate role. Still, I would like it.
1) Have theaters be commanded by Field Marshals.
2) Have one 'blank army slot' without a general in every theater - every division commanded 'directly' by the FM gets the bonus of the FM's skills (like Logistics Wizard) but no direct combat bonus (as in General skills)
3) Have the option of assigning Generals (with armies of 12 div max) to a Theater (under a FM). The 12 divisions would get the full bonus of General's skills, and some reduced amount of the FM's skills their Genreal is placed under (say 25% of the original bonus)
4) Battle plans could be made for every 'army', so for every general and the blank army spot under the FM.
That way you have a (albeit small) tiered command system, some kind of organization tool, and also some in-game benefit.
Edit: So the only REAL change to the system from now would probably a bit of a different interface, and that you can assign generals to field marshals in a kind of subordinate role. Still, I would like it.
- 2
I am fine whether or not there is an OOB, as long as the game is fun.
If there was one, I would take time to try and learn it and play on. Since there isn't, I think it is good because the OOB system gave me headaches in HoI3 when playing giants like Soviet Union in late game, even on my entire military under AI control.
It is better this way I think. After all, this is a game and not a simulation, and the current simplification is better for having fun.
If there was one, I would take time to try and learn it and play on. Since there isn't, I think it is good because the OOB system gave me headaches in HoI3 when playing giants like Soviet Union in late game, even on my entire military under AI control.
It is better this way I think. After all, this is a game and not a simulation, and the current simplification is better for having fun.
- 1
That sentence caught my eye. Isnt it sort of the appeal of it, that YOU can be all over the place? Are not those games the most interesting, where you can not really tell who you are supposed to be? If games like the PI-franchises (maybe with the exception of CK) or civ would restrain you to the role of one person, in whatever position of power, would they be even remotely as interesting?
Of course such a game would be interesting, too: Some sort of political simulator, based on coop-MP, where players take defined roles in realistic positions (say ministers and generals), that challanges the human team to navigate their country through times of troubles...
The "smoothing" of the gaming experience is of course nice for multiplayer games (i assume), but for SP, where ´bumps´ and ´peaks´ are not that much of an issue, it can, imho, occassionaly mean a loss, too.
Because that's just all the bonuses, all the time. There is no interesting trade off or thought involved. I have the highest ranking FM with the most traits in charge of my whole army and then my generals do the actual work - it's exactly the same as giving a nation wide -10% to supply (or whatever trait you want).
If there is no downside there is no choice.
Do I want a good tactical leader but a limit of 12 units or unlimited units but no combat bonuses?
Do I want one mega army which is very difficult to control or multiple leaders which gives me greater flexibility but at the cost of more (and lower level) commanders?
Do I want multiple theatres with different priorities but harder to find units or fewer theatres with easier arrangement?
Do I want to promote a high level general at the cost of all his traits or hire a new lower level FM?
They have specifically limited the options so it becomes an interesting gameplay choice with trade offs either way. Coming up with a new system that has none of the trade offs and allows you all the bonuses is missing the point.
It's a purely gameplay design for purely gameplay reasons.
- 2
- 1
The AI was not good, even if you gave only the AI a corps or army. The Ai could never handle the radio range of the HQs.
The enemy AI was also not good, i can´t remember how often i massacred every AI attempt to land in France or Norway. If the UK landed in Norway, they put allways to many Divs. into one minor port from that point they spread out and my Mountain Divs slaughtered them.
Or on the Eastfront, as Germany I used my Infantrie only for mopping up the pockets my mot and tank Divs. made. In 1942 most of the Red Army was done and i could finish them with ease.
Thats not my point, the Red Army is massive with over 400 Divs. thats all I stated.
Your point is valid, the question is how many Marshals and Generals did we need, the Siberia and Middle east Theaters are small, but the Westfront is massive, how many Marshals did we need?
One? With one Marshal you have aprox. 250 Inf Divs under his command, depending on your play stile and how many special Divs (mot., tank and "what you like" Divs.) you build, you need X Generals.
Or did we need 2 Marshals or even 3?
I hope the Su starts with enough Generals for the existing army. Or its the same mess as Hoi 3 with not enough Generals for the Red Army. I don´t know how much exp. a General costs, in 1941 the Red Army had roughly 300 Divs. thats 25 Generals we need.
It could be opposite to that.
Current system is more no brainer choice. Keep Tank Generals and other useful specialists as generals and highest rank other to FM for logistics etc.
Current= more micro in swapping specialist unit to FMs in quiet periods.
Having some traits stay at reduced rate and promoting to FM as one step hierarchy for Theatre command could offer more choice. Very limited theatres to command, and which General to promote.
I agree with Fabius. The choice that is currently proposed is really binary, it's either A or B, with one side of the coin (the Generals) have more powerful combat bonuses. That means it's a no brainer, from a combat perspective, to use as many small armies as possible, and only delegate to a FM if you need the logistics boost. That's a choice, but not a very interesting one, because there's a rather clear optimal strategy.
That said, I do agree with you that having "all the bonuses all the time" in a tiered system isn't the answer either. For me the root of the problem lies in the binary split between the traits. If you have a Rommel-eque general, why ever promote him to FM? You lose the traits that make him great. The optimal strategy will be to promote generals with high skill and few traits, or recruit new FM's. That's not a really great choice either. If Rommel's panzer trait effectiveness is tied to the amount of divisions he's controlling, the choice suddenly becomes more interesting. Do you give Rommel 6-8 divisions with 100% bonuses to tear through the enemy? Or do you give him a massive army of 15+ divisions, but only at a 75% bonus to effectiveness? A FM Rommel would still give some bonus to panzer effectiveness, but far less than if he were deployed as a general.
You don’t need Divisional leaders but I presume you need Divisions?
Why people seem to think that grouping Divisions into a Corps is somehow too much micro is beyond me, the whole point of having sub groups is to actually help with the practicalities of running a large army and you would have thought that when creating a Battle Plan that having sub groups would be of some benefit.
Army X is to move its forces to this Front and Corps X(1) and Corps X (II) are to position themselves in Provinces A and B and Corps X (III) and Corps X ( IV) are to position themselves in Provinces C and D otherwise the AI will position those forces as it sees fit.
As I said before a Plan is only as good as you make it and at its foundation is having the right forces in the right places to allow that Plan the chance to succeed it is therefore critical that you have as much control over where everything goes as is possible.
From what I have seen so far there is almost no control certainly nothing that would approach the level of good planning and HOI IV is beginning to feel and look like a slightly more sophisticated version of the old RTS game Cossacks.
You don’t need to have sub groups you don’t even need to have Generals if it comes to it and just appointing a single Field Marshal would nearly suffice for an attack on Poland but dear God when it comes to having 200 Divisions in your army having some way to organise them better then appointing mini me Generals would help.
Why people seem to think that grouping Divisions into a Corps is somehow too much micro is beyond me, the whole point of having sub groups is to actually help with the practicalities of running a large army and you would have thought that when creating a Battle Plan that having sub groups would be of some benefit.
Army X is to move its forces to this Front and Corps X(1) and Corps X (II) are to position themselves in Provinces A and B and Corps X (III) and Corps X ( IV) are to position themselves in Provinces C and D otherwise the AI will position those forces as it sees fit.
As I said before a Plan is only as good as you make it and at its foundation is having the right forces in the right places to allow that Plan the chance to succeed it is therefore critical that you have as much control over where everything goes as is possible.
From what I have seen so far there is almost no control certainly nothing that would approach the level of good planning and HOI IV is beginning to feel and look like a slightly more sophisticated version of the old RTS game Cossacks.
You don’t need to have sub groups you don’t even need to have Generals if it comes to it and just appointing a single Field Marshal would nearly suffice for an attack on Poland but dear God when it comes to having 200 Divisions in your army having some way to organise them better then appointing mini me Generals would help.
- 6
- 6
Well it's not like I put a whole work week into this in order to make it a fleshed out game feature.
Of course you'd need something to balance it out, like political power cost in order to promote / assign / reassign etc. Or an org hit for the controlled units when commanders are changed. Or some kind of bonus if a commander is in charge of units over a long time.
Also, if the carry-over is not that big (say only 10%), then there is for example the choice of giving tank divisions with high supply consumption to a FM with logistics trait (with less control, due to them being in a bigger stack), or to a General with good combat skills, but reduced logistics reduction (but better control).
Or maybe number of FM could be limited by country size or something similar.
You could even let 'independent' Generals be able to command more troops (say 18 or 24), but Generals subordinate to an FM get lower troop numbers.
Just spilling ideas here. And I don't think that if done properly, such a system would diminish choice.
- 2
That's a very good idea. "Traits" deserve it's own thread. I can really see traits being tweak/expanded in DLC. Fewer Generals with more meaning was their mantra.
Also- many of the terrain traits are fairly pants in that certain terrains are so rare that it's encouraging super micro.
- Mountaineer: Divisions move 5% faster in mountain terrain, and fight 10% better.
- Hill Fighter: Divisions move 5% faster in hill terrain, and fight 10% better.
- 2
Command system better in HOI3 because it was really. But now Paradox making games for casual. In Hoi3 you could feel the atmosphere can be created such as XXX Corps, 3 Army, 21st Army Group.Unfortunately Hoi4 it simplified the all-too
- 4
- 3
And you had to spend an eternity setting things up and keeping them organised, which always felt like a collosal waste of time. I don't really care what division, corps, or army groups my men belong to, the game is about moving them around and winning the bloody war.
See the link in my sig.
- 4
- 3
Maybe for you it's a waste of time for me something cool which makes me happy because it controls the real army composed of the Army Corps, etc.
- 2
- 2